City of Unalaska, Alaska, recommended community development plan

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

CITY OF, U MK SK
!7R 77"i"'71,

RECOM
commu
OEVELOPM@*MNT
PLAN

NOVEMBER91977

PREPARNO FOPI THR CITY OF -UNALASKA IMY
TR NN& Y&* MIONIMM/MAIWANNS/
8 C@& d:
A ALASKA T

.-jo 4*0.40

lH4T
393
.A42
U54
1977

CITY OF UNALASKAj ALASKA

RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PIE

NOVEMBERJ 1977

Prepared for the City of Unalaska

TRYCK, NYM.AN & HAYES
Engineers/Planners/Surveyors
Anchorage, Alaska

The preparation of this report was financed in part through
a comprehensive planning grant from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development under the provisions of Section
701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, and by funds
from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the office of
Coastal 121,one Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by
the Division of Community Planning, Department of Community
and Regional Affairs, State of Alaska.

RYCK Head Office/740 I Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 /907-279-0543 /Cable TNHANCAK/Telex 090-25332
1% sk in
It
NYM/ %N
& H AYE IS
ENGINEERS PLANNERS / SURVEYORS

4304.0

November 15, 1977

City of Unalaska
P.O. Box 89
Unalaska., AK 99685

Mr .T
Attention: Iess Burton, City Manager

Dear Mr. Burton:

We are pleased to transmit herewith the Proposed Community
Development Plan for the CAJ.ty of Unalaska. The Plan has
5-een prepare-d-FErough the combined efforts of cur Planning
Services Division and the City Council and your City Staff.
We believe that the plan will serve the City well as the
Council, the Planning Commission, and the City Administra-
tion guide the Community through the next ten year period
which will unquestionably witness dynamic growth and develop-
ment.

We welcome the opportunity to have worked with the City
on this Droject. If we can be of assistance during the
review and adoption considerations, please feel free to
contact us.

Very truly yours,

TRYCK, NYMAN & HAYES

Frank E. Nyman,@P'.E. e non R. Wigglin-s-@V
Senior Partner Planning Services manager

cru
4e @n o @nR

Enclosures

TABLE OF*CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
1. BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 5
A. PHYSICAL SETTING I I I a I a I I I I a I I I 1 1 5

1. LOCATION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. GEOLOGY AND NATURAL FEATURES . . . . . . . . 9
a. Soils . . . . . . * * * * * * ' * ' * * 10
b. Erosion and Landslides . . . . . . . . . . 11
C. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
d. Earthquake Potential . . . . . . . . . . . 12
e. Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. LOCAL ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
a. Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b. Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . 16
a. Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
b. Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. Sewage Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
d. Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
e. Solid Waste Dispdsal . . . . . . . . . . . 19
f. Special Soil Conditions . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Historical Preservation . . . . . . . . . 20
Be HISTORY , a v , v w , I I I a I a a I 1 8 1 22
C. ECONOMICS AND POPULATION. . I I a I I I 1 9 25

1. PRESENT ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
a. Composition of Employment . . . . . . . . 25
b. Unemployment and Seasonality . . . . . . . 28
c. Recent Trends and Changes . . . . . . . . 29

2. POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH . . . . . . . . 33
a. Fishing and Seafood Processing . . . . . . 33
b. Oil and Gas Exploration
and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
c. Marine Service and Trans-shipment . . . . 45
d. Marine Resources Enforcement . . . . . . . 47
e. Regional Service Center and
Other Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

TABLE OF CONTENTS CON'T

PAGE

3. PROJECTIONS . . . 51
a. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
b. Employment Projections . . . . . . . . . . . 53
C. Population Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
D. UNALASKA COASTAL ZONE , t , , e & i e. , , , , , 1 58

1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2. CURRENT STATUS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
IN ALASKA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3. HISTORY OF PLANNING IN THE UNALASKA
COASTAL ZONE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4. COASTAL RESOURCES IN UNALASKA . . . . . . . . . 61).

5. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . 64

UNALASKA COMMUNJ7Y DEVELOPMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . 67
9
A. COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVESe e , a I I I a I @ 68
B. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . a 1 4 76

1. EXISTING LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

2. LAND TENURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

3. LAND USE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
a. Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
b. General Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
C. Seafood Processing Industrial . . . . . . . 94
d. General Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
e. Public Facilities and Lands . . . . . . . . 99
f. Quasi-Public and -institutional . . . . . . . 99
g. Parks, Recreation and Open Space . . . . .. . 99
h. Undevelopable Land Areas . . . . . . . . . . 101.

4. ANNEXATION . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 102

C. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 106

1. ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR
COASTAI] MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
a. Existence of' a Planning Process . . . . . . 108

TABLE OF CONTENTS -CON'T

PAGE

b. Opportunity for Ptiblic Input . . . . . . . . 108
c. Coordination Among Levels of
Government and Coastal Users . . . . . . . . 108

2. COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS . . . 109
a. Coastal Zone Boundary
Identification. . . . . . . . . . . 110
b. Uses Subject to th; Prog;am . . . . . . . . 110
c. Policies Pertaining to Subject Uses . . . . 110
d. Proper and Improper Subject Uses . . . . . . 110
e. Policies and Procedures Pertaining
to Determination of Allowability . . . . . . 110
f. Designation of Areas Meriting
Special Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
g. Policies Applicable to Special
Attention Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ill
h. Adoption of Regulations . . . . . . . . . . 111

3. COASTAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES . . . . . . . . . 111

D. HOUSING ELEMENT 114

1. HOUSING INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2. AREAS FOR FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT . . . . . 120

3. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS . ... . . . . . . . . . . 120

E. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN . . . I I I I I I I 1 1 123

1. SANITARY SEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 124

2. WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . ; . 125
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 126

3. ELECTRICAL POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 128

4. COMMUNICATION FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . 12Q
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 130

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CON'T

PAGE

5. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . 130
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 131

6. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
b. Future Needs and Plans .. . . . . . . . . . . 135

7. MEDICAL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 137

8. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
b. Future Needs and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 139

9. SANITARY LANDFILL DISPOSAL FACILITITY . . . . . 141
a. Present Fac4 'l4ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
b. Future Needs, and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 142

10. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143
b. Future Needs; and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 143

11. COMMUNITY CENTER COMPLEX . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

12. CEMETERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
a. Present Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
b. Future Needs . . . . ... . .... . . . . . . . 145
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PLANe I I I I I 1 1 145

1. INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

2. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PLAN . . . . . . . . 150
a. Regional * ' * ' * * * * * * ' * * * * ' . . 150
b. Local Circulation Plan . . . . . . . . . . .. 152

G. SEC. 14(c)(3) ANCSA CONVEYANCE . . . . . . . . . .. 154
H. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

1. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 'j-61

2. LAND USE CONTROLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
a. Zoning . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 161
C.
b. Land Subdivision Regulations . . . . . . . . 162
c. Housing, Building and Fire Codes . . . . . .. 162

TABLE OF CONTENTS CON'T

PAGE

3. CAPTTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND
CAPITAL BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

4. FUNDING SOURCES FOR COMMUNITY AND
REGIONAL PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

5. LOCAL PLA4NING COMMISSION .. . . . . . . . . . . 164

6. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

APPENDICES 167

Appendix I: Age and Sex of Unalaska Residents
Appendix II: Funding Sources for Community and
Regional Planning

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NUMBER PAGE

1. Location Map 6

2. Unalaska Bay and Surrounding Area 8

3. Natural Features 13

4. Seasonality of Employment, 1976 30

5. Index of Average Total Employment 32

6. Employment Seasonality Index 32

7. Alaska O.C.S. Areas Under Consideration
for Leasing 40

8. Estimate: Total Alaska Direct O.C.S.
Employment for Northern Gulf of Alaska
O.C.S. Lease 42.

9. O.C.S. Shoresite Crew - Typical 46

10. City of Unalaska Population Low, Moderate
and High Forecasts 57

11. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 63

12. Existing Land Use, City of Unalaska 79

13. Land Tenure, June, 1977 86

14. Recommended Community Development Plan 89

15. Proposed Annexation., City of Unalaska 105

16. Coastal Zone Boundary 113

17. Recommended Development of Community
Center Complex 144

18. Existing Road Network and Transportation
Facilities 147

19. 14(c)(3) Conveyance! Recommendations 159

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NUMBER PAGE

1. Average Annual Employment 27

2. Nonagriculture Wage and Salary Employment
Distribution 29

3. Western Alaska Seafood Catch 35

4. Western Alaska Catch and Value to
Fishermen 37

S. 1977 Alaska Limited Entry Permit
Holders Listing an Unalaska Address 38

6. City of Unalaska Projected Population and
Employment, 1982 and 1987 56

7. Existing Land Use, City of Unalaska 81

8. Land Use and Development Pot ential 84

9. Land Use Plan Holding Capacity 93

10. City of Unalaska Land Use Plan 103

11. Housing Quality Inventory 118

12. Seafood Processing Industry - Related
and Other Housing - Unalaska, Alaska 119

13. Projected Housing Demand 121

14. Unalaska School Enrollment 1970-77 132

15. Projected Average School Enrollment 133

16. Recommended 14(c)(3) Conveyances 158

17. Unalaska Residents - Age and Sex Appendix I

vii

Aoi@ 7@
4

4C@l
@ej

opt!

BACKGROUND FOR PLApirmING

INTRODUCTION

The City of Unalaska is located in Southwest Alaska
approximately midway between Anchorage and Adak. The
population of the community in 1977 was approximately 1,870
persons, only 33 percent of which were permanent residents,
the rest being temporary residents in transient. It is a
community with a single economic mainstay - seafood processing.
Its economic well-being, indeed its ability to sustain
itself is tied inextricably to this export industry. The
lifestyle of its residents is best characterized as "basic
Alaska independent". Its residents are predominantly caucasian
American with 22 percent Aleut Native and only a very few
other races and cultures. Unalaska residents live there
either because it is their ancestral home or because they
like it there - they choose to live in this remote location
where there is no land access and only very limited water
and air access to the rest of the state or nation.

But, Unalaska is a place rich in natural resources not
the least of which is its beauty. It is in the heart of the
Southwest Alaska (North Pacific and Bering Sea) prime commercial
fishery region. Potential for recovery of commercially
valuable oil and gas exists in three nearby offshore outer
continental shelf sedimentary basins which are as yet
unexplored. The cultural and historical resources of the
community include sites of major World War II defense installa-
tions, visible evidence of the Russian influence on the
region, while Aleut Native culture in Unalaska dates thousands
of years in history.

-i-

The challenge facing Unalaska and its residents is that
of further strengthening the community thus far established
in'a harsh climate and remote location.- strengthening it ill
a manner which permits continual and expanded recovery of
the economically valuable resources and at the same time
provides protection for the natural. and environmental values
which make Unalaska unique and desirable as a place to live
and on which its economic viability depends. How successfully
the challenge is met depends on how well Unalaska's present
population plans for the future of the community, how much
independence is necessary to retainn the liftstyle, how much
the world appetite for food products from the sea increases
and how well government agencies and industry manage the
marine resources so abundant in the region. This Community
Development Plan is intended as a guide for the community to
use in deciding and managing the future of the community.
It does not contain all of the answers for the future - nor
does it contain any magic formu-1-- -for measuring success. It
is, however, a tool with which to work in determining how
the City of Unalaska will look and function and how well it
will meet the needs of its residents in the future.

The Community Development Plan should be flexible and
reflect the wishes of the people, and it should be reviewed
regularly for modification as conditions change - and change
they will!

The following recommendations are presented by the
project consultant to the City of Unalaska relative to the
procedure for adopting this Development Plan.

1. It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge
receipt of the Community Development Plan as presented
by the project consultant. This will officially
terminate the project and allow the Department of
Community and Regional Affairs and the City to close
out the project with the several agencies involved as
well as the project consultant.

2. It is recommended that the City Council immediately
refer the Plan to the City's Planning Commission for
review and formal report back to the Council within
approximately 60 days. During this time period the
Commission should carefully review the plan and hold a
series of workshops or public meetings in the community,
to permit residents and various interests concerned to
critique the plan and comment on it. These workshops
should be designed to elicit comments and reactions to
the plan from the community. After completing its
review, the Commission should present a formal report
to the City Council which should contain a summary of

-2-

the input received from the community and recommendations
from the Commission as to specific modification of any
portions of the Plan.

3. Simultaneously, the City Manager should similarly
review the Plan and make comments and recommendations
to the City Council.

4. After receiving the comments and recommendations
from the Planning Commission, the Council should develop
a resolution adopting the Community Development Plan,
incorporating in the resolution those specific amendments
to this report determined appropriate by the Council.
This resolution, once adopted by the Council, will
constitute the City's adoption of the Plan and will
serve to establish as City policy the intent to follow
the Plan.

5. Finally, the City Council should, by ordinance,
establish a procedure whereby the Planning Commission
annually reviews the Plan and makes recommendations to
the Council with respect to additional amendments that,
from time to time, may be needed.

-3-

1. BACKGROUND FOR PLANNING

A. PHYSICAL SETTING

1. LOCATION. The City of Unalaska, Alaska is located
in Southwe's-t-Ma-s7a, on the Aleutian Islands Chain, approximately
800 air miles from Anchorage, Figure 1. It occupies a
portion of Unalaska Island and includes all of the Island of
Amaknak. As with all of the major historical Aleut villages,
it is located on the Bering Sea, or north side, of the
Chain. Unalaska Island is the second major island west or'
the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. It is the central-most and
largest of the Fox Islands group in the Aleutian Chain.
Unalaska is remote from the other population centers of the
state and is accessible only by airplane or boat. It is the
most populated of the several communities in Southwest
Alaska. It is a major U.S. fishing port ranking first in
total fishery products landed in the state of Alaska. Its
economic mainstay is the fishing industry and more specifically,
the seafood processing industry.

While there is no acknowledged geographic or social
"center" of the Aleutian Chain or southwest Alaska, Unalaska
comes closest to fitting that description by virtue of the
size of its resident population, civilian employment, freight
distribution role and because it has the only developed deep
water port on the Chain. It also has scheduled and usually
reliable commercial air transDort service to Anchorage,
the economic center of Alaska.

POINT SARRV.

0 ATKASUK
PRUOHM
SAY es SARTER ISLAND
POINT Hope
SA'*O" q' /
TH
NOR
SLOPE

COLD .0,.,@
romaut
Ile
DEEMING -4!crc
0 CANDLE

NONE YUKON

GALENA 'ENGOOD CLE
NORTON SOUND C'R
14 RUSY @ANANA INBANKS
ALASK @f7 NENANA , I CANADA
A,/ 0
--l .4 DELTA DAWN"
"'GRAT" V0. lo@ UNCTION
OIOITARCO
given TOK
-1 It
El. GLENN GLENNALLIEN v
ANCHORAGE MATANUSKA
YALJLEY
I,ENAI VALDEZ
tOLD A CON
DILUMONAWN
KING @ELWAA SEWARD %
YAXUTK S=AY
BRISTOL BAY Eovoix

PORT HEICEN KODIAK OOUOLAl
000T woul, GULF OF ALASKA

KING Cl.,Vz suftll
0 SITX'
T 110 200 300 A
WRANGELL
ALASKA MILES

ITY OF UNALASKA

AN E CANADA14

SEA LE *VANCOUVER
POR LAN *
SAN FRANCISCO &UNITED STATES
LOS ANGELE

.. "a
CS
@!.A.-ql@ N.IT.
SLOPE

FIGURE I

LOCATION MAP

The City of Unalaska is located near the head of Unalaska
Bay, Figure 2. The head of this wide and exposed bay consists
of a number of smaller bays and coves separated by two
islands, Hog Island and Amaknak Island, and by steep headlands.
Within Unalaska Bay are two protected bays, Captains Bay to
the southwest and Iliul-Juk Bay to the northeast. Summer Bay,
outside the City limits and located further northeast on the
Island's coastline, and Nateekin Bay to the northwest and
also outside the City limits, are not as well protected as
those bays in the inner portion of Unalaska Bay. A protected
extension of Iliuliuk Bay is known as Dutch Harbor. A
connecting, protected passage between Captains Bay and
Iliuliuk Bay is known as Iliuliuk Harbor. The City of
Unalaska occupies all of Amaknak Island and a narrow flat
area of land along the eastern side of the Bay and a relatively
narrow valley extending southward and inland on the main
island.

The implications of both the regional and local setting
of the City of Unalaska are several and substantial in
effect. Being 800 air miles and two to three days by ship
from Anchorage, the rapidity with which goods can be supplied
is a major problem. The distance to Seattle, an almost
equally significant supply point as Anchorage, is 1,780
miles by air (via Anchorage) and approximately the same
distance by ship. Thus, the cost of transporting both goods
and persons is substantial, leading to one of the highest
cost of living indices in Alaska, an added 20-30% over
Anchorage. Due to the distances involved and the complexity
of connecting airline schedules, travel to Juneau, the state
capital and center of government, almost always covers a
time span of two days with a required overnight stay in
Anchorage each way at a cost exceeding $750 per person round
trip. This contributes to the cost of state government's
providing services to people in Unalaska which in turn leads
to the feeling on the part of Unalaska residents that they
are isolated from their state government, unable to participate
in the governmental process as it affects them and virtually
forgotten in the delivery of state government services.
Frequent and sometimes extended periods of inclement weather
causing cancellation of scheduled airline service into and
out of Unalaska further compounds the problems associated
with delivery of goods and services. The remoteness and
small comparative population of the community dictates high
freight and transportation rates by.c.omparison to similarly
sized communities located in, for example, Southeast Alaska.

On the positive side, however, Unalaska's location has
advantages. Being the site of the only developed deep water
refuge in the Aleutian Chain, it serves as a stop-over and
refueling point for sea-lift operations serving the Bering
Sea Alaska communities, western and northwestern Alaska and
the North Slope area of Alaska. Unalaska is located some 65

-7-

CITY OF UNALASKA
I *N 41 Cape Cheerful
CORPORATE'
inslow
Kalekta
el,/@ s

Betty
Princess -4
ig, Pero
Act
aska La
6.11ga-

Eider Pt
V, +
Len,' +
++ ++
Fishermans
+
T
U 'lift Top 0 Q,* @,5 --- JR(undage T
@V'Head
lk
Nee l,
L

'Aakush
at
o
0
Hog f- 7
ry,
M@
ou , ', ; -, e @,Z@ , -
At rt h
t ee% 13
400@ -
hr
+ ev

.61,
4--
If

15
+
+ Ebigle PN
?000,
60 -k
Al.
Jd- %Dan
cb-
lp
k 4
ir -3,
K
Port Le 7
UgacWa
0- 21@ Bay

@rQ - -----
J

U@ik
00 @5 60@@ tali
Round,
0,
L
'0
Y, 7
13 O'J
io

Rins-4
&
Portage
07"
'1161 4 c
+
41
+
+ ter cN
Udagak
pan

1*6
7WJ

R
1+

00,

ou)@ I
Staraya Bay
1 2 4 smi
p - 1- 1 `( ---,
, I - @k @@ , @ 0
\/coo
@AU kt

FIGURE 2
Unalaska Bay and surrounding Area

miles southwest of Unimak Pass, the first ocean vessel
access through the Chain west of the Alaska Peninsula between
the north Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. All ship traffic
between southeast, southcentral (and specifically Anchorage
as the commercial center of Alaska) and the western and
northern regions of the state passes through Unimak Pass.
The same holds true of ship traffic between the northwest
United States (specifically Seattle, Washington as a major
supply point) and western and northern Alaska. Being in
this strategic location along a major shipping route, Unalaska
does receive the benefit of some greater frequency in shipping
than might otherwise be the case. Whether this reduces the
costs (comparatively) of delivery of goods, however, is
questionable.

Unalaska is centrally located to Alaska's Pacific and
Bering Sea fishing grounds. Thus, many of the major seafood
processing companies have processing facilities for shrimp,
crab, and recently in the initial stages, bottomfish in
Unalaska. The seafood processing industry is overwhelmingly
the primary economic activity in the community. This is a
direct result of Unalaska's geographic location in relation
to the fishing grounds and the presence of the sheltered
harbor with deep water.

2. GEOLOGY AND NATURAL FEATURES. Formation of the
Aleutian Range of mountains, and their southwesterly extension,
the Aleutian Islands, began about sixty million years ago,
with massive outpourings of volcanic material from beneath
the earth's crust. Geologically, the Range and the Islands
are known as the "Unalaska Formation". A few million years
later, the Unalaska Formation was further intruded by molten
outpourings from within the earth.

A time of deep erosion followed and is recorded by the
-C
unconi-ormity of materials at the bottom of the lava flows
present in the region. Depths of the flows vary greatly
from one area to another, indicating the presence of deep
valleys and ravines, covered by the molten and loose volcanic
material. The shape of the original valleys and ground
forms were similar to what is found in the Aleutian Chain
today indicating that a full geologic cycle has been completed.
C)
The deposition of volcanic material upon the eroding rock
occurred possibly as few as five million years ago.

Unalaska Island was probably a moderately rugged land
mass five million years ago. Many of the present major land
features of the Island have been inherited from that time.
Less than one million years ago, the activity of Makushin
Volcano and other nearby volcanoes diminished considerably,
and glaciers and streams began eroding the volcano's slopes
and surrounding areas. The summit of Makushin Volcano
eventually collapsed to form the present cauldera.

-9-

During the two glaciations of Unalaska Island, most of
the high country south of Makushin Volcano and areas surrounding
it were capped with glacial ice which flowed out into the
bays and fiords widening and deepening them. Smaller galciers
originated on lower parts of the island and caused erosion
on a small scale. Today the present snowline lies near
3,000 or 4,000 feet elevation with allowances made for
variations in the weather annually.

Much of the volcanic bedrock of the Island has been
covered by occasional eruptions from area volcanoes with ash
and other material increasing in depth with each eruption.
Most of these ash eruptions occurred before the arrival of
the Pre-Aleut people to the island, four to six thousand
years ago.

Makushin Volcano has erupted 14 times since 1700 A.D.,
the last major eruption occurring in 1938. Ash eruptions
have occurred as recently as 1951. Makushin and other
nearby volcanoes are still engaged in the island-building
process.

a. Soils. Many cirque bottoms (rounded depressions
on slopes wher glacial action has removed much of the
material) are found on Unalaska Island. Some contain irregular
and blocky rock and soil materials. Other cirques, particularly
those at lower elevations, contain glacial till dating -to
the last Wisconsion period of glacial ice advance. A thin
veneer of glacial ground moraine covers parts of the Island
but is absent in the more rugged interior portions. Glacial
till (a gravelly, rocky, unsorted soil) is present on the
Island and is evidenced in nearly all road cuts in the
Unalaska community.

The large alluvial deposit at the northern end of -the
Unalaska Creek Valley is conspicuous. Stream flow on Unalaska
Creek has deposited the suspended load as it abruptly slows
upon reaching the valley floor. This deposition has created
much of the flat land along Unalaska Creek Valley with
coarse (or larger) material being deposited at the upper end
of the valley, and finer material deposited further dovnistream.

The Unalaska town site is located on an extension of
the alluvial deposit. Resulting from a combination of
natural forces, including deposition by stream, wave action
creating beach deposits and uplifting on a large scale, the
"spit-like" formation is composed of sand and gravel. A
soil sample taken from the east side of Unalaska Lake on one
of the many rolling knolls, indicates a two-foot layer of
humus-rich organic soil at the surface, a one-foot layer of
volcanic material below, a one-foot layer of clay-rich soil

_10-

followed by unknown depths of glacial till. Likewise, soil
samples taken on Amaknak Island north of the aircraft hanger
indicate a soil profile of two and one half feet of rich
humus, a six inch layer of volcanic thrown material, an
eighteen-inch deep layer of clay-rich soil, followed by two
feet of glacial till overlying bedrock. These soil samples
tend to indicate that the soil mantle in the Unalaska community
varies greatly from one area to the next. In general,
however, the soil is looser and more humid in the upward
zones, and contains more clay downward. The underlying
bedrock is quite often shattered and cracked, and can be
readily removed from most areas for fill, road cuts, site
development and utility installations.

b. Erosion and Landslides. Creeping and sliding
of the soil mantle is characteFistic of the Unalaska soil
types and is found extensively throughout the area. It
results from a combination of the steep slopes and the high
moisture content of the soil. Flows and landslide scars are
particularly present on glacially-steepend valley walls.
Landslides are recorded throughout the area and most often
occur as small, isolated portions of steep slopes tumbling
or sliding downward as a result of excessive water saturation,
snow loading, avalanche or man's alteration of natural
conditions. Areas which may be subject to slides are easily
identified by their steep, smooth faces and slopes, and
should be avoided when selecting potential development
sites. Several such slide areas are present along Captains
Bay Road, at points along the Pryamid Creek Road and at
several locations on Amaknak Island. Many of the early
military access roads, not having been maintained over the
years, show evidence of small scale landslide activity. The
Natural Features Map, Figure 3, illustrates those observable
locations.

Marine erosion and deposition are evident throughout
the area. Steep hillsides and occasional cliffs indicate
earlier and present-day wave erosion in less protected areas
of the coastline. Exposed utility pipes and the eroded
north end of the airport runway indicate heavy wave erosion
on the north and westerly sides of Amaknak Island. Wave-cut
rock benches, visible at low tide, are found along the
moderately protected shores, but are not found on the protected
shores. Beach deposits of boulders, gravel and sand are
found at the heads of all but the most protected bays.
Beach berms often exist along stretches of open coastline as
is the case adjacent to the present landfill site on Iliuliuk
Bay. Storm waves wash material up onto the beach building
the higher flat areas which normally are not inundated by
tidal action.

Wave action also constructs spits and bars. The two
major spits in the community are the spit at Dutch Harbor
extending nearly to the center of Iliuliuk Bay, and the spit
upon which most of the mainland Unalaska community is built,
between Iliuliuk River and Iliuliuk Bay. These formations
exist in a state of natural balance and any interference
with either the forces which created and maintain them or
with their existing condition will tend to disrupt the
balance and could lead to their possible destruction or
substantial change in the existing balanced condition.

c. Topograp . Groundforms vary from broad, flat
valleys to steep mountainous ridges. The area encompassed
by the Unalaska City limits can be characterized as a mountainous
area with hills and flat lands along the coastline. Elevations
in the City range from sea level to 23,365 feet above sea
level.

Analysis of the area topography indicates that a considerable
portion of the land is generally unusable for community
expansion or development. Figure 3 illustrates the topography
of the area. The map shows three slope categories. The
flattest category, zero to ten percent slope (0% - 10%) is
the most optimum for development of housing, industry,
roads, utilities and community facilities. The middle
category, ten to twenty-five percent slope (10% - 25%), is
much less desirable for community development, but can, in
certain areas, and under certain conditions. be used for
residential development with a high degree of success. The
steepest category, twenty-five percent slope or steeper
(+25%), has very little development potential except for
such uses as recreation, open space, watershed and like
uses.

Because of the hilly terrain and because the contour
interval of the only topographic mapping available for use
in this study (1001 interval.), areas less than four to five
acres in size can not be identified on the slope gradient
map. The map, however, is accurate for these purposes and
does generally identify the developable land in the City.
Excellent small areas for housing and other community development
do exist in isolated areas among the much steeper hills and
valleys. The determining factor in eventual development or
use of these areas is the ease (physical and cost-wise) with
which access, utilities and public services can be provided.,

d. Earthquake Potential. The Aleutian Islands
lie adjacent to the Aleutian Trench, one of the most active
earthquake regions of the world. This area not only has the
highest frequency of earthquakes in North America, but more
energy is released as a result of earthquake activity here

-12-

F I GURE 3
NATURAL FEATURES
Lulakt ead
Bedle Rock
0.
SLOPES 0 TO 100%
01: TH
SLOPES 10 TO 26 "a Kel

MOOERATE EROSION POTENTIAL
SLOPES 2501a OR MORE KelD
HIGH EROSION POTENTIAL
0

FLOOOPLAIIY
Kelpoo-p 0 VIA
flP

MAJOR DRAIIYAQES
Kelp,`
282
V
BEACHES Second Pf

to.. Kell)
OWN IIIIIIIII WATERSHEO SOUIyOAPqY
Spjtliead
TSUNAMI-SMYSITIV@K, lp
AREAS

utch Hai bor

-'@:)cky Pojnt
Kelp
hloi@ 'Q 1@4 er
Rod, r
K 1::
00

Ke
[email protected] -.t[!Ufiuk Reef
Kelp
-.,.r Tuscarora Ro:k
adio Tower
Unalaska

Agne
Beac
IF

South Arhak7k Rocks

Obernot Poin

Wlf
jl#-6
A@

67-
low Reef

0 1 MILE
pop
6- N,

365

than anywhere else on the North American continent. Unalaska
falls within earthquake zones 3 and 4, where the possibility
of major damage resulting from earthquakes of major proportions
exists. Ninety-three (93) earthquakes of magnitude 5 or
greater occurred in the Aleutian region between 1972 and
1974. Specialized building techniques and structural design
must be employed in zones 3 and 4 to counteract stresses and
forces placed on buildings and other structures during
earthquakes.

Tsunamis, seismic sea waves, are sometimes generated by
earthquake activity and crustal movements. These are often
generated along the Aleutian Chain and can have disasterous
effects throughout the Pacific Basin. Earthquakes occurring
elsewhere in the Pacific rim can cause tsunami waves to
reach Unalaska Island also. However, since the community is
located on the north, or Bering Sea, side of the chain there
is very little, if any, probability that a substantial
tsunami wave of rapid and destructive force could affect
Unalaska. The major consideration in Unalaska with respect
to the tsunami problem is the rapid rising of ocean waters
sometimes associated with tsunami activity rather than the
destructive tidal wave of rapid movement and great height as
occurred in 1964 in Valdez and Kodiak. In low lying areas
at or adjacent to sea level elevation even a two or three
foot increase in sea level could cause flooding. The tsunami
watch station at Unalaska is part of the Alaska Regional
Warning System, which monitors tsunamic activity throughout
the state.

e. Drainage. Two major watershed areas are found
within the Unal-a-sTa City boundaries, Unalaska Creek watershed
and Pyramid Creek watershed, both on Unalaska Island (See
Figure 3). No major watershed areas are evident on Amaknak
Island, although due to the pronounced topographic variations
on the Island, localized drainage areas are evident and
pronounced.

The Unalaska Creek watershed encompasses about seven
(7) square miles of drainage area, about half the total land
area within the corporate limits of the City. Nearly all of
,its drainage is within the City limits. Only a portion of
the Creek's total watershed is presently contributing water
to the City's supply as only one of several forks of the
stream have been tapped for supply. Pyramid Creek watershed,
about five (5) square miles in area, has nearly two-thirds
its drainage area outside the City limits. These two adjacent
watersheds both.drain towards the northwest into Captains
Bay and Iliuliuk Bay. They share the same dividing ridge
connecting Lookout Mountain, Pyramid Pass, Pyramid Mountain
and Unalaska Ridge.

-14-

The two watersheds demonstrate distinct differences in
characteristics. Pyramid Creek tends to be steep-walled its
entire length, while Unalaska Creek, although steep-walled
at its upper reaches, widens to a meandering valley floor
one mile (approximately) wide in places. From the standpoint
of impact, Unalaska Creek drainage will most likely be
subjected to a higher degree of community expansion and
development than Pyramid Creek valley where comparatively
few areas are usable for community development expansion.

Drainage of surface waters into the soil in both watersheds
varies from excellent in areas with high percentage of
gravel and permeable soils to poor in areas with clay-based
soils and areas with underlying bedrock near the surface.
Generally, percolation rates are highest in areas along the
edges of the valley bottoms, where much fine material has
been deposited. Percolation rates are also higher in areas
where the soils have been stream-sorted than in areas of
glacial till, with unsorted material and silt blocking water
flow.

3. LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. The Unalaska area experiences
a distinct maritime environment. Its exposed location
between the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea is the
most influencing factor upon the development of its natural
environment. The Aleutian Islands are especially noted for
their wet and frequently overcast conditions, stormy weather
and treeless, rocky land form covered with a short, thick
mantle of vegetation. The seas, bays and fiords surrounding
the many islands are generally extremely rich in marine
life. A heavy growth of marine vegetation is found throughout
the region.

a. Climate. The climate at Unalaska is influenced
most strongly by two factors - the amount of sunlight and
the ocean waters surrounding the Island. The northern
latitude of the community affects the angle of the sun's
rays reaching and warming the ground. The low angle during
winter months provides little heating, while the clouds
often block the warming sun's rays during the summer.

The sea exerts a large influence upon the region's
weather. The sea water temperature does not change but a
few degrees by season. As a result, the somewhat constant
sea water temperature warms the air in the winter and cools
it in the summer. The Aleutian Islands, therefore, do not
experience the large seasonal temperature variations experienced
at locations more northerly or inland on the Alaska mainland.
Average temperatures in Unalaska range from 40 to 60 degrees
Fahrenheit in the summer months to 27 to 37 degrees during

the winter months. Average annual -precipitation is 58
inches, including 81 inches of snowfall. An average wind of
11 miles per hour blows from the southeast. The highest
recorded wind at Unalaska was 80 miles per hour, blowing
from the east.

b. Vegetation. Vegetation found in the Unalaska
vicinity consists largely of Alpine tundra. The windy, cool
climate, shallow soil, relatively recent geologic history
along with the topography and isolated location of the
Aleutian Islands away from larger mainland areas prevents
the natural establishment of larger vegetation types,
especially trees. The ability of the region to support tree
,growth, however, is apparent throughout the Aleutian Islands
where early Russian settlers, and later American military
forces , pi anted trees which now inhabit various locations.
Russian settlers planted spruce trees at Dutch Harbor in
1805. Many of these trees are still thriving and are
parent to many seedlings. This is by no means, though, an
indication that the Island will eventually become covered
with 1-arge trees; the harsh, wet climate is more suited to
the low, lush vegetation now found covering all but the
rockiest locations throuahout the Island.
0

The lowland flat areas have the largest variety of
lichens, heaths and other tundra vegetation. Steeper slopes
and higher elevations are covered with lichens, mosses and
low-growing alpine plants. Plant species found in the
vicinity include blueberry, crowberry, and lichens, as well
as various small shrubs, herbs ' ferns, mosses and grasses.
The tightly woven mat oi vegetation found throughout the
area is important as a slope stabilizer and as an erosion
and flood deterent.

c. Wildlife. Wildlife found in the Unalaska
vicinity incluUes -sea lions, harbor seals, sea otter, small
land mammals, sea birds and a wide variety of sea animals.
Many types of fishes and crustacians are found in the area,
evidenced by the amount of commercial fishing and crabbing
done. Local streams support populations of char and salmon.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. An analysis of the
natural environment as it relates to community development
is an important consideration in prepartion of a land use
plan for the Unalaska community. The assessment must be
viewed from two perspectives: man's use of the land and the
effect of that use upon the environment; and the effect of
the environment on the uses to which the land will be subjected.
Factors affecting land use, present and future, must be
identified for their consequences and possible courses of

action to alleviate the consequences. These factors fall
into two categories; natural hazards and man-made hazards.
Natural hazards include geologic, hydraulic, seismic and
other hazards as may be apparent. Most of these have been
identified. Others will be described herein. Man-made
hazards include sewage and refuse disposal, water supply,
alteration of natural drainage patterns, increased erosion
and storm water runoff., among others.
a. Flood@lains. From visual observation and
from study of old Military maps of the area it is believed
that a floodplain of some extent exists along the Unalaska
Creek Valley. A floodplain also possibly exists along the
extreme lower reaches of the Pyramid Creek Valley. For the
purposes of this assessment, however, only broad generalizations
can be made as to their extent or sianificance. An extensive
engineering study would have to be performed to factually
determine the existence and the limits of the floodplains
and any possible consequences of development such as filling
of low areas, road construction, bridges, culverts, and
structures. However, it is assumed that flood potential at
least to a limited degree is present at Unalaska Creek (a@7_
1 entiFieJ 'o"n 7=gur_e-__3_T_--a-nd that only a very limited flood
potential possibly exists in the extreme low reaches of
Pyramid Creek Valley. Because of the short stretch of
stream that might be subject to flooding on Pyramid Creek,
the flood potential is considered inconsequential, and no
action will be recommended with respect to land use in the
area.

In any normal floodplain, three zones are found; the
stream bed, the "floodway", and the 11floodway fringe". The
stream bed is the area occupied by the water course when it
is running at normal water level. The "floodway" is the
area inundated by- waters necessary to accomodate the flow of
water from upstream under flooding conditions, usually
designated by a criteria labeled as a "SO-year" or 11100-
year" flood. Any development or fill in this area will have
an effect upon other properties; i.e., upstream properties
may be flooded more as a result of the "damming" effect of
the downstream FS-struction. Other effects may include the
displacement or relocation of the stream channel, or increased
flooding in areas across the stream from the location of the
"damming". The "floodway fringe" is an area along the
stream which may be inundated by waters if unusual flooding
conditions occur. Development in this area is safe from
flooding if it is constructed at an elevation above the
possible flood waters. Generally, this means filling of the
subject site. The significance of the flooding potential on
Unalaska Creek is not possible to quantify without first, as
stated, determining the boundaries of the floodway. Figure 3
illustrates the possible floodplain of the Creek. It is

-17-

shown to alert City officials, property owners and those who
would potentially, develop land in the area to the possible
I
existence of a problem. The City is urged to-seek the
assistance of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
.Development Flood Insurance Administration in determining
the existence and extent of any flood potential on Unalaska
Creek.

b. Climate. The! climate in Unalaska plays an
important role ln@ev@elopment of a land use plan for the
community. Wind and resultant rough seas, clouds and fog
and precipitation including snow loading characteristics
have some impact upon the type of development that occurs in.
the community. Weather affects shipping, aviation, construction
and lifestyle in general.

Location of water-dependent, facilitie-E is a major
climate-affected factor in Unalaska. High winds creating
rough seas and difficult docking and mooring force these
activities into the more protected bays and harbors. Protected
harbor areas, therefore, are! premium locations-for development
in the community. It is a urell-known fact in the community
that aviation activity is extremely dependent upon-weather
conditions. Clouds and wind conditions often prevent scheduled
landings at the airport. High winds and heavy, wet snows
create loading effects upon structures which must be accounted
for during their design and construction.

The generally cool, windy weather prevalent in the
community limits, to some degree, the amount of outdoor
activity by residents. Although temperatures may be favorable
4
to outdoor activities (i.e., recreation, including hiking,
boating and other activities), wind and precipitation
reduces the comfort range, and many residents find indoor
activities more to their liking at these times, as noted by
the community's heavy use of existing indoor recreation
facilities and high amount of.personal social activity.

c. S a e Disposal. Three methods for handling
sewage are currently employed in the Unalaska community.
These are: individual septic tank treatment for a considerable
portion of all domestic sewage; collection through old sewer
lines and an outfall untreated into the harbors; and collection
and treatment by individual fish processors aboard ship.
Gr-owth o@ the community and major industry, as well as
failure-of a few septic systems has raised concern in the
community as to the adequacy of the existing systems of
waste treatment.

Most all the residences and other buildings on the town
spit are either served by septic tanks or connected to the

-113 -

old military outfall line which discharges into Iliuliuk
Bay. Although sewage is untreated, a large amount of infiltration
of groundwater enters the pipe through cracks and broken
service lines, diluting the sewage to a point where it has
little, if any, harmful effect to the waters of the bay as
it is discharged.

The major sewage producers, the fish processors, treat
sewage at their facilities. Domestic wastes from the processors
are treated in individual treatment plants before being
discharged into the bay. Wastes from seafood processing
operations are ground and pumped to the west side of Amaknak
Island where they are discharged into the open waters of
Unalaska Bay via off-shore outfall lines.

d. Water Supp.lx- An adequate supply of water is
necessary to meet the domestic, industrial and fire-fighting
needs of the City. Water is supplied from two intake impoundments,
one on upper Unalaska Creek -and the other on upper Pyramid
Creek. Two supplemental wells are located in the bottom of
the Unalaska Creek Valley to provide additional volume when
needed, generally for short periods of time during the
winter months when low flow conditions occur on the source
streams. The newly renovated systems provide a steady,
filtered and chlorinated supply.

Community and industry growth will eventually surpass
the present system's capabilities, and additional water
sources will need to be developed. An engineering study has
demonstrated that additional. sources.are available to meet
anticipated demands. Additional supply could be developed
on both Unalaska and Pyramid Creeks. Unalaska Lake could be
used for added supply and several streams tributary to
Unalaska Creek could be developed. Additionally, further
sources on streams distant from the developed portion of the
community could be utilized although at greater cost.
Protection of valuable watershed areas is therefore a must
for futu*rewater needs, as well as the retention of potential
well sites along the Unalaska Creek bottom for additional
supply.

e. Solid Waste Disposal. Proper disposal of a
community is solid wastes is a necessary element from a
visual as well as a health standpoint. Three major dumpsites
are found in the Unalaska Community; one on the west side of
Amaknak Island., one north of the town spit on the east side
of Iliuliuk Bay, and a third dumpsite adjacent to Pyramid
Creek near Captains Bay. Unfortunately, all three sites are
immediately adjacent to water. Until recently, almost no
compaction and cover of waste materials was being accomplished
and no controls are placed upon users. This has resulted in

_19-

an unsanitary, visual blight in the area of each dump. At
the time of this report, the City is attempting to alleviate
the situation somewhat with grading and covering of some of
the material at the dump on Iliuliuk Bay.

An effective solid waste disposal program should be
implemented for the City. A suitable sanitary landfill site
needs to be identified, a regular program of compaction and
covering needs to be implemented and closer monitoring of
disposal activities needs to be instituted. All burning at
the existing and a newly developed landfill should be prohibited.

f. Special Soil Conditions. Special attention
needs to be given to such activities a stripping of vegetation,
road construction and other potential erosion causing activities.
The generally steep gradients prevalent in the Unalaska
community, coupled with soil characteristics conducive to
sliding, sloughing and soil fluction and high moisture
content of the soils.makes -the soils prone to quick erosion
and sliding. Evidence exists throughout the area of past
road building efforts,.mostly by the military, where slides
have occurred. Old military maps of the area are covered
with notations alerting to 'the presence of mud, rock, and
snow slides. The City should be especially aware of this
problem and develop road building standards which, through
minimizing slope and angle of roadway cuts, reduces the
slide hazard. While this may add to the initial cost in
construction and may even preclude some areas from being
developed or delay their development for some years_, the
long term benefits will be 'realized in lower maintenance
costs and possible preservation or properties.

9. Historical Preservatio*n'.. Several areas and
structures within the CTt-yof Unala are of considerable
historic significance and thus merit preservation. The
Russian Church and priest's residence, both built in the
early 18001s, are of major historic significance both
locally and statewide. The church is the oldest in the
state and is included on the National Historic Register.
Significant archaeological sites are located in the vicinity,
with the most recent dig being a find of major significance.
Most sites in the community were dug or destroyed during
construction of military facilities. Recent investigations
related to the construction of the bridge between Amaknak
and Unalaska Islands, identified the site at the bridge's
western end as needing immediate study. This.site has
developed into one of major significance. It is a deep and
stratified midden with findings including stone and bone
artifacts.

Currently, state and federal laws require that the
appropriate agency be notified of a possible archaeological
find during construction and development work. Other important
sites may be found from time to-time within the City, and it
should be ensured that these sites are not destroyed before
their significance is known.

Several of the structures constructed during World War
II may be worthy of preservation as historic sites also.
Some of the structures will be preserved for use as housing,
storage and other uses., while some will be preserved simply
because they are built of reinforced concrete of such dimension
that they cannot be removed nor will they deteriorate from
exposure to the elements. The stronger of these structures
include the main power house on Amaknak Island, the control
and communication bunkers, and many bunkers and pillboxes
throughout the area. Other structures which merit consideration
for preservation are the Burma Road Theater and the brick-
construction Coast Guard building on Amaknak Island.

Special consideration should be given to preserving the
spruce trees scattered in several locations on Amaknak
Island which were planted by the Russian settlers in the
early 18001s. It is suspected that some of the trees presently
on both Amaknak and Unalaska Islands are the result of
transplanting or planting of seedlings from those originally
planted by the Russians. Two specific areas are noted here
as being worthy of special attention. Along the westerly
shore of the water reservoir on Amaknak, there is a small
grouping of these trees. It is believed that these are some
of those originally planted. The second area is located on
the top of the bluff on the northeasterly side of Iliuliuk
Harbor. The City should give consideration to protecting
these areas from any development and thus preserving the
trees.

One early function of the City's coastal. zone management
program when implemented should be to more thoroughly Survey
the community and search early records as well as interview
early residents of the area to determine the possible existence
of historically significant features not here noted. Once
identified these should be evaluated and considered for
preservation.

-21-

B HiSTORY

The first people inhabiting the Unalaska region were
those who are thought to have crossed over into Alaska from
Siberia on the "Bering Land Bridge", which is believed to
have existed about fifteen to twenty thousand years ago.
During a period of advancing ice fields and glaciers, the
sea level apparently was reduced, allowing a..large area of
the shallow Bering Sea floor to be exposed (the Land Bridge).
Its relatively flat surface made for easy travel, allowing
man to cross in significant numbers until the sea once again.
returned, about ten thousand. years ago. The group of people
who eventually settled as the Aleuts along the isiands of
the Aleutians were decendants of coastal peoples of Russian
Siberia, following the coast of the land bridge and eventually
settling along the Alaskan coast and Aleutian Islands.
Culturar differences develo-ed as a result of geographical
F
separation from other settlements.

The earliest evidence of man's occupation of the Islands
is found on Anangula Island, and dates the site to near
6,000 B.C. Many archaeological sites have been identified
along the chain of the Aleutians, and indicate that a marine-
oriented lifestyle was common among all its inhabitants.

-An expedition of Russian ships reached the Aleutians in
1741. The abundance of furs; brought many more ships in the
years to follow. Russian fur,hunters exploited the resources
of the Aleutians during the following 43 years.

The sixteen thousand or so Aleut inhabitants of the
Islands were affected seriously and in many respects, negatively,
by the Russian presence. Many were placed into slavery,
while a majority of the population died as a result of
exposure to diseases to which they had no immunity.

By the late 1700s the Russians were looking eastward
for better pelts, and to a large degree had abandoned the
Aleutians. They did, however, retain several strategic
outposts, one of those being Iliuliuk Harbor, the site of
present day Unalaska. Russian control over this harbor of
refuge was maintained until about 1850 when fur availability
was seriously diminished. Russian control was eliminated in
1867 with the purchase of Alaska by the United States of
America.

American influence in Alaska deepened as people migrated
northward, with increased interest in furs, fishing and
whaling. Dutch Harbor flourished in the 1880s as a coaling
station and commercial trade center. The Klondike Gold Rush

-22-

in the 1890s brought many ships to Dutch Harbor, strategically
located along Unimak Pass leading to the Bering Sea, the
western coast of Alaska and the gateway to the gold fields
of northwest Alaska. Several seafood processing plants may
have been in operation in the Unalaska community in the
early 1900s, processing herring, salmon and whale meat.
As'coal' began to be replaced by oil as ship fuel, the
coal trade began to diminish in Dutch Harbor. The fox
farming program es.tablished throughout the Aleutians in 1910
provided much economic benefit to Unalaska until the Great
Depression of the 1930s saw the collapse of the fur industry.
The area remained severely depressed for several years
following.

At the beginning of World War II and the increasing
threat of Japanese hostility, Unalaska played an important
role in the defense of the North Pacific. U. S. military
forces took keen interest in Dutch and Iliuliuk Harbors'
.strategic location, near the first navigable pass between
the Alaska Peninsula and the*Aleutian Islands. Its location
and deep water harbor also made it an excellent candidate
for a major refueling and transshipment point on a Great
Circle navigation route between Japan and the United States
mainland. Dutch Harbor Naval Station and the U.S. Army's
Fort Mears were established at-Unalaska at the beginning of
World'War II. Other military installations were established
on Hog Island, at Eider Point and remote locations throughout
the area. Many Native residents were evacuated to Southeast
Alaska communities for reasons of security and their own
safety. An attack on Dutch Harbor by carTier-based Japanese
aircraft on June 3, 1942 caused both Army and Naval forces
to further strengthen their defenses. Permanent facilities
were constructed at Dutch Harbor including a major hospital
complex, docking and fueling facilities, submarine drydocking
and repair facilities, an airport, and extensive living and
recreational facilities.

Major defense systems were designed and constructed at
strategic locations throughout the many bays and mountainous
areas surrounding the military bases. Many of the gun
emplacements and lookout stations required herculean efforts
to construct, and as a result of their heavy construction,
still remain much as they were built, probably to remain as
reminders of the City's past for decades to come. One such
facility is the central power plant on Amaknak Island. The
building is massive in its construction, reportedly having
been designed to withstand a direct hit by a 500 lb. bomb.

After the war, those villagers that were able.to return
home found their villages severely damaged or obliterated.
The population of Unalaska was reported to be about 300
persons after the war.

-23-

Interest in the fishery resources of the Aleutians
began to gather impetus around 1950 with the harvesting and
processing of halibut, salmon and king crab. Many new jobs
became available, and the local economy improved considerably.
The growth of the king crab industry in the early 1960s
significantly improved the economy of Unalaska.

Much evidence of Unalaska's history is visibly present
in the community. Some archaeological sites of importance
are known and have been studied. A considerable amount of
work has been done in the region, although not all has been
published. While Aleut-Lan archeological investigation has
been in effect for a 100 years, as evidenced by the work of
W. Dall in 1877, there is no detailed mapping of specific
sites. References to specific sites are in narrative form
in various reports, the only mapping being done is on a
1:250,000 scale (approximately 4 miles to the inch), which
is inadequate for planning or construction purposes.

The Unalaska area typifies t1nis situation as it exist
in the Aleutian Region. Published archeological works, most.
notably by T. Banks and A. McCartney, indicate the existence
of a number of midden sites, and some site excavation has
actually been completed. However, what is probably the most.
thorough site reconnaissance, accomplished by Captain (Dr..)
Cahn, who was stationed at Dutch Harbor during World War II,
has never been -oublished and exists only by reference in
other published'works.

Several archaeological sites are known to exist in the
Unalaska immediate area, some a-DDrOXimately located'and
others not. One important site is known to'be on the west
side of Amaknak Island just across from the Unisea complex;
this site is presently being utilized as a garbage dump.
Three more sites are generally known to be on the southwest
shore of the "South America" portion of Amaknak; another
just south of Haystack Hill on Unalaska Island; and approximately
seven more sites scattered arownd the City. There are also
sites at Eider Pt. and Summer Bay.

one site which has been pinpointed is on the eastern
point of the "'South America" portion of Amaknak Island and
is an example of the need for more definitely locating
archaeological sites. This site is located near the base
footing of the proposed Amaknak-Una-laska. bridge. The site
has been partially excavated in 1977 and preliminary findings
indicate that it is one of the most significant such sites
ever studied in the Aleutian Islands. Current plans call
for modification to the proposed access ramp off the bridge
to allow complete excavation and protection of the site.
Many midden sites have been destroyed due to construction
activity, particularly'those associated with military war

-24-

construction. The Cultural Services Section of the Alaska
Division of Parks estimates it will take approximately 10
man-months to accomplish a detailed archeological site
mapping for the Unalaska are a.

Russian influence is present in the Russian Orthodox
Church, the oldest in the state, several small tree plantations,
and ingrained in the names of many of the community's residents.
Military influence is everywhere. Dilapidated buildings are
found on every buildable piece of land in the community.
Debris still scatters with the wind and flows with the tide.
Thus, a community which had its origins in the fact that it
was a safe harbor of refuge has, through history and continues
today, to exist because of that natural feature. The future
of the community and its primary economic function is directly
tied to that safe harbor and the attractiveness of the area
as a place for living and commerce.

C. ECONOMICS AND POPULATION

1. PRESENT ECONOMY. Unalaska's economy is currently
almost totally depe-n-Te-nt on the seafood processing industry.
Other existing and potential sources of economic activity
are: a water transport service/trans-shipment area; a regional
service center for Southwest Alaska; a staging and supply
area for outer Continental shelf petroleum development in
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands areas; and a state and
federal governmental center for implementation and management
of the 200 mile fishery limit.
a. Com@osition of Employment. Employment data
for Unalaska used in preparing this development plan was
obtained from numerous sources. The primary source was that
supplied by the Employment Security Division of the Alaska
Department of Labor. This was supplemented by secondary
information supplied by the Commerical Fisheries Entry
Commission, the Alaska Department of Revenue, the Alaska
Legislature, and Tryck, Nyman & Hayes' field interviews with
employers located in the City of Unalaska.

Because labor force data presented by the Employment
Security Division is based on insured em@loyment, certain
categories of employment are n6-t included in Department of
Labor statistics. The most important of these categories,
with respect to Unalaska, is the self-employed category

which includes self-employed fishermen. Estimates are
included in the Department's data for state government
employees, who have not in the past actually been covered by
unemployment insurance. The field interviews and other
sources of data were used to arrive at estimates designed to
quantify the true annual full-time equivalent employment
picture in the community.

The portion of the local economy devoted to supplying
goods and services to people outside the local area is
called the "basic" portion of the economy; that portion of
the local economy supplying goods and services to local
people is called the "secondary" portion of the economy. The,
existence of the secondary portion of the economy is dependent
on the basic portion, hence growth in the basic economy is
essential to long-term healthy community growth. Because
it is exceedingly difficult to reliably measure the actual
dollars generated by a particular industry, number of jobs
by industry type is the most commonly used measure of
economic activity rather than thLe number of dollars.

Table 1 shows the average annual total employment in
Unalaska by industry type for the year 1976, and the portion
of the economy that is basic: and secondary. A note of
explanation should be made in understanding the use of this
table, and comparing it, Table 2 and other data in this
section. Table I is based on Alaska Department of Labor
data, plus some fairly extensive field work by the consultant
to arrive-.at the "true" empl@oyment picture in Unalaska. The
Department of'Labor data has some acknowledged shortcomings,,
such as not covering self-employed individuals and making
only estimates of state -and local government employment,
therefore, there will be sone discrepancy between Tables 1
and 2. The purpose of.establishing the data in Table 1 is
so as to derive basid and secondary employment figures, but
the Department of Labor data is the only source of information
available for comparing employment in Unalaska in 1976 with
employment in other geographical areas and at other periods
of time. Thus,, although probably not presently a "true"
employment picture, the Department of Labor data is the best
available information for comparison purposes.

TABLE I

Average Annual Employment
City of Unalaska
1976

Basic Secondary
Industry Classification Number % % Basic Number Number

Fishing 44 4.4 100 44 0
Mining 2 0.2 100 2 0
Contract Construction 0 0.0
Manufacture (1) 815 82.4 100 815 0
Transportation, Communi-
cation & Public Utilities 16 1.6 37 6 10
Trade 29 2.9 21 6 23
Finance, Insurance
Real Estate 1 0.1 0 0 1
Service 25 2.5 0 0 25
Government:
Federal 18 1.8 0 0 18
State 3 0.3 67 2 1
Local 36 3.6 0 0 36

TOTAL 989 100.0 89 875 114

(1) Includes seafood processing.

Sources:

Alaska Department of Labor, Employment Security Division
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Tryck, Nyman & Hayes
Alaska Department of Revenue, Business License Section
Alaska Legislature, Legislative Affairs Agency, Finance
Division

The most notable aspect of the Unalaska economy is the
preponderance of employment in the manufacturing category,
i.e. seafood processing. Since virtually all of the processed
seafood products are exported for consumption outside the
City, both the manufacturing and fishing industries are
considered basic. Thus the ratio of basic to secondary jobs
in Unalaska is 1.0:0.13. If stated as an "economic base
multiplier" it is 1.13. Thus, for every one (1) Job in the
basic industries there are an additional 0.13 jobs in the
secondary industries.

-27-

This is an extremely low multiplier, perhaps one of the
lowest in Alaska. As a comparison, other fishing communities
in Alaska commonl-y have'multipliers.of around 1.40; the
state as a whole has a multiplier of 1.47; Anchorage's is
1.74; 2.7 is a common multiplier,for communities nationally.
The reasons for this very low figure for Unalaska will be
discussed below, but the fundamental cause is the almost
total reliance on transient labor to fill the jobs in the
seafood processing industry,in the.community. Since the
average transient laborer consumes.little in the way of
local goods and services there are comparatively few secondary
jobs created to meet their needs.

.A comparison of labor force data between Unalaska, the
Aleutian Islands labor area, and the State of Alaska for the
year 1976 is given in Table 2. It will be noted that, while
there is some similarity of industry employment proportions
between Unalaska and the Aleutian Islands area (which'begins
at Chignik and ends at Attu), both are considerably different
from the state as a whole. The asterisks indicate withholding
of information by the Department of Labor to comply with
t 4
disclosure regula -Lons, and may be considered for the use in
this case as being a fraction of one.percent (1%) for comparision
purposes. The heavy federal governmental employment in the
Aleutian District is due to the presence of several military
installations none of which, however, are currently located
in Unalaska.

b. Unemployment and Seasonality. Statistics for
unemployment in the City--O--f Unal ska in the year 1976 indicate
a 10.6-% annual unemployment average, with a 12.8% midwinter
peak.. Data for the Aleutian District indicates an average
annual,unemployment rate over the past several years of 7%
to 8%, somewhat lower than the total state average of from
9% to 10%. As does the total state, Unalaska has a seasonal
variation although timing of the season is different in
Unalaska;---as discussed below. As a matter of practicality,
field interviews have determined that for most of the year
there are jobs available with the seafood processors for
anyone willing to work. In fact, the processors report
frequently being in need of help and having difficulty ' I
finding locally available employees, even though there are
L
residents out of work according to available data. Thus,
employment, to the extent that people need income to support
themselves and their faM4 lies, appears not to be a problem.-
.L

Seasonality of employment in the City of Unalaska is
rather high and in fact varies greatly even on a month to
month basis. This is another result of the heavy dependence
E
on seal:ood processing and the variability of that industry.
All the other industries also tend to have a great deal of
variation, although not to the extent of the processing industry.

-28-

TABLE 2

Nonagriculture Wage and Salary Employment Distribution
Unalaska, Aleutian Island Labor Area, and
State.of Alaska
1976

Percent of Employment
Industry Classification Unalaska Aleutian Islands Alaska

Miring 2.3
Contract Construction 0 8.9 17.7
Manufacturing 77.9 38.4 6.0
Transportation, Communi-
cation & Public Utilities 3.5 9.2
Trade 4.9 2.7 16.1
Finance, Insurance
Real Estate 1.3 4.1
Service 3.7 16.2
Miscellaneous (fishing) 12.7 3.3 0.7
Government:
Federal 3.0 24.9 10.5
State & Local 6.6 13.3 17.1

TOTAL: 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Withheld to comply with disclosure regulations

Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Employment Security Division

The seasonality data for 1976, and discussions with
seafood processors, indicate that currently the industry in
Unalaska has a production year with two periods of h*eavy
workload: a minor season in the late spring peaking in April
and May and a major season in the early winter peaking in
October and November. It.will be noted from Figure 4,
Seaso.nality,of Employment, that in 1976 the seasonal employment
-ranged from 49% of the annual average to 147%, or a peak
three times as high as the valley.

C. Recent Trends and Changes. The economy of
Unalaska has been very dynamic over the last several years,
changing rapidly in size, composition, and seasonality. The
fundamental cause of these changes has been as a result of
changes in the fishing industry, the processing end of which
has been the economic mainstay of the Unalaska Communi t*Y.
The fishing industry is discussed in more detail below.

-29-

FIGURE 4

SEASONALITY OF EMPLOYMENT
1976

150-

140- N CITY OF UNALASKA

8 ALEUTIAN DISTRICT

130-
0 STATE OF ALASKA
w

w 120-
w

A..L U r-.::-
M
z
z
<
Annual_Ave agq
LL --------- 1- r- -- ----------------- -------------------------
0 100-
CD

90-

z
Uj 80-

0
-j
0-
70-

60-
z

50-1 Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Employment Security Division

LJ CLA L Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
MONTH - 1976

16014060 60@ swim

Insured employment data is ag.ain the most valid and
reliable information available for measuring the economy,
particularly with regard to trends. The expansion of the
Unalaska economy can be seen in the rapid-increase, since
1970, in the average employment, as shown by the Average
Total Employment Index illustrated.in Figure 5. Between
1970 and 1976 there has been a continual expansion of employment
to the extent that there was 379% more employment in 1976
than in 1970. By comparison, over the'same time period,
there has been an 84% increase in employment statewide, and
a 45% increase in employment in the Aleutian District.

The increasing importance of Unalaska in the economy of
the Aleutian Region is further evidenced by the proportion
of regional employment that i's provided in Unalaska. In
1970, Unalaska had 7% of the average annual number of jobs
in the Aleutian District. This percentage has steadily
increased until, in 1976, it had grown to 14310 of the annual
district average.

Composition of the Unalaska work force has also shown
some noteworthy trends as indicated by Alaska Department of
Labor data. There has been a proportionate decrease in the
amount of labor force employed in the manufacturing (processing)
industry, from an 86% average in the early 1970s to 78% in
more recent years, and an increase in the government employment
sector of the economy from 4% to 10% over the same time
period. The wholesale and retail trade industry has remained
relatively constant, proportionately, at approximately 53 of
employment. The reverse is true of the Aleutian District as
a whole, where government employment has shown a slight
decrease-in recent years, to approximately 40%, with a
corresponding rise in manufacturing employment to 35%.
Wholesale and retail trade has.remained an approximately
constant 6%. From the standpoint of Unalaska, it appears
that despite the high current proportion of basic to secondary
c'
employment, the trend over recent years has been to lower
this proportion within the.City of Unalaska. Another way
of describing the same phenomena is to say that Unalaska is
becoming more economically similar to a typical urbanized
community.

Trends with respect to seasonality of emplQyment in
Unalaska can also be seen, although there is a significant
year to year variation. The Alaska Department of Labor has
defined a Seasonality Index, which is the ratio of total
man-months of employment in the six lowest months of the
year to total man-months of employment in the six highest
months. Thus, a seasonality index number of 0.0 would
indicate 'complete' seasonality, while an index of 1.0 would
indicate no seasonality at all. Using this Employment
Seasonality Index, as indicated in Figure 6, it can be seen

-31-

FIGURE 5

INDEX OF AVERAGE
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
5.0-

x
Lu 8 UNALASKA
9= I
nALEUTIAN DISTRICT
4.0-

OALASKA

1970 BASE YEAR
3.0-

ui
cz
< 2.0-
w Alaska
ui

1.0-

o '76
l7o '71 '72 '73 174 '75

YEAR

1.0-

0.9- 0 1@laska. . ......

x 0.8-
ui

0.7-

0.6-

0.5-
ui FIGURE
0.4- EMPLOYMENT SEASONALITY INDEX

0.3- 0 UNALASKA

CL
6 ALEUTIAN DISTRICT
0.2-

0.1- 0 ALASKA

0 1 17'0 1@1 '7 2 1713 '714 1715 1716

YEAR
32-

that there has been a general overall increase in year
around employment although, again, there have been some
significant year to year variations. By comparison, the
Aleutian District has been less seasonally dependent, while
the state as a whole, except in 1973 and 1974, has had
virtually-no year to year variations despite the magnitude
of the Pipeline construction impact on t e economy.

In summary, recent trends have shown Unalaska to have a
very rapidly expanding economy, increasingly becoming an
economic center of activity in the district, yet trends of
expanded job opportunities in ncA-processing employment
seems to have kept its porportionate share with the expanding
processing and governmental sectors of the economy. With
regard to seasonality of employment, there seems to be a
trend toward less seasonal dependency, despite a great deal
of year to year variation.

I A
2. POTENT X%L FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH. The City of Unalaska
has both an extremely bright economic future and the potential
ability to exert a great deal of control over the type of
community which will develop as a result of expanded economic
activity. Seafood processing, especially in the processing
of bottomfish species, a staging and supply area for OCS
development, a regional service center, a water transport
service and trans-shipment area, and a state/federal center
for dealing with the 200 mile limit enforcement support all
have potential for inducing economic growth.
a. Fishina and Seafood Processing. While fishing
J2
in Unalasilla dates back thousands of years to the original
Aleut inhabitants, the modern seafood processing industry is
a relatively recent arrival. The first modern seafood
processing plant was established in Unalaska in 1962; by
1967 there were five processing plants, and by 1976 there
were eight. In addition to the increasing number of plants
there has been a growth in size of the plants, as evidenced
by the steady growth of industry employment discussed above.
At least one and possibly a second new processing facility
is rumored to.be under consideration before the 1978 fall
season begins. Two existing plants are currently undergoing
sizeable expansion in facilities.

The growth of Unalaska as 'a seafood processing center
results from the growth of the Aleutian-Bering area as a
domestic seafood produe-er, especially with regard to king
crab and tanner crab. The tanner crab harvest particularly
has exploded in recent years, increasing from 7 million
pounds in 1975 to 22 million pounds in 1976 to an estimated
50 million pounds in 1977. The annual king crab harvest has
exceeded 60 million pounds for the last few years, exhibiting
a general growth trend since 1970.

Unalaska is the farthest west point in Alaska for land
based seafood processing, although floating processors do go
farther west during the season peaks. Fishermen's selection,
of priocessors to sell-theircatch is a complicated decision
process, involving boat ownership, prices paid, timing of
the season, and waiting line for unloading among other
possible considerations. The usual geographic area for
Unalaska processors to serve extends west to the end of the
Aleutian Islands, southeast to the southern end of the
Alaska Peninsula, northeast into Bristol Bay, and throughout,
the Bering Sea as far north as the Norton Sound, which
opened in 1977 to crabbing for the first time.

While not all of western Alaska's domestic catch is
processed in Unalaska, catch from throughout the geographical
area is processed in Unalaska. Therefore, it is appropriate!
to examine data from this area as an indication of the
potential market for Unalaska processing. The predominant
western Alaska species caught and processed by the Alaska
seafood industry are king crab, salmon, and the burgeoning
0
tanner crab; other species are halibut, herring and shrimp,
but these latter constituted only about 1% of the total
western Alaska catch in 1975. Table 3 shows a ten year
history of western Alaska seafood-catch by both all nations
and Alaska landings. The only American competitor for
shellfish in recent years has been the Japanese for tanner
crab. Passage of the 200 mile limit has placed almost all
western Alaska shellfish harvest areas under American domain
along with the potential for most of the bottomfish harvest'
areas.

Recent s ix-year trends in catch, price, and statewide
significance of the western Alaska seafood industry are
shown in Table 4. Most notable items are the gradual increase
in king.crab catch; the significant recent increase in
tanner crab catch; the reduction and subsequent gradual
increase in salmon catch; the significant price paid for all.
seafood species since 1973; and the increasing importance of
western Alaska in the statewide fisheries. -Inquiries to the
Alaska.Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Department
of Revenue as to,processing volumes in Unalaska yielded no
information, as.their data is based on processing company
and not geographical -location. Compilation of this data
into a format useful for community policy development purposes
would be most helpful. -However, some indication of the
growth of Unalaska's importance as a processing port can be
gleaned from the shared revenue for seafood landings, which
experienced a steady growth from slightly under $4000 in
1970'to $80,000 in 19075, at which time at least 29% of the
Weste-rn Alaska domestic shellfish landings were'processed at
Unalaska.

-34-

TABLE 3

Western Alaska Seafood Catch
Millions of Pounds

All Nations Alaska Landings
Ground Shell Ground Shell
Year fish(l) fish(4) fish fish Salmon

1966 1,215 1 41 100

1967 2,035 3 45 48

11968 2,324 2 427 30

1969 2,789 167 2 37 70

1970 3,788 153 34 130

1971 4,877 129 50 76

1972 5,157 94 49 32

1973 4,646 89 53 24

1974 4,249 74 33

1975 99 1 @6 47

Less than I million lbs.

Insufficient or unavailable data

Source: (1) Demersal Fish and Shellfish Resources of the
Eastern Bering Sea in the Baseline Year 1975,
National Marine Fisheries Service

(2) Alaska Regional Profiles, Southwest Region, AEIDC

(3) Alaska Catch and Production, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game

(4) Derived from (1), (2) and (3)

-35-

Despite the impressive increases of seafood harvest and
processing:-in recent.years,.the 124 million pound harvest.of
the Western District in 1975 pales to insignificance when
compared to the over 4,000 million (4 billion) pound potential
of the area within the United States 200 mile limit, an
approximate 32-fold increase. As indicated in Table 3,
foreign fishermen and processors have harvested this amount
over the past several years, largely in the form of pollock,
sole, flounder and herring. American fishermen and processors
have, in the past, generally ignored these species, even
when fishing within the 12-mile limit, in favor of the
higher-valued salmon, shrimp and crab. Development of
appropriate American technology and the availability of
capital investment will undoubtedly take several years, but
even conservative estimates foresee a doubling of the bottom,fish
harvest within the next five to ten years, with further
significant increases possible beyond that time. Even this
fairly rapid timetable may be accelerated if additional
foreign investment and new technology advancement is made in
the industry, as some evidence seems to indicate.

Unalaska is in an excellent position to be the prime
location for any land-based processing of bottomfish that
may occur. In addition to being an excellent harbor with
respect to water depth and protection from weather, it is
the year around port most centrally-located to the bottom...
fish area. The largest potential bottomfish area lies -in a
tria@gular location, with Unalaska as the apex of the triangle.
This location is bounded by a boundary approximately going
from Unalaska to Cape Newenham, thence'to a point 400 miles
ea@t-northeast from Cape Newenham to the U.S. 200 mile
limit, thence southeast to Unalaska.

There is currently considerable controversy over recent:
proposals by foreign-owned floating seafood processors to
co-venture with American fishermen on catching and processing
bottomfish. Because many of the domestic land-based processors,
such as Whitney-Fidalgo Seafoods, Universal Seafoods, Dutch
Harbor Seafoods, Vita Food Products and Amfac, are actually
substantially owned or controlled by foreign corporations,
the most important effect of the rival proposa"ls*is the
number of jobs created for American"fishermen and labor., the
tax base provided by the land-based (or located) processors,@
and the secondary industries and jobs created to support-the
processing industry. The question of foreign vs. domestic
processing and the resolution of current controversy . will
have a vital effect on the-long term growth of Unalaska.
This is an extremely important point an.d cannot be overly
stressed.

-36-

Table 4

Western Alaska Catch and Value to Fishermen

Catch/Million lbs. Price/$_pe_r lb.(I) Percentage Total Alaska Value
GranT
Year King Tanner Salmon King Tanner Salmon Enj Tanner Salmon Total

1970 31.9 1.5 129.8 .24 .09 .22 58 9 43 38

1971 49.9 0.2 75.7 .26 .10 .24 68 1 35 36

191-2 48.8 0.1 31.5 .26 .11 .20 58 (2) 14 21

1973 52.3 0.5 23.6 .60 .17 .28 70 1 11 26

1974 62.5 5.6 312.9 .4o .21 .37 68 9 18 27

1975 67.5 7.1 46.7 .37 .13 .35 65 13 30 33

(1) Computed by dividing total value to total catch

(2) @ess than I million lbs.
iource: Alaska Catch & Production, Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game

One of the more significant unknowns in the seafood
processing industry at this time is the type of groundfish
processing which will evolve as Americans get into catching
and processing those species. Foreign fleets have successfully
utilized both the "mother ship" concept and the combination
?'catch-processing" vessel rather than using shore-based
processing facilities. While there are pollock, cod, flounder,
perch, sablefish and other groundfish within 100 miles of
Unalaska, the Fulk of the potential-catch is much further
away. The ultima-te resolution of this question will likewise.
have a significant effect oh Unalaska's long term growth.

The fishing portion of the-seafood industry has not
been quite so much of a boon to the City of Unalaska as has
the processing portion.. Data on the number of people with
commercial fishing permits listing Un-alaska as their address
in 1977 numbers 35. However, discussions with Unalaska
residents indicates thaf only approximately 12 people actually
derive their primary source of income from fishing. As 19
of the 35 vessels exceeded 50 feet in length, @hereby requiring
a crew, and since Department of Labor data indicates only

-37-

some 16 people in Unalaska :in the -.Eishing industry are
covered. by unemploymentinslarance (as woul,4 be crew members
but not vessel owners), a judgmental estimate was made
incorporating all the available information. Table 5 gives
data on the fishery resource utilized, gear amounts and
types, and area of fishing for each of the permit holders
listing Unalaska as their address. I.t would be anticipated
that, as the seafood industry increases .in'magnitude, the
fishing portion would similarly increase, subject to a
variety of technical,. social and economic considerations.

In summary, Unalaska can probably expec,t very significant
increases in the seafood processing industry within the next
five to ten years, with proportiofiate increases in associated
industries. A doubling.within the next five years, and a
tripling within the next ten seefn to be reasonable expectations,
according to the personnel of the Allaska Department of Fish
and Game, with a good possibility of even greater increases.
These two assumptions, admittedly conservative, have been
utilized in subsequent@economic forecasting presented later
in this documenti Supportive evidence to It'hese assumption's
is information recentiy received from Sea-Land Service Co.,
which expects Unalaska fish and shellfish landings to go
from 210 million pounds in 1977 to 403 million pounds'by
1980, including 60 million pounds of bottomfish.

TABLE 5

1977 Alaska Limited Entry Permit Holders
Listing an Unalaska Address

Pertinent Data

No. of No. of No. of
Type of Fishing Permits. Type of Gear Permits Area Permits

Halibut 9 Purse Siene I Statewide 33
Black Cod I Drift Gill Net 3 Peninsula-
Dungeness Crab 3 Otter Trawl 2 Aleutians 3
King Crab 40 Beam Trawl I Dutch Harbor ;t4
Bottomfish I Long Line 9 Bering Sea 16
Sh, rimp 4 Pot 41 B r i s to I Bay' I
salmon 4 Pot 19
Tanner Crab 14 Other I
Other .1

Total 77 77 77

Source: Alaska Limited Entry.Commission

-38-

b. Oil and'Ga-s Exploration and Develument.
Offshore oil.and gas exploration and development is expected
to have some impact on Unalaska in the next five to ten
years, but probably nowhere near the extent of the fisheries
impact as discussed above. Unalaska is within 200 miles of
the St. George basin, within 200 miles of the far eastern
end of the Bristol Bay basin, and within 200 miles of most
of the Aleutian Shelf (Shumagin Shelf) basin, which is south
of Unalaska Island. Available petroleum quantity information
on these areas is rather limited. The 200 mile distance is
important as 200 iniles is the currently acceptable limit for
service and supply between the shoreside'support base and
Offshore exploration and development activity.

The latest U.S. Department of Interior'Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas lease schedule as it relates to Alaska was
issued August 23, 1977, and contains the intended federal
OCS lease sales through 1981. The.St, George basin, the
Aleutian Shelf basin, and the Bristol Bay basin, which are
the areas which could have the most significant efAfect on
Unalaska, are not included in the schedule. Those leases
scheduled for offshore Alaska waters are:

Beaufort Sea, December 1979

Gulf of Alaska, June 1980

Kodiak, October 1980

Cook Inlet, March 1981

Berin-Norton, December 1981

A map showing the approximate location of these areas is
presented in Figure 7.

Some backaround discussion on OCS oil and gas development
0
is appropriate. Offshore development has several phases,
each of which has its own characteristics and potential for
on-shore activities. These are described below.

A. RECONNAISSANCE - The obtaining of seismic and other
geotechnical information by companies interested in
participating in the development. There is minimal on-
shore impact from this activity. An occasional exploration
boat will be seen in the area as it is resupplied,
generally from existing shoreside facilities and very
little, if any, employment will be generated locally by
this phase.

-39-

FIGURE 7
ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR LEASING

Beaufort Basin
Sale #50

BARROW

110pe BOSI)7
Sale 58

NOME
FAIRBANKS

Norton Basin
SOM 55 ANCHORAGE V
C1 RDOVA

Cook Inlet
if Of A1,7SfO
Northern Gulf of
Bristol Ba gsin Sale
.y B4
Sale *51

St. George Basin
Cb Sale # 45 odiak
/a # 46
41 UNALASK
d 6
Aleutian Shelf
Sale # 56 miiera
kilomete

Source: Marine Serviocc Base-, for Offshore
Dept. of Community and Regional A

B. LEASE SALE - The selling, in closed bid competition, of
tracts to the company (or groups of companies) which
offer the highest acceptable lease price and royalty
payment fee. No on-shore impact is associated with
this phase.

C. EXPLORATION - The drilling of exploratory wells in off-
shore locations after the leases have been let. Establishment
of one or more on-shore service bases to supply and
support off-shore activities occurs at the beginning-of
this phase. There is moderate on-shore impact including
some immigration of specialized labor.

D. DEVELOPMENT - Construction of off-shore platforms for
production of oil; construction of pipelines to bring
the oil from the off-shore platforms to shoreside
facilities; and the construction on-shOTe of processing
facilities, tanker terminals, etc. Heaviest on-shore
impact and activity is experienced in this phase, both
in terms o-_@' facilities and immigration of labor.

E. PRODUCTION - The flow of oil (and gas, if discovered),
continuing for the 'Life of the field, from the o:.r'f-
shore platforms through underwater pipelines to shore
facilities. Only moderate impact is associated with
this phase.

Each of these phases will encompass a differing time
span and will produce differing impacts depending on a
number of variables unique to each case. The mo2)t, important
of these variables is the anticipated 'Lease area's petroleum
potential. Using a specific example to.illustrate how such
a process may be enacted, Figure 8 is based on the Bureau of
Land Management's Alaska OCS office data pertaining to the
Northern Gulf of Alaska lease sale held in 1976. As pointed
out in the Environmqntal Impact Statement for that particular
sale, this scenario is only one of several likely possibilities;
it is, however, the one BLM chose to use in their study of
probable impacts.

Several points should be noted in this discussion.
First, the data pertains to, one, specific estimate of one
specific lease sale; it thereT-ore cannot be Consile"r-e-T -
"typical" in ab_=olute terms; the intent in presenting the
data here is to provide the reader with a specific "case
history". Secondly, the data presented does not include
secondary employment resulting from the prima@@_yemployment,
nor is the induced population of employment in this regard
included in the data. These are highly divergent variables,
extremely sensitive to the differing conditions existing at
any particular time and place. Thirdly.,.the data applies

-41-

700- FIGURE 8

ESTIMATE

600- TOTAL ALASKA DIRECT OCS EMPLOYMENT FOR

NORTHERN GULF OF ALASKA OCS L,EASE

500-

400-
z
uj
1:
(L 0

LLJ 0
300- 0
LLA
AM

ui
200-

0 0
SOURCE: NORTHERN GULF OF ALASKA FINA IRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
100- USDI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,'1976
LLJ

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
YEARS AFTER LEASE SALE
EXPLORATION owl

DEVELOPMENT

CONSTRUCTION IBM

PRODUCTION

statewide and not to any specific location. No one location
will receive aT-1the impact from any lease s"E_1e-,-Fu:EE--te
variables here too are highly divergent and dependent on
the particulars of time and place. The intent here is to
simply give the reader a feeling for the activities involved
in OCS petroleum development.

The scheduling of OCS leases in Alaska, particularly in
the Aleutian-Bering area, has been the subject of controversy
and delay. For example, in 1975 the St. George basin was
scheduled for lease in October, 1976. By Noveinber, 1976,
however, the lease had been re-scheduled to March, 1977, but
the January, 1977 and June, 1977 lease schedules did not
even list it. Conflict with fisheries resources and weather
extremes have been the reported reasons for questioning the
desirability of leasing this area, hence assumedly the
reasons for delay in its offering.

Harbor requirements for service bases differ greatly
from those-needed for oil terminals and their attendant
supertankers. While both uses require protected harbors,
which Unalaska certainly has, the requirements for service
bases include a turning basin of at least 1500 feet in
diameter, 24 foot water depth (below mean low low water),
and approximately 20 acres available level land near the
waterfront. Oil terminals, on the other hand, require
turning basins of up to 4000 feet (and even more for the
newer class of larger supertankers), harbor entrance depth
of 70 feet, and up to 300 acres of level land available near
the waterfront. butch Harbor and Captains Bay are both of
insufficient size to accomodate supertankers, and neither
would have 300 acres of nearby level land available. Captains
Bay has the additional problem.of a relatively shallow and
narrow harbor entrance. Summers Bay and Nateekin Bay are
both inadequate from the protection standpoint. While it
would be possible to have a small oil terminal facility in,
say, Captains Bay, examination of the various nearby basins
indicates that there are other closer potential terminal
sites which may be used.

The exploration phase of the OCS oil or gas fields
would begin almost immediately after the lease sale is held.
Should economical deposits be discovered, the development
phase would begin immediate 'ly thereafter, but usually not
before four to five years after the leasing of the tracts.
For the reasons discussed above, it is unlikely that either
an oil terminal or an LNG facility will be constructed
anywhere in Unalaska Bay, even when the nearby areas mentioned
above are finally leased. Therefore, no significant OCS
impact, other than supply and service base development, is
considered likely to take place in Unalaska.

-43-

Because of Unalaska's-proximity to these potential
.,development areas, and its excellent harbor, Unalaska will
@undou@tedly, however, be the"site'for a @upply and'service
base,for one or more phases of this development. As described
above, service base installation is the first of several
stages of on@-shore development in the OCS process, and the
Z.
one with the least potential loctLl community impact. However,
the service base development is not likely to take place
until either the St. George, Aleutian Shelf, or B 'ristol Bay
areas'are leased, apparently not until sometime after 1981.
It would appear, ther-efore, that no significant OCS-related
impact is likely to occur in Unalaska prior to 1982, at the
earliest. This is considerably later in time than had been
considered probable prior to recent publishing of the revised
ledsing schedule. This does not meanY howevero, that the
City of Unalaska should ignor*e, until 1981, the possibility
that on-shore activity associated with OCS development will
likely occur only after then. On the contrary, the fact
that such on-shore development is extremely likely to occur
coupled with the point that there is ample time to plan
adequately for that activity is a situation of which the
City should take advantage. Adequate planning in conjunction
with the involved oil companies should be undertaken once
the City has developed its long range land use plan and once
a coastal zone management plan for the Aleutian Region has
been developed and finally approved.

The Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs
has produced two studies pertaining to supply base requirements
in the northern Gulf of Alaska.* Assuming the level of
extloratory effort near'Unalaska is proportional to the
rati.o of estimated level of oil reserves between the Gulf of
Alaska base and those areas which would be supplied from
Unalaska as discussed above, the level of exploration effort
o@t of Unalaska should be approximately 44% of the level of
effort of the Gulf of Alaska. Using data from the two ADICRA
studies, the resultant scenario indicates a two-berth supply
base supporting 3 or 4 exploration rigs via 7 supply boats.
This would.create 34 supply base jobs, 70 jobs on boat
crews., and 10 additional secondary jobs in the community
(e.g. waitress, schoolteacher, etc.).
Experience to date from the supply base at Yakutat
indicates the supply,base jobs and the secondary jobs will
be filled by residents, or people who become residents, and

---------------------------------------

*Sup ly Boat and Port Facility Scenario: OCS Sale No. 39
Northern Gulf ot Alaska and Marine Service Bases for Offshore
Oil Development

-44-

the boat crew-jobs will be filled by transients. It is
assumed that resident job holders will have families,
therefore, the population increase resulting from OCS exploration
will be 132 residents and 70 non-residents. As the lease
sale dates are still indefinite, this population impact is
shown separately in Figure 10 below. The types,of supply
base jobs available for a "typical" crew are shown in Figure 9,
taken from one of the above mentioned ADCRA studies.

c. Marine Service and Trans-shipment. Potential
Unalaska development as a center tor the servicing of marine
vessels and as a transshipment center for marine freight
have both been considered by numerous interested parties.
For at least the past decade the preponderance of Unalaska
shipping has'consisted of petroleum products, largely for
the refueling of transport vessels. Second in shipping
importance for the same period has been that of raw and
processed seafood, generally on the order of one-tenth of
the petroleum product tonnage. Together, petroleum and
seafood account for approximately 97% of the tonnage shipped
through Unalaska over the last decade, although both are
annually highly vatiable in amount and show little correlation
with each other.

Increasing economic activity in the Aleutian-Bering
area will probably mean some increasing activity in Unalaska
as a service and transshipment point. Seafood and petroleum
should continue to increase as seafood processing and shipping
increase, most likely in direct proportion. It is questionable,
however, if Unalaska will see.significant increases in
activity as a transshipment point for other goods, other
than possibly those related to OCS development. The sparse
Aleutian Islands population, the very great distances separating
the various settlements, and the "open sea" conditions of
waterways surrounding the islands precludes the "inland
passage" type of shipping, which would require some sort of
transshipment. A study is currently underway to examine the
feasibility of a state-owned and operatcd I'Kodiak@-Aleutian
Island" ferry system. Data and results from this study may
serve to indicate Unalaska's future potential iri this regard.

Increased mineral and petroleum development in northwest
Alaska, partly as a result of activity by the several Native
Corporations'and the development of National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (N@R-A) would greatly increase shipping in
the sea lanes near Unalaska. Rather than change the nature
of the past and current function of Unalaska in this respect,
it'is felt that what will occur is a repeat.of the function
Unalaska served in the development of the Prudhoe Bay facilities
and.the'Alaska Pipeline construction. That is, Unalaska
will serve as a refueling point and lay-over 'station for the
ocean-going barge traffic as it passes through on the way to

-45-

F I GURE 9

OCS SHORESITE CREW--TYPICAL

Number On Duty

Manager I I

Bookkeeper I I

Warehouseman I I

Crane/Forklift operator 2* 1

Truck Driver 2 1

Longshoreman 3 2

Roustabout 3 2

Radio Operator 2 1

Mud and Cement Service 2 1

Fuel Service 2 1

Rental Tool Service 2

Total: 21 12

NOTE: Four to six company administrative and
technical people will likely have permanent
responsibilities for the offshore work, but
.they will perform most-of their duties either
on the drilling vessel, or in a home office in
Anchorage or some other city.

SOURCE: Marine Service Bases for Offshore Oil Development,
ADCRA

-46-

the port of destination. Thus, rather than functioning as a
major transshipment point, Unalaska would function primarily
14
as a refue Lng and only occasionally as a restaging area.

Increasing interest has been evidenced in utilizing
some of the former military facilities on Amaknak Island to
service and repair marine vessels. The land and those
facilities formerly used for this propose by the military
have passed into ownership of the Ounalashka Native Corporation
as a result of the ANCSA. While costs and conditions
necessary to-make redevelopment of this facility feasible
require a more extensive study, it would seem that some
trends in the fishing industry should be considered. Such a
study is currently being initiated by the Ounalashka Native
Corporation. While increased fishing will mean increased
numbers of boats coming to Unalaska, the past and forseeable
future trends indicate that the boats will become larger and
more complex. This type of boat r.equires very extensive
facilities for overhaul, which presently tend to be found
only in major shipyards such as exist in Seattle. Unknowns,
such as the size and timing of construction of a small boat
harbor, would also affect 'this feasibility.

in summary, at this time., it does not seem likely that,
in the near future, there will be any significant impact on
the Unalaska economy by the large scale development of
either service or transshipment facilities, other than OCS-
related development in the time frame discussed above. It
is possible, however, that more detailed analysis, some of
which are currently being undertaken or considered, will
reveal that trends and changing conditions make either or
both possibilities feasible.

d. Marine Resource Enforcement. Previous discussions
have noted the economic effects that res ce exploitation
can directly have on Unalaska, i.e., the federal program for
OCS development and the recently-enacted 200 mile limit on
seafood processing. A related but separate occurrence is
the development of Unalaska as a headquarters location for
state and federal agency enforcement of laws and regulations
pertaining to OCS and fishery resources.

At the state level the Department of Public Safety has
prime enforcement jurisdiction in fisheries. The Division
of Fish and Wildlife Protection will station a new motor
patrol vessel, "Vigilant", at Dutch Harbor with plans under
consideration to possibly station a second patrol vessel in
Unalaska also. The lack of adequate housing in Unalaska has
been an important factor in the delay in siting, as there
will be a permanent crew of six (6) members plus families,

-47-

and one or two (1-2) state troopers plus families, who will
-s el
require -accomodations [email protected] with each pat.-rQl ves

Geographical jurisdictions of enforcement authority are
still unsettled. While Alaska clearly has general enforcement
authority within the three mile limit, Alaska Fish and Game
enforcement officers have recently arrested violators beyond
this limit; this authority beyond three miles is currently
being tested in the courts. An additional concept, currently
under discussion, is the mutual deputization of state and
federal enforcement officers which would allow each to
enforce federal and state laws in the other's respective
jurisdiction. Given the very large enforcement area concerned,
this approach could prove to be very efficient.

The federal agency responsible for enforcement within
the 200 mile limit is the U.S. Coast Guard. With increased
oil tanker traffic carrying Prudhoe Bay oil from the Alaska
Pipeline to the lower 48 states, and increased enforcement
activities associated with -the 200 mile limit, the presence
of -the Coast Guard in Alaska is being sharply increased.
Operational headquarters for the Coast Guard are 1;cated in
Juneau, but the major enforcement manpower and facilities
are located in Kodiak.. The.Coast Guard is viewing the
Aleutian-Bering area as an -important target area for enforcement.
Plans -are being developed to station three enforcement
personnel permanently in Unalaska to oversee fish processing
.activities and the related catch vessels, with an additional
two.personnel anticipated to be'rfeeded once OCS oil related
activities begin in ihe St. George basin or the Aleutian
Shelf basin.

While no permanent stationing of Coast Guard vessels in
Unalaska is currently anticipated, the Coast Guard is desirous
of utilizing Dutch Harbor as a refueling and resupply base
for enforcement vessels operating in the Aleutian and Bering
areas. There are, however, two factors currently preventing
this action: lack of marine diesel fuel available in large
quantities for the smaller patrol vessels; and the presently
inadequate airport runway at Dutch Harbor which, according
to the Coast Guard, does not permit their use of C-130 and
C-135 aircraft at this field for supply activities. While
the former short-coming is probably easily remedied, the
problem of runway w'id 'th and length is more difficult to
.solve. The Alaska Division of Aviation has in the past
considered extension of the runway at the Dutch Harbor
Airport, but extension has been deleted from the State five
year airport improvement plan. Serious problems with regard
to topographical configuration on the site, questionable
technological feasibility, costs associated with runway
extension to the north, and airport ownership questions were
cited by the Division as reasons for the deletion.

-48-

There is currently considerable controversy as noted
surrounding proposals by foreign floating seafood processors
to co-venture with AmerIcan fishermen on catching and processing
bottomfish. Because many of the domestic land-based processors,
such as Whitney-Fidalao Seafoods, Universal Seafoods, rutch
Harbor Seafoods, Vita@'Food Products and Amfac, are actually
substantially owned by foreign corporations, the most important
consideration of the rival proposals is the number of jobs
created for American labor, the tax base provided by the
land-based (or located) processors, and the secondary industry
created to support the processing industry. The question-
of foreign vs. domestic processing is one which will have a
vital effect on the long term growth of Unalaska.

Unalaska's geographical location and excellent harbor
make it very suitable for locating enforcement agencies
dealing with the impact of development of marine resources,
and some of this agency location is scheduled to take place
in Unalaska. Additional agency location in Unalaska is
possible, but will be affected by the availability of
suitable housing and airport upgrading.
e4. Regional Service Center and Other Potential.
The likelihood 'of major economic imDacts on Unalaska as a
result of its evolution as a reaional service center seem
unlikely at this time. The majo"r population centers in the
Aleutian region are the military bases further west on the
chain; the communities of Sand Point, King Cove and Cold Bay
to the.east; and St. Paul and St. George on the Pribiloff '
Islands to the north. The m1litary provides the majority'of
its own support and services for their-bdses, and the other
communities, because of communication links and geographic
location, are unlikely to utilize Unalaska facilities to any
appreciable extent. While Unalaska may serve some of the
smaller nearby communities, such as Akutan, it does not
appear likely that this would result in any major economic
impact.

Development in Unalaska of a tourist/recreation industry
has been considered as a possibility. Here also particular
tourist industry expertise is required to fully explore the
potential, but it does not appear that there will be a -
significant economic impact due to development of tourism
over the next few years. Some possible attributes for-
tourist*attraction would be the fishing and the former Dutch
Harbor military base facilities. However, inclement and
variable weather makes sport fishing attractiveness questionable
on any large scale, and deterioration and civilian redevelopment
of the former military base erodes that attribute as an item
of major consideration.

-49-

One possible alternative in the development of the
tourist indus.try Vould involve not just Unala.ska, but the
L
entire Aleutian region. This alternative would be to develop
an archaeological-historical tour of impor-tant sites of botil
the unique Aleut culture and the World Way II military sites
throughout the Aleutian area. While this type of tour would
probably not ever have great mass appeal, and would certainly
C)
be highly seasonal, it may still be economically viable. It
could serve as a notable industry in the region. Certainly
a great deal-of preparation would have to take place throughout
the region prior to the development of such a tour, thus it
does not appear likely to occur in the near future and,
because of the magnitude of other developments, would not
constitute a rival major industry for Unalaska. Such was
the case with Alaska Airlines sponsored tours to Russia in
the early 19701s.

In summary, while there will probably be some minor
increases in both the formation of a regional service center
and the number of tourists visiting Unalaska, there does not
appear to be any particular reason to anticipate major
changes in the status of either of these economic activities.

One additional aspect of future economic development in
Unalaska needs consideration. The Ounalashka Native Corporation,
head,quartered in Unalaska will, when conveyance processes
are completed, be the la@gest private land owner in Unalaska.
Much of t@e land within the City*held by the Corporation is
located on Amaknak Island, including the deactivated Naval
Station. Land in other -areas remote from the City has known
resource development potential. Future plans of the Corporation
for the use of these lands or the possible development of
any of the resource potentials is relatively unknown. These
plans are considered proprietary by the Corporation, are not
generally public knowledge, and are unknown to the City or
its planning consultant in spite of efforts to obtain.them.
It is safe to assume, however, that these lands, the usable
facilities on them and any economically developable natural
resource potentials proven to exist will at some point in
time be utilized and exploited as the Corporation is a
profit-making entity under the provisions of the ANCSA.

When the Corporation's plans are made known, every
effo rt should be made by the City to assess their impact
upon the City and appropriate changes in the pojections here
presented should be made. The Native Corporation, as a
creation of the ANCSA,,"is somewhat unique in the American
free enterprise system'. It is, howeve 'r, a private company
and in this regard should be acc 'orded no more or less s*tatus
in.-its community than any other such corporation. As the
largest private' landowner-in the community, however, Ounala,shka.,
Inc. has a, significant interest in the workings of local

-so-

government and, respectively, the local municipality has a
keen interest in this landowner"s future plans. Efforts
should be initiated to develop more meaningful lines of
communication between the municipal government and the
t-orporation in order that their respective planning may be,
to the maximum extent possible, complimentary.

In summary, the prospects for continued and expanded
economic growth in Unalaska are excellent but tied both
directly and indirectly to the seafood harvesting and processing
industries. Some economic gaiif is forecast in association
with outer continental shelf oil and gas eXDloration and
development but not in any measurable degree before the
19801s. The heavy dependence upon the fishery and processing
industries will mean that Unalaska's economy will continue
to be almost totally export in nature. Thus, local economic
benefit will have to be derived from* resident jobs in the
basic industries and from jobs and sales of goods and services
Ln the secondary support industries that relate to.fishery
and processing activities. There appears to be little
impetus or opportunity to change this composition, and-the
economic."health" of the Unalaska community will be directly
affected by the status of the two prime industries. The
City of Unalaska will have to-continually be abreast of
forces and changes in the fishery and seafood processing
segments for signals as to what will happen locally. Effective
communications and relations with.the Unalaska based processing
plants should be a key element in the"'City's long range
economic development program. It is not possible, given the
void in knowledge outlined above, to-assess or predict the
possible impact on the local economy of the local Native
Corporation's use of its land or its development endeavors.

3. PROJECTIONS. The basis of any Community Development
Plan should be sou-n-J-projections of economic growth and I
population in the community followed by translation of these
projections into needs, services, facilities. and programs
for the-future. These projections and translations should
be realistic and*reflective of community'desires as expressed
by goals and objectives. Following are-projections of
economic growth, expressed in terms of future employment and
populatfLon for Unalaska. Other projections for housing,
education demands and other community facilities are discussed
in the appropriate section of the Development Plan portion
of this report.

The time frame., or target date, of these project *ions is
1987, ten years. However, extreme difficulty was experienced
in.developing reliable projections beyond 1982, or five
years.. This results from the many unknowns and variables
present in Unalaska with r6spect to future economic development,
meeting of transportation needs, federal and state-policy
with respect to fishery and other resource potentials and

the extreme dependence of the Unalaska economy on the export.
industry... Additionally.,.-it_is. considered. unwise. to project
economic conditions and population in hard terms beyond.-five!
years, and that principal is evident in'this instance.
Unalaska is a dynamic community in the sense that-it is
presently in a period of extreme economic transition and
fluidity. Whether or not Much or little of the new labor irt
the processing industry becomes resident in the City or
continues the historical pattern of being transient is the.
key factor in the degree of population growth that will be
experienced. Despite the insicrht,into the Unalaska area
economy given by the knowledge outlined above, nothing
reliably is known,about the types of job skills that.are or
are not available in Unalaska, about the income level of the
populace or what the possiblelimpact of Regional or Village
Native Corporation programs or development might be upon the
future of the City or area economy. It is safe to assume,
however, that as new job opportunities develop requiring job
skills not obtainable locally or in which local residents
have no interest, labor with those skills will migrate to
the area to meet the demand.

a. Methodol2i.-Y. There are four basic methodologies
for forecasting population-growth: (1) projection based on
historical birth and death rates; (2) fitting appropriate
mathematical curves.to historical data.and extrapolating
future probabilities; (3) assuming a proportionate share of
a larger regional growth where that growth has been estimated;
(4) and basing future population on size and type of foreca9ted
employment.

Most of these methods have significant drawbacks
when applied to Alaska in general, and Unalaska in particular.
Significant migration, such as occurs in most parts.of . I
Alaska, usually makes natural population change an inappropriate
base for forecasting in Alaska. The fitting of mathematical
curves ignores significant population-generating or reducing
events that'may or may not have taken place in-the past, but
are expected to occur in the futur.e. Assigning Unalaska a
proportional share of the Aleutian Regional population, or a
proportion of the state population, is also not a viable
approach as local developments can not be properly accounted
for in this approach. As indicated by previous discussions
concerning composition of employment, Unalaska is not typical
of either the state or the -region, hence population changes
in either of the larger,areas do not necessarily result in
changes in Unalaska population. Information regarding
reasons for past-population fluctuations, as indicated in
lyS4S
Figure 10, is unavailable, hence no ana J_ can be made.
Results of a 1977 census were unavailable at the.initial
time of this writing. Subsequent analysis of this census
indicated no-reason'-to change any of the observations and
conclusions stated herein; Appendix I shows data- taken from
the 1977 census.

-52-

The method most widely used in Alaskan studies is.to
forecast the,type and amount of employment likely,to occur
in a-c-ommunity, then assign population based on this employment.
Employment as a basi@'for population projection has shown
itself to be a generally accurate forecasting tool. Analysis
of statewide population for the-last century shows that
there'have been two basic trends: from 188b until 1939,
when the annual population growth rate statew*ide was 1.35%,
and from 1939 to the present, when the rate was 4.4%. The
Alaska Pipeline construction period shows a significant
deviation from this latter trend; however,,.the rate-should
move closer to the 4.4% now that construction is completed.
The discussions below indicate the type of ebiployment anticipated
in Unalaska over the'next decade, and the-population changes
and re-composition resulting from this employment and other
factors. From these population forecasts come the basis for
projecting school enrollments, housing needs, and other
community requirements.

b. Em@loyment Projections. Certain assumptions
can be made utilizing information presented in the previous.
sections. The three most significant variables involved-
are: the growth of the seafood processing industry in
Unalaska, the proportion of secondary workers who take up
residency in Unalaska, and the proportion-of secondary jobs
to.basic job-s as the population and economy grows. Because
of the rapid changes and uncertain fuiure in Unalaska, due
to*the evolution of'fishing, fish processing and offshore
oil development, it is felt that projections beyond a ten
year time frame would merely be an exercise in mathematical
manipulation and not be useful in guiding decisionsi

THE ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS LISTED BELOW RESULT IN
THREE GROWTH "SCENARIOSIT, REPRESENTING A RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES
WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN UNA-LASK-A.
NONE OF-71i[EE SCENARI I-9-PARTICULAMY-TH-EF TN70ST LIKELY1r
O-N-E- THEY ARE INTENDED TO IINDICATE A POSSIBLE RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVES OF BOTH VARIABLES AND RESULTING POPULATION
COMPOSITIONS.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. The overwheZm-,.*ngZy predominant portion of the basic sector of the
UnaZaska economy will continue to'be the seafood processing industry.
Employment in associated industries, such as fishing and portions
of the transportation and trade industries, will be proportional to
the growth of the seafood processing industry.

2. The domestic seafood processing industry in the Bering-AZeutian
area will at. Least-doubZe -its 1976 domestic seafood production by
1@82, pr=-'ariZy due to increases in taivier and other crab catches.
.By 1987 the industry will be at least triple its 1976 domestic
production, almost whoZeZy due to increases in bottomfish processing.

3. Unalaska will maintain or increase [email protected] current proportionate share
of the Zand-based Bering - Aleutian seafood processing industry.

4. The leasing of offshore petroleum development tracts in the Aleutian,
f
Saint George or Bristol Bay areas will result in the development o,
a service base facility in Unalaska. No tanker terminal or LNG
terminal will be constructed anywhere in Unalaska Bay. Approximately
half of the service base personnel will become residents.

5. Each job filled by a new Unalaska resident will result in two
additionaL fcaniLy members (for a total of three) who are also
Unalaska residents; transient employees will have no f=iZy members
residing in Unalaska.

6. The following additional assumptions apply to the "Zow growth"
scenario.

a. Seafood processing employment will double by 1982 and
triple by 1987.

b. Seafood processing labor will continue to be transient.

C. As Unalaska grows, the base employment multiplier will
increase from 1.13 in 1976 to 1.2 in 1982 and 1.25 in
Z987.

d. Employment in the secondary sector of the economy wiZZ'
maintain its current proportion of transients to residents.

e. Ten percent of the new employees in the non-processing
basic sector of the economy will become residents.

7. The following additionaL assumptions apply to the "moderate growth"
scenario:

a. . Seafood processing, empZoyment-wiZZ double by 1982 and
triple by 1987.

b. Half of the new seafood processing labor will become
residents due to greater attractiveness of industry
working conditions and-increased urban amenities in
.Unalaska.

C. The economic base multiplier will be 1.3 in 1982 and 1.4
in 1987.

_54-

d. Employment in the secondary sector of the economy will
maintain its.'current proportion of transients toresidents.

e. Half (fifty percent) of the new employees in the non-
processing basic sector of the economy will become residents.

8. The following additional assumptionsappZy to the "high growth"
scenario:

a. The seafood processing industry in Unalaska Will be three
times its 1976 level by 1982., and five times the 1976
level by 1987 due to both Unalaska perforiming a greater
share of the processing in the Aleutian - Bering region
and a more rapid domestic involvement in the bc-11tomfish
catch and processing industry than assumed above.

b. The economic base rpuZtipZier will become 1.4 in 1982 and
1.6 in 1987.

C. Twc thirds of the new employees in seafood processing
labor and the non-processing basic sectors of employment
wiZZ become residents, reflecting a decline in seasonraZity,
and a greater degree of urban amenities available in -WhIe
community.

d. Ninety percent of the new employees in the secondary
sector of the economy will become residents.

C. Population Forecasts. It will be noted from
the previous section that projFc-t-ii-ons for residential population
will vary widely, depending heavily on both the number of
basic sector jobs and the proportion of those jobs filled by
residents of Unalaska. Table 6 below indicates the number
of jobs in the basic and secondary sectors by resident and
non-resident under the various scenarios., and the total
resident and non-resident populations.

Table 6 illustrates the application of the three scenarios
to 1977 current population and employment data. Assume a
1977 population of 504 residents and 821 non-residents
(seafood processing transient labor force) for a combined
total of 1,325, the three scenarios result in a "low",
11moderate" and "high" population of 2,986, 4,249, and 7,782
respectively for the year 1982. Similar ranges result when
the scenari,os are applied to the year 1987. Particular note
should be made of the drastic change that occurs from one
scenario to the next with respect to the resident - non-
resident composition of the population. Figure 10 illustrates
the projections graphically.

TABLE 6

City of Unalaska Projected Population and Employmient

1976 1982 1987
Mod- Mod-
Low erate High Low erate High

Residents:
Basic Sector
Employment 72 148 545 1,292 223 1,019 2,512
Secondary Sector -
Employment 96 295 442 827 551 882 1,969.

Subtotal: 168 443 987 22,119 774 11901 4,481

Non-Residents:
Basic Sector
Employment 803 1,602 1,205 1,333 2,402 1,606 1,863
Secondary Sector
Employment 18 55 83 92 105 168 219.

Subtotal: 821 1,657 1,288 1,425 2,507 1,774 2,02

Basic Employment: 875 1,750 1,750 2,625 2,625 2,625 4,375
Secondary
Employment: 114 350 525 919 656 1,050 2,188

Total Employment: 989 2,100 2,275 3,544 3,281 3,675 6,563

Residents: 504 1,329 2,961 6,357 2,322 5,703 13,443
Non-Residents: 821 1,657 1,288 1,425 2,507 1,774 -2,082

Total Population: 1,325 2,986 4,249 7,782 4,829 7,477 15,525

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, September, 1977.

FIGURE 10

PRELIMINARY DRAFT
City of Unalaska
16,ooo- Population
Low, Moderate 15,520z
- High Forecasts

14,000-
average annual
non-resident 13,44o

resident

12,000-

10,000-

z
C)

_j
CA- 8,000- 7780 Z' 748o,

6,ooo- 6360 5700

4830
4,ooo- 4250

2960
- 2980

2320
2,000- -

1300, 1330
1,000- 173@ 223= 50040 500 202
178a - 132WA
50 160 '70 176 '82 187 OCS - Service Base

YEAR
ACTUAL PF Iq -57- FORECAST 110-

Caution is noted not to take the projections as "absolute".
Neither,the "low'13. moJerate" or."high'.' projection is- considered..
the "most likely". Forecasting a "most likely" population
for Unalaska is an extremely difficult undertaking and risky
at best because of the major policy determinations which
have yet to be made. As discussed above, the issue of
shore-based vs. ocean seafood processing will determine the
magnitude of Unalaska's growth, with at least an initial
determination being subject to current negotiations. From
this perspective, it appears that either the ".low" scenario
or the "high" scenario will take place, and not the "moderate"
'i@_Eenario. However, if the "high" scenario &E-es take place,
it may come about slower than anticipated, thus the ten.year
(1987) actual condition may fall between the "moderate"
scenario and the "higheri" scenario numbers. The closer the
actual conditions-are to one of the scenarios, the closer the
population will be to that population figure resulting from appli-
cation of the assumptions in that particular scenario.

UNALASKA COASTAL ZONE

1. BACKGROUND. Concern with development in coastal
areas was one of the facets of the environmental movement of'
the 1960's and early 19701s. Burgeoning populdtion and
offshore resource development in the coastal areas. of the
nation, together with many instances of lack of desire-or
ability for adequate local control, resulted in the issue
being carried to state and national policy levels. Passage
of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA)
implemented the focus of special attention on coastal areas-,
by virtually every coastal state in the nation.

The federal' CZMA held out two incentives,to states to
pass a CZM Act of their own. First was the offer of federal.
funds for planning purposes (Sec. 305 grants), with the
promise of implementation funds upon federal approval of a
state act (Sec. 306 grants). Second was the promise of
federal agency compliance with a state's approved CMZ act
"to the maximum extent practicable", under Sec. 307 of the
CZMA. Further amendments to the Act in 1976 ad.ded the
incentives of grants and loans for energy-related impacts
(Sec. 308), grants for interstate cooperation (Sec. 309),
and the offer of funding for research and training programs
(Sec. 310).

It was the feeling of many state and local officials,
at the time of passage of the CZ.MA of 1972, that there was a

-58-

definite implication on the part of Congress that those
states which did not embark on their own coastal zone management
program would find the federal government implementing one
for them. While this imposition of federal authority was
not contained in the language of the Act, it was, nevertheless,
a motivator to state action, and is a solid concern for
local municipalities and the affected states.

The State of Alaska began to draft its CZM proposal.in
late 1974, with the actual introduction of a bill as one of
the first endeavors in the 1975 session of the State Legislature.
This piece of legislation embodied the concept of very
strong state administrative control over the coastal areas,
and generated a great deal of controversy and opposition,
much of it from local governments along the coasts. Subsequent
proposals and other pieces of legislation on the same subject
did nothing to quell what became a public furor. The State
Legislature created a CZM interim committee which held
numerous public hearings on the issue throughout the state's
coastal areas during the summer and fall of 1975. In 1976,
other CZM bills were introduced, but the only legislation to
pass was a resolution creating a joint Legislature-Administration
interim committee whose purpose was to present a proposal to
the Legislature in 1977. This joint committee carried out
its assigned task, and introduced Senate Bill 220 and companion
bill House Bill 342 in March of 1977. HB 342 passed the
Legislature in the form of CCS SCS CSHB 342 in May of 1977
and was signed into law by the Governor on june 4, 1977, as
Chapter 84 of the Session Laws of Alaska, 1977.

One of,the most significant differences between the
original state CZM legislation and that finally enacted into
law is the change from a state-implemented program to what
is, essentially, a local government-implemented program.
The law as enacted requires that nine of the sixteen members
of the Coastal Policy Council, who design.the CZM program
policies, must be elected officials of local government.
Secondly, the coastal mana4gement districts are mandated to
follow municipal boundaries, and the municipality is responsible
for developing and implementing the district plan. Local
governments, and their citizens, can thus be sure that their
views will be very strongly considered at both the overall
policy making stage and the local program implementation
stage.

Another potentially very important provision of Alaska's
Coastal Management Act is the compliance provision for state
agencies. As discussed above, Sec. 307 of the CZMA,requires
Federal agencies to conduct their activities directly affecting
the coastal zone in such a way as to be ". . . to the maximum
extent practicable, consistent with approved state management
programs." In Alaska's law, the compliance provisions are a

_59-

little more explicit. Sec. 46.35.100(a) mandates state
agencies to "administer land. and water use reguiations in
conformity.with district.:coastalmanag@ement.,programs'l.::...
Sec. 46.35.100(d)(Z), however, says that in any agency-
district dispute, the dispute shall be resolved in favor of
the agency.i.f the agency is.acting consistently with statutes
and regulations. Even though Sec. 46.35.200 requires stage
agencies to review their regulations and procedures for
compliance with the program-, there has been enough experience
with governmental agencies, at both the state and federal
levels, to warrant a degree of skepticism as to how much
this compliance w iill actually be put into effect. It does
give local governments more authority than they had previously,
however, so every attempt should be made to utilize this
potential control device.

2. CURRENT STATUS OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN ALASKA.
Chapter 84 tTie Alaska 1977 Session Laws, the Alaska
Coastal Management Act of 1977, has as its focus the establishment
of an Alaska Coastal Policy Council. This Council, composed
of nine elected officials of municipal government selected
by the Governor and seven State Department heads, has as its
charge the adoption of guidelines and standards for Alaska's
Coastal Management Program, which must be approved by the
Legislature to become effective. These guidelines and
standards are to be followed by Coastal Management Districts
in preparing their own individual programs.

The individual Districts are to prepare their programs
and submit them to the Council for approval; upon Council
approval they are pre@sented to the Legislature for approval.
The Districts are required by law to have an approved coastal
management program; non-complianc.- with this law will result
in enforcement of the law by state superior court. No
specific penalties for non-compliance Are specified in the
Alaska Coastal Management Act.

The Alaska Coastal Policy Council has been appointed
and is currently working towards initiation of the guidelines
and standards, which must be submitted to the Legislature
not later than the 10th day of the 1978 session. The Legislature
is expected to carefully review the proposals prior to
adoption. The net result of this preparation and review
process is that it will probably be April or May of 1978
before specific criteria for developing District Coastal
Management Programs is available.

3. HISTORY OF PLANNING IN THE UNALASKA COASTAL ZONE AREA.-
Land use planning in a modern sense has been accomplished
only on a sporadic basis in Unalaska. Certainly the earliest
planning was done by the original Aleut inhabitants who
located the early native village at Unalaska on the north
side of the island since it affords greater protection from'

-6o-

storms than do southerly exposures, a situation common
throughout the'Aleutian Islands. In its most basic form
this was implementation of a planning decision. Recent
planning in Unalaska is manifested in two Community Development
Plans, one prepared in 1967, the other in 1970, and a series
of study efforts related to implementation of improvements
to public facilities and utilities including sanitary sewers,
water supply and distribution, dock facilities, a small boat
harbor and a bridge linking Amaknak Island with the Unalaska
mainland. *Additionally, the City has an adopted zoning
ordinance with a zoning district map and supporting text
provisions, although the ordinance is somewhat out of date.

The planning relative,to public improvements has, for
the most part, been implemented. The City's water supply
and distribution system has just undergone a major upgrading
and renovation. Completed studies relative to a needed link
between Unalaska proper and Amaknak Island have led to
finalization of plans for a bridge across Iliuliuk Harbor
entrance. Engineering study on development of a sanitary
sewer collection and treatment system is in process, the
"plan of study" phase having been completed, with construction
of new collection and treatment facilities possible within
three years.

That planning which has had the greatest impact upon
the City of Unalaska, however, is that accomplished by the
U.S. Army and U.S. Navy in the early stages of World War II.
Then,called Dutch Harbor, Unalaska was the site of the Dutch
Harbor Naval Air Base and the U.S. Army's Ft. Mears. Plans
were developed, frequently on a "crash" basis, for con-
structing roads, sewer and water systems', and housing and
defense facilities throughout the area. These plans are
evidenced today by the hundreds of drawings and documents
depicting existing and proposed locations for every conceivable
type.of facility, utility and personal need. And while
there was frequently drastic alteration of the natural
environment, in this case to achieve a national defense
objective, the development of the military facilities was
accomplished with little lasting negative impact upon the
areals natural environment. Aesthetically, however, the
impacts have been devastating as the hundreds of buildings
abandoned by the military have been allowed to deteriorate
to the point where the facilities have become eyesores in,
the community.

The prospects for increased expansion of the seafood
processing industry in Unalaska brought about by adoption of
the 200 mile fishery zone has produced new pressure and a
need to address issues through planning. The same is true
of the prospects for OCS development. Although most development
that has occurred to date in the coastal zone of Unalaska

-61-

has been accomplished with generally adequate regard for the!
value and fragility of the coastal environment, the increased
intensity'of use-of the-coastal zone likely-in future years'
warrants that additional planning take place in the immediate
future.

4. COASTAL RESOURCES IN UNALASKA. The City of Unalaska
typifies t coastal community in a state that is heavily
oriented toward coastal development. The very existence of
Unalaska as a community is because it possesses one of the
best natural harbors to be found anywhere. As almost all of
the developed area of Unalaska is close to the shoreline,
the physical and socio-economic data and descriptions given
in previous sections are applicable to.the coastal area in
general and will not be repeated here.

.The survival of Unalaska as a viable community is
dependent on preservation of its fine natural harbor, and
the utilization of its shoreline for commerce and industry
which is, in turn, dependent. on having a land-ocean interface
in a suitable area. For the most part, this condition does
exist with the existing patterns of land use. Except for
the case of some residential development on the Amaknak
Island side of Iliuliuk Harbor, which does not necessarily
have*to be located on the shoreline, most of the area physically
suited for harbor development is either underdeveloped or
has harbor-oriented industrial or commercial facilities
developed thereon.

From the prospective of environmental-development
conflict, which is so prevalent in many parts of the state,
Unalaska is in a fairly advantageous position. The absence
of significant amounts of flora and fauna, prime nesting
areas' spawing grounds or endangered species, means that
development may take place without facing this type conflict.
Similarly, most of the environmentally sensitive areas which
are of concern, such as the spit in Dutch Harbor, also tend
to warrant protection from the socio-economic standpoint.
The minimization of the environmental-development clash
indicates that, hopefully, these issues will have a relatively
low level of conflict.

The sensitive areas and conditions are shown in Figure 11.
Perhaps the one major area where sizeable alteration'to the
natural land forms may have incentive to take place is the
Ballyhoo Mountain side of Dutch Harbor. While this is a
well protected harbor with very deep water, it does have a
disadvantage from the commercial standpoint in that this
portion of the harbor has extremely little level land for
wharf and dock facilities to utilize. Pre-war maps indicat-e
that the level land that does exist here presently is man-
made as a part of the war effort. As the demand for dock

-62-

FIGURE 11
C Z M /ENVIRONMENTALLY 1177 1117 9 1181
a OF
SENSITIVE AREAS ARGE d,ONC TRATION
fATERTIO M LINE_jJFLE_@ ... . ......
U KTA J@IhD

OLE POCK

LIE GEOLOGIC ARE t
UNIG

BALLYHO
Nol

T N LIT 014AL DRIFT
DIRE 10 1\ 0@ T
0 SE,
12 s _ONO PRIEST RK

G 1.

GRAVEL & SA

ITHEAD
AREA LINOElR0OING-&i3uBjE6T
TO SEVERE WAVE ER Slopd R m XCOMEI LAKE
RICTEO *AVE, r '180S Oxcome
FLLIE@HING AC;TION
OC @!T
_SAND B"CoH
T @p

DtVILrISH PT

SAN COR-40ME I _AT
OLF
EAD

c $NEST MT
lytt- N I

LAKE
EWA)
NO ARE HAM NAK RKS
RO SSI LE AROArs t@c
I1@r

OSERNO PT
'r 3,

PYRA @@'P IZ_
21fiS

10 S@
V I

HARTSELL I
s
@F MT)'
GWILT I
@,j 0YOUNC. I

.El

facilities increases in the future, it may become economically
desirous to cut into -the.mounta-in and fill in the tidal area
so as to create more level land. Certainly this undertaking
should be thoroughly reviewed before allowed to take.place'.

5. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES. There are several
issues peftaining to resourc.es evelopment in the'coastal
area of Unalaska, and others that may be imminent as items
of controversy. Implementation of a Coastal Management.
program will bring all these issues,into sharper-focus, and
require that policy positions be taken on them.

The first of these issues is one that has been ongoing
as a result of federal and state water pollution control
legislation. Seafood processing produces waste products,
which are considered pollutants if not handled correctly.
The processors in Unalaska have been regular and timely in
complying with appropriate state and federal requirements in
this regard. However, this situation arises in the case of
Unalaska as a Coastal Management issue because of the particular
concerns of the Coastal Management Program. Existing laws
and procedures seem adequate, at this time, to deal with
this issue.

Sport and subsistance-fishing on the Iliuliuk River is
another issue of potential loca 1 concern. Again, there are
existing procedures for handling conflicts in this regard,
but a Coastal Management Program serves to focus additional
attention on the issue, thus tending to raise the level of
concern.

The dumping of garbage and refuse in beach areas and
tidelands around Unalaska is an'issue that will receive
considerably more attention under a Coastal Management
.Program than it has in the past. Wit *h the national level of
concern focused on beach areas, their protection is a
central issue of the CZMA. This concern, coupled with the
increasing amount of refuse -with which to be concerned and
the scarcity of suitable land in Unala-ska for refuse landfill
disposal will probably generate a degree of controversy
which will have to be dealt -with in Unalaska.

Another item specifically delineated in both the Federal
and State legislation is the concern with historic and
cultural sites. Where the potential sites in Unalaska are
for the most part located on private property or what will'
be private property once patents to Native Corporation
selections are finally conveyed, there is great potential
conflict between the property owner, whose primary interest
may lie in some sort of development of that property, and
government, who may see preservation of that property as a
public benefit. A Coastal Management Program accentuates

-64-

this possibility because of the concern over items which are
"more than local" in nature. Thus, for example, a Worild-War II
military installation or site on Amaknak Island may be
"taken for granted" by local people, but be of sufficient
state and national interest that consideration must be given
to its preservation. The development of Aleut culture
archaeological sites and Second World War military-sites and
fortifications could well become controversial.in Unalaska.

Another issue, more potential than actual at this point
in time, is the question of impacts of offshore oil development
on the fishing and seafocrd processing industries already
established in Unalaska. A frequent occurrence with OCS
development is that harbor needs for supply and other uses
compete with the existing seafood industry for land and
waterfront areas, which could, in a number of ways, cause a
permanent displacement of the processing industry. Because
a Coastal Management Program contains the tools to at least
mitigate the OCS impacts, the impact conflict frequently
becomes a major issue. In Unalaska's case, however, as
indicated by the discussions in previous sections, it appears
that the only potential for OCS development would be the
development of a service base and as a refueling point.
Neither of these uses should present serious conflict with
the expansion and successful operations of the seafood
processing industry.

In summary, these issues are ones which exist now, to a
greater or lesser extent, but which will be brought under
greater public scrutiny as a result of the Coastal Management
process. It is not anticipated that any new regulatory
tools will have to be developed to exercise whatever of
degree of control is desired.

-65-

-3m

VCL
APV

UNALASKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

11. UNALASKA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

A Development Plan is a guide for the future growth and
development of the Community. It is an expression of the
community's economic and social potential; it depicts the
future patterns of land use and the various community facilities,
utilities and services necessary to meet the needs of future
development. A Development Plan is also an expression of
the desires of the community's residents - it should reflect
the way in which they want their community to grow, change
and develop in the future.

To this end the Development Plan is comprised of several
components and elements. The plan is prepared through a
process of investigation and analysis, determination of
future potentials and translation of these into plans of
action. A comprehensive Community Development Plan contains
two components: one, the Plan itself; and secondly, the
tools for implementation of the Plan. The elements of a
Development Plan are:

A. Statement of Community Goals and Objectives

B. The Land Use Plan Element

C. The Coastal Zone Management Element

-67-

D. The Housing Element

E. The Community Facilities Plan Element

F. The Transportation-Circulation Plan Element

Other plan elements could be included in a Development
plan such as an Open Space-RecTeation Element, a Public
Services Element, etc. These, however,-would actually
represent further detailing of some portion of one of the
elements noted above. The Community Development Plan for
Unalaska contains all six of the elements listed above.
Each is presented in subsequent sections of this document.

Implementation of the Development Plan, once it has
been prepared and adopted by the community, is Just as
important as the actual rreparation of the Plan. The necessary
tools for carrying out the @-Lan are contained in the implementation
portion of a Plan. These tools i-aclude:

1. A Capital Improvements Program and Budget

2. The Lan-us Use and Development Controls, including*
a Zoning Ordinance, Land Subdivision Regulations ,
Minimum Design Standards for Public Improvements,
and Building, Fire and Housing Codes.

3. The group of policies adopted pursuant to the
Plan which direct the City's administration to
take speciffic actions.

Failure of most comprehensive Community Development
Plans can be attributed to the absence of or ineffectual use.
of the implementation plan. Assuming the plan itself is
accepted by the community, if the implementation program is
not realistic or is not tailored to the particular characteristics
oil the community, the plan will never be implemented. The
Development Plan for Unalaska presented in this document
does not contain a cbmplete implementation program since the
14
scope of this project and .Lmitations on funding do not
permit such.

A. COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

One of the most important aspects of a Community Development
Plan is the statement of those basic policy objectives
around which the Development Plan is formulated. Land use
objectives, for example, are guides to the way in which

-68-

development of the community will proceed in fulfillment of
the basic needs and wants of residents., firms, and institutions.
ncerning opportunities, living qualities, costs, and
minimum levels of health and safety. More specifically, a
co

Statement of Goals and Objectives broadly identifies the
kind of living environment that will be achieved from the
proposals of the plan when development subsequently occurs.

The policy objectives, in combination with the existing
and potential physical and socio-economic attributes of the
community, form the basis for the Community Development
Plan. Unless these policy objectives are reasonable, and
unless the assessment of the community's attributes,is
accurate, a realistic and attainable Plan cannot be determined.
The consideration of basic policy objectives is normally
contained under the heading of "Goals and Objectives", a
jargon which has developed among public policy makers and
planners. In this context,."goals" are the broad overall
community desires, and "objectives" are sub-categories, or
further refinements of those goals. In the specific case of
Unalaska, a more precise format than that normally employed
has been used to state the objectives in that specific
projects, programs and policies which will lead to attainment
of the related goal have been identified and stated. In
this way the statement is thought to be more meaningful.

The Statement of Community Goals and Objectives presented.
below served as the framework around which the Community
Development Plan for Unalaska was prepared. The Statement,,
in draft form, was prepared initially by the project consultant.
It was developed after careful review and in consideration
of the material presented in the "Background for Planning"
section of this report; after numerous visits by the consultant's
several staff members to the community over the past five
year period while working on a wide variety of projects in
the City; and after extensive discussions with community
leaders, industry representatives, merchants, teachers., City
Council members, City administrative personnel and a number
of residents of the City. The Statement'was thought to be
reflective of the cumulative wants and desires of the Unalaska
'populace.

The City Council and the City Manager were asked to
review the draft Statement and respond with criticisms,
suggested changes, deletions or additions. Such input was
received from a majority of the Council members as well as
from the City Manager and several of his key staff personnel.
Based upon this critique the project consultant made changes
in the Statement and then utilized the Statement in preparing
the several Plan elements presented here. During the review
of the initial draft of the plan report the City council

-69-

made further changes and refinements in the Statement.
These were not major in scope; however, to the extent that
those changes affected some portion of the recommended Plan,
several changes were consequently made in the Plan. The
Statement of Community Goals and Objectives follows.

Statement of Goals and Objectives

City of Unalaska, Alaska
Community Development Plan

I. GOAL: DEVELOP A STRONGER, MORE STABLE LOCAL ECONOMIC BASE

1. Support development of additional shore-based processing
facilities, utilization of new harvesting technology,
expanded commercial fishery scheduling and development of
expanded markets for fish products so as to bring about
year-round fishing and processing activity in the Unalaska
community, thus minimizing seasonality of employment.

2. Develop local dock, transport, warehousing and marine
facilities to provided needed facilities for receiving
general cargo and shipping
processed seafood products,
and to estabZish Unalaska as a regional transshipment
center for the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea regions,
thus encouraging expanded job opportunities and a more
diversified economy.

3. Develop a small boat harbor facility under ZocaZ-atate
joint sponsorship and upgrade local marine service-repair
facilities in Unalaska to meet needs of the Aleutian
region commerciat fishery fleet. The marine repair
facility should be developed by private enterprise if
economically feasible.

4. Under strict local control and pursuant to a pre-determined
management plan, encourage outer continental shelf oil
and gas development thus realizing additional job opportunities
for local residents and diversifying the local economy.

-70-

GOAL: ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY GROWTH WHILE MAINTAINING TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE THE PRESENT CONSUINITY LIFESTYLE FOR
THE CITY OF UNALASKA.

1 . Require OCS-reZated industry to accommodate short term
transient population housing needs in temporary., industry
developed housing facilities so as to Limit permanent
residential growth resulting from Outer Continental Shelf
development.

2. Develop and implement a program oifstrong Local control
over permit processes for siting of facilities associated
with OCS development.

3. Support the Local cannery management's efforts to develop
shore-side housing for seasonally transient-. workers.

4. Adopt and implement zoning regulations which control the
number, density and Location of muZti-f=iZy residential
housing units.

5. Schedule, under civic sponsorship, periodic community
cZean-up campaigns, cultural anJ"historicat events,
beautification projects and outdoor recreational activities
@o as to encourage greater residential citizen participation
in community civic events and programs.

6. Review Local ordinances and regulations and scrutinize
implementation programs and city administrative practices
with the aim of minimizing government involvement in
c
'tizens' personal Lives.
i

7. Minimize state and federal government interference by
carefuZ Local enforcement of state and federal laws.

III. GOAL: UPGRADE LOCAL COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES

OBJECTIVES:

1. Continue currently ongoing community programs aimed at
upgrading municipaZ water supply and distribution facilities
and developing community-wide sanitary sewer collection
and treatment facilities.

2. Commit public resources to development of a plan for
providing additional electrical generation capacity and
upgrading distribution facilities to meet both domestic
and industrial needs.

-71-

3. Correct existing deficiencies in refuse collection and
disposal with immediate priority upon eliminating the
several open carbaee dumps and development of a proper
..City operated sanitary landfill.

4. Review current City programs and procedures with respect
to providing public services, especiaZZy in the areas of
road maintenance, refuse col.Zection and related maintenance
functions., with the aim of improving local government's
responsiveness to peopZe's needs and requests for such-
service.

5. Continue monitoring state and federal grant-in-aid and
loan programs for possible sources of funds.with which to
upgrade and develop public facilities and utilities.

6. Investigate the feasibility of a new combined community
center-government services building.

7. Develop and adopt public policy which places the financial
burden for meeting accelerated demands on local public
utilities, brought about by interimlshort term OCS development,
primarily upon the impact creating entity.

8. Develop a five (5) year Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) covering all areas of public utilities, facilities
and services which recognizes the potential for accelerated
demands on such improvements resulting from OCS development
and an expanded level of commercial fishery development.

9. Review and-update -the City Code of Ordinances and publish
copies for distribution to interested city residents.

10. Utilize lands., where appropriate, received through ANCEA
section 14(c) reconveyance process to meet needs for
upgraded and new community facilities and utilities.

11. Schedule periodic utiZity., facility and service systems
review by qualified expertise as a means of preventing
breakdowns and failures of essential utilities and
facilities.

IV. GOAL: PRESERVE THE EXISTING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE
UNALASKA AREA

OBJECTIVES:

1. Identify and abate aZZ existing sources of poZZution and
closely scrutinize all future deveZopment for potential

sources of Land, air, water and visual pollution and for
compliance with applicable state and federal anti-pollution
Laws and criteria.

2. Develop and implement a Land use plan and a coastaL zone
management plan which recognizes the Limited developable
Land in the community and the fragility of the coastal
zone environment and the importance of its resources.

3. Examine existing cultural and historic sites in the
community for possibLe preservation and, where appropriate,
enhancement o those culturally and historically signicant
attributes.

4. Petition the State Local Boundary Commission for expansion
of the present city limits to encompass watershed areas,
all coastal Lands surrounding Captains Bay, the Smmer
Bay and surrounding areas, and Nateekin Bay and surrounding
Lands, and all waters within the new City boundary.

5. ControL development of Low-land areas Lying within the
suspected flooding of Unalaska Creek.

6. Expedite planning for deveLopment of sanitary sewer
collection and treatment facilities including attention
to proper handling of fish processing wastes from local
canneries.

V. GOAL: INCREASE SUPPLY OF HOUSING AND UPGRADE EXISTING HOUSING
CONDITIONS

OBJECTIVES:

1. Consider impLementation of allowable residentiaL property
taX exemptions, including exemptions for re-development,
as an incentive to the individuaL current and prospective
home owner in Unalaska.

2. Appropriately zone land suitable for residential development
and provide utilities, facilities and required infrastructure
as incentive to development of additional housing.

3. Adopt appropriate codes to assure minimum safe
and decent housing and upgrading of existing substandard
housing and to achieve construction quality and building
placement compatible with wind related and snow Loading
factors.

-73-

4. Encourage Large-scale housing development and upgrading
programs to take advantage of "buZk-ratell purchasing of
materials for-housing cc;,xtruction.

5. Investigate City-OunaZashka Corporation joint cooperation
an establishment of an UncZaska based housing authority.

6. Utilize the CITP to upgrade roads, streets, open space,
recreational facilities and related community facilities
as a means of enhancing Living conditions in the community.

VI. GOAL: LOWER THE COST OF LIVING IN UNALASKA

OBJECTIVES:

1. Develop improved-dock, warehousing and trans-shipment
facilities in UnaZaska under City sponsorship as
one means of Lowering transportation costs.

2. Work for improvement of airport facilities, including
weather forecasting service and possible extension of the
Dutch Harbor Airport runway, as a means of upgrading air
.transport services.

3. Investigate the possible formation of an "AZeutian Regio-n"
shipping co-op as a means. of Lowering shipping costs.

4. Investigate the possible formation of an "Unalaska Commwnity"
purchasing co-op to facilitate Lower cost "buZk" purchasing.

5. Adopt public policy permitting transfer of public Land on
Long term Lease basis*for nominal fee to private entities,
or other public participation in projects., where a clear
showing is made that such action would benefit in reduce-ton
of cost of Living throughout the community.

6. Seek a comprehensive study and preparation of an Aleutian
regional transportation plan which should have as its
Prime objective reduced transportation costs and..V' Troved
frequency and reliability of service, both waterborne and
air to UnaZaska.

-74-

VII. GOAL: ENCOURAGE UPGRADING OF PERSONAL SERVICES IN THE

COMMUNITY

OBJECTIVES:

1. Seek location of a banking facility in Unalaska.

2. Seek continued and additional state and federal financial
and progrcon assistance for social services impact caused
by the high level of transient population in the community.

3. Seek resident professional medical and dental services in
the community and investigate the development of a hospital
for both local and regional use in UnaZaska.

4. Adopt public policy making Land and facilities available
n
at minimal or 'o cost to other covernmental service
agencies, where such action can. be demonstrated to result
in benefit to Unalaska resid ents.

It is recommended that the City Council adopt this
Statement of Goals and Objectives as a part of the official
policy of the City of Unalaska. As such, it would serve as
the framework for all of-the City's future planning and
would provide direction to the City's improvement programs
and future bonding and capital expenditure programs. It is
recommended that once the Statement is adopted an annual.
review be undertaken and that amendments-be adopted where
review indicates appropriate. Without such review And
periodic modification, the Statement will become outdated;
it would no longer reflect the current thinking of'the*
City's residents or be germane to current opportunities or
problems facing the community. It would be advisable for
the City Council to adopt the practice of referring to the
Statement of Goals and Objectives whenever decisions -of
consequence are to be made relative"to facilities, utilities,
major programs or incurring bonded debt.'

-75-

B. LAND UsE PLAN ELEMENT

After the Statement of Goals and Objectives, the Land
Use Plan is the most important element in the Community
Development Plan. It is the expression of the future physical
development pattern of the community. It illustrates the
several land use types required to make the community complete
and it portrays the relationship of the land uses one to the
other. It illustrates where in the community new development
will be encouraged to occur,, and conversely, where it will
be discouraged. The intent of the Land Use Plan is to
achieve spacial harmony among the land uses. To this end it
is intended to assure compatibility of adjacent uses by, for
example, locating heavy industrial uses in locations removed
from residential uses with adequate buffer and open space
between. It establishes the density of development that
will occur. It depicts the location of the community's
central or core area where commerce and business is to be
located. It also serves as the basis for the other physical
plan elements such as the Transportation/Circulation Plan
element and the Community Facilities Plan. It is the determinant
of where public utilities will be needed in the future. The
Land Use Plan should be the controlling element! All other
physical elements should be based upon the Land Use Plan.
The Circulation Plan should not, as is all too often the
case, dictate land use - the reverse should be the case.

In developing the Land Use Plan, many factors should be
taken into consideration. Among them are the topography of
the land, the existence of natural features (such as rivers,
mountains, etc.) which dominate the landscape, special soil
conditions which might restrict use of the land for housing
or other development and particularly the sensitivity of
coastal areas and the need to give added protection to the
value such areas serve in the community. Existing land use
patterns and uses should also be carefully considered.
Every effort should be made to identify those existing land
uses which are in harmony with the overall desired future
pattern and which are properly situated. Those which
are incompatible with the desired pattern should be scheduled
for elimination or displacement to other more suitable
locations. For this reason, a thorough inventory of existing
land use is a prerequisite to preparation of the Land Use
Plan element.

1. EXISTING LAND USE. A survey of existing land use
was conduc@E-ed in Unalaska during june of 1977. A visual
inspection was made of the community by the project consultant.
This survey was supplemented by aerial photography available
for only a portion of the total community, data from the
City's real property tax roll, old military maps of the
area, state land status maps, Bureau of Land Management land

-76-

status maps, and other maps as they were available. During
the survey, specific data was collected identifying land use
on individual platted lots and larger unplatted areas throughout
the City. Land use was categorized into groups. A listing
of these categories and a brief description of each follows:

Residential All land used primarily as a place of residence.

Single Family Individual, detached housing units, normally,
but not always, one dwelling unit per lot.

Duplex Two single-family dwellings attached by one
or more common walls, floors or roof.

Multi-Family Three or more dwelling units attached by common
walls. (Note - all apartments in buildings,
whether attached to other apartments or not,
are classified under Multi-Family).

Commercial All land used primarily for the retail or
wholesale of goods or services. Manufacture of
those goods on the same location is secondary
to the sales for purposes of this analysi-s.
This category includes bars, grocery stores,
restaurants, hotels/motels, and others similar.

Industrial/
Fisheries Lands used for the processing and canning or
freezing of fish and shellfish. This category
includes both floating and shore based processors,
and their warehouses and other support areas as
used by the processors. Housing associated
with the processors, however, has been classified
as such when it is possible to distinguish it
from non-housing uses. In some specific instances
this was difficult to accomplish since much
housing of the industry type is located on
board floating processing vessels and the
percentage or amount of area devoted to housing
as compared to that devoted to processing
functions is difficult to determine.

Industrial/
Other - Lands used for production or storage other than
fisheries-related. Includes open and covered
storage of equipment and materials and sites
used for equipment repair or construction
purposes.

-77-

Public Public-owned lands either presently developed
or intended for a public use in the future.
Includes school sites, fire stations, well
sites, city shop facilities and so forth.

Quasi-Public - Privately owned and used lands of a public
nature, including church properties and
facilities, and communication sites and facilities.

Open Space/
Park Uses - Public land used by the community for outdoor
recreation purposes and land for which no use
currently exists or is likely to exist in the
future.

Abandoned Military/
Residential - Areas formerly used by Army and Navy forces
for residential purposes. Buildings may or may
not be in a usable condition.

Abandoned Military/
Industrial/
Other - Buildings and land used for military suppoTt
and supply. Buildings may or may not be salvage-
able.

Land use data gathered during the inventory was transferred
to a land use map (Figure 12, Existing Land Use), for ease
of reference and use. A compilation of this dTta is found
in Table 7. A general review of land use and land use
patterns in the community follows. More specific analyses
were made for each area as the land use plan was developed.

Several points seem to be evident when analyzing develOpment
patterns within the City. 'Nearly all developed land within
the community is located within several easily identifiable
geographic areas. Almost all flat or nearly-level land is
desirable for development by virtue of its soil composition,
accessability, and capability of being served with utilities.
Exception to this is found in the case of the suspected
Unalaska Creek floodplain area. Almost any land adjacent to
the coastline is highly desirable for development. Stated
another way, flat areas next to the water are, and have
been,- the most desirable areas for community development in
Unalaska.

Most development in the community has occurred along
the spit between the Iliuliuk River and Iliuliuk Bay, up
Unalaska Creek Valley, and on the flat-lands adjacent to the
protected waters of the Iliuliuk Harbor area on Amaknak

-78-

FIGURE 12
CITYD NALASKA,4 ALA4*SKA
EXISTI @L USE
Ju 7

ITH3AD

UMALA@A LAMO t

'MALLYHOO DOCK

4--

STANDAR 0 OIL

ILILUA=

463\
Z)"
LI ---- - --- -

lp.

Island. Most residential development has occurred in the
town spit area. Commercial development is scattered throughout
the area. Industrial developments of a large scale, including
both fish processing and transportation facilities, are
located on waterfront sites. Most fish processors are
located within the Iliuliuk Harbor area, but others are
located on Captains Bay and along Ballyhoo Road.

One major determining factor seems to affect community
development in Unalaska to a considerable degree. That
factor is land ownership.

TABLE 7

EXISTING LAND USE - CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA
JUNE, 1977

LAND USE CATEGORY NUMBER OF UNITS
(Sites, buildings, etc)

Residential
Single-Family Dwellings 110
Mobile Homes 45
Two-Family Dwelling Units 26 (13 duplex
Multi-Family Dwelling Units 32 structures)
Dormitory Bunks 256
On-Ship Bunks 872

Commercial Establishments 12

Industrial-Fisheries Sites - Waterfront 10

Industrial-Fisheries Sites - Other approx. 10*

Industrial-Other Sites 9

Public Facilities 20

Quasi-Public Facilities 5

*Number may vary because of on-going construction
during study.

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, Land Use Survey, June, 1977.

Prior federal government ownership of a majority of the land
(including much of the flat waterfront land) in the City has
prevented the use of many sites for community development
and expansion. Development, therefore, has been limited to
those areas previously platted by the Bureau of Land Management
and where leases could be secured on government-owned land.
This contrived pattern of land use has for the most part
produced a mixture of uses which are incompatible in. most
cases. In some instances, this forced pattern has led to
development and use of areas where service with utilities is
costly coupled with a by-passing or' some areas more suitable
for use and development.

The most concentrated development has occurred in the
area of the town spit, the oldest part of the community.
The lots in this area are developed with a mixture of single-
family dwelling units and commercial and industrial uses.
Approximately 20 percent of the platted lots in the spit
area remain undeveloped. Relatively large blocks of City-
owned land are found at the eastern end of the spit, some of
which are developed with the community's school complex, the
recreation center, the City Hall, the Court Room and jail
facilities, and other public facilities. Some city-owned
land in this area is undeveloped.

Southeast of the town spit, up the Unalaska Creek
Valley and adjacent to and south of Unalaska Lake, only
scattered development has taken place. Residential settlement
has begun and the City has its major public works shop
located in the area as well as two-water supply wells-and
pump house facilities. With these few exceptions, ne-arly
all the land in the Unalaska Creek Valley is undeveloped
although remains of military buildings exist in virtually
every side valley,'flat area and on most of the hillsides.
The remaining areas within the City boundary on Unalaska
Island-are undeveloped, with the exception of a few scattered
residences, and industrial development in the Agnes Beach
and Captains Bay areas.

On Amaknak Island, most*development has taken place in
the area south of the airport and north of the peninsula
known as "South America". The waterfront along the Iliuliuk
Harbor area is the major activity-center for the Island.
The majority of the processor ships are located within this
area, and most all the processor employees reside in this
area, on board the ships in dormitory facilities and bunkhouses
adjacent to the ships, or in re sidences scattered throughout
the area. Housing is generall located as near the respective
C@l y
processing plant as possible without interferring with the
activities therein. The land use pattern is thus one of
multiple incompatibilities, confusion and serious inefficiency
in use and traffic movement.. Residential land use is also

-82-

located at the site of the former military officers' housing.
Once abandoned, the housing in this area is being rehabilitated
by the Ounalashka Corporation. The Standard Oil Company
operates a large tank farm south of the airport, supplying
fuels for the community, the fishing industry and aircraft
operations.

The area around Dutch Harbor Airport is sparsely developed
with airport-related uses. The present airport terminal is
the former naval station airport control facility. The
large aircraft hanger located across the parking apron from
the terminal is used for storage and some aircraft parking.
Most of the land use in the vicinity'of the airport, however,
consists of abandoned military buildings originally constructed
and used for a wide variety of purposes.

The central Amaknak Island area is the site of a majority
of the abandoned Dutch Harbor Naval Base facilities, including
a major hospital complex which is badly deteriorated. Many
of the numerous buildings in this area are dilapidated and
beyond repair, and their only value appears to be as salvage.
Structurally sound buildings in the area have been identified
by the new owners, the Ounalashka Corporation, and some have
already been re-roofed in an attempt to restore to use as
many as possible.

North of the airport, land use is limited to the narrow
manmade strip of land between the almost vertical slopes of
Mt. Ballyhoo and the waters of Iliuliuk Bay and Dutch Harbor.
Two floating fish processor ve'ssels are the major land users
in the area. Plans have been'developed by the City for
reconstruction of a major dock facility to.replace the
dilapidated Ballyhoo dock structure. -When rebuilt it will
be used as a general cargo dock.

Further analysis of land use data for the City of
Unalaska reveals several important statistical aspects about
the Community (see Table 8). There are approximately 16,300
acres of area within the boundaries of the City. An estimated
6,000 acres are water, leaving 10,300 acres of land within
the city. Of this approximately 8,100 acres are on the
Unalaska Island portion and 2,200 acres are on the Amaknak
Island portion. Of the total 10,300 acres of land area,
only an estimated 1,896 acres are considered suitable for
development. The balance, 8,404 acres, consists of lands
with slopes in excess of 25 percent, are inaccessable or are
located in the-suspected floodplain of Unalaska Creek.

Of the 1,896 acres of land considered suitable for
development, some 400 acres have already been developed and
are currently being actively used. Abandoned military lands

-83-

TABLE 8

LAND USE A14D DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL

CITY 01: UNALASKA

Acreage Encompassed by City Boundary 16,300 ac.

Total Water Area Within City Boundary (37%) 6,000 ac.

Total Land Area Within City Boundary (63%) 10,300 ac.

Land Area - Unalaska Island Portion. 8,100 ac.

Land Area - Amaknak Island Portion 2,200 ac.

Undevelopable Land:

Slopes greater than 25% or otherwise
inaccessable: 7,244 acres
Unalaska Creek Water Supply Preserve
(within City) : 1,160 acres

Total Undevelopable Lands 8,404 acres

Total Land Area 10,300 acres
Undevelopable Land Area 8,404 acres

Developable Lands 1,896 acres
Land Currently Developed 400 acres

Remaining Developable Lands - 1,496 acres

Private Ownership 400 ac.
City-owned 50 ac.
State-owned 20 ac.
Federal-owned 1,026 ac. (approximately 880 acres
of this acreage has been
selected by the native
village corporation.)

Percent of Usable Land:

Vacant 78%
Developed 22%

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, Land Use SQrvey, June 1977.

-84-

are not considered to be actively in use even though they
may have buildings or facilities located on the land. They
are thus excluded from this figure and are instead categorized
as undeveloped. Thus, there are an estimated 1,496 acres of
land suitable and available (by virtue of being presently
undeveloped) for development in the City of Unalaska. Those
lands considered unusable by virtue of their having slopes
of 25 percent or greater or otherwise inaccessable are shown
on Figure 3.

It is apparent from this analysis that, in a community
sparsely developed at present and having the appearance of
enjoying an abundance of wide open spaces, there actually is
a minimal amount of undeveloped land which is at the same
time*suitable for development. This accentuates the seriousness
of instances of inefficient land use referenced earlier and
would seem to indicate that very careful land use planning
must be accomplished and implemented if the maximum benefit
and utilization is to be derived from available land area.

2. LAND TENURE. Figure 13 illustrates the land
ownership patte@rnin the City. It takes into account Ounalashka
Corporation land selections which have been patented, those
which have received interim conveyance and those which have
received no action by BLM. According to the Bureau of Land
Management the Ounalashka Corporation is entitled to receive
115P200 acres of land under the terms of the ANCSA. Some
9,400 acres of this total have been selected within the City
limits. The Ounalashak Corporation has thus far received
title to 137 acres of its selection, and interim conveyance
on an additional 4,500 acres within the City limits including
all of the selected lands on Amaknak Island.

Slightly over 1,000 ac -res of land have beep- surveyed
within the City limits. Most of the surveyed land is now in
private ownership or will be when the ANCSA conveyances to
the Corporation are completed. One large surveyed parcel of
land (U.S. Survey No. 4988), about 100 acres in size, remains
in Federal ownership, and has been excluded from the Ounalashka
Corporation selection. This land encompasses the areas
known locally as "Haystack Hill" and Tract "B" of the Townsite
Addition. These parcels will be the only sizeable acreage
of federally owned land remaining in the City limits after
native claims selections have been finalized.

The charge is frequently heard from Unalaska residents
that an artificial land shortage is being created and perpetuated
by government ownership and retention of large amounts of
land in the City. The map showing Land Tenure, (Figure 13)
and the data in Table 8 tends to substantiate this charge.

8 15

1 mile

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

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

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

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

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

..........

FIGURE 13
LAND TENURE
JUIYE, 11377

FEDERAL OWNERSHIP
S MAP . ........ IFEDERAL LANDS SELECTED BY
01611,616"1"'1",""', 'MNATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATION
0 STATE OF ALASKA OWNERSHIP
EA

CITY OF UNALASKA OWNERSHIP

PRIVATELY-OWNED LANDS (INCLUDES NATIVE
CORPORATION INTERIM CONVEYANCE LANDS)

186-

Of the 1,496 acres of vacant and developable lands, over
1,000 acres (69%) are presently owned by governmental agencies
other than the city, primarily the Federal government. The
City owns approximately 3.5%. of the remaining recorded
undevelopable lands. It must be noted, however, that there
is privately owned land suitable for development and located
near the center of the City on both the mainland side and
Amaknak Island, which could be developed. It is assumed
that this land is not available for development because it
is either not for sale or is beyond the range of economical
purchase for the uses to which it is suited.

In summary, most of the federally-owned land within the
City has been selected by the Ounalashka Corporation. It is
assumed that all of that land selected will be transferred,
leaving only the 100 or so acres of Haystack Hill or Tract
"B" in federal ownership within the City boundary. These
lands will then, according to reports by the City Manager be
turned over to local residents for home-site use. Every
effort shall be made to acquire release and disposition of-
that government owned land for which there is no,foreseeable
public use or need. The City should seek the cooperation
and assistance of the BLM in this regard since most of the
subject land is owned by the Federal government.

3. LAND USE PLAN. The Land Use Plan for the City of
Unalaska, Figure 1T-,-TTa-s been prepared around a ten (10)
year time frame, 1977 to 1987. This time period wa-s chosen
for several reasons. First, the population forecast period
is established at ten years (1977-87) for reasons already
discussed. Secondly, it is generally unwise to pre-@are the
Community Development Plan for any time period beyond that
which it is possible io reasonably foresee wha- is likely
with respect to the economic situation in the community.
Thirdly,_given the dynamics of the economy in Unalaska, the
Aleutian region and the state as a whole, it would be unrealistic
to attempt setting land use patterns and related development
of facility and utility plans for a time period beyond 1987.

The Land Use Plan has'been developed in reliance upon
the economic-and population forecasts. The amount of any
given speci-fic land use, the density of development, and the
related facility plan have been developed to reflect the
needs that appear from the economic and population forecasts.
It also takes into account the amount of developable lands
within the City compared to the total land area and the
presence of several physical characteristics such as irregular
topography, sensitive coastal areas, the high percentage of
land necessarily devoted to seafood processing industry uses
and the general situation existing where almost all of the
land in the usable category requires public sewer and water,

-87-

due to poor soil conditions, before development.can safely
occur. A description of the Land Use Plan follpws.

a. Residential. Residential use is allocated in
four categories accordiH-g-to density of'dwelling units and
character of residential development. A total of 1,276
acres of land area is allocated to residential uses, 1,141
acres on the Unalaska Island portion of the City and 135
acres on Amaknak Island. The four residential classifications,
with their density and utility requirements are described
below.

Rural Residential Low Density: This residential classi-
Ti@cation is inFe_nd_eU_t_o'allow development of individual
single family homes on sites of one (1) acre minimum
size with on-site individual water and sewer (septic
tank) facilities where it can be demonstrated that the
soil conditions and drainage patterns will safely
permit on-site sanitary disposal. One hundred and
thirteen (113) acres has been allocated to this use.
It is all located in areas on the Unalaska Island side
of the City. The areas are isolated locations where
topography is conducive to residential development but
road access is through extremely steep terrain. It
should be the policy of the City that public sewer and
water will not be extended to these areas at cost to
the City and that only minimal road maintenance service
will be extended.

Urban Residential Low Density: This land use classification
Y'sintended to prov-'lUe-space for development of two
residential densities, one (1) dwelling unit per acre
where on-site sewer and water can safely be provided,
and a maximum of up to five (5) dwelling units per acre
where and when public sewer and water is provided.
Single family, duplex and triplex dwelling units would
be permitted. It should be the policy of the City to
extend public sewer and water utilities to all of the
areas designated under this classification. Eight
hundred and twenty-nine (829) acres of this classification
are located on the Unalaska Island portion of the City
and one hundred (100) acres on Amaknak Island. The
classification is designed to foster a mixture of
housing types in the future urban area of the City and
has the capacity to accomodate a total population of
between 2,800 and 8,400 at full development depending
on the actual density and the mixture of one, two and
three family dwelling units that are developed. Individuals
rior to the time public sewer
who develop in this areatp t,_i
and water are installed 0 e r property should be
cognizant of the one dwelling unit per acre maximum
limitation with on-site sewer and water and of the

_88-

.... ............. ......
........ I
ow
... .....
I. ............
CITY OF
/IV/zl
PR P SE
DEVEL P p A

-LAND USE PLAN
III- 0Z
-COMMUNITY FACILITIE //,Z/-
/Z
'""ORKS MAI
-TRANSPORT
ATION CIRC

z1IIz
/IZI I, BMALL
N

LIGHTHOUSE RESERVE
'1111'r-11
Z,/Z/
if
...........

1P,

UNALA=A LAK[l

BC1400L RECREATION
"/ZZ
UTURE HOSPITAL
CREATION CE
HooL //Z
C.T@V -Al.
...... cocK vic
PUBLIC SAFe ly
'Y P.
CITY DOCK
zzz/@"

N
STANDARD OIL IsT IC BITE

POWERHOUSE

.............
crt;)

Y CENTER
-commuNIT

FUTURR scHOoI
BIT.

ILIuL=
............... HAMC=X .. Zl/l
_j 0
ELATED INOU8._l-_ TRANSIENT 77777
AIRPORT RELATED COMMERCIAL

CITY DOCK STORAGE AREA

PUBLIC SAFETY BITE

R
BEWER T EATMENT ';;@Qjx
4_
PUBLIC WORKS I. ..... .

"OMMENOEO WWII
NATIONAL LANDMARK

potential for eventually developing.up to five dwelling
units per acre once utilities are extended. City
policy will have to be developed which coincides extension
of sewer and water with or slightly ahead of demand so
as not to stifle development and artificially create a
shortage of developable land. Also, city policy on
extending sewer and water should cause development to
occur logically and not create a "leap-frog" pattern
where large blocks of land are bypassed to service
other blocks further up the Unalaska Creek Valley. The
timing of extension of sewer and water thus is a critical
factor.

Urban Residential Medium Density: This residential
classification U-esigneU_to permit higher density
development closer to the central part of the City core
on the Unalaska side and in specific locations on
Amaknak Island where high density is appropriate and in
proximity to industrial and commercial activity centers.
A total of 202 acres of this use classification are
shown on the Land Use Plan, 191 acres on Unalaska
Island and 11 acres on Amaknak Island. The classification
permits a medium density of development, up to 16
dwelling units per acre, generally apartments of the
four and eight family per unit type. Public sewer and
water utilities would be required for such density.
Individuals who want to develop single family or duplex
type dwellings in these areas should not be prohibited
from doing so, however, it does not seem economically
advisable for the land owner to do so. The land area
included in this classification has the capacity to
accomodate between 9,000 and 10,000 total population,
again, depending on the mixture of density and dwelling
unit types which actually develop.

Urban Residential High Density: The Urban Residential
HigTFDensity use classiT'ication is the highest density
residential category in the plan and is intended,
primarily,-to accomodate housing needs of the canneries'
transient-seasonal labor torces. For thl's -reason 24
acres of the tota 3T -acr-e-s-o-f-this land use category
are located on Amaknak Island in proximity to the
seafood processing sites; 8 acres are located on Unalaska
Island also in proximity to cannery operations. At
full density development, 30 dwelling units per acre,
the land in this category has the capacity to accomodate
an extremely high density of population depending on
the specifics of size of each dwelling or housing unit,
whether they are dormitory style, bunkhouse type, or
two persons per efficiency apartment unit, etc. Realistically,
an efficient development in these areas could accomodate
2POOO population easily.

_91-

Table 9 illustrates the population "holding capacity"
of the residential portion of the land use plan. "Holding
Capacity" is a planning concept which is used to demonstrate
the ultimate maximum population that the land use plan is
capable of ac-E-omodating given the land area available for
development, the density of that development and the family
unit size common to the community. The holding capacity
population figure arrived at, in this case between 30,800
and 32,700 assumes that all available residential land will
be developed to the fullest density allowed, a situation
which rarely occurs except in the urban center of the larger
metropolitan areas of the country. As a practical matter,
land use patterns that have characteristically evolved in
communities similar to Unalaska are such that rarely is one-
half of the holding capacity ever reached. Efficiency in
land use simply isn't that high.

What application of the concept demonstrates in this
instance is that the land use plan proposed has adequate
capacity to accomodate almost two times more population than
would occur even under the "high" economic-population growth
scenario of 15,500 population for the year 1987, and over
five times the population that would occur under the "low"
economic-population growth scenario. Carried one step
further, the land use plan is capable of serving population
increase well beyond the 1987 time frame placed upon it.
This demonstrates that the growth and development of the
community will not be hampered by the artificial constraints
of a restrictive land use plan should it happen that growth
occurs at a faster pace than envisioned.

b. General Commercial. The commercial land use
category in the Land Use Plan c ains 38 acres, 18 acres on
the Unalaska side and 20 on the Amaknak Island portion.
This is equivalent to approximately 19 city blocks of land
area, certainly adequate area to meet the needs of the
community in the time frame of ten years. Uses envisioned
in the category include the full range of retail stores,
services, offices, eating and drinking establishments,
ovetnight accomodations and the like. In addition, commercial
uses similar to those likely to develop as ancillary uses in
the seafood processing industrial land use classification
would be included. The areas designated commercial are
located in proximity to the centers of activity in the
community and to the residential centers as well. Several
of the commercial areas need specific discussion.

The commercial area adjacent to the airport is intended
to be primarily for airport related commercial uses, i.e.
hotel-motel, restaurants and lodge, and other retail and
service establishments that would derive benefit from a:Lrport
passenger traffic. The commercial area located up the hill

-92-

TABLE 9

CITY OF UNALASKA LAND USE PLAN
THEORETICAL RESIDENTIAL HOLDING CAPACITY

Max. Dwelling
Total Unit Density Max. Population
Land Use Category Acreage Per Acre Holding Capacity

Rural Residential
Low Density: 113 1 300

Urban Residential
Low Density: 929 5 13,900

Urban Residential
Medium Density: 202 16 9,700
Urban Residential 00 (2)
High Density: 32 30 119 3,800(3)

Shorebased Transient
Seafood Processing (3)
Industry Housing: 41 30 5,000

30,800 - 32,7CO

(1) Assumes average density per dwelling unit equal to
3 persons, rounded to nearest 100.

(2) Assumes 2 persons per efficienty apartment unit.

(3) Assumes 4 persons per room - bunkhouse type occupancy.

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, September, 1977.

(southwest) from the Standard Oil dock is intended for those
commercial uses which would service the medium and low
density residential areas on Amaknak Island. Uses might
0
include retail sales, dry goods store, market, offices of
several types, etc. The commercial area adjacent to Margaret
Bay is intended to house those retail and service, and
possibly commercial recreation uses directly associated with
he high density residential area surrounding it.

-93-

The large commercial land use area along the spit on
the Unalaska Island portion of the City is intended to be
the retail-service commercial center of the City and every
effort should-be made to encourage the full range of such
uses to develop therein. This should be the location for
major shopping facilities in the community as well as,service
establishments like a bank, barber shop, offices, etc.
Efforts should be made to assure compatibility of these uses
with the surrounding medium density residential areas.
Presently these adjacent areas are developed in low and some
medium density resident-ial with individual single family
residences on small individually owned lots Ot'h an occasional
duplex and larger structure.

The commercial areas located up the Unalaska Creek
Valley are intended to.serve primarily neighborhood commercial
needs such as grocery store, gasoline station, and similar
uses which would not necessarily require a "downtown" location
but which would benefit by being in proximity io residential
areas. This commercial classification encompasses land
presently owned by the City of Unalaska. It is not recommended
that the City develop the commercial uses; rather it is
recommended that the City dispose of this land unless ' *a
specific use for it is determined*. The project consultant
considers this portion of the City's holdings to be in
excess of need and in the absence of a use it should be
disposed. Some consideration might be given to using it as
a school site; however, it is not id6ally located for'this
use being at the intersection of two roads and in what may
well be a congested area in the future.
C. Seafood Processing IAdustrial: Particular
attention has been given to the land area needs for accomodating
expected expansion of the seafood processing industry in
Unalaska given the fact of continued heavy dependence upon
this industry as the economic mainstay of the community.
Presently almost all of the cannery activity is located
within Iliuliuk Harbor with'one on-shore facility located at
Captains Bay and one floating cannery located at Dutch
..Harbor. '.The inner harbor area is presently fairly congested
given the number of facilities located there now. There is
some room for expansion of ex *isting facilities in the harbor,
but it is questionable as to how many additional floating
cannery operations could be accomodated within the area.
Given the projection of a doubling of seafood volume in
Unalaska within five years and tripling within ten years, it
is imperative that the question of expansion be addressed
and suitable locations for expansion identified.

It shoul d be stated that inherent in the following
discussion of the seafood processing industry's future use
of land is the assumption that the transient housing needs
of the industry will continue to be met by the industry. It

-94-

is further concluded that the bulk of this need will 'be met
by housing, constructed as need dictates, on site with the
processing plant facilities. For this reason the seafood
processing industrial land use catagory is. designed and
envisdoned here to include housing within the multiplicity
of secondary uses that necessarily occur at a processing
site. Theoretically if one assumes that..twenty-five percent
(25%) of the 165 acres of land devoted to-the seafood processing
industrial use category is actually used 'for housing then
some forty-one (41) acres of land will be devoted to housing.
Assuming a maximum density of 3b dwelling units (bunk house
rooms) per acre with an occupancy of four (4) persons per
unit then approximately 4,950 to 5,000 persons would be
accommodated in housing located on shore as a secondary use
in the seafood processing industry land use category. This
assumption is reflected in Table 9 where the holding capacity
of the residential element of the Land Use Plan is discussed.
The point here is that housing is considered a permitted.,
although secondary, use in the seafood processing industrial,
land use category.

To the degree that increased processing volume can be
handled by leveling out the heretofore seasonal nature of
the industry and converting the existing operations to year
around,.this will obviously occur. Expansion of existing
facilities and development of additional facilities will
then follow. To the extent this can be accomodated in the
inner harbor area it will occur there. These, however, are
decisions which will be made by the individual companies
involved and will depend at least in part upon the availability
of suitable land with either direct water frontage or access
to the waterfront. It is, however, obvious that additional
land area outside the inner harbor location must be set
aside for future new cannery and processing facilities be
they shore-based or of the floating type.

The proposed Land Use Plan contains a total of 165
acres of lands designated for Seafood Processing Industrial,
22 acres on the Unalaska Island portion and 143 acres on the
Amaknak Island portion. This includes the existing 25 acres
of waterfront lands already developed with such uses.
Several major areas have been designated for future expansion.
First are the areas surrounding Margaret Bay and Rocky*
Point flats. Both of these areas have land suitable for
industrial development in that they are flat, have good road
access, are presently or can be easily served with sewer and
water utilities and have water frontage. Both sites are
suitable for shore based cannery or processing facilities.
A second area for future exDansion of seafood processing
uses is the 28.iacres on the west channel side of South
America. Although this area is subjected to slightly more

_95-

wave and wind action than the harbor area, it can be developed
for processing facilities. Some excavating of the uplands
portion and filling of the tidelands portion may be required
in order to fully utilize the potential of the area. It is
believed that the area can be utilized for this use without
constructing a permanent breakwater.

Another major area for expansion of processing functions
is located in Dutch Harbor, along the southeast side of
Ballyhoo Mountain and along the inner side of the spit.
Both locations may have to be limited to floating processors
only since there is almost no uplands area available for
development with shore-based facilities on the narrow shelf
of the mountain, and since it is not known to what extent,
if any, the spit is capable of accomodating structures (and
fl-econstruction activities associated therewith) of shore-
based facilities. However, and this can not be stressed too
heavily, thorough geotechnical and engineering study of the
spit should be accomplished 'before any construction is
permitted. Natural formations of tITI-s- type frequently exist
in a finely balanced state of equilibrium and any interference
with the erosional-depositional processes occurring along
the spit or disturbance of its existing state of equilibrium
could be disasterous. The spit has been utilized in the
past with several military installations, including at least
one major dock facility having been constructed. This would
tend to indicate that construction can take place without
distu'rbance of the spit's condition. The project consultant
recommends that the City seek competent technical assistance
in evaluating the feasibility of development on the spit.

Two additional area-s, although smaller in size, appear
to be capable of being developed with processing facilities.
The area along Agnes Beach at the Unalaska terminus of the
proposed bridge has been used for cannery use in the past
and dockage presently. Some uplands area exists there,
although minimal, and it appears that one or more floating
processors could tie up in this location although it is
slightly more exposed to the wind and the tidal current in
the channel than is the opposite-side and could prove unusable
under strong southeast wind conditions. This site should be
evaluated for its potential. The same is true of the uplands
area near the junction of the Pyramid Creek road and the
Captain's Bay road. Considerable waterfront area with a
small, reasonably flat uplands area-adjacent, appears to be
usable. Additionally, the existing site of the Pacific
Pearl Cannery at Captains Bay dock is capable of accomodating
considerably more development an-shore than is pres.ently
located there. It is possible, however, that the seafood
processing activity there presently may phase out of existence
in time allowing the dock, storage and transfer operation
also located there now to expand. This is conjecture,
however, and the bulk of the transfer operation may relocate

-96-

to Amaknak Island when the Ballyhoo Dock is completed, thus
leaving the Captains Bay site available for expansion of
seafood processing functions.

Critical to the operation of the processing function is
an absolutely reliable and adequate supply of fresh water.
Also im'ortant are proximity of housing to the processing
p
facilities, capacity to handle and properly dispose of waste
products from processing operations and ease of access for
the fishing vessels to the processor. All of these factors
must be accounted for in determining suitable locations for
the processing function. The sites here discussed appear to
meet the criteria or at least have apparent potential for
fulfilling those needs.

d. General Industrial. The General Industrial
land use classification is inte d to accomodate those
industrial uses not related directly to the seafood processing
function and not necessarily dependent upon a waterfront
location although some of the land area classified in this
category is adjacent to or on the waterfront. The uses that
are intended to be accomodated in this category include
manufacturing uses, warehousing, outdoor storage, bulk fuel
storage, container van storage, and similar uses. The lands
included in this category are located in several places
throughout the community. The largest area is on Amaknak
Island at Rocky Point south of the Standard Oil fuel dock.
Portions of this area are currently used for bulk fuel
storage. It is generally an area of rough topography and
may present problems if it is desirable or necessary to
construct any structure of large size. Considerable recontouring
would probably be required. This acreage has frontage upon
the water; however, the water depth is shallow and the
offshore area is rocky. Because of the marginal buildin 'a
conditions in the'area and the absence of any suitable dock
site it is not likely that either residential or any water
dependent uses would develop in this area by choice.

Additional land area in this General Industrial category
is located adjacent to the Standard Oil dock. It is adjacent
to the waterfront, gently sloping towards the dock site but
regular in topography. It is considered prime industrial
land and could serve as back-up land for storage and cargo
handling adjacent to the dock or developed for warehousing
or manufacturing if such use is forthcoming.

A third General Industrial area is located south of the
airport runway, west of the airport terminal. It is located
along the beach and is flat and easily developable. This
area should be utilized for industrial uses such as those
directly related to the Ai.rport and as storage areas and
general "back-up" land to the City dock to be constructed at

-97-

Ballyhoo dock site on Dutch Harbor. In this regards, ten
(10) acres-of this area are included in the lands recommended
for reconveyance to the City- under Section 14(c)(3) of the
ANCSA.

A fourth General Industrial area is located west of
Expedition Island, on the northern tip of Little South
America. This area has water frontage on Iliuliuk Harbor
and.is, in part, the site of the abandoned U.S. Navy submarine
dry dock facility. It is intended that this area will be
deVeloped as a marine service center with such uses as a
marine ways, boat repair grid, machine-shop and engine and
hull repair facilities and retail sales and services related
to marine activity'. The existing abandoned marine ways
could be rehabilitated along with the dry dock and covered
building. The land area is adequate in size to allow for
additional building.or renovation of any of the existing
st'ructures which might be salvageable and for retail sales,
marine repair and similar businesses.

A fifth-General Industrial area is located along the
narrow shelf in Dutch Harbor between the airport and the
location of the City dock'facility now under reconstruction.
While there is actually very little land area involved the
location is considered a prime industrial area in that it
has water frontage, extremely deep water close in to shore
and is an excellent site for additional dock facilities.
The absence of adequate back-up land behind the dock site
location is a drawback, but given the reasonable proximity
of back-up lands around Rocky Point and the obvious utility
of any land with deep water port capability, the dock potential
cannot be overlooked in this location.

The sixth General Industrial area is located at the
site of-the present Captains Bay dock facility. The area
presently has dock, warehouse, outdoor storage, and fuel
tank uses along with a seafood processing facility and
related housing. As discussed above, it is possible that
the seafood proces@ing activity will eventually phase out of
this location. The site is a large flat area in excess of
70 acres. The existing dock has been partially renovated
recently and plans call for an extension to be added in the
near future. While the dock site is not as well protected
as th.ose in Dutch Harbor, it is certainly adequate for
barges and large oceangoing vessels. This area is considered
ideal for any onshore OCS oil and gas activity, i.e. a
service and supply base for exploration and development
activities. It is not likely that any facilities associated
with productian of OCS oil arid gas, i.e. a tanker terminal,
would be located here as discus.sed previously. However, the
area is suitable for a supply base and would be capable of
handling a considerable portion of all the onshore service

-98-

and supply function-for exploration drill rigs within several
hundred miles of Unalaska. The area is somewhat remote,
approximately 2.5 miles by roadway, from the central area of
the community with almost no development in between. This
poses some question as to whether it is economically practical
at this time to extend sanitary sewer-facilities to the area
from the town center. This service could be handled on-site
with a package treatment plant. The present water supply to
the area from the City's Pyramid Creek source could be
expanded to meet demand. Being remote from the town center,
however, is favorable for the heavy industrial uses-that
would occur on the site were it to be developed as an OCS
supply base. The remoteness would mitigate.any negative
impacts incompatable development might otherwise be subjected
to were it adjacent. The City should attempt to coordinate
use of this location for OCS activity with industry representqtives
at an early-time in advance of,any activity actually being
initiated. In this way, local concerns relative to OCS
impact upon the community could be ameliorated and adequate.
safeguards for environmental factors could be assured.

e. Public Facilities and Lands: One hundred and
fifty six (156) acres of land aFe-a-Tas-E-een designated for
public facilities and public lands uses. Parks, recreation
and open space uses and the Unalaska Creek water supply
preserve are not included in this category. -One hundred and
twenty two (122) acres are located on Amaknak Island including
some 67 acres in airport and related uses, and 32 acres on
Unalaska Island. Each of the sites is briefly discussed in
the Community Facilities Plan Element.

f. lic and Institutional. The Quasi-
9uasi-Pub , I-
Public and Institutional land use category is intended to
accomodate those uses which are semi-public or even public
in their use or purpose but which may actually be owned'
and/or operated by a private entity. Such uses as churches,
RCA Alaska Communications, the Iliuliuk Family Health Service
facilities, the Russian Mission Church and similar uses
would be included. Sixteen (16) acres of this category are
shown on the Land Use Plan map.

g. Parks, Recreation-and Open Space. The Parks,
Recreation and Open Space land use classification includes
lands intended for-a number of public uses. There is a
total of 97 acres of land in this category, 41 on Unalaska
Island and 56 acres on Amaknak Island. Generally two types
of land have been.,included in this category. Lands which
are intended to serve as parks or recreation facility lands
have been included. Also, lands which are recommended for
restriction of development by virtue of their possessing
some natural feature which indicates the area should not be
developed have also been included. Examples of this latter
type include areas subject to wave erosion along the beach

A _99-

or when sloughing or sliding is prelevant. In most cases a
parcel of land which pQssesses a natural feature which
indicates it ought not to be developed can also serve the
function of open.space. 'However, the City would be obligated
to acquire lands in this latter, category if it ever desired
to develop any public recreational uses of these areas.
Although land areas with slope angle exceeding 25 percent by
virtue of their being undevelopable become defacto open
space, they are'not included. in this category. All of the
are.as specifically recommended for-park or recreation use
are discussed in the Community Facilities Plan element.
Several of them., however, merit particular comment here.

A greenbelt area is shown around the entire perimeter
.of Unalaska Lake. This lake has excellent-recreational
potential and the land area immediately around it should be
reserved for recreational use. Additionally the lake has
potential as a future community water supply. Precauti4on
should be taken to prevent any pollution of the lake from
urban runoff, septic tank effluent or siltation. The greenbelt
buffer around the lake will aid in this protection.

A greenbelt preserve area has been shown around the
large lake*on Amaknak Island that previously served as a
water reservoir for the military facilities on the Island.
This 'greenbelt area is recommended to preserve the aesthetic
value of the,]@ake and-additionally to preserve the many
trees which e)@ist in this area. As noted previously, these
trees were planted by Russian settlers on the Island in the
early 1800's and should be preserved for their historical
significance.

The entire shoreline along the northwestern side of
Amaknak Island is shown in the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space classification. This area is being constantly subjected
to wave and wind erosion. Building in this area within
approximately 100 to 150 feet of the high tide line' or bluff
line should be'p-rohlbited. Several points along the shoreline
offer,excellent views of Hog Island and the-Broad Bay-
Nateekin Bay area and thus 'have unique qualities as open
space. It is recommended that this shoreline be protected;.-
the prohibition of development on or adjacent to the beach
and classification of the immediately adjacent uplands as
open space will aid in this effort. Roadways exist along
certain portions of this shoreline area. They are located
inland from the areas here recommended as open space-and do
not therefore interfere with nor are they incompatible with
an open space strip along'the shoreline. Both of these
roadways are recommended for,designation as part of the
community's arterial roadway,.network. When these roadways
are improved, their fifial design and right-of-way location

_100-

should be determined in consideration of the recommended
open space strip and the desirability of preventing development
within the strip.
h. Undeveluable La:Rd Areas. An estimated-8,404
acres of land a_r_e_a_,__6_,76Z on Unalaska Island, and 1,642
acres on Amaknd 'k Island, ate classified as undevelopable by
virtue of their being in areas.o@ 25 per cent or greater
slope or part of the Unalaska Creek water supply preserve.

The areas shown as Water Supply Preserve on Unalaska
Creek and Pyramid Creek-are not the total watershed of each
stream. The total wateished areas for both creeks is much
larger in size. In the-instance of Pyramid Creek, the area
shown on Figure 19-is the area from which water runoff is
directly tributary to the small lake created by the dam on
Pyramid Creek from which the Municipality draws water to
suppl@-'the municipal system. In the case of Unalaska Creek
the area recommended for water supply preserve (F'igure 19)
includes the area tributary to the lake created by the dam
as well as land area from which water drains into the two
@@_es_t_T_orK_s of Unalaska Creek which can, in the futu 're, be
dammed for development of additional water supply. It is
recommended that these areas be restricted from development
to preserve their future use as water supply. Of the 1,250
acres total in the Unalaska Creek Water Supply Preserve,-all
but 90 acres, or 1,160 acres, are within the present,City
limits. None of the Pyramid Creek Water Supply Preserve
area is located within the boundary of the City. No development
should be permitted in these preserves and public access to
these areas should be controlled so as to minimize the
potential for pollution to the streams. Any access road
building activity in or adjacent to these areas, if it is
permitted, should be accomplished in such a manner as to
prevent any siltation of the water intake lakes.

The areas designated in the Undevelopable category
which have 25 per cent greater slope were determined by
carefully reviewing available topographic mapping. Because'
th.e mapping was at a.scale of 1 inch equals 1,666 feet with
contour intervals of 100 feet, extremely conservative
judgment and interpretation was made to assure that land
with marginal slope angles, i.e., 20-24% would not be classified
undevelopable. Thus, it is probable that some land exceeding
25% slope, i..e., 26-28% angle, has been included in the
undevelopable category. The 8,404 acre figure, is thus
generalized and conservative. There are undoubtedly "pockets"
of acreage within the areas shown on the map as having 25%
or greater slope angle which in actuality do not exceed this
pp4
criteria. The scale of ma Lng available, however, does not
permit their being identified. Access,to the "pockets" most
0
probably is through an area of 25% or greater slope angle,

-lol-

however. When and where such areas are identified and a
desire is expressed to develop them, development according
to the Rural Low Density Residential (1 dwelling unit per
acre maxium) criteria should be permitted only after it has
been demonstrated that onsite sanitary facilities can be
safely operated. The City, however, should not assume the
financial burden of extending public sewer and water service
or road building and maintenance service to these areas.
Given the point that there is ample developable land to
accomodate more than twice the highest population projected
for Unalaska, the City should not be concerned about the
restricting of development in these areas causing a shortage
of land for development or about City policy against serving
these areas with public sewer and water causing an artificial
land shortage.

Within the Undevelopable land category, two areas merit
additional comment. Little South America and the majority
of Ballyhoo Mountain contain slopes over '45% angle. There
is a notable absence of topsoil and vegetation in the areas
and topography is extremely irregular. The areas are very
unsuitable for development. Ballyhoo Mountain reaches an
elevation of 1,634 feet above sea level while the top of
Little South America is 421 feet above sea level. Both of
these locations are sites of former major military installations
of many types, including shore gun emplacements, observation
posts, communication centers, entrenchments, amunition
storage bunkers, personnel facilities., etc. All of these
facilities have, of course, long since been abandoned. The
previous Community Development Plan for Unalaska recommended
that both of these sites be set aside as National Landmarks
commemorating World War II. This recommendation remains
valid in the opinion of the project consultant. it is
therefore recommended that both these areas be so designated.
Specific study by the appropriate state or federal agency
would be required to determine the exact area for inclusion.
The City could initiate this proposal by requesting the
federal government to evaluate the two sites for inclusion
in the system.
The foregoing discussion has briefly outlined the major
elements of the Land Use Plan. Table 10 gives the specific
acreage figures for the various land use classifications
shown on th"e plan map.

4. ANNEXATION. One of the objectives of this planning
project is to ascertain if additional land area should be
annexed into the City of Unalaska. Generally, the purposes
for which a municipality annexes territory to its jurisdiction
is to place areas of future community expansion within the
corporate limits of the City, to include land and water and

-102-

limp I= M M M M M M M*M M M

TABLE 10

CITY OF UNALASKA, ALASKA

LAND USE PLAN

UNALASKA ISLAND AMAKNAK ISLAND TOTALS
Land Use Classification Acres Acres Acres Ac7e-s Acres Acres

Rural Residential Low Density:
A-ax. FWU--ac. Dev. Permitted
with on-site utilities. 113 -0- 113
Urban Residential_ Low Density:
I , 2 & 3 fam. D. (j7=S
Max. I DU/ac w/o utilities;
5 DU/AC w/utilities req. 82!1 100 929
Urban Residential_ Med. Dersity:
Max. 16 DU's/ac utilities req. 19) 11 202
Urban Residential High Density*
Max. 30 DU's/ac U@ti)lties re 8 43 51

TOTAL RESIDENTIAL: 1,141 135 1,276

Gen. Commercial: Inc. retail,
service, hotels, offices. 18 20 38
CD Seafood Processing Industrial:
incl. canneries, warehousing.
storage, etc. as related. 22 143 169
General Industrial: Incl. whole-
sale, storage, fuel storage,
dock facilities, manuf., etc. 82 82 164
Public Facilities & Lands:
schools, pub. safety. rec.
centers, D.P.W., utility
stations, airport, etc. 311 122(l) 156
Quasi Public & Institutional:
RCA, churches & similar. 16 -0- 16
Parks, Rec. & Open Space. 41(2) 51 97
197 423 636
TOTAL DEVELOPABLE LAND: T, 338 T,-896

Undevelopable Land Areas:

Unalaska Cr. Water Supply Preserve 1,160 1,160
Slopes 25% or greater, or otherwise 5,602 1,642 7,244
inaccessable. -

TOTAL UNDEVELOPABLE 6,762 1,642 8,4A

TOTAL: 8,100 2,200 10,300

NOTE: The acreage figures used in this table are approximations.
(1) Does not imiude 9 acres of lake desigiiated for emargeiicy fire figlltirq water supply or the U.S.C.G. liglithouse reserve

shoreline areas over which the Municipality-must exercise
land use controls to assure that future development in these
areas is compatible with land use on the periphery of the
present boundaries, or because land owners and/or residents
of the areas outside the City request annexation to the City
in order that they may receive municipal services.

Using these three reasons as guidelines, the project
consultant has analyzed the area surrounding the present
City limits to determine if any areas should be annexed into
the City of Unalaska. With respect to the reason of needing
additional lands to accomodate community expansion, it is
questionable whether annexation would be justified solely on
this basis. Secondly, there are no residents or land owners
in adjacent areas which are known to desire or who have
requested annexation. On the question of the need to annex
additional territory for purposes of exercising land use
control over the areas, there is a strong argument that the
City of Unalaska should annex considerable land area. There
are several areas, including Summer Bay, Nateekin Bay and
the entire Captains Bay area where some development is
likely to occur in the next five to ten year time frame.
Depending on the type of development, the City of Unalaska
definitely should exercise land use control over these
areas. The purpose of exercising such control would not be
to prohibit or unreasonably restrict development and use of
any of these areas; rather the purpose would be to place the
City in the position to prescribe minimum standards for any
development that does take place in these areas and to
assure that development in these areas is consistent with
the Ci-,Cyls Land Use Plan and the Coastal Management Plan.
It should be recognized that future development in these
areas will have an impact upon the present developed area of
the community. Development of any large scale in any of
these areas could have impact upon the present City of
Unalaska.

Figure 15 illustrates a proposed new City of Unalaska
corporate limits. It includes all of Captains Bay and the
shoreline, and some of the lands at the head of the bay. It
also includes the waters of Nateekin Bay and Summer Bay and
some of the uplands adjacent to these waters. Precisely how
the City annexes these areas, or whether they are annexed
separately has not been considered. It is recommended,
however, that the City consider filing a petition with the
State Local Boundary Commission in the future to initiate.
annexation proceedings according to the recommendation.
Procedures for annexation are spelled out in Title 29 of the
Alaska Statutes and the rules and regulations of the.Local
Boundary Commission. Assistance from the State Department
of Community and Regional Affairs should be sought in this
.effort. If, in fact, these areas are proposed formally for.

-104-

7
A L A B
f A I

80
@T

79 -7,
, My
V

BROAD lowlt fop Mot".
i M
BAY

74 -

-73 HARI. "i?
1@n

72-

2 9 94 os
EKh

1.0

615

as -D.6 -b7 08 09 10

61
-AV
i P.
0
60

S:
59
12
f
3,1MIL
T

-105- Figure 15

annexation,, a generalized land use plan should be prepared
for each of the areas. These areas have not been considered
in the Land Use Plan or any of the other plan elements
presented in this report.

PRELIMINARY BOUNDA11Y DESCRIPTION. The following
Z",
description includes all of the land and water areas that
would be contained within the boundary of the City of Unalaska
if the recommended annexation were implemented.

Beginning at the south peak of Split Top Mountain on
the east shore of'Unalaska Bay, 53'56'N latitude, 166*26'W
longitude; thence, southeasterly 2.75 miles to the peak of
an unnamed mountain, 530541N latitude, 166*231W longitude;
thence, southwesterly 6.73 miles to the peak of Artillery
Peak, 53*491N'latitude, 166*291W longitude; thence, southwesterly
2.57 miles to the peak of Portal Peak, 53'481N latitude,
166*"2'W longitude; thence, westerly 5.32 miles to the peak
of an unnamed mountain, 53''48'N latitude, 166'401W longitude;
thence, northerly 4.28 miles to,the peak of an unnamed
mountain, 53'531N latitude, 16604011V longitude; thence,
northeasterly 2.77 miles to the meanderline of Broad Bay,
530541N latitude, 166'381W longitude; thence, northeaster-ly
5.58 miles to a point, 530571N latitude, 1660311W longitude;
thence, southeasterly 3.33 miles to the Point of Beginning.

C. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT

The Coastal Management Element is intended t-o spell out
the policies and guidelines under which the City will manage
the lands on the4'coastline within the Community. It establishes
-the procedural guidelines for assuring citizen imput to the
decision making process and for achieving coordination among
the many user's of the coastal zone and the various levels of
government with regulatory and enforcement responsibilities
over uses in the coastal zone. The Coastal Management
Element must be considered in context with the other Plan
Elements; i.e., the Land Use Plan establishes the basic
guideline for uses and the Coastal Management Element carries
the planning one step further in-the endeavor to give
special attention to the coastal..zone and its unique qualities.
While the Coastal Management Element is ',a relatively new
"thing" in Community Development Plans, it serves to bring
into sharper focus the special aspects of the Land Use Plan
that relate to the Coastal Zone.

_106-

1. ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT.
As discusseU above., the basic concepts involved in Coastal
Zone Management legislation are severalfold, stemming from
the fundamental concern of coastal sensitivity to development
and the frequent lack of sufficient consideration of this
sensitivity. These concepts are: the utilization of a
planning process that considers environmental as well as
social and economic factors, and local as well as greater
than local perspectives; adequate opportunity for public
input in all phases of the process; and the coordination
among various users of the coastal area, including the
different levels of government. The existence of an organizational
framework in the City of Unalaska sufficient to address
these concepts will be discussed below.

While the initial impetus, on the national level, for a
coastal zone management law was concern for uncontrolled
development of the coastal area!@, the enacted federal and
state legislation has several items of concern. The Alaska
Coastal Management Act notes a number of interrelated objectives
of the Act which affect more than just environmental protection.
AS 46.35.020 states these objectives as:

(1) The use, management, restoration and enhancement of the overaZZ
quality of the doastaZ environment;

(2) The development of industrial or commercial enterprises which
are consistent with the social-, cultural, historic, economic and
environmental interests of the people of the state;

(3) The orderly, balanced utilization and protection of the resources
of the coastal area consistent with sound conservation and sustained
yield principles;

(4) The management of coastal Land and water usee in such a manner
that, generally, those uses which are economically or physically
dependent on a coastaL location are given higher priority-when
compared to uses which do not economica4'Zy or physically require a
coastal location;

(5) The protection and management of significant historic, cultural,
natural and aesthetic values and natural systems or processes
within the coastal area; -

(6) The prevention of.damage Vo or degredation of land and water
reserved for their natural values as a result of inconsistent Zand
or water usages adjacent to that land;

(7) The recognition of the need for a continuing supply of energy
to meet the requirements of the state and the contribution of a
share of the state's resources to meet national energy needs; and
(8) The full and fair evaluation of all demands on the land and
water in the coastal area.

-107-

a. Existence of a Planning Process. One of the
statutory requirements placea on any First Class City in
Alaska locat(@d outside an Organized Borough is that the City
provide for planning, platting and zoning (AS 29.43.040)
within its boundaries. The City of Unalaska, in Chapter 16
of its Code of Ordinances, establishes itself as being
commi@tted to the planning process, with the City Council as
the adopting authority and a Planning and Zoning Commission
as a recommending body. -There is no explicit requirement in
the Ordinance that "environmental as well as social factors"
be considered in the planning process, nor is there any
requirement that factors "of more than local concern" be
considered in the process. There is also no requirement for
particular consideration of coastal areas. The lack of
explicitness in these areas is typical 'of municipal ordinances.,
and as indicated above, is one of the reasons for enactment
of Coastal Zone legislation. The City does have various
types of licensing provisions under Chapter 3 of its Ordinances,
and building permit requirements under Chapter 5. These,
along with platting and zoning requirements, are the primary
tools of control of development.

There are, of course, a number of other means available
to the City,for implementation of policies related to the
coastal management program. Subdivision regulations, for
example, could be used to describe various standards of
design for types of development of particular concern to the
program. The construction of municipal capital projects is
another very powerful tool for guiding development. The
decisions with respect to the type of project to build, and
its location, e.g., road construction, can very strongly
influence aevelopment in the coastal area,.or elsewhere for
that matter. These are discussed further in the Plan Implementation
section of this report. Thus., between existing authority
and those proposed in this Plan, the City has a fairly
extensive regulatory system.
. b. Op@ortunit@ for'Public Input. Public hearings,
public notice, and the requirement for open public meetings
of the C'ouncil are contained in several portions.of the City
of Unalaska's Code of Ordinances. Notable are: Sections
1.040, 2.035, 2.040, 2.075, 16.005(c)2, 16.600C, 16.700 B
and C, and 16.804. One of the most appropriate opportunities
for public input concerning coastal management is during the
annual review of the community goals and'objectives, as
discussed previously. At that time all facets of life in
the community should be discussed on a.broad policy basis,
with each goal viewed in relation to the other goals or
desires of the community.

t 4
C. Coordina @on Among Levels of Government
and Coastal Users. There is no expli@i@ requirem@_ntin the
Unalaska City Code of Ordinances requiring specific notification

_108-

of any particular group or agency as a general matter of
course when matters related to planning or land use in the
coastal zone are being considered. Existing state and
federal laws require agency notification and approval for
certain types of development in certain locations, e.g., the
requirement for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for
any construction in navigable waters, and local actions must
comply with those laws.

In summary, the City of Unalaska does have the provisions
for general consideration and enforcement of development, as
do all municipalities of its class in Alaska. As has been
generally true of municipalities, there are no specific
provisions pertaining to the intergovernmental and interdisciplinary
coordination required'by Alaska's Coastal Management Act.
These are deficiencies whicli the City Council must correct
1T__tTe-City js Lo Fa-ve an effective anj -L,2ail acceptable
-E-oa'@@-tal zone management plan and program recommended
that the Council seek the assistance of the City's legal
counsel in preparing amendments to the Code of Ordinances
reflecting these chan ges. This should be accomplished at
the earliest possible date to bring the City in conformance
with the requirements of a coastal management program.

2. COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. The
Alaska Coastal Policy Council is charged with d-e-flining the
framework, as discussed above, under which the Districts are
to prepare their Coastal Management programs. Because it
will be approximately �ix months (mid-1978) before the
Council guidelines are prepared and approved by the State
Legislature, it does not seem advantageous for the City of
Unalaska to ado-ot a District Coastal Management Program
until the guidehnes have been approved.

It is very definitely in the interests of the City of
Unalaska, however, to become thoroughly familiar with the
requirements of State and Federal law, and to discuss and
decide what sort of program Unalaska desires under these
requirements. It may well be that the'Coastal Policy Council
may be considering guidelines which are significantly
different-from what is desired by Unalaska area residents,
in which case the City will want to request the-Council to
either change their guidelines, Unalaska's desires. Failing
that, the City may wish to appeal to the State Legislature
to not approve the undesired guidelines. In any case, the
sooner the Unalaska City-Council reviews the statutes on
Coastal Management, the more Unalaska will be able to successfully
deal with the issue. (See the Coastal Zone Management
portion of the Plan Implementation section below.)

_109-

A detailed review of State and Federal laws on the
subject is beyond the scope of this study. However, there
are several concepts embodied in both Acts which should be
noted. Some of these are listed below as they pertain to
each portion of the District Coastal Management Program, as
contained in AS 46.35.030.

a. Coastal Zone Boundary Identification. This
issue will be discussed in gr ater detail below.

b. Uses Subject to the Proaram. 'The question of
defining which iTarticular type of land U-se should be subject
to the scrutiny of the Coastal Management Program is a
crucial consideration. AS 46.35.040 (4) and AS 46.35-210 (6)
require that "uses of state concern" be considered. Generally
these are use-s which are either ma 4or in scope or have some
J
significant effect on people outside the Coastal District,
such as the siting of OCS facilities.

C. Policies Pertaining to Subject Uses. This
issue is the he-a-r-t-TE--the Coastal Management concept. The
broad framework is what the philosophies of the people who
live in the District feel.about various forms of development
and government control, as well as their ability to influence
control by other levels of government. 'AS 46.35.020 (4)
requires that a prioritization of types of uses be determined.
d. Proper and Improper Subject.Uses. An outgrowth
of the previous step, it is the application of the partidular
pblities adopted on the uses.defined as being subject to the
Program. It should be noted that the Coastal Management
Program 'goes beyond the Coastal Zone boundaries,as AS 46.35.020(6)
makes one of the objectives of the Program the prevention of
uses on adjacent lands which will result in degradation to
land and wate.r in the Coastal Zone reserved for.their natural
values.

e. Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination
of Allowability-7--TH-is step anticipates that there will be
many "borderl ne" uses, as well as possible future change of
viewpoints, and requires'that specific procedures be established
to considef the various classifications. AS 46.35.040 (5)
specifies that there will be procedures established for
coordination with Federal agencies with coastal interests,
as well as the previously discussed coordination with state
agencies on certain type of use.
f. Designation of Areas Meriting Special Attention.
This iss-ue will be discussed below.

_110-

g. Policies @pplicable to Special Attention Areas.
As indicated above, the intent of the Act is to pinpoin:E the
more sensitive areas within the Coastal Zone and put them
under more stringent scrutiny. This issue is analogous to
c. above. AS 46.35.020 (3) points out that conservation and
sustained yield is an important goal.

h. Adoption of Regulations. As with any other
policy mandates, specific regulations must be adopted for
their implementation. Because any policy statement has a
range of interpretations, the wording of specific regulations
in actuality constitutes another level of policy decisions.
Additionally, the failure to operationally implement adopted
ordinances has the effect of negating those ordinances.

3. COASTAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES. One of the more
controvers aspects of Coastal Zone Management-and one of
the most ambiguous aspects of existing federal and state
legislation is the definition of the Coastal Zone on the'
landward side. The CZMA states that the landward boundary
is "inland from the shorelands only to the extent necessary
to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and
significant impact on coastal waters".*

This definition has a wide variety of interpretations,
depending both on the physical configuration of any given
area, the viewpoints of the people who are doing the defining
for a given area, and the viewpoints of those responsible
for approving the Coastal Management Program definition.
Various proposals in the Alaska Legislature, for example,
range from defining the tidal area as being the complete
coastal zone, to the landward boundary being all that land
area drained by streams containing anadromous fish.

While neither of these extremes seems likely to be
adopted by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, the. variety of'
boundaries adopted by other states almost rivals these
extremes. For example,'the following inland boundaries were
@y the respecta-ve stateg!

Virginia - A vert.ical elevation above mean low
water equal to 1.5 time.s the mean
tide range.

-he shoreline.
Louisiana - Three miles inland from t

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*P.L.-947370-and-P.L.-92-'583,-Sec. 304.

-111-

Texas - The inland boundary of the coastal
counties (about 35 miles in actuality).

Oregon - Inland to the crest of the coastal
mountain range (approximately 30 to
40 miles).

Washington - Two hundred feet inland from mean
C@ I
high water.

With the latitude of the inland boundary going from the
crest of the first sand dune to the crest of the first
mountain range, obviously a wide variety of conditions and
opinions exist.

With the wide variety of physical conditions that exist
in Alaska, adopting statewide criteria will be one of the
first problems facing the Coastal Policy Council. The
following discussion and recommendations apply only to
Unalaska and its unique conditions, and are intended to
serve as a focal point for consideration. It should be
noted that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is in the
process of inventorying existing biophysical resources in
the coastal areas of the state. Their report is to be
available in January, 1978, and ADFG personnel will be
available to assist communities in.the application of data
from their report to aid in determining the definition of
coastal management boundaries.

.Geographically, the most remote point on the City
boundary is Artillery Peak,* which is approximately four
miles from salt water. However, most of the development,
including residences, are within one-quarter mile of salt
water., with the heaviest commercial and industrial development
being immediately adjacent to the shorelands. Geologically,
most of the land-water int 'erface is composed of very steep
mountains, which are soli-d-rock,overlain with just a foot or
two of soil and organic material. The result of this geology
is that activity occurring on the seaward side of these
mountains, such as a slide or oil spill, would very quickly
end up in the shore area. Conversely, ocean erosion of
these areas could result in a very significant change in
topography, again ending up in the shore area.

The Alaska Coastal Management Act, and the CZMA, both
define an "area which merits special attention" as a subregion
within the coastal zone. These "special.attention" areas
are those wh 'ich, for a variety of reasons, are particularly
important from either the environmental, social or economic
standpoints.

-112-

FIGURE 16
CZM BOUNDARY

INLAND COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY
.... . . . . .. .... ..
OFITH
. . .. . ........ ... . . ...
MARSA WHICH MERITS SPECIAL ATTENTION
I177 1179

k HEA

OLE It K

SECOND PRIEST RK
4 A

j OUT ARBOR COME UAKE
1805, Oxcc
A

I PT

F
D
-104ALASKA

LAKE
RKS zk EWAI 'K

A,
ONERNC@I.. P r
KNOB . .... .

-Z
CA
oi4

RAVENIPK

svpw F N
A @c

2MILES K

113

For the above reasons, it is recommended that the
inland coastal zone boundary, in the case of Unalaska, be
those watersheds within the City limits that drain directly
into salt water. Figure 16 shows a map delineating this
boundary. It is further recommended that the "area which
merits special attention" be that land within the coastal
zone from low water to the one hundred foot elevation.
Figure 16 also delineates this boundary. Under these definitions,
the furthest inland the coastal zone would be is a little
over two miles from salt water.

D. HousING ELEMENT

Adequate housing, both in terms of quality and quantity,
is an essential ingredient in the desirability of the community's
living condition. It is a major factor affecting future
community growth and health of the local economy. Without
sufficient safe and sanitary housing, no community can
sustain its viability.

1. HOUSING INVENTORY. A housing survey was conducted
in the Unalaska community-to gather data about number and
type of dwelling units, general condition of housing, and
vacancy factor. This survey, conducted by visually inspecting
each dwelling from an adjacent street, provides only general
condition data. No specific data was gathered about the
presence or absence of electrical., plumbing or heating
facilities and no inspection of the interior was conducted.
The survey is adequate for its intended purpose. In order
to determine housing quality, three definitions of quality
were developed and used in the inventory. They are outlined
below.

"Good" Housing of above average appearance and condition. New
housing, or housing of an obvious weLl-maintained state,
with no structural deficiencies apparent.

"Average" BasicaZZy sound structures with few wall or roof
deficiencies. May be in need of paint or other
minor upkeep, but adequate from an overall standpoint.

"Poor" Housing of obvious structural deficiency, needing repairs
to roof, walls or foundation., or a combination. Doors andlor
windows may be in need of repZacement; may be beyond a
point of repair to "Average" or "Good" condition.

The "norm" against which housing condition was measured
consists of the "average" Unalaska house - about 800 square

-114-

feet in floor area, single story, wood frame dwelling with a
wood foundation. This house is more than ten years old and
uses fuel oil for heating. It is generally in fair structural
condition, and may need some improvement such as better
electrical wiring, insulation, roofing or painting.

Federal programs, and to a limited extent State programs
in Alaska, in recent years have placed heavy emphasis on
improving existing housing conditions and the supply of
available housing. Programs have been developed which are
intended to induce construction of more housing in areas
where existing housing is in short supply. Programs exist
to provide financial assistance to low income segments of
the population and to small remote communities which generally
are out of the mainstream of housing construction by virtue
of higher than average materials and labor costs, low labor
availability and lack of building capital. Such efforts by
government have been of varying success for a variety of
reasons, not the least of which is the point that housing
development has historically been a venture of private
enterprise and not a governmental activity. Additionally,
with respect to materials, construction and design technology,
the housing industry is only beginning to show signs of
utilization of all the potential factors which could speed
the availability of and reduce the cost of housing to America.

Housing is a critical problem in Unalaska; it may well
be the single most critical problem in the community. An
inordinately high percentage of the existing housing is old;
many units are in need of major repair or border on being
unsafe. There is almost no vacancy rate in available housing,
a situation not uncommon in Alaska's remote communities.
Numerous residents stated to the project consultant that
they desire to upgrade their present housing or to construct
new housing but cannot do so because of excessively -high
cost of materials and the unavailability, locally or even
through lending institutions statewide, of capital to
finance new housing or improvements. In an effort to clarify
this point, the project consultant met with representatives
of lending institutions which are active in the residential
lending market statewide in Alaska and with representatives
of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These discussions ;indicate the following to be the situation
with respect to this point. There is no legal or programatic
reason why federally insured housing mortgage money would
not be available for Unalaska. Any of the federal lending
or insuring programs are applicable to Unalaska. The same
is true in the case of so-called conventional mortgage
money. It is true that there is no lending institution or
banking facility in Unalaska presently. At least one bank
in the state is reportedly evaluating locating a branch
facility in the community. The absence of a banking facility

_11S_

in Unalaska, however, has no bearing on whether housing
mortgage money is available to the community. None of the
banks report any policies or practices aimed at restricting
or denying housing financing to Unalaska. Such practices
would in f2act be contrary to federal law.

It appears that a number of points work to restrict, if
not, in fact, effectively deny flow of housing finan'ce loans
to Unalaska, however. This situation though is not unique
to Unalaska but is generally true of most remote, sparsely
populated non-urban locations in Unalaska. Among these are
the remoteness of the 'community, the high cost of housing
materials and construction labor, problems and costs to the
financial institution in servicing a loan through its life,
the previous,ly imposed maximum ceilings on federally insured
mortgages which work to limit participation by Alaskans in
such programs, and most importantly, the frequently experienced
problems associated with land title in many Alaska communities.

It therefore appears that the situation with respect to
the availability of financing for housing in Unalaska is no
different than it is in many other communities in-Alaska:
Housing costs are high and federal programs do not recognize
the many factors built into the "system" which are unique to
Alaska.

Of the 213 permanent dwelling units recorded in the
survey, 131 (62%) were rated "good", 52 (24%) were rated
"average", and 30 (14%) were rated "poor". This indicates
that nearly half the residences in the community are in need
of at least some repair.

The large percentage of older housing in the community
is a result of several apparent factors. The high cost of
shipping has made it difficult to purchase building materials
at a reasonable cost in the City. There is a definite lack
of professional builders in the community, thus, most new
construction has been "do-it-yourself".

The lack of a lending institution in the community, as
noted above, seems, in the minds of local residents, to be
the biggest factor affecting housing in Unalaska. People
are not able to get loans for home construction or improvement.

A large percentage of the housing units in the- community
are surplus military dwellings, having been moved to their
present location in whole or piece by piece. On Amaknak
Island, housing tends to be divided into two groups; the
renovated military surplus housing, and the recently added
housing units, mobile and modular homes.

The trend of relocating and renovating the surplus
"cabanas" found throughout the hills in the vicinity seems

to be continuing, due to the lack of other ways to build new
dwelling units. Cabanas, however, offer only a short-term
solution to a long time problem of housing needs. Their old
age and the limited number of usable units will soon eliminate
their potential, and other sources of building materials
will have to be found by those wishing to develop their own
housing.

A large portion of the housing in the community is
provided by the seafood processors onboard ship. More than
850 employees of the several processors are housed aboard
the processing ships themselves or on an adjacent floating
ship. It is expected that this type of housing will be used
for transient workers for some time to come, as some of the
processors have recently remodeled these living quarters to
comply with requirements issued by the State Fire Marshall's
Office. Additional onshore, permanent dormitory-style
housin for transient workers is provided by several of the
9 1
processors. More than 250 people are housed in this manner,
wi'th housing for an additional 125.workers under r-onstruction
at the time of this inventory.

The interspersion of housing within the industrial area
occupied by.the fish processors is a result of prior shortage
of privately-owned, buildable land with utilities. The on-
shore housing, consisting mostly of dormitory-style bunkhousing,
multi-family residences, trailers, duplex and single-family
housing units, has been placed wherever possible, outside
areas planned for immediate use by the respective processor.
As the industry expands, it may be found that prime needed
industrial locations are occupied by housing units which
could well. have been placed elsewhere.

Possible land use conflicts and incompatiLbilities exist
between some types of dwelling units and industrial/fishing
activities adjacent to them. Dormitory and bunkhousing may
be quite compatible with processing activities, as all
residents of this type of housing work during the time of
highest noise and activity levels of the industry. In
essence, when the residents are at home, the processors are
quiet, creating little if any incompatibility. Residences
accomodating families located adjacent to processors may
find considerable conflict and incompatibility, as children
and/or a spouse not working (or working at times other than
those common to the processors' operations) may find the
noise and activity associated with the industry disconcerting
and hazardous.

Analysis of the housing inventory data indicates that
at the time of the survey, 213 permanent (including mobile
homes) family dwelling units were available in the City;
1,128 bunks were available for transient workers in the
seafood processing industry. An additional 137 units were

-117-

under construction at the time of the survey. All housing
units that apparently were occupiable were noted. A total
of 10 of these units were vacant, representing a 4.6 percent
vacancy factor. Of these 10 vacant residences, however, six
(6) were noted to be in a "poor" condition, which may be the
reason they were no longer occupied. The four (4) remaining
dwellings represented a 1.9 percent vacancy factor.
Tables 11 and 12 present th*e housing inventory data.
TABLE I I - I

HOUSING QUALITY INVENTORY
City of Unalaska, Alaska
June, 1977

TYPE OF DWELLING NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
CONDITION(l)
Good Average Poor Total % of Total
Single Family Detached 45 35(3)(2) 30(6)(2) 110 52%
Duplex Residence 24 2 26 12%
Apartment Units 25 70)(2) 32 15%
Mobile Home 37 .8 -45 21%

Subtotal: 131 52 30 213 100%

Dormitory Housing
Units on-shore 256(3) 256
Dormitory Housing
Units on-ship 872(3) 872
Hotel-Motel Rental
Units 21 21

Subtotal: 21 1,128 -0- 1,149

Totals: 152 1,180 30 1,362

(1) See text for definition.
(2) Indicates number vacant at time of survey.
(3) Arbitrary condition assumption as no complete survey of
these units was made.

Source: Tryck, Nyman Hayes, Housing Inventory, June, 1977.

TABLE 12

SEAFOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY-RELATED
AND OTHER HOUSING-UNALASKA, ALASKA

JUNE, 1977

Seafood Processing Number of Number of Units
Housing(]) Units Existing Under Construction Total

On-Ship Housing 872 -0- 872
On-Shore Dormitory Housing 256 127 383
Multi-Unit Family Housing 10 10 20
Mobile-Modular Housing 31 -0- 31
Duplex Dwellings 6 -0- 6
Single Family Dwellings 13 -0- 13

Subtotal: 1,188 137 1,325

Other Housing

Multi-Family Housing Units(]) 22 -0- 22
Mobile-Modular Units 14 -0- 14
Duplex Housing Units 20 12 32
Single-Family Housing 97 1 98

Subtotal 153 13 166

TOTAL: 1,341 (1) 150 1,491

(1) Does not include hotel/motel-types of short-term temporary
living units (9 operated by seafood processors, 12 operated
by others). Total figure of 1,362 D.U.'s in Table 11
includes 21 such units (1,362 minus 21 equals 1,341 in this
table).

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, Housing-inventory, June, 1977.

_119-

2. AREAS FOR FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. Land area
within the City suitable for development of housing has been
identified. These areas are shown on the Land Use Plan map,
Figure 14. It is important to note here, as has been stated
previously, that there is adequate land area for housing in
the City for even the population associated with the highest
economic-population growth scenario presented. A variety of
housing ty es and density have been provided for in the Land
@> I p
Use Plan. It is recommended. that the-City prohibit 'housing
(and other) development on areas where slope gradient exceeds
4
25%, within the suspected fl.oodp'La-Ln of Unalaska Creek and
along those beach bluffs where significant wind and -wave
erosion is taking place. Additionally, certain areas are
identified as being especially sensitive by virtue of their
location on segments of the coastline and in areas of specific
marine habitat. These areas are identified in the Coastal
Management Element. No such areas have been recommended for
prohibition of development; however, permitted development
should be accomplished under strict guidelines designed to
minimize those conflicts and possible damage to the marine
and upland environment.

3. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS. The difficulty noted in
attempting to forecast population levels for Unalaska is
present, and even to a greater degree, in attempting to
forecast housing demand. The assumptions concerning the
type of employees, i.e. residents or non-residents (transients)
.who hold the future jobs, must be added to the assumption of
the number of jobs that will be available. This compounds
the problem by increasing the uncertainty of the forecast.
The basic assumption which must be made in projecting housing
needs pertains to the seasonality of employment. It will be
noted that the non-residential employment figures cited in
Table 6 are for avera 'ae employment and, as discussed previously,
employment in Unalaska is highly seasonal, but shows a
decreasing-trend in this regard. It is assumed, therefore,
that while the residential population will remain constant
throughout the season, the transient population will range-
from a peak population of from 47 percent above the average,
as it did in 1976, to 33 percent above the average by 1982
and 25 percent above the average by 1987. The number of
housing units required for transient labor non-residents is
assumed to be equal to the peak employment. Table 13 below
shows the number of family dwelling units and transient
labor housing units required under the different Population
assumptions for 1982 and 1987.

It should be noted that most of these projections are
based on the 1976 residential population estimate of slightly
over-500 people. Should the reason arise for revising this
estimIte, or should more accurate data become-available in
subsequent years, it would be advisable to rework these
calculations to achieve more accurate and timely projections.

TABLE 13

PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND

Unalaska, Alaska

NUMBER O'F HOUSING UNITS

1982 1987
Population:. Low Moderate High Low Moderate High
Resident Population 1,329 2,961 6,357 2,322- 5,703 13,443
Non-Resident
Population 1,657 1,288 1,425 2,507 1,774 2,082

Total Population: 2,986 4,249 7,'1782 4,829 7,477 15,525

Required Housing Units:
Required Resident
Family Housing
Units 557 1,242 2,665 974 2,391 5,637
Required Non-Resident
Transient Labor
Housing Units 2,2A 1,713 1,895 3,334 2,359 2,769

NOTE:
Existing Permanent Resident Housing Units, 1977 - 213.
Existing Transient Labor Housing Units, 1977 - 1,128.

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, September, 1977.

The data in Table 13 indicates that an additional 344
permanent resident housing units and an additional 1,076
transient..labor housing. units will be required to meet
housing needs in 1982 project6d under the 1982 low population-
economic growth scenario. A total of 761 permanent resident
housing units and an additional 2,206 transient labor housing
units (in excess of the units currently (1977) available)
would be required in 1987 under the low population-economic
growth scenario. These are significant housing demands.
However, the data in Table 13 should be carefully studied
along with the population-economic growth scenario assumptions.

-121-

It should be noted that-while the demand for permanent
resident housing units continuously increases under the
three scenarios, the number of transient labor housing units
fluctuates depending on the assumptions in the particular
scenario. This results from the differing assumptions
relative to that proportion of the labor force which will
remain transient and that which will become resident.

It is assumed that transient labor housing demands will
be adequately met by the seafood processing companies.
Permanent resident housing demands, however, will have to be
met by the private sector, or by action of a governmentally
or.ganized public housing group. The Aleutian-Pribilof
Housing Authority, a non-profit corporation under the Aleutian/
Probilof Islands Association, Inc. is one such group attempting
to foster development of additional housing in Unalaska.
Working jointly with the Ounalashka Corporation and the City
Council, the Housing Authority is attempting to institute a
housing construction program in Unalaska primarily to serve
low and moderate income families. The Alaska State Housing
Authority (ASHA), while it has no current housing program in
Unalaska, is the one state agency with the program capability
to assist in meeting housing demands. Efforts should be
made to engage ASHA in a housing program in Unalaska.

Several recommendations and actions seem appropriate
with respect to housing problems in Unalaska. It is recommended
that the City Council adopt these policy statements and take
appropriate actions to implement them.

Recommendations:

1. Efforts shaZZ be initiated to secure a branch bank Zocated in
UnaZaska.

2. Investigation shouZd be initiated to determine how construction
materiaZa couZd be purchased in buLk quantities, thus reaZizing
some savings over current purcha@e costs.

3. The City shouZd assure that none of its present code or land
use reguZat'llons and that any adopted in the future pose any
unnecessary obsta-cZes to housing construction beyond those
needed to assure comptiance with normaL safety and sanitary
requirements.

4. The City shouLd continue its current co-operative efforts with
the OunaZashka Corporation and the AZeutian-PribiZof Housing
Authority to deveZop additionaZ housing in the community.

-122-

5. The OunaZshka Corporation should be encouraged to continue,
and to accelerate if possible as appropriate, its current
program of upgrading abandoned military housing on Amaknak
Island.

6. The City should initiate contact with the Alaska State Housing
Authority to determine the extent of assistance that agency
could provide in meeting current as well as projected housing
needs.

7. If new housing programs are initiated, the City should consider
hiring a housing coordinator at Least on a partime basis; but
full time if the work program permits. Funding for such a
position is possibly available from one or more State or
Federal programs for such an effort. Possibly the position
could be accomplished by contractual agreement with the Aleutian-
ProbiZo.,"' Housing Authority andlor the Ou-nalashka Corporation.

8. The City should adopt policy which requires housing needs for
transient Labor forces, be they seafood processors or OCS
industry related or others, to be met by the industry with no
inordinate burden on ZocaZ population or City'funds.

9. The City should annually analyze population fluctuations and
update future projections of housing needs to assure that any
housing program it establishes is adequately supplied with
current data and thus able to design future program activities
around actual demands and attainable goals.

Zo. The City should investigate ways to give short term property
tax incentives to Local residents who make improvements and
repairs to their residences.

E. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN

A Community Facilities'Plan element of the Community
Development Plan depicts those public facili4-4 es which will
be needed to serve the population in future years. It must
take into account the educational, public safety, utility,
recreational and similar needs of the community as well as
the land requirements necessary to fulfill those needs. The
plan must be based:in part upon the present capabilities and
existing facilities in each of the areas of concern. It must
be based upon the projected future population and demands
that population will create and upon the capability of the
local community to finance public improvements.

-123-

The Community Facilities Plan Element contains a brief
inventory-of existing facillties, an analysis of future
needs and the Facilities Plan itself. In addition, the
Facilities Plan is included on the Land Use Plan Map, Figure 14.
Each major community facility is discussed separately
below.

1. SANITARY SEWER.

a. Present Facilities. The City's current
methods of sewa-g-e--cri-sposal are varied. Where a building has
access to existing sewer lines installed by the military,
that building is usually connected to that line. An outfall
line empties into Iliuliuk Bay at the upper end of the spit,
discharging sewage collected from a small,number of residences
up Unalaska Creek Valley. A second outfall line discharges
into the Bay near the Standard Oil dock. Sewage from the
"officers quarters" housing area on Amaknak Island flows
into this outfall line. Domestic wastes from the cannery
facilities on Amaknak are treated in individual package
treatment plants and the effluent discharged into the harbor.
Domestic wastes from the spit area on Unalaska Island, where
most of the permanent resident population is located is
handled in individual septic tank systems. Seafood processing
wastes are ground by the individual processers and pumped
across Amaknak Island to outfall lines extending into Unalaska
Bay. Individual septic tank disposal systems and package
treatment plant systems-take care of wastes at residential
and processing sites remote from the central area of the
community. Generally, the present systems of sewage disposal
are adequate for present needs except for those instances
when raw sewage is being discharged into receiving waters.
There is evidence of low dissolved oxygen content in the
waters of the harbor area, caused by sewage entering the harbor.
Occasional failures in sewage handling systems have occurred
in the recent past, attributable -primarily to overloading or
mechanical failure.

b. 'Future Needs and Plans. The City is currently
engaged in preparation of a -T-ong range sanitary sewer collection
and treatment plan. It will take into consideration the
need to handle domestic waste. The study is being accomplished
with state and federal grant funds. It has been concluded,
based upon projected population increases and projected
increases in !@eafood processing activity coupled with the
generally poor soil and shallow bedrock conditions throughout
the community and the necessity to protect the present high
quality of.the waters in Unalaska, that a community wide
sewage collection system and treatment facility is required
to adequately meet the needs of the community and comply
with federal and state anti-pollution laws. The plan of
study for the project has been completed and the "Step 1"

-.-124-

phase of the study is underway and expected to be completed
by the end of calendar year 1977. The "Step 2" phase,
design of the collection and treatment facilities, will
begin when.."Step 1" is accomplished. It will require approximately
six (6) months to complete. It is possible that construction
of facilities could begin by the end of calendar year 1978.
The earliest likely date for compietion of the project is
mid-1980.

It appears that certain of the sanitary sewer lines in
the existing collection and transmission system could be
utilized after rehabilitation; some new lines will have to
be installed, and a treatment plant will be required.
Neither'the exact method of treatment nor the design capacity
of the treatment plant has been determined at this time.
The site for the treatment plant has been tentatively chosen
based upon the optimum location for the outfall line and
proximity to users. That location, near Arch Rock on Amaknak
Island, is shown on the Community Facilities Plan map. The
facility is intended to handle all domestic wastes generated
in the community including those generated by the cannery
operations. It will not treat seafood processing wastes.
Processing wastes can best be handled by progressively
instituting more thorough treatment procedures such as
finer grinding, screening at a later date,, and possibly
dissolved air floatation separation still farther in the
future. Consideration is being given to reclaiming the
wastes from the seafood processing operations for use as
animal feed or fertilizer such as is being done in the cities
of Seward and Kodiak.

The City of Unalaska is proceeding with all possible
speed to solve current and future problems associatedwith
sanitary sewage in the community. Barring unforeseen events,
a community-wide sanitary sewer system will be operable by
1980. The economic, population and land use forecasts in
this Plan will provide valuable input to the sewer planning
project.

2. WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION

a. Present Facilities. The City is currently
(1977) in the final stages'of completing partial renovation
of the community-wide water system, Utilizing yehabilitated
portions of the existing military water system coupled with
certain new facilities constructed as part of the project,
the system is now operational and present water needs of the
community and the seafood processing industry are being met.
Two primary sources of supply are being utilized.. An existing
dam on Unalaska Creek has been rehabilitated. A new dam on
Pyramid Creek has been constructed. Both dams create small
lakes which are not actually water reservoirs in that they

-125-

do not create large impoundments but they do provide an
intake source for the transmission lines that feed from the
sites. Both creeks are in very nhrrow and steep vall.eys at
the site of the dams and are unsuitable for constructing
water storage r-eservoirs. Constructing reservoirs is much
less economically desirable than relying on deep wells to
supplement supply during per 'iods of low flow on the creeks.
In both cases existing transmission lines to the community
have been reh@bilitated, and new water treatment and filtration
.systems including screening to removing floating organic
matter along with chlorination have been installed. The
transmission lines consist of 14,000 feet of 12-inch Wood
stave pipe and-2,400 feet of new 12-inch ductile iron pipe
to the Unalaska Creek dam, and 18,500 feet of 16-inch wood
stave pipe and 3,000 feet of new 12-inch ductile iron pipe
to the Pyramid Creek dam. New transmission lines under the
east channel of Iliuliuk Bay have been installed linking the
distribution system on Amaknak Island with the two supply
sources on Unalaska Island. Two standby wells capable of
supplying 1,200 GPM as emergency supplemental supply for
periods of low flow on the Creeks have also been installed.
Fire hydrants have been installed and some of the existing
distribution lines on Amaknak Island have been rehabilitated.
All water users are now being metered. The system is capable
of supplying 7,500_GPM on a continuous basis with the wells
supplementing this-during low flow periods.

b. Future Needs and Plans. It is assumed that
water demands will increase in -Un-a--la-ska. Given a possible
three-fold increase in population and a doubling of seafood
processing volume it is likely that water demands will
likewise increase. The demand will probably not increase in
direct proportioii to increases in population and processing
volume as metering of water consumption and possible reuse
of water in processing can serve to lessen the rate of
Co
increase in consumption. The City will, however, have to
regularly monitor consumption and demand with regular projections
being necessary-to assure keeping ahead of the situation.

With respect to additional sources of supply, both
Unalaska Creek and Pyramid Creek have additional supply
producing capability. Exacting study has not been performed
to determine the maximum quantities that could be supplied
from these two sources, however, it is know that the limiting
factor in the current water distribution system is capacity
in the existing transmission lines, not inadequacies in
supply. Only a fraction of the total flow in the two creeks
is diverted to the supply lines. The rest flows over the
dams into the creeks and out to sea. Larger and/or additional
pipes could be installed to intercept and transmit more
water to the distribution system. Additionally, tributaries
exist on both creeks which could be used for development of
additional supply. Unalaska Lake could also be developed as

-lz6-

a water reservoir as well., This would require a higher
level of treatment than is the case on the two streams;
however,.possible future use of the lake should not be
overlooked and the present high quality of the water in the
lake should be protected by prohibiting septic-tank effluent
discharge, excessive urban runoff and siltation of the lake.
Significant additional supplies of water could probably be
obtained from wells in the Unalaska Creek floodplain area.
This possibility should be evaluated by test pumping from
this area. Use of the abandoned military water reservoir on
Amaknak Island as a source of water.is not contemplated
except for fire fighting emergency situations. Treatment
and filtration costs using this facility greatly exceed use
of ground water as presently is being done.

Probably the most vexing problem with respect to water
supply-is that faced during the few days,annually when cold
weather results in low flow periods on the two streams and
supply falls below the demand generated by seafood processing
activities. These periods, are to a great degree, predictable
and the processors have time to take action to reduce processing
volume. It is during these periods when the two wells are
relied on to meet at least part of the demand. The system
is new and the winter of 1977-78 will be the first year it
is in use. This situation should be addressed at an early
date and a solution implemented. Possible-solutions that
should be investigated include re-evaluation of the City's
water rate structure and initiation of water conservation
measures in the seafood processing facilities. Finally,
detailed study should be performed to determine long range
water demands for the community considering the range of
population and economic projections developed in this plan.
The solutions should then be included in the communityls
Capital Improvements Program in a manner timely to meet
future demands.

3. ELECTRICAL POWER

a. Present Facilities. Electricity is supplied
in the community from two primary sources - the City-owned
electric utility which supplies power'to all residential and
commercial customers on Unalaska Island, and numerous individual
electric generators at each of the canneries and other
installations on Amaknak Island supplying their own specific
needs. There is no central generation or distribution
system operable on Amaknak Island, only on the Unalaska
Island portion of the community. The City-owned electric
utility has two (2) 30OKW diesel electric generators. A
distribution system, limited to the Unalaska side,as stated,
is composed of distribution lines most of which are of World
War II vintage. Additional emergency standby power generation
capability of 125KW is available in the Unalaska Creek
valley area. The two primary generators are each capable of

-127-

producing 30OKW of power but cannot be run simultaneously
for any period of time because the units have not been
synchronized.

An abandoned power generation plant is located on
Amaknak Island south of the airport. The facility was
constructed by the military and, while not presently operable,
is reportedly in generally good condition with only minimal
rehabilitation being required to make it operable. The
generating capacity of this facility is unknown.

Current average power demand is between 170 and 180KW
with peak demands reaching 280KW. It is possible to isolate
some segments of the system in time of emergency and feed
power to segments of the system alternately in the event
generation capacity were to be reduced for some reason, but
this is considered an extremely undesirable means of handling
emergency situations or peak demands in excess of installed
capacity.

b. Future Needs and Plans. An engineering study
should be made to determine:

(1) Engineering feasibility of extending the
City electric utility distribution system to service all of
the City service area (corporate limits). . 1
(2) Total current system demand and projected
demand five and ten years hence for both the existing City
system on Unalaska Island and the total City service area
including Amaknak Island; and recommend the generating
equipment most economical to meet the demand.

(3) Required distribution system improvements
for both the existing system operated by the City electric
utility and distribution system extensions to the entire
City service area.

(4) Analysis of existing generating equipment
(both City and privately owned) that can be feasibily utilized
in providing the most economic electric service to the
entire City service area.

(5) Estimated cost of improvements recommended
in (1) through (4) above, including the estimated value of
privately owned generating and distribution facilities than
can be feasibily incorporated in the overall plan, including
standby or emergency generating capacity.

(6) Financial feasibility of recommendations
(1) through (4) above through the issuance of electric
revenue bonds or other methods of funding.

-128-

(7) Recommendations for interim improvements
(and their estimated costs) to the existing City generating
and distribution system should be made as an earlier and
separate section of the report.

Inasmuch as individual fish processing companies may
have to add generating capacity in the near future to meet
increased electric power demands, this study should be
completed as soon as possible.

In developing a new long range plan for upgrading the
electrical system, the City should give serious consideration
to relocating the City's power generation facility from its
present location adjacent to the school. While this location
is central in the community, it is nonetheless presently in
a very undesirable location and will be even more so if
recommended plans are carried forth to develop the City
government center and community center complex in this
location. If the abandoned power plant on Amaknak Island is
capable of being rehabilitated and depending on its power
generation capacity, that facility could conceivably become
the central power generating facility. The bridge crossing
between Unalaska and Amaknak, now in design stage, should be
designed so as to be capable of carrying electric transmission
and distribution lines.

4. COMMUNICATION FACILITIES

a. Present Facilities. Both local and long
lines communications are availa in Unalaska. Local
service is operated by Interior Telephone Co., while long
line telephone services are provided by RCA Alaska Communications,
Inc. Local service 'is available throughout the community
although the number of services is limited by capacity of
existing switching equipment. The system has recently
undergone upgrading with further improvements scheduled.
Initially at the time of the last round of improvements, a
total of 30 some requests for service were on record.
Before installation of the new equipment was completed, over
100 requests for service in the community had been received.
The present demand for services totals approximately 200..
New local switching equipment is being installed by Interior
Telephone and touch tone dialing will be available on the
system by year end (1977).

RCA long line communications are handled by a recently
installed micro-wave repeater system. Twelve (12) long line
circuits reportedly are presently available.

-129-

Both systems reportedly work reasonably well although
there are instances of failure and interruption to'service.
The long line system is occasionally plagued by a repeating
echo in the voice transmission and a split-second delay due
to the distances involved in communication with Anchorage.
Complaints about the. efficiency of the systems are voiced
frequently in the community and to the extent these complaints
are justified, they are attributed to problems reportedly
common to modification,periods such as the system is currently
going through.

b. Future Needs and Plans. Both Interior and RCA
report that they intend to continue upgrading their respective
systems and facilities and the interties between the two.
Neither report any anticipated problems in meeting future
demands for service. It is therefore assumed that adequate
service will be provided as demands require and if this is
not the case, both utilities, being regulated by the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission, would be compelled to do so as
condition of their certification by the Commission.

One aspect of the City's communication facilities
system merits consideration and possible action. The microwave
receiving and transmission facilities for long lines communication
have been located on the spit in the central part of the
community's present and future core area. The two reflecting
"dishes" are located here. While they are admittedly essential
components of the communications system, they are poorly
located from an aesthetic and visual point of view. It is
possible that the present location is the only technically
feasible location for such an installation. If that is the
case, then they obviously must remain. However, the City
should seek the cooperation of RCA Alaska Communications in
determining if an alternate location would be feasible
within reasonable cost and if so relocate the reflector
dishes. In the present location, they will in time become
impedements to expansion and development in the central
area, and aside from their being somewhat incompatible
aesthetically, they will be more incompatible from a land
use point of view as well.

s. EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

a. Present Facilities. The single school facility
presently at Unalaska provides primary and secondary education
for approximately 130 students (1977). All students live in
the community, within the City limits. The City of Unalaska,
as a First Class City in the Unorganized Borough, constitutes
one of the 31 city and borough school districts in the
state. The City has, for some years, made a sizable financial
contribution from tax monies towards support of the educational
program. This has, in part, led to development of an excellent

-130-

educational-program. During the off-season period for the
seafood processing industry, school enrollment drops to
about 115 students, an indication of the comparatively few
families in the transient labor force.of the seafood processing
industry.

Enrollment trends have, according to the School Superintendent,
exhibited an average six percent (6%) per year growth.
Discussions with school administrative personnel indicate
that the school could absorb a 25 to 30 percent increase in
enrollment before the physical size of the facility would
require expansion. If the current trend continues, adequate
school facilities exist until about 1981. Currently, 14
professional teaching personnel are employed, giving a
pupil-to-teacher ratio (PTR) of less than 10 to 1, one of
the lowest such ratios in Alaska today.

There is an extreme degree of pride among local residents
in the school, as expressed to the project consultant, and
the high quality of the education being delivered is a
repeated observation. Facilities in the school include 15
classrooms of varying size, design, intended function and
use; a gymnasium and multi-purpose recreation room; library;
vocational shop; small kitchen and other modern educational
facilities including a student operated television station
presenting packaged video tape programming and facilities
for live television broadcasting. The band room is located
in an adjacent building. The physical education program at
the school includes a basketball team; however, inter-school
competition is severely limited by minimal travel funds and
the long travel distances that are involved. A school lunch
program is operated for approxmately 60-70 students presently.

Community off-hour use of the school facility includes
public library, gymnasium, television station operation and
group meetings. Partitions between classrooms can be opened,
allowing public meetings to accomodate a hundred persons or
more.

A small number of adult education classes are held
occasionally in the school to provide training in welding,
mechanics and similar trades. Vocational classes for students
include carpentry, building trades and fisheries (boat
operation and repair). Land area adjacent to the school
building and part of the site itself is used for outdoor
play and physical education activities. Almost no improvements
nor equipment is located on the site, however.

b. Future Needs and Plans. The same difficulties
inherent in forecasting popula:Elonand housing demands in
Unalaska exist when projecting school enrollment.- The

-131-

number of variables and unknown factors relative to future
labor force and resident-nonresident.composition of the
population influence the projection greatly.
0 1
School staff personnel indicated in discussion with the
project consultant that they felt school enrollment would
increase significantly if adequate housing and related
facilities become available in the community, allowing many
of the fishermen to settle in the community and bring their
families with them. With more available housing, the
seasonality of the enrollment would likely decrease, they
indicated.

In forecasting school.enrollment from the-population
projections indicated in Table 6, a basic assumption must be
made. That assumption is that the proportion of school
children in the total residential population will remain the
same. In 1976 school children constituted about 24 percent
of the total Unalaska residential population, and on a
statewide basis, school children constituted 22 percent of
the total Alaska residential population. It seems a reasonable
assumption, therefore., that the 24 percent current Unalaska
proportion will continue over the next decade.

Table 14 be 'low indicates average elementary, secondary
and total school enrollment-in the Unalaska school for the
years 1970 through 1977.

TABLE 14

UNALASKA SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
1970-1977

Number of Pupils
Year Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 Total

1970 52 28 80
1971 70 42. 112
1972 70 49 119
1973 64 49 113
1974 52 51 103
1975 53 64 117
1976 56 66 122
1977 62 61 123

Source: School staff, Unalaska, Alaska, 1977.

-132-

Using this data, combined with the population-economic
scenario projections discussed earlier, the following school
enrollment projections have been developed.

TABLE 15

PROJECTED AVERAGE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
CITY OF UNALASKA
1982 and 1987

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT

1982 1987
Mod- Mod-
Low erate High Low erate Hi gh

Residential Population 1,329 2,961 6,357 2,322 5,703 13,443
Non-Residential
Population 1,657 1,288 1,429:1 2,507 1,774 2,082

Total Population 2,986 4,249 7,782 4,829 7,477 15,525

Pupils, Grades K-6 160 356 763 279 685 1,613
Pupils, Grades 7-12 159 355 763 278 684 1,613

Total Pupils 319 711 1,526 557 1,369 3,226

Source: Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, September, 1977.-

Table 15 illustrates the projected school enrollment for the
years 1982 and 1987 based upon the economic and population
scenarios discussed previously. It must be noted that these
projections are based upon sets of specific assumptions, and
that the projected enrollments will be achieved in direct
relation to the degree of accuracy of the assumptions. If-a
set of conditions relative to economic development other
than any of those utilized in the scenarios occurs, then
population will be accordingly different and this difference
will be reflected in actual school enrollment. It is therefore
imperative that school enrollment trends, as one indicator,
and economic developments, as a second, be monitored regularly
to detect added demands upon school facilities sufficiently
in advance of the demands actually occurring to enable new
construction to be initiated in a timely manner.

-133-

Certain policy decisions-should be made in the community
about educational facilities. The most basic of these
decisions is whether or not the current pupil-teacher ratio
(PTR) of 10'to 1 is going to be maintained or whether,
as enrollment increases, it will be allowed to increase.
This is a matter for decision by the School Board and the
community. That decision, however, will greatly affect the
need for expanded school facilities and the cost of providing
those facilities.

One and possibly two (2) additional school facilities
will likely be needed in Unalaska within the time frame of
this Plan. One school should be located on Amaknak Island
central to the area where family residential- development
will occur. The second should be located up the Unalaska
Creek Road near the intersection with Ugadaga Road. Specific
site selection studies should be initiated at some point to
ascertain the best specific location and configuration of
each building site based upon topography, access, etc. The
two sites should be central to their probable future attendance
areas and deviation from this primaty criteria for location
should'not be great. With respect to the site located in
Unalaska Creek Valley, it should be noted that a specific
site location has not been shown on the Community facilities
plan although as stated above, the site probably should be
located near the intersection of the Unalaska Creek Road and
Ugadaga.Road. It is recommended that the School Board
initiate a site selection study to identify one or more
alternative sites in the valley and once this is accomplished
move to,acquire a site for future use. Thi-s proces-s should
be initiated sufficiently far enough in advance of 'actual
need for the facility to permit timely planning, acquisition
and design processes to occur.

The recommended site for a school on Amaknak Island has
been shown on the Community Facilities plan. Selecting this
site is far less complicated than in the case of the site in
Unalaska Creek Valley and.the recommended location is central
to the family residential area on the Island.

Whether the two future schools are developed as full K-
12 facilitic@s or some division is arrived at where, for
example, two of the facilities are K-8 and one is 9-12
grades, is a decision, again, the School Board and the
community should make.
Finaliy, consideration is currently being given to
developing a swimming pool on a portion of the existing
school site. A team of engineering and architectual specialists
are presently working on feasibility determination and cost
analysis. The facility would serve both school and community
purposes. This effort should be carried through as there

-134-

was,considerable desire expressed to the project consultant
by residents for a public swimming pool facility in the
community. During this project investigation, consideration
should also be given to making at least one alteration to
the site of the current school. A platted but undeveloped
road right-of-way separates the existing school building
from the play area. This right-of-way should be vacated as
there is no future need for the road in this location.
Easements for existing public utilities will have to be
provided but the right-of-way can be vacated with no detriment
to the community street network.

6. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES

a. Present Facilities. Law enforcement and fire
protection services are currently provided by the City. One
fire station with apparatus is located on Unalaska Island,
similarly one on Amaknak Island. Additionally, the state
operated Magistrate's Court is located on the Unalaska side
along with temporary detention facilities. Five paid City
police officers make up the compliment of the Police Department.
The City does not maintain a paid fire department. There is
a volunteer fire department with the City contributing
financial support towards the group's operations and equipment.
The volunteer group is extremely efficient and effective.
Because there is no paid full time department and until
recently a service deficiency in fire hydrants and water
supply, the City is classified a Class Ten area for fire
insurance purposes. Whether this rating will change or not
based upon recent.impTovements to the water system is unknown.
Substantial improvement in the City's fire insurance rating
probably cannot be achieved until some degree of paid full-
iime fire department is organized and funded via the city
budget. It is-recommended, however, that the City contact
the Pacific regional office of the Insurance Services Office,
which is the organization responsible for establishing
municipal fire insurance classifications, and seek a complete
review of the City's rating. Part of such a review would
include reporting as to improvements needed to upgrade the
current Class Ten rating.

b. Future Needs and Plans. Two sites'have been
located on the Community Pacilities Plan for use in developing
future public safety facilities. On the Unalaska Island
side a site in the civic center-government complex has been
designated for housing a central fire station, Police Department
headquarters, Magistrate's Court facilities and a temporary
detention facility. Design of the facility on this site
would allow for twenty-four hour manning of the station.
0
The site is at the present location of the fire station on
Unalaska Island. This location is central. to the Unalaska
Island portion of the community for fire response time and

-135-

at the intersection of the major roads leading in all
directions. It is sufficiently removed from the intersection,
however, so as to not be hampered by traffic crossing the
intersection.

The site on Amaknak Island is intended for housing fire
fighting apparatus and personnel. It is central to the
,4maknak Island area and affords easily accessability to all
areas of the Island being located adjacent to major roads.
This facility will have to be designed, when implemented, to
accomodate any special fire fighting apparatus that might be
needed for protection and fire-rescue operations at the
canneries and.the airport. The City should secure the
assistance of professional expertise-in siting and designing
these facilities. Additionally, the-City's requirements for
manning and equiping both public safety functions should be
determined with the assistance of individuals expert in
these fields.

The abandoned military water reservoir on Amaknak
Island should be considered for future use as an emergency
fire fighting water source. In order to accomplish this,
the reservoir would have to be connected to the distribution
system on Amaknak Island., This may present special problems
in that it might prove necessary to provide chlorination and
filtration treatment of the water in order to hook it to the
system. Nonetheless, this possibility should be investigated.

No attempt has been made in this plan to prescribe the
number of police officers or fire fighting personnel for the
City of Unalaska. Determining these standards is best done
by individuals expert in the respective fields. Personnel
levels for any given community will vary depending on a wide
variety of factors including population and its composition,
area served, ter-rain, crime statistics for the local community%
presence of other support services and objective!@._of the
specific community. A community with a high crime index or
a high percentage of transient population will generally
call for a higher number of law enforcement officers than
on,d with a lower crime rate or a low percentage of transient
population. An area with high value property to protect
will require more fire fighters than will a community with
comparatively less commercial or industrial property of high
value. It is recommended that the City seek the assistance
of the State Public Safety.Department and the State Fire
Marshalls office as well as private professional expertise
in reviewing these areas and establishing minimum personnel
levels.

-136-

It is reported that the State of Alaska is currently
investigating the need for a criminal justice and detention
facility at Unalaska. It is recommended that the City and State
jointly consider locating this facility as noted above on
the site of the recommended Public Safety complex. The City
should contact the State Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, which is handling this project, at an
early date to initiate discussions on this matter.

7. MEDICAL FACILITIES

a. Present Facilities. Medical and hoalth
services in UnaT-a-s-Fa-are presen@Efiy provided through the
Iliuliuk Family and Health.Services Clinic, started in 1975.
Facilities include complete x-ray, laboratory and two (2)
patient overnight beds. A small apartment in the facility
is available for use by visiting physicians. The facility
was designed to serve a community population of 600 persons.
No full-time doctor or dentist is available in Unalaska, but
most less-than-serious diseases and injuries are treated by
the two full-time physicians' assistants at the Clinic.
Physician and dentist visits to the community are sporadic,
and occur generally twice yearly. Any problems which are
serious in nature require the sick or injured to be transported
to Kodiak or Anchorage for treatment. If weather conditions
preclude scheduled airline transport, the U.S. Coast Guard
does provide emergency transport. In addition to the two
physician's assistants, staff at the Clinic includes a
registered nurse, director, bookkeeper and janitor. The
Clinic is supported by fees paid by users of the Clinic, by
some public tax 'monies and by monies paid by the canneries
based upon the level of service and number of visits to the
clinic by cannery employees.

b.- Future Needs & Plans. The current facilities
for medical and ealtTi care meet only the day-to-day demands
of the Unalaska'Community. There is n6ed for a full-time
resident physician in Unalaska. Communities of the size of
Unalaska can support a full-time physician. Serious medical!
emergencies can be given attention presently but not the
extensive care needed in many life-and-death situations.
The infrequent visits by a physician and dentist to the
community is a complaint voiced repeatedly to the project
consultant by local residents and supported by City leaders.
This situation could be alleviated were the City able to
attract a full-time physician to the community.. Certain
requirements, like possibly housing and income supplement,
might be necessary. It is recommended that the City Council
seek input.from community residents on the question of
whether the City should expend local tax revenues for this
purpose,-and, assuming affirmative results, undertake efforts
to secure a full-time resident physician to function in the
Clinic.

-137-

secondly, consideration should begiven to the future
need for a small hospital facility to serve the community.
Cities of the-size of Unalaska do support small 6-15 bed
hospitals with at least minimal emergency, operative and
long term care and recuperative facilities. Unquestionably,
as population increases in the community, there will be an
increasing requirement for and expanded capability to support
such a facility. Additionally, consideration should be
given to whether.an emergency medical facility and hospital
located in Unalaska could provide services to all or some
part of the total Aleutian region. With the prospects of
becoming the largest populated city in the Aleutians,
Unalaska could well be the ideal location for such a facility.
Were this the case, the'service area of the hospital would
be much larger than just the City of Unalaska, and local
residents would receive significant benefit from the larger
and more sophisticated facility that would thus be available.

A possible site for new hospital facilities in the
community has been shown on the Community Facility Plan,
adjacent to the present school site on land currently owned
by the City. It is recommended that the City, jointly with
the Clinic, seek the assistance of the State Department of
Health & Social Services and of South Central Alaska Health
Planning and Development Inc., in addressing this question.
This non-profit agency is responsible for planning health
systems in the Aleutian region. Plans prepared by this
agency are submitted to the Alaska State Health Coordinating
Committee for approval and then the Statewide plan-incorporating
plans for health facil-ities from all regions of the State
is submitted to the U.S. Department of Health,, Education and
Welfare for approval. Separate from the health system plan,
the Statewide agency develops the medical facilities construction
plan. State legislation, Ch. 275 SLA 1976,.establishes the
requirement for "Certification of Need" before a hospital
.facility can be constructed. This legislation should be
revie.wed-for specific regulations and criteria for use in
pursuing this matter.

State Revenue Sharing funds for communities which
support hospital services and facilities are available to
supplement the operating costs of hospital facilities.
These funds, while not large in quantity and certainly not
sufficient to maintain a full fledged hospital facility,
could be of some assistance,in meeting this need.

8. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

a. Present Facilities. Recreational facilities
and outdoor recreation opportunities in particular, are
restricted somewhat in Unalaska by the frequency of inclement
weather. Facilities and organized programs receive high

-138-

usage by local residents and a recreation center is operated
It 4 S
by.the City. L located in the Recreation Center building
across the street from the school. Facilities and programs
for both juveniles and adults are operated. Indoor games,
television and reading areas are provided. Some recreation
functions are held in the school also. Additionally, the
Unisea Inn on Amaknak Island has a small game room@and a
gymnasium wi'thin the Inn. These facilities are used extensively
by employees in the seafood processors.

Individual recreational opportunities in the community
are afforded for boating and fishing outings, and many
people in the community have recreational watercraft.. There
are no fully developed neighborhood park or outdoor recreation
facilities in the community although a number of potentially
high quality sites exist which could be developed for park
and outdoor use with very little. cost to the community.
Sightseeing and exploring of the almost unlimited World War II
military ruins is a favorite recreational venture for visitors
to the community. Most recreational needs of the local
residents are met, however, on a personal and individual
basis as the beauty of the natural environment is captivating
and provides individual recreational - hiking, picture
taking, etc. - pursuits.
C,

b. Future Needs & Plans. A number of areas have
been designated on the Communi:Ey-Facilities Plan and the
Land Use Plan for future park-and recreation facility use.
These are'discussed below.

The prospects of a swimming pool for community and
school use has been discussed. If this p'roposal is implemented,
a significant contribution will have been made towards
meeting a specific recreational desire in the commu "nity. A
swimming pool would represent the major recreation facility
in Unalaska and doubtlessly would receive heavy use. It is
recommended that the City cooperate in any way possible with
the school district -in implementing this recommendation.
One major land area recommended for park and open space
development is the possible floodplain area on Unalaska
Creek. This area could be developed with an extremely wide
variety of uses and facilities. The greenbelt area recommended
around Unalaska Lake is intended to remain in open space
with no buildings or facilities, except a walking and bicycle
trail. The lake is a definite aesthetic asset to the community.
The preservation of open space surrounding the lake will
guarantee perpetual use of the lake and the immediate area
surrounding it for all people's use and enjoyment. 'To the
extent that private lands are incompassed within the greenbelt,
the City should move to acquire those areas in the near,
future.

-139-

An open space area on land that is generally undevelopable
surrounding the small lake (former water reservoir) at the
south end of Haystack Hill is recommended. This area is
owned by the City presently. Some active recreation. use
could be made of this area in conjunction with the lake.

The presently inoperable ski tow in Pyramid Creek
Valley should be considered for rehabilitation. Although
this area has not been shown on the Land Use Plan or the
Community Facilities Plan Map, use of the area for this
purpose should be considered.

Several areas on Amaknak Island have been recommended
for park and open space use. Some of the areas are included
in the Ounalashka Corporation's land selection and'title to
the properties will accrue to the Corporation. However, and
in the specific case of the southern tip of Little South
America, no development can take place without prior approval
of the Federal Fish & Wildlife Service since the area was
originally part of the Aleutian island Wildlife Refuge
System and it was made available for selection by the Corporation
subject to this condition. This area is recommended for
preservation in its present natural state as open space.

The entire northwesterly shoreline of Amaknak Island
from the airport south to the western tip of Little South
America is recommended for designation as open space since
it is essentially undevelopable because of steep bluffs (in
some locations) and areas of extreme tidal and wind erosion
(in other locations). It'would be unwise to permit development
any closer than 100 to 150 feet from the hi gh tide line as
erosion of the beach line in this area would pose significant
threat to any development in this location. Each segment of
this shoreline should be evaluated individually, before any
development in proximity thereto is permitted, to determine
the specific minimum setback from the sea that should be
adhered to.

A park or open space area surrounding the water reservoir
on Amaknak Island has been recommended. While this reservoir
is intended to serve only as an emergency fire fighting
water supply and thus maintenance of the water quality at
drinking water standards is not required, an area surrounding
the body of water could ideally be developed for active
recreational uses.

An open space.and park ar ea has been recommende'd on the
hill south of the airport. Thd topography@on the hill is
such that its development for building is questionable at
best. It could be readily developed for some recreational
activity, or simply left as open space;

-140-

The southerly one-third of the spit in Dutch Harbor
should be considered for maintaining in open space. It is
not specifically designated on the Land Use Plan or the
Community Facility Plan as Park or Open Space. However, it
is thought that this portion of the Spit is somewhat more
sensitive to development than the rest of the spit. This
should be determined. If this is not the case, then the
decision should be made as to whether to permit construction
of dock facilities and extension of floating seafood processing
ships into the area. Should study indicate that no structures
or dock facilities should be permitted., then the area could
be classified for permanent open space.

Finally, two sites ' one on Unalaska Island and one on
Amaknak Island have been recommended for development of
community centers. Indoor recreation facilities, a library
and related facilities should be the prime focus of each of
these facilities. Both juvenile and adult needs should be
met in the design of these centers. The one on Unalaska
Island is a part of the government services-civic complex
and should incorporate the present recreation center facility
until such time as it is determined appropriate to replace
the existing facility. The community center on Amaknak
Island should be programmed in time for construction when
the population level on the Island warrants such a facility.

9. SANITARY LANDFILL DISPOSAL FACILITY

A. Present Facilities. Three refuse disposal
sites are currently in use in t community. The primary
one is located on a wave created beach area on the southeast
shore of Iliuliuk Bay. A second site is located in a narrow
canyon on Pyramid Creek slightly upstream from its outlet
into Captain'S.Bay. A third site is located on the Unalaska
Bay exposure side of Amaknak Island. None of the three
sites were being operated in conformance with accepted sanitary
landfill disposal criteria at the time of the community
facilities inventory. Open dumping and fequent burning
occurs and cover of refuse is done only infrequently at the
site on Iliuliuk Bay. 'No cover appears to occur at all at
the other two sites. The sites, besides being visual blights,
are unsanitary and pose potential health hazards to the
community. Collection of garbage and refuse in the community
4
is provided by contract service with the City. Evidence is
abundant that the collection service is not effective as garbage
is found in locations throughout the community. Much of
this situation is attributable to carelessness on the part
of residents who do not carefully place their garbage in the
provided containers and to ineffective maintenance by the
City of the disposal sites because of recent and frequent
4 equipment failures. Efforts in recent months by the City
Public Works Department to improve maintenance at the disposal

-141-

sites has produced good results. These efforts should
be continued and expanded as should attempts to improve
regularity of collection.

b. Future Needs and Plans. Until the point in
time when the b-r'id--g-e--Eetween Amaknak Island and Unalaska
Island is completed it will be necessary to continue maintaining
a disposal site on both islands. Once the bridge is completed
and assuming contract collection services continue, it will
only be necessary to operate one disposal site. The following
actions are recommended.

The existing disposal site at Pyramid Creek should be
immediately closed. The City should proceed to clean up the
condition existingthere now and restore the site to some
degree of natural state. Necessary steps should be taken to
prevent any future use of the site for refuse disposal.

The site on Amaknak Island should be cleaned up to the
maximum extent possible. It is not possible to renovate the
site for proper use as a sanitary landfill as it exists
virtually on bedrock at the beach line and it is just.not
possible to develop a sanitary landfill at the site..
Efforts should be undertaken to find a more suitable site on
Amaknak Island for temporary use as a landfill until the
bridge is installed. Once the bridge connection is in, this
site or the alternate site on the Island if one is found,
should be permanently closed to further disposal and it
should be renovated to its natural state to the extent
possible.

The disposal site on Iliuliuk Bay should be further
upgraded. Steps should be taken to prevent any refuse from
entering the waters of the Bay and cover material should be
secured and stockpiled at the site. Regular trenching with
cover of disposed refuse in the trenches should be instituted
on whatever frequency is necessary to- prevent blowing of
papers, "dump picking" or scavaging, and to reduce the
health hazard to the minimum level possible. Open burning
should be prohibited and the prohibition should be rigidly
enforced. Amendment of City ordinances may be necessary to
give sufficient police powers to the City to effect this
ban.

Finally, the City should initiate a study to locate a
suitable sanitary landfill site on Unalaska Island as well
as on Amaknak Island for possible.future use. Determination
of a suitable site or sites is beyond the scope of this
study and there are sufficiently significant problems related
to land availability, water pollution ' soil conditions and
availability of cover material unique to Unalaska to warrant

-142-

careful study by persons competent in the field before
selection of a permanent site.

10. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES

a. Present Facilities. Public works facilities
in Unalaska include two municipal garages, one located up
Unalaska Valley on property owned by the City, and a second
on Amaknak Island south of the airport in a building leased
by the City. These facilities are used for equipment
storage and maintenance functions, shop area, and serve as
central public works facilities to serve the two respective
areas.

City equipment for performing public works functions
include over 13 pieces of heavy equipment such as road
graders, loaders, snow blower, dozers, etc. Certain pieces
of the equipment are relatively new, but.many of the pieces
are old (1950-55 vintage), and in generally marginal to poor
condition. Frequent breakdowns are reported, something not
necessarily uncommon in municipal public works equipment
operations. However, a higher degree of regular maintenance
could, in this case, serve to reduce the frequency of breakdown
according to the D.P.W. Director. Lengthy time periods are
generally experienced in securing delivery of repair parts
and service by other than City D.P.W. personnel when such
service is needed. This accentuates the seriousness of the
problem and strengthens the case for morie regular maintenance.

b. Future Needs and Plans. Two sites. for D.P.W.
facilities have been recommendEd "on the Community Facilities
Plan. The present Fsite on Unalaska Road is recommended for
retention. A new shop-garage facility will eventually be
required at this location as the existing building is old
and lacks sufficient space for expansion of functions. This
facility should be developed as the central D.P.W. facility
for the City and should-house administrative offices for
D.P.W.'functions as well as the mechanical shop, repair and
storage functions.

A second D.P W. facility site is recommended on Amaknak
Island, adjacent to the site recommended for the City-wide
sanitary sewage treatment plant. This facility should be
developed as a satellite facility, small.in size and designed
to house road maintenance, snow removal and similar equipment
that would be used to service functions on Amaknak Island.

11. COMMUNITY CENTER COMPLEX

Presently, the City's governmental offices are located
on Broadway Street, near the School and Community Center. While
there are no other state and federal governmental offices in the

-143-

C) U)
C-)
> m
z c= ;G m

rnz

pa
m CA > -n

Ll) -n
CAm
rn ;a

VACATE STREET

Ln m
C-) ><

0 Ln
C)

-n

VACATE STREET

3 m
(D m

m
CL > r-M
X
(D m M n
m
M
> @o a
m

m
z
m

rt
% %
..........
............ ....

rt ....

rt
m

x
rxm-

community, indications are that several state and federal
agencies would be desirous of occupying space in the community
in future years. The State is considering development of new
criminal justice facilities and the Department of Public Safety
has indicated they are seeking office space for 200 mile enforce-
ment activities. It is recommended that the City investigate
the possibility of consolidating all governmental facilities and
the school, recreational-community center facilities and other
public uses in a single area. It is possible to utilize lands
already owned by the public agencies, i.e., the City, School,
etc, to develop this complex. Figure 17 illustrates a conceptual
design layout for the various facilities that might be included
in such a complex and suggests locations for the various uses.
The City should commission a detailed investigation and preparation
of a site development plan before undertaking development on any
portion of the properties involved. This will assure an integrated
plan and functional use of the sites when facilities are actually
developed.

12. CEMETERY

a. Present Facilities. The current cemetary in
Unalaska, near the south end of-Tliuliuk Bay, is 1.91 acres in
size. It has been in use since early Russian settlement in the
It was surveyed in 1907 and reserved as a part of
communL
the Russian-Greek Mission, including the Church, pastor's house
and other land. During World War II, the site was known as the
Fort Mears Cemetery.

b. Future Needs. It may be advisable to enlarge the
boundary of the cemetery area to about five acres to prevent
development against the current site's boundaries. It is better
to reserve additional area now, rather than find an additional
site sometime in the future. The present site is adequate in
size to handle expected needs in the immediate future.

F. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PLAN

The Transportation/Circulation Plan element of the
Community Development Plan outlines the basic roadway network
for the community and addresses those regional and statewide
transportation systems which serve the community. This
section of the report presents an inventory of existing
transportation facilities and systems serving Unalaska as
well as a local transportation/circulation plan for the
community. It also addresses regional transportation issues.

1. INVENTORY. The local transportation systems in
Unalaska consisT-of the City's basic road network and a

-14s-

commercially operated ferry shuttle service. Many streets
and roads exist in the City, a great number in fact for a
community of the physical size and population of Unalaska.
This situation results in great measure from the extensive
military activity which occurred in the area and the numerous
military installations which were located virtually throughout
the Unalaska Bay area. Many of the former military-constructed
roads are presently in poor condition due to lack of continuing
maintenance coupled with the! fact that many of them were, of
necessity, constructed in locations susceptable to landslide
and erosion. Roads around Captains Bay to Eider Point, on
Ballyhoo Mountain, around the westerly side of Amaknak
Island, along Iliuliuk Bay to Summer Bay and across the
mountains through the pass to Summer Bay are examples of old
military roadways which have become impassable.

All roads in the community are unpaved, being of gravel
construction. Those older roadways in the community which
have been regularly used and maintained have remained open.
Mos,t of the currently used roads on Amaknak Island fall into
this catagory. There are generally two,types of roads from
a functional point of view, in the community: local roLs
which.provide access to individual properties; and what
might be called, for lack of more suitable terminology, the
major or primary roads. Figure 18 illustrates the existing
road network in the City. The State secondary highway
system in the City includes most of the major roads. It
includes the main roadway, Broadway Street, through the spit
area on Unalaska Island, out Unalaska Creek Road to the
creek crossing; across the Iliuliuk River and around-Haystack
Hill to the site of the proposed bridge crossing. On Amaknak
Island the State secondary system includes the roadwar
between the Amaknak side of the proposed bridge- crossing
around the harbor and Margaret Bay to the Airport. State
roads in the City are maintained by the City on a cost
reimbursable basis from the State of Alaska.

Numerous local streets have been platted but not constructed.
On Amaknak Island, none of the roadways have ever been
platted. These roadways exist on numerous maps, including
old military charts, but plats showing the rights-of-wa-Y
havina been dedicated to public use apparently do not exist.
It is also noted from comparison of plat map-s for the Unalaska
island portion of the community with aerial.photography of
the same area that many existing roads are not located
within the platted rights-of-way but are instead outside the
rights-of-way. A few instances were observed where structures
or mobile homes have been placed within or in close.proximity
to the platted right-of-way.

Traffic patterns -in the community are such that.two
roadways receive the majority of traffic movement in the
area. On the Unalaska Island side, Broadway Street and its

-146-

DOCK DOC

At 0

OCK

FL
DOC R

DOC
cb

0 c

FIGURE 18
EXISTING ROAD NETWORK AND
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

0 0 0 0 00 0 ARTERIAL ROADS C STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM I
* -COLLECTOR ROADS
...... *FERRY ROUTE

147

extension Unalaska Creek Road, receive much traffic use. On
Amaknek Island most of the traffic uses the roadway circling
Iliuliuk Harbor and connecting to the airport. This roadway
traverses the developed seafood processing area and results
in undesirable congestion as through traffic traverses the
developed areas. The bridge crossing Iliuliuk River was
damaged recently when a heavy vehicle broke through the
deck. Repair of the bridge is scheduled and the crossing of
Unalaska Creek up the valley will be renovated as well. An
area of particular concern from the standpoint of vehicular
traffic is the area at the south end of the airport. The
existing roads are in extremely close proximity to existing
buildings in several places and this, combined with several
"blind" corners rounding hills, has made the area hazardous.
Additionally, the roadway to the head of Dutch Harbor crosses
the extreme south.edge of the concrete aircraft taxiway-
parking apron. This is an extremely hazardous condition
although most local residents are aware of the situation and
exercise caution when traversing the area.

Road maintenance is perfo-rmed by the City Department of
Public Works. The State road system as noted above, is also
maintained by the City maintenances forces with reimbursement
to the City from the State for this function. As all roads
are unpaved, maintenance consists of continued grading,
occasional placement of road gravel and snow plowing during
winter months. Dust is a problem throughout the community
during dry periods and despite the high frequency of rainfall,
dry perioas occur frequently as it takes very little time
for the roadways to dry up.

The Islander Ferry is a commercially owned vessel
operated in connection with the airport taxi service. The
shuttle service operates between the dock at the mouth of
the Iliuliuk River and the dock at the Vita Foods processing
facility on Amaknak Island. It runs several times a day on
a regular schedule between mid-morning and early evening. It
operates on schedule-to meet all Reeve Aleutian Airways
arrivals and departures at the airport. School children
on Amaknak Island are transported to Unalaska Island as well
as on the return trip on the shuttle twice daily. This
service provides the only regular means of access between
the two islands except for use of private skiff.

With respect to regional transportation services, two
such services exist in Unalaska. Reeve Aleutian Airways, an
intrastate certificated airline, is presently the only
commercial air carrier serving Unalaska with scheduled flights . No
interstate air carrier serves the community. Flights are
scheduled once daily between Anchorage and Unalaska with
connecting service to Sand Point, Cold Bay, Shemya, Adak,
and St. Paul Island. These flights carry primarily passengers

-148-

plus mail. Hi 'gh priority cargo is carried on a space available
basis. Sealand Inc. provides containerized barge service
between Anchorage and Unalaska and between Seattle and Unalaska.
Cargo to Unalaska is general in nature including foodstuffs.
Return cargo is almost totally freezer vans containing processed
seafood products for distribution to outside Alaska markets.
Frequency of service is tied directly to volume of product to
be shipped out of Unalaska, but generally occurs on a 14-day cycle.
Alaska Marine Shipping also calls at Unalaska every 8-10 days
as does Pioneer Alaska Lines, the latter hauling mostly palletized
and bulk cargo. Crawley Maritime provides contract shipping to
Unalaska.

Regional transportation facilities in Unalaska also include
the Dutch Harbor Airport, the dock at Captains Bay and the
Standard Oil dock. The airport was originally constructed as a
military facility to facilitate naval aircraft patrols and
operation of fighter squadrons during World Way II. It is
presently classified as part of the State system of secondary
airports. The airport runway is 4,300 feet 1-on'g by 100 feet
wide on the north 200 feet and 200 feet wide on the remainder.
It is unpaved, except for a concrete apron area at the south
end. The runway is oriented northwest-southeast with runway
headings of 120 degrees and 300 degrees. Natural terrain along
the northeasterly edge of the runway constitutes a noted ob-
struction. The runway is unlighted and ummarked and navigational
aids are limited to an NDB (non-directional radio beacon) and DME
(distance measuring equipment on Ballyhoo Mountain). All aircraft
operations are conducted under visual flight rules (VFR).
Communications are. available with the FAA operator at Dutch
Harbor which is operated by Reeve Aleutian Airways personnel
from the terminal building.

Severe limitations exist on the type of aircraft that can
use the facility due to the shortness of the runway and the
absence of adequate navigation aids. Reeve Aleutian generally
operates YS-11 aircraft (twin jet turbo-prop engines) into the
facility. Larger aircraft do not normally operate in and out
of the airport although local residents report that Reeve-owned
Electra aircraft and the Coast Guard C-130 Hercules aircraft
have on occasion in the past operated on the runway. Corporate
class jet aircraft do use the facility as well. By in large,
however, the shortness of the runway and the inadequate navi-
gational aids and frequent poor weather conditions prevent improved
frequency and quality of commercial air carrier service. Neither
the Boeing 727 or 737 aircraft can use the airport. These two
aircraft are the "backbone" of the Alaska intrastate commercial
air carrier service system today.

Water transportation facilities for ocean going barges or
ships are presently limited to the dock at Captains Bay and the
Standard Oil dock. Other dock facilities in the community have

-149-

deteriorated to the point where they are practically unusable.
The Captains Bay dock can tie up the larger vessels and
barges which call at Unalaska. Any cargo to or from Unalaska
Island must be moved across the Captains Bay dock as there is
no way to transfer cargo between the two islands. There are
indoor storage facilities for cargo at the Captains 'Bay dock.
The Standard Oil dock is located south of the airport near
Rocky Point. This facility handles primarily petroleum products
but does handle some general cargo for the Amaknak Island
portion of the Community as cargo of any bulk or weight landed
on Unalaska Island cannot easily be transferred to Amaknak Island-.
The U.S. Coast Guard occasionally uses the Ballyhoo dock to
load bouys; however, that facility is in extremely poor
condition and not capable of' handling any sizable cargo.

2. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PLAN

a. Regional. Regional and interregional air
transportation is being restricted in Unalaska because of
the limitations of the airport facility. The Alaska Division
of Aviation reports that it has no plans to implement improvements
to the facility during the next five years. The Federal
Aviation Administration Alaska Region 10-Year Plan indicates
that REIL lights (runway end identification lighting) and a
VASI (visual approach slope indicator) are planned for
installation at the facility sometime during the 1978-88 time
frame. The report also indicates that the National Airport
System Plan recommended improvements for the airport including
paving, runway lighting, medium intensity runway edge lights,
apron lighting, a new terminal building and a long list of
ground improvements relative to maintenance, operations,
etc.

The previous Community-Development Plan for Unalaska
recommended that a 6,000 foot long runway be located on the
Dutch Harbor spit.. To the knowledge of the project consultant,
no engineering feasibility or cost analysis of that proposal
was ever accomplished. No technical studies have been
performed relative to the desirability or utility-of the
runway alignment that would result if a runway were constructed
on the spit. The intent of upgrading airport facilities in
Unalaska would be to provide for more frequent and safer air
carrier service and to permit-larger and heavier aircraft to
serve the community. The spit, as discussed before, is
thought to be a delicately balanced natural feature. The
massive construction pro.ject that would be required to
develop an airport facility on the spit could potentially
pose a serious threat to the existence of the spit.

No practical location for development of a new airport
is known to exist in Unalaska. The present runway was
literally blasted out of the hillside of Ballyhoo Mountain.

_150-

In the absence of a more viable location, it appears that it
will be necessary to upgrade the existing facility through
extension of the runway as much as 2,700 feet total if a
6,000 foot runway is desired. Additionally, existing terrain
may have to be modified to eliminate obstructions near the
north end. The feasibility of this is unknown.

It is recommended that the City of Unalaska request the
State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
along with the Federal Aviation Administration, to initiate
at the earliest possible time a review of possible alternatives
for improving airport facilities at Unalaska. This request
should be a priority item for the City. It is essential
that the feasibility of airport upgrading be determined in
order that alternatives to air transportation can be considered
in the event that it will not be possible to upgrade the
existing facility to a degree sufficient to permit operation
of larger and heavier aircraft into Unalaska.

Additionally, it is recommended that the City of Unalaska
initiate a request to the Alaska Transportation Commission
to evaluate the present and future need for additional
intrastate air carrier service to and from Unalaska. Air
passenger traffic will likely increase with the probable
increases in economic activity and population forecasted and
demand for service should be met in a timely manner,rather
than waiting for demand to exceed the existing service
level.

With respect to water transportation facilities in
Unalaska the most significant improvement that could be made
is the development or' a general cargo dock facility capable
of handling all forms of van shipment and bulk cargo. The
City is presently proceeding with application for Phase I
development to the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic
Development Admin4-stration (EDA) for grant funds, as well as
the State of Alaska for funds to construct such a facility.
City of Unalaska funds will also be utilized in the project.
Preliminary studies and design evaluations have been completed
and if sufficient grant funds are obtained to supplement the
City's funds, Phase I of a new general cargo dock facility
will be constructed on the site of the abandoned Ballyhoo
Dock in Dutch Harbor. Completion of this facility will
provide capability to serve the entire community when the
proposed bridge across the west channel is completed.
Additionally, it is recommended that the City initiate
plans to develop a small boat basin at the head of Dutch
Harbor. The site is considered ideal for location of such a
facility as it is well protected from wind and wave action.
The facility should be designed to accomodate small boats of
the recreational and work boat or skiff type, the smaller

commercial fishing vessels as well as the new generation of
commercial fishing vessels including those in the 150 foot
class. It is believed that many of the larger fishing
vessels operating in the Aleutian region would home port in
Unalaska if there were adequate moorage and harbor facilities,
which presently do not exist. The City should seek financial
assistance from the State Division of Waters and Harbors in
accomplishing this project. The City should also encourage
the present owners to renovate the marine ways and develop a
marine repair-service facility next to Expedition Island on
the site of the former Navy submarine repair facility.
Development of such repair and service capability in the
community would also aid in attracting commercial fishing
vessels to Unalaska.

With the construction of a small boat basin in Dutch
Harbor, there will still be a need for transit type moorage
on Unalaska Island. The facility should be capable of
mooring four to six small boats for a limited period of time
sufficient only to allow taking on supplies or passengers.
This facility should be planned and constructed as a part of
the small boat harbor basin project in Dutch Harbor. The
best location for this moorage appears to be north of the
causeway (on the Unalaska Island side) to be built in connection
with the bridge crossing between Unalaska and Amaknak Islands.

The State of Alaska is currently conducting a regional
transportation study of Southwest Alaska. Exactly what this
study will show with respect to Unalaska is unknown. The
focus of this study is primarily on the feasibility of a
Southwest Alaska marine ferry system. The City of Unalaska
should request the State to expand that study, or initiate a
new study of multi-model transportation needs and possibilities
in Southwest Alaska. Of particular concern in such a study
should be an evaluation of airport expansion needs and
possibilities at Unalaska and what the alternatives with
respect to regional transportation are if it is determined
to be impossible or impractical to improve air service and
airport facilities at Unalaska.

b. Local Circulation Plan. The recommended
street and road plan for local EIrculation within the community
is illustrated on the same map as the Land Use Plan and the
Community Facilities Plan, Figure 14. The system includes
two types of roadway facilities, Arterial and Collector.
Local or neighborhood streets have not been shown on the
plan. These street facilities are normally developed to
compliment the Arterial and Collector roadway networks at
the time neighborhoods are designed and developed.

The Arterial road system includes all of those road
facilities which connect centers of activity in the community
or which facilitate traffic movement from outlying areas

-152-

into the centers of activity. These roadways are normally
those included on the State secondary road system in a
community. While all of the roadways recommended for 4nclusion
in this category may not presently qualify under Highway
Department criteria for classification and inclusion on the
State secondary road network, the eventual goal of the City
should be to have each of these facilities included in the
State's secondary system.

A total of approximately 11.56 miles of Arterial roadway
are included in the plan, including 5.20 miles on Amaknak
Island and 6.36 miles on Unalaska Island. These roadways
should be constructed to standards incorporating 60 feet of
right-of-way. In many cases, this right-of-way width will
be neither possible nor practical, however, whenever possible
L.his should be the design right-of-way. Where Arterial
roadways traverse heavily developed areas, it should be the
goal of the City to pave the roadways with at least two
lanes of traffic plus allowance for parking where appropriate
or addition of pedestrian walkways if desired and additional
vehicl; travel lanes if necessary in future years.

One major modification in the current Arterial road
network is recommended. The main road traversing the developed
seafood processing area along the edge of Iliuliuk Harbor
should be reduced from its current.Arterial status and use
to that of Collector status and use (discussed below). This
area is congested presently and an Arterial class roadway
through this area carrying essentially through traffic is
undesirable. The presently impassable roadway around the
northwest side of the central part of Amaknak Is'-and should
be reopened, upgraded and classified as an Arterial road.
This will provide an Arterial road link between the western
terminus of the proposed bridge and the Arterial road northwest
of Margaret Bay accessing to the airport, and redirect
through traffic out of the congested area around Iliuliuk
Harbor.

Another area of concern, as mentioned, is that around
the present airport terminal and the southern end of the
airport runway. No simple design solution to this problem
is apparent. However, the City should engage the Highway
Department and Division of Aviation in assisting with a
design concept study of this problem.

Another area of concern is the intersection of the two
Arterial roads north of the bridge crossing the Iliuliuk
River where the government services and complex of community
facilities will eventually develop. As traffic volumes
increase, this intersection will become increasingly congested.
There appears to be no alternative to intersecting these two
Arterial roadways at this location given the fixed location

-153-

of the bridge across the Iliuliuk River and the conclusion
that it is probably not possible to construct a road on the
southwest side of Unalaska Lake to feed Amaknak bound traffic
from the Valley into the Arterial roadway network on the
west side of the Iliuliuk River. It is recommended that the
City and the Highway Department evaluate alternative designs
and traffic channelization techniques to minimize conflicts
at this intersection. This could possibly be done at the
same time the bridge across Iliuliuk River is being repaired.
0

The collector roadway network system illustrated on the
Plan is intended to function primarily as a system feeding
traffic onto and off of the arterial roads. The recommended
plan contains 9.45 miles of Collector roads, 5.91 miles on
Unalaska Island and 3.54 miles on Amaknak Island. Additional
collector roads will be required and warranted in time;
however, these are recommended to meet needs in the immediate
future. These roadways should be developed to standards
including minimum 40 foot rights-of-way with two lanes of
traffic. Eventually, traffic volumes willwarrant paving of
some of these roadways.

There are no improvements or provisions presently for
pedestrian circulation in the City despite the fact that
there is a significant amount of pedestrian traffic-in the
community. The City should initiate a review of pedestrian
movements in the heavily developed portions of the community,
especially in the vicinity of the school, to determine if
pedestrian walkways are warranted. Particular consideration
should be given to development of a series of covered walkways
connecting various parts of the government services-community
center complex.

G. SEC. 14(c)(3) A.N.C.S.A. CONVEYANCE

Under provisions of Section 14(c)(3) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), the Ounalashka Corporation
is required to convey to the City of Unalaska sufficient
acreage of land area for community expansion. Conveyance is
to be accomplished according to the Act after receipt by the
Village Corporation of patent to the selected land. One

-154-

interpretation, that by the Federal State Land Use Planning
Commission for Alaska, indicates that reconveyance is to
occur upon the Corporation's receipt of interim conveyance.*
Regardless of when the conveyance is to legally take place,
the intent of Sec. 14(c) of the'Settlement Act is to provide
a mechanism to assure that those lands accruing to the
Village Corporation which are vital to present community
needs and which are needed to meet future community expansion
will finally be conveyed to the local government entity for
community use. The premise underlying requirement for these
conveyances from the Corporation to the City is that those
lands in the community which are needed to meet public
purposes serving all the people of the community should be
in the ownership of the local government, and that local
government should own these lands on which public facilities
presently are or will in the future be located. Since it
was not possible to handle the literally hundreds of individual
cases in the ANCSA legislation on a case by case basis, the
legislation was written to require that the Village Corporation
select all unappropriated federal lands in the "core townships"
surrounding the Village location and then, upon receiving
control of the lands, the Village Corporation is required to
convey to the local government those lands needed for public
purposes and community expansion.

Section 14(c)(3) of the A.N.C.S.A. is quoted below.

(3) the Village Corporation shall then convey to any MunicipaZ
Corporation in the Native Village or to the State in trust for
any Municipal Corporation established in the Native Village in
the future, title to the remaining surface estate of the improved
land on which the Native 'Village is Located and as much additional
Land as is necessa.-g for community expansion, and appropriate
rights-of-way for public use and other foreseeable community needs:
Provided, that the amount of Lands to be transferred to the
Municipal Corporation or in trust to the State shalt be no Zes-s
than 1,280 acres3

The section in its entirety, as well as portions of it, have
been the subject of various different interpretations, and
significant controversy has developed in areas of the State
over the intent and meaning of the Section. These controversies
may be resolvable only through litigation. State legislation
was adopted on the subject, however, that legislation has

-------------------------------
*"14Cc) Handbook", Reconveying Land Handbook for Village
Corporations; Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for
Alaska, July 1975.

-155-

contributed little if anything towards clarification. of any
of the many controversies. The Alaska Department of' Community
and Regional Affairs is presently working to implement the
state legislation, including establishing the administrative
mechanisms for fulfilling the responsibilities assigned to
it by the state act as the trust agent in cases where no
municipality presently exists.

Since the Dutch Harbor Airport is involved in the
conveyances that will occur at Unalaska, Sec. 14(c)(4)
relative to airports is quoted below.

(4) the ViZZage Corporation shaZZ convey to the FederaZ Gove:mment_,
State or to the appropriate MunicipaZ Corporation., titte to the
surface estate for existing airport sites, airway beacons, and
other navigationaZ aids, together with such additionaL acreage
andlor easements as are necessary to provide reZated services and
to insure safe approaches to airport runways; and

The property on which the Dutch Harbor Airport is
located is still owned by the U.S. Qovernment. It has 'been
selected by the Ounalashka Corporation and interim conveyance
of that selection has been granted by the Bureau of Land
Management to the Corporation. It is unknown when patent to
the airport selection will be conveyed.

Since the City of Unalaska is not presently operating
an airport facility, and since the State of Alaska is the
agency which has historically operated airports of this
type, it is assumed that the State of Alaska will be the
agency receiving the acreage associated with the Dutch
Harbor Airport. Recent efforts by the Alaska Division of
Aviation to reach a tentative agreement with the Ounalashka
Corporation as to what lands will be transferred to the
state have been unsuccessful, however.

Consideration during the course of preparing this plan
has been given.to the acreage that should be conveyed by the
Ounalashka Cofporation to the City of Unalaska under the
Sec. 14(c)(3) ANCSA provision. The project consultant has
evaluated the Land Use Plan, the Community Facilities Plan
as well as the other elements of the plan. Based upon
the Consultant's evaluation of the Commun-ity's present and
future land requirements to provide municipal services and
perform its public functions, the-following-conclusions and
recommendations have been reached. These are offered for
the benefit of the City, as well as the Ounalashk4' Corporation;
the acreage figures suggested for reconveyance are considered
by the project consultant to be minimum in total. The
question of acreage involved in the Airport conveyance
should be thoroughly reviewed with both the State Division

of Aviation and the Federal Aviation Administration, which
agencies are expert in this field, obviously. It is possible
that additional acreage at the airport over and above that
recommended here for conveyance will be required if there is
to be any expansion and upgrading of airport facilities in
the future. It should be pointed out that a general airport
development plan should be prepared before final acreage
figures for conveyance takes place on this facility.

Recommendations:

1. In areas where Village Corporation land
selection has occurred within the City limits, rights-of-way
on all existing roads and streets, whether platted or unplatted,
should be conveyed to the City. When an arterial or collector
road has been recommended on the Transportation Plan but no platted,
dedicated public right-of-way exists, sufficient right-of-
way should be conveyed to the City for future development of
the community road system. Right-of-ways on the -IL'ollowing
roads should also be conveyed to the City: Captains Bay
Road within the City limits and at least to the.head of
Captains Bay outside the City limits; Pyramid Creek Road
within the City and at least to the site of the Pyramid
Creek water supply dam outside the City limits; Unalaska
Creek road to the Unalaska Creek water supply dam; all roads
connecting to the arterial roads in both Pyramid Valley and
Unalaska Creek Valley; the Iliuliuk Bay Road at least as far
as the head of Summer Bay, a portion of which would be
beyond the present City limits; and the Dutch Harbor Road
along Ballyhoo Mountain. These rights-of-way have not been
included in Table 16 or shown on Figure 19.

2. The land parcels and acreages noted in Table 16
-should be conveyed to the City for the stated purposes under
the provision of Sec. 14(c)(3) of ANCSA.

The code numbers in Table 16 correspond with those
shown on the associated map,, Figure 19. The acreage associated
with the airport conveyance will assumedly, be conveyed to
the State of Alaska. The total iand area thus'recommended
for conveyance to the City of Unalaska is approximately
2,444.5 acres. This is in addition to an undeterminable (at
this time) amount of acreage that would be includ-ed in road
and street rights-of-way.

3. It would be to the benefit of both the City
and the Village Corporation to reach, at an early date,
agreement in principal on the acreage to be conveyed and the
road rights-of-way to be conveyed and how and when these
will be conveyed. To allow agreement on this issue to be
delayed for any lengthy period of time would serve to further
complicate an already complex issue. -Provisions may have to

-lS7-

TABLE 16

RECOMMENDED RECONVEYANCES TO CITY OF UNALASKA
UNDER SEC. 14(c)(3) A.N.C.S.A. (1)

Location Proposed Use Acerage

Public Facilities:
Amaknak Island
1. North Central Community Center 2.5
2. Dutch Harbor City Dock 20.0
3. Central Mainland City Dock Backup Land 10.0
4. North Central Power Plant 1.0
5. Central Mainland Future School Site 5.0
6. Central Mainland Public Safety Facility 2.5
7. No. SouthAmerica Sewer Treatment Plant/DPW Site 2.5
8. Dutch Harbor Small Boat Harbor 20.0
9. N.W. Shoreline Temp. Sanitary Landfill 5.0

Unalaska Island:
10. Iliuliuk Bay Sanitary Landfill 6.o
H. Unalaska Creek Water Supply Preserve 1,160.0 (w/in City)
90.0 (outside City)
12. Pyramid Creek Water Supply Preserve 1,040.0 (all outside City)

Subtotal Public Facilities: 2,364.5

Park, Recreation & Open Space Facilities:
Amaknak Island;
13. N.W. Shoreline Open Space-Bluff & Shoreline 14.o
14. North Central Neighborhood Park 8.o
15. Central Area Fire Protection Water Reservoir 9.0
16. Central Area Rec. Areas Surrounding Reservoir 13.0
17. So. Tip So. America Open Space Reserve 16.o

Unalaska Island:
18. Iliuliuk Bay Shoreline Open Space 4.o

Subtotal Park, Recreational & Open Space Facilities 64.0 Acres
Airport: (Primary Airport Facilities (2) (65-0)
19. Related Industrial Land 11.0
20. Related Commercial Land 5.0

Subtotal Airport: 16.1 acres

Total Recommended Reconveyance, Sec. 14(c)(3) 2,444.5 acres

(1) Acreage fig ures are approximations.
(2) To be reconveyed to State or Municipality,
whichever will be manager/owner of
Airport/see Sec. 14(c)(4) ANCSA

-158-

FIGURE 19 ItIat
14CCIC33 CONVEYANCE
RECOMMENDATIONS
HEAD

MEN TAWLE IM FOR MUMMER KEY t
LE

M SALLYH

PRIEST RK
I

ITHE 0
2

'AT (n) X0E 10 LAKE
1 5 COXCOMB
4
OCKY

A--W 2:VILFISH PT
k- J-i
'@VOLF T NEWHA
EAD
Pi

,c NEST M \,L

LAKE
WAI PK
SOUT AMAKNAK RKS

OBERNOIPT c

)KNOB
ORTC C

@n
C.7

NETTLES I love

:1j 0YOUNC;I
'Ef r" 0

@V
Irm@

It
P

159

be developed to provide.for full.and unrestricted use by the
City of certain sites prior 'to conveyance while details of
specific site study, surveys and other efforts take place.
Additionally, some final conveyances,may have to be' delayed
into the future pending the City's making determinations
resulting from site studies and preliminary design evaluations.
In any case, efforts to implement the 14(c)(3) conveyance as
well as determining appropriate action relative to anne*xation
of land area and the impact of any annexation upon conveyances
under Sec. 14(c)(3) should commence at an early time.

'H. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the Community Development Plan is an
extremely important aspect of planning the future of a
community. Without implementation, the time, effort and
cost of the analyses and investigations of preparing the
plan itself will be wasted and the community will receive no
value from the planning accomplished. How a plan is implemented
is frequently the key to success of the total planning
effort. The correlation of the physical Development Plan
with the City's financial plan and with programs for delivery
of social-and other services is critical. The effectiveness
of the implementation strategy thus becomes' key to the
overall success of the Community's planning program.

As a First Class City under Alaska Statutes, Unalaska
has at its disposal a full range of implementation tools
including the power to regulate land use, density of development,
extension of utilities and services, adoption and enforcement
of land subdivision regulations, zoning ordinance, building
code, and%various plans for utilities, highways, etc.,
Additionally, the City has the authority to adopt a Capital
Improvements Program and Capital Expenditure Budget., Given
the power to tax real property and incur bonded indebtedness
sv.bject-to a vote of the electorate, and to receive revenue
sharing and federal.-a'nd state government grant-in-aid funds,
the City is actually well, equipped to implement the Development
Plan. Title 29 of the'Alaska Statutes, coupled with the
City's adopted code of ordinances constitutes the body of
law from which the City draws its authority to act in implementing
the Plan.

A full plan for implem .entation of the Community Development
Plan is not included in this report as it was not included
in the scope of work developed for the project by the City
and the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.
A brief overview of tools available to the City is presented,
however.

-160-

1. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATION. The City of Unalaska
could choose to initiate implem tion of the Plan by one
of two methods. An ordinance officially adopting the plan
could be enacted. This would give the Plan the status of
law. Deviating frot the law would require a change in the
adapting ordinance including the holding of required public
hearing and compliance with applicable procedures relative
to amending laws of the City such as proper public notice.
This approach is not recommended as there is insufficient
flexibility for modifying the plan when circumstances
warrant, and the City would, under this approach, be bound
by law to strictly follow the Plan.. Since the intent of the
Plan is to serve as a guide, adoption by ordinance 'seems to
be an excessive action not, in the opinion of the project
consultant, warranted by the definition of planning.

The second approach, and that recommended, is adoption
of the Plan by resolution of the City Council. By wording
of the resolution the Council can indicate that it is the
intent of the Council to establish the Plan as official City
policy to which all administrative functions and advisory
groups in the City Government are to adhere. It also
signifies to concerned interests that it is the intent of
the Council to guide the future development of the City
according to the Plan elements. Adoption by resolution will
satisfy the statuatory requirement to have an adopted plan
on which implementation actions are based and especially
those actions involving land use control ordinances.,

Despite the fact that adopting the Plan by resolution
will not require, legally, the City to hold public hearings
and give public notice of such intent, it is recommended none
the less that the City Council provide for such"procedures
in the adopting ordinance. This will assure adequate opportunity
for public input and participation in the planning process.
At issue is the availability to the public of City Council
actions regarding the plan. It is the Department.of-Community
and Regional Affairs' position that for a comprehensive plan
to remain a valid and useful tool to guide community development
decisions it must be based on an accurate statement of
community goals and objectives. In keeping with this, it is
advisable to afford every opportunity to the public to
L
express community desires concerning revisions to the plan
precipitated by changing circumstances.

2. LAND USE CONTROLS. Various land use control
measures,are available to the City with which to'implement
the Plan. These are discussed below.

a. Zoning. Zoning control is the means by which
the City can control the use of land and the density and
intensity of uses. Building height, placement of structures
on the lot and floor area square footage minimums can be

-161-

prescribed in the ordinance, as well as building setbacks,
lot size, parking requirements, etc. The zoning ordinance
must, however, be based upon. the Land Use Plan and should be
a short range expansion of the land use goals graphically
exhibited by the Land Use Plan.

A zoning ordinance is composed of a map which classifies
each parcel of land in the City as to its permitted use, and
the supporting text which spells out the other requirements
of the ordinance. Deviation from the ordinance requires;
amendment of the ordinance which must be based upon a demonstration
that the proposed change is in the best interest of the
community and not contrary to the intent of the Land Use
Plan.

The City of Unalaska has a zoning ordinance including a
text portion and a zoning district map. It is outdated:,
however, and not seriously enforced. It is recommended that
the City initiate a review of the Ordinance once the Community
Development Plan has been finalized and adopted. The ordinance
should be revised to bring it more in conformity with the
achievements sought in the Land Use Plan. The current
zoning ordinance will be of questionable value once the new
Land Use Plan is adopted and no effort should be made to
enforce the present ordinance until it is revised to conform
to the Land Use Plan. Such enforcement could, in fact,.be
illegal.

b. Land Subdivision Reaulations. Land Subdivision
Regulations are--t-Fe-legal vehicle which the City can use to
control the subdivision and development of property within
the City and to prescribe the minimum lot sizes for various
uses, establish minimum standards of design and acceptability
for public improvements constructed by the private developer
of a parcel of land and to assure that property subdivided
for resale to new owners is properly platted. Subdivision
Regulations should be developed so as to function in concert
with the Zoning Ordinance so as to achieve the maximum in.
desired development. Subdivision Regulations should be
developed by persons proficient and knowledgeable in the
legal and technical requirements for land subdivision and
the design of public facilities, utilities and road-ways.
C)

The City of Unalaska does not currently have Land
Subdivision Regulations. It is recommended that the City
proceed to develop Land Subdivision Regulations after the
Community Development Plan is adopted.

C. Housing, Building and Fire Codes. Housing,
Building and Fi-r-e--C-oUes are legal mechanisms WHereby the
City can enforce minimum safety standards for building
design and construction and for achieving minimum acceptable

-162-

standards in housing. These types of regulations are not
normally implemented in smaller communities but are almost
always adopted in larger more heavily populated cities. The
Uniform Building Code (UBCj, a model standard for building
design and construction published by the International
Conference of Building Officials., is a generally accepted
set of regulations which are frequently adopted by municipalities.

It is the project consult*ant's recommendation that the
City of Unalaska consider adoption of that portion of the
UBC pertaining to public buildings, places of public assembly,
and commercial and industrial establishments. In this way,
building structural quality of those facilities where high
value is involved and where concentrations of people occur
will be assured, thus minimizing the exposure to loss
through disaster, fire and unreasonable deterioration.

3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND CAPITAL BUDGET.
A Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a five (5) year
projection and prioritizing of public improvements to be
made in the community. The first year of the plan is prepared
in explicit detail with each successive year generally being
in less detail than the year preceeding it. As the current
year passes, the plan is reviewed, updated, projects reprioritized
as appropriate and the next year program is presented in
detail. A fifth year's proposed projects are added at the
same time. A cost for development and source of funds is
assigned to each project in the program. Companion to the
program is the capital budget which details the next fiscal
year's. proposed capital expenditures and the specific source
of funds of each project on the current year's program.

By developing a comprehensive CIP, the City is able to
predict its public expenditures, determine how public funds
are to be expended for priority items and project future
revenue demands. Without a detailed CIP, annually updated
and carefully prioritized, no community can hope to effectively
manage its capital funds to the maximum benefit of the
community.

The City of Unalaska currently utilizes the CIP approach
to its capital expenditure budgeting. However, the City is
entering into a period where a greatly increased level of
public expenditure will likely occur and where a considerable
number of projects involving millions of dollars will be
occurring each year. It is essential that the City develop
an up-to-date and detailed CIP or an annual basis. It is
also essential that the CIP reflect all of the public improvements
contained in the Community Development Plan. While the Plan
contains a complete, almost "wish list" of projects, generally
no priority has been placed on these projects. This is part
of the process of preparing a CIP. In this sense, then, the

-163-

CIP becomes the single most important tool in implementing
the Develo@mentt lan It is therefore recommended t-iat the
Tity council, imme lately after adopting the Development
Plan, commission the preparation of a comprehensive and
detailed five (S) year CIP. The Planning Commission should
participate in preparing the CIP in that it should make
recommendations to the Council on priority of projects..- The
CIP, however, should be initially prepared by the City
administration and submitted to the Council. The project
consultant cannot stress too strongly how important it is
that.the City develop a comprehensive and detailed CIP for
use in future years. The cost and time to prepare a CIP
will be repaid in sound fiscal.management and betterment of
the community many times over.

4. FUNDING SOURCES FOR COWUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING.
There are a number of state and federal agencies that provide
funding directly to municipalities for community and regional
planning. A list of these agencies, together with a brief
description of their services and means of contacting the
agency, is shown in Appendix II. These agencies are those
which provide funds for land use planning; not included are
those agencies which either provide.funds for the planning
of specific programs, or provide funds for the planning/design
of specific.construction projects.

S. LOCAL PLANNING COMISSION. The Planning Commission
is a body of local citizens, estabi-ished by ordinance, which
is intended to be an advisory group to the City Council on
matters pertaining to the future development of the community.
It is generally composed of from five (5) to nine (9) members
of the community who should be, collectively, representative
of all interests in the community. The Commission's most
important task is to review and recommend a Community hevelopment
Plan and to annually recommend modifications to the Plan.
Secon'dly, the Commission should annually review the City's
proposed Capital Improvements Program and make recommendations
to the City Council on projects for inclusion in the CIP and
the priority among those projects. The Commission can also
serve in the same advisory capacity on requests for-change
in zoning district boundaries and amendments to the ordinance
text. The Commission can also be charged with-the responsibility
to review any proposed subdivision plats to determine conformity
to the official Street and Highway Plan if one exists or to
ascertain conformity of the proposed subdivision plan with
the Land Use Plan.

In all of these functions the Commission is an advisory
group - not a body of final decision. The City Council
could delegate certain final approval functions to the
Planning Commission but this is not recommended in this
case. The City of Unalaska has authority in its ordinances

-164-

for establishing a Planning Commission. In recent years the
Commission has been inactive. The City Council recently
appointed a new Commission. Efforts should be initiated to
assure that the present Commission is well organized and
functioning.

6. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT. It is the recommendation
of the project consultant that tHe 'City Council should, at
the earliest opportunity, begin to address a Coastal Management
Program. The applicable statutes and background information
should be obtained, which will be available from the Coastal
Policy Council, and the current status of the Coastal
Policy Council's deliberations should be determined. After
a thorough familiarization witli this information, deliberations
on various concepts should be undertaken and general consensus
reached on some of the major issues. Constant monitoring of
the Coastal Policy Council should be undertaken so as to
enable the City Council to decide if, when and how to have
input on the guideline deliberations. Minicipalities which
do not follow this procedure run the risk of having policies
adopted by the Coastal Policy Council which may work well on
a statewide basis, but which could be devastating to their
own particular area.

-165-

I
I
I
I
I
A P P E N D I C E S
I
I
I APPENDIX I: AGE AND SEX OF UNALASKA RBSIDENTS
TABLE 17
1 APPENDIX II: FUNDING SOURCES FOR COMMUNITY AND
REGIONAL PLANNING
I
I
I
I

I
m

-4

APPENDIX I

AGE AND SEX OF UNALASKA RESIDENTS

The City of Unalaska, in order to determine the effects
of recent increases in economic activity on resident population,
in early September, 1977, entered into a contract with
Tryck, Nyman & Hayes, hereafter referred to as the Consultant,
to perform a census of population of the City. Under the
terms of the contract, the Consultant was to prepare the
forms and instructions. City personnel were to then accomplish
the field work,, and the Consultant was to process the data
and prepare a report. Prior to this census no reliable
current demographic information existed on Unalaska inhabitants.
No information was obtained in the census which would have
the effect of changing any of the conclusions arrived at in
the Community Development Plan.

Results of compiling the data indicate that there were
615 residents and 1,256 non-residents inhabiting the City of
Unalaska at the time of the census, September 26 to
October 8. This is an approximate 20 percent increase in
residential population over what had previously been estimated,
and an approximate 250 percent increase over the residential
population indicated by the 1970 Federal Census. While the
accuracy of the 1970 census has been questioned, it is
certainly clear that the City of Unalaska has experienced,
and is continuing to experience, a very rapid population
increase this decade.

Table 17 contains the number of residents categorized
by age and sex, together with a percentage for age categories
of the total number of residents and the male-female proportions.
Of particular note is the high proportion of males in the 18
to 34 age group, approximately one-quarter of the total
resident population. Another point is the higher proportion
of male residents; about 41 percent more males than females.
This proportion is even more heavily exaggerated if we look
only at adults 18 years of age and older; in this latter
category there are S8 percent more males than females.
These phenomena are indicative of the more "frontier"
nature of Unalaska, and the greater proclivity of males,
particularly young adult males, to seek more rugged environments
in the pursuit of employment.

I-a

TABLE 17

UNALASKA RESIDENTS
AGE AND SEX

Sex
Age Male Female Total %*

o 4 23 18 41 7

5 12 28 40 68 11

13 17 28 19 47 8

18 24 46 1+6 92 15

25 - 34 107 56 163 27

35 - 44 42 23 65 11

45 - 54 40 22 62 10

55 - 64 19 14 33 5

65 - 74 4 2 6 1

75 and over I - 1 0

Unknown 22 15 37 6

TOTAL: 360 255 615 ]Do

%* 59 41 100

*Rounded to nearest %. I
Source: City of Unalaska Census of Population
September 26 to October 8, 1977
Tryck, Nyman & Hayes and the City of Unalaska

I-b

APPENDIX II

FUNDING SOURCES FOR COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING

FEDERAL AGENCY: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

PROGRAM: Economic Development-State and Local Economic
Development Planning (State and Local Planning Program)

OBJECTIVES: To develop the capability of state and local
governments to undertake an economic development planning
process that is comprehensive in scope, is coordinated with
that of other state/sub-state planning activities, and leads
to the formulation of development goals and specific strategies
to achieve them, with particular emphasis on reducing unemploy-
ment and increasing incomes.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants.

INFORMATION CONTACT:
C. Mark Smith
EDA Western Regional Office
1700 Westlake Avenue, North
SeattleP WA 98109

FEDERAL AGENCY: COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM: Community Development Block Grants/Discretionary
Grants

OBJECTIVES: To develop viable urban communities including
decent housing and a suitable living environment, and expand
economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and
moderate income.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Project Grants

INFORMATION CONTACT:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Arcade Plaza Building
1621 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101

II-a

FEDERAL AGENCY: BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR

PROGRAM: Indian Lands Real Estate Appraisal

OBJECTIVES: To provide professional real estate appraisal,
mineral, and petroleum valuation service; and landscape
architecture and urban planning services.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Provision of Specialized Services.

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:
Applicant Eligibility: Applicant must be an Indian or Indian
tribe.
Beneficiary Eligibility: Same as applicant eligibility.
Credentials/Documentation: Must be a tribal member or have
legal interest in trust property.

INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Juneau Area Office
Box 3-8000
Juneau, AK 99801

STATE AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM: Coastal Energy Impact Program

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: This grant and loan program
is designed to help communities and states minimize the
social, economic and environmental disruptions that result
from coastal energy activity, especialfy oil and gas exploration
and development on the Outer Continental Shelf.

TYPE OF ASSISTANCE: Grants and loans.

INFORMATION CONTACT:
CEIP Coordinator
Division of Local Government Assistance
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
State of Alaska
Pouch B
Juneau, AK 99811

II-b

STATE AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM: Planning and Management Assistance (701)

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: This grant and technical
assistance program can support a broad range of planning and
management activities for development planning, land use and
management, planning ordinances, governmental development,
public services, capital improvements, plan implementation,
intergovernmental coordination, human and natural resource
development, and training programs.

TYPE OF ASSISTANCE: Planning project grants-in-aid and
technical assistance.

INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director
Division of Community Planning
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
State of Alaska
Pouch B
Juneau, Alaska 99811

STATE AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM: State Aid to Local Governments (Revenue Sharing
Program)

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: Provides general state aid.

TYPE OF ASSISTANCE: Financial. For services rendered as of
July 1 of the entitlement year.

INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Division of Local Government Assistance
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
State of Alaska
Pouch B,
Juneau, AK 99811

II-c

STATE AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM: Land and Water Conservation Fund (Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation Grants)

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: Provide assistance in I ')lanning,
acquisition, and development of outdoor recreation areas and
.r
-Lacilities.

TYPE OF ASSISTANCE: Financial

INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Division of Parks
Department of Natural Resources
@L
81@ Warehouse Avenue
Anchoraue, AK 99501

STATE AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

PROGRAM: Coastal-Management Assistance Program

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: To provide coastal resource
districts with training, research, and technical assistance
necessary to develop and implement district coastal management
programs pursuant to the Alaska Coastal Management Act of
1977. AS 46.35.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE: Grants, research, training, and technical
assistance to coastal resource districts.

INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director, Division of Community Planning
Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs
Pouch B
Juneau, AK 99811

II-d

This Report was prepared by the staff of the
Plannina Services Division of Tryck, Nyman & Hayes.
0
The following personnell participated in the report:

VERNON R. WIGGINS., Planning Services Manager .......
Project Manager

JOSEPH L. ORSINI, Senior Planner

HARRY F. SHORE, Associate Planner

ROBERT E. SHARP, General Manager

JOHN F. CHAPMAN, P.E., Partner

MARVIN B. BEYER, P.E., Senior Engineer

I
limmillollm
3 6668 14103 8101 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I