Bethel coastal management plan public hearing draft

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

/'V2

CITY OF BETHEL

BETHEL
COAS A

Public Hearing Draft

--- 777-
MANAGEMENT
p

-I f -W I. L---- i

City of Bethel, Alaska

CITY COUNCIL
John Guinn, Mayor
Antone Anvil
johne Binkley
Robert Buttcane
Edward Hoffman, Sr.
Mary Pavi I
Peter Twitchell
Lyman Hoffman, City Manager

PLANNING COMMISSION
Virginia Borrego
Louise Charles
John Guinn
Bob Herron
Rosemary Porter
T.J. Robertson
Joe Sullivan
Tony Stigall, Planning, Director

COASTAL MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP
John Angalak, Orutsaramult Native Council
George Cannelos, Bethel Native Corporation
J.B. Crow, Lousetown Development Association
Thom Foote, Parks and Recreation Committee
Connor Murphy, Cenaliulriit
Mary Pavil, City Council
Janet Shantz, Cenallulriit
Joe Sullivan, Planning Commission
Peter Twitchell, City Council
Cheryl Keepers, Coastal Management Coordinator
Steven Gaber, Coastal Management Planner

Bethel Coastal
44.
Manage ent Plan

City of Bethel
Bethel, Alaska

February 1983

US Department Of COP-Imel--O
p H-e- m D ft

NOAA Coaital Serv-* --f; Y-'brary
2234 South
Charleston, SC 29405-V-tI3

The preparation of this document was financed in part by
Junds from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
@Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. It
was administered by the Division of Community Planning,
Department of Community and Regional Affairs. It was prepared
by the Planning Department of the City of Bethel, with assistance
from Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Inc. (Chapters 2, 3,
4, and 5), and Kasprisin Pettinari Design (Chapter 4).

Photographs courtesy of and copyright @ 1982 by James H. Barker
Bethel, Alaska.

Planning Department
aty of Bethel
P.O. Box 388
Bethel, Alaska 99559

k
--5
K-(3'b
poe)u@o- @AMR@L-6
Va -@SMIEL C!,OAST--@\L MAKkaq@@'@ PLA-I\j

P LA K) N) @ K) (-) bEP TI, ) UN (@ F Fc*@rp I @\@-

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Ust of ngures .....................................
List of Tables ......................................
How To Use This Document ......................... vi

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ............................ 1-1

A. Coastal Management ........................ 1-1
B. Relationship between Bethel and Cenaliulritt
Coastal Management Plans and Regions ....... 1-9
C. Relationship of Coastal Management Plan to
Bethel Comprehensive Plan ................... 1-12
D. Boundaries of Bethel Coastal Management Plan
Area ....................................... 1-14

Chapter 2. RESOURCE ASSESSMENT .................... 2-1

A. NATURAL RESOURCES ....................... 2-1
Climate ................................. 2-1
Soils, Permafrost, and Geology ............ 2-6
Geophysical Hazards .................... 2-12
Hydrology .............................. 2-20
Habitats ................................ 2-23
Vegetation ............................. 2-28
Bird Life ................................ 2-31
Mammals ............................... 2-37
Fishes .................................. 2-40

B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................... 2-48
History of Bethel ........................ 2-48
Recreation .............................. 2-53
Subsistence ............................. 2-57
Population .............................. 2-63
Labor .................................. 2-69
Land Ownership ......................... 2-73
Land Use ............................... 2-79
Utilities ................................. 2-82
Government Policy Analysis .............. 2-92

PAGE

C. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ....................... 2-99
Transportation .......................... - 9 9
Air ................................. 2-99
Water .............................. 2-102
Land ............................... 2-108
Energy ................................. 2-113
Supply and Demand ................. 2-113
Potential Energy Sources ............. 2-118
Commercial Fishing and Fish Processing .... 2-126
Forest Development Potential ............. 2-136
Mining ................................. 2-139
Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assessment 2-140
Tourism ................................ 2-151

Chapter 3. RESOURCE ANALYSIS ....................... 3-1
A. Natural Resources ........................... 3-2
B. Cultural Resources .......................... 3-7
C. Economic Activities .......................... 3-10
D. Conflicting Land and Water Use Demands ...... 3-13

Chapter 4. RIVERFRONT LAND USE STUDY ............... 4-1
A. Background Information ..................... 4- 1
B. Waterfront Revitalization ..................... 4-11
Chapter 5. WETLANDS STUDY ......................... 5-1
Chapter 6. BETHEL SUBSISTENCE USE AREA: Proposing an
Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) ...... 6-1
Chapter 7. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .............. 7-1
A. Issues, Goals, Objectives, Policies and
Implementation ........................... 7-1
Riverbank Erosion ................... 7-2
River and Waterfront Use ............. 7-3
Community Growth ................. 7-6
Subsistence ......................... 7-8
Habitat ............................. 7-10
Wetlands Management .................. 7-12
Surface Drainage ........................ 7-14
Waste Disposal ..................... 7-15
Air Quality .......................... 7-17
Pedestrian Walkways & Trails for
Off-Road Vehicles ............... 7-19

B. Relationship of Issues and Goals to Resource
Assessment ............................ 7-21

PAGE

C. Management Authority ...................... 7-27

D. Use and Activity Analysis ..................... 7-28
Subject Uses ................................ 7-28
Uses of State Concern ........................ 7-29
Proper & Improper Uses ...................... 7-30

E. Policies and Standards ....................... 7-31

Chapter S. IMPLEMENTATION .......................... 8-1

A. Policies and Standards: How they will be
implemented locally ..................... 8-1
B. Policies and Standards: How they will be
implemented by State and Federal
Agencies ............................... 8-6
C. Meeting Goals & Objectives .................. 8-7
D. Organization & Staffing ...................... 8-8
Chapter 9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUBSTANTIATION .... 9-1

APPENDICES

1. Plants, mammals, & fish in study area .......... A-1- I
11. Game Management Units .................... A-11- I
Ill. Sources used for Resource Assessment ........ A-111- 1
IV. Management Authorities ..................... A-IV- I
V. Applicable City Ordinances ................... A-V- I

FIGURE NO. PAGE

1. Location ................................... 1-11

2. District Boundaries ......................... 1-15

3. Prevailing Winds ............................ 2-5

4. Bethel Area Soil Survey ..................... 2-9

5. Urban Suitability ........................... 2-10

6. Bethel Geology ............................. 2-11

7. 100 Year Flood Plain ........................ 2-13

8. Bank Erosion - Decreasing and Historic
Erosion Rates (a) ........................... 2-16

9. Bank Erosion - Decreasing and Historic
Erosion Rates (b) ........................... 2-17

10. Coastal Habitats ............................ 2-26

11. Vegetation .................................. 2-27

12. Special Mammal and Bird Habitats in the
Bethel Study Area ........................... 2-30

13. Fish Habitats and the Distribution of
Species in the Bethel Area .................. 2-47

14. Historic Sites and Winter Trails ............ 2-52

15. Parks and Recreation Areas .................. 2-56

16. Subsistence ................................. 2-62

17. Land Ownership .............................. 2-78

19. Utilities ................................... 2-88

20. Proposed Small Boat Harbor Design ........... 2-106

21. Bethel Transportation ....................... 2-112

FIGURE NO. PAGE.

22. 1979 Per Capita Energy End Use - Southwest
Region Compared to State .................... 2-115

23. 1979 Energy End Use by Sector - Southwest
Region Compared to State .................... 2-116

24. 1979 Energy Supply - Southwest Region
Compared to State ........................... 2-117

25. Proposed Lease Sales in Southern Bering
and Norton Sound (Federal) .................. 2-141

26. Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Program
(Southwest Region) .......................... 2-142

27. Land and Water Use Compatability Matrix ..... 3-16

28. Riverfront Areas ............................ 4-4

29a. Land Use Areas .............................. 4-15

29b. Circulation Areas ........................... 4-17

29c. River Access Areas .......................... 4-18

29d. Waterfront: Main Street/East Phase I ....... 4-19

29e. Waterfrontz Main Street/East Phase IV-V .... 4-21

29f. Village Annex/Visitor Center ................ 4-22

29g. Waterfront: Brown Slough Phase I ........... 4-23

29h. Waterfront: Brown Slough Phase IV .......... 4-24

29i. Waterfront: Cargo Dock Phase IV-V .......... 4-25

30. Wetland Delineator .......................... 5-4

31. A.M.S.A. Study Area - Bethel Subsistence Use 6-3

32. Land Use .................................... in pocket

33. Land Ownership .............................. in pocket

TABLE NO. PAGE

1. Average Monthly Temperatures ('F) ........... 2-3

2. Mean Precipitation and Snowfall (inches) .... 2-4

3. Soils Matrix- ..... o .................... 2-8

4. Highest Known Flood Stages and Discharges
of Kuskokwim. River at Bethel ................ 2-14

5. Bethel Flood Elevation and Frequencies- .... 2-14

6. Physical Characteristics of the Kuskokwim
River at Bethel ............................. 2-21

7. Seasonal Abundance and Nesting of Bird
Species in the Immediate Bethel Area ........ 2-35

8. Distribution and Relative Abundance of
Freshwater Fish in the Lower Kuskokwim
River ....................................... 2-46

9. Bethel Population Growth, 1960-1980 ......... 2-63

10. Birth Rate, Bethel Region, 1960-1981 ........ 2-64

11. Bethel Median Age and Sex Distribution as
Compared to State ........................... 2-65

12. Population Growth ........................... 2-66

13. Population Forecasts - 1990 ................. 2-68

14. 1980 - Average Annual Full-Time Employment.. 2-70

15. 1978 Per Capita Income and Family Budget
Requirements - Bethel Census Division as
Compared to Alaska and the U.S .............. 2-72

16. 1979 Average Annual Income - Natives and
Non-Natives, City of Bethel ........... o ..... 2-72

17. Summary of Bethel Land Ownership - 1982 ..... 2-77

iii

TABLE NO. PAGE

18. Bethel Land Use - 1982 ...................... 2-81

19. Selected Aircraft Activity on the Kuskokwim
River ....................................... 2-99

20. 1980 Bethel Airport Activity ................ 2-101

21. Bethel Air Traffic Growth and Growth
Projections ................................. 2-101

22. General Cargo and Bulk Petroleum Shipped
Through Bethel - 1981 ....................... 2-103

23. Projection of Small Boats Berthing in
Bethel ...................................... 2-106

24. Bethel Vehicle Registration - Calendar Year
1980 ........................................ 2-108

25. Bethel Electrical Consumption - 1981 ........ 2-113

26. Estimates of Busbar Electricity Costs
(@kwh) ...................................... 2-118

27. Average Monthly Wind Velocity (MPH) ......... 2-119

28. Summary of National Guard Armory Wind
System., .................................... 2-120

29. Average Daily Solar Radiation - Bethel
(BTU-day/ft2) ...... o_ ................... 2-122

30. Passive Solar Heating Potential - Typical
Bethel Home ... o- ............. o ............ 2-123

31. Kuskokwim River Commercial Effort Data,
1965-81 ................ o .................... 2-128

32. Kuskokwim River Catch Data, 1976-1981 ....... 2-130

33. Characteristics of the 1980 Herring Season.. 2-131

34o Projected Harvest and fishing effort in
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Roe Herring Fisheries:
1980-2000 ................. o...... o .......... 2-132

TABLE NO. PAGE

35. Risked and Unrisked Forecasts for
Proposed Bering Lease Sales (Federal
Offshore Schedule) ......................... 2-143

36. Petroleum Potential for Proposed Sale
and Nomination Areas in Southwest Alaska
(State of Alaska Onshore and Nearshore
Schedule) .................................. 2-144

37. Estimated Direct Employment Impact on
Nunam Kitlutsisti Region From Norton
Basin Lease Sale 88 ........................ 2-147

38. Projected Direct Employment Impact on
Bethel from Norton Basin Lease Sale 88 ..... 2-148

39. Riverfront Land Use by Category ............ 4-4

40. Riverfront Land Ownership by Category ...... 4-4

HOW TO USE
THIS DOCUMENT

This public hearing draf t of the Bethel Coastal Manage-

ment program both presents information and sets down guide-

lines to be followed. The information presented in chapters

I through 6 is of interest to persons living in Bethel or

working on projects involving Bethel. Chapters 4 and 5

address specific areas of concern, riverfront redevelopment

and wetlands, and may be of special interest to the reader.

The second function - the setting down of guidelines -

is what makes this a working document. Since the plan applies

to the entire city, chapters 7 and 8 are of importance to

anyone developing a project in Bethel and to local, state and

federal decision makers. Please note that for the purposes

of this plan, the term "developer" means any individual or

organization with a construction project in Bethel. If you

are going to build a new house, for example, you are a

developer. If you are going to put in a new commercial

venture, you are a developer. If you are going to put in a

new subdivision, you are a developer.

Chapter 7, the Coastal Management Plan, contains a

discussion of the issues, goals and objectives of the program

which will provide the reader a sense of what the plan hopes

to accomplish. It contains a list of "subject uses" which

identifies the kinds of developments that are subject to the

standards and policies in this plan. Also included in this

chapter are the standards and policies that must be met by

developments subject to this plan. The standards and policies

section is the single most important part of this document:

it provides the measuring sticks that decision makers will use

when considering any individual project that comes up f o r

their review.

Both developers and decision makers should be familiar

with the standards and policies of this coastal management

plan. Developers are urged to consider these criteria while

designing their projects, as it will aid them in dealing with

local (and any other) review processes.

Chapter 8, Implementation, outlines how the standards

and policies will be used in the review and approval of

development projects. Developers should read this chapter

carefully to gain an understanding of the steps and timing of

review procedures. Decision makers can use this chapter to

see how coastal management policies and standards will be

incorporated into their existing review activities.

Appendices and other materials are included in this

draft for persons wishing detailed information on specific

aspects of the coastal management program. The Planning

Department of the City of Bethel also welcomes any questions

the reader may have about coastal management in Bethel.

vii

I
11,
I
--, I
oI
I
I
I
I
:1 1 UCTION
I

I
I

I
I
I
CHAPTER I
INTROD

I
I-

INTRODUCTION TO
COASTAL MANAGEMENT

Coastal areas of what is now the State of Alaska have been

important to people since the first inhabitants began arriving,

searching for the resources to live. The early residents, few

in number, were often nomadic, travelling from place to place

in search of what they needed to maintain life. During recent

times this has changed - permanent communities have been esta-

blished. Resources are taken not only to meet local need, but

to meet demands created by the growing populations of the

United States and other countries.

As the demands increase, can the coastal areas continue to

provide the resources? Certainly not without good management.

It was the recognition of the need for proper management,

balancing supply and demand, that led to the creation of the

coastal management process. The federal government enacted the

Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. This act set up a process

for coordinating management between governmental units at

federal, state and local levels.

The Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977 is similar to

the federal act, but also takes another step toward solving

the controversy between use and non-use of the land and water

of Alaska's coastal areas. By setting up coastal districts,

it provides localities, such as the City of Bethel, with the

opportunity to develop coastal management plans for their

particular areas.

A pair of coastasl districts have developed in the Yukon-

Kuskokwim Delta area. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Resource

Service Area was initiated in May of 1979 to develop policy for

an area incorporating the Lower Yukon and Lower Kuskokwim School

Districts, excluding the City of Bethel. (See Figure 1).

The Bethel City Council authorized the city's participation

in the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) in 1980. Using

the ACMP allows a local jurisdiction, such as the City of

Bethel, to address coastal issues and provides it with the tool

of "consistency." Within the context of Coastal Management,

consistency refers to activity occuring after a plan is developed

and accepted on local, state and federal levels. The actions

of all three governmental levels must be in agreement and

consistent with the accepted Coastal Management Plan.

The process for plan development and approval is lengthy

and controlled by regulation (refer to A.S. 46, 40 and ACMP

regulations). However, it does allow for considerable leeway

in the actual issues addressed, presuming that different dis-

tricts will have different needs.

Who Is Involved

There are several major participants in the coastal manage-

ment process. Foremost is the local jurisdiction, the City of

Bethel in this case, which produces the actual plan. Local

participation is described in the chapter entitled "Public Parti-

cipation. " The Department of Community and Regional Affairs,

Division of Community Planning provides technical assistance

1-2

and administration of planning grants. Another important parti-

cipant is the Alaska State Coastal Policy Council (CPC), a

sixteen member body composed of nine regional public represen-

tatives and seven state agency representatives. The major role

of the CPC is to review and approve Coastal Management Plans

making sure that the plans adequately address environmental

concerns along with the needs of the population affected by the

'Plan. The CPC review also insures that the plan meets state
"guidelines -

The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) is staff to the

Coastal Policy Council. OCM prepares information for the CPC-

They also coordinate the activities of other state agencies

participating in the process. A primary responsibility of OCM

is the consistency review on all proposed actions in coastal

areas.

Other state and federal agencies participate by reviewing

and commenting on the plans and draft documents circulated to

them. These agencies normally are concerned that local planning

efforts take into account the needs and mandates of their

agencies.

What The Process Is

The process of preparing a coastal management plan has many

procedural steps that must be followed in order to insure that

all interested parties have ample opportunity to participate.

The steps following the publication of a Public Hearing Draft

include:

1-3

1. Circulating the draft for comment, and holding a

public hearing.

2. Revising the Public Hearing Draft according to the

comments received.

3. City Council review and approval of the revised draft.

This approval is referred to as "conceptual approval."

4. The conceptually approved draft is then forwarded to

the state Coastal Policy Council. The CPC has ninety

days to review the plan, hold meetings for plan

discussion, and to take action either recommending

changes or accepting the plan.

5. After the plan is accepted by the CPC, the City

Council adopts the plan by ordinance.

6. The state adopts the plan (signaled by Coastal Policy

Council approval), and forwards it to the U.S. Depart-

ment of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management

for federal acceptance.

What the Plan Must Address

The Alaska Coastal Management Program outlines ten specific

elements that have to be included for the plan to be accepted

by the State (6 AAC 85.010-110).

1. Needs, objectives, and goals (6 AAC 85.020)

Bethel must include a statement of overall needs,

objectives, and goals for Coastal Management.

1-4

2. Organization (6 AAc 85.030)

Bethel must include a description of the district

program organization and include budgetary and staff

needs and a schedule for reorganization as necessary

to implement and carry out the Coastal Management

Program.

3. Boundaries (6 AAC 85-040)

Bethel must map and delineate the boundaries of the

coastal area within the district subject to the

district program.

4. Resource Inventory (6 AAC 85.050)

Bethel must include a comprehensive resource inventory

which described natural resources, land use, and land

status in a manner sufficient for program development

and implementation.

5. Resource Analysis (6 AAC 85.060)

Bethel must include a resource analysis sufficient in

detail for program development and implementation.

6. Subject Uses (6 AAC 85.070)

Bethel must include a description of the land and

water uses and activities which are subject to the

district program. Uses which must be included, if

applicable, are: (a) coastal management, (b) geophy-

sical hazard areas, (c) recreation, (d) energy facil-

ities, (e) transportation and utilities, (f) fish

and seafood processing, (h) mining and mineral pro-

cessing, and (i) subsistence.

1-5

7. Proper and Improper Uses (6 AAC 85-080)

Bethel's district program must include a description

of the uses and activities, including uses of state

concern, that will be considered proper and improper

within the coastal area, including land and water use

designation.

8. Policies (6 AAC 85.090)

Bethel's district program must include a statement of

the policies that will be applied to land and water

uses and activities subject to the district program

and the process which was used to determine whether

specific proposals for land and water uses and activ-

ities will be allowed.

9. Implementation (6 AAC 85.100)

Bethel's district program must include a description

of the methods and authority which will be used to

implement the district program.

10. Public Participation (6 AAC 85.110)

Bethel's district program must include evidence of

effective and significant opportunities for public

participation in program development.

In addition to the ten specified program elements, the

ACMP requires, in some instances, that districts specifically

address other important aspects. These include: (1) uses and

activities subject to the Coastal Management Act; (2) areas

meriting special attention; (3) federal consistency/federal

1-6

exclusion/ Federal agency participation; (4) uses of state

concern; and (5) energy facility siting.

Other ACMP Standards

The ACMP also identified nine major uses or activities

that are to be dealt with in the development of district plans.

For each of these uses or activities the Alaska Coastal Policy

Council has established standards which bind local districts

and state agencies. They are: (1) coastal development; (2)

recreation; (3) historict prehistoric, and archaeological re-

sources; (4) energy facilities; (5) transportation and utilities;

(6) fish and seafood processing; (7) timber harvesting and

processing; (8) mining and mineral processing; and (9) subsis-

tence. (6 AAC 80.040, 6 AAC 80.060-120, 6 AAC 80.140)

The Council has set two standards which apply to all the

uses and activities listed above. These policies cover: (1)

geophysical hazards; and (2) air, land, and water quality. (6

AAC 80.050, 6 AAC 80.140)

The Alaska Coastal Policy Council also identified and set

standards for eight major habitat types. These standards are

lesigned to protect and reserve these habitats, regardless of

the use or activity which takes place within them.

Therefore, in addition to satisfying an applicable use

:standard, a use or activity in a specified habitat must meet

the relative habitat standard. Habitats include: (1) offshore

3.reas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands and tide flats; (4) rocky

islands and sea cliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons;

1-7

(6) exposed high energy coast; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes;

and (8) important upland habitats. (6 AAC 80.130)

The guidelines and standards cited above can be obtained

from the Office of Coastal Management, the Department of

Community and Regional Affairs, or the City of Bethel Planning

Department.

1-8

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BETHEL
AND YUKON-KUSKOKWIM COASTAL
RESOURCE SERVICE AREA

Two coastal management plans are being developed in this

region: one for the City of Bethel and one for the greater

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. (See Figure 1). The two districts have

very different concerns, yet the two plans must work well

together. The coastal habitats and resources in the two are a

single system, in delicate balance. This balance must be

recognized and accounted for in the two plans.

It is also a requirement of the Alaska Coastal Management

Program that adjacent districts coordinate their plans. The

City has met this requirement in several ways. Two Cenaliulriit

staff members (staff to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Resource

Service Area Board) participate in the coastal management

working group that has been guiding the development of the

Bethel plan. Copies of all drafts and documents have been

circulated to Cenaliuriit staff and Board members for their

review and comment. Meetings have been held with Cenaliulriit

staff specifically to discuss coordination of the two plans.

Bethel residents also have an interest in the Cenaliulriit

plan, particularly since most subsistence activities take place

outside the city limits. For this reason, both the City and

Ce-naliulriit plans are recommending that a special management

district be established for the area used most heavily by Bethel

residents for subsistence. This district, referred to as an

Area Meriting Special Attention or AMSA, is discussed more fully

1-9

in Chapter 6 of this document. Briefly, it would run along the

Kuskokwim River from the Johnson River on the south to the

Gweek River on the north.

Also, the City will be participating in the public review

process for the Cenaliulriit plan, which is now out in Public

Hearing Draft form.

1-10

F!GURE 1
LOCATION

NORTON SOUND

A KA

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

MCC R r

R'VER
ANIAK*

KUSKOKWIM BAY

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

CAPE DILLINGHAM
NFWINHA

BRISJOI BAY

CERALIULRIIT

Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal
Resource Service Area C

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The City of Bethel 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the Coastal

Management Plan serve complimentary purposes. The Comprehensive

Plan, through a survey process, identified problems and alter-

native solutions. In general, these problems and solutions

'have not dealt directly with resource management or the lay of

the land. The coastal management process provides an opportunity

to broaden the community's planning base and the ability to

move towards managing and protecting important environmental

aspects while recognizing development needs.

The Bethel Coastal Management Plan is intended to build on

the framework of the Comprehensive Plan and to compliment it.

Development issues facing the Bethel community, as defined

'by the Comprehensive Plan, include:

continued development of social services

improvement of general housing conditions, water/sewer
service, energy efficiency

senior citizen activity and care

preservation and improvement of community aspects relating
to subsistance activities

increase of park and playground areas

city regulation of land use

subdivision and zoning regulations

clean-up and repair of hazard areas, including roads,
old buildings, and the riverfront

concentration of industrial activities

1-12

� building of a small boat harbor

� development allowing a continued cultural identity and
opportunity to mix traditional and modern activities.

Through the coastal management process the City of Bethel

will receive recommendations on additional planning and regula-

tory elements. These include:

� riverbank erosion control measures, access and use
controls

�land use controls, with review of environmental, density,
and service delivery concerns

�sewage and garbage disposal measures

�provisions for improved techniques dealing with dust and
windblown sand resulting from development

�controls on surface water drainage

�development of transportation and circulation elements,
including city roads, trails, and pedestrian walkways.

The coastal management program represents a refinement of

planning issues facing the Bethel community. It is not a

substitute for the Comprehensive Plan, but an addition to the

Plan.

1-13

BOUNDARIES

The guidelines for District Coastal Management Programs

adopted by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council state that "initial

boundaries must be based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's

Coastal Zone"..."and must include the zone of direct interaction

and the zone of direct influence." (6 AAC 85.040)

All of the City of Bethel lies within the coastal area as

defined in the Biophysical Boundaries. Since the municipality

exercises jurisdiction over the entire city in other matters,

it was decided to use the same boundaries for the coastal

management plan. Thus the coastal management boundaries include

the entire city limits, as shown below in Figure 2.

The study area use in the resource inventory and analysis

is larger than the planning area. It encompasses the resources

of freshwater and terrestrial environments that are important

to Bethel in terms of potential economic development and resource

planning.

Bethel's function as a regional center will play an

increasingly important role with the development of economic

activities such as forest development in the middle Kuskokwim

area, mining and on-shore oil development and the expansion of

the commercial fishing industry. Although the City of Bethel

cannot regulate any development beyond the city limits, an

understanding of the region's resource base is vital to local

planning, and will allow greater coordination with the regional

1-14

coastal management plan. Areas of particular importance to the
city residents that lie outside city boundaries are discussed in
Chapter 6, which proposes the creating of a special management

district (AMSA) for the Bethel subsistence use area.

FIGURE 2

A
@V'xq.
"IE@'
Will
Ah

30 P Z i
N
C)
J\
MIZI,
.4-
MM
Th-
'01ffi
"K,
Kalil- F."; @X@z

@MQ

N J.,
r Yl@

oz: f

.. . ........
12
@111- W-W
n
-7-
L-e'
X

815
tit 14

"'IM
gz:

'24
22

r
Z@

Lt
k
t
301g,
46 25 "R
@4
tsv V
y
LOX

'4" @4
2" .
- nA.0011

1-15

I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I RESOURCE
i
I
I

I
i
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2
ASSESSMENT

I
I

NATURAL RESOURCES

CLIMATE

RIRIE

........ ...

. .. . . ...
............. .
....... . .
. . ..... .
. . . . . .
I...............

Bethel is located in a transitional climate zone. The

major influences on climate are the storms and weather

patterns originating from the Bering Sea, 86 miles to the

west. Bethel is also influenced by the inland continental

climate, resulting in the warm mid-summer temperatures and

the very cold midwinter temperatures. Bethel has a mean

July temperature of 54.70 F and a mean January temperature

of 6.0" F, with recorded temperature extremes ranging from

2-1

90* F to -52' F. The warmer summer winds are predominantly

SSW, shifting to a cool NNE winds from October through

March, then shifting to predominantly NW winds from April

through June. Bethel has an average growing season of 101

days, the average last freezing temperature being recorded

on May 30 and the average first freezing temperature being

recorded on September 9. Detailed climatic data for-Bethel

is recorded in the following tables and figures.

2-2

TABLE 1

Average Monthly Temperatures (*F)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Mean 6.0 7.2 11.1 25.1 40.3 51.6 54.7 52.7 45.2 30.6 17.1 6.0 29.0

Max 13.3 14.7 19.8 33.5-5 48.9 60.6 62.3 59.5 52.2 36.7 23.5 12.9 36.5

Min -1.3 -0.3 2.3 16.6 31.6 42.5 47.0 45.8 38.1 24.5 10.7 -1.0 21.4

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA

TABLE 2

mean Precipitation and Snowfall (Inches)

Mean Precipitation
-(Water Equivalent) Mean Snowfall

Jan 0.84 5.2
Feb 0.75 5.7
Mar 0.85 7.2
Apr 0.63 6.8
May 0.84 2.2
Jun 1.28 0.2
Jul 2.19 Trace
Aug 3.73 0.0
Sep 2.57 0.1
Oct 1.53 4.7
Nov 0.98 7.4
Dec 0.93 8.6

ANNUAL 17.12 48.1

Source: U.S. Department of Comerce, NOAA

2-4

FIGURE 3
AVERAGE ANNUAL WINDS
Prevail ing Winds N
IN W ..:1:1:4 149

Rim

3q.

171.
19A
Sw 5 E

AVERAGE WIND SPEED FOR DIRECTION NOTED PERCENTAGE WIND BLOWS FROM
m DIRECTION NOTED
F-1 EXTREME WIND FOR DIRf(TION NOTED PERCENTAGE WIND IS CALM
ISUSTAINED FOR ONL MINUTL) F1

WIND SPEEDS ARE IN MILES PER HOUR

SOURCE* ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES

S E A S 0 N A L W I N D S

JANUARY APRIL

N N

6 5
u u
>-:, @D - >:
C.4

W BETHEL E W BET EL E
_,o
0
0
u

S S

JULY OCTOBER

0
L)

MOIST EL W E
w MILD BE1 H ,BE HEL

S S

FREQUENCY OF WIND FROM DIRECTION NOTED

OVER 24 PERCENT 18- 24 PERCENT
SOURCE: N.O. A. A. 2-5 10 - 1 7 PERCEN T

SOILS, PERMAFROST AND GEOLOGY

soils

The mo st recent soil survey of the Bethel area was

completed in 1966. The total map area is 11,465 acres

(including 1020 acres of water area), or about one-third

of the area within the city limits. Most Bethel soils are

silty, acidic, poorly drained, have a low shrink-swell

potential, and have variable to high frost action. Most

soils are not suitable for agricultural or urban uses.

Figure 4 illustrates the Bethel soil survey map and table

3 summarizes the characteristics of each soil type. Figure

5 depicts the soil areas suitable for urban development.

Urban suitability was determined by evaluating a combi-

nation of soil characteristics including: internal drainage,

bearing capacity, and subjectivity to ponding and flooding.

Permafrost

Permafrost is defined as: 1) permanently frozen material

underlying the solum (upper soil horizons), or 2) a perma-

nently frozen soil horizon (Brady). Permafrost underlies

most of Bethel but is absent from localized areas close to

large water bodies. The permafrost begins 12 to 40 inches

below the surface, has an average depth of 400 feet, and a

2-6

maximum depth of 600 feet. The temperature of the permafrost

at depths just below the one of seasonal variation ranges

from -50C to -10C (230 to 300F).

Geology

The geology beneath Bethel is very young, composed

almost entirely of flood plain alluvium and silt deposits

(Figure 6). Northeast of Hanger Lake is an area of reworked

silt. Flood plain alluvium is composed of recent deposits

of mud, silt, sand, gravel, boulders, and intermixed wood,

peat, and other vegetal material. Silt deposits contain

abundant permafrost, and are composed of organic "mulch"

which becomes sandier with depth and contains areas of

pebbles and wood fragments. Silt deposits probably origi-

nated from the river but some areas may include wind and

marine deposits. Reworked silt is a plain, transitional

with or slightly above younger flood-plain deposits and

separated from older silt deposits by an erosional scarp

10 to 50 feet high. The scarp suggests that the plain is

an erosional feature formed by dissection and almost complete

removal of the upper part of older silt deposits (U.S.G.S).

2-7

TABLE 3
SOILS MNrRIX

Soil
mod- principal soil of
Kuskokwim silt loam KuA 3728 35.6 0-3 poor yes yes <12* no yes poor poor tundra, often occurs
mod- with Kwethluk soils
Kuskokwim silt loam KuB 42 0.4 3-7 poor yes yes <12- no yes poor poor
poor <12 good Occurs on upland
Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex KkA 29 0.3 0-7 -mod yes yes >40 no yes poor poor tundra: Kwethluk;
ood poor on low knolls, slopes
00 9
.Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex 13.3 3-7 var. ? no yes poor fair boarding drainageways
,good land drained thaw lakes.
Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex jKkC 1 4281 4.117-121var. no I no 1>40 yes*1yes Poor1fair Kuso- level areas
I 1 1 112- Ivar. 1 1<12 1 1 g6odF-Ibetween Kwethluk soils.
Kuskokwim - Kwethluk lex KkD 1271 1.2 20 no Ino >40 1yes* yes poor fairl
good Beds of drained thaw
Napaishak loamy fine sand Na 216 2.1 0-3 Poor yes yes yes poor poor lakes
Imod good Alluvial plains
Susitna fine sandy loam lSu 11240111.9 0-3 Igood ? 1yes I ? 1yescl no lpoorlpoorlbordering river
I I I lmod- I I I I Igoodl ISlopes bordering
Tuluksak fine sandy loam Tk 1 423 4.110-3 poorlyes 1yes 20 1yeaw no poor poor lakes, drainageways
30- good Floodplain of river
Tupuknuk silt loam TU 825 7.9 0-3 poor yes yes 40 no yes poor poor and secondary stream
Alluvial plain
Freshwater Marsh FM 2029 19.4 0 poor yes yes <12 no no poor,poor,bordering river

Total Land Area 10445 *Small areas on slopes
Total Water Area 1020 c = climate limitation
(sprinq.flood)
Total Map Area 11465 w = wetness limitation
<12
es >40
<12

Compiled from Bethel Area Soil Survey

Fm B
Kk B
KuA KuA F"
Ku Ku A
A __Tk
a Kk,-B
"'Ak KuA
m
Kkc T
Kk
uA

Fql_
Ku A
KkB ",,N K,
D KuA
r rh
Ku A U-
Cl A 4'
Kk B K B Kk'B
KkC Kk B FK
X,
Fn7j
ell, Ku A
"Ku A

Kk.B
Kk B
KkA
Kk B
J

K
u A
KkB
-fly
Kk B
Ku

N@_
KuA

Tk
Na
KUA
Kk B Ku A
Kk B

Kk B
k Kk B
KkC

kB
Kk C KkC

KkC
14 f, KuA
QIK k B
Kk B
4of Kk B -IL
KkC

Ku A
dp - ----- - Kk B Kk B Ku A
Kk C KkC A/ LKLA
Kk@

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

..........

all ...........

..............
Jill
..................
......... ...
.. .............
J

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

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

..... ....

...................
...............I :::

...... ....

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

........... . .
J 11.11 ........
...... ......

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

..... ......

N11,

fp ol,

rs:

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

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

GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS

Natural phenomena such as flooding, erosion, volcanoes,

earthquakes, and tsunamis are called geophysical hazards.

The most predominant hazards in the Bethel area are flooding

and erosion. Earthquakes and tsunamis near Bethel are

possible, but not a real concern. The nearest volcano is

250 miles southeast, on the Alaska Peninsula.

Flooding

The primary cause of flooding in Bethel is ice jams.

The magnitude of the flood is influenced by several factors

including snowmelt, winter and spring temperatures, precipi-

tation, and ice thickness. The greatest flooding usually

occurs in the spring when a thick river-ice buildup experi-

ences rapid warming before breakup. Flooding is also

common in late summer and early fall when Bethel experiences

its heaviest rainfall of the year.

Most of the developed part of Bethel is located within

the 100-year flood plain (Figure 7). 80% of the major

residential and commercial areas have been inundated by

floods in the past. The lower Brown Slough area and Louse-

town are flooded to some degree almost every year.

A major flood can create a maximum river velocity of ten

feet per second (f.p.s.), as compared to an average velocity

2-12

TUDYARE
Ile

71
Ig

0 46

epw
'As
s

of less than two f.p.s. The highest discharge recorded

during a flood is almost 580,000 cubic feet per second,

(c.f.s.) compared to the average discharge of 60,000 c.f.s.

Table 4 lists the ten largest recorded floods between

1941 and 1967, and Table 5 lists flood elevation levels

and frequencies.

TABLE 4

Highest Known Stages and Discharges of Kuskokwim River at Bethel
1941 - 1967

order No. Date of Crest Elevation of Estimated Peak
Water Surface Discharge
(ft) (c.f.s.)

1 Spring 41 30.96*
2 Spring 63 30.17*
3 5 Jun 64 30.02* --
4 9 Jun 64 28.84 579,200
5 13 May 67 28.17* -
6 1 Sep 63 27.00 446,200
7 11 May 57 25.94 384,200
8 5 Jun 52 25.94 384,200
9 5 Sep 51 25.69 373,800
10 4 Sep 53 24.80 330,400

Affected by ice jam, floating ice and/or tide

Source: US. Army Corps of Engineers

TABLE 5

Bethel Flood Elevation and Frequencies

Flood Elevation (feet) Frequency of Ocurrance (years)

32.0 100
31.5 45
29.5 9
28.0 5
24.5 2
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2-14

Riverbank Erosion

Documentation of the Bethel riverbank erosion began in

1939. Erosion now averages eight feet per year along the

town front and twenty-five feet per year in front of the

old PFIS hospital and the Chevron tank farm. The channel

on the east side of the island in front of Bethel is becoming

the main channel of the river. The erosion rate should

increase in the east channel and decrease in front of

Bethel. Figures 8 and 9 depict the projected erosion

advance of the Kuskokwim based on a decreasing erosion

rate and the historic erosion rate.

The bank erosion process begins when wind and boat

traf fic drive waves into the bank, eroding the toe. The

southeast exposure to the sun and rain along the high bank

melts the permafrost and saturates the soil. The soil

saturation combined with the toe erosion creates bank

instability, which results in the bank sliding into the

river. The eroded material is carried away by the river

and exposes more of the bank to the erosional process.

Erosion is further compounded by removal of vegetation

along the top of the river bank and ice gouging.

Bank Stabilization Efforts

Past bank stabilization efforts have included a timber

bulkhead, submarine netting, and the infamous junked cars.

All past efforts have failed and many buildings have been

destroyed, with many more in immediate danger. The U.S.

2-15

V
I

I I ,
I
U,
1,
I'
I
U
I (I
, I' OP
i
I I
I
U 'oe/

oll,
1' -10 .0e
I

101,
I. d. "I
I' I'll 100, .00 ..,
I

I
I'

vt
HONEY

;UCK

LAK
2030

)00 2000
9 @8
1985

ANK EROSION

-ic Erosion Rate

@asing Erosion Rate
E

)s of Eneineers

r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
U
U
1.
1,
[I

.000,
.00,

llool

Ole

loool
loll
1985

loe

'loll

ANK EROSION

1c Erosion Rate t.

asing Erosion Rate

ps of Engineers

Army Corps of Engineers Bank Stabilization Study recommended

three alternatives for further sudy: 1) Articulated concrete

mattress, at a cost of $20,300,000 and estimated maintenance

costs of $600,000 every five years over the fifty year life-

span; 2) Rock riprap, at a cost of $11.9 million and

maintenance costs of $250,000 every five years over the

fifty year lifespan; 3) River diversion structure with

bank stabilization, at a cost of $17.7 million and no

estimate of the maintenance costs. Other options that

were rejected because of expense, public acceptance, or

engineering feasibility included; steel wall with articu-

lated concrete mattress toe protection, steel wall and

sloped bank, river diversion dike, river diversion channel,

and a nonstructural alternative of intensive riverfront

land use management. The City of Bethel has immediate

plans for construction of steel cells and a seawall at the

Chevron tank farm and expanding the seawall at the general

cargo dock. The city plans to stabilize the remainder of

the bank between the general cargo dock and the tank farm

with a combination of steel bulkhead and articulated con-

crete mattress. Total estimated expenditures between 1981

and 1990 for bank stabilization is close to $30 million

(Galliett and Silides).

onshore Erosion

The primary cause of onshore erosion is improper con-

struction of buildings and roads. Many buildings are

2-18

cons tructed on sandpads, and in the past water erosion and

ponding problems have resulted from little consideration

of natural drainage when siting buildings. Road construction

has resulted in similar drainage problems. Road and building

construction also often results in a large quantity of

unconsolidat ed sand and silt. The sand and silt clogs

culverts and drainage pipes and is picked up by the wind

which aggravates the dusty air conditions common in Bethel

during the summer.

Earthquakes and Tsunamis

Although Bethel is located 300 miles from the Aleutian

Islands, one of the most seismically active areas in the

world, little seismic activity is noticable in Bethel.

The nearest known major geologic fault is in the KLIskokwim

Mountains, 100 miles to the southseast. Alaska Re2j.@jnal_

'Profiles identifies the region surrounding Bethel as having

a moderate potential (4.5-6.0 magnitude) for damage to

buildings by earthquake. The Great Alaska Earthquake of

1964 was felt very strongly in Bethel, although the epicenter

was over 400 miles to the east (James Hoffman).

Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are common in the Aleution

Islands but rarely impact western Alaska. The Kuskokwim

River at Bethel does have a small tidal influence, so

theoretically a large tsunami directed at Kuskokwim Bay

could be felt in Bethel. However, the probability is very

low.

2-19

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

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

8M
:@WRar,

. . . . . . . . . .

.. ...... ... . . .
SM"

... ... ... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HYDROLOGY

The Kuskokwim River

The Kuskokwim River begins in the glaciers of Mt.

Foraker, in the Mt. McKinley National Park. The river

flows 540 miles to its mouth in Kuskokwim Bay. Near Bethel,

the river meanders extensively forming ponds, sloughs, and

oxbow lakes. Severe erosion problems are caused by the

river constantly changing course (refer to Geophysical

Hazards section). The river is very murky because of a

high glacial flour concentration. Table 6 summarizes phy-

sical characteristics of the river.

2-20

TABLE 6

Physical Characteristics of the Kuskokwim River at Bethel

Length 540 miles
Total Drainage Area 50,000 sq miles
Drainage Area Upstream From Bethel 42,800 sq miles
Summer Discharge Range 50,000-200,000 c.,f.s.
Average Discharge 60,000 c.f.s.
Maximum Spring Flood Discharge 600,000 c.f.s.
Velocity (During discharge of High Tide - 0.8 f.p.s.
95,000 c.f.s. Low Tide - 2.2 f.p.s.
Temperature Range 320 F to 440 F
Average Freeze-up Date October 29
Average Break-up Date May 15

The Kuskokwim River has an average diurnal tid al range

of f ive feet. The maximum tidal effect is felt when the

river discharge is lowest. The maximum tidal range is

estimated at +7 MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water) to -3 MLLW.

As the river discharge increases, the tidal range decreases,

until the tidal effect disappears when the river discharge

reaches the magnitude of a twenty-year frequency flood.

Drainage

The natural drainage system on which the developed

portion of Bethel is located is known as Brown Slough

(technically a stream). The general direction of drainage

is from the north and northwest throughout the city and

emptying into the Kuskokwim River. Several other tribu-

taries of a shorter length flow into the Kuskokwim, but,

with the exception of Lousetown Slough, do not drain the

developed area.

Approximately two-thirds of this area within the city

limits is a low profile undulating topography. No dominant

2-21

stream system has been able to develop due to topographic

conditions and the presence of permafrost. Thus, the entire

area is imperfectly drained and is characterized by numerous

potholes (384 according to a 1977 U.S. Geologic Survey Map).

The remaining one-third of Bethel's corporate area is fresh-

water marsh. This includes land both north and south of

the river bend.

Within the developed area of the City, the combination

of localized irregular topography, saturated soil, perma-

frost and near level position with the river results in

extensive areas of standing water. The surface water

problem will expand as development continues over time,

being influenced by increasing amounts of impervious cover

and land alteration which can interfere with surface flow.

Large scale maps (1":100') have been prepared for the City

to illustrate local drainage direction.

Groundwater

All of Bethel's potable water is supplied by ground-

water. The water that is extracted from the wells is very

cold and water supplied by the city is treated with chlorine.

Almost all of the successful wells must drill below the

permafrost before an aquifer is found. Location of recharge

areas and estimates of aquifer size are very difficult due

to the presence of the permafrost.

2-22

HABITATS

Habitats in the Bethel planning area which are subject

to the Alaska Coastal Management Program are wetlands and

tideflats; rivers, lakes and streams; and uplands. These

habitats are depicted in Figure 10. These habitats support

a wide range of terrestial and aquatic life forms, and

therefore should be managed in a manner which maintains or

enhances the physical and biological characteristics of

these habitats. A brief discussion of the habitat types

follows.

Wetlands and Tideflats

A recent field study conducted by the Bethel City plan-

ning staff, Environmental Science and Engineering and the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that almost the

entire area found within the Bethel city limits was techni-

cally wetlands. Based on this study, two groups of wetlands

were identified; significant wetlands and nonsignificant

wetlands. The significant wetlands include streamways and

areas subject to periodic inundations. The nonsignificant

wetlands include areas that are not subject to flooding

and are better drained. Wetlands are characterized by

tundra vegetation such as grasses, sedges, herbs, and

mosses; and by freshwater flora such as diatoms, algae and

2-23

seed plants. Wetlands are extremely important to resident

and migratory bird species for resting, nesting, rearing,

and foraging areas. They also provide habitats for fur-

bearers such as fox, hare, weasels, mink, mudkrat, beaver,

and other mammals like lemmings and voles. Wetland habitats

can be easily disrupted by urban development, thus careful

management of these areas is essential.

Rivers, Lakes, and Streams

Rivers, lakes, streams and other freshwater habitats

such as sloughs and the shallow tundra lakes and ponds are

well represented in the Bethel plann ing area. The Kuskokwim

River system provides a migration route and important

spawning, feeding, rearing, and overwintering habitats for

resident and anadromous fish species. The riparian and

high brush vegetation types bordering the rivers and sloughs

provide habitats for waterfowl, game birds, and several

species of passerines. Small furbearing animals associated

with the aquatic environments are beaver, muskrat, mink,

and land otter.

The shallow tundra lakes are abundant throughout the

planning area and are integral with the freshwater wetlands.

Diatoms, blue green algae, and both submerged and emerged

forms of aquatic seed plants occur in these habitats, pro-

viding important feeding areas for fish populations. These

habitats are equally important to waterfowl, shorebirds,

and various animals as resting and foraging areas.

2-24

Uplands

The wetlands study found that those areas not techni-

cally qualifying as wetlands, based on examination of soil

characteristics, hydrology and vegetation type, were extreme-

ly small sites (usually no more than a few hundred square

feet) found on south facing slopes in the nonsignificant

wetland area. Plant life is less dense and a predominance

of lichen is found in these areas. No species exclusively

adapted to uplands are found in the areas except on a

seasonal basis, i.e. , snowshoe rabbits, arctic hares, and

ptarmigan. The animal and bird species of the upland areas

are influenced by he lowlying freshwater habitats, and are

generally well dispersed throughout the planning area.

2-25

w .
a u
22

u
M2
(D
-0-0 z J
C:
V@ w
w
2
E 4-.@ z W2
rz uf a
0 Ln 2
w 4-4
CL ro E E w
LIJ 4 V) m
Lr@ > 0
a C: 2
C:
Z LU E
u.j

LU U_ CIO
0 4@
(A
< m
z 0
< ul

jj-

F_
1@ F1
ILLS
Cie
Z)
u

Lj_

elk.-

41,l, 1,

-dM

1 4
@10 4"

41.

440
14 4@

If 011p,

\NEW

22
w

Lq
2

w
w
2
2
0 a
ce _j 2 2
0 w
CL m
> 0
22
Z
wj
w
LLJ L11-
0

z
nz
< .1-i _r_
to

u
r- ja

F-
F1 D El
LU
ce
Z)
L)

1 4
41

IK 414L
4L,
V V
Ix1r V

14" 41,
I L
14'
17

I IN

11 4
4 1 ZAIMO
. A@m Col.
!,CIO
op
14, 41

*kN
qr

IV
cc-J,

VEGETATION

Vegetation in the Bethel area can be described as

primarily wet and moist tundra, characterized by low growing

grasses, sedges, and shrubs, rooted in a mat of lichens

and mosses. Alaska Regional Profiles has grouped vegetation

in and around Bethel into the following communities (Figure

Wet Tundra

Characterized by an almost continuous cover of grasses

and sedges rooted in mosses and lichens. on slightly

raised ridges dwarf shrubs may be found, while in standing

water rooted aquatic plants, such as horsetail, pondweed,

and bur reed are found.

Characteristic species: Bog orchid, Cotton grass, Sphagnum

MOSS.

Moist Tundra

Characterized by wide-variety of low-growing shrubs,

herbs, grasses, and sedges rooted in a continuous mat of

mosses and lichens. Cotton grass may be most obvious in

depressions, and the abundant grasses and sedges are accented

by numerous colorful flowers during summer.

Characeristic species: Crowberry, Sedge, Hair Moss, Reindeer

lichen.
2-28

High Brush

Characterized by dense thickets of willow, alder, and

birch with an understory of a wide variety of lower shrubs,

herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses.

Characteristic species: Felt leaf willow, Littletree willow,

Thin lea f alder.

Freshwater Flora

Characterized by phytoplankton, seed plants, and small

algae. Phytoplankton and small algae commonly grow in the

top few inches of soft bottom sediments in ponds and shallow

lakes. Both submerged and emergent forms of aquatic seed

plants occur in shallow ponds and lakes.

Characteristic species: Horsetail, Pondweed, various species

of diatoms, and algae.

Additional species and their scientific names for each

type of plant community is listed in Appendix I.

2-29

VEGETATION

Vegetation in the Bethel area can be described as

primarily wet and moist tundra, characterized by low growing

grasses, sedges, and shrubs, rooted in a mat of lichens

and mosses. Alaska Regional Profiles has grouped vegetation

in and around Bethel into the following communities (Figure

Wet Tundra

Characterized by an almost continuous cover of grasses

and sedges rooted in mosses and lichens. on slightly

raised ridges dwarf shrubs may be found, while in standing

water rooted aquatic plants, such as horsetail, pondweed,

and bur reed are found.

Characteristic species: Bog orchid, Cotton grass, Sphagnum

MOSS.

Moist Tundra

Characterized by wide-variety of low-growing shrubs,

herbs, grasses, and sedges rooted in a continuous mat of

mosses and lichens. Cotton grass may be most obvious in

depressions, and the abundant grasses and sedges are accented

by numerous colorful flowers during summer.

Characeristic species: Crowberry, Sedge, Hair Moss, Reindeer

lichen.
2-28

High Brush

Characterized by dense thickets of willow, alder, and

birch with an understory of a wide variety of lower shrubs,

herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses.

Characteristic species: Felt leaf willow, Littletree willow,

Thin leaf alder.

Freshwater Flora

Characterized by phytoplankton, seed plants, and small,

algae. Phytoplankton and small algae commo nly grow in the

top few inches of soft bottom sediments in ponds and shallow

lakes. Both submerged and emergent forms of aquatic seed

plants occur in shallow ponds and lakes.

Characteristic species: Horsetail, Pondweed, various species

of diatoms, and algae.

Additional species and their scientific names for each

type of plant community is listed in Appendix I.

2-29

................ E
.............. INLET
K LAKE

N SLESLUK
LA

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

KPAI
DALL LAKE

'441
........ .....
p

...... .......
BETHEL
..........

..........

...........

...... prwm::::::: LAKE
0
ce 7p
...........

..........

SOURCES: AILA
U.5

BIRD LIFE

Bethel is located on the eastern margin of one of the

largest and most productive avifauna habitats on the conti-

nent, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Many species of waterfowl,

shorebirds and songbirds have been observed around Bethel,

however the extent to which the bird species utilize the

river, sloughs, lakes, and tundra habitats is not well

documented.

Waterfowl

Diving and surface feeding ducks are the most abundant

of the waterfowl, with pintail, greater scaup and oldsquaw

the most prevalent. Other important species include mallard,

green winged teal, common scoter and widgeon. Nesting of

ducks occurs throughout the study area, with the most exten-

sive nesting sites occuring in areas characterized by a

high density of lakes and ponds. Observed nesting species

in the Bethel planning area are pintail, mallard, greater

scaup, green winged teal, and canvasback (ADF&G).

The delta habitats are equally important to geese and

swan populations. Whistling swans are common around Bethel

and throughout the delta. They are the most conspicuous

of the waterfowl, due to their enormous size, and are

frequently seen flying overhead or foraging on the tundra

2-31

vegetation. Small f locks of black brant and some geese

such as white-fronted, and lesser Canada also appear on

the tundra to rest and forage on crowberries prior to

their fall departure. Nesting of black brant, cackling,

and emperor geese 'is generally confined to coastal and

estuarine habitats and are fairly uncommon in the Bethel

study area. White-fronted and lesser Canada geese nesting

habitats are more well dispersed throughout the study area.

High density nesting is found in areas supporting a dense

complex of lakes and ponds.

The first waterfowl arrive on the delta in late April

to early May, with some species arriving in the coastal

nesting habitats through June. Nesting begins in late May

with the breakup of the river. Most broods of g eese and

duck are fledged by mid-August. Fall departure of waterfowl

in the Bethel area appears to peak in late September and

may extend through October if warm weather persists. Water-

fowl are most commonly observed during spring and fall

migrations. Special bird habitats are identified in figure

12: none fall within the city itself.

Shorebirds and Other Waterbirds

Common shorebirds found throughout the study area

include Wilson snipe, western sandpipers, American golden

plovers, northern phalaropes, and Arctic terns. Other

common waterbirds include red-neckedhgrebes, Arctic and

common loons, sandhill cranes, and mew, sabine and glaucous

2-32

winged gulls. Hangar Lake has been indentified as a Popular

nesting and foraging site for waterbirds as well as water-

fowl. Preferred nesting habitats appear to be a fair

distance from town and around the periphery of lakes and

ponds.

The majority of waterbirds arrive on the tundra as

soon as the snow melts and immediately disperse onto nesting

habitats. Common and Arctic loons, Arctic terns, snipes,

phalaropes, and gulls are known nesting species in the

study area. Waterbirds migrate to the delta from all over

the world and are the most abundant of the bird species

inhabiting the area during the spring and early fall.

Upland

Raptors are fairly uncommon on the lowland tundra

habitats, however the study area is frequented by marsh

hawks and gryfalcon which prey on ptarmigan and small

rodents. Willow ptarmigan are year-round residents and

are most commonly observed in higher, better drained tundra

habitats. Spruce grouse are wintering residents of the

study area. Short-eared owls are also observed on the

tundra and occur in greater abundance as rodent populations

increase.

Passerine (songbirds) birds commonly observed through-

out the study area include lapland longspurs, parasitic

and longtailed jaegars, yellow wagtails, tree and bank

swallows, rusty blackbirds, boreal chickadees, robins, snow

2-33

buntings, and common redpolls. Ravens are abundant through-

out the region.

A nesting site of the endangered Peregrine falcon has

been identified near the Upper Falls of the Kisaralik

River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Peregrine falcons

arrive in Alaska in late April and depart for their wintering

grounds during September, following their nesting season.

They are thought to winter from Central to South America.

Peregrines may not utilize the same next year after year,

but they traditionally use the same area. Peregrines feed

primarily on waterfowl, shorebirds, and various small birds.

2-34

TABLE 7 SEASONAL ABUNDANCE AND NESTING OF BIRD SPECIES IN THE IMMEDIATE
BETHEL AREA.
Bird Species Spring Nesting Fall Winter
Waterfowl
Whistling swan C + C
Lesser Canada goose C + C
White-fronted goose C + C
Mallard C + C
Pintail C + C
Green-winged teal C + C
Greater scaup C + C
Old squaw C + C
Common scoter C + C
Canvas back U + U
Widgeon C +

Shorebirds and Other Water Birds
Arctic loon U + U
Red throated loon U + U
Common loon C +
Red-necked grebes U
Lesser sandhill crane C + C
Common (Wilson) snipe A +
Western sandpiper A + A
Northern phalarope C + C
Dowitcher U +
Whimbrel U +
American golden plover C + C
Glaucous winged gull C + C
Mew gull C + C
Sabine gull U
Arctic tern C +

Passarines
Parasitic jaeger C + C
Long-tailed jaeger C + C
Fox sparrow C
Savamah sparrow A + A
Tree sparrow A +
Bank sparrow A +
Gray jay U U
Boreal chickadee C C
Robin A + A
Yellow wagtail U +
Yellow warbler C + C
Rusty blackbird C + C
Hoary redpoll U + U U
Lapland longspur A +
Raven A + A A

2-35

Raptors
Short eared owl C + C C
Marsh hawk C
Willow ptarmigan C + C C
Rock ptarmigan U
snow bunting C
McKays snow bunting C

CODES: A = Abundant
C = Common
U = Uncommon

Compiled from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Bethel.

2-36

MAMMALS

Few big game species occur in the immediate vicinity

of Bethel. moose, wolf and wolverine are found primarily

in the forested upland sections of the Yukon and Kuskokwim

River drainages. Black bear are common throughout the

open upland forest areas but are rarely observed on the

lowland tundra of the. delta (ADFandG). Small fur bearers

occur in greater numbers in the study area and are of

primary importance to, the village winter economy. The

more valuable small fur bearers are mink, beaver, muskrat,

land otter, and red fox. Special mammal habitats in the

Bethel study area are identified in Figure 12.

The "tundra" mink of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta are of

the highest quality and command top prices in world fur

markets. The highest recorded mink densities occur near

Chevak, east of Hooper Bay, and in the larger water bodies

east of Nelson Island, including Baird Inlet and Dall

Lake. Moderate mink densities occur in the southern portion

of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta east of the foothills of the

Kilbuck Mountains including the Johnson River drainage and

adjacent tundra areas. Areas of low mink abundance include

areas where relative relief exceeds 100 feet and areas

immediately adjacent to the coast and the Yukon and Kuskokwim

Rivers.

2-37

Mink are associated with lakes, ponds, and slow moving
waterways an& are' "commonly trapped with a "taluyuk", 'a' home-

made cylindrical fish trap. Between 10,0_00 and '14',000

m i nk-- are taken on the delta annually". A large percentage

of 'the "tuhdra" mink are trapped in early November before

the ice has formed a thick layer.

Beavers are common throughout the delta region, parti-

cularly in deepwater streams and tributaries. A moderate

beaver 'trapping ef fort exists on the delta. The average
number of sealed be aver .is about 1,300 pe r yea .rI(_ ADF.and

The 1980-81 catch recorded in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Game

Management area (see appendix) was cons-iderab ly higher

than the average takes, approximately 2,396 beavers were

sealed.

Muskrats are also common throughout the delta region,

although populations may fluctuate widely due to unfavorable

weather conditions. Preferred habitats by muskrats are slow

moving waterways such as lakes, marshes, ponds, and sloughs.

The majority of muskrat are trapped in early spring, imme-

diately after break-up. Actual harvests were not available.'

Arctic and red fox are present on the delta, although

arctic foxes occur commonly only in the coastal regions' of

the delta. The red fox is abundant throughout the study

area and is associated with riparian willow along the

river and neighboring sloughs. Fox populations are to a

large extent dependent on the abundance of prey species.

Increasing numbers of fox are taken on the delta with the

2-38

aid of snow machines. In 1980-81 approximately 2000-2500

fox were taken in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Game Management

Area (ADFandG).

Land otters are found on the tundra in and around

streams and river drainages. Otters of the Yukon-Kuskokwim

Delta are of high quality and continue to bring top prices

to the trappers. The 1981 game management report recorded

638 sealed otters for the entire region, with the majority

trapped along the Kuskokwim River drainage between from

Eek and Kalskag and along the lower Yukon Drainage between

Mountain Village and Russian Mission (Dinneford).

other small animals found in the study area include

shrews, hares, lemmings, voles, squirrels, ermines, weasels,

and occasionally lynx.

Additional species and their scientific names are listed

in Appendix I.

2-39

FISH8S'

The freshwater habitats of the Kuskokwim area support

a w.ide range of anadromous and freshwater fish species.

The major . f ish species are.:, all f ive: species of Papif ic

salmon, whitefish (including sheefish. and cisco),.. burbot

.or "lush",northern pike, blackfish, boreal and pond smelt,

ar,ctic.,la,mprey, arctic char, grayling, rainbow trout, long-

.Pose sucker, slimy sculpin, three-spine and nine-spine

...stickleback. The, fish resources of the Ku.skokwim, River

system historically have been used I for subsistence needs,

and more recently, support an important commercial f ishery

and a limited sport fishery.,

The waters of the study area (see Figure 13) include

the Ku,.skokwim River, from Eek Island to.Aniak,, and major

streams and rivers draining the Kilbuk and Ahkum Mountain

Ranges and flowing west and north into the main river.

Throughout the study area there are numerous lakes, ponds,

and shallow waterways which are important to the ecology

of many fish species.

The map in Figure 13 is based on Alaska Department of

Fish and Game personnel field observations, as provided by

Rae Baxter and Glenn Seamen. only the major tributaries

and lakes are delineated; there are many lesser streams
and ponds, some that exist only intermittently, that are C

2-40

not illustrated on the map. The nonanadromous species are

particularly found in the lesser tributaries. All species,

except the rainbow trout and the boreal smelt, are found

in the Kuskokwim.

Salmon

The main river serves as an important migration route

for all five species of Pacific salmon. King salmon are

the earliest to arrive to the Kuskokwim area, ascending

the river in early May. By mid June the salmon are entering

the spawning streams and rivers in the study area. The

distribution and spawning areas for the five species of

Pacific Salmon are delineated in Figure 13 (ADFandG). The

major river tributaries provide excellent spawning habitats

(ADFandG). King salmon spawning occurs in July and August.

Fry emerge in the spring and the young salmon remain in

freshwater until the following summer before migrating to

the sea.

Chum salmon are the most abundant salmon species in

the Kuskokwim River, ascending the river shortly after the

arrival of the king salmon run. During July and August

chum salmon migrate upstream to their spawning areas.

There are sixteen known chum spawning tributaries in the

Kuskokwim River system, however they have not been well

documented due to insufficient funds necessary to survey

all areas. Unfavorable weather conditions for surveying

further limits the Department of Fish and Game in their

2-41

surveying efforts (ADF&G). Fry emerge from gravel beds in

spring and begin their seaward migration. Chum salmon

spend two to four years' in the sea before returning to the

river system.

Pink and red salmon are more abundant in rivers and

streams of the Kuskokwim Bay area. The majority of red

salmon are anadromous, although some may become "lake

locked" and remain in freshwater habitats. These fish are

referred to as "kokanee". In the Yukon-Kuskokwim area

kokanee are fairly uncommon. Preferred spawning habitats

are swift rivers with medium fine gravel bottoms; and some

lakes. Fry emerge in April and May and the young remain

in freshwater habitats one to two years before migrating

to coastal areas.

Pink salmon spawning usually occurs in the tributaries

of the lower Kuskokwim River. However spawning has occured

in tributaries further up ri-ver as far as the Holitna

River (ADF andG). Spawning has not been documented in the

Kuskokwim River itself but limited evidence suggests it

may occur in the river above Kalskag. Pink salmon spawn

in July and August, and by the following spring the young

pink salmon are migrating downstream to spend summer months

in nearshore waters. Pink salmon are abundant only in

even years (i.e., 1980, 1982, 1984).

Coho Salmon are abundant and present throughout the

study area. They enter spawning rivers and streams in

early fall, and spawning occurs between September and

2-42

January. Coho juveniles rear in lakes, ponds, and streams;

and remain in freshwater from one to three years before

they migrate downstream to coastal areas.

All five species of Pacific salmon are utilized prim-

arily for 'subsistence and commercial purposes, with a

slight fishing pressure from sports fishermen.

Whitefish

Several species of whitefish are found throughout the

study area. These are: broad whitefish, humpback whitefish,

round whitefish, sheef ish or "iconncu", Bering cisco commonly

called arctic cisco, and least cisco. Bering cisco are

more commonly found in the estuarine and lowland tundra

habitats, while least cisco are found in freshwater habitats

throughout the area. Round whitefish prefer the swift

flowing sections of streams and are found in all the major

tributaries of the Kuskokwim River from Eek River to the

headwater. They seldom occur in the lower reaches of the

Kuskokwim River, except for a short duration immediately

following break-up. The two species of major importance

to subsistence fishermen in the lower Kuskokwim River

are broad and humpback whitefish.

Several whitefish species of the Kuskokwim River

drainage, including least cisco, broad whitefish and hump-

back whitefish, exhibit seasonal movements between the

Kuskokwim River and outlying tundra streams, lakes, and

ponds. During the summer and early fall the whitefish

2-43

disperse and feed in the shallow tundra aquatic habitats

of the delta. From August to December the whitefish migrate

downstream to preferred spawning and overwintering habitats

in the Kuskokwim River. Spawning occurs during the fall in

the deep waters of the Kuskokwim River. Humpback spawning

has been observed in the main river near Bethel and over

400 miles upriver from the mouths of summer feeding streams

of the lower Kuskokwim River. From December to May the

main river is an important overwintering habitat, due to

the unavailability of free water and the near anerobic

conditions of the shallow tundra lakes and ponds. By mid-

spring nonspawners and juvenile whitefish leave their over-

wintering habitats and return to their summer feeding

habitats (Baxter).

Sheefish appear to spawn in alternate years with only

one half of the population breeding in any year. Many of

the non-br eeders do not move upstream with the spawners

but instead disperse in the delta in the shallow, slow

moving tundra streams, lakes, and ponds to feed. The

upstream migration of breeding individuals is protracted

and occurs from at least April to June (ADF&G). Sheefish

are fall spawners and prefer habitat with a swift curren t

and deep pools.. Suitable spawning habitats are outside

the study area (Baxter).

The Kuskokwim River whitefish fishery is predominately

utilized for subsistence needs. The main river, from Johnson

River to Akiachak, is an area of intensive whitefish harvest

2-44

by Bethel residents (see Figure 13). During the fall and

winter whitefish are taken under the ice with gill nets or

with a hook and line method of fishing, locally known as

"jigging." other important species harvested* along with

whitefish include northern pike, burbot, lamprey, and black-

fish. As smelt ascend the river in spring, subsistence

fishing is done by means of dip-nets.

The commercial utilization of whitefish occurs inciden-

tally to the August coho season, and in a limited fall and

whitefish fishery conducted by the Fish and Game Department

in Bethel.

Sport fishing

Rainbow trout is the principal fish specie sought by

sports fishermen. Rainbow trout are year round stream

residents and are found in all major tributary streams-of

the lower Kuskokwim River, with the exception of Eek,

Tuluksak, and Johnson Rivers. Rainbow trout have not been

documented in the Holitna River or farther upstream' in the

Kuskokwim drainage (ADFandG). other species valuable to

sports fishermen are sheefish, arctic char, grayling, north-

ern pike, and all five species of Pacific salmon. , The

Kisaralik River receives the greatest sport fishing pressure

from Bethel residents and area fishermen. The river is

navigable approximately seventy miles and thus, is preferred

by many sports fishermen. The Kwethluk and Kasigluk river

systems receive moderate sports fishing pressure from resi-

dents of Bethel (ADFandG).

2-45

TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDA14CE OF FRESHWATER
FISH IN THE LOWER KUSKOKWIM RIVER

U) U)
SPECIES

Arctic Lairprey + x x x P x
Kip3 Salmon + + + + + +
Coho + + + + + +
Chum + + + + + +
Red x 0 P P + P
Pink + x x x + x
Rainbow Trout + x + + 0 +
Arctic Char + + + + + +
Lake Trout 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sheefish x P P x x P
R.-Whitefish + x + + + +
H. Whitefish -:i:-- -+ x + + +
B. Whitefish + + + + + +
Least cisco + x x x + x
Bering Cisco x P P P x P
Arctic grayling + + + + + +
Boreal smelt 0 P x x x x
Pond smelt + P P P P
Burbot + P P P P P
Northern Pike + + + + + +
Blackfish + + + + + +
9-spine stickleback + + P P P P
I!ongnose sucker + + + P +
-F + + +
3-spine stickleback o @o 0 x 0
Slimy sculpin +

+ Abundant; x Low Abundance; P thought to be present; o absent

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Inventpr
y and Cataloging.of
Western Alaskan Waters

2-46

AC BAIRD PK ACI LC HW BB /*
(few) I NLLT K LAKE
K/,

WF PK BB BK

NUN VAKPAK
LA

DALL IN"
LAK Y,

BETHEL/

ACI BK NSS

Ii R E LAKE

\\p

KCC
z
a:
0

lR\

SOURCE' ALASKA DEP

CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

..........

Photo by Ferdinand Dreybert.
Courtesy of Moravian Archives.

HISTORY OF BETHEL

The history of Bethel began with the establishment of

the permanent Eskimo village of Mum, treklilagamute, which

means "smokehouse village" in the Yupik language. The

date has not been determined when the settlement first

originated. Across the river from the village the first

-trading post was established by Reinhold Separe in the

early 1870's. The settlement was known as Mumtrekhlagamute

Station. A second trading post owned by the Alaska Commer-

cial Company was established at the upriver end of the

2-48

settlement, near Brown Slough.,, The inye.ntory of goods was

owned by Separo, however- .the store w`a soperated by Edward

Lind (Oswalt). Moravian missionaries arrived at Mumtrekhl-

agamute Station in 1884 in search of a placi:! to establish

a mission. The following year John Kilbuck and William

Weinland founded a mission one-half mile west of the trading

post. The first school was opened in 1886, and by the turn

of the century the Bethel Mission was well established.

Reindeer herding and fur farms were among the early

industries in Bethel. The first reindeer were introduced

to Alaska in 1892 in an effort to revitalize the Alaskan

economy. In 1901 the Moravian mission received 175 reindeer.

By the early 1930's approx imately 43,000 reindeer grazed

along the Kuskokwim River. The population of reindeer

gradually diminished and in 1946 only 600 remained. During

the 1930's several residents of Bethel owned fur farms

where mink and fox were raised. Remnants of an early f ur

farm can still be seen near the present site of the Chevron

oil storage tanks.

As a result of the commercial activities associated

with early industries and river uses, Bethel emerged as an

economic and trade center for the surrounding region. Its

role as a regional center was further reinforced with the

development of transportation facilities and extensive capi-

tal projects financed by the government. Government and

social services grew considerably during the 1960's and

2-49

soon became the dominant force in Bethel's economy. Al-

though many economic changes have occurred in Bethel since

its beginnings, the traditional lifestyle and culture of

the Yupik people remains visible today.

Historic Sites

The Alaska Heritage Resources Survey, maintained by

the Alaska Division of Parks, has identified three historic

sites in Bethel. (See Figure 14).

St. Sophia - the St. Sophia Church is owned by the

Russian Orthodox Church in Sitka. The Church was Built in

1967 and the foundation of the Church was blessed on August

9, 1968. Records of Communion of the Sergie Mission in

1906 reveals the early influence of the Russian Orthodox

Church in Bethel (Emphanka).

The First Settler's Cabin - This cabin is the first

home built by a white settler in Bethel. The building is

still standing but is threatened by the erosion of the

riverbank.

The Moravian Church - The Moravian Church was built

in 1885 by John Kilbuck and William Weinland. The building

has been relocated from its original site.

Much of Bethel's early history was lost due to erosion

along the waterfront. However, there are several older

homes along Mission Road and in other parts of town.

Nerby's store, built in 1927, has been moved back from the

river three times (Hoffman).

2-50

There are two old cemetery sites iri Bethel known as

Lousetown cemetery and Orutsararmuit (Hoffman). (Figure

14.) The oldest burial ground was at the original site of

Mumtrekhlagamute or Bethel. Excavations at this site were

made in 1926 by Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, an anthropologist of

the Smithsonian Institute (Schwalbe).

2-51

'WN

A, V i: CK'-@ t k^
na0achu Tr

to BIA

Aft
PA N

---w TMF
@@a )LV

RECREATION

Bethel supports a variety of indoor and outdoor recre-

ation activities. Several recreation facilities are new,

with more facilities planned for the near future. The

City Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks and Rec)

coordinates most of the facilities and activities in town.

The department consists of five full-time employees, five

part-time employees, several volunteers, and, occasional

contracted employees for special programs.

The focal point of outdoor summer activities is 21

Acre Park (Pinky's Park), located on the north side of the

city subdivision. The park complex consists of a six-lane

bowling alley, a baseball field, a childrens' playground

and a 3/4 mile boardwalk encircling the park. A combination

outdoor tennis/ basketball court with lights is being

constructed at the park. The court is planned for comple-

tion by the end of summer, 1982. The park also serves as

the center of the city's Fourth oE July activities.

The city plans to establish a series of neighborhood

"mini-parks". one of the planned parks is in the Alaska

State Housing Authority (ASHA) housing area, two are in

the Ptarmigan Subdivision and one is near the Russian

Orthodox Church in Lousetown. Mini-parks have also been

proposed near Mission Lake and near Dull Lake. Parks and

2-53

Rec has hopes of eventually constructing a boardwalk system

from the Ptarmigan mini-parks through the ASHA mini-park

to 21 Acre Park and possibly connecting with the P.H.S.

Hospital.

A popular recreation area, that is predominantly private

property, is 11-Marker Lake. The lake is used for swimming

and by seaplanes. The land surrounding the lake is used

for a variety of recreation activities.

Other popular recreation areas include Hanger Lake,

Arthur Dull Lake, and the Kuskokwim River. The City hopes

to eventually secure land for a riverfront park.

Outdoor recreation during the winter is restricted to

cross-country skiing, snowmobiles, and dogsleds. All three

activities use trails that wind through the city and out to

surrounding villages. (Figure 14). Dogsled racing, known

as "mushing" has become very popular. The "Kuskokwim

300", a 300-mile race to Aniak and back, is the highlight

of community activity in the winter. Bethel also hold's

the Yukon-Kuskokwim State Fair during the winter, which

includes dog and snow machine races, several arts and

craft events, and Eskimo dances.

Facilities used for indoor recreation include the

bowling alley, the high school gym, the National Guard

Armory, the Kilbuck Elementary School, the Senior Citizens

Center, and the Parks and Rec Building. A Teen Center is

under construction and is scheduled for completion in the

spring of 1982. The city has been trying, without success,

2-54

to secure funding for construction of a swimming pool.

Efforts are being made by Parks and Rec to create an ice

skating rink on one of the lakes during the winter.

Parks and Rec cooperates with the high school, the

Armory and the elementary school to sponsor regular acti-

vities in basketball, volleyball, soccer, aerobic dancing,

exercise classes, weightlifting and open gym. Nonathletic

programs include Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts,

Senior Citizens and children's activities, and various

arts and crafts skills. occasionally Parks and Rec programs

are pre-empted by activities of the building's owners. In

order to avoid such cancellations, Parks and Rec is hoping

to construct a multi-purpose recreation center. Figure 15

identifies recreation areas and facilities.

2-55

w
u
2 u
w 2
u

z 2
J

U INO'SJS31VM 0 0 0 00 z
w
< 2 w
L L 3AV H141A 0 0 000 0* t@ w 2
OL DIVI S3DNVH 0 of 0 a 0
6 NMO-L3Sn6l- 0 see M
0 2 2
me 9 HonoiS NMO'dg 00
0 w
LLJ I NOISSIN 0 000 0 0
C: U- 9 IWO 000 00 z > 0
0 S NVOINdVid ose a0 2 2 2
Z Lu 4@ > w
UJI 1, NOISIAmons vHsy 0 see 00 z
0 C 3NDV LZ 0 000 00 w
4- Z DVI 11dC VS 0 a
LLJ 0 0a
LL.
U DIVI MDXVW H 0 0 0 00 0 0 so
0 V 2 Lo
u )1@lvd

0
u
0 V) zo@z 0
-@ m , 2 <
0 W , 0
0 O:D z
_0 o
@ . 2
<
< u 2 5,
0
Lr) z u

D
LLJ u
0
0

LA-

'A 1
41 1-'(' 4'
4

AA
AL

11, 4. 4
1,4
Ali @1

41, 'It,
4

iq
7,11il. V
l5, 4 @v` 41 1 <

Vj 4

WNW=

SUBSISTENCE

The Yupik Eskimos inhabiting the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta

historically have depended on the abundance of f ish and

wildlife resources for their existence. Although there

have been significant economic changes within the region,

subsistence continues to be the economic mainstay of many

Native communities and an integral part of the Yupik culture.

Subsistence may play an increasingly important role in the

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta region with respect to potential

changes in Federal and State government policies affecting

employment, the management of resources, and economic devel-

opment.

A community attitude survey relating to the culture

and lifestyle of Bethel residents was conducted by Darby-

shire and Associates in 1980. The results of the survey

found that 60% of those surveyed participated in at least

one subsistence activity. The major types of subsistence

activities pursued were fishing, hunting, and berry picking.

Outside of the survey local residents have expressed the

importance of subsistence uses as a necessary supplement

to their food supply.

The land and waters within the City's boundaries is

extremely important to the community for subsistence acti-

vities (see Figure 16). Throughout the year fish are

2-57

taken in the main river and its neighboring sloughs. Many

tundra lakes and ponds also support fish populations,

particularly blackfish, which provides a major source of

food to some Bethel residents during several months of the

year. Fox, muskrat, hare, ptarmigan, and waterfowl are

obtained by various means of trapping and hunting throughout

the Bethel area. While the fish and wildlif&resources in

the City of Bethel are used by many, some local residents

prefer to hunt and fish further distances from town. With

improved means of transportation more remote areas are

accessible to subsistence users. Because moose and other

big game species are found in forested areas upriver many

individuals charter planes to those areas.

The following section summarizes the predominant

seasonal subsistence activit'ies in Bethel and the surrounding

area.

2-58

Subsistence Activities

SUMMER Pink Salmon Drift and set gill nets are used to harvest
Red salmon large numbers of salmon from the Kuskokwim
Coho salmon River. The many fish camps located along
Chum salmon the main river reflect the abundance of
salmon resources in the Kuskokwim area.

AUTUMN Whitefish After the salmon fishing season the salmon
Burbot or "lush" nets are set again and vast quantities of
Pike whitefish, pike, and blackfish are secured.
Blackfish Whitefish and other fish species are harvested
Coho salmon in the tundra streams during their fall
downstream migration.
N)
I
ol
Waterfowl Ducks and geese are available during the early
part of the season.

Berries In early autumn blueberries, salmonberries, crow-
berries and low bush cranberries are abundant
throughout the region.

Small furbearers The hunting and trapping of fur bearing
animals begins with the first heavy frost of
autumn. A large number of mink and muskrat
are taken in streams and creeks o@ the delta
using a "taluyuk" or small wicker fish trap.
These traps are used primarily to trap black-
fish in the tundra lakes and ponds of the
delta. Hares, fox, beaver and land otter
also receive subsistence trapping and hunting
pressures during the fall and autumn.

WINTER Small furbearers The hunting and trapping of small furbearers,
continues until the short cold days of mid-
winter. Around February trapping and hunting
activities are resumed until late March and
early April. The furs of small animals are
valuable and represent an important source of
income to village communities. In addition
much of the clothing of the people of the
Yukon-Kuskokwim is made from various skins.

Whitefish During the winter months whitefish are a
Pike principal source of food to the people of
Burbot of "lush" the delta. Whitefish are harvested intensely
Blackfish in the main river with set gill nets under the
ice or with the use of an "ice jigger." In
the sloughs and tributaries of the Kuskokwim
River subsistence fishing also occurs.
Above the mouth of the Johnson River is
C.) particularly a popular area for subsistence
whitefish fishing.

Ptarmigan Ptarmigan are taken during the winter
principally by hunting with rifles, although
snares are occasionally used.

SPRING Muskrat Muskrat are abundant throughout the delta
and are hunted primarily in the spring. In
early spring the tundra lakes and ponds are
still frozen and muskrat are commnly taken
by trapping the "push-up" habitats. As the
lakes and ponds begin to thaw most muskrats
are hunted with rifles.

SPRING Blackfish immediately following breakup whitefish are
Whitefish moving back into the summer feeding habitats
Smelt outlying the Kuskokwim River. Fish fences are
King salmon set across streams and whitefish are removed
with dip nets. There is a large subsistence
effort for harvesting sheefish as they migrate
up the main river to spawning locations. Great
quantities of smelt are taken in the main river
with dip nets during an annual spring run.
Throughout the region blackfish are taken by
means of wicker fish traps ("taluyuks") which
are set in small streams and shallow lakes and
ponds on the tundra. The king salmon run
commences in early May and continues to be
predominately utilized for subsistence needs.

Waterfowl Spring hunting of migratory waterfowl plays a
Ptarmigan significant role in the economy of most
villages. Mile fishing is the )rincipal
source of food in the villages, waterfowl
hunting and egg gathering is practiced every
spring. Bethel is physically distant from
the best waterfowl hunting areas, more
intensive hunting occurs near the villages.

Wood gathering Immediately following breakup many residents
of Bethel travel upriver to gather wood on
shore or floating in the river. This has
become an increasingly important activity
as the price of heating fuels increase.

w
0 u
22
w

z u
IIA

2
2
w
0 <
2 2
<
Uj In
a) M
> 4@ 0
F- L) 0
(t 25 22
Z U.1 > w
Z:
LLJ 70 '-C
c W-
u
@i D
LU U- 0
0
0
< E
z U) 0
< CC$ c Z)
@n Ln L/)
LA
21-
u

LLJ
Elm
0

A
"@A

4,
41
4'14 -Ol
-4 _qI, *' , " . , " I @ "

44
V
%

All

4
If, 4-4

j(A

T'@

4: 4A'4l
Al

4. 4'1

'w
77

0 4%0

e AIP

0 OX
111.00

lb,&

414-
Aip-@ BU
ffAr3 wi
I&OWA

POPULATION

Bethel has experienced tremendous population growth

over the past two decades. Much of the population growth

in the 1960's was attributable to a high birth rate. As

the birth rate declined in the late 60's and early 70's,

immigration to Bethel from surrounding villages and from

the outside became the dominant source of population growth.

As the number of outsiders coming to Bethel increased,

Bethel changed from a predominantly native community (90%)

in 1960, to a community comprised of 1/3 non-natives by

1.980. The following two tables illustrate population growth

and birth rate of Bethel for the past 20 years.

TABLE 9

Bethel Population Growth, 1960-1980

(Fraction
__1960 of Total) 1970 % Change 1980* % Change

Native 1132 (.90) 1879 (.78) 66 2417 (.68) 29
Non-Native 126 (.10) 537 (.22) 326 1159 (.32) 116

Total 1258 2416 92 3576 48

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Census
Alaska Department of Labor

2-63

TABLE 10

Birth Rate, Bethel Region 1960-1981
(Births Per 1000 Population)

Year Bethel Region* City of Bethel

1960-1966 47.2 Not available
1970-1977 25.6 Not available
1978-1981 23.25 a/ 29.9 a/

1978 19.5 23.0
1979 21.0 25.6
1980 24.5 33.1 a/
1981 28.0 a/ 38.0 a/

a/ Preliminary estimate
Defined by P.H.S. Hospital as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
Service Unit. Includes majority of Calista Region and
small parts of Nana and Doyon.

Source: Alaska Dept. of Social and Health Services (MCH
Family Planning office-Bethel)
Darbyshire and Associates

The federal census of 1980 was disputed by the City.

In early 1982 the City conducted a census to re-check

population numbers. Preliminary results show that the

growth in Bethel may be leveling off, as ttie population

count was very close to the federal census. (City 198 2:

3,494 people. Federal 1980: 3576. ) The city survey also

indicates that there has been a shift in the percentages

of Native (51%) and non-native (49%) residents. Table 10

indicates that the sharp decline of the Bethel birth rate

has leveled off and is rising again. The phrase "baby-boom"

is once again quite popular in Bethel.

Bethelites are less crowded today than in 1970. The

average number of persons per housing unit fell from 4.5 in

1970 to 3.26 in 1980.

2-64

The age and sex distribution of Bethel is atypical

when compared to Alaska as a whole. Table 11 illustrates

the differences.

TABLE 11

Bethel Median Age and Sex Distribution as Compared to State

1970 1979* 1980

Bethel State Bethel State

Male M 49.7 54 48.3 53
Female M 50.3 46 51.7 47
Median Age
(Both Sexes) 18.0 23.1 22.9 26.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
Source: Darbyshire and Associates

2-65

Population Growth

Since 1950, Bethel has experienced a substantial in-

crease in population, with the number of people nearly

quadrupling between 1950 and 1980. The period between

1970 and 1980 saw an additional increase of nearly 50%.

More recently, population growth has slowed.

TABLE 12
Population Growth

Year Population % Increase

1950 650
1960 1258 93.24
1970 2416 92.05
1980 3576 48.01
*1982 3494 -2.00

*Preliminary results, City of Bethel Census
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

The major factor influencing growth in Bethel is job

opportunities. To a lesser degree, the availability of

government set-vices, particularly health care, is another

factor that brings people to Bethel.

The 1980 population, determined by the U.S. Bureau of

the Census, is 3576. This is a relatively small population

base and is subject to significant increases or declines

as the result of external factors. These include changes

in government policy, namely support for CETA, service

agencies, the PHS Hospital and capital projects; major

regional development, which potentially includes forest

2-66

and agricultural products and mining and petroleum activity

(largely predicated on the proposed Yukon-Kuskokwim cross-

ing); and the normal growth that is occurring in the region,

for which Bethel serves as a commercial center.

The City conducted its own census in 1982. Preliminary

results show a leveling off of the growth rate, with a total

population of 3494. However, statistical analysis shows that

no valid statistical population prediction can be made from

the city census information.

Given the lack of strong emerging trends to use as a

base for population forecasts, until such indicators become

firm, Bethel must be considered to be at a "cross-roads"

in time. Some qualified assumptions have been postulated

to represent a forecast base, which are provided in the

following table. These represent a range of non-enumerated

possibilities that could occur depending on the degree of

influence from the factors cited in the above paragraph.

2-67

TABLE 13
Population forecasts - 1990

Assumptions 1990 Po2ulation

Substantial Federal budget reductions without
supplemental State funding or private sector
investment - 25% growth for the decade 4470

Government funding and private sector investment
remain constant with the previous decate - 48%
growth for the decade* 5293

Government funding remains constant but a
moderate increase in private sector investment
- 78% growth for the decade** 6365------

Government funding is moderately increased but
private sector investment doubles - 96% growth
for the decade*** 7009

Government funding is substantially increased
in conjunction with private activities and
private sector investment quadrouples - 200%
growth for the decade 10728

The same growth rate as occured between 1970 and 1980
The growth rate that occured between 1950 and 1980
Double the growth rate that occured between 1970 and 1980

2-68

LABOR

Several state and private sources were studied while

attempting to determine accurate employment figures for

Bethel. Alaska Department of Labor employment figures

have shortcomings in that they are extrapolations based on

1978 population estimates for the entire southwest region,

and estimates of unemployment are invariably low in rural

areas. Because distribution of population and employment

varies widely within the southwest region, the state figures

were deemed inaccurate. A 1980 survey by Alaska Consultants

contacted every business in town, and is felt to be the

most accurate representation of present employment levels

in Bethel.

Employment

Table 14 illustrates 1980 average annual fulltime

employment. Highly seasonal industries such as fishing,

construction, and manufacturing (mostly fish processing)

are concentrated in a 2 - 3 month span so that the actual

peak employment in these industries is several times greater

than the average for the entire year. Seasonal employment

has been estimated to have a summer peak of 117% of the

average annual employment and a winter low of 78% of the

average annual employment (Darbyshire and Associates).

2-69

TABLE 14

1980 Average Annual Full-time Employment

Industry Employment % of Total

Fishing 30 1.8
Construction 93.5 5.5
Manufacturing 14 0.8
Transp.,Comm., and Util. 240.5 14.2
Retail Trade 238 14.1
Finance, Insurance, and
Real Estate 24 1.4
Service 255 15.1
Total Government 796 47.1
Federal 303 17.9
State 200.5 11.9
Local 292.5 17.3

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1691.0 100.0

Source: Alaska Consultants

The most significant change in Bethel employment since

1980 has been in the government sector. Federal budget

cuts have been responsible for the loss of at least 120

jobs, largely in the state and federal CETA programs (Refer

to Government Analysis section).

The 1980 Alaska Consultants survey did not estimate

total work force or unemployment. The Bethel Comprehensive

Plan estimated 1978 unemployment at 15% (Darbyshire and

Associates). The Alaska Department of Labor estimated

unemployment for the Bethel census division in September,

1981 at 10%. However, a -January, 1981 survey conducted by

the Association of Village Council Presidents of the Wade

Hampton census division (directly north of Bethel) discovered

an unemployment rate of 24.7% as compared to the official

Department of Labor estimate of 13.2% (ADOL). The same

2-70

survey estimated the size of the labor force based on a

broad definition that included "discouraged" workers, and

estimated unemployment at 48.8%. The survey emphasizes the

shortcomings of the Department of Labor estimates.

2-71

Income

The Bethel census division (about 10,000 people) has a

far higher cost of living and a far lower per capita income

than the rest of Alaska or the United States.

TABLE 15

1978 Per Capita Income and Family Budget
Requirements Bethel Census Division as Compared
to Alaska and the U.S.

Per Capita Income M

Bethel Census Division 4,970
Alaska 10,851
Ratio: Bethel Census Division to Alaska .46
U.S. 7,810
Ratio: Bethel Census Division to U.S. .64

Family Budget
Requirements for
Moderate Standard
Living______

Bethel Census Division 40,782
Alaska 28,942
Ratio: Bethel Census Division to Alaska 1.41
U.S. 18,622
Ratio: Bethel Census Division to U.S. 2.19

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic
Development

Average household income and per capita income in

Bethel varies significantly between Natives and Non-Natives.

TABLE 16

1979 Average Annual Income - Natives and Non-Natives
City of Bethel

Median
Households M Household Size -Per Capita M
Natives 17,500 4.2 4,170
Non-Natives 26,700 2.7 9,889
TOTAL 21,300 3.5 6,085

Source: Darbyshire and Associates

2-72

LAND OW14ERSHIP

Land ownership in Bethel has changed dramatically with

the passage of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

in 1971. 1982 land ownership is depicted in Figure 17 and

in the pocket fold-out. Under section 12(a) of ANCSA the

Bethel Native Corporation was authorized to 160,280 acres

of "unreserved and unappropriated federal lands" within

the immediate area of the village townsite. On January

12, 1979 the Bethel Native Corporation received interim

conveyance to 130,323 acres in the Bethel area. This

amount included 14,421 acres within the corporate city

'limits, approximately forty four percent of the community's

total land area (Darbyshire and Associates).

The Bethel Native Corporation has completed a land

management study encompassing the village corporation lands

within the city limits, and is presently addressing the

ANCSA section 14(c) reconveyances. Section 14(c) provides

that the village corporation reconvey ANCSA conveyed lands

A that were occupied prior to the December 18, 1971 settlement

of the Native land claims.

Under section 14(c) 1 and 2, the village corporation

is required to reconvey land to individuals and non-profit

organizations who utilized village corporation selection

lands, prior to ANCSA, as a primary place of residence,

2-73

business, subsistence camp, headquarters for reindeer hus-

bandry, or nonprofit uses. The Bethel Native Corporation

Board of Directors have recently established February 26,

1982 as the deadline for filing an application for the

reconveyance of land under the provisions of 14(c) 1 and

Section 14(c) 3 provides that the village corporation

reconvey not less than 1,280 acres to the municipality. As.

amended by the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation

Act (ANILCA) of December 2, 1980, the amount of land received

by the city may be less than 1,280 acres if an agreement

can be achieved between the city and the Bethel Native

Corporation. The two parties are just beginning to negotiate

the municipal reconveyance.

The second major land ownership category is the Native

allotment lands, held in trust by the Federal government.

Prior to ANCSA Alaskan Natives who had applied and were

eligible under the provisions of the Native Allotment Act

of 1906 and subsequent amendments were granted up to 160

acres of land. When it became apparent that section 18(a)

of ANCSA would repeal the Native Allotment Act, thousands

of Native allotment applications were filed to the Department

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Because of

the enormity of Native allotment applications, the process

to approve the applications was incredibly slow. To expe-

dite the process Congress approved a Native allotment amend-

ment, under section 905 of ANILCA.

2-74

With the passage of ANILCA all uncontested Native allotment

applications were automatically approved. An approved allot-

ment is an allotment held in trust by the Federal government.

The land may not be developed, sold or leased without the

authorization of the Secretary of Interior, and is not

subject to State and local jurisdiction including property

taxes.

The majority of Native allotments in Bethel have been

legislatively approved under the Native Allotment Act or

under section 905 of ANILCA. However, there are still

several Native allotment applications which have been pro-

tested and are pending approval. The Bethel Tiative Corpor-

ation is responsible for the protest of fourteen Native

allotment applications to which Bethel Native Corporation

is seeking title under ANCSA. The City is also protesting

one Native allotment application. The approval or denial

of the disputed Native allotments is the decision of the

BLM.

When the allotments have been legislatively approved

they must still be verified by a BLM adjudicator to make

sure the allotment boundaries are correct and there hasn't

been any overfiling. Once the property has been adjudicated

and approved the land deed is "certified" by the BIA who

transfers the restricted title to the individual. The

definition of "restricted" asserts that the property is

held by the individual and pursuant to Federal codes and

2-75

regulations. The land is exempt from property taxes,

although Bethel presently does not have property taxes.

The title status may be modified to "unrestricted" or
fee simple with the approval of BIA or once the property r

has been sold to a non-native. An unrestricted title

allows the owner to develop the property in the same manner

as private property, which means property is subject to

State and local jurisdiction including property taxes.

The certification of Native allotments has been at a

snails pace and at this time only ten Native allotments

have received a certificate of title (AVCP Realty). As

much of the Native allotments encompass suitable lands for

development, the certification of future allotments will

have considerable implications on the permanent land use

patterns in Bethel.

In addition to the certified allotments, other private-

ly owned lands include all land held in unrestricted status

and restricted Native townsite deed properties. Private

land ownership comprises 2,609 acres, approximately eight

percent of the community's total land area (not including

BNC's land).

According to Darbyshire and Associates, State and

Federal governments own 1,099 and 600 acres of land, respec-

tively. The 1,055 acre airport site comprises the major

portion of State owned lands. Federal lands include the

Federal Aviation Administration site, Public Health Service

hospital site, Bureau of Indian Affairs site, and the old

2-76

BIA headquarters. In addition, the Federal government

owns the surface rights of all navigable waterways. The

bottom surface rights of navigable waters are retained by

the State. There are approximately 3,389 acres of navigable

waters in Bethel. (Darbyshire and Associates).

The City of Bethel presently owns approximately 985

acres of land within the City limits (Stigall). The City

anticipates the acquistion of additional lands from the

Bethel Native Corporation under section 14(c) 3 of ANCSA.

The City is also negotiating with a Native allotment holder

for the conveyance oE some 88 acres west of the City sub-

division (Stigall). A summary of the land ownership in

Bethel is provided in the following table:

TABLE 17

Summary of Bethel Land ownership *, 1982

Land Ownership Acres Percent

Bethel Native Corporation 14,200 43.5

Native Allotment Applications 9,758 29.9
(pending certification)

City of Bethel 985 3.0

Other Private (including certified 2,609 8.0
Native allotments)

Federal 600 1.8

State 1,099 3.4

Navigable waters 3,389 10.4

Total Bethel City Limits 32,640 100.0 %

The land ownership figures are approximate as land owner-
ship is presently undergoing change.

2-77

NUNN
See Supplemental Land Ownership
Map

LAND USE

The three major determining factors of land use in

Bethel are the terrain, the Kuskokwim River, and land

ownership. Most of Bethel is located on moist or wet tundra

and few areas are suitable for urban-type development.

Land users along the Kuskokwim River must be constantly

aware of river movement and erosion. Land ownership in

Bethel is very unclear with over one-third of the land

area in Bethel classified as pending native allotment

applications.

Urban land uses have been grouped into the following

catagories, as defined by the 1980 Bethel Comprehensive

Plan (Darbyshire and Associates).

Commercial - Includes all types of businesses that provide

services or sell goods, but do not manufacture the items

they sell. This includes private offices, and public

offices whose land use is similar to private offices.

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Yukon-

Kuskokwim Health Corporation, and the Association of Village

Concil Presidents offices would be considered a commercial

use, while the city center complex in considered a public

institutional use.

2-79

Industrial - Uses that require complete use of the land for

their own purposes, do not mix well with other uses, require

transport of goods and materials by heavy truck, air, or

barge, create physical hazards if open to public access,

and may have some negative noise, dust, drainage, and

visual impacts on adjacent property. Some industrial uses

include manufacturing and construction, docks, warehouses,

storage yards, fish processing and cold storage plants,

the power plant, the sewage plant, and the airport.

Residential - Includes homes, duplexes, apartments, and

mobile homes.

Public Institutional - Public or government uses not de-

fined as commercial uses. Examples include the hospital,

schools, churches, the city center complex, and the solid

waste disposal site.

Public open Space - open areas with few if any structures

that have been designated for a public use or purpose. In-

cludes parks, cemeteries, greenbelts, or drainage easements.

often land use is mixed, such as a store with apart-

ments above it or a business operating out of a person's

home. In such cases, the land use was designated as what

was judged to be the primary use. E.S.E. has updated the

1980 land use survey by Darbyshire and Associates. Land

use, as of February, 1982, is summarized in Table 18.

2-80

TABLE 18

Bethel Land Use - 1982

Land Use Acres % of Total % of DeKelopeiq
Commercial 39 0.1 1.9
Industrial (minus Airport) 159 0.5 7.8
Industrial (Airport only) 1055 3.2 51.6
Residential 328 1.0 16.1
Public Institutional 267 0.8 13.1
Public open Space 195 0.6 9.5
Undeveloped________-_ 30,597 93.8 ----

TOTAL AREA - CITY OF BETHEL 32,640 100.0 100.0

Source: Darbyshire and Associates
Environmental Science and Engineering

nEl M

'A 2-81

UTILITIES

Electrical Utility

The electrical power in Bethel is generated by Bethel

Utilities Corporation, a privately owned utility. The power

facility, located behind the Public Health Service Hospital,

operates four 2,100 Kw diesel generators which have a com-

bined installed load capacity a 8,400 Kw. Bethel Utilities

Corporation serves approximately 1,416 customers, an annual

increase of 10% since January 1981. The average load

during the summer is 2,500 Kw and 2,700 Kw during the

winter. The power facility is capable of handling the

existing peak load and could easily accommodate 50% increase

in demand. The power lines are fairly new and are reported

to be in good condition with the exception of a few short

spans in the older parts of town.

Recently, Bethel Utilities initiated a waste heat pro-

ject which will deliver the waste heat generated by the

power plant to the Public Health Service Building and its

housing. Construction of the project will begin in January

(1982) and completion of the project is anticipated in

September. It is also very likely that Bethel Utilities

will include the City Complex, KYUK and Kuskokwim Community

College in their waste heat plans, however a final agreement

must be achieved between the City and Bethel Utilities.

2-82

Water Utilities

The water supply in Bethel is derived from wells drilled

350-450 feet through permafrost (Darbyshire and Associates).

At the present time the ground water sources are the only

reliable potable water supply due to the extensive treatment

necessary for surface water sources in the area. Although

several service organizations and residences obtain water

from private wells, the majority of the water supplied to

the community is derived from the City-owned wells. Water

is distributed in the community by a piped system and a

hauled system.

The City owns and operates two wells located at the

Bethel Heights utility building and adjacent to the City

complex. The Bethel Heights well supplies water to the

Bethel Heights piped system and the City hauled system.

The average consumption is 23,000 gallons per day for the

hauled system and 60,000 gallons per day for the piped

system. Peak water consumption is 30,000 gallons per day

for the hauled system and 70,000 gallons per day for the

piped system (Bethel Public Works). The well has an esti-

mated pumping capacity of 350 gallons per minute. The

pumphouse contains two tanks with a storage capacity of

120,000 gallons.

The well adjacent to the City complex supplies water

to the Municipal buildings -in the immediate area. The

City does not meter water consumption from this well. The

pumping capacity of the well is reported to be 150 gallons

2-83.

per minute. Water is stored in a 130,000 gallon tank with

60,000 gallons on reserve for a fire protection system.

Water derived from both wells is treated with chlorine

and samples are tested every week and a half to ensure

good water quality (Bethel Public Works).

The Bethel Heights piped system was originally con-

structed underground. In 1975 a fire destroyed the Bethel

Utilities power plant which eliminated the heating source

to the piped system and caused the pipes to freeze and

break. Bethel was declared a "National Disaster" area and

the Army Corps of Engineers rebuilt the system above ground

for $6,000,000. While the Bethel Heights and City complex

piped systems appear to work well, the exorbitant construc-

tion and maintenance costs of the system preclude further

expansion. The present system serves two hundred hook-ups

(Bethel Public Works).

The majority of Bethel residents will continue to

depend on the hauled water system. The Bethel Public

Works Department operates four water trucks, each with a

3,500 - 4,000 gallon water holding capacity. Water is

delivered on an average of once per week, although service

is available up to four times per week. The Public Works

Department has indicated that the service rates are subject

to change due to increasing maintenance costs, and the

Department will be initiating a rate study this year.

2-84

Sewage__Utility

The sewage disposal system provided by the Bethel

Public Works Department consists of a piped system and a

hauled system. The sewage collected by these systems is

treated at the sewage lagoon, located north of the regional

high school.

The main piped system originates at the Public Health

Hospital (PHS) and extends approximately 9,000 feet to the

sewage lagoon (Darbyshire and Associates). Connected to

the main line are several tributary lines which serve the

City complex, Kuskokwim Community College (KCC), Kilbuck

Elementary School, the Bethel Native Corporation apartments

and dormitory, and the regional high school.

The piped system is an above-ground arctic insulated

utilidor with six lift stations. The lift stations are

located at the Kilbuck Elementary School, PHS Hospital,

Bethel Heights subdivision, City subdivision, and the pump-

house (Figure 18). The piped system is in fair condition,

however the lift stations are subject to corrosion and

there are occasional "freeze-ups" in the sewer line (Bethel

Public Works).

The Bethel Sewage lagoon was constructed in 1969 by

the U.S. Public Health Service to serve the Bethel Heights

subdivision. The volume of the lagoon is 3,397,700 cubic

feet from its operating depth and the water surface area is

approximately twenty-one acres (Darbyshire and Associates).

2-85

Darbyshire and Associates, in 1980, estimated the hydraulic

load on the sewage lagoon as 124,300 gallons per day. This

f igure included both piped and hauled sewage collection.

According to the Bethel Public Works Department the sewage

lagoon is projected to meet the community's needs through

1990.

Additional sewage treatment systems in Bethel are pri-

vately owned and operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA), Kuskokwim Inn, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Wein Airlines and the trailer court (Alaska Consultants).

The City's hauled system consists of honey bucket col-

lection and "septic tank" (holding tank) evacuation. The

holding tank system is utilized in conjunction with honey

buckets, chemical and flush toilets. The Bethel Public

Works Department operates two honey bucket and two septic

evacuation trucks, each with an estimated holding capacity

of 25,000 gallons. Honeybucket service is provided at

least once a week. Holding tank evacuation can be provided

weekly, and many customers receive service "on call". In

November 1981 the Public Works Department provided honey

bucket collection for 420 customers and sewage evacuation

for eighty-three customers (Bethel Public Works). As the

piped sewer system is extremely costly to construct, Bethel

residents will continue to depend on the hauled system. The

increasing demand for services will necessitate the hiring

of additional personnel.

2-36

The remaining bus inesses and residences who choose

not to be serviced by the City, employ other methods of

sewage disposal. These methods include private collection

and sewage treatment systems, chemical toilets, and the

dumping of honey buckets into the lagoon or along the

river bank.

Solid Waste

The Public Works Department provides refuse collection

and maintains the solid waste landfill site. The refuse

collection service consists of a dumpster program and a

limited street collection for private residences and busi-

nesses.

The Dumpster program was initiated in 1980 in an effort

to reduce the cost of refuse collection in the community

and control the use of the landfill site. At present

there are approximately sixty dumpsters provided for resi-

dential and commercial users throughout the City. All

residential users are charged $7.50 per month for the

dumpster service. Dumpsters may also be indivdually leased

on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis. An additional twenty-

five dumpsters are scheduled to arrive this year (Bethel

Public Works).

The limited collection service is provided to approxi-

mately thirty homes and several businesses. Refuse is

collected twice a week and the cost of the service is

fifteen dollars for residences and thirty dollars per month

2-87

TWO WATER TANKS

30, uo AT

for commercial use. The Bethel Public Works Department

operates two trucks for refuse collection and dumpster

containers.

The Bethel sanitary landfill site is a ten-acre open

site located directly east of the sewage lagoon. To avoid

unnecessary burning and scattering of waste, the land fill

site has been closed to the public with the exception of

fifteen permit holders who are authorized to use the site.

Maintenance of the landfill site is provided by the City

and consists of spreading and covering the refuse with a

small track dozer.

The Bethel Department of Public Works intends to elimi-

nate the major problems with operating a landfill site

through the use of a thermal incinerator. The thermal

incinerator would be installed subsequent to construction

of the new public utilities maintenance facility (Bethel

Public Works).

Public Works

The Public Works Department, located in the Braund

building, consists of the utility office and utility main-

tenance shop. The quonset hut, located behind the Braund

building, houses the road maintenance shop and provides

storage space for equipment. At present the existing

facilities are not adequate for the current services pro-

vided to the community. The construction of a new utility

maintenance facility has been approved by Bethel voters

2-89

and construction is scheduled to begin in Fall, 1982.

In addition to the utility services, the Bethel Public

Works Department provides for the construction and mainte-

nance of streets, roads, boardwalks, drainage improvements

and parks; and the maintenance of vehicular and stationary

equipment and overhaul of all city-owned facilities. The

Public Works Department is also responsible for the manage-

ment and operation of the dredge and tender, whic h was

acquired last summer. Dredging operations will be provided

to the villages along the river as well as Bethel.

Local roads and streets in Bethel are constructed of

sands, silts and gravels and are generally 20-30 feet

wide. The maintenance of streets and roads is difficult

due to unfavorable weather conditions, and consequently

roads and streets are generally in poor condition. The

need to upgrade and maintain local streets and roads is

prevalent throughout the City, with major problems occuring

at Fifth Avenue, Sixth Avenue, Seventh Avenue, Ptarmigan

and Tundra Ridge roads (Bethel Public Works).

The six mile paved road or "Airport Road" is maintained

by the State Department of Transportation and Public Facil-

ities.

Natural drainage patterns are invariably disrupted with

the construction of roads and other urban land uses. major

drainage problems occur at Fifth Avenue, Ptarmiga6 and City

subdivisions (Bethel Public Works). To divert runoff away

from subdivisions and off local streets, the Public Works

2-90

Department installed several culverts last summer. Addi-

tional culverting is planned throughout the City.

During the summer, favorable weather conditions permit

the Public Works Department to accomplish new construction

and repairs to roads, streets and boardwalks. To accommodate

the increased work load during the summer, the hiring of

additional personnel is essential.

2-91

GOVERNMENT POLICY ANALYSIS

There are numerous government policies at the local,

State and Federal levels that have a potential effect on

Bethel. Listed below are the policy categories that are

most likely to influence life in Bethel, either through

the continuance or withdrawal of the policy. All but two

of the policy categories represent funding programs. The

two exceptions are subsistence use and home rule charter

for Bethel, though these have major economic considerations.

Housing

The office of Management and Budget has recommended

the termination of HUT) funds which financed Indian, public

housing, and housing assistance payments. However, the

House must make its own recommendation which may include

to maintain funding at its present level. If the HUD

funding is approved 4,000 homes will be constructed nation-

wide. Funding for the construction of 600 homes will be

appropriated to the State of Alaska. The Association of

Village Council Presidents (AVCP) Regional Housing Authority

has submitted applications to HUD for the construction of

250 homes within the AVCP region. Bethel is listed as the

number one priority in the region, and if funding is main-

tained the construction of seventy homes will begin next

year.

2-92

HUD loan insurance programs are available but due to

uncompetitive business rates and extensive application re-

quirements (for lending institutions), these are not being

utilized.

The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) has a

low income and regular loan insurance program which is

currently in effect and is expected to remain so in the

future. Through the AVCP Regional Housing Authority between

sixty and seventy homes have been assisted by the AHFC pro-

gram since its initiation in the summer of 1979. Seventy

percent of the homes financed were new construction.

The BIA Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is currently

providing funds for rennovations and upgrading existing

homes. The Bureau is no longer financing the construction

of new homes through HIP. Services to Natives are provided

through BIA and AVCP. While HIP is funded through FY-83,

future funding is uncertain at this time.

The Farm Home Administration low income housing program

is also still available for single-family residences.

Employment

The Federal government has withdrawn funds for its CETA

(Comprehensive Employment Training Act) program which has

affected both the State CETA and AVCP employment training

programms considerably. The AVCP program has received a 72%

reduction in authorized funds, and further reductions are

anticipated.

2-93

Although the State is continuing its CETA program, the

program has made major revisions due to the federal reduc-

tions, resulting in a 62% funding decrease. it is difficult

to determine how the State CETA program will be supported

in the fut-bre, though it is likely that without the legi-

slative approval of the proposed State Jobs bill the State

CETA program will be terminated in Bethel. The impact of

the discontinuance of the CETA program has been a consider-

able loss of badly needed employees for public agencies

and non-profit organizations in the community.

A major employer in Bethel is the PHS hospital. Federal

support has already been reduced at this facility and further

cuts may be made in the future. Not only will this result

in a loss of jobs for residents, but it will also reduce

the level of commerce for Bethel businesses, which is

generated from both local people and outsiders who work or

use the hospital.

Economic Development

The major federal economic program that supported com-

munity economic development projects was administered by

the Economic Development Administration (FDA). This pro-

gram has subsequently been terminated by the Federal govern-

ment. A Federal program still in effect is the River and

Harbor Improvements Program, which is administered by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. With the exception of

annual allocations for maintenance, each capital project

2-94

requires a Congressional appropriation. Furthermore, these

Projects are prioritized on a list provided by the District

Engineer, which means it might take years or decades for a

project to be funded. Funds for proposed capital projects

in Bethel such as the seawall, cultural convention center,

recreation center,and transshipment dock may have to come

mostly fromState legislated appropriations, or combinations

of State and private funding.

In addition to community developmment projects, Federal

and State policies and funding programs influence major

regional economic developments. Policies and programs which

will likely affect Bethel's economy include petroleum explor-

ation and development, mining activities, and reindeer

husbandry.

Additional oil-related revenues to be gained by the

State will depend on the successful exploration and develop-

ment of oil reserves through Federal and State lease sales.

Resource development in lease areas close to Bethel will

undoubtedly impact the Bethel economy, however the degree

of the impact depends on the recoverable resource which is

highly speculative at the present time. Further analysis

of Outer Continental Shelf petroleum exploration is provided

in the economic section of this report.

Future State policies that encourage the exploration

and development of mineral and alternative energy resources,

such as coal, may increase mining activities in the Yukon-

Kuskokwim region. If mining activities dramatically increase

2-95

in the Kuskokwim area, Bethel would likely become a major

transportation and service center for the export of raw

mineral products.

There has been a growing interest in'the development

of reindeer husbandry in the Yukon-Kuskokwim region.

Orutsararmuit, the Traditional Village Council in Bethel,

is currently seeking funds from the State to finance a

study on the economic viability of reindeer herding in the

Calista region.

Environmental Quality

The major issue in Bethel concerning environmental

quality is sewage disposal. Federal money provided through

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has mostly been

eliminated. Again the only probable source of funding

will come from a State legistated appropriation. However,

the U.S. Farm Home Administration has limited funds for

community water and sewer systems. A related State policy

in the form of enforcement of standards is found in the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).

ADEC has informally notified the City of Bethel that a

more acceptable means of sewage treatment disposal will

have to be provided in the future. This situation will

undoubtably have to be addressed in the near future.

Another environmental policy issue is found in the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers responsibility to issue permits for

development in wetlands. The entire area within the City's

2-96

boundary is considered wetlands. See wetlands discussion

for more details on this issue.

Subsistence

The Alaska State Subsistence Law (1978) established

that the State's fish and game resources were to be managed

to give subsistence use the highest priority when the

resource cannot satisfy all uses. An initiative has been

put on the fall 1982 ballot to repeal the subsistence

priority law. If the initiative is passed then, subsistence

use will no longer have legal priority of fish and game

resources under the State law. This would mean that commer-

cial and sport users would bave equal legal right to resources

under the State law. In many cases the competing influence

on resources would lead to hardship for local residents

who rely heavily on fish and game as a food source.

Home Rule

A policy concern that has become a local issue is the

proposed change from a second class city to a home rule

city. In summary, the following changes would result:

1. The City would have to assume responsibility for

public education. (It is assumed that State funds are

adequate for public school support for the next five years. )

2. The City would have increased taxing powers.

3. The City would be required to adopt a comprehensive

plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision ordinance.

2-97

4. The City could exercise eminent domain by ordinance.

S. Should a borough be formed, the City would automa-

tically have a representative on the assembly.

Home rule would provide with more flexibility and auto-

nomy in governing its affairs, but it would also mean

accepting new responsibilities.

2-98

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

TRANSPORTATION

Air Transport

Three areas in Bethel are used for aviation activities:

the Bethel Airport, Hanger Lake, and the Kuskokwim River.

Some air taxi and charter operators maintain offices on the

riverfront as well as at the airport. The river is preferred

by many passengers because of the convenient location next

to town. Delaire Charter Service and Bush Air conduct

most of the aviation business on the river. The two com-

pany's estimates of total flights and percent of operations

that occur on the river is as follows:

TABLE 19

Selected Aircraft Activity on Kuskokwim River

Total Flight Estimated % of
Operations operations on the River

Delaire 3000 45%

Bush Air 1600 75%

Hanger Lake is preferred by many operators during incle-

ment weather when tying down on the river becomes hazardous

(Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities).

The Bethel Airport is located approximately three miles

west of the center of Bethel. The state owns the 1055 acre

site, half of which is in use. The main runway is a hard

2-99

surface, precision instrument runway, with a length of 6400

feet and width of 150 feet. The gravel cross-wind runway

used by small aircraft is 1850 feet by 75 feet. Short-term

plans exist for paving the apron adjacent to the cross-wind

runway. Long-term development plans include extension of

the cross-wind runway, paving several aprons, expanding

the passenger terminal, designating an area for fuel storage,

and designating a transient parking area for light aircraft.

The new control tower is not yet operational because of

the shortage of air traffic controllers that resulted from

the 1981 strike.

Passenger service from Anchorage is provided twice

daily by Wien Air Alaska and five times weekly by Sea

Airmotive. In addition, Alaska International Air operates

cargo flights five times weekly and several air charter

and air taxi services operate in Bethel.

The Bethel airport currently ranks third in Alaska in

total flight services and in civilian airport operations

by certificated route air carriers. Table 23 summarizes

activity at the Bethel airport.

2-100

TABLE 20
1980 Bethel Airport Activity % Increase
1978-1986-

Total Flight Services 257,249 (1981) 11.1 (1977-1981)

Airport Operations 8,729 28.0

Enplaned Passengers 40,796 10.9

Total U.S. Mail (Tons) 3,276 Not Available

Total Cargo and Mail (Tons) 6,021 30.2

Sources: Civil Aeronautics Board, Anchorage
FAA Flight Set-vice Station, Bethel

In 1979, the Alaska Department of Transportation and

Public Facilities (DOTPF) projected growth of Bethel air

traffic based on the growth rate from 1972 to 1976. The

accuracy of the projections was mixed. Table 21 compares

the DOTPF projections with the actual growth rate from

1978 to 1980.

TABLE 21

Bethel Air Traffic Growth and Growth Projections

1979 DOTPF Actual Annual Growth:
P@@,oj@ction 1978-1980

Total Flight Services 17.6 2.7 (1977-1981)

Airport Operations 9.0 13.1

Enplaned Passengers 7.5 5.3

Total Cargo and Plail 9.7 14.1

2-101

WATER TRANSPORT

Present Port Facility

The Bethel port facility is owned by the State of Alaska,

leased by the City of Bethel, and operated by United Trans-

portation, a private company. The general cargo dock and

staging area is constructed of four circular sheet steel

pile cells, providing a working frontage of 240 feet (Galliet

and Silides). The dock can accommodate only one ocean-going

barge at a time. The dock limitation forces some barges

to unload at other rivetfront locations, which adds rehand-

ling costs. other barges are forced to wait, as are many

transshipment barges. The time lost waiting is a serious

problem, especially on a river that has only a five-month

shipping season.

Four commercial barge companies deliver to Bethel:

Foss Alaska, Pacific Alaska Linest Northland Services, and

Southeast Alaska Barge Line. In addition, an occasional

government barge delivers cargo to Bethel. Bulk petroleum

is delivered to Bethel by Chevron U.S.A. and is redistributed

by United Transportation and Northwest Navigation. Table

22 summarizes port activity in Bethel during 1981.

2-102

A a

TABLE 22

General Cargo and Bulk Petroleum Shipped Through Bethel 1981

General Cargo Bulk Petroleum
(Tons) (Gallons)

Total Delivered to Bethel 18,000 13.5 million

Total Transshipped 4,183 6.0 million

Sources: Chevron U.S.A.
United Transportation

Port Construction Plans

Construction of a mooring facility and staging area for

transshipment barges is planned to begin in March 1982. The

2-103

transshipment dock will be located on Brown Slough, adjacent

to the general cargo dock. The Army Corps of Engineers is

discussing with the City and United Transportation plans for

extending the general cargo dock. The planned expansion

would enable the general cargo dock to accommodate two

ocean-going barges at a time. United Transportation is

also studying sites to construct badly needed warehouse

facilities.

The City plans to stabilize the river bank by the

Chevron tank farm by constructing a sixty-foot diameter

sheet steel cell, flanked on each side by a seawall (Boyette).

The City hopes to have construction completed by Fall

1982. Comprehensive bank stabilization efforts are examined

in the geophysical hazard section.

2-104

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

LAKE
HARBOR ACCESS
R , -*'@."-".,..,.-@.@'!@-',.*:,i@.,'.@'@@@-.-,'@:@*.....l". ";@
ADS
14
MANUE INC
TURNING CHANNEL
1030 F E E I
PROJECT DEPTH
-4 FT M LLW

LAKE

ERIHING B@ASIN
PRQILCT DEPTH
-4 F

ILI
L

ACCESS
CHANNEL
E'IN
C HAN
'F )E
T D T,

12 70 F r
PR ol
D p
Cl TI 11 '1 11111

Small Boat Harbor

Proper moorage for small boats is non-existent in

Bethel. Boatowners currently use the shores of Brown

Slough or the Kuskokwim River. The design for the planned

small boat harbor will dredge Lousetown Slough and three

berthing basins (Figure 20). The basin area will require

twelve acres and the basin clearance area will require

twenty-five acres. Total area affected by the project,

including a dredge disposal area is forty-two acres. Boats

will be moored by tying bow lines to cables anchored along

the shores of the basins. The planned capacity of the

harbor is approximately 1200 boats. The estimated number

of boats berthing in Bethel in 1980 (based on a 1975 boating

count) equals the design capacity of the harbor. However,

a number of boaters are expected to continue using Brown

Slough or the river. Table 23 illustrates the projections

of number of boaters using Bethel.

TABLE 23

Projection of Small Boats Berthing in Bethel

Year 1975 1980 1985 1990

Town Boats 600 966 1556 2506

Transient Boats 400 441 488 538

TOTAL 1000 1407 2044 3044

In Repair 150 211 307 457

DESIG14 TOTAL 850 1196 1737 2587

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2-106

The total Project cost estimate is $4,241,000. The

harbor will provide benefits from reduced weather damage,

reduced theft and vandalism, improved subsistence, commer-

cial fishing, travel and freight savings and employment.

The benefit/cost ratio has been estimated at 1.21.

The most significant environmental impact of the pro-

posed harbor project is the destruction of forty-two acres

of wetlands (Corps of Engineers), which is contrary to

federal policy. Possible specific impacts include loss of

some waterfowl and muskrat habitats, disruption of fish

habitat and changes in the benthic community (Corps of

Engineers). The entire forty-two acre site is located in

the floodplain, contrary to federal policy. The Corps of

Engineers notes that economically feasible alternatives to

harbor development on the floodplain or on wetlands do not

exist in Bethel. Localized drainage would also be affected.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has expressed

concern that pollutants may accumulate in the berthing

basins as a result of inadequate flushing. However, the

Corps of Engineers feels that flushing in the basins will

be adequate. The greatest danger to the Kuskokwim River

from the proposed harbor project is the possiblity of

dredged material being washed into the river during flood

conditions. The harbor plan calls for surrounding the

disposal area with fifteen-foot high dikes that would

protect the dredge disposal against all but the largest

floods.

2-107

Two areas on the boat harbor site have been designated

commercial. The existence of the boat harbor would likely

encourage other commercial development in the Lousetown area.

Land Transport

The Automobile

Traditionally, the automobile has not been an important

mode of transportation in Bethel. Bethel has only approxi-

mately sixteen miles of roads and no definite plans of

adding any major roads. But as Bethel has spread out over

the past decade, the automobile has increased in importance.

With new housing being built a couple of miles west and

northwest of town, the importance of the auto will likely

continue to increase. Table 24 specifies vehicle registra-

tion for calendar year 1980.

TABLE 24

Bethel Vehicle Registration - Calendar Year 1980

Type of Vehicle Number of Vehicles

Passenger vehicles 498
(1) motorcycles 67
Trailers 21
Commercial trucks 33
Pickups 459
Buses 6
(2) Snow machines 4

TOTAL 1088

(1) Includes some 3-wheelers; registration of 3-wheelers is
optional
(2) Registration of snow machines is optional.
Source: Alaska Department of Public Safety, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Bethel.

2-108

Bethel has extensive taxi cab service with fifty-seven

registered cabs as of December 1981. A private bus service

called "Hustlebuggy" has been operating for the past couple

of years with a single 19-seat bus. In mid-January 1982,

"Hustlebuggy" began operating two new 21-seat buses and

developed two routes and schedules.

Proposed Roads

A road from Bethel to Napakiak has been discussed for

several years. The road is not likely to be built due to

high cost estimates ($20 million) and low benefits. The

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

does not plan to seek funding for the road in the near

future (Edwards).

Engineers Galliett and Silides have prepared a report

on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Crossing for the Alaska State Legi-

slature. The study emphasized the economic benefits of

constructing a year-round haul road connecting the Yukon

and Kuskokwim Rivers. The termini of the crossing would

be Paimiut Slough on the Yukon and Kalskag on the Kuskokwim.

The study noted that the Y-K crossing would allow the

Yukon market to utilize the better access and better port

at Bethel. The crossing would also open the Bethel market

to Yukon mineral, timber, and agricultural resources. The

construction of the crossing would undoubtedly increase

the importance of the port of Bethel and expand the role

of Bethel as a regional center.

2-109

Other Motorized Transport

Snow machines and 3-wheel vehicles are popular modes

of transport during the winter. 3-wheelers are also used

during the summer. Both vehicles usually travel on the

web of trails that wind through the City. As the popularity

of snow machines and 3-wheelers increase, and as more

housing is constructed, conflicts are likely to increase

between landowners that have trails crossing their property

and the users of the trails.

United Transportation (UT) has conducted tests over

the past couple of years assessing the feasibility of air

cushion vehicle operation on the Kuskokwim River. UT has

decided that the air cushion vehicle is not economically

feasible to operate during the summer because of inexpensive

competition from boats. UT is undecided about the economic

feasibility of air cushion vehicle operation during the

winter (Hoffman).

Pedestrian

I A large portion of Bethel residents walk as their pri-

mary means of transport. Pedestrians use many of the same

trails used by snow machines and 3-wheelers. Foot traffic

during the summer is hindered by the many lakes and sloughs

and the muddy condition of the trails and road shoulders.

Winter movement is usually easier than summer because the

lakes, sloughs, and mud are frozen and covered with snow.

However, walking becomes hazardous in the winter when the

2-110

temperature warms above freezing, creating a very slippery

surface. Boardwalks are constructed alongside some of the

major roads. many of the boardwalks are in poor shape due

to severe weathering and poor maintenance.

2-111

w
u
2 U
w 2
u
Lo
2

C
-C I- w
cle 2 w
w 2
0
0 22
ce
a w
CL
30
F- F- CL 22
Z LU all w
7
w co (7@ <
Ln
:2 "d \1 z w
LU W_
0
z CID w
>- 4@
F- (1) z
co cc CL r
u >

9-n
LLJ <
0
AP-P- Hi

LA-

I% I.

;4 @411 1
@ 1 , @ "A 44,

4 (4 4
(4,4 .14 41
0 41@

4 4A

14,

,I I.W
II
'1 4

F-1

ENERGY

Energy Supply and Demand

Electricity

Electricity is supplied by Bethel Utilities Corporation

(B.U.C.), a private company. All electricity is supplied

by four 2100 kilowatt diesel generators with a combined

power capacity of 8400 Kw. Peak loads in 1981 were approx-

imately 3200 Kw in the summer and 4000 Kw in the winter.

In 1981, 1416 customers used a total of 21,068,096 kilowatt-

hours. Following is a breakdown of electrical consumption

by consuming section, including the cost to the consumer

based on the rate structure as of December 1981.

TABLE 25

Bethel Electrical Consumption - 1981

Bulk Commercial Residential other

Number of Customers 3 209 1,199 5
Combined Annual Consumption
('Kwh) 2,694,425 13,276,836 5,059,340 37,495
Average Monthly Consumption/
Customer (Kwh) 74,845 5,294 352 625
Average Cost, not including
surcharge and tax (@/Kwh) 12.8 14.3 17.2 NA
Average Cost including
surcharge and tax (O/Kwh) 15.9 17.2 21.8 NA

NA = Not Applicable

Source: Bethel Utilities Corporation

2-113

Bethel Utilities Corporation has reached an agreement

with Alaska Power Authority that will allow B.U.C. to

participate in the state's power cost assistance program.

The program should reduce electrical costs by about 4.5j6/Kwh

for eligible (non-commercial) B.U.C. customers.

Petroleum

Chevron U.S.A. owns and operates the bulk petroleum

distributorship in Bethel. The Chevron tank f arm has a

bulk storage capacity of 8 million gallons. 13.5 million

gallons of petroleum was delivered to Bethel in 1981 with

about 6 million gallons redistributed throughout the Yukon-

Kuskokwim Region.

Regional Energy End Use

Energy end use analysis illustrates the quantities of

energy used by various consuming sectors. End-use data

are not available for Bethel, but data are available for

the Southwest region. The following figures compare regional

energy end use with statewide energy end use.

2-114

FIGURE 22

1979 Per Capita Energy End Use (Million BTU)
201.3

189

16 2.5
SOUTHWEST, TOTAL PER CAPITA ENERGY USE- 279.0
F1
fs@1111'1111.s!s o,x_

STATE, TOTAL PER CAPITA ENERGY USE - 526.7

75.3

54.7

33.4
30.9
23.3

14.3

3.4 6.6

I NDUST., M 6C. TRANSPORTATION COMMERCE MARINE NATIONAL DEF. RESIDENTIAL

SOURCE: ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN - DRAFT

Figure 22 illustrates that per-capita energy use in

the southwest region is just over half (53%) of per-capita

energy use in the state as a whole. The southwest region

contains 7.5% of the state's population, but uses only

4.0% of the state's energy.

Figure 23 emphasizes the stark difference in energy

end use in the southwest region as compared to the rest of

the state. Tra nsportation is proportionately a far larger

energy user in the southwest than the state as a whole,

2-115

while residential and industrial uses use a far smaller

share of southwest energy than in the state as a whole.

FIGURE 23

1979 Energy End Use By Sector
Southwest (percent) ' State( percent)
INDUSTRY, M I 5C. RtS I DEN TI A L - 2.4
COMMERCIAL MARI N E- 1.2
4.0
5.1
COMMERCIA 5.9 T RAN SPORTAT ION
38.2
NATIONAL
DEFENSE
19.6
RLsIDENTIAL

14 3
INDUSTRY, MISC.
TRANSPORTATION 30.8
4.4
67.7

MARINE 6.3

NATIONAL DEFENSE

SOURCE: STATE Of ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN- DRAFT

2-116

Regional Energy Supply

End use energy (energy in a usable form) in the south-

west region is supplied almost totally by petroleum products,

with the balance being supplied by electricity. State-wide,

a large proportion of energy is supplied by natural gas.

Regional and state energy supplies are illustrated in

Figure 24.

FIGURE 24

1979 Energy Supply(percent)

Southwest State

ELECTRICITY

COAL, 5.9
PETROLEUM WOOD 2.3
93,2 NATURAL GAS
34.9

ELECTRICITY
6 8

PETROLEUM
56.8

SOURCE: STATE OF ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN- DRAFT

2-117

Potential Energy Sources

Hydro

The hydroelectric dam proposed near Bethel that has

been most thoroughly studied and is considered most econo-

mically feasible is the lower falls site on the Kisaralik

River. The proposed project would consist of two 15,000

Kw generators and would be able to produce 131,400,000 Kwh

per year. Electricity would be delivered to Bethel via a

69-mile transmission line. Power would be distributed

from Bethel to 11 surrounding villages. Busbar Cost (cost

at the power plant) estimates are compared in Table 26.

TABLE 26

Estimates of Busbar* Elect riCity Costs
Busbar Cost of Electricity (s6lKwh)

1980 1990 2000

Continued use of diesel
(Bethel) 12.6 21.0 35.8
Small communities local
diesel 32.7 62.0 102.1
Intertied system diesel
only 14.7 20.8 35.1
Intertied system with
Kisaralik hydro ---- 30.6 17.8

Source: Retherford Associates

*Busbar is cost of electricity produced at the power plant,
not cost to consumer.

The Kisaralik hydro project does not appear to be close

to becoming reality, as several unanswered questions remain

concerning the economic feasibility of the project and

potential environmental damages. The Alaska Power Authority

2-118

commissioned a study that began early in 1982 to reassess

the potential of a regional power system centered in Bethel

and to serve as a follow-up to the reconnaissance study of

the Kisaralik Hydro Project and alternate sources conducted

by Robert W. Retherford Associates in 1980.
Wind The potential for tapping wind as an energy source is

very good in the Bethel area. The average annual wind

speed at a height of 20 feet (the anemeter height) is 11.2

mph and at 60 feet (a good tower height) is 13.9 mph.

Average monthly wind velocities are shown in Table 27.

TABLE 27

Average Monthly Wind Velocity (MPH)

Month H=20 ft H=60 ft Month H=20 ft H=60 ft

Jan 12.2 13.9 Jul 10.0 12.5
Feb 13.1 15.2 Aug 10.5 13.1
Mar 12.3 16.3 Sep 10.6 13.2
Apr 15.5 14.3 Oct 11.0 13.7
May 10.5 13.1 Nov 11.4 14.2
Jun 10.2 12.7 Dec 11.3 14.1
ANNUAL 11.2 13.9

Only one wind generator is currently [email protected] in

Bethel. The National Guard Armory installed an Enertech 2

Kw-rated system in early November 1981 and tied the system

into the Armory's electrical system in early December

1981. So far, tests have been encouraging. The system

has been producing an average of 8.4 Kwh per day, (including

2-119

low wind days), almost enough to power one house at current

Bethel consumption levels. Table 2:3 summarizes the charac-

teristics of the system.

TABLE 28

Summary of National Guard Armory Wind System

Make: Enertech Power Rating: 2 Kw
Tower Height: 60 Feet
Wind Required for Start up: 14 mph (at 60 ft.)
Primary or Secondary Electrical Source: Secondary Source.
No battery storage, provides electricity via A.C.
generator.
Average Electrical Production Per Day: 8.4 Kwh

The Armory wind system had an initial cost of over

$10,000. The high investment cost of a small (2 Kw) wind

system is too large for the average homeowner. The long-

term payoff of a small wind system is becoming economically

competitive with diesel generated electricity. The Lower

Kuskokwim School District has plans to install a 4 Kw

Enertech wind system near the high school during the summer

of 1982.

Coal

Nunivak Island is known to contain small coal deposits,

although the volume is undetermined (Prince). Another known

coal deposit is the Nulato Coal Field, 300 miles to the

.northeast on the Yukon River. The deposit is not considered

economically recoverable due to steep topography and thin

coal seams. A large peat resource likely exists but perma-

2-120

frost precludes extraction (Retherford Associates).

Waste Heat

Bethel Utilities Corporation plans to begin construc-

tion in January, 1982, on a project that will tap waste

heat from its generators and supply heat to the PHS Hospital

and PHS housing. A good chance exists of hookup agreements

being reached in 1982 between B.U.C. and the City of Bethel,

Kuskokwim Community College, and KYUK Radio and TV. B.U.C.

estimates that the power plant loses an average 12 million

BTU/hour as waste heat, theoretically enough to heat one-

third of the buildings in Bethel (E.S.E. estimate).

Geothermal

Three geothermal sites are known to exist within 100

miles of Bethel. The three sites are 1) Mitchell in the

Chilmuck Mountains; 2) Tuluksak Hot Springs near Nyac; 3)

Ophir Creek Hot Springs near White Bear Lodge. The Ophir

Creek site is used to heat a home and a lodge. None of

the sites have temperatures or flow rates sufficient for

commercial use (Retherford Associates).

Solar

Bethel has a good potential for passive solar space

heating and for solar hot water heating. A 1978 study on

solar energy potential in Alaska (Seifert and Zarling) con-

cluded that active solar hot water heating was economically

2-121

competitive with electric hot water heating (at lOs6lKwh) , but

not quite competitive with oil fired hot water heating

when oil cost 530/gallon. Residential electricity now

costs 210/Kwh and oil costs $1.3l/ gallon so the cost

comparisons are likely to be significantly different.

Passive solar heated buildings have been proven cost-

effective in Alaska (Alaska Department of Commerce and

Economic Development, 1981). A passive solar building

design has little or no extra construction costs when

compared to conventional buildings. The solar insolation

data in Table 29 was applied in Table 30 to illustrate the

effectiveness of passive solar heating in a typical Bethel

home design.

TABLE 29

Average Daily Solar Radiation-Bethel
(BTU-day/ft:2)

V = Average Daily Radiation on Vertical South-Facing Surface
@R = Average Daily Radiation on Vertical West-Facing Surface
E = Average Daily Radiation on Vertical East-Facing Surface
= Average Daily Radiation on Horizontal Surface

V W E H
January 832 153 153 174
February 1224 410 410 495
March 1882 915 915 1186
April 1689 1231 1231 1791
May 1176 1124 1124 1766
June 1021 1054 1054 1701
July 886 851 851 1357
August 715 574 574 888
September 874 485 485 685
October 823 291 291 372
November 518 105 105 127
December 502 65 65 73

Source: Seifert and Zarling, 1978

2-122

TABLE 30

Passive Solar Heating Potential - Typical Bethel Home

Average Daily Average Daily
Solar Heat Gain Heat Loss
(BTU/day) (BTU/day) % Solar Heated

January 23,640 117,432 20
February 39,216 115,584 34
March 67,368 107,616 63
April 70,080 79,704 88
May 55,200 29,859 100
June 49,800 25,896 100
July 41,688 22,800 100
August 30,936 23,880 100
September 32,616 39,816 82
October 26,736 69,648 38
November 14,952 95,544 16
December 13,608 117,432 12

ANNUAL *309,651 845,211 *46%

Assumptions

House Size: 20 feet x 30 feet x 8 foot-high walls
Insulation: Floor and Ceilings = R-31; Walls = R-19
Windows: Two 3 foot x 4 foot south facing; one 3
foot x 4 foot each, facing west and east.
All windows are doublepane, insulation
value = R-2
Assume proper placement and volume of thermallstorage
mass.

When calculating annual % solar heated, average daily heat
gain cannot be greater than the average daily heat loss.

Wood
Use of wood for space heating is very c8mmon in Bethel.

Individuals travel up the Kuskokwim to cut trees, or gather

wood on shore or floating in the river. Wood is usually

used as a secondary heat source, although some people heat

primarily with wood. The decentralized nature of acquisition

2-123

and use of wood make estimation of quantities used in

Bethel very difficult, but a rough estimate of wood use in

Bethel is as follows:

Estimate of Wood Heat Use in Bethel - 1981

1970 Census estimate of Bethel
households that use wood 11% (79 houses)

1982 ESE estimate 20% (250 houses)

Amount of wood used to
completely heat home 8 - 10 cords/year

Amount of wood used by average
home 4 cords/year

Total amount of wood used in Bethel 1,000 cords/year
(4 x 250)

Conservation

A multitude of state conservation programs exist, many

a result of the Alaska Energy Conservation Act of 1980.

Examples of programs active in Bethel include inexpensive

residential audits, weatherization grants, emergency fuel

assistance loans and grants, and seminars. The Division

of Energy and Power Development estimates six trillion

BTU's saved statewide in 1980 from the low income weatheri-

zation program alone (DCED, 1981). The Bethel Utilities

waste heat project will conserve electrical consumption

and provide a source of heat less expensive than oil.

Another possible source. of waste heat cou@d be a thermal

reduction plant for solid waste. Subterranean housing

2-124

is an energy efficient construction style that has some

historical roots in the lower Yukon-Kuskokwim region

(Angaiak, Personal Communication).

Ex2loration for Petroleum and Natural Gas

Exploration and testing activities have indicated that

a moderate potential exists for natural gas and petroleum

reserves in the Bethel area. Tests in 1959-61 near Numavakpak

Lake, 30 miles west of Bethel, resulted in a dry hole but

some indications of oil. Etolin Strait, between Nelson

Island and Nunivak Island about 100 miles west of Bethel,

has a high potential for oil deposits (Alaska Regional

Profiles).

Calista Corporation owns subsurface rights to all native

corporation lands in the region. Calista contracted with

AMOCO to conduct seismic surveys for oil and gas potential

in the region. To date, Calista has not released the

results of the AMOCO surveys, amid considerable speculation

that oil and gas deposits exist.

2-125

. . . . . . . . . .

COMMERCIAL FISHING AND FISH PROCESSING

Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishing in the Kuskokwim area was reported

as early as 1913, yet the Kuskokwim River salmon fishery

remained virtually undeveloped prior to Alaska Statehood

in 1959. The commercial salmon fishery has grown consider-

ably since statehood and represents an important source of

income to the people of the Kuskokwim area. Bethel has

2-126

become a major center for area fishermen with the establish-

ment of several f ish buying operations and reliable trans-

portation facilities.

The most valuable commercial fish species in the Kusko-

kwim River are the f ive species of Pacif ic salmon: king,

coho or "silver", chum or "dog", red or "sockeye", and

pink or "humpback". Although all five species of salmon

occur in the Kuskokwim River, the king, coho and chum

salmon are present in commercial quantities. Red and pink

salmon are more abundant in the Kanektok and Goodnews

River drainages. Other important fishery resources include

whitefish, sheefish, burbot or "lush", pike and blackfish.

Traditional methods of fishing are employed by local

fishermen, although modern materials have replaced fishing

gear made from local materials. Both drift and set gill

nets are legal types of commercial fishing gear, however

set gill nets are more commonly utilized by subsistence

fishermen. Fishing is conducted by setting the gill net

from the fishing vessel and then drifting with the river

current. The fishing vessels of the Kuskokwim River are

typically long, narrow skiffs and are operated by a two-man

crew.

The Kuskokwim River management area includes all waters

of the Kuskokwim River drainage, and all waters from Cape

Newenham to the Kaskonet Peninsula (ADFG). Commercial

fishing is permitted in four districts: the Middle Kuskokwim

River, the Lower Kuskokwim River, Goodnews Bay and the

2-127

Quinhagak area. The Lower Kuskokwim District, from Eek

Island to Mishevik Slough below Tuluksak, encompasses the

largest area and supports the greatest commercial fishing

effort. The Lower Kuskokwim River fishing effort from

1965-81 is presented in Table 31.

TABLE 31
l/ Kuskokwim River Commercial Effort Data, 1965-81

Year E@in(l Salmon Chum Salmon Coho Salmon

1965 .195
66 210 107
67 233 147
68 303 242
69 329 231
70 361 266
71 418 216 83
72 405 176 245
73 456 341 411
74 606 467 516
75 472 540 533
76 561 517 516
77 563 622 572
78 615 617 597
79 591 617 613
80 553 579 586
81 589 613 586

l/ Number of actual fishing vessels in Lower Kuskokwim
District
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

The management of the commercial salmon fishery is con-

ducted by the Department of Fish and Game in Bethel. Due

to increased fishing efforts and gear efficiency in recent

years, the Kuskokwim River commercial. fishing regulations

have been fairly restrictive. Conservative management of

the commercial fishing industry has insured sufficient

2-128

salmon to satisfy subsistence needs and meet salmon escape-

ment requirements.

The king salmon season is regulated by emergency order

and is generally a short season due to the intensity of

the run and increased fishing efforts. The 1981 Kuskokwim

River catch was 47,663, a 21% increase from the previous

five-year average. Although the commercial utilization of

king salmon has increased, the subsistence king salmon

f ishing remains predominant in the Kuskokwim River districts.

The chum salmon season is conducted from July 26-31,

and is generally permitted only in the lower Kuskokwim River

fishing district below Bethel. Commercial chum salmon

fishing is also allowed in the middle Kuskokwim district,

but fishing effort and harvest is low compared to the

lower Kuskokwim district. The commercial utilization of

chum salmon has increased steadily since its initiation

in 1971. In 1981 the chum salmon run was exceptionally

strong corresponding with a high effort and the Kuskokwim

River catch was reported as 418,677. This was the second

longest catch recorded and was 32% above the previous

five-year average.

After July 31, the commercial coho fishery is conducted

by emergency order due to the variability of the coho run.

The length of the coho season has decreased in the last few

years from 108 hours in 1978 to fifty-four hours in 1981.

Again, the short fishing periods are conducted in response

2-129

to the intensity of the present fishing effort.

Despite the short salmon season the 1981 Kuskokwim River

catch was 726,258 salmon, the second largest catch recorded

the 1980 catch was 742,297 salmon). A breakdown of the

catch is presented in Table 32.

TABLE 32

Kuskokwim River Catch Data, 1976-1981

Kuskok im
Riverv King Red Coho Pink Chum Total

1976 30,735 2,971 88,501 133 177,864 300,204
1977 35,830 9,379 241,364 203 248,721 535,451
1978 45,641 733 213,393 5,832 248,656 514,255
1979 38,966 1,054 219,060 78 261,874 521,032
1980 35,880 360 222,012 803 483,211 742,297
1981 47,663 48,375 211,251 292 418,677 726,258

Previous
five-year
Average 37,411 2,900 200,472 1,410 284,065 522,648

l/ Kuskokwim River includes the middle and lower Kuskokwim
Districts
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game

The economic value of the 1981 Kuskokwim area catch to

the area f ishermen was estimated at $3,767,000. The economic

value represents the gross dollar value of catch to fisher-

men, plus wages earned by processing plant employees and

tender boat operators. Approximately twenty percent of

the 826 permit holders were residents of Bethel (ADFG).

Besides salmon the commercial utilization of whitefish

has increased in recent years. The major commercial white-
fish fishery occurs inciden-tal to the August coho season

2-130

and the majority of whitefish are sold to Bethel stores to

satisfy a local market. In addition, a limited fall and

winter whitefish fishery is conducted by the Department of

Fish and Game. In 1981 three whitefish permits were issued

in Bethel.

A commercial herring fishery has recently developed

in the Kuskokwim area. In Security Cove, Goodnews Bay and

Cape Romanzof, the development of a herring fishery was

initiated in 1978. The herring fishery in these areas has

grown significantly since its initiation, producing over

1000 metric tons in 1980. (Table 33). Projections of the

herring catch and fishing effort in the Kuskokwim area

during the years 1980-2000 were estimated by authors of

the Sea Grant Study. The projections indicate that the

herring harvest is expected to remain constant, while the

fishing effort may increase moderately (see Table 34).

TABLE 33

Characteristics of the 1980 Herring Season

Metric Number of Catch per boat
District Tons Landed fishermen Boats (metric tons)

Security Cove 611 178 20-30 6.0

Goodnews Bay 407 165 NA 6.4

Cape Romanzof 554 69a 54 7.0

a. The higher number of fishermen per boat may reflect a
certain degree of sharing among related and unrelated
fishermen.

Source: Steve Langdon, the Western Alaska Sac Roe Herring
Fishery, 1980: A Summary of ANF Questionnaire Findings.
Alaska Native Foundation, December 1, 1980.

2-131

TABLE 34

Projected Harvest and Fishing Effort in the
Yukon Kuskokwim Roe Herring Fisheries: 1980-2000

Catch Number of Catch per
District (metric tons) Boats Fishermen boat

Security Cove 640 ill 333 5.8

Goodnews Bay 430 44 132 9.8

Cape Romanzof 590 59 162 10.9

Sourcez Sea Grant Study, Table 4.65.

Fish Processing

Fish processing in Bethel is limited to three major

fish buying operations: Kemp & Paulucci Seafoods of Duluth,

Minnesota, Elm Fisheries, Inc., and J.B. Crow and Sons.

All three fish buyers operate facilities capable of cleaning

and dressing fish. The fish is then iced and transported

out of the area by air or by sea. Both Elm Fisheries and

Kemp and Paulucci have the facilities to freeze fish which

enables them to utilize water transportation. Processing

operations take place from June to September.

J.B. Crow and Sons began their fish buying operation

in the Bethel area in 1966. The processing facility consists

of two small freezers with a combined estimated storage

capacity of 25,000-30,000 pounds. The freezers are used

for the storage of heads, roe, and seconds. Crow exports

up to one million pounds of fresh salmon annually.

2-132

The largest portion of the Kuskokwim River salmon catch

is purchased by Kemp and Paulucci. The company works in

agreement with the Kuskokwim Fishermen Cooperative who

conduct the processing operation on the co-op barge, the

Upiat. The barge facility has two freezers, each with a

35,000 pound capacity. In addition, the barge contains

freezer holds for the storage of frozen salmon pallets.

The capacity of the freezer holds is 450,000 pounds. The

frozen f ish are transferred to a Japanese tramp in Bethel

and shipped to Japan.

Processing capabilities were further increased in

Bethel with the completion of the Elm Fisheries freezer

facility. The facility is capable of freezing 200,000

pounds of salmon within a twenty-four hour period. In the

past, Elm Fisheries has handled approximately twenty-five

percent of the Kuskokwim River catch. With the new facility,

Elm hopes to handle a larger portion of the commercial

catch and are exploring the economic viability of other

potential commercial resources in the area.

In a report titled A Technical Appraisal and Assessment

of the Bethel Fishing Industry, the development of additional

processing facilities was unadvisable. The two major con-

straints were the cost of constructing a tender facility

and the limited salmon resource supply to accommodate an

additional major fish buyer.

More likely, the expansion of the commercial fishing

industry will be dependent on the local processors' ability

2-133

to integrate the processing of other commercial resources

into the existing plant capacities.

In recent years, the local demand for whitefish has

stimulated the development of a small commercial whitefish

fishery. An important consideration for further development

of this fishery is the relatively low-cost investment to

adapt the present processing facilities for the processing

of whitefish. However, several major factors limit the

economic viability of a large scale whitefish fishery

including the following.

the subsistence utilization of the Kuskokwim whitefish

fishery,

uncertain marketability of whitefish products,

high transportation costs,

the absence of trained labor, and

the high overhead associated with the operation of a

year-round processing facility.

A small whitefish operation may be economically viable

for two reasons. First, the market for whitefish exists

in most of the large Native communities in the region as

well as Bethel. Second, the overhead associated with

operating a small freezer facility would be greatly reduced.

The bottomfish industry is just beginning to develop

in Southwestern Alaska. Based on a study entitled The

Growth of the Nunam Kitlutsisti Region: A Projection 1981

to 2000, the bottomfishing efforts in the Bering Sea will

2-134

require the development of land-based processing facility by

1995. The processing facility will be located in Goodnews

Bay and employment will be allocated to the coastal and

Kuskokwim regions and Bethel (Husky).

2-135

FOREST DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Resource Potential

Reid, Collins, Inc. released a study in June, 1981 of

the forest development potential in the Middle Kuskokwim.

The study, prepared for the Kuskokwim Native Association,

concluded that a sufficient quantity and quality of timber

resourses exist to supply the demand of the Kuskokwim

villages and Bethel, as well as support a timber export

facility. The study maintained that a mill supplying only

local demand would not be an efficient use of the available

resource and recommended a mill and export facility that

would supply Japanese demand. A major source of North

American log exports to Japan is private lands in the

Pacific Northwest. The Northwest supply faces immediate

contraction and the Kuskokwim resource should become more

attractive to Japan (Reid, Collins). Bethel has an advantage

over Northwest ports in that Bethel is four to five sailing

days closer to Japan.

Reid, Collins suggested that a cost effective timber

operation would export raw logs to Japan and try to capture

50% of the 16cal market for finished lumber (lumber is now

imported from Washington). The suggested operation would

have an annual output of 7514 million board feet (mbf). A

local market-only mill would have an annual output of 1750

2-136

mbf. In contrast, the only sawmill still operating on the

Kuskokwim produces seventy mbf per year (Reid, Collins,

Inc.). The Kuskokwim Corporation is investigating the

possibility of establishing a local market-only mill in

the near future. Such a mill would likely be located

adjacent to the resource, probably near Sleetmute (Cook,

personal communication). An export facility is considered

a long term possibility that may become feasible if the

Japanese market becomes available. Bethel is considered a

good location for an export facility.

Potential Impacts on Bethel

The Reid, Collins export mill site example would require

10.3 acres of land. Shoreline property would be necessary

for loading operations. Log booms would add to the demand

of the riverfront as a transportation corridor. Reid,

Collins noted that modern log ships are usually in the

range of 20,000 to 30,000 dead weight long tons (DWT) and

require a draft of twenty to twenty-five feet. The Bethel

port has an estimated capacity of 12,000 DWT and a draft

of eighteen feet. Dredging of Oscarville Channel could

increase draft capacity to twenty-two feet (Galliet and

Silides).

The Reid, Collins export mill example would employ

eleven people per shift with total wages of $1500 per

shift. Kuskokwim River timber would compete with Washington

timber, resulting in an increase in local dollars spent on

2-137

I
I
local products. The fuel demand of the mill example would I
be 22.5 gallons per hour or 180 gallons per shift.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2-138 1

MINING

The mining industry currently does not provide any

direct employment in Bethel and has an insignificant impact

on the Bethel economy. The quantity of services provided

to mining is impossible to determine, although Bethel

probably provides some services such as transportation and

retail sales.

The Bethel region is considered to have good deposits

of several metallic and non-metallic minerals, although

mining activities do not exist within 25 miles of Bethel.

Some active mining sites in the region include: Goodnews

Bay, 115 miles to the south; Quinhagak, 85 miles to the

south; Canyon Creek, 80 miles to the southeast; Columbia

Creek, 40 miles to the southeast; Akulikautak River, 25

miles to the southeast; Cripple Creek, 90 miles to the

east; and the Tuluksak River near Nyac, 70 miles to the

east. Minerals extracted include gold, platinum, antimony,

mercury, copper, tin, tungsten, beryllium, chromite, and

molybdenum. Silver has also been reported. Most of the

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, including Bethel, is located in a

sedementary basin that is considered to have uranium poten-

tial. Coal, oil, and natural gas potential are discussed

in the Energy section.

2-139

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OCS Resource Potential

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) petroleum exploration in

the Bering Sea has shown moderatE! development potential.

Figure 25 shows proposed lease sale areas in the Bering

Sea. The North Aleutian Shelf and St. George Basin lease

areas are considered the easiest areas to develop because

of lack of substantial amounts of sea ice and close proxi-

mity to potential support facilities at Cold Bay and Dutch

Harbor. However, hazards of the Aleutian lease areas

include seismicity, volcanism and tsunamis. The Norton

Basin experiences a substantial amount of sea ice, but is

close to a potential regional support center at Nome. The

Navarin Basin has formidable barriers to development that

include sea ice, deep water and a long distance to an

existing support facility (Tremont). The lease area closest

to Bethel is St. Matthew-Hall. The waters of the area are

too shallow for tankers and the area has recoverable re-

source estimates of virtually zero. St. Matthew-Hall is

not scheduled for a lease sale.

Table 35 summarizes resource estimates and proposed

sale. dates of the proposed federal lease areas in the

Bering Sea, and Table 36 summarizes petroleum potential of

proposed state onshore areas in Southwest Alaska.

2-140

PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALES IN SOUTHERN
BERING AND NORTON SOUND

KOTZEBUE

M
AST._LAWRENCE
NO Norton
Sound
lb UNALAKLEET
NORTON SOUND
Proposed Sale 57

NAVARIN BASIN St. Matthew 0
Proposed Sale 83

NUNIVAK
ISLAND

BETHEL

DILLINGHAM 0

St. Paul DEVI
C2 BrisfOl
St. George NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF
Proposed Sale 75-1
ST. GEORGE BASIN k
Proposed Sale 70 1161@ =IL- -.
:.NAVAR INS BASIN St
Prop0j
sed ale 83

C LO BAY LPN

MAKUSKIN
@ 'M
@@@DUTCH
HARBOR

source: Alaska OCS Office, 1981

FIGUF

A laska Depa
Resources P
Gas Leasing
(Southv

PROPOSED
NOME it IV N Norton
N NOMINATIO
M Minch

MCGRATH
. . . . . . . H HolitnE
SKOON \M B Bristo
BETHEL ANIAK
0

..............
DI LI HA

............
P,

SCALE
4D 0 100 250 MILES

TABLE 35

Risked and Unrisked Resource Forecasts
For Proposed Bering Sea Lease Sales (Federal offshore Schedule)

Unrisked Mean Case Marginal Probability Risked Resource
Resource Estimates of Success Estimates
Proposed Sale Proposed Sale Date Oil Gas Oil Gas oil Gas

Norton Basin September, 1982 480 MMbbls 2.01tcf .14 .26 .67MMbbls 523bef
(Sale 57)

St. George Basin December, 1982 1.12 Bbbls 3.66tcf .28 .37 314MMbbls 1.39tcf
(Sale 70)

North Aleutian Shelf October, 1983 300 MMbbls 2.93tcf .22 .22 66MMbbls 645bcf
(Sale 75)

Norton Basin October, 1984 200 MMbbls 1.2tcf N0 T A V A I L A B L E
(Sale 88)

*Navarin Basin December, 1984 2.47 Bbbls 8.95tcf .41 .41 l.OlBbbls 3.67tcf
(Sale 83

Navarin Basin March, 1986 N 0 T A V A I LA B L E
(Sale 107)

Norton Basin October, 1986 N 0 T A V A I L A B L E
(Sale 99)

Basin-wide estimate

Sources: Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Tremont (from U. S. G. S.

TABLE 36

Petroleum Potential for Proposed Sale and
Nominal Areas in Southwest Alaska (State of Alaska
onshore and Nearshore Schedule)

Petroleum
Sale Area Sale No. Date Scheduled Potential

Norton Basin 38 January, 1983 Low to Moderate
(Proposed Sale Area)

Minchumina Basin 42 January, 1984 Low
(Nomination Area)

Bristol Bay Uplands 41 September, 1984 Low to Moderate
(Nomination Area)

Holitna Basin 46 January, 1985 Low
(Nomination Area)

Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources

A 1981 U.S. Geological Survey open-file report has

estimated undiscovered oil and gas resources for the Yukon-

Koyukuk Basin, a large area that includes the Bethel Basin.

The estimate for crude oil is zero, and the mean estimate

(50% probability) for natural gas is 0.1 trillion cubic

feet with a high estimate (5% probability) of 0.6 trillion

cubic feet.

2-144

Sources of Potential OCS Impacts on Bethel

Any OCS-related impacts on Bethel are likely to origi-

nate from Norton Basin development. The Norton Sound

region would absorb the bulk of the cultural, economic,

and environmental impacts. The lower Yukon region is

adjacent to southern Norton Sound and would likely experience

a direct impact from OCS development in the Norton Basin

(Husky). The lower Yukon is also part of the Bethel service

area.

Impacts on Bethel from Norton Basin OCS development

would be indirect, via the impacts on the lower Yukon

villages. A "high find scenario" in the Norton Basin

would probably create a "moderate impact" on Bethel. Poten-

tial impacts from onshore resource development near Bethel

are still highly speculative but would likely be more

direct and more substantial than OCS imports.

Potential Economic Impact

The industries in Bethel most likely to be impacted

by OCS development are the transportation and construction

sectors. Offshore and onshore OCS facilities require ship-

ments of cargo and people. If Bethel were to experience a

"moderate- impact" scenario, its role as regional transpor-

tation center would be significantly expanded. A "moderate-

impact" scenario would also increase the demand for Bethel

construction services due to construction needs in the

lower Yukon region.

2-145

Most of the labor required to fill direct OCS jobs

would be imported. Table 37 illustrates projections of

local and imported labor requirements for Norton Basin

lease sale 88.

2-146

TABLE 37

Estimated Direct Employment Impact on
Nunam-Kitlutsisti Region* From Norton
Basin Lease Sale 88

(Petroleum) Mining Transport Construction Total
Local Imported Local Imported Local Imported Local Imported

Initial (1985) 0 150 0 72 1 18 1 240

Peak (1989) 15 352 45 190 0 1381 60 1923

Year (2000) 15 559 35 105 0 0 50 664

*Region defined as the Bethel and Wade Hampton census divisions
4r Source: Husky, Webesky, and Kerr.
-4

Table 37 projects direct employment impact from lease

sale 88 only and does not account for Norton Basin lease

sale 57. Table 38 projects direct. OCS employment impact

on Bethel from lease sale 88 only.

TABLE 38

Projected Direct Employment. Impact on Bethel
From Norton Basin Lease Sale 88

Initial (1987) Peak (1991) Year 2000

2 20 13

Source: Husky, Webesky and Kerr.

As Table 38 indicates, direct OCS employment impacts on

Bethel are likely to be small. Most employment impacts are

likely to be indirect.

Population Impacts

Significant population increases are often a function

of increased employment opportunities. Employment oppor-

tunities resulting from Norton Basin OCS activities will

concentrate in the Norton Sound Region, therefore OCS

population impacts will also concentrate in Norton Sound.

A "high-find" or "moderate find" scenario in the Norton

Basin is likely to indirectly increase employment opportu-

nities in Bethel, which may result in a small population

increase.

2-148

Potential OCS-Related Facilities

A variety of facilities are associated with OCS develop-

ment. Bethel is not likely to become a marine service

base for OCS-related activities due to the long distance

to any lease area. However, Bethel is likely to serve as

an air support facility due to its position as the major

air transportation hub for southwest Alaska.

A Bering Sea refinery would be economical if lease

sales in the Bering Sea are successful (Alaska Research

Service). Bethel could be attractive as a small refinery

site because of a good port facility, availability of level

land, availability of electricity and Bethel's role as the

regional hub for transportation and commerce. Major obsta-

cles to transporting crude oil by barge to Bethel include

the short shipping season and the distance to Norton Sound.

An alternative to moving crude oil by barge is moving it by

pipeline. A short pipeline could deliver oil from Norton

Sound to Bethel year-round and make a refinery feasible.

However, obstacles to construction of a Norton-Bethel pipe-

line include the high investment costs of a pipeline, the

presence of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and

complex land ownership.

Bethel is incapable of becoming a major petroleum

staging area or the terminus of a major pipeline. Tankers

needed to supply such facilities require a draft of 66

feet (Alaska Department of Community and Region Affairs),

2-149

but Bethel is only capable of accommodating an 18-foot draft

ship. The shallow draft capability of the Bethel port

would also preclude location of a Liquified Natural Gas

(LNG) conversion plant, which requires a draft capability

of 46 feet (Alaska DCRA).

Potential Socio-Cultural Impact

If a "medium-find" scenario becomes reality in the

southern Norton Sound, the impact on the socio-cultural

systems of the lower Yukon villages Would be dramatic. A

sudden influx of "outsiders" would bring large numbers of

non-natives to a predominatly native culture. Resource

development and support facility construction would likely

interfere with subsistence activities. In contrast the

socio-economic,. impact on Bethel would likely be small due

to Bethel's di's-*tance from Norton Sound. However, many

municipal and cultural services are already strained due to

Bethel's rapid population growth. Bethel may be incapable

of accommodating even a small population growth.

Potential Environmental Impacts
Potential environmental impacts on Bethel from Norton

Basin development are likely to be minimal. The location

of OCS-related facilities in Bethel faces either physical

or economic constraints. An unlikely exception could be

the construction of a refinery in Bethel. The environmental

impacts of refineries are diverse, affecting air quality,

water quality, soil stability and aesthetics.

2-150

TOURISM

A 1979 survey by Darbyshire and Associates for the

Bethel Comprehensive Plan seems to indicate that Bethel

residents do not favor the development of a tourist industry

(some residents doubt the accuracy of the survey). 46% of

the survey respondents felt tourism was undesirable, 16%

felt tourism was desirable, and 22% had mixed feelings.

Despite the apparent negative public sentiment towards

tourism, Bethel contains some resources that could support

a significant tourist industry.

The resources that could be most easily developed for

tourism in Bethel would be sport fishing and hunting. These

two sports currently provide a small amount of tourist acti-

vity in Bethel. Rainbow trout is common in most of the

streams along the lower Kuskokwim River. The average size

of King salmon in the Kanektok River (on Kuskokwim Bay) is

among the largest in the state, with 30-40 pound fish

common. Hunting and fishing camps combined for over 25%

of the 17,400 total visitors in 1978 to the towns of Barrow,

Prudhoe Bay, Nome, and Kotzebue. The average charge for a

guide was $300.00 per person per day and the average charge

for a hunting or fishing camp was $75.00 per person per

day (Berger and Assoc.). Tourism in these four western and

2-151

northern towns is dominated by packaged tours. Packaged

tours do not currently operate in Bethel. The extensive

tourist industry in other western and northern towns as

compared to Bethel, and the attractive hunting and fishing

resources in Bethel, combine to illustrate the potential

for a tourist industry in Bethel. However, a major obstacle

to expansion of the sport fishing and hunting industry would

be competition with subsistence activities.

Another potential tourist attraction is the Kuskokwim

300 Dog Sled Race. The race is well known in Alaska and

increasing in popularity each year. Currently, visitors

are almost always directly connected to the race and volun-

teers in Bethel provide most of the visitors' accommodations.

The employment industries usually affected by tourism

are, in order of impact; transportation, retail trade

including eating and drinking places, hotel and lodging

places, and amusement and recreation services. Bethel is

served by an extensive transportation industry that could

probably easily accommodate an influx of tourists. The

retail trade, lodging, and recreation industries would

likely have to expand to accommodate an influx of tourists.

2-152

PEFF
-s- S4.

RESOURCE ANALYSIS

Under section 6 AAC 85.060 of the guidelines of the

Alaska Coastal Management Program each district is required

to include a resource analysis which describes the following:

1) Significant anticipated changes in the matters

identified under the Resource Inventory;

2) An evaluation of the environmental capability and

sensitivity of resources and habitats, including cultural

resources, for land and water uses and activities; and

3) An assessment of the present and anticipated needs

and demands for coastal habitats and resources.

The analysis is divided into four sections. Natural,

economic and cultural resource analyses follow the lines

developed in the previous sections. Also a land use compa-

tibility matrix is provided to be used as a decision-making

tool, with the caution that land use compatibility is only

one of many factors to be considered in the decision-making

process.

Two issues, wetlands and riverfront land use, are

considered in separate chapters. These two have been

singled out for more in-depth analysis since the issues are

quite complex and important to the future development of

Bethel.

3-1

NATURAL RESOURCES

Significant changes to the natural resources in the

Bethel area are likely to originate from either intensified

human activities or natural occurences of the Kuskokwim

River. The human activities include increased urban develop-

ment or increased resource utilization. Natural occurances

of the Kuskokwim River include flooding and bank erosion.

Past urban development has occurred without considera-

tion to natural drainage patterns in the area. Basically

all of the Bethel area is wetlands, and most has poor

drainage. Any obstruction of the natural drainage patterns

intensifies ponding, flooding, and erosion problems. A

comprehensive drainage study is needed that will include

proper locations for culverts, drainage easements, and the

development of subdivision standards. Wetlands management

should be addressed in depth.

Most of the soils in the Bethel area are not suitable

for urban development, a condition that is compounded by

the fragility of the permafrost that underlies Bethel.

Construction of roads and buildings which exposes the perma-

frost causes it to melt, which in turn causes slumping and

buckling. Melted permafrost is very unstable and is a

major factor in drainage problems in Bethel. The Kuskokwim

bank erosion is a natural example of how melting permafrost

3-2

I
accelerates erosion. Better construction practices may I
be helpful in reducing dramage to the permafrost. i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-3 1
I

xl@

Mfflii
. . ..... ...

I I I I . . . . I I

igm', @M:"MM

Xz,:e
@gffl
'11 V

WOR M

Io z

,gg

3-4

Most of the fish and wildlife habitats surrounding

Bethel can be classified as either freshwater habitat or

as wetlands. Both habitats are very sensitive to human

caused disturbances. Wetlands and freshwater habitats are

crucial for fish, waterfowl, and furbearers. The habitats

surrounding Bethel are experiencing increasing pressure

from urban expansion, and intensified hunting and fishing

pressures from subsistence, commercial, and sport users.

Detailed studies and careful management of the fish and

wildlife resources in the Bethel area are needed in order

to insure the sustainability of the resources. Nomination

of the area used most heavily for subsistence by Bethel

residents as an AMSA (area meriting special attention)

would be a good way of focusing attention on these resources.

The Kuskokwim River is the most vital and most dynamic

natural resource in Bethel. The river is not only a vital

fish and wildlife habitat, but is a dominant feature in

determining the future development. of Bethel. The gradual

movement of the river channel is resulting in an erosion

problem that is threatening many businesses and homes on

the waterfront. There are plans to begin the initial

phase of a bank stabilization project that will consist of

seawall and articulated concrete mat. Flooding is a natural

phenomenon of the Kuskokwim River that occasionally drasti-

cally alters the physical appearance of Bethel. Most of

3-5

the developed portion of Bethel lies within the flood plain.

Efforts need to be made to discourage future construction

in the flood plain.

MR.
*g: &

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

.. ..... .

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

.. ... .....

3-6

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The City of Bethel has experienced tremendous population

growth over -the past two decades. Bethel's role as a service,

transportation, and economic center for the Yukon-Kuskokwim

Delta region suggest that the community's population will

continue to grow. However, the rate of growth will depend

on many external factors including changes in government

policies, particularly those which affect Federal and State

expenditures for the support of social service agencies,

employment assistance programs, the PHS hospital, and capi-

tal projects; and major regional economic developments,

including forest products, mining, and petroleum activities.

Future population growth in Bethel will necessitate in-

creased city utility services and the expansion of community

facilities. Current methods of waste disposal including

solid waste, sewage, and grey water runoff will not be

adequate as the community continues to grow. The construc-

tion of the new public utility facility will alleviate the

immediate problems; however, the development of a compre-

hensive long range utility plan is badly needed.

Increased community growth will also demand the con-

struction and development of facilities and areas for

cultural and recreational pursuits. Funding for such facil-

ities has mostly come from State legislated appropriations

which will continue to be the only reliable source of

3-7

funding in the near future. While the State appropriations

for capital projects finance the construction costs, the

City is responsible for the projects' operation and mainte-

nance costs. To insure that the cost of capital projects

incurred by the City is not excessive, feasibility studies

that include a cash flow analysis of the capital project

should be required.

The City's development of community and neighborhood

parks, the maintenance of adequate open space, and the

expansion of community facilities is contingent on the

availability of land to the City. At present the City

owns only three percent of the land within the entire city

limits, and is limited in its ability to provide the basic

city services and recreational and cultural amenities de-

manded by the community. The City is entitled to receive

not more than 1,280 acres of land for municipal expansion

purposes from the Bethel Native Corporation under Section

14 (c) (3) of ANCSA. In deciding which lands might be conveyed

the City should identify areas in which municipal expansion

would be the most appropriate, and consistent with the City's

long range planning efforts. The conveyance of municipal

lands will not be completed until the status of other lands

selected by the Bethel Native Corporation have been resolved.

Another concern expressed by the city regarding muni-

cipal expansion is the land use implications of the certi-

fication of pending native allotments, which encompass a

3-8

major portion of the developable land surrounding the town.

In light of the eventual certification of these properties

it would behoove the City to seek cooperation with land-

owners, developers, and federal agencies, namely the BIA,

in their planning efforts.

An additional area where land use is of particular

importance to the community is along the riverfront. The

factors of erosion, economic activities, and intense multiple

use combine to warrant special attention to riverfront land

use.

As the City of Bethel experiences increased community

development the potential for conflicting land uses is cer-

tain to arise. Because of the importance of the natural

resources of the Kuskokwim River to residents of Bethel

for subsistence, recreation, transportation, and economic

activities, an evaluation of existing and potential con-

flicting land and water uses and activities is provided in

the Land and Water Use Compatibility Matrix.

3-9

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

Over the past two decades Bethel has experienced tre-

mendous economic growth concurrent with its population

growth. The growth has been directly related to the expand-

ing role of Bethel as the center of transportation, govern-

ment, and services for southwest Alaska. Recent governmental

cutbacks have severely impacted government and social ser-

vices, and will likely have a negative effect on the Bethel

economy for at least the short term. However, several other

factors have the potential for contributing to rapid economic

growth in the future including energy development, touri sm,

and expansion of the transportation industry.

Electricity is produced in Bethel and all the surround-

ing villages by expensive diesel generators. The Kisaralik

River Hydro project has been proposed as a source of in-

expensive electricity, but many economic and environmental

questions remain unanswered. The Bethel National Guard

Armory has a small wind generator that is operating, but

investment costs are still too prohibitive for the average

homeowner. Other energy alternatives being explored and

developed include increased use of wood, solar technologies,

and conservation.

The potential for impact from Outer Continenta 1 Shelf

(OCS) activities has caused considerable concern in Bethel.

Bethel's role as the transportation and service center for

3-10

southwest Alaska may attract OCS activities, despite the

long distance to lease sale areas. The municipal and social

services in Bethel are already strained due to rapid popu-

lation growth and a sudden influx of OCS-related population

may overload the services. Bethel needs more specific

information concerning potential OCS impacts.

REIM/ . .. . . . . . . ........... . . . . ..... . .....

The transportation needs of Bethel have expanded signi-

ficantly in the past and are expected to continue growing

in the future. Plans for the immediate future include con-

struction of a badly needed transshipment dock and construc-

tion of a small boat harbor. The small boat harbor has

3-11

caused'some consternation because it will be built in

the flood plain, will destroy forty-two acres of wetlands,

and the site is adjacent to some cautious neighbors. The

proposed Yukon-Kuskokwim crossing would have a significant

impact on port activity and would increase availability of

some consumer products in Bethel.

Commercial fishing (primarily salmon) is a major com-

ponent of the Bethel economy during the summer. The industry

thrives on a fragile and limited resource, therefore educated

and careful management is essential. The development of a

whitefish or bottomfish industry has some potential but

more detailed biological and market research is needed.

The tourist industry is practically non-existent in

Bethel. However, a considerable potential exists to develop

fishing and hunting tours or promotion of the Kuskokwim

300 Sled Dog Race.

3-12

CONFUCTING LAND AND
WATER USE DEMANDS

In the planning and approval of future land uses and

activities along coastal areas, development which may ad-

versely affect the natural environment and preservation

of resources and which would be incompatible with existing

surrounding land uses should be avoided. The following

figure illustrates the degree of compatibility that exists

among selected land uses. An explanation of the parameters

is provided below.

Weighting Values

The degree of compatibility is weighted as being of

high, moderate, or low compatibility. High compatibility

represents a condition when, in most cases, the land use

is compatible with another selected use (as represented by
the other parameters). A moderate weighting refers to a

condition where the land use is partially compatible with

another use and can be mitigated for further compatability.

Low compatibility refers to a situation when, in most

cases, two selected land uses would produce major negative

impacts or simply could not be carried out at the same

location. The evaluation of compatibility between the

selected parameters is faitly subjective. The matrix should

be considered only as a guide for the district's coastal

plan.

3-13

Parameters

The parameters on the y-axis (land and water uses and

activities) are grouped according to 1) water dependent, 2)

water related, and 3) non-water dependent. (The Coastal

Management Standards require that districts and state agen-

cies give first priority to water-dependent uses, second

priority to water-related uses, and final priority to uses

that are neither water-dependent or water-related, when

planning for the development of coastal areas.) The x-axis

of the matrix represents future or potential coastal uses

and activities that are subject to the district program.

The matrix is to be read horizontally so that the parameters

on the y-axis are evaluated With the potential coastal

uses on the x-axis.

Subsistence - refers to the use of the river for sub-

sistence hunting and fishing. The concern for subsistence

in this case is as much subsistence use outside the City

boundary as it is inside the boundary.

Commercial Fishing - refers to the use of the river to

take commercial fish harvests.

Seafood Process - refers to canneries and freezer pro-

cessing plants and associated dock facilities.

River Transportation - includes public and private day

use boat docks.

Cargo docks - refers to commercial docks as required

for transhipment exchange and temporary storage.

3-14

Boat Harbor - pertains to docking/marina facilities

for the continuous moorage of small boats, plus support

facilities such as fuel sales, haul out areas and gear

storage.

Sea Plane Transportation Facility - pertains to sea

plane ports.

Oil and Gas Facilities - refers to petroleum storage

tanks, docking and pumping facilities.

Air Cushion Vehicular Transport - pertains to the use

of the river as a transportation corridor by hovercraft.

Tourism - pertains to facilities and services, such as

restaurants, motels and boat tours, that are primarily de-

signed to attract tourists.

Forestry - pertains to the use of the river for rafting,

shipment or onshore storage.

Mining - refers to the use of the river as a means for

shipping equipment and/or ore and on-shore storage.

Residential Development - refers to private housing.

3-15

cn
Fj- w 9 @q R R F
:01 ('Do 'r"t-. (D H_
(D N F"
(D
FH L8
0 @5 0
(D rt* @1 (WD 0 @1 rt ft
rt. P1 F_
r- Fl.
o 0 F, ri,
:E 0- U3 &
(D F1 (D 8 rt
13J (D (D
0 FJ-
C1. ID
0
-a (D E3
oj -0 (D F- H_ Ff-
rt C-) (D
FJ- Fl-
o - 0 rt. It
C-1, 8
a- rt,
13) H*
(D
C.+ Co
1r+ -. 1. R
C+

Residential
C+ 0 @5 0 000 0 0 0
00 0 000 000 0 0 e 0 Cannercial
0 0 @5 0 000 000 0 0 e 0 Industrial
e 0 e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 Open Space

0 0 0 0 e 0 e e 0 0 0 e 0 0

0 (5 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 e e 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e

0 0 0 0 0 e 00 0 0 00 e

e 0 0 e 0 e 0 0 e 0 0 e e 0

0 00 0 000 000 0 0 0 e

00 0 0 e e e e 0 000 0

ONT

'A
N-w"' US-E ST

C H A--PT---E---,R- 4
Rw-l -RxF

Ul -,iD
IMW@ AMMM- Y

RIVERFRONT LAND USE STUDY

Early discussion on the coastal management issues facing

Bethel revolved around the riverfront, the way it was being

used now and what the future land and water use needs would

be. Riverfront land u.se was identified as a major concern,

and in need of some indepth study. This chapter is the first

step in developing a riverfront land use plan. It presents

background information on current uses, and considerations

for redevelopment of the area.

The background information was prepared by the Planning

Department. The design considerations for riverfront revital-

ization are taken from a report prepared for the City by

ESE/Kasprisin Pettinari Design. The full report, entitled

"Bethel Waterfront Revitalization Study: A Conceptual Report"

is available from the City Planning Department.

Background Information

Bethel, the service and trade center for the Yukon-

Kuskokwim Delta, is a community with a population f 3,500.

When the community was initially settled, it occupied ground

along what was a side stream of the Kuskokwim River. At that

time (late 1800's), Bethel's waterfront was protected by a

series of small islands. Those islands have long since eroded

away along with several hundred feet of riverbank. The Army

Corps of Engineers' draft, "Bank Stabilization Environmental

4-1

Statement and Feasibility Report", April 1981, indicates an

erosion rate of eight feet per year along the town front and

twenty-five feet per year near Public Health Service lands

and the Petroleum Tank Farm.

Throughout its history, Bethel's ties to the Kuskokwim

have remained extremely strong. The river is a primary

lifeline for the community. The river provides much of the

subsistence resources utilized by area residents. A high

percentage of incoming freight for the entire region arrives

by way of ocean going barges.

The river provides one of the few avenues for personal

travel throughout the yea r. During summer, over 1,000 pri-

vately owned river skiffs and boats are utilized as residents

engage in activities ranging from subsistence and commercial

fishing to wood gathering. During winter, individuals using

snowmachines, automobiles, and dog teams travel on the river

ice.

The river helps sustain the community as a livelihood

source, but also threatens the community. Spring floods are

an expected occurrence. Floods and erosion have caused a

movement to develop areas of higher ground away from the

riverfront and flood plain.

Bethel residents agree that improvements to the river-

front are a great need. Current land usage does not meet the

community's demands. As the community continues to develop,

a river front strategy must be brought into existence.

4-2

This background report on Bethel's waterfront reviews

current land use and ownership. Also reviewed is access.

Originally the community developed in such a way that access

was not questioned. Use and access to the river was an

integral part of life. Today, access has become a problem

due to private river front land ownership and the stop-gap

erosion control method of placing old automobile bodies

against the riverbank.

Current Land Use

There are ten miles of riverfront property within Bethel

City limits. Only two miles of this frontage are currently

developed. This area begins at what is known as "Lousetown"

near Brown Slough and extends downriver to the Petroleum Tank

Farm area; and the construction dock and staging area known

as "Hately's Old Fox Farm Area." (Figure 28)

Current waterfront land use falls into four (4) primary

categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and unde-

veloped. For purposes of this report, the properties under

review are those immediately adjacent to the river or those

that will be impacted by port development, continued erosion,

or seawall construction.

Eighty-two (82) parcels fall into this category. As of

early 1982, 58 were primarily residential, 31 were primarily

industrial and 11 were primarily commercial. Some had large

areas of undeveloped space on them. In addition to these

parcels, there was a large tract of undeveloped property

MISSION LAKE

RESIDENTIAL AREA

OLD PH.S HOSPITAL

KEY

1, MAIN STREET
FUEL DOCK AND 2. N.C. MARINA
TANK FARM 3. SWANSON'S STORE
4- SWANSON'S MARINA
5. ELM FISH PLANT

6. UNITED TRANSPORTATION
7PROP SHOP
a. BROWN'S SLOUGH

9, CROW FISH PLANT

10. KEMP- PAULUCCI

HATELY PROPERTY BETHEL
FIGURE 28 RIVE RFRONT A R

extending f rom Mission Road south behind the old Public Health

Service (PHS) Hospital. This property has 5,000 feet of

river frontage.

Since the lots and parcels of riverfront land vary greatly

in size, it is necessary to look at land use percentages.

The figures shown in tables 39 and 40 were developed by using

the Land Use and Land Ownership maps located in the pocket of

this report. (Figures 32 and 33). The maps were prepared in

early 1982. The percentages given are approximate.

TABLE 39

Riverfront Land Use by Category

Use Percent of Total

Industrial 35%
Residential 27%
Undeveloped 27%
Commercial 11%

100%

TABLE 40

Riverfront Land Ownership by Category

Ownership Percent of Total

Private 49%
City of Bethel 22%
Federal 19%
Certified Native Allotment 10%

100%

It is instructive to look at uses of riverfront land

that are water-dependent or water-related. The ACMP defines

water-dependent uses as those which require access to the

4-5

water body. Water -related uses do not require access to

water but provide goods or services directly associated with

water-dependence and which, if not located adjacent to water,

would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or

services offered.

Industrial activities that are water-dependent include:

the City Dock; United Transportation Offices and Operations

area; Binkley Co./Northwest Navigation; J.B. Crow and Sons

Fish Processing Plant; Elm Fish Processing Plant; Kuskokwim

Fishermen's Co-op Warehouse; Alaska Commercial Warehouses

(currently leased as Fish Processing Plant); Standard Oil

Petroleum Tank. Farm; Knik's Construction, equipment loading

and staging area (Hately property).

Other industrial activities occurring in the waterfront

area that are not water-dependent include private warehousing

along Brown Slough and the Public Health Service Maintenance

yard.

Water-dependent commercial operations include: Hoffman's

Fuel Distribution (summer gasoline sales) and Dull's Gasoline

Sales. Water-related commercial operations include four mari-

nas: P.J.'s Cat House, Swansons Marina, A.C. Marina, and the

Prop Shop.

Commercial activities that are neither water-dependent

nor water-related include: The Wild Goose (eatery); the

Kuskokwim Native Valley Association Building and Nunam Kitlut-

sisti offices; the Adult Educational Center; Buck Rogers

4-6

Disco; City Parks and Recreation Building; Swanson's Store

and Lumber Sales; First National Bank; Riverfront Restaurant;

and Tundra Drums Newspaper/Tundra Press. Swanson's business,

while not water-related, benefit from their proximity to the

river, as residents from outlying areas often use Swanson's

services due to the ease of transferring purchased goods from

the store to their sleds or boats.

Current residential use is primarily single-family, with

many residences located between various commercial and indus-

trial operations. There are at least fifteen residential

lots in the Mission Lake neighborhood (United States Survey

(USS) 870) that will be affected either by continued erosion

or erosion control methods, i.e., continued dumping of wrecked

automobiles or permanent seawall construction.

Current Development

Immediate riverfront needs being addressed by the City

include the seawall, a small boat harbor and dock/port

expansion.

Seawall construction has begun along the waterfront.

Construction completed includes the city dock and the western

bank of Brown Slough adjacent to the dock. Underway is

construction along the frontage of the Petroleum Tank Farm.

Also underway is testing of a steel pipe system for

building the remainder of the seawall. The City is currently

seeking funds for seawall construction.

Work is slated to begin on the small boat harbor project

4-7

in the near future. The City acquired approximately 50 acres

from the Bethel Native Corporation for the small boat harbor.

The primary site will be located on 40 acres, the remaining

10 will be used for disposal of dredged and excavated materials.

The City dock/port was build in 1975. Initial construc-

tion created 240 feet of docking frontage: construction in

1982 increased docking frontage an additional 900 feet along

the western bank of Brown Slough.

Access

Access parallel to the river and actual access on to the

river are both current problems. Bethel residents, since the

earliest days of community development, have desired to live

near the river. Up until recent years, work and home were

much the same as many residents gained their livelihood

through what is now commonly known as "subsistence."

During the past decade Bethel has grown beyond a subsis-

tence community. This change has occurred due to the growth

of the region and Bethel's role as the hub of much regional

activity. This growth has provided occupational and cash

opportunity. Even with this growth, 70% of the local resi-

dents surveyed in 1979 indicated that they obtain some form

of food through subsistence activity; one third (30%) of

those surveyed obtain 50% or more of their f ood through

subsistence.

Presently this food and resource gathering activity

4-8

(subsistence) is hampered by poor access to the river. During

summer, the Brown Slough area is jammed with river skiffs.

The ability to load and unload supplies or goods is hindered

by vessels that are parked sometimes as many as three deep,

leaving only a narrow navigation channel. Other access points

are limited, and usually present difficulties for loading/

unloading of boats.

During winter, snowmachines and other forms of transpor-

tation use the river heavily. Similar access problems occur

during winter with access conditions being generally poor.

A major concenr of the community is the retention and

improvement of multiple use of the river including subsistence,

commercial fishing, commercial and private transportation.

The issue of access is at the heart of this multiple use

concern.

Future Development Needs

The existing port is inadequate to handle existing and

projected cargo volumes. Current problems are the lack of

storage and warehousing facilities and the conflicts between

small river boats and larger ocean going vessels. As stated

in the Comprehensive Plan, "The City of Bethel needs to make

a commitment for the expansion and upgrading of the existing

port in order to maintain its role as a distribution center

for the region."

The Comprehensive Plan also points out the need for

additional land for industrial development and estimates

4-9

seventy acres will be needed by 1990. Possible areas for

industrial expansion include lands adjacent to the existing

dock (U.S.S. 3230) and lands within the old PHS Hospital site

(U.S.S. 4000).

The seawall is the most pressing future development need.

When seawall construction occurs, the nature of the riverfront

will be greatly affected. Access and multiple use considera-

tions will be paramount in seawall design. During seawall

construction, the need for construction access/easements will

begin the change in the riverfront.

Riverfront Land Use

The next step, given the critical importance of the river-

front to city inhabitants, is to develop a land use plan for

the riverfront to ensure that the needs and interests of all

residents are taken into account in riverfront redevelopment.

To that end, the "Bethel Waterfront Revitalization Study" was

undertaken. it presents concerns and concepts as an initial

step toward a land use plan. It is not a land use plan as it

now stands, but a working document to be discussed and used

when developing the plan itself . The following is exerpted

from the "Bethel Waterfront Revitalization Study: A conceptual

Report" prepared by ESE/Kasprisin. pettinari design. The

full report can be obtained from the City Planning Department.

4-10

o Ship sizes
- barge requirements range from 260
feet to 300 feet in length and 76
feet to 100 feet in width;
- draft (loaded) equals twelve to
betha@ wahnerf ront sixteen (12-16) feet.
GtajU atS @n StU o Operations
revg existing situation consists of a
pass/pass system comprised of a
double handling system where an
a conoeptual report article is picked up, deposited,
picked up, and redeposited due to a
lack of ramp facility;
- ramp additions will permit a roll
onfroll off system where a vehicle
(forklift) picks up an object once
(rolls on) and rolls-off to deposit
9"WMII/Port requirements it in the storage yard, thus reducing
labor, time, machinery;
o Seawall requirements - portable ramps are desired by the
- deep enough penetration to withstand major barge operators along with
undermining; significant improvements in the
- strong enough to withstand ice on-shore land conditions, particu-
action; larly in the spring thaw period;
- tight enough for heavy barges; - ramp capability should be fifteen
- high enough for erosion/inundation (15) feet.
control;
- appurtenant bank stabilization; o Transportation components /requirements
- capacity enough for two (2) ocean - day use boat docks for river trans-
going barges or one (1) ocean going portation;
barge plus loading of two smaller - cargo docks for transhipment ex-
river vessels; change/temporary storage;
- dock height for most vessels should - boat harbor, 1,200 continuous slips
be 10-12 feet above mean level low and support facilities;
water. - sea plane transportation facility;

-oil and gas facility; approaching the edge of Mission
-Hovercraft transporation; Lake;
-tourism boat tours, guides; by 2030, all of Mission Lake, ap-
-forestry use of river via rafting/ proaching Honey Bucket Lake and
shipment/storage; taking the majority of the general
-mining river transport; cargo dock.
-access via river to outlying resi-
dences.

o Generalized port objectives
-stabilize the bank with 1,.200 feet of
bulkhead between Main Street and Lot
11, Block 20; &tWmirwifte
-City acquires all of Block 19 and
Lots 3 through 8 of Block 20;
- develop a Southwest Alaska deep
water port; ENGINEERING DETERMINANTS
-in conjunction with the Yukon-Kusko-
kwim haul road, develop a major
A seawall design developed by the City of
transportation system servicing Bethel and Galliett & Silides Engineers is
timber, grain and meat from Nenana, providing the basis for a staged improve-
oil from Fairbanks, fuel service to ment of the waterfront. Based on factors
Bristol Bay and Norton Sound; of cost, installation techniques, and
-provide separate mooring facilities material availability, the engineers have
and additional staging area for proposed a system which accomplishes the
transhipping vessels; following:
-provide facilities for ocean-going
barges and tugs; o establishes an immediate yet long
- provide necessary warehousing. term beachhead against erosion with a
seawall considered economic compared to
other recommended engineering options;
o permits improvements on land to be
IMPACTS OF RIVERFRONT EROSION staged according to the successive
phases of the seawall construction;
- By 1985, up to and including portion o provides an opportunity to assess in
of First Avenue; detail future amenity options for
- by 2000, all of First Avenue and public access to the waterfront.

The engineering aspects of the seawall are between subsistence use of the waterfront
detailed in the River Bank Erosion Protec- and cargo operations. Below are listed
tion Conceptual Plan for the Port of pertinent determining factors for water-
Bethel, developed by Galliett & Silides front facilities by the major use.
Engineers. Cargo Handling Facilities
Highlights of that plan, and the basis for
conceptual design recommendations, include -capability to handle two ocean-going
the following: barges and one river barge at one
time;
-space on-land for long term open storage
� a two (2) foot diameter steel pipe pile as well as semi-enclosed storage;
wall driven into the ground two-thirds -"roll-on/roll-off" system, defined as a
the length of the pipe; vehicle such as a forklift rolling onto
� a runoff intercepting embankment and a barge, picking up cargo and rolling
drainage system to prevent surface off the barge to store the cargo with
runoff from eroding the back side or only one handling operation;
land side of the seawall; mud-free work areas and forklift
o threadbar tie back rods to secure the service roads;
seawall to the land side; heated warehouse space;
� a pedestrian bridge connecting the fifteen (15) foot wide ramps connecting
seawall to finished grade on the land the seawall to vessels;
side; storage yard lighting for night shifts.
� a gangway and float;
� backfill material.

Subsistence Facilities

LAND USE DETERMINANTS -public access to and from the water;
-boat moorage, floats;
The significant uses along the seawall will -float plane moorage;
include cargo loading and unloading; -small goods load/unload apparatus;
subsistence activity such as access to the - on-land temporary storage areas;
water, load/unload facilities, and boat -pick-up/drop-off facilities for taxi
service; resident use for access, circula- cabs and private vehicles;
tion, recreation; and commercial and -information points for visitors needing
industrial uses which are water-dependent orientation to Bethel area facilities;
or water related. Primary conflicts occur -winter vehicle access to river.

Resident Use of Waterfront

- open space buffer along riverfront;
- recreation facilities such as viewing,
walking, jogging, skiing, access to
water;
- view access to river;
- access for water oriented transporta-
tion.

Commercial/Industrial Water-Dependent/
Related

- fuel line access for float planes;
- load/unload facilities and access;
- product and supply storage space;
- berthing facilities;
- expansion space on-land and dock space.

land use,

The conceptual land use diagram and accom-
panying circulation diagram highlight the
area from the river front to Third Avenue
and the State Highway. The intent of the
diagrams is to depict a conceptual overview
of land use organization as it relates to
waterfront issues.

The area receiving the more intense water-
front use, from Browns Slough west to
Mission Lake Road, is highlighted in
three-dimensional sketches as examples of
physical development based on the con-
ceptual land use plan.

xed u

CW90 dock
5
tow", L3 6 L
hoqWW

500 250 0 Soo 100D I
U @ !".,f flu
graphic scile

. . F sin peftinwi d*Wgn ESE
2D31 sestlake @ 0. Ofiff"Wall. 98102
Clummort forrn 328 - OM

FIGURE 29a

policy guldelimm
o Land Use L5. in residential dis-
tricts adjacent to
LI. Define the size and the river, preserve the
extent of the Main waterfront for access
Street-Elm Street and use by neighborhood
general commercial residents;
use;

L2. identify and strengthen L6. allocate waterfront
4- the edge of existing areas for water/depen-
and future residential dent/water related com-
districts and neighbor- mercial and indusstrial
hoods; future uses;

L3. allocate sufficient L7. set aside public lands
lands along the water- for public waterfront
front for subsistence access and f uture
support activities; industrial water
dependent use;

L4. allocate sufficient L8. designate wetlands,
lands for existing pond areas and adjacent
and future general buffer strips as open
cargo dock facilities, space; utilize this
to be developed in a open space as edges and
phased manner over boundaries for residen-
time; tial, commercial and
industrial land use;

\ \ o Circulation

AftW Establish Main Street-
-Elm Street
First Avenue
as a collector street;

C2. develop a lime rock or
hard surfaced service
work road through the
general cargo dock area
nt paral-
CO in an alignme
lel to the seawall;

abandon First Avenue
west of Main Street
from future considera-
Le
tion as a through
street;

C4. designate a pedestrian
trail system throughout
the waterfront area
coordinated with a
seawall walkway segre-
gated from motorized
vehicles;
A5 C5. establish an easement
along the eastern edge
of Main Street right-
of-way for a pedestrian
walkway connecting the
KUSKOKMM OVER waterfront to the
center of Bethel;
1, @ T-11
HORW
FIGURE 29b ap IpVAW dodo. I M
am

o River Access

A1. Lousetown Slough/En-
trance, Small Boat
Harbor; boat moorage
should be limited to
the small boat harbor;

A2. Kuskokwim Way neighbor-
hood access only;
coordinated with a
neighneighborhood
subsistence support
facility;

A3. Brown Slough pull-out
area just south of the
bridge on the east side
of the slough;

A4. The First Avenue-Mis-
sion Lake Road area,
west of Main Street;
this area is utilized
for winter and summer
access, non-commercial
in nature;

A5. Main Street access to
retail and commercial
facilities;

A6. Standard Oil, for fuel
purposes only.

mixed use

L4
A1
A2

Figure 29c

mm-n st/oast - phase i
knosin peftirod do@IW ME

FIGURE 29d

design concepts immediately east of initiate the planning
Main Street/First process for detailed
Avenue juncture for design and community
by phase subsistence activ- approval for a commun-
ity; ity-wide trail system
at USS 319 for fish which will connect the
Summary of Design Concepts processing; riverfront to the
by Construction Phase at general cargo community centers;
dock at spaced 0 establish a pedestrian
intervals allowing way on top of the
two or more vessels intercepting drainage
Phase I-II: Main Street t o be h a n d 1 e d berm the length of the
Initial Seawall Construction simultaneously; seawall;
0 provide floats and
gangways for small a segregate motorized
Construct seawall tor a vehicles from designated
a boat and fishing boat
0 length of approximately tie-up (short term); pedestrian ways, partic-
2000 feet west of the ularly the top of the
ge-neral cargo dock to 0 provide short term intercepting drainage
the Mission Lake Road/ parking and drop-off/ berm;
First Avenue juncture; pick-up lanes for clearly designate all
4 construct intercepting subsistence related conflict areas between
drainage berm along the vehicle load/unload pedestrian and load/un-
full length of the along First Avenue just load activities;
seawall; east of Main Street;
a provide a medium duty
0 provide open storage crane or hoist for
0 expand drainage berm at areas for subsistence subsistence related
critical locations to related activities along load/unload activities;
provide staging pads for First Avenue;
subsistence and general establish open storage
cargo handling facili- 0 protect the wetland areas for water depen-
ties; suggested pad periphery of pond areas dent/water related
locations include: from development; cargo.

sz@,

FIGURE 29e

17
unt
bo a th _,/starf 116 Mah1'3f-,/WW -vh&% IV-V
ke"dsin pefffmrf d*Wgn ESE

Phase III-IV-V: Main Street/East

Complete backfill 0 develop public and loads of summer subsis-
between drainage berm private warehouse tence and fishing craft.
and seawall; districts which are Investigate the config-
coordinated with open uration of float systems
establish hard surface storage and truck to minimize disruption
staging and work areas circulation patterns; from southerly storms;
to eliminate or reduce
mud and spring thaw 0 expand floats and expand and hard-surface
conditions; gangways to handle peak parking areas along

First Avenue, complete include village news weather protected
with lead and unload boards, locked storage viewing areas for local
areas for subsistence areas for clothes and residents of the general
related activities; personal items while cargo handling activi-
people are visiting ties along the water-
Bethel, shower and front;
provide community restroom. facilities and
shelters which contain a caretaker; 0 depending on engineer-
information areas and ing constraints regard-
facilities for visitors ing currents and water
from the villages; such provide community movement around dock
a "village annex" could shelters which permit extensions, investigate

V
W-1
M ?@

FIGURE 29f

the types of extensions areas for cargo; areas for subsistence
and seawall expansions related goods along
capable of increasing provide open and en- First Avenue.
the shoreline work closed secured storage

kaWlsln peffinerl doWgn EM
b Ot
a U9 @M?, ?@K FIGURE 29g
Phase I-II: Browns Slough construct a small boat way along the seawall
pull-up slope just south f rom. the bridge to Kus-
Construct a seawall of the bridge; kokwim Way;
along the east side of
the slough; establish a pedestrian 0 provide area and secur-

it.y lighting; Provide floats and ties (B2a) and port area
gangways along seawall viewing (B2b);
allocate a staging area for visitor and subsis-
for subsistence and tence small boat a set aside land for
visitor activities along access; commercial supply stores
the east bank; establish community and for subsistence activity
neighborhood shelters and village residents
Phase III-IV-V: Browns Slough for neighborhood activi- near boat pull-up.

E@A

KA15,

b8th/@@ f ij p e1V FIGURE 29h
Wat(D@ rO

o norgo dbok phase i

kaWasin p*ttirW doWgn ESE

FIGURE 29i

Phase IV-V: Cargo Dock

Initial phases of the cargo dock are already
in operation. by forklift on hard
surfaced service roads;
Establish an interior
circulation system for develop heated and
forklifts and other non-heated warehouse
cargo handling vehicles complexes on the per-
which is hard-surfaced iphery of the open and
and capable of providing bulk storage area;
to a work base during muddy
periods and spring a provide a minimum of two
thaws; ramps or transfer spans
for simultaneous roll
provide adequate staging on/roll off cargo
and maneuvering area handling;
along the seawall;
provide area lighting
provide open and bulk for night shift and
storage areas accessible security purposes.

Sim-

UDY

-7:H.

WETLANDS STUDY

Wetlands management was one of the first issues identified

when the City began developing this coastal management plan.

Two goals have been set relating to wetlands:

. to develop a management- strategy, and

. to facilitate local compliance with federal law regarding

wetlands.

(See Chapter 7 for full statement of goals, objectives, etc.)

In order to meet these goals it became clear that more

detailed information was needed. A precise delineation of what

areas within the city limits fell into the federal definition

of wetlands was needed as well as an assessment of the relative

importance of these wetlands. It was also necessary to review

the applicable federal laws and regulations.

A study was undertaken by Environmental Sciences and

Engineering, Inc. (ESE) to provide the City and other interested

parties with this informat. (Study prepared by James R. Newman,

Gil Peterson, and Edward N, West of ESE.) Following is an

excerpt from the Wetland Study prepared by ESE. The full study

can be obtained from the City of Bethel Planning Department.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Three separate but related activities have required a

wetland evaluation for the City of Bethel.

5-1

1. Community growth; over 400 new housing units during

the past ten years

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) made comments

regarding the proposed City of Bethel Coastal Manage-

ment program, particularly the COE's desire for refine-

ment of the vegetation map to indicate the extent

and quality of Bethel's wetland areas.

The COE's intention to issue a general permit (General

Permit #81-4) for the Association of Village Council

President's (AVCP) Regional Housing Authority pursuant

to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This applica-

tion does not include the area contained in the city

limits of Bethel.

Since wetlands fall under COE jurisdiction of permitting

authority and since the wetland and non-wetland areas of the

City of Bethel had not been described, the following study was

undertaken. This study represents the first formal evaluation

of wetlands within the City of Bethel and involves two parts:

a wetland evaluation of the City of Bethel and a description of

the COE permitting process as applicable to the City of Bethel.

METHOD

The criteria used by the Corps for defining wetlands is as

follows: (a) a predominance of vegetation characterized as

wetland plants; (b) soil with evidence of mottling (streaks) in

the upper soil layers (horizons) and a chroma (soil color scale)

5-2

of two or less; and (c) the presence of water (free) in the soil.

All three of these criteria must be present to classify the

locale as a wetland.

A color infrared enlargement (1: 30, 000) was made from imagery

of the Bethel area flown on 17 June 1977 by the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management. From this enlargement, color patterns, produced

by vegetation types and density, were selected for field checking

and establishing field sites. Numerous sites were examined for

vegetation type and wetness. A transect through the city from

low to high elevation was identified. Six sites were qualita-

tively investigated for applying all three Corps criteria.

These are located on the accompanying map (Figure 30).

The field work was carried out on August 17 and 18. Parti-

cipants were Steve Gabor (planner), City of Bethel; Dr. James

Newman (ecologist), ESE; Dr. Gil Peterson (environmental planner),,

ESE; Dr. EdwardWest (ecologist), ESE; and Joe Williamson (environ-

mental engineer), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

FINDINGS

Based on the field work, virtually the entire area qualifies

as wetlands and, therefore, comes under COE permitting jurisdic-

tion. All sites contained wetland vegetation; only sites two

and six did not qulaify in all three criteria categories. These

sites did not exhibit the appropriate soil and hydrology charac-

teristics for wetland classification. However, sites of the

type like number two and six are mostly confined to slopes with

5-3

..........

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

.. . ......
%-%

549

Ln 0

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

lb. w
fi

. ...... . ..

I nArl
Weiland Delilleatol, FIGURE 30 SIGNIFICANT
TEST SITES WETLANDS

a southerly exposure which occupy very little surface area.

These locations, being small in area and irregular in shape,

do not lend themselves for serving as a determinant for classi-

fying land for urban use.

The field investigation and other data indicates that the

amount of non-wetlands is not large enough for permitting

considerations. Therefore, an evlauation was made as to the

general areas of the city likely to contain wetlands of

importance. The following discussion and conclusions are based

on the general survey, discussions with COE personnel, interpre-

tation of the high altitude photography and review of topogra-

phic maps.

Section 320.4(b) of the COE's general regulatory policies

(Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 141, Thursday, July 22, 1982, p.

31804) states that some wetlands are vital areas that constitute

a productive and valuable public resource. Those wetlands that

are considered to perform functions important to the public

interest include the following characteristics:

1. Serve significant natural biological function, i.e.,

food chain production, habitate, etc.;

2. Are set aside for special study;

3. Alteration of such wetlands would affect detrimentally

natural drainage and other hydrological characteristics;

4. Shield other areas from wave action;

5. Serve as valuable storage areas for storm and flood

waters;

5-5

6. Are prime natural recharge areas; and

7. Provide significant natural water filtration functions.

Characteristics numbers 3, 5, and 7 are of particular importance

to Bethel. To date, no wetland areas within the city limits

have been formally set aside for special study of the aquatic

environment or as sanctuaries or refuges.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service have both maintained research stations in

Bethel for a number of years. Interviews with biologists

representing both agencies resulted in the conclusion that

although various fish and wildlife populations do exist in the

city limits, there were no significant wildlife populations in

Bethel proper. In addition, they felt that the.wetlands within

the city limits did not provide significant natural biological

functions to the area's fish and wildlife populations. The

shallow tundra lakes and ponds, depending upon accessiblility to

streams, can contain fish. However, anaerobic conditions occur

in these water bodies during the winter which limit the importance

of these aquatic habitats. Nesting waterfowl do occur in these

habitats. This waterfowl habitat, however, is not considered

highly productive because of low number of nesting birds and

the intense hunting pressure on these lakes and ponds.

The field survey showed that the wetlands within the 100

year flood plain contained a much greater amount of surface

water and soil saturation, making development more costly and

hazardous for human occupancy. This same area, when undisturbed,

5-6

provides a much greater variety and density of vegetation. In

close proximity to the river, streams and sloughs, the wetlands

have a greater likelihood of exhibiting COE defined characteris-

tics 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. By contrast, the wetland area outside of

the 100 year flood plain, though relatively level, has a primi-

tive drainage pattern, less dense vegetation and a lower likeli-

hood of exhibiting wetland functions important to the public

interest. The investigation team defined two types of wetlands,

significant and non-significant. Significant wetlands are major

drainage ways, sloughs and lakes (including a 20 foot set back

from the high water mark) and the undisturbed areas of the

flood plain. All undisturbed land below thirty-two feet eleva-

tion (mean sea level) or 17.8 feet elevation mean lower low

water is within the 100 year flood plan (FEMA, 1981, p.5), and

is considered significant wetlands. Land located above this

level is considered non-significant wetlands (broken line on

map, Figure 30).

The COE's permitting process is used to obtain approval

for a category or categories of activities in a given area.

This approval is obtained through issuance of a "general" permit

for a category of projects anticipated to be proposed for a

given area or an "individual" permit for specific project

proposed for a given area. The permitting process has definite

procedural steps and a fairly fixed time frame for review and

decision. For general permits, 6 to 7 months is likely to be

required for approval. Without an approved wetlands management

5-7

plan a longer time frame (up to 1 years) is possible. For

individual permits, a minimum of 2 to 3 months should be allowed

for approval. Unnecessary delays can be avoided by proper

documentation and follow-up.

The-City-is applying for a General Permit for individual

residential development in non-significant wetlands. All pro-

perty owners desiring to develop lands in significant wetland

areas will be required to apply for an individual permit from

the COE.

DESCRIPTION OF COE JURISDICTION

The regulatory programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(COE) have recently been issued as interim final rules (Federal

statutory authority to regulate certain activities "on navigable

waters of the United States" (under Section 10 of Rivers and

Harbors Act of 1899) and "in waters of the United States"

(Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Navigable waters are

defined as freshwater, marine and estuarine waters that have

been or may be used for interstate or foreign commerce (see 33

CFR part 329). Waters of the U.S. include all navigable waters

and also all tributaries, strams, lakes and adjacent wetlands

on public and private property. Adjacent wetlands are defined

as bordering, contiguous or neighboring areas that are inundated

or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and

duration to support and that under normal circumstances support

a prevalance of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated

5-8

soil conditions (see 33 CFR Part 323). The activities regulated

by this jurisdiction include construction of structures, exca-

vation or dredging, and fill activities.

The jurisdiction of the two laws overlap. The permitting

process including the application for a permit, however, is the

same for both laws.

The purpose of the COE's jurisdiction is to protect and

maintain the quality of our nation's water resources by protect-

ing rivers, lakes or wetlands and other similar water resourcest

to prevent alteration or obstruction of a navigable water of

the U.S. and to control dumping of dredge materials into ocean

waters.

APPLICATION OF THE COE'S JURISDICTION TO THE CITY OF BETHEL

Based on qualitative evaluation of vegetation communitiest

most of the land area of the City of Bethel contains vegetation

that would likely be classified as wetland vegetation. Small

areas widely scattered through the city have vegetation which

would be considered transition or non-wetland areas. These

areas are too small to be considered important for planning

purposes.

The wetlands of the city are also likely to be designated

as adjacent wetlands for the existing lakes, streams, sloughs

and the Kuskokwim River.

Any project or development proposed within the city limits

of Bethel (and likely for miles beyond the city limits) would

5-9

come under COE jurisdiction. Approval from the COE will, there-

fore, be required for dredge and fill activities associated

with these projects.

OTHER JURISDICTION

Although the COE has primary jurisdiction for activities

in "navigable waters of the U.S." and "Waters of the U.S.",

there are a number of other regulations and policies which the

COE must adhere to in its permitting authority. Alaska Depart-

ment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) must review the

project to assure that it does not violate state water quality

standards and other state laws. This review is covered in its

issuance of a "401 certificate" at the time COE permit is

issued. In addition, a Coastal Management Plan "consistency

determination" is made by Alaska Division of Policy Development

and Planning or by the City of Bethel once the Coastal Management

program is adopted.

Besides these formal approvals, a number of agencies are

requested by the COE for their review and comment on the permit

application. Minimally, these agencies include:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Concerns regarding compliance with Clean Water Act

and alternative analysis.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Concerns regarding efforts to endangered species,

migratory bird, fisheries resources and mammals.

5-10

National Marine Fisheries Service

Concerns regarding effects to marine fish, shellfish

and mammals.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Concerns regarding effects to anadromous fish and

game animals and their habitat.

The ESE report continues in some detail on the procedural

steps for obtaining wetlands permits from the Corps of Engineers,

and also describes existing nation-wide permits for specific

activities.

With the above information on the nature and extent of the

wetlands in the city limits, the City has begun discussion with

the COE toward obtaining a general permit for individual resi-

dential construction in non-significant wetlands. Most con-

struction in Bethel is residential, and the considerations for

residential development are similar enough to allow a generalized

approach. Other types of development have such different

considerations (size, traffic, impact on drainage, etc.) that

a generalized approach is not desireable.

If granted, the general permit would cover activities re-

lated to individual residential construction in non-significant

wetlands. It will contain specifications for things such as

sand pad size, culverting, or set-backs from waterways. The

specifics are currently being negotiated between the COE and

the City, as is the method for administering the permit.

5-11

Any other development will require that the developer

obtain his or her own wetlands permit from the COE. The City

will provide developers with general assistance in this process,

but it will be their responsibility to secure the required

permits.

The following summarizes the coverage of the general permit

being applied for.

To be covered:

Individual residential construction in non-significant
wetlands.

Not covered:

Residential development of 4 or more units

Subdivisions

Commercial development

Industrial development

Public Institutional development

Individual residential development in significant
wetlands.

The general thrust of the wetlands strategy being developed

is to discourage further development. in the significant wetlands,

and to develop standards for construction in non-significant

wetlands so as to minimize negative impacts from the development.

The standards and policies for this strategy are contained in

Chapter 7 of this document, and the methods for implementation

are discussed in Chapter 8.

5-12

BETHEL

SU T E USE AREA*
Proposi*ng an Area
Meri*ti-ng
S-P--- ----e-a*al Attention
(AMSA)
E- N-- -C

CHAPTER 6

BETHEL SUBSISTENCE USE
AREA: proposing an Area Meriting
Special Attention

Subsistence activities - fishing, hunting, berrying - are

an important element of the way of life of many Bethel residents -

A survey performed in 1979 showed that over 70% of Bethel resi-

dents used some form of subsistence foods. Preserving oppor-

tunities to continue subsistence activities has been identified

as a goal of the coastal management plan, and is reflected in

many of the issues addressed in the plan. One way of recognizing

the importance of subsistence and providing for its continuing

practice is to develop a special management plan for the area

used most heavily for subsistence by Bethel residents.

Most of the area used for subsistence lies outside city

limits, and is therefore not subject to this coastal management

plan. However, the Alaska Coastal Management Program recognized

that there would be some areas needing attention that would not

fall into local jurisdictions, or would need special management

plans above and beyond the basic coastal management plan. The

ACMP set up a category and process for "Areas Meriting Special

Attention" that will allow the development of a management plan

for the Bethel subsistence use area.

The first step in the process is to nominate an area to be

designated as an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA). That

is the purpose of this chapter. The ACMP guidelines provide

6-1

criteria for judging whether or not an area qualifies as an AMSA.

kienerally, an area can be considered meriting special attention

if it has outstanding value to the general public, is particu-

larly sensitive to change, or because plans for the area or

claims upon its resources could preclude other uses. One of

the specific criteria for AMSA designation, the one being used

for this nomination, is "areas important for subsistence hunting,

fishing, food gathering, and foraging." (6 AAC 80.160)

The area in and around Bethel which receives the heaviest

use for subsistence fishing, including placement of fish camps,

extends along the Kuskokwim River, from the Johnson River on the

south, to the Gweek River on the north. (See Figure 31). It

also receives use for hunting, trapping, berrying, gathering of

firewood, and recreation. More study is needed to provide

exact boundaries for the AMSA.

The need for an Area Meriting Special Attention in the

vicinity of Bethel has also been recognized in the draft coastal

management plan for Cenaliulriit, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal

Resource Service Area. The Cenaliulriit plan notes that "The

land surrounding Bethel is used extensively for recreation,

subsistence, and sport hunting and fishing. Because Bethel is

rapidly growing into one of Alaska's largest cities, this land

and water area must be managed to preserve the natural values

that attract public use." (p 7-5, Public Hearing Draft,

Cenaliulriit Coastal Management Plan).

6-2

AKIACHAK

mo
B E \77, H E L@?,g
WETH

A.M.SA.

BETHEL

0 K
APAKIAK Y, NAPASKIAK

0 2

inch 4
;;Oool

Prepared by Ci

The terrain included in the AMSA is moist tundra, with

lakes and rivers. Current management responsibility and owner-

ship is mixed, with a variety of state and federal agencies,

local municipalities, native corporations and private owners.

The City of Bethel anticipates coordinating the development

of the management plan. In this process, it will work closely

with Cenaliulriit and all other affected parties. Further

details on the process for developing the AMSA plan are yet to

be finalized.

6-4

COASTAL

MA GEME- N-- T PLAN
P 4-- A-

CH A PTER -7

ISSUES, GOALS9 OBJECTIVES9
POLICIES & IMPLEMENTATION

Issues, goals, objectives, policies and implementation

measures, if well developed, will represent an integrated

system for bringing about positive community change or main-

taining desirable existing conditions. Issue statements repre-

sent a definition of community problems and community resources;

goals are expressed community standards which are derived from

shared ideals; objectives are identified to formulate programs

or targets to direct categoric community change or retain the

status quo in order to fulfill the goals; policies are guide-

lines for public officials so as to ensure that decision making

is in keeping with the stated goals and objectives; and imple-

mentation represents the various public and private actions

necessary to realize the goals and objectives.

The purpose for establishing issues, goals, objectives,

policies, and implementation is to provide a statement of

existing conditions, a vision of what the community wants in

the future and the steps necessary to bring the vision into

reality.

The following issues, goals, objectives, policies, and

implementation measures were developed by the Bethel Coastal

Management Working Group, a local group enpaneled to provide

guidance for the development of coastal management program.

The issues represent the broad concerns of environmental,

social and quality of life interests.

7-1

RIVERBANK EROSION

Issue:

An issue of major concern to most of the residents of

Bethel is the rapid rate at which the riverbank is eroding,

between eight and twenty-five feet per year, depending on

location. Through the years, numerous buildings have

fallen victim to the river an d many structures have been

moved more than once to escape the advancing water.

Attempts at stabilizing the bank have not been successful,

and has resulted in creating an ugly scene in the form of

hundreds of wrecked auto bodies lining the riverbank. In

addition to the auto bodies creating somewhat of a hazard,

it also makes access and general use of the riverfront

very difficult.

Goal:

. Eliminate bank erosion that is threatening the City.

Objectives:

� The City shall pursue funding to provide shore defense

works along the north bank of the river.

� Erosion control measures shall provide adequate access

to/from the river.

� Erosion control measures shall allow for adequate commer-

cial and industrial use of the river.

7-2

Po 1 icies:

. Adequate access shall be a determinant in the design

process for erosion control measures.

. Adequate space for commercial and industrial use shall be

a determinant in the design process for erosion control

measures.

Implementation:

. The City shall petition U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

get the proposed shore defense works on their capital

projects list.

. The City shall seek other Federal and State funds (existing

programs) for the above project.

. The City shall seek capital appropriations from the Alaska

legislature for the above project.

. The City shall include "adequate access" as a determinant

in the design process for erosion control measures.

. The City shall include adequate commercial and industrial

use as a determinant in the design process and erosion

control measures.

RWER & WATERFRONT USE

Issue:

The lifeline of Bethel is the Kuskokwim River. It repre-

sents a resource with many opportunities, which in turn

have produced conflicting demands for the use of the

7-3

river and the waterfront. Without planning based on the

articulation of community preferences in a spirit of good-

will and compromise, the use of the river and adjacent

waterfront will grow into a larger problem than it is at

the present time. Conflicting concerns to be resolved

include providing enough waterfront land for water oriented

industry, particularly transportation and fish processing,

without destroying the river's resource value for subsis-

tence. The competition for location along the river has

resulted in mixed land use, traffic congestion and asso-

ciated problems. In addition, development has spread

into the 100-year flood plain and is subject to annual

flooding and ice damage.

Goals:

� Retain multiple use of the river, including subsistence,

recreation, commercial fishing, shipping, private convey-

ance (transportation), and private boat use.

� Protect and enhance subsistence use of the river.

� Protect and enhance public aCCE!SS to/from river for water

and land vehicles.

� Urban growth shall be restricted from encroaching into

significant wetlands.

Objectives:

Space shall be provided for river use facilities, includ-

ing public and private docks, haul out areas, launch ramps,

7-4

commercial cargo handling facilities and floatplane ports.

The Comprehensive Plan shall be revised to exclude presently

underdeveloped areas of significant wetlands from future

growth.

Policies:

Priority shall be given to waterfront uses which are water-

dependent and water-related.

Adequate opportunities for subsistence use of the river

shall be provided.

Increased public access to the river for land and water

vehicles shall be provided.

Development along the waterfront shall allow for adequate

public access.

The river, inculding tributaries and sloughs, shall be

kept free of navigation hazards.

Implementation:

A riverfront study shall be initiated that will identify

needs and alternative sites for water-dependent and water-

related uses such as: the off-loading of fish; float plane

bases; subsistence use.

The City shall develop and adopt a land use plan for the

riverfront area.

The City shall amend the Comprehensive Plan to address

future urban development in significant wetlands.

7-5

The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above.

When necessary the City shall also seek federal, state or

other sources of implementation funds.

COMMUNITYGROWTH

Issue:

Bethel has grown in the absence of a comprehensive plan,

which has produced a pattern of mixed land use as well as

a problem of providing services to new residential areas.

The cost of providing services, particularly water, sewer

and road maintenance, to new, development should be a

factor in future decision making.

Goal:

. Growth in Bethel shall occur in an orderly manner.

Objectives:

� Provide adequate land for future types of land use which

are compatible with surrounding uses.

� Permit development at a rate and location in which it is

possible to provide public services.

� Develop a strategy whereby future capital service expansion

costs for the private sector, incurred by the City, can be

recovered.

7-6

Policies:

Future physical growth shall be developed in accord with

the City's Comprehensive Plan.

Development shall take place at a rate and location in

which it is possible to provide public services.

All future capital projects shall be consistent with the

City's Comprehensive Plan.

Developers shall be required to reimburse the City for

their share of capital costs for utilities.

Implementation:

The City shall update the Comprehensive Plan to include a

land use element.

The City shall develop a utilities plan which shall include

a schedule for the providing of services to newly developing

areas.

The Planning Commission shall consider findings of the

utilities plan in approving any new subdivisions. (This

does not preclude the developer from providing services.)

The City subdivision regulations shall include a requirement

that all new development be approved by the Planning Com-

mission after being certified by Public Works as being

within their capacity to service.

The City shall require feasibility studies that include

life cycle and operation and maintenance costs for all

capital projects. They shall also include cost recovery

projections.

7-7

� The City shall impose a user's fee to recover any costs

incurred in future capital service expansion.

� The City shall undertake a long range capital service

expansion study, and develop a plan to control such expan-

sion.

� The City shall initiate the ANCSA 14(c)(3) selection

process for public use property.

� The City shall develop a five year capital improvements

plan, which will be incorporated into the Comprehensive

Plan.

� The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When

necessary the City shall also seek federal, state or other

sources of implementation funds.

SUBSISTENCE

Issue:

A 1980 community survey indicated that approximately 70%

of Bethel residents acquire some form of their food supply

through subsistence activity. Subsistence is a way of life

for many and is considered an important part of the Bethel

lifestyle. Subsistence concerns must be taken into account

as further community development occurs.

7-8

Goa 1:

Subsistence shall be recognized as an important dimension

of the lifestyle of Bethel residents.

Objective:

Develop an open space system and other features of the

Comprehensive Plan that will facilitate the pursuit of

subsistence activities.

Designate the area most intensively used for subsistence

activities by Bethel residents as an Area Meriting Special

Attention (AMSA) and develop an appropriate management

plan for it.

7-9

Policies:

Drainageways, ponds, and significant wetlands shall be

kept free from encroaching development.

A trail system shall be integrated into future development

patterns.

Development shall be confined within the city limits of

Bethel, therefore preventing encroachment on surrounding

subsistence areas.

Implementation:

� Moorage and launch areas for small boats shall be provided.

� The Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to address the

subsistence resource use pattern.

� An open space system and/or other means to facilitate

land and water based subsistence activities.

� The City shall nominate the area used most intensively by

Bethel residents for subsistence activities as an Area

Meriting Special Attention (AM1,133A).

� The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above.

When necessary, the city shall seek additional federal,

state or other funds for implementation.

HABrrAT

Issues:

Residential and commercial development in Bethel alters

vegetation and topography through the creation of sand

7-10

pads and use of other construction techniques. Site

development sensitive to critical habitat characteristics

can reduce the impact on wildlife.

Goal:

A variety of habitats shall be maintained within the Bethel

City limits.

Objective:

Provide an open space system that will preserve the

different habitat types.

Policy:

Drainageways, ponds and significant wetlands shall be kept

free from encroaching development.

The preservation of other 'habitat types, such as moist

tundra, shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive

Plan.

Implementation:

The City shall establish appropriate setbacks.

The Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to set forth

mechanisms for maintaining open space in various habitats.

The City shall provide funds for the above. When necessary,

federal, state or other funds shall be sought for implemen-

tation.

7-11

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Issue:
The area in and around the City of Bethel contains extensive

wetlands. Some wetlands experience annual flooding from the

Kuskokwim River, while other wetland locations serve as

drainageways or temporary water holding areas. The signi-

ficance of these wetlands varies and development policy

needs to be formulated for future growth. (See wetlands

section for more details.)

2effi

... .......

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

Goal:

Develop a wetlands management strategy that will reduce

the impact of flooding on structures and properties in the

city.

7-12

Facilitate local compliance with federal law.

objectives:

. obtain general permit for residential development from the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

. Facilitate permit application process for other types of

development in wetlands in the City.

. Develop information for area wetlands that meets Corps and

other agency criteria.

. Develop a comprehensive wetlands inventory and plan.

Policies:

. Development within the City shall be consistent with

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Corps of Engineers

regulations.

. New urban development shall not be allowed in significant

wetlands.

Implementation:

. The City shall seek a general permit for residential

development from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

. The City shall develop a permit review process (subdivision,

building, etc.) that shall encourage development compatible

with wetlands.

. The--City shall provide citizens with information and general

assistance on the C.O.E. permit process for wetlands.

The Comprehensive Plan shall be revised to eliminate urban

development within significant wetlands.

7-13

The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When

necessary the City shall also seek federal, state or other

sources of funds for implementation.

SURFACE DRAINAGE

Issue:

Development has occurred with little understanding of the

overall drainage pattern within the City. Consequently, the

natural drainageway has been disrupted, crossings have been

inadequately culverted and inundation and erosion problems

have been created. The City needs an overall drainage plan

as a prelude for future development.

. . . . . .

7-14

Goal:

. Provide for adequate surface drainage.

objective:

Develop a drainage element as part of the Comprehensive

Plan.

Policies:

. Development in the City shall not interfere with natural

drainage patterns.

.Drainageways and ponds shall be kept free from encroaching

development.

.No development shall take place without adequate measures

to provide for natural surface drainage.

.Natural drainageways and catchment basins shall be the

preferred use for managing surface drainage.

.Roads shall be properly ditched and culverted.

Implementation:

. The City shall initiate a surface drainage study.

. The City shall assist citizens and require that they meet

drainage standards.

.The City shall act to provide adequate drainage across/

through city streets and properties.

.Adequate surface drainage shall be a determinant in the

design review and permit processes for any new subdivisions.

.Setbacks shall be established for streams and ponds.

7-15

oversize culverts with thaw pipes shall be installed in

future development.

Road banks shall be seeded to reduce erosion.

The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When

necessary the City shall also seek federal, state or other

sources of funds so that these will be accomplished.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Issue:

Approximately one-third of the City is on a sewer system

which is dumped into a lagoon, and the lagoon is estimated

to be at capacity by 1990. The remainder of the City

receives a honey bucket or vacuum pump collection service.

However, a significant amount of sewage finds its way into

the streams or the river. A solution is needed for the

City's waste disposal problems.

Goals:

� Strive for unpolluted ponds, sloughs, streams and the

,Kuskokwim River.

� Provide a litter free city and adequate disposal of solid

waste.

objectives:

� Develop adequate sewage collection measures for the City.

� Develop adequate sewage treatment measures for the City.

7-16

. Develop solid waste disposal system adequate for City

needs.

. Study the actual impact of gray water runoff, and develop

any necassary strategies to lessen negative effects.

. Initiate a study to determine the effects of and alterna-

tives for fish processing by-product disposal.

Policies:

. A waste disposal plan for the City shall be developed and

incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. All actions shall

be consistent with that plan.

. Sewage, waste and gray water disposal in Bethel shall meet

the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation stan-

dards.

Implementation:

� The City shall initiate a study to examine alternative

methods of sewage collection in the City.

� The City shall initiate a study to examine alternative

methods of sewage treatment in the City.

� The City shall initiate a study to identify and evaluate

means of collection and disposal of solid waste.

. The City shall initiate a study to identify and evaluate

the impact of gray water runoff. The study shall also

identify alternative means of lessening negative effects.

� The City shall seek funds for a fish by-product disposal

study.

7-17

� The City shall use ANCSA 14(c)(3) process to secure future

waste disposal sites.

� The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When

necessary the City shall also seek federal, state or other

sources of implementation funds.

AIR QUAUTY

Issue:

Blowing sand and silt represent a problem during the summer

months. Not only does it irritate the eyes and get into the

home and damage machinery, but it eventually gets into the

streams in the form of sediment. Exposed cover needs to be

seeded where possible.

Goal:

. Minimize blowing sand and silt.

objective: .

. Control the release source of the wind-borne material.

Policies:

� The City shall develop standards to control the release of

wind-borne sand and silt from roads, sand pads and sand

pits.

� Development shall. be carried out in a manner which keeps

blowing sand and silt under reasonable control.

� Roads shall be covered with gravel.

7-18

Implementation:

. The City shall encourage property owners to establish

vegetation on sand pads.

. The Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to address the

reclamation (revegetation) of lands so that appropriate

action is taken.

. The City shall seed roadbanks and encourage vegetation on

private roads.

. The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When

necessary the City shall also seek federal, state or other

sources of implementation funds.

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS & TRAILS
FOR OFF -ROAD VEHICLES

Issue:

A conflict exists between automobile, other motorized,

and pedestrian traffic. The Bethel road system does not

provide for transportation other than automobiles. Commu-

nity growth has brought about a need to define a trail

system that will improve the safety of pedestrians and

the operators of snowmachines and other off-road vehicles.

Goal:

Minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts by providing a

safe city-wide trail system.

Objectives:

Develop a trail system element as part of the Comprehensive

7-19

Plan which addresses pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

� Design and construct a trail system that minimizes pedes-

trian and vehicular conflict.

� Improve pedestrian access.

Policies:

� The City trail system shall be integrated with future

development.

�Future development shall take place in such a way as to

minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflict.

�Future development shall be compatible with the city-wide

trail system.

Implementation:

� Maps shall be drawn of existing trails within the City.

� The trail element of the Comprehensive Plan shall be

completed and adopted.

� The trail system shall be designed.

�The City shall acquire and designate land or easements for

trails. The ANCSA 14(c)(3) process may be used to acquire

these lands and/or easements.

�The City shall provide adequate safety measures on trails.

�Boardwalks and trails shall be repaired or constructed

where needed.

�The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above.

When necessary, state, federal or other funds shall be

sought to implement the above.

7-20

RELATIONSHIP OF ISSUES TO
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Riverbank Erosion

The Geophysical Hazards section discusses erosion rates

of the Kuskokwim River and explains the erosional process at

Bethel. Maps are included that predict the advance of the

riverfront based on a historic and decreasing rate. The

Geophysical Hazards section also discusses the City of Bethel's

comprehensive bank stabilization program. The Transportation

section discusses seawall projects at the cargo dock and

fuel dock and illustrates the importance of the River as a

transportation corridor. The Subsistence section emphasizes

the importance of the river as a subsistence resource. The

Recreation section mentions the use of the river as a popular

recreation area. All important uses of the riverfront must

be considered when planning for bank stabilization projects.

Use of the River and Riverfront

The physical characteristics of the Kuskokwim River are

discussed in the Hydrology section. The actions of the

river often determine the time of year, the length, and the

type of activity that occurs on the river. The primary

concern of use of the river is the availability of proper

access. Access needs to be insured for a variety of uses that

are specifically discussed in this report. The uses include:

subsistence, transportation, commerce, commercial fishing,

7-21

and recreation. Riverbank stabilization projects need to con-

sider the many uses of the river so that none are prevented by

seawall construction. Future planning of riverfront use must

consider existing land ownership and existing land use. Pocket

fold-out maps of land ownership and land use are provided in

the back of this report. Potential future economic activities,

that may need to be considered when planning for riverfront

use includes outer continental shelf activities, forest develop-

ment, mining, and tourism.

Community Growth

Bethel's rapid population growth in recent decades has had

profound effects on the economy and lifetyle of Bethel. A

generation ago the culture was almost totally Native and the

economy predominantly subsistence. Now Bethel is at least

one-third non-Native and the cash economy is dominant. The

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) awarded land allot-

ments to eligible Natives. ANCSA has created an interesting

planning situation for Bethel in that 30% of the land within

the City limits is pending native allotment applications and

are not subject to state or local jurisdiction.

The direct cause of Bethel's rapid population growth has

been economic growth particularly in the government, transpor-

tation and service sectors. Benefits of economic growth have

been increased per capita income and better community and

utility services. However., negative impacts caused by overly

rapid growth include a severe housing shortage and heavy strain

7-22

on community services. The economy of Bethel is in a vulner-

able position because of an overdependence on government and

support industries such as transportation and service. Con-

tinued large government cutbacks could have a devastating

impact on the Bethel economy. The economy may potentially

expand from the development of a tourist industry, upriver

forest development, or outer continental shelf activities.

Subsistence

The patterns of subsistence use are identified in the

Cultural Resources section of the Resource Assessment. The

importance of subsistence is noted throughout the Assessment.

Access to the river and riverfront for subsistence purposes

is discussed in the Riverfront Land Use chapter and Transpor-

tation section of the Assessment.

Discussions of Habitat, Bird Life, Vegetation, Mammals,

and Fishes are all pertinent to the issue of subsistence, as

is the discussion of Commercial Fishing. The chapter which

proposes that an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) be

established for the area used most intensively for subsistence

activities by Bethel residents provides additional information

on this topic.

Habitat

The discussions of Hydrology, Habitats, Vegetation, Bird

Life, Mammals and Fishes all pertain to the issue of habitat

and indicate a need to maintain a system of open space within

7-23

the city. Related issues include Subsistence, Recreation,

Drainage and Wetlands.

Future planning for open space must refer to current

land use and ownership as well as economic activities.

Of particular importance is the matter of city owned land and/

or easements, and the negotiations currently underway with

the Bethel Native Corporation for ANCSA 14(c)(3) lands. See

Land Use and Land Ownership sections.

Wetland Management

Wetland habitats, subject to the Alaska Coastal Manage-

ment Program, have been defined in the Coastal Habitat section.

The importance of wetland habitats to fish and wildlife

resources and the continuance of a subsistence lifestyle and

commercial and sport utilization of these resources is implicit

throughout the report. Specific mention of environmental

concerns associated with future development in wetland areas

is found in the discussion of the small boat harbor, contained

in the section on Transportation.

Surface Drainage

Surface drainage is discussed in the Hydrology section.

Due to low profile, undulating topography, and the presence

of permafrost, no dominant stream systems have been able to

develop. A major portion of the area is imperfectly drained

which results in extensive areas of standing water. The

impact of increased urban development without consideration

7-24

of natural drainage is discussed in the Geophysical Hazards and

Public Works sections. Large scale maps (1":100') have been

prepared for the City to illustrate local surface water movement.

The maps will be useful in the siting of new roads and sites

for location of sand pad foundations. However, a more compre-

hensive drainage study is recommended.

Waste Disposal

The City of Bethel's existing methods of waste disposal

are identified in the Utilities section. This section includes

some discussion on the limitations of the City to provide con-

ventional waste disposal services to the entire community.

The need for expanded services and the development of a compre-

hensive utility plan is implicit.

Air Quality

The major air quality concern expressed by residents of

Bethel is the blowing of sand and silt. The level of wind borne

materials may be reduced with improved construction methods,

the seeding of sand pads, and revegetation of exposed areas

which would prevent or mitigate further onshore erosion. On-

shore erosion is addressed in the Geophysical Hazards section.

Pedestrian Walkways and Trails for Winter Off Road Vehicles

The designation of a city-wide winter trail system in

Bethel would greatly benefit the community. With the increased

utilization of 3-wheelers and snow machines for transport,

problems are certain to arise as new developments obstruct

7-25

commonly used trails (see Transportation section). The major

local and regional trails have been identified and are illus-

trated in figure 14.

In spite of the recent increases in the numbers of cars

in Bethel, a large portion of the community still uses foot

travel as the primary mode of transport. Safe pedestrian

walkways are at a minimum and need expansion. Boardwalks are

discussed in the Transportation subchapter. See also the

Recreation discussion.

7-26

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

one of the principles of the coastal management program

is to use - to the greatest extent possible - existing govern-

mental authorities and agencies to implement local coastal

management plans. Within state and federal government, a

number of cabinet level departments, as well as divisions

and agencies within those departments, have statutory respon-

sibilities that relate directly or indirectly to matters of

concern in the coastal area. Local ordinances and actions

also affect matters of concern in the coastal management

plan.

The Alaska Coastal Management Act did not bestow new

legal authority on municipalities. It did create the mechanism

of "consistency" to ensure the implementation of coastal

management plans. That means that although agencies do not

lose their management responsibility or authority within a

coastal district, they do have to ensure that their actions

are consistent with the approved coastal management plan.

Appendix IV lists existing state and federal management

authorities that directly or indirectly affect implementation

of the coastal management plan in Bethel. Persons wishing to

develop projects within Bethel are also required to see that

pertinent state/federal requirements are met. Satisfying

concerns of this plan as stated in policies and standards

does not exempt the developer from meeting other federal/state
requirements that may exist. 7-27

USES & ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO
THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The State of Alaska Coastal Management program guidelines

specify several uses subject to the coastal management program,

and allows local districts to add other uses that will be

subject to their plans.

The City of Bethel plan sets standards for all new

development and construction in the city limits. Specific

activities covered include, but are not limited to:

. Construction of residential, commercial, industrial, or

public facilities.

. Subdivisions

. Development in wetlands

. Development along the waterfront

. Development in hazardous areas

Erosion control measures

Subsistence Use

Trails

Recreation

Energy Facilities

Transportation and Utilities

Fish & Seafood Processing

Timber Harvest & Processing

Mining and Mineral Processing

7-28

Uses of State Concern

Land uses that significantly affect the long term public

interest have been singled out in the Alaska Coastal Management

Program (ACMP) for special treatment. They are called "uses of

state concern", and include:

� Coastal land uses "of national interest", specifically,

� ports that contribute to meeting national energy needs;

� facilities that contribute to meeting national energy

needs;

� navigational facilities and systems;

� development of resources on federal lands;

� national defense and security facilities.

� Land uses of more than local concern, including those that

confer significant environmental, social, cultural or eco-

nomic benefits or burdens beyond a single coastal management

district;

� Major energy, industrial, or commercial facilities, that,

because of their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect

on the state's economy or the regional economy, are issues

of more than local significance;

� Transportation or communications facilities that serve

statewide or interregional needs;

� State parks, state recreational areas, state game refuges,

state game sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas esta-

blished by statute.

7-29

ACMP guidelines state that these uses must be treatea fairly

in local plans, and not be unreasonably excluded or restricted.

Policies in the Bethel plan generally reflect state coastal manage-

ment objectives, and do not unreasonably exclude or restrict

these uses.

Proper and Improper Uses

Uses that are consistent with the standards and policies

set forth in the coastal management plan are to be considered

proper uses. Uses not consistent with the policies and standards

are improper uses.

The standards and policies for the Bethel Coastal Management

program are set out below.

7-30

POLICIES AND STANDARDS

The state guidelines for the coastal management program

specify a number of uses that must be addressed in a local

coastal management plan, in addition to any issues the local

jurisdiction may want to include in the plan. This section

lists all the uses that will be covered by the Bethel coastal

management plan, and tells the developer what standards must be

met for any of those uses. To make this document easier to

use, most of the detailed standards are included in the appendices

to this report, rather than in the text. A f ew, such as the

city riverfront land use plan, are not complete at the time of

this printing so the reader will have to obtain them separately

from the City of Bethel Planning Department.

GENERAL POLICIES WHICH APPLY TO
ALL DEVELOPMENT IN CITY LIMITS

Community Growth

. Future physical growth shall be developed in accord

with the City's Comprehensive Plan.

.Future subdivisions shall comply with the City's Land

Subdivision Regulations, (City ordinance #135).

.Development shall take place at a rate and location in

which it is possible to provide public services.

.All future capital projects shall be consistent with

the City's Comprehensive Plan.

7-31

� Developers shall be requixed to reimburse the City for

their share of capital costs for utilities.

�Future development shall take place in such a way as

to minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflict.

�Future development shall be compatible with the city-

wide trail system.

Wetlands Development

� New urban development shall not be allowed in signifi-

cant wetlands.

� Development in the City shall be consistent with Section

404 of the Clean Water Act, and Corps of Engineers

regulations.

Drainage

All future development shall meet. drainage standards

being developed by the City. These standards will be

based on the following principles:

- Development in the city shall not interfere with

natural drainage patterns.

- Drainageways and ponds shall be kept free from

encroaching development.

- No development shall take place without adequate

measures to provide for natural surface drainage.

- Natural drainageways and catchment basins shall be

the preferred use for managing surface drainage.

7-32

Roads shall be properly ditched and culverted.

Until such time as a specific ordinance regulating drainage

is adopted, these general principles shall be used.

Subdivisons shall meet drainage standards as outlined

in the City's Land Subdivision Regulations.

Habitat

. All drainageways, ponds and significant wetlands shall

be kept free from future encroachment.

. The preservation of other habitat types, such as moist

tundra, shall be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.

Waste Disposal

. A waste disposal plan for the City shall be developed

and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. All actions

shall be consistent with that plan.

. Sewage, waste and gray water disposal in Bethel shall

meet the Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva-

tion standards.

Air Quality

. The City shall develop standards to control the release

of wind-borne sand and silt from roads, sand pads and

sand pits.

. Development shall be carried out in a manner which keep

blowing sand and silt under reasonable control.

7-33

Roads shall be covered with gravel.

Development along the Waterfront

Development along the riverfront shall be consistent

with the City Riverfront Land Use Plan, which is being

written. The plan will be based on the following poli-

cies, and until such time as the plan is adopted by

ordinance these general policies shall apply:

- Priority for development along the waterfront shall

be given to water dependent and water related uses

and activities.

- other uses will also be allowed if adequate space

is provided for water dependent and related uses.

- Adequate opportunities for subsistence use of the

river shall be provided.

- Increased public access to the river for land and

water vehicles shall be provided.

- Land shall be provided for recreational use.

- Development along the riverfront shall allow for

adequate public access.

- The river, including tributaries and sloughs, shall

be kept free of navigation hazards.

Geophysical Hazards (Development in Hazardous Areas)

New urban development shall not be allowed in areas of

the 100 year flood plain designated as significant

wetlands.

7-34

. Residential construction in already platted and devel-

oped flood plain areas not in the significant wetlands

shall be allowed if it meets the requirements of the

National Flood insurance Program.

.Development in areas threatened by erosion shall not

be permitted unless siting, design and construction

standards for minimizing property damage and protecting

against loss of life are met.

Subsistence Use

. Drainageways, ponds, and significant wetlands shall be

kept free from encroaching development.

.Adequate opportunities for subsistence use of the river

shall be provided.

.A trail system shall be integrated into future develop-

ment patterns.

.Development shall be confined within the city limits

of Bethel, therefore preventing encroachment on sur-

rounding subsistence areas.

POLICIES WHICH APPLY TO
SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES

Erosion Control Measures

Adequate access shall be a determinant in the design

process for erosion control measures.

7-35

Adequate space for commercial and industrial use shall

be a determinant in the design process for erosion

control measures.

Trails

A trail system shall be integrated into future develop-

ment patterns.

Recreation

� Adequate recreational facilities shall be provided.

� Municipal properties shall be designated for recre-

ational purposes. This includes open space, boardwalks,

and other facilities.

� A long range park and recreational facilities plan

shall be developed.

Energy Facilities

Any energy facility necessary for future development

shall be sited according to the standards included in

the A.C.M.P.

Transportation and Utilities

� Transportation and utility development shall meet the

standards in the City's Land Subdivision Regulation

ordinance, and drainage plan.

� Transportation and utility routes and facilities shall

comply with the A.C.M.P. standards.

7-36

Fish and Seafood Processing

. Development of new facilities for commercial fishing

and fish processing shall meet the general standards in

this plan.

.The riverfront land use plan shall identify sites

suitable for expansion of this industry.

Timber Harvest and Processing

.The riverfront land use plan shall identify possible

sites for timber processing.

.Timber harvest and processing shall meet A.C.M.P.

standards.

Mining and Mineral Processing

mining and mineral processing shall meet A.C.M.P.

standards.

7-37

@j
i
I
I
I
i
i
i -M,
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I PLEMENTATION

i
I CHAPTER 8
I

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementing a plan is both the most difficult and the

most important task facing a planner. Unless the ideas in a

plan are put into action, it remains a mere collection of

papers, collecting dust on a shelf.

This plan is no exception. Fortunately, the design of

the Alaska Coastal Management Program provides several tools

for this. one, "cons istency", allows the plan to affect

actions beyond those of the City proper. This is described

in the section titled "Policies and Standards: How they will

be implemented by State and Federal agencies."

For purely local actions, the City will use existing

authorities to implement the policies as allowed for in Title

29. How this will be done is discussed in the following

section.

Policies and Standards: How they will be implemented locally

The crux of this plan is the many policies and standards

identified in the previous chapter. These can be considered

the "rules" of the coastal management program. Whether backed

by Cityordinance (such as the subdivision ordinance), federal

law (such as wetlands permitting), or a statement of policy

(such as the directive to integrate future development with a

trail system), these are the guidelines which shall be followed

8-1

... ..... . . .

.. ..... ...

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

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

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

@".QK

f@::@..:::J:@.@::!@: @!j
... ..... . ....... ........ .... .

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

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

,gM

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

..........

.... .......

. .. ...... .

8-2

once this plan is adopted. In all cases, developers should

plan their projects with these guidelines in mind. Decision

makers, such as Planning Commissioners, or state and federal

agencies, will use these guidelines in deciding whether or

not to grant approval to a proposed project.

This plan does not establish any new review procedures

or new layers of bureaucracy. It relies on existing proce-

dures, such as the building permit system or subdivision

approval. It does add new standards to these procedures.

It also gives new responsibilities to the decision makers,

such as the Planning Commission, as they must ensure their

actions are in conformance with this plan.

For routine lodal actions, such as the granting of

building permits, the Planning Department will add the coastal

management policies to the criteria used in granting a permit.

For example, one of the criteria now used in issuing a building

permit is whether or not the new structure meets the yard

requirement for distance from the property line. When this

plan is adopted, the Planning Department will, as part of the

routine processing of a building permit, also check to see,

e.g. , that adequate drainage measures are taken. This may

add some time to the processing of a building permit, but

developers can continue to expect a 2 to 3 day processing

time on routine permits.

For actions that go before Planning Commission for review,

such as subdivision approval, the Planning Department will

8-3

prepare a written statement on the proposed development, its

impact on coastal resources, and how it meets the coastal

management policies and standards. This, in essence, will be

a local "consistency" determination. The Planning Commission

will then use this analysis in its review of the project.

If the project does not meet coastal management policies

and standards, informal steps will be taken by the Planning

Department to resolve the differences. If these are not

successful, the analysis provided to the Commission will note

the discrepancies and provide suggestions for taking care of

them. If a project does not meet these policies the Planning

Commission will deny approval, as they would if it did not

meet the requirements of any other applicable ordinance.

Adding the consistency analysis to projects going before

Planning Commission will increase the time needed for proces-

sing, as the staff shall prepare the written analysis prior

to the Planning Commission meeting. If a developer presents

a proposed project to the Planning Department a minimum of

three weeks prior to the Commission meeting, this will usually

provide adequate time to perform and prepare the consistency

review. Developers are advised to contact the Planning

Department in the early stages of their planning, to provide

for adequate consideration and discussion of the project,

and avoid unnecessary delays.

Many projects will also need state or federal permits.

Wetlands permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are

8-4

currently required by federal law for all construction in

Bethel. (If a general permit for residential construction is

granted to the City, most residential development will be

exempt from this requirement: see chapter 5.) The City is

not responsible for issuing these permits but does have a

role in reviewing them for consistency with the local coastal

management plan. Developers are responsible for applying for

any needed permits for their projects.

When agencies or clearinghouses send the Planning Depart-

ment a notice of pending permit action on a project that

will affect Bthel, the proposed project will be reviewed for

consistency with coastal management policies and standards.

The Planning Department will prepare this analysis, and send

a copy of its findings to the permitting agency (or clearing-

house) and the applicant.

City response to permit notifications will be within the

time limits imposed. Developers should be aware that the

time required for processing state and federal permits varies,

but is usually quite lengthy.

All consistency analyses will be prepared by the Planning

Department. If a development does not meet coastal management

standards, informal attempts will be made to resolve the

problem. If no resolution is possible, a recommendation to

deny approval will be made. In some instances, the analysis

may recommend specific stipulations be included in the permit

which would bring the project into conformance with the
policies and standards. 8-5

Field checks will be carried out through observation by

a planning department staff member trained in the coastal

management standards and policies.

Enforcement, when necessary, will be carried out according

to existing local ordinances and/or pursuant to existing state/

federal regulations. No new mechanisms are being established

by this plan.

Developers are encouraged to discuss their projects with

the Planning Department in the early planning stages. This

way the Department can ensure that the developer is aware of

requirements the project will have to meet early enough to

avoid delays or extensive modification of a project. Also,

Planning Department staff can provide suggestions on how to

best meet relevant requirements.

Policies and Standards: How they will be implemented by State

and Federal Agencies

The mechanism of "consistency" means that once this plan

is adopted by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and, later,

the Federal Department of Commerce, both state and federal

agencies must ensure that their actions are consistent with

this plan. This af tects agency actions: any projects they

may plan in Bethel must meet the policies and standards.

Probably more importantly, their decisions on permits

must be based on local coastal management policies and

standards, as well as their own criteria. Local review and

comments on permit action will influence agency decisions.

8-6

In the case of federally initiated activities, the agency

charged with making the federal consistency determination

must contact the local district and must give "great weight"

to the views of the district regarding the project's consis-

tency with the district program. ("Great weight" means

shifting the burden of proof to the deciding agency to reach

a contrary decision.)

For state initiated or regulated activities, Bethel

requests notification for any state activity or permit action

within the city limits or that will have an impact on the

city for any use or activity subject to the coastal management

program. Upon notification of a pending action or permit

decision by the state agency, the Planning Department will

submit its written analysis of the project's consistency with

the local coastal management plan. This will be done within

the time limits imposed. The state agency must give "great

weight" to the views of the district.

Meeting Goals and objectives

Another aspect of implementing the plan involves the

follow through on the goals and objectives listed in Chapter

7. Most pf these activities will be the responsibility of

the Planning Department: for example, amending the Comprehen-

sive Plan or developing a drainage plan. Planning Department

will pursue these objectives as aggressively as possible

given staff and budget constraints.

8-7

Once adopted, this plan becomes City policy and will

.guide City actions. in some instances, activities listed as

implementation steps in chapter 7 are appropriate to a City

department other than Planning. In such cases, City Admini-

stration will be responsible for seeing that the follow-

through is made. Planning Department will assist in that

process to the extent possible. of course, it is ultimately

the responsibility of City Council to see that the coastal

management plan is followed.

Organization and Staffing

Throughout this chapter reference has been made to the

Planning Department as the City entity responsible for local

implementation of coastal management policies and standards,

and the contact for state and federal decision-makers. As

staff to the Planning Commission and the City department

charged with planning responsibilities, this is the most

appropriate department to handle these tasks.

Current staffing includes a Planning Director, Planner,

Planning Technician, and Coastal management Coordinator. The

Planner is currently responsible for performing consistency

reviews. Given the uncertainty of continued funding for

coastal management, it is not possible to project department

staffing levels. Therefore all correspondence related to

coastal management should be addressed to the Planning Depart-

ment and it will be routed internally as appropriate.

8-8

I
f
I
i
I

.1
I PUBUC PARTICIPATION
-i S-@UBSTANTIATION
I
I

7
1
1-1
I
I
I
@i
CHAPTER 9
`1
I
ew

PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION SUBSTANTIATION

The Alaska Coastal Managemeiit Program requires that a

district program include "evidenceof effective and significant

opportunities for public participation" in development of the

coastal management program (6 AAC 85.110).

This chapter summarizes the efforts made by the City of

Bethel to involve and inform local residents of the coastal

management planning process. Considerable energy has gone into

this effort, based on the belief that this plan should address

issues identified by citizens, and use their opinions and wisdom

in fashi.oning solutions to existing problems.

The basic element in the effort to ensure the representation

of different viewpoints in the planning process has been the for-

mation of the "coastal management working group". Representation

from various organizations was sought, including the Bethel

Native Corporation, Orutsaramuit Native Council, Lousetown

Development Association, Cenaliulriit (Yukon Kuskokwim Coastal

Resource Service Area Board), private individuals, and City of

Bethel Parks and Recreation Committee, Planning Commission and

City Council.

The working group met frequently in the development of

this draft, providing coastal management staff with considerable

guidance and feedback, particularly regarding issues, goals, ob-

jectives, implementation, and policies. Working group meetings

9-1

were also open to the public. (Notes and/or tapes of all public

meetings are available in the City's record of public meetings

for coastal management.)

Additionally, two general public meetings and one public

hearing have been held prior to the publication of this draft.

The public meetings were held in October, 1981 and February,

1982. Both were widely advertised in the local newspaper, The

Tundra Drums, and announced over radio KYUK. The October

meeting was an introduction to coastal management and an

opportunity for the public to identify issues. The February

meeting was held to review the Preliminary Report, published

that month. Also shown at the February public meeting was a

slide show, developed by coastal management staff, entitled

"Coastal Management: A Local Perspective". The slide show has

also been shown over KYUK -television (channel 4), the local

public T.V. station.

At the public hearing in March (1982), the City Council

accepted the Preliminary Report. Prior to this hearing, the

Coastal Management Coordinator reviewed the planning efforts to

that point on "Yuk to Yuk", an hour long local radio talk show.

Other efforts to inform the public include columns in the

local newspaper, a summary of the preliminary report which was

published as an insert to the newspaper (February 1982) with

extra copies distributed around town, and an update on coastal

management planning efforts which was mailed to all boxholders

(October 1982).

9-2

Opportunity for public comment on this Public Hearing

Draft is being provided according to the cover letter to

reviewers, and will meet A.C.M.P. requirements.

9-3

I ,
1-
I
I,
I
t
1
J,
II APPENDICES
j
i
-1
,I
'I
I
i
I
i
ali

-- I

I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX I
I
I PLANTS, MAMMALS &
I FISH IN STUDY AREA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

;L;@

IMPORTANT PLANTS OF THE WET TUNDRA COMMUNITY

Characteristic Species

Bog orchid Platauthera dilatata
Cotton grass Eriophorum angustifolium
ssp. subarciicum
Sphagnum moss Sphagnum rubellum

Additional Species

Shrubs

Dwarf birch Betula nang ssp. exilis
Blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum
Labrador tea Ledum palustre ssp. decumbens
Willow Salix ru-scescens
Herbs Bistort Polygohum bistorta ssp. plumosum
Bur reed Sparganium sp.
Bog cranberry Oxycoccus microcarpus
Mare's tail Hippuris vulgaris
Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris ssp. arctica
Pond weed Potamogetan sp.
Wild flag setosa ssp. setosa

Grasses and Sedges

Beach rye grass Elymus arenarius ssp. mollis
March arrowgrass Triglochin palustris
Oat grass Hordeum brach-y-a-n-t-F-erium
Rush Luzula wahlenbergii ssp. piperi
Sedge Carex pluriflora
Spear rye grass Poa eminens

Fern Relatives

Fir clubmoss Lycopodium selago ssp. selago
Quilwort Isoetes muricata ssp. maritima

Lichens, mosses and liverworts

A-I-1

IMPORTANT PLANTS OF THE MOIST TUNDRA COMMUNITY

Characteristic Species

Crowberry Empetrum migrum ssp. nigrum
Sedge Carex saxatilis
Hair Moss Dicranum sp.
Reindeer linchen Cladonia sp.

Additional Species

Shrubs

Arctic willow Salix arctica ssp. crassijulis
Blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum
Cranberry V."Vitis-idaea ssp. minus
Drawf birch Bethula nang ssp. exilis

Herbs

Aster Aster sibiricus
Bistort Polygonum bistorta ssp. plumosum
Buttercup Ranunculus Eschscholtzii
Goldthread Coptis trifolia
Lousewort Pedicularis Kanei ssp. Kanei
- Fi-
Monkshood Aconitum delp nifolium ssp.
delphinifolium
Violet Viola epipsila ssp. repens

Grasses and Sedges

Bentgrass Agrostis borealis
Bluejoint reed grass Calamagrostis canadensis
Cotton grass Eriophorum angustifolium ssp.
subarcticum
Hair grass Deschampsia caespitosa
Mountain timothy Phleum commutatum
Wood rush Luzula paFv-iflora
Sedge Carex pluriflora

Fern Relatives

Alpine clubmoss Lycopodium alpinum
Fir clubmoss L. Selago ssp. selago

Lichens and Mosses

A-1-2

IMPORTANT PLANTS OF THE HIGH BRUSH COMMUNITY

Characteristic Species

Felt leaf willow Salix alaxensis
Littletree willow S. arbusculoides
Thin leaf alder Alnus tenuifolia

Additional Species

Shrubs

Alpine azalea Loiseleuria procumbeus
Green alder Alnus crispa ssp. Crispa
Narrow leaf Labrador tea Ledum palustre ssp. decumbeus
Prickly rose Rosa acicularis
Dwarf birch Betula nana

Herbs

Alpine pyrola Pyrola asarifolia
Bluebell Mertensia paniculata
Geranium Geranium erianthum
Lupine Lupinus nootkatensis
Twinflower Linnaea borealis

Grasses

Bentgrass Agrostis scabra
Bluejoint reedgrass Calamagrostis canadensis
Fescue Festuca ovina

Ferns and Fern Relatives

Naked fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris
Grown cedar Lycopodium complanatum
Horsetail Equistum arvense

Lichens and Mosses

A-i-3

MAMMALS OF THE BETHEL STUDY AREA

Scientific Name Common Name

Sorex arancus Arctic Shrew
Sorex caecutiens Mask Shrew
Sorex palustris Water Shrew
Sorex obscurus Dusky Shrew
Microsorex hoy'l Pigmy Shrew
Lepus americanus Snowshoe Hare
Lepus othus Arctic Hare
Cast r canadensis Beaver
Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Collared Lemming
Sunaptomys--Fo-realis Bog Lemming
Lemmus trimucronatus Brown Lemming
Clethrionomys rutiluTs Red-backed Vole
Microtus miurus Tundra Vole
Microtus oeconomus Meadow Vole
Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat
Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse
Mustela rixoza Least Weasel
Mustela uison Mink
Alopex lagopus Arctic Fox
Vulpes Vulpes Red Fox
Lutra canadensis Land Otter
Ursus americanus Black Bear
Alces alces Moose
Canus lupes Wolf
Gulo gulo Wolverine

A-I-4

FISHES OF THE KUSKOKWIM RIVER

Scientific Name Common Name

Lampetra japonica Arctic Lamprey
Stenodus leucichtyhs Sheefish
Coregonus nasus Broad Whitefish
Coregonus pidschian Humpback Whitefish
Coregonus albula Least Cisco
Coregonus autumnalis Arctic Cisco
Prosopium cylindraceum Round Whitefish
Oncorhynchus tsha@y`tscha King Salmon
Oncorhynchus nerka Red Salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon
OncorhyncFu-s`-g`6`-r5uscha Pink Salmon
Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon
Salmo gYl-rdnerii Rainbow Trout
Salvelinus alpinus Arctic Char
Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout
Thymallus arcticus Grayling
Osmerus eperlanus Boreal Smelt
Llypomesus olidus Pond Smelt
Dallia pectoralis Blackfish
Esox lucius Northern Pike
To-talota Burbot
Catostomus catostomus Longnose Sucker
Cott-us cognatus Slimy Sculpin
Pungitius pungitius Ninespine Stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback

A-I-5

I
1
I
1
I
I APPENDIX 11
I
I
I
I GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

0
1

-259-

GAME M/

23 25

20
21

19
14
16

6
15
7 5

10
Yukon Kuskokwim Re

I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX III
I
I
I SOURCES USED FOR
I RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1','.

SOURCES USED FOR
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Cl imate

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Marine/Coastal Habitat Management Map.

Alaska, State of. Alaska Regional Profiles. Volume III, Southwest Alaska,
1975.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. Oct. 1980.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Climactic Atlas of the Outer Continental Shelf Waters and Coastal Regions of Alaska,
Vo-ll. Funded by U.S. Department of Interior, 1977.

. Local Climatological Data - Bethel, Alaska. Annual Summary
with comparative Data, 1980.

Soils, Permafrost, and_Geology

Brady, Nyle C. The Nature and Property of Soils, 8th Edition. Copyright
1974, McMillan Publishing Co. Inc.

Hinton, Robert B. and Charles L. Girdner, Jr. Soils of the Bethel, Area,
Alaska. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, 1968.

U.S. Department of Interior, United States, Geological Survey. Geology of the
Bethel Quadrangle, Alaska (Map). Compiled by J.M. Hoare and W.L. Coonrad.
1959.

Permafrost Map of Alaska. Compiled by Oscar J. Ferrians, Jr.
1965.

A-III-1

Geophysical Hazards

Alaska, State of. Alaska Regional Profiles. Volume III, Southwest Region.

Boyette, Dan. (Personal Communication). Capital Projects Coordinator,
City of Bethel.

Galliet and Silides. Master Plan and Report for Port Development at Bethel,
Alaska. Prepared for the City of Bethel, Alaska. April, 1981.

Hoffman, James. (Personal Communication). United Transportation.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Bank Stabilization. Bethel, Alaska. Draft of
an Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report. April, 1981.

. Bethel Small Boat Harbot Report. Detailed
Project Report and Final Envi'ronmental Impact Statement, Bethel, Alaska.
August, 1981.

Flood Insurance Study. City of Bethel, Alaska.
Prepared for the Federal Insu'rance Administration, U.S. Depa--rt-m`en-t--o7
Housing and Urban Development. January, 1975.

. Flood Plain Information. Kuskokwim River, Bethel,
Alaska. Prepared fo--r--th-e City of Bethel. November, 1968.

Hydrology.

Alaska, State of. Alaska Regional Profiles, Volume III - Southwest Region.
1975.

Bethel, City of. Department of Public Works.

Hinton, Robert B. and Charles L. Girdner, Jr. Soils of the Bethel Area,
Alaska. U.S.'Department of Agriculture, Soil nservation Service, 1968.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood Insurance Study. City of Bethel, Alaska.
Prepared for the Federal Insurance Administration, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Janua'ry, 1975.

A-III-2

Flood Plain Information. Kuskokwim River, Bethel, Alaska.
Prepared for the Cify of Bethel. December, 1968.

Bank Stabilization, Bethel, Alaska. Draft of an Environ-
mental Impact Stateme*nt and Feasibility Report. 7@p_ril, 1981.

Bethel Small Boat Harbor Report. Detailed Project Report
and Final Environmental Impact Statement. August, 1981.

Vegetation

Alaska, State of. Alaska Regional Profiles - Southwest Region, Volume 111. 1975.

Hinton, Robert B. and Charles L. Girdner, Jr. Soils of the Bethel Area, Alaska.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1968.

Bird Life

Baxter, Rae. (Personal Communication). Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bethel.

Fortenbery, Donald K. Resources Inventory Southwest Planning Region, Migratory
Birds, Raptors, and Endangered Species. 1975.

Smith, Mike and Chuck Hunt. (Personal Communication). U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bethel.

Mammal

Alaska, State of. Alaska Regional Profiles - Southwest Region. 1975.

Baxter, Rae and Bruce Dinneford. (Personal Communication). Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Bethel.

Burns, John James. The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Mink in the Yukon@
Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. 1964.

Cardon, Randy. (Personal Communication). Game Biologist, Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, Anchorage.

A-IIi-3

Fi sh

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "Annual Salmon Management Report
1980 Kuskokwim Area". 1981.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Alaska Inventory and Cataloging Western
Alaska Waters. Sports Fish Division. Juneau, Alaska. 1977.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "Board Management Report Kuskokwim
Area 1981". Bethel.

Baxter, Rae and Keith Schultz. (Personal Communication). Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Bethel.

Baxter, Rae. "Eek River: Reconnaissance Survey 1976." Whitefish Research
Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bethel, Alaska. 1979.

. "Whitefish Investigations of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta"
Whitefish Research Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Bethel,
Alaska. 1975.

Seaman, Glenn. (Personal Communication). Habitat Biologist, Alaska Department
of Fish and Game, Coastal Management Program, Anchorage, Alaska.

History

Alaska Division of Parks. Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (micro-fiche),
Anchorage. 1981.

Dreydoppel, Sue. (Personal Communication). Curator, Yugtarkvik Regional
Museum. 1981.

Emphanka, Gus. (Personal Communication). 1981.

Hoffman, Edward. (Personal Communication). 1981.

Oswalt, Wendell H. Historic Settlements Along the Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
Alaska State L)brary Historical MonograpF-Fo-.-F.-

Schwalbe, Anna Buxbaum. Dayspring on the Kuskokwim. Moravian Press,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. 1951.

A-III-4

Transportation

Alaska Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles. Vehicle
Registration Statistics, Calendar Year 1980. Bethel Office.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Beth@el Airport
Land Use and Development Plan. October, 1979.

Bethel, City of, Finance Department. Sales Tax Master Sheet Printout.
December, 1981.

Boyette, Dan. (Personal Communication). City of Bethel. Capital Projects
Director.

Bush Air. Bethel, Alaska.

Civil Aeronautics Board. Enplaned Passengers, Enplaned Revenue Tons of Cargo
and Mail. 12 months ending December 31, 1980.

Delaire Charter Service. Bethel, Alaska.

Federal Aviation Administration, Flight Service Station, Bethel, Alaska.

Galliett, Jr., Harold H., and George Silides. Master Plan and Report for
Port Development at Bethel, Alaska. Prepared fo'r City of Bethel, April, 1981.

i A Report on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Crossing.
Prepared for the Senate Special Interim committee on Transportation, -AT-a-ska
State Legislature, December, 1981.

Hoffman, James. (Personal Communication). United Transportation, Bethel, Alaska.

Lush, Dan. (Personal Communication). Hustlebuggy, Inc., Bethel, Alaska.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Bethel Small Boat Harbor
Report. Detailed Project Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Tu-gust, 1981.

A-III-5

Recreation

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October. 1980.

Dittman, Martha and Rahn Park er. (Personal Communication). City of Bethel,
Department of Parks and Recreation.

Population

Alaska Consultants. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions and Forecast North
Aleution Shelf and Navarin Bai-in 'sSocioeconomic Systems. Draft Technical
Memorandum. Prepared for BLM Alaska O.C.S. Office. April, 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section. 1980 Cehsus Data.

Alaska Department of Social and Health Service. Number of Births, Bethel Region.
MCH Family Planning Office, Bethel. January, 1992.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October, 1980.

.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1970 Census Data.

1980 Census of Population.

Housing

Alaska Consultants. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions and Forecast North
Aleutian Shelf and Navarin Basin's Socioeconomic Systems. Draft Technical
Memorandum. Prepared for BLM, Alaska O.C.S. Office. 1981.

Darbyshire and Associates. -Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October, 1980.

Naneng, Myron. (Personal Communication). Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, Housing Assistance Division, Bethel.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. -1970 Census Data.

1980 Census of Housing.

A-III-6

Labor

Alaska Consultants. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions and Forecast North
Aleutian Shelf and Navarin Basin's Socioeconomic Systems. Draft Te-cT-nical
Memorandum. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Alaska O.C.S. Office.
April, 1981.

Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Economic
Enterprise. NUMBERS: Basic Economic Statistics of Alaska Census Divisions.
November, 19f9-.

Alaska Department of Labor. Labor Force by Region and Census Division.
November, 1981.

Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Region Labor Market Analysis.
July, 1981.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October,
1980.

Land Ownership

Adams, Willie. (Personal Communication). Bureau of Indian Affairs Realty
Office, Bethel.

Cannelos, George. (Personal Communication). Bethel Native Corporation Land
Manager.

Darbyshire and Associates. Bethel Native Corporation Land Management Plan.
1980.

City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. 1980.

Joseph, Alan. (Personal Communication). AVCP Realty.

Stigall, Tony. (Personal Communication). Planning Director, Bethel Planning
Department.

A-III-7

Varnell, Tom. (Personal Communication). Police Chief, Bethel City Police
Department.

Weed, David. (Personal Communication). Public Defenders Agency, Bethel.

Education

Ali, Fred, John Schuler, and Dave Williams. (Personal Communication).
Kuskokwim Community College.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. 1980.

Peterson, Carl and Dan Raskin. (Personal Communication). Lower Kuskokwim
School District.

Cultural Facilities

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan.

Dreydoppel, Sue. (Personal Communication). Curator, Yugtarvik Regional Museum.

Wintersteen, Teddy. (Personal Communication). Head Librarian, Kuskokwim
Consortium Library, Bethel.

Utilities

Electrical

Borrego, Hal and Jerry Korthuis. (Personal Communication). Bethel Utilities
Corporation.

Public Works

Alaska Consultants. Baseline Socioeconomic Conditions North Aleutian Shelf'
and Navarin Basin's Socioeconomic Systems. Draft Technical M-em-o-r--an7-um.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Interior, BLM, Alaska OCS Office. April, 1981.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. 1980.

Jordan, Nancy and Gary Volkman. (Personal Communication). Bethel Public
Works Department. 1981.

A-III-8

Land Use

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October, 1980.

Stigall, Tony and Stephanie Walker. (Personal Communication). City of Bethel
Planning Department.

Service

Health and Social Services

Barton, Betty. "Reductions in Federal Health Expenditures: Yukon-Kuskokwim
Research Request No. 81-172". Alaska State Legislature, House of Representatives
Research Agency Memorandum. 1981.

Bethel Social Services. (Personal Communication).

Peterson, Don. (Personal Communication). Comptroller of Yukon-Kuskokwim
Health Corporation.

Prince. (Personal Communication). Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bethel.

Ryan, Joe. (Personal Communication). Director, Alaska Area Native Health
Service, Bethel Service Unit, Bethel.

Emergency Services

Cooper, Corlis. (Personal Communication). Director, Emergency Medical
Services at Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan.

Flood, Jack. (Personal Communication). Phillips Alcoholism Treatment Center.

Tundra Women's Coalition Resource Center. (Personal Communication).

Public Safety

Alaska State Troopers. (Personal Communication).

Eyerly, Tred. (Personal Communication). Alaska Legal Services, Bethel.

A-III-9

Energy

Alaska Consultants. Baseline Socioeconomic Conditions North Aleutian Shelf

and Navarin Basin's Socioeconomic Systems Draft Technical Memorandum. Prepared
for BLM, Alaska OCS Office, Ap"FT7,71-9-Fl.

Alaska, State of. Alaska Regional Profiles, Vol. III., Southwest Region. 1975.

Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Division of Energy
and Power Development. State of Alaska Long Term Energy Plan - Draft. April,
1981.

Alaska Research Services. Yukon-River Oil Delivery Study. February, 1981.

Angaiak, John. (Personal Communication). Orutsararmuit Native Council, Bethel.

Beans, Major Joe and Louie Crew. (Personal Communication). National Guard
Armory, Bethel.

Berger and Associates. Western and Arctic Alaska Transportation Study, Phase
I - General. February, 1981.

Borrego, Hal and Jerry Korthuis. (Personal Communication). Bethel Utilities
Corporation.

Chevron U.S.A., Bethel.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. 1980.

Mazria, Edward. Passive Solar Energy Book. Rodale Press, 1979.

Prince, Everett. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Letter of comments to City of Bethel Coastal Management Program, Preliminary
Report. March 3, 1982.

Robert W. Retherford Associates. Reconnaissance Study of the Kisaralik River
Hydroelectric Power Potential and Tl-ternative Electric Energy Resourcces in
the Bethel Area. Prepared foF the-Alaska Power Authority. February, 1980.

. A Regional Electric Power System for the Lower
Kuskokwim Vicinity. Prepared for the Alaska Power Administration. 1975.

A-III-10

Siefert, Richard D. and John P. Zarling. Solar Energy Resource Potential in-
Alaska. University of Alaska - Fairbanks, Institute of Water Resources.
March, 1978.

Tundra Drums, The. Bethel newspaper, (several articles).

U.S. Department of Interior. Proposed Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

Wise, James and et al. Wind Energy Resource Atlas. Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, December, 1980.

Commercial Fishing and Fish Processing

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. Annual
Salmon Management Report 1980 Kuskokwim Area. 1981.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. Board
Management Report for 1981 Kuskokwim Area. 1982.

Alaska Native Foundation. Western Alaska's Fishing Industry: A Profile.
April, 1981.

Baxter, Rae and Keith Schultz. (Personal Communication). Alaska Deppartment
of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Bethel.

Crow, J.B. (Personal Communication). J.B. Crow and Sons, Bethel.

Hoffman, Lyman. (Personal Communication). Elm Fisheries, Inc., Board Member.

Husky, Lee, William Nebesky and Jim Kerr. The Growth of the Nunam Kitlutsisti
Region: A Projection 1981-2000. Institute of Social and Economic Research,
University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. July, 1981.

Knapp, Barb. A Technical Appraisal and Assessment of the Bethel Fishing
Industry; prepared for the City of Bethel. 19

Forest Development

Cook, Bob. (Personal Communication). Kuskokwim Native Association.

A-III- 11

Galliet and Silides. A Report on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Crossing. Prepared for
the Alaska State Legislature, December, 1981.

Reid, Collins, Inc. Forest Development Potential in the Middle Kuskokwim.
Prepared for Kuskokwim Native Association. June, 1981.

Mining

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Bethel Recording Office. (Personal
Communication). Bethel District Mining Claims.

Alaska Department of Transportation an 'd Public Facilities. Bethel Airport
Land Use and Development Plan. October, 1979.

Berger and Associates. Western and Arctic Alaska Transportation Study,
Phase I, General. February, 1980.

Hoare, Joseph M. and Edward H. Cobb. Mineral Occurrences (Other than Mineral
Fuels and Construction Materials) in t1fi-e- Bethel, Goodnews, and Russian Mission
Quadrangles, Alaska. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Open
File Report 77-156, 1977.

OCS

Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. Planning for Offshore
Oil Development, Gulf of Alaska Handbook. 1978.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Minerals and Energy
Management. Five Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. January, 1982.

Alaska Research Services. Yukon River Oil Delivery Study. February, 1981.

Alaska, University of, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Bering-
Norton Petroleum Development Scenarios, Economic and Demograph Analysis.
Technical Report Number 50. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Al aska
Outer Continental Shelf Office, June, 1980.

Dames and Moore. Review of Supply-Demand and Marketing Problems of OCS Oil
and Gas from the 9-ering-Norton Lease Sale. Technical Memorandum Number BN-
25. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
Office, June, 1980.

A-III-12

David M. Dornbusch and Co., Inc. Management of OCS-Related Industrial
Development. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional
Affairs, December, 1976.

Ellanna, Linda j. Bering-Norton Petroleum Development Scena'rios, Sociocultural
Systems Analysis. Technical Report No. 54, Volume 1. Prepared for Peat,
Marwick, Mitchell and Co. and the BLM, Alaska OCS Office, April, 1980.

. IBID, Volume 2, August, 1980.

Husky, Nebesky and Kerr. University of Alaska, Institute of Social and
Economic Research. The Growth of the Nunam Kitlutsisti Region: A Projection
1981-2000. Prepared for Nunam Kitlutsisti, July, 1981.

Tremont, John. (Personal Communication). Alaska OCS Office, Anchorage.

. Resources, Developmental Timeframes and Infrastructure
Assumptions and Black Deletion Alternative for Proposed Federal Lease Sales
in the Bering Sea and Norton Sound. Technical Paper No. 1, BLM, Ala-s-Va---O-CS-
Office, April, 1981.

U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Estimates of Undiscovered
Recoverable Resource of Conventionally Producible Oil and Gas in the United
7 ----
States, Summary. Upen File Report 81-192-,-1-9'81.

Tourism

Berger and Associates. Western and Arctic Aln@ska Transportation Study.
Phase 1, General. February, 1980.

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October, 1980.

Robinson, E. Thomas. Fairbanks Tourism. Community Research Center Special
Report No. 9. Fairbanks North Star Borough. September, 1981.

A-III-13

I
I
I
I
I APPENDIXIV
I
I
I
I MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX IV

Existing Federal, State and Local Authorities

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Federal:

U,S. Coast Guard Ports & Waterways Regulate marine trans-
Safety Act 1972 portation for safety
33 USC 1221 and protection of
46 USC 391A environment.

Steamboat Inspection Inspect carriers of
Act, Tank Vessel Act hazardous material.
46 USC 391A

Permit for Private Control placement &
Aids to Navigation operation of naviga-
33 CFR 66 tional aids.

Permit for Bridges Approve construction or
Over Navigable Waters alterations of bridges
33 CFR 114 over navigable waters.
33 CFR 115

High Seas Intervention Attempt to control
Act 1975 spillage of oil from
33 USC 1471, et. seq. ships if oil threatens
coastline.

Permit for Facilities Waterfront facilities &
& Vessels to Handle vessels handling hazardous
Hazardous Material material.
33 CFR 125
33 CFR 126
33 CFR 154
33 CFR 155
33 CFR 156

U.S. Army Corps Marine Protection, Regulate ocean dumping,
of Engineers Research 6 Sanctuaries initiate program to e9ta-
Act blish marine sanctuaries.

Permit for Ocean Regulate transporting
Dumping of Dredged dredges material for
Material purposes of dumping in
33 USC 1413 territorial seas or
33 CFR 324 contiguous zone.

A-IV-1

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (cont'd)

Permit for Structures Regular construction of
or Work Affecting structures or work such
Navigable Waters as dredging affecting
33 USC 403 navigable waters of the
33 USC 323 U.S.

Permit for the Regulate fill or dumping
Discharge of dredge spoils in or
or Fill Materials adjacent to tidelands,
33 USC 1344 submerged lands, rivers
33 CFR 323 and wetlands.

Council on Environmental Quality

National Environment Require preparation of'
Policy Act of 1969 EIS for federal action
42 USC 4321 et.seq. affecting the quality of
U.S. Fish and Wildlife the environment.

National Wildlife Govern activities on
Refuge Special Use lands of national wild-
Permit life range.
16 USC 668
50 CFR 26
50 CFR 29

Migratory Bird Treaty Protect migratory birds.
16 USC 703-711

Marine Mammals Provide conservation
Protection protection of marine
16 USC 1361-1407 mammals.
50 CFR 18
50 CFR 216
PL 92-522

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Water Provide funds for states
Pollution Control to identify & write regu-
Act 1972 lations governing non-
33 USC 1251, et.seq. point pollution control
33 USC 1321 discharges of pollutants
33 USC 1288 into the navigable waters.

A-IV-2

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Environmental Protection Agency (cont'd)

Pollution Discharge Regulate wastewater
Elimination System discharge into waters of
Permit U.S.
33 USC 1341,1342
40 CFR 125

Canned & Preserved Approves point-source
Seafood Processing wastewater discharge into
Point Source Category waters of U.S. This
40 CFR 408 permit is often adopted
as the ADEC wastewater
disposal permit.

State:

Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

Limited Entry Permits Regulate commercial
AS 16.43.100 fishing by means of
species, gear & geo-
graphical region.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Critical Habitat Regulate projects or
Area Permit actions affecting
AS 16.20.220-270 critical habitat.

Protection of Review projects or
Anadromous Fish actions affecting rivers,
Permit lakes or streams for
AS 16.05.870 spawning of anadromous
5 AAC 95.010 fish.

Board of Fish and Determine rules and
Game regulations for hunting
AS 16.05.251 and fishing.
AS 16.10.010-620
AS 16.05.221-320

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Pesticide Control Regulate use of pesticides
AS 46.03.020 and herbicides in public
AS 46.03 320 places.
18 AAC 90

A-IV-3

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (cont'd)

Certificate of Risk Regulate certification of
Avoidance oil tank vessel as to
AS 30.25.040 potential for oil pollution
AS 30.25.070 within state.
18 AAC 20

Oil Discharge Require oil spill contin-
Contingency Plan gency be prepared by oil
AS 30.25.040 terminals and oil tank
AS 30.25.070 vessels operating within
AS 30.020(10)(a) state.
18 AAC 75.310-340

Civil Penalties for Establish fines for persons
Discharge of Oil who discharge oil into
AS 46.03.758 waters of state.
18 AAC 75.520

Surface Oiling Permit Regulate oil treatment of
AS 46.03.020 roads.
AS 46.03.740
18 AAC 75

Wastewater Disposal Regular discharges of
Permit liquid wastes into waters
AS 46.03.020 or onto land of state,
AS 46.03.100 except for domestic
AS 46.03.050 sewage into approved
AS 46.03.090 sewage systern.
AS 46.03.720
18 AAC 72
18 AAC 70

Solid Waste Regulate disposal of
Management solid wastes except on
AS 46.03.020 premises of single-family
AS 46.03.100 residence, duplex, farm,
18 AAC 60 or small incinerator.

Air Quality Control Govern quality of air
AS 46.030.010 within state.
AS 46.03.140
AS 46.03.170
18 AAC 50

A-IV-4

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (cont'd)

Oil Terminal and Establish standards for
Transfer Procedures transfer of oil between
AS 30.15.070 terminals, tank vessels
18 AAC 25 and tank barges.

Subdivision Plan Review subdivision of
Review land resulting in greater
AS 46.03.020 than 5 lots.
AS 46.03.050
AS 46.03.090
18 AAC 72.065

Office of Coastal Management

Alaska Coastal Provide standards &
Management Program guidelines for land and
AS 46.40.010 water planning affecting
AS 46.40.180 federal, state, and local
6 AAC 80 & 85 activities; provide
funding.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

Tideland Permit Regulate temporary use
AS 38.05.330 of state owned tide and
11 AAC 62 submerged lands (less
than five years).

Tideland Lease Regulate use of state-
AS 38.05.070 owned tide and submerged
11 AAC 62 lands more than five years.

Miscellaneous Land Regulate activities
Use Permit including installation of
AS 38.05.205 roads and utilities on
AS 38.05.250 state-owned lands.
AS 38.05.275
AS 38.05.020
AS 38.05.035
11 AAC 96.010

Permit to Appro- Regulate withdrawal of
priate Water fresh water from source
AS 46.15.010 reserved for public use.
11 AAC 72

A-IV-5

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (cont'd)

Material Sales Regulate sale of sand.,
AS 38.05.110 gravel, rock, pumice,
11 AAC 76 clay and other materials
on state owned lands,
tidelands and submerged
lands.

Gas and Oil Regulate leasing of
Leasing subsurface oil and
AS 38.05.185-184 gas resources.
11 AAC 82.100-805
11 AAC 8.1.00-630
11 AAC 88.100-185

Land Classification Classify state lands,
AS 38.05.300 similar to zoning.
11 AAC 52

Subsistence Act Amend fish and game
HB 960 status to give subsis--
SL 151 tence use highest
priority.

Land Lease Regulate long-term use
AS 38.05.070 of state-owned uplands.
11 AAC 58

Alaska Department of Public Safety

Fire Prevention Esablishes standards to
AS 18.70.080 protect life and property
13 AAC 50.027 from fire & explosion and
to set fire & safety
criteria for commercial,
industrical, and business
structures.

City of Bethel

Land Subdivision Regulate land sub-
Regulations division, sets minimum
Ordinance #135 design standards for
subdivisions, describes
procedures for sub-
A-IV-6 division approval.

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Building Permit Establishes a building
System, permit system for improve-
Ordinance #114 ments, sets minimum
design standards and
defines encroachment
rules and regulations.

Yard Requirement Establishes minimum set-
Regulations backs from property
Ordinance #138 lines for all structures
and commercial parking
lots.

Port Facility Regulates operations of
Regulation Bethel's medium draft
Ordinance #97 port facility.

Port & Transporation Establishes a port and
Commission commission, and defines
Ordinance #137 its powers.

A-IV-7

ly
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX V

I
I
I CITY ORDINANCE SUMMARIES
I
I
I WHICH APPLY TO THE COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS OF THIS
I PRINTING (FEBRUARY 1983)

I
I
I
I

APPENDIX V

ORDINANCE #n4

Establish a building permit system f or improvements on lots

within the City of Bethel and defining encroachment rules and

regulations for all streets, roads, alleys and easements that

are under the jurisdiction of the City of Bethel.

Summary: A person is required to obtain a building

permit for any improvement made on any land recorded or

platted within the City.

A building permit may not be issed if the lot improve-
ment: a) encroaches on any right of way;

b) causes the placement of fill on any City right of

way when the width of the f ill is greater than 20

feet at its widest point;

c) does not provide for adequate drainage as determined

by Planning Department;

d) does not include a water/sewer system conforming to

minimum requirements. It must not be a potential

hazard or nuisance to neighbors. Water and sewage

holding tanks must be at least 300 gallons with an

additional 200 gallons per bedroom.

ORDINANCE #135

Regulating the subdivision of land in the City of Bethel:

requiring and regulating the preparation of preliminary and

A-V-1

final plats for such purposes; establishing minimum subdivi-

sion design standards; providing minimum improvements to be

made or guaranteed to be made by subdivider; setting forth

procedures to be followed by Planning Commission in applying

rules, regulations and standards; and prescribing penalties

for the violation of its provisions.

Summary: Subdivison and platting powers and authorities

are vested in the Planning Commission. This applies to all

lands in the City limits.

Subdividers must submit and get approvals on preliminary

and final plats, and then record the plats with the District

Recorder.

The ordinance describes the procedures for submitting

preliminary plats, what they should contain, and the public

hearing and approval process. It also describes the contents

and process for a final plat, including a description of the

improvements the subdivision must guarantee.

It sets standards for improvements, roads, street lights,

etc. , with regard to the character of the land, access , com-

pliance with the Comprehensive Plan, etc.

It discusses easements, drainage, waste disposal, water

supply, sizing and arrangement of lots and blocks, dedication

of open space for recreation, etc.

It establishes procedures for resubdivision of land and

vacation of plats. It sets procedures for variances and

waivers and appeals.

A-V-2

It also sets penalties f or conveying land bef ore plat

approval and recording or recording a plat without Planning

Commission approval.

ORDINANCE #138

Establishing the location for structures, improvements, and

structural alterations within property boundaries, as measured

from designated property lines, and providing penalties for

violation of its provisions.

Summary: Minimum yard requirements for all buildings,

structures and improvements are:

Front 15 feet from property line;

Side 10 feet except when adjacent to street,

then 15 feet;

Rear 10 feet.

Exceptions to this include:

- the front yard for commercial, professional, or institu-

tional buildings may be reduced to 10 feet if adequate

parking is provided;

- commercial or residential buildings may be "zero lot

line" if they meet certain conditions;

- existing structures are exempt unless there is proof of

public nuisance or hazard.

A procedure is set for dealing with violations, and

misdemeanor penalties are outlined (fines of $25 to $500 or

imprisonment of up to 10 days).

A-V-3

3 _666814102 4622
IL