Bethel coastal management plan conceptually approved draft

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

BETHEL CITY OF BETHEL
COASTA
T
P AN
C11-
-4
L

ConceptuaRy Approved Draft

%SN
MANAGEMEN

City of Bethel, Alaska

CITY COUNCIL
John Guinn, Mayor
Antone Anvi I
johne Binkley
Robert Buttcane
Edward Hoffman, Sr.
Mary Pavi I
Peter Twitchell
Lyman Hoff man, 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 hill'.
John Angaiak, Orutsaramuit 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, Cenaliulriit
Joe Sullivan, Planning Commission
Peter Twitchell, City Council
Cheryl Keepers, Coastal Management Coordinator
Steven Gaber, Coastal Management Planner

Bethel Coastal
V
anage ent P an

Conceptually Approved
Dra

City of Bethel
Bethel, Alaska

June 1983

QK4

The preparation of this document was financed in part by
funds 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. Barl',E,r
Bethel, Alaska.

Planning Department
City of Bethel
P.O. Box 388
Bethel, Alaska 99559
4,

U --@,77F.,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Ust of Figures .....................................
List of Tables..
How To Use This Document ......................... A

Chapter I INTRODUCTION ............................

A.- , Coastal Management ........................
B. Relationship between Bethel and Cenalluirilt
Coastal Management Plans and Regions .......
C. Relationship of Coastal Management Plan to
Bethel Comprehensive Plan ................... 1-8
D. Boundaries of Bethel Coastal Management Plan
Area .................................. I ..... 1-10

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

A. NATURAL RESOURCES ....................... 2-1
Climate .................................. 2-1
Soils, Permafrost, and Geology ............ 2-5
Geophysical Hazards .................... 2-11
Hydrology .............................. 2-18
Habitats ................................ 2-21
Vegetation ............................. 2-25
Bird Life ................................. 2-28
Mammals ............................... 2-33
Fishes .................................. 2-35

B. CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................... 2-41
History of Bethel ........................ 2-41
Recreation .............................. 2-45
Subsistence ............................. 2-48
Population .............................. 2-53
Labor .................................. 2-58
Land Ownership .......................... 2-61
Land Use ............................... 2-66
Utilities ................................. 2-68
Government Policy Analysis .............. 2-74

PAGE

C. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ....................... 2-78
Transportation .......................... 2-78
Air ................................. 2-78
Water .............................. 2-80
Land ............................... 2-84
Ener - 2-88
gy .................................
Supply and Demand ................. 2-88
Potential Energy Sources ............. .2-92
Commercial Fishing and Fish Processing .... 2-99
Forest Development Potential ............. 2-106
Mining ................................. 2-107
Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assessment 2-108
Tourism ................................ 2-117

Chapter 3. RESOURCE ANALYSIS ....................... 3-1
A. Natural Resources ........................... 3-3
B. Cultural Resources .......................... 3-5
C. Economic Activities .......................... 3-7
D. Conflicting Land and Water Use Demands ...... 3-9
Chapter 4. RIVERFRONT LAND USE STUDY ............... 4-1
A. Background Information ..................... 4-1
B. Waterfront Revitalization ..................... 4-9
Chapter S. 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. Preface 7-1

B. Issues, Goals, Objectives, Policies and
Implementation ........................... 7-2
Riverbank Erosion .................. 7-2
River and Waterfront Use ............ 7-4
Subsistence ........................ 7-5
Habitat ............................ 7-7
Wetlands Management ............. 7-8
Surface Drainage ................... 7-11
Waste Disposal .................... 7-13
Air Quality ......................... 7-14
Pedestrian Walkways & Trails for
Off-Road Vehicles .............. 7-15
Recreation ......................... 7-16
Minerals Extraction ................. 7-17
C. Relationship of Issues and Goals to Resource
Assessment ............................ 7-19

PAGE

D. Management Authority ...................... 7-23

E. Uses and Activities Subject to the Coastal
Management Plan ........................... 7-24
Uses of State Concern ........................ 7-24
Proper & Improper Uses ...................... 7-25

F. Coastal Management Policies ................. 7-26
Chapter S. IMPLEMENTATION .......................... 8-1
A. Coastal Management Policies: How they will be
implemented locally ..................... 8-1
B. Coastal Management Policies: 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 .... 9-1

APPENDICES

1. Local Place Name Map ....................... A- I
ll. Glossary/ Definitions ........................ A-2
Ill. Plants, mammals, & fish in study area .......... A-4
IV. Game Management Units .................... A-9
V. Sources used for Resource Assessment ........ A-10
VI. Public Notice of General Wetlands Permit ...... A-23
Vil. Management Authorities ..................... A-34
Vill. Applicable City Ordinances ................... A-41

FIGURE NO. PAGE

1. Location ................................... 1-7

2. District Boundaries ......................... 1-11

3. Prevailing Wi-nds ............................ 2-4

4. Bethel Area Soil Survey ..................... 2-8

5. Urban Suitability ........................... 2-9

6. Bethel Geology ............................. 2-10

7. 100 Year Flood Plain ........................ 2-12

8. Bank Erosion - Decreasing and Historic
Erosion Rates (a) ........................... 2-15

9. Bank Erosion - Decreasing and Historic
Erosion Rates (b) ........................... 2-16

10. Coastal Habitats ............................ 2-23

11. Vegetation ................ o ................. 2-24

12. Special Mammal and Bird Habitats in the
Bethel Study Area ............................ 2-27

13. Fish Habitats and the Distribution of
Species in the Bethel Area .................. 2-40

14. Historic Sites and Winter Trails ............ 2-44

15. Parks and Recreation A reas .................. 2-47

16. Subsistence ................................. 2-52

17. Land Ownership ........................... 2-65

18. Utilities ................................... 2-72

19. Proposed Small Boat Harbor Design ........... 2-82
20. Bethel Transportation ........................ 2-87

FIGURE NO. PAGE

21. 1979 Per Capita Energy End Use - Southwest
Region Compared to State .................... 2-89

22. 1979 Energy End Use by Sector - Southwest
Region Compared to State ............ o ... -o 2-90

23. 1979 Energy Supply - Southwest Region
Compared to State ................... --.o 2-91

24. Proposed Lease Sales in Southern Bering
and Norton Sound (Federal)-o-oo ... o ... o ... 2-109

25. Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Program
(Southwest Region)-oo... ......- .......... 2-110

26o Land and Water Use Compatability Matrix..... 3-11

27o Riverfront Areas- .... o-o ... o............ o 4-3

28. Land Use Areas-ooo.o..... ... oo ............ 4-13

29. Circulation Areas- ........... o........ o.o.. 4-15

30o River Access Areas ......o ...... oo- ........ 4-16

31. Waterfront: Main Street/East Phase I ....- 4-17

32. Waterfront: Main Street/East Phase IV-V .... 4-19

33o Village Annex/Visitor Center........ ... ooo.. 4-20

34. Waterfront: Brown Slough Phase I ........... 4-21

35. Waterfront: Brown Slough Phase IVoo ..... - 4-22

36. Waterfront: Cargo Dock Phase IV-Vo ......... 4-23

37. Wetland Delineator (Significant Wetlands) ... 5-5

38. A.M.S.A. Study Area - Bethel Subsistence Use 6-2

39o Land Use- ........................... o ..... in pocket

40o Land Ownership .............................. in pocket

41. Local Place Names ........................... A-1

TABLE NO. PAGE

1. Average Monthly Temperatures (*F) ........... 2-2

2. Mean Precipitation and Snowfall (inches) .... 2-3

3. Soils Matrix ................................ 2-7

4. Highest Known Flood Stages and Discharges
of Kuskokwim River at Bethel ................ 2-13

5. Bethel Flood Elevation and Frequencies ...... 2-13

6. Physical Characteristics of the Kuskokwim
River at Bethel ............................. 2-19

7. Seasonal Abundance and Nesting of Bird
Species in the Immediate Bethel Area ........ 2-31

8. Distribution and Relative Abundance of
Freshwater Fish in the Lower Kuskokwim
River ....................................... 2-39

9. Bethel Population Growth, 1960-1980 ......... 2-53

10. Birth Rate, Bethel Region, 1960-1981 ........ 2-54

11. Bethel Median Age and Sex Distribution as
Compared to State ........................... 2-55

12. Population Growth .......................... o 2-56

13. Population Forecasts - 1990--o-soooo- 2-57

14. 1980 - Average Annual Full-Time E mployment.. 2-58

15. 1978 Per Capita Income and Family Budget
Requirements - Bethel Census Division as
Compared to Alaska and the U.S... ........... 2-60

16. 1979 Average Annual Income - Natives and
Non-Natives, City of Bethel... .............. 2-60

17. Summary of Bethel Land Ownership - 1982 ..... 2-64

iii

TABLE NO. PAGE

18. Bethel Land Use - 1982 ...................... 2-67

19. Selected Aircraft Activity on the Kuskokwim
River ....... o....... -- ...o .... *.o ..... o. 2-78

20. 1980 Bethel Airport Activity ... o.; ...... 2-79

21. Bethel Air Traffic Growth and Growth
Projections ................. -oo ........... 2-79

22o General Cargo and Bulk Petroleum Shipped
Through Bethel - 1981 .......... - ..... o.o.. 2-81

23o Projection of Small Boats Berthing in
Bethel...,.o ... oo ........... o ..... # ......... 2-83

24. Bethel Vehicle Registration - Calendar Year
1980 ........................................ 2-85

25. Bethel Electrical Consumption - 1981 ........ 2-88

26. Estimates of Busbar Electricity Costs
(4kwh) ...................................... 2-92

27. Average Monthly Wind Velocity (MPH) ......... 2-93

28. Summary of National Guard Armory Wind
System ...................................... 2-93

29. Average Daily Solar Radiation - Bethel
(BTU-day/ft2) ............................... 2-95

30. Passive Solar Heating Potential - Typical
Bethel Home ................................. 2-96

31. Kuskokwim River Commercial Effort Data,
1965-81 ..................................... 2-100

32. Kuskokwim River Catch Data, 1976-1981 ....... 2-102

33. Characteristics of the 1980 Herring Season.. 2-103

34. Projected Harvest and fishing effort in
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Roe Herring Fisheries:
1980-2000 ................................... 2-103

TABLE NO. PAGE

35. Risked and Unrisked Forecasts for
Proposed Bering Lease Sales (Federal
Offshore Schedule) ......................... 2-111

36. Petroleum Potential for Proposed Sale
and Nomination Areas in Southwest Alaska
(State of Alaska Onshore and Nearshore
Schedule) .................................. 2-112

37. Estimated Direct Employment Impact on
Nunam Kitlutsisti Region From Norton
Basin Lease Sale 88 ........................ 2-114

38. Projected Direct Employment Impact on
Bethel from Norton Basin Lease Sale 88 ..... 2-115

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 Management program
both presents information and sets down guidelines 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 for 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

INTRODUCTION

Chapter I

now-

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 established.
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 coastal 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

1-1

governmental levels must be in agreement and consistent with the accepted
Coastal Management Plan. (Actions on federal lands are only subject to
consistency requirements if there will be "spillover" effects onto non-federal
lands.)

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 districts will have different needs.

Who Is Involved

There are several major participants in the coastal management 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 Participation." The Department of Community and Regional
Affairs, Division of Community Planning provides technical assistance and
administration of planning grants. Another important participant is the
Alaska State Coastal Policy Council (CPC), a sixteen member body composed of
nine regional public representatives 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.
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:

1-2

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. It usually adopts the

plan at this step.
5. After the plan is accepted by the CPC, the City Council adopts the
plan by ordinance.
6. The CPC forwards the plan to the Department of Commerce, Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (formerly OCZM), for incorpor-
ation into the Alaska Coastal Management Program at the federal

level.

What the Plan Must Address

The Alaska Coastal Management Program outlines ten specific elements
that have to be included f or 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.
2. Organization (6 AAC 85.030)
Bethel must include a description of the district program organiza-
tion 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 des-
cribed natural resources, land use, and land status in a manner
sufficient for program development and implementation.

1-3

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)
geophysical hazard areas, (c) recreation, (d) energy facilities,
(e) transportation and utilities, (f) fish and seafood processing,
(h) mining and mineral processing, and (i) subsistence.
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 activities

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 cons is tency/f ederal
exclusion/ Federal agency participation; (4) uses of state concern; and (5)

energy facility siting.

1-4

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) historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources;
(4) energy facilities; (5) transportation and utilities; (6) fish and seafood
processing; (7) timber harvesting and processing; (8) mining and mineral
processing; and (9) subsistence. (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 acti-
vities 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 designed to protect and
reserve these habitatsi 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 areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands and tide
flats; (4) rocky islands and sea cliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons;
(6) exposed high energy coast; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) impor-
tant 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.

1-5

Relationship
Between Bethel and Cenaliulrilt
Coastal Management Plans and Regions

Two coastal management plans are being developed in this region: one
for the City of Bethel and one for the remainder of the greater Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta. The plan for the Delta is being developed by an elected regional
coastal resource service area board called CeBaliulriit. (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 Ce?laliulriit staff members (staff to the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Coastal Resource Service Area B@oard) 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 Celialiuriit staff
and Board members for their review and comment. Meetings have been held with
Cellaliulriit staff specifically to discuss coordination of the two plans.
Bethel residents also have an interest in the Cenaliulriit plan, parti-
cularly since most subsistence activities take place outside the city limits.
For this reason, both the City and Cefialiulriit 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 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 Ce?ialiulriit plan, which is now out in Public Hearing Draft form.

1-6

FIGURE 1
D@ LOCATION
0

coo NORTON SOUND

AL KA

0 "Ing, W", M-MI.

R'VER
ANIAK*

KUSKOKWIM, BAY

@.g
DILLINGHAM
CAPE
NFWENHA

BRISTOt BAY

CERALIULRIIT
Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal
Resource Service Area
\Y@

- no.

1-7

Relationship of
Coastal Management Plan
to the Bethel 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 alternative 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 Compre-
hensive 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 subsis-

tence 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

. 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 regulatory elements. These include:

1-8

� 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
Icity roads, trails, and pedestrian walkways.
The coastal management program represents a refinement of planning
issues facing the Bethel community. It is not a substitute f or the Compre-
hensive Plan, but an addition to the Plan.

1-9

Boundaries of Bethel
Coastal Management Plan Area

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 impor-
tant role with the development of economic activities such as forest develop-
ment 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 understand-
ing of the region's resource base is vital to local planning, and will allow
greater coordination with the regional 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 manage-
ment district (AMSA) for the Bethel subsistence use area.

1-10

FIGURE 2

Boundaries of the Bethel Coastal Management Plan (City Limit)

1KNO,
SO
10
,15,
77:

77
ti

3
IR!

7
C.,
D
7'.

an,
00
p
Ap
fin -Y,
r M 41b
4,1

A- -"N
. ............
V

kk
NMI
A,i A
........ - ------ . .....
Jill

Al
'24
19

M, N6

C
4,
7-S

... .......

row
b

ASSESSMENT

Chapter 2
RE OURC

NATURAL RESOURCES

CLIMATE

Ns
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 54.7' F and
a mean January temperature of 6.0* F, with recorded temperature extremes
ranging f rom 90* F to -52* F. The warmer summer winds are predominantly
SSW, shif ting to a cool NNE winds from October through March, then shifting
to predominantly NW winds f rom 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.

2-1

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 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 Commerce, NOAA

2-3

FIGURE 3
AVERAGE ANNUAL WINDS
Prevailing Winds , N
I. 1. 149..
NW NE
5,@

W .95

EMIR f

S W 5 L

AVERAGE WIND SPEED FOR DIRECTION NOTED PERCENTAGE WIND BLOWS FROM
DIRECTION NOTED
EXTREME WIEND FORODIRECTION NOTED PERCENTAGE WIND IS CALM
E3 (SUSTAIN 0 FOR N E MINUTE) F

WIND SPEEDS ARE IN MILES PER HOUR

SOURCE: ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES

S E A S 0 N A L W I N D 5

JANUARY APRIt

6 5
u u

W BE HH E W BET IL E

0
0
u

JULY OCTOBER

-0
50

MOIST 4;\ I
MILD BE HIEL E W L HEL

c
0

S
/0'0000 B RH E @11

FREQUENCY OF WIND FROM DIRECTION NOTED

OVER 24 PERCENT 18- 24 PERCENT

SOURCE: N.O. A. A. 10- 17 PERCENT
2-4

SOILS, PERMAFROST AND GEOLOGY

Soils

The most 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 combination 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 permanently 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 maximum depth of 600 feet.
The typical temperature of the permafrost at depths just below the layer of
seasonal variation ranges from 28* to 31.5' F, with some spots as much as 2*
F above freezing (Malone, personal communication).

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 originated
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

2-5

deposits and separated from older silt deposits by an erosional scarp 10 to
50 f eet 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).

2-6

@4
U @4
TABLE 3 rd <
SOILS MATRIX 4-)
ra 0) F_: U3
EO z 9 H 0 tn >1
ro (V H ro @4 9 >f 4-)
a) F4 ro 0 N-4 4-) H
@4 0\0 Z 0 .11 r-4 0
< 44 - -H 0 r-q @4 >i M H
0 rd P4 44 rd 4-) 9@ rd 4-)
a) Q) @4 Q) rT4 -H rd 04 (a (0
4-) 0) C1 0 0 44 -@ r-4 Z (0 4J Q
0 0) 0 4J 4J tr -H U -A 0
(d (0 r-i 0 Z @Q @4
-P P4 rd 4J -P P -rq rd a) CF) En
X ri z U U Z 4J a) z
0 a) @4 a) a) (D -'q ro -1 P: 0
@4 0 04 -P ro 0 r. @4 (a
04 04 @4 0 4 @Q 04 @4 -H fd @q 0
M 04 Q) r-1 :j a) fo (D a) P 0
a4 (n H En U) 0 @D
Soil Type
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 -modlyes 1yes >40 no 1yes poor poor tundra: Kwethluk;
<12 good poor on low knolls, slopes
Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex KkB 1358 13.3 3-7 var. ? 1yes >40 no yes poor fair boarding drainageways
<12 good and drained thaw lakes.
Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex KkC 428, 4.1,7-12 var. no no >40 yes* yes poor fair Kuso- level areas
12- var. <12 good between Kwethluk soils.
Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex KkD 127 1.2 20 no no >40 yes* yes poor fair
good Beds of drained thaw
Napaishak loamy fine-sand Na 216 2.1 0-3 poor yes y-es <12 no yes poor poor lakes
mod- good Alluvial plains
Susitna fine sandy loam --Su 1240 11.9 0-3 good ? yes ? 1yesc no poor poor bordering river
mod- good Slopes bordering
Tuluksak fine sandy loam Tk 423 4.1 0-3 poor yes yes 20 yesw no poor poor lakes, drainageways
30- good Floodplain of river
Tupuknuk silt loam Tu 8251 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
@
7

Total Land Area 10445 *Small areas on slopes
Total Water Area 1020 c = climate limitation
(spring flood)
Total Map Area 11465 w = wetness limitation

Compiled from Bethel Area Soil Survey

F
FM Kk B K B
Ku A Ku A KuA Tk Ku
k Ku A Kk B Kk Tk Na
u A @ - I --. ./.-- --\\. I I I -
Kk B k C Ku A Ku A Fm Ku A

k B Kk B K
Kk C Kk B

KuA

Kk Kk
Kk A
Kk B

Kk B Ku

Kk B Ku A
Ku A a Tk Ku A
Ku
Kk B

Kk B
k KkB

Kk
T

I
Kk C k B Kk C

KkC KuA
Kk A
Kk B
Kk B

KkC

Ku A
m.7

Kk C Kk B Kk C Kk B A Ku A "fik
Tk K k@

FIGURE 4

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

Bethel Area Soil Survey

SYMBOL SOILTYPE SLOPE (Percent)
KuA Kuskokwim Silt Loam 0- 3
Ku B Kuskokwim Silt Loam 3- 7
KkA Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex 0- 3
KkB Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex 3- 7
KkC Kuskokwirn - Kwethluk Complex 7-12
KkD Kuskokwim - Kwethluk Complex 12-20
Na Napaishak Loamy Fine Sand 0- 3
Su Sustina Fine Sandy Loam 0- 3
Tk Tuluksak Fine Sandy Loam 0- 3
Tu Tupuknuk Silt Loam 0- 3
Fm Freshwater Marsh 0

Soil Survey Boundary

SOURCE: U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

SCALE
F- - I
0 1 MILE

h:,Prep- Fallon of We (nl clactlanlint. ENvIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
lirl ad to Fall by Wild, fro. ]he Wake C0311.1
Management Program and the office of Coal" Z...
M........ 1, 1, "it al-phini, A
E B Fm N 13 I=- pi G I N I=- E R I ly G I I Nc.
Administration. U.S. thil.lInnint W Clinloomb,
.d.iai,t,,.d by Ill. Dilisinn, Fit Ceninnuility Planning,
D.Dairt-1 of Connnotinky and Regional Aften,

it
41

J'j,

Al I I
all

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

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

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... ...... - - -------
: : :
...... .... ...... ..........

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

. . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

........................
.......... .... .
. . .........
... ..............
7S_
...... ....

..........

FIGURE 5

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF BETH EL

Urban Sultabi I ity

Fair Suitabi 1 ity

Poor to Fa 1 r Sul tabi I i t y
(may be subject to ponding
or f looding)

Al I other soi Is: Poor Suitabil ity
Sol I Survey Boundary

ADA PTED BY E S E FROM U.S. SOIL CONSLRVAi!ON SERVICE

SCALE
4D 0 1 MILE
um"
danced d part by lunds 11orn the Al,,k. C mial
I E 8 JE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Mirmig . . . .t Program add in. iifli@' o' CoaIat Zone
, ni% Management Nabodal Oceanic and At-pliva, A
Ad.d.1 ' " '-.-m in , meenc.. NO ENGINEERING$ INC.
mitered by In, Dims- at C-m-ty tits,ring,
ape
-Eimmilment of Community and Rrigarmal Affairs,

WPW I

4b 'Pal

0 Qs

QS
4

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

FIGURE 6

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF BETH EL

Bethel Geology

Silt deposits

Flood plain alluvium

Reworked slit

SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

SCALE

2 MILES

Th
lin:rPral) ration of this (map. document,
cod in part by funds 11-M In' 1U.,k:"Cf;,t.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Manisgemishl Program and the office of Coastal an.
E us E AND ENGINEERING, INC.
Administration, U.S hap,ne,.m at Commerce
administered by the Divrsioi of Comm4mly Pjanning,
d. ',re"'M"Ont"01 A'"ars

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, precipitation, and ice thickness. The greatest flooding
usually occurs in the spring when a thick river-ice buildup experiences
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
Lousetown 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 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. (See
appendix for summary of Bethel Flood Plain Ordinance.)
Table 4 lists the ten largest recorded floods between 1941 and 1982,

and Table 5 lists flood elevation levels and frequencies.

2-11

10%

STUDY@ AREA B NDRY

doom

FIGURE 7

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

100 Year Flood Plain

SOURCE: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
REVISED PRELIMINARY, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP$
DECEMBER 9, 1981

SCALE

0 1 2 MILES

PREPARED BY
CITY OF BETHEL

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 m.l.l.w. (c.f.s.)

1 Spring 41 16.5 *
2 Spring 63 15.6 *

3 5 Jun 64 15.5 *

4 Spring 74 15.0 * --
5 9 Jun 64 14.3 579,200
6 13 May 67 13.7 * --
7 1 Sep 63 12.2 446,200
8 11 May 57 11.5 384,200

9 5 Jun 52 11.5 384,200
10 5 Sep 51 11.2 373,800

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 above mean
low low water) Frequency of Occurrence (years)

17.1 100

16.5 50

14.8 10

13.6 5

10.0 2

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2-13

Riverbank Erosion
Documentation of the Bethel riverbank erosion began in 1939. Erosion
now averages eight f eet per year along the town f ront and twenty-f ive f eet
per year in front of the old PHS 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 traffic 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, sub-
marine 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. Army Corps of Engineers Bank Stabilization Study recommended three
alternatives for further sudy: 1) Articulated concrete mattress, at a cost
of $25,200,000 and estimated maintenance costs of $600,000 every five years'
over the fifty year lifespan; 2) Rock riprap, at a cost of $14.7 million
and maintenance costs of $250,000 every five years over the fifty year life-
span; 3) River diversion structure with bank stabilization, at a cost of
$27.0 million and maintenance costs of $1.8 million every five years. Other
options that were rejected because of expense, public acceptance, or engi-
neering feasibility included; steel wall with articulated 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 Corps selected plan is rock riprap and this proposal
is currently being reviewed by Congress for federal funding. The City of

2-14

MISSION LAKE

Ile

.001
10000 ole
dool
loe

.."001

1000' 10000' 1000,

11-01

HONEY

JCK

LAK
0

pow
030

0 20C
I

198
1985

@NK EROSION

c Erosion Rate

ising Erosion Rate
0 N E Y
J@@C E
L @K
K

:)f Enp-ineers

FIGURE 8

_j_L

"The preparation of this (map, document, etc.) was financed
in part by funds from the Alaska Coastal Management
Program and the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. U.S.
Department of Commerce, administered by the Division of
Community Planning, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Em: S EAND ENGINEERING, INC-

2000

2030

985

1010 9

1000,

,Ole
.40,

41,
1985

0@ .000,

.0000

aw-"

ANK EROSION

c Erosion Rate

asing Erosion Rate

@s of Engineers

FIGURE 9

C I TY OFFICE
COMPLEX

'*%b

document, etc.) was financed
Alaska Coastal Managment
Coastal Zone Management,
':)spheric Administration, U.S.
.1ministered by the Division of
irtment of Community and

'L SCIENCE
mr., INC.

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 articu-
lated concrete mattress. Total estimated expenditures between 1981 and
1990 for bank stabilization is close to $30 million (Galliett and Silides).
The City secured funding of $5 million in Spring 1983 from the State. This
will be used to begin construction on the first phase of the seawall.

Onshore Erosion

The primary cause of onshore erosion is improper construction of
buildings and roads. Many buildings are constructed on sandpads, and in
the past water erosion and ponding problems have resulted from little consi-
deration 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 unconsolidated. 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 Kusko-
kwim Mountains, 100 miles to the southseast. Alaska Regional Profiles iden-
tifies 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.

2-17

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
physical characteristics of the river.

2-18

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 tidal range of five 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 tributaries 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 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

2-19

one-third of Bethel's corporate area is freshwater 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, permafrost and near level position
with the river results in extensive areas of standing water. The surf ace
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.

2-20

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 planning 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 technically 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 inun-
dations. The nonsignificant wetlands include areas that are not subject to
flooding and are better drained. Wetlands are characterized by tundra vege-
tation such as grasses, sedges, herbs, and mosses; and by freshwater flora
such as diatoms, algae and seed plants. Wetlands are extremely important to
resident and migratory bird species for resting, nesting, rearing, and forag-,
ing areas. They also provide habitats for furbearers such as fox, hare,
weasels, mink, muskrat, 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
planning 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,

2-21

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 habi-
tats, providing important feeding areas for fish populations. These habitats
are equally important to waterfowl, shorebirds, and various animals as
resting and foraging areas.

Uplands
The wetlands study found that those areas not technically qualifying
as wetlands, based on examination of soil characteristics, hydrology and
vegetation type, were extremely 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 dis-
persed throughout the planning area.

2-22

It
lk

lj@
dp

lj@

jj@

Ilk
lj@

jj@
Ilk
jj@
ilk

FIGURE 10

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

C o a s t a I Habitats

Rivers, Lakes,and Streams

Wetlands (swamps, marshes, bogs,
wet and moist tundra)

1@ OU RC E: ENVI RON MEN T A L SC I FNC E AND ENG I NEE RI NG

SCALE

0 1 2 MILES

T:@pmptsfian at this (map, da"'mant, ""W"S r=NVIROIYMENTAL SCIENCE
h ar
Un cad in part by hands Iram the Alaska Coastal
1
zht'pra rim and the office of coastal Zan.
:::1 AVY0 ENGINEr=RING INC.
i, and atm .......c
, ne, Ad.01Wb.n. U.S. 11-pent-InI -1 CO-maints,
inimlisistenid by In- 0111110a -1 C-m-iinitlf Il-n-9.
0.9int-1 of C.-My.nd Rtighmal

I E,

Orl W,

lj@
'Arm

lj@

Iff

41111@

Ir I+

F IGURE

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CITY OF BETHEL

Vegetation

Wet and Moist Tundra

High Brush

Freshwater F I o r a

SO URC E: ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES

SCALE

0 2 MILES

Preparation of this (map. document.
fin riled in pan by fund. from the Al.A.'Cas.111 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
,:nt, Pro ;am and the office of Calls] Zone
@ nes I)nann, and Almosph,,ic ESE ANO ENGINEERING, I NC.
Administration U.S. Devartment of Commerce,
administered by the nivirri, of community Ptanning,
department of Crearru.4 lild Region,! hff.Vl

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
11).

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.

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. Phyto-
plankton 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.

2-25

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 1.

2-26

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

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

BAIRD
.............

.... INLET
K LAKE

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

Ole
..........

NUN VAKPA(
LA
DALL LAKE

... ..........
..... 11000,

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

.......... .......
Nl@
LAKE
........ Sd
................ ....
....... ....... ...........

see

.. ........
V,

FIGURE 12

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

Special Mammal and Bird Habitats
in the Bethel Study Area

Waterfowl
Potential Molting Areas - Emperor and Cackling Canada Geese
Potential High Density Molting Area - White-fronted Geese

Identified Non-breeder Molting Area - White-fronted Geese
Brown Bear
Concentration Along Streams
Intensive Use Area
Moose
Spring and Summer Concentrations
Fall Concentrations

Winter Concentrations

Caribou - Presen within Generalized Boundary

Arctic Fox - High Density within Generalized Boundary

SCALE

10 0 10 30 MILES

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
ESE ENGINEERING, INC.

BIRD LIFE

Bethel is located on the eastern margin of one of the largest and most
productive avifauna habitats on the continent, 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 extensive

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 vegetation. Small
flocks 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
geese and duck are fledged by mid-August. Fall departure of waterfowl

2-28

in the Bethel area appears to peak in late September and may extend through
October if warm weather persists. Waterfowl 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 winged gulls. Hangar
Lake has been indentified as a popular nesting and foraging site for water-
birds as well as waterfowl. 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 throughout the study
area include lapland longspurs, parasitic and longtailed jaegars, yellow

wagtails, tree and bank swallows, rusty blackbirds, boreal chickadees, robins,
snow buntings, and common redpolls. Ravens are abundant throughout the

region.

2-29

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. Pere-
grines feed primarily on waterfowl, shorebirds, and various small birds.

2-30

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 +
Red throated loon U + U
Common loon C +
Red-necked grebes U
Lesser sandhill crane C C
Common (Wilson) snipe A +
Western sandpiper A +
Northern phalarope C + C + C
Dowitcher +
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
Savannah sparrow- + 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 +
Raven

2-31

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.

2-32

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.

Mink are associated with lakes, ponds, and slow moving waterways and
are commonly trapped with a "taluyuk", a homemade cylindrical fish trap.
Between 10,000 and 14,000 mink are taken on the delta annually. A large
percentage of the "tundra" mink are trapped in early November before the ice
has formed a thick layer.
Beavers are common throughout the delta region, particularly in deepwater
streams and tributaries. A moderate beaver trapping effort exists on the
delta. The average number of sealed beaver is about 1,300 per year (ADFandG).
The 1980-81 catch recorded in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Game Management area (see
appendix) was considerably higher than the average takes, approximately
2,396 beavers were sealed.

2-33

Muskrats are also common throughout the delta region, although popula-
tions 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, immediately
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 f ox 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 aid of snow machines. In 1980-81 approx-
imately 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
618 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 1.

2-34

FISHES

The freshwater habitats of the Kuskokwim area support a wide range of
anadromous and freshwater fish species. The major fish species are: all
five species of Pacific salmon, whitefish (including sheefish and cisco),
burbot or "lush", northern pike, blackfish, boreal and pond smelt, arctic
lamprey, arctic char, grayling, rainbow trout, longnose sucker, slimy sculpin,
three-spine and nine-spine stickleback. The fish resources of the Kuskokwim
River system historically have been used for subsistence needs, and more
recently, support an important commercial fishery and a limited sport fishery.
The waters of the study area (see Figure 13) include the Kuskokwim
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 not illus-
trated on the map. The nonanadromous species are particularly found in the

lesser tributaries.

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 distri-
bution and spawning areas for the five species of Pacific Salmon are delineated
in Figure 13 (ADFandG). The major river tributaries provide excellent spawn-
ing 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.

2-35

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
t
o survey all areas. Unfavorable weather conditions for surveying further
imits the Department of Fish and Game in their 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
river as far as the Holitna River (ADF andG). Spawning has not been docu-
mented 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 January. Coho juveniles rear in lakes, ponds, and streams;
and remain in freshwater from one to three years before they migrate down-

stream to coastal areas.

All five species of Pacific salmon are utilized primarily for subsistence
and commercial purposes, with a slight fishing pressure from sports fishermen.

2-36

Whitef ish

Several species of whitefish are found throughout the study area.
These are: broad whitefish, humpback whitefish, round whitefish, sheefish 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 Kusko-

kwim River are broad and humpback whitefish.
Several whitefish species of the Kuskokwim River drainage, including
least cisco, broad whitefish and humpback whitefish, exhibit seasonal move-
ments between the Kuskokwim River and outlying tundra streams, lakes, and
ponds. During the summer and early fall the whitefish 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 unavail-
ability of free water and the near anerobic conditions of the shallow tundra
lakes and ponds. By midspring nonspawners and juvenile whitefish leave
their overwintering 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-breeders do not move up-
stream 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 current
and deep pools. Suitable spawning habitats are outside the study area
(Baxter).

2-37

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 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 blackfish. As smelt ascend the river in spring, subsis-
tence fishing is done by means of dip-nets.
The commercial utilization of whitefish occurs incidentally 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, gray-
ling, northern 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 residents of
Bethel (ADFandG).

2-38

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

>
> -H > ;>
rA ri

04 Cd
Cd
P ho
cc M -H 4.j
00 a)
SPECIES PQ

Arctic Lamprey + x x x P x
King 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 + + 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 P
Burbot + P P P P P
Northern Pike + + + + + +
Blackfish + + + + + +
9-spine stickleback + + P P P P
Longnose sucker + + + + P +
3-spine stickleback 0 0 0 0 x 0
Slimy sculpin + + + + + +

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

Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Inventory and Cataloging of
Western Alaskan Waters
P

2-39

ACI PK ACI LC HW BB /*
(FEW) BAIRD (FEW) YUK

INLET K [AKE
K /*

WF PK BB BF ACI
(FEW)

NUN VAKPAK
LA

DALL z
0
LAK
z

BETHEL/
J@A
ACI BF NSS LC

ER EE LAKE

Zk- 70

lp\@

c C6
V,

FIGURE 13

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF BETHEL

Fish Habitats and Distribution of Species in the
Bethel Study Area

Salmon Other Fish Species

C - Chum WF - Whitefish (General) BF - Blackfish

K - King LC - Least Cisco BB - Burbot

Co - Coho ACI - Arctic Cisco BS - Boreal Smelt
P - Pink HW - Humpback Whitefish R - Rainbow Trout
S - Sockeye PK - Northern Pike NSS - Ninespine Stickleback

Anadromous Fish Streams

Discontinuous Spawning
Major Concentration of Fish Species
(During Ice-free periods Whitefish are ubiquitous throughout
the area.)
Harvest
intensive Subsistence Whitefish and Salmon Harvest area by
Bethel Residents

Sports Fishing Streams

SCALE

10 0 10 10 vi I L E S

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
EBEAND ENGINEERING, INC.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

;M@

. .. . .... ....
''M

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

Photo by Ferdinand Dreybert.
Courtesy of Moravi an Archives.

HISTORY OF BETHEL

The history of Bethel began with the establishment of the permanent
Eskimo village of Mumtrekhlagamute, 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

1 Company
Commercia was established at the upriver end of the

2-41

settlement, near Brown Slough. The inventory of goods was owned by Separe,
however the store was operated by Edward Lind (Oswalt). Moravian missionaries
arrived at Mumtrekhlagamute Station in 1884 in search of a place 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 esta-

blished.

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 approximately 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 fur
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 sur-
rounding region. Its role as a regional center was further reinforced with
the development of transportation facilities and extensive capital projects
financed by the government. Government and social services grew considerably
during the 1960's and soon became the dominant force in Bethel's economy.
Although 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).

2-42

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 water-
front. 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).

There are two old cemetery sites in 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).

2-43

m utluak r.

to BIA

FIGURE 14

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF BETH EL

Historic Sites and Winter Trails

Regional Trail
Local Trail

Moravian Church

Settler's Cabin

St. Sophia Church

A Cernete'ry Site

SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

SCALE

0 1 MILE

The Prep ration of this (map, document,
financed in part by funds from the Alaska coastal ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Management Program and the office of Coastal Zone
Management. National Oceanic and Atmospheric AND ENIGINEERING, INC.
Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce I
administered be the Worse of Community Planning.
Department at Community and Regional Affairs.

RECREATION

Bethel supports a variety of indoor and outdoor recreation 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' play-
ground, an outdoor hockey rink with lights, and a 3/4 mile boardwalk encir-
cling the park. The park also serves as the center of the city's Fourth
of July activities.

The city plans to establish a series of neighborhood "mini-parks". Two
of the planned parks are in the Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) housing

area, one is in the Ptarmigan Subdivision, one is near the Russian Orthodox
Church in Lousetown, and one is on Second Street in Lousetown. Mini-parks

have also been proposed near Mission Lake and near Dull Lake. Parks and
Rec has hopes of eventually constructing a boardwalk system from the Ptarmigan
mini-park through the ASHA mini-park to 21 Acre Park and possibly connecting
with the P.H.S. Hospital. Construction of the segment from 21 Acre Park to
A.S.H.A. Housing is planned for the summer of 1983.
A popular recreation area, that is predominantly private property, is
H-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

2-45

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 holds 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, and the Teen
Center The city has been trying, without success, to secure funding for

construction of a swimming pool.
Parks and Rec cooperates with the high school, the Armory and the ele-
mentary school to sponsor regular activities in basketball, volleyball,
soccer, aerobic dancing, exercise classes, weightlifting and open gym.
Non-athletic 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.

2-46

ENIOR R

LING ALLEY

TEE TER

FIGURE 15

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF BETH EL

Parks and Recreation Areas
0 indoor Recreational Facilities

Parks

co
z

< < > z
0 Z C z 14 z
cc <
z 0 <

CL < <
CHARACTERISTICS < C <7

TYPE: PLAYG ROUND 0 0
NEIGHBORHOOD 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMMUNITY 0 0 0
RECREATION AREA 0 6 0 0
ACCESS: STREET ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WATER 0
TRAIL 0 0
USES: PASSIVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ACTIVE 0 0 0 : 0
URBAN
NATURAL 0 0
STATUS: EXISTING 0 0 0 0 0
PROPOSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OWNERSHIP: CITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PRIVATE 0 0
BETHEL NATIVE CORP. 1 0 10, @ 0

SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE A'@D INGINtERINC

SCALE

L
0 1 mi E

Th:hN.p-tion .1 ""' (map. dectiomm, tc,)
lot led in part by hinds from the Alaska Cmaitai ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
program iinii 11. in,. a, ....... @oo.
We" rit, and AtheSph.11c E S E A N 0 E N G I N E E R I N G. I Nd.
Adothisir"von, U.S Department of Commerce,
admmilt.'ed by In. 01W&W Of Community Phiming,
Department ad Community and Regio.al Affai,3

SUBSISTENCE

The Yupik Eskimos inhabiting the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta historically
have depended on the abundance of fish 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 affect-
ing employment, the management of resources, and economic development.
A community attitude survey relating to the culture and lifestyle of
Bethel residents was conducted by Darbyshire and Associates in 1,980. 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 neces-
sary supplement to their food supply. (Refer to Bethel Comprehensive Plan
for details.)

The land and waters within the City's boundaries is extremely important
to the community for subsistence activities (see Figure 16). Throughout
the year fish are 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 wildlife 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 subsis-

tence 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
activities in Bethel and the surrounding area.

2-48

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.

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 on 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 particularly a
U, popular area for subsistence whitefish fishing.
C)

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 commonly 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.
U1 While fishing is the principal 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.

-41 IN
It
ill'T

Jim I

:ll@ i-,@ 4 @4 @4@ @4i
we

I::

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

'1 '4
1, 40 40

16
lot

q4*

abler

FIGURE 16

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

Subsistence Harvest Areas

Salmon and Whitefish Harvest( Intensive)

Known Blackfish Trapping

Summer Fish Camp

Waterfowl Hunting (Light)

Small Game Hunting

Identified Hunting area

Berry Picking

Popular Picking Site

SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

SCALE

0 2 MILES

The Preparation of ibis (map document etc.) was
linanced in part by funds tram the Alaska Coastal ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Management Program and the office of Coastal Zone
Management. National Oceanic and Atmospharic AND ENGINEERING I NC.
Administration U.S. Department of Commerce.
administered by the Division of Community Planning
Department of Community and Regional Arts

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 com-
munity (90%) in 1960, to a community comprised of 1/3 non-natives by 1980.
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

2-53

TA13LE 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/ Preliminary estimate
!W 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 the population count
was very close to the federal census. (City 1982: 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.
The age and sex distribution of Bethel is atypical when compared to

Alaska as a whole. Table 11 illustrates the differences.

2-54

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 (%) 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

2-55

Population Growth

Since 1950, Bethel has experienced a substantial increase 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 services, 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 signifi-

cant 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 poten-
tially includes forest and agricultural products and mining and petroleum
activity (largely predicated on the proposed Yukon-Kuskokwim crossing); 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

2-56

be at a "cross-roads" in time. Some qualified assumptions have been postu-
lated 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.

TABLE 13
Population forecasts - 1990

Assumptions 1990 Population

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

2-57

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 distri-
bution 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 repre-
sentation 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).

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

2-58

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 survey estimated the
size of the labor force based on a broad definition that included "discouraged"
workers, and estimated unemployment at 48.8%. This survey serves to emphasize
the shortcomings of the Department of Labor estimates.

2-59

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

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 signi-
ficantly between Natives and Non-Natives.

TABLE 16

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

Median
Households Household Size Per Capita
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

2-60

'Ji

LAND OWNERSHIP

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 select 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 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, b"siness, subsistence camp, headquarters for reindeer h"bandry,
or nonprofit uses. The Bethel Native Corporation Board of Directors esta-
blished February 26, 1982 as the deadline for filing an application for the
reconveyance of land under the provisions of 14(c) I and 2.
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.

2-61

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 appl-
ications was incredibly slow. To expedite the process Congress approved
a Native allotment amendment, under section 905 of ANILCA.
With the passage of ANILCA all uncontested Native allotment applications
were automatically approved. An approved allotment 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 protested and are pending approval. The Bethel Native Corporation
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 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 has been sold to a non-native. An
unrestricted title allows the owner to develop the property in the same

2-62

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 as
of February 1983 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 privately 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, respectively. 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 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
of some 88 acres west of the City subdivision (Stigall). A summary of the
land ownership in Bethel is provided in the following table:

2-63

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.

2-64

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

.... . . . . . . . . . @LL 11 11 11 11 11 11 R 11 W

LLL

See Supplemental Land Ow
Map

Bill 110

fill,, LiLh a
Rug,

FIGURE 17

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

Land Ownership

Bethel Native Corporation

Pending Native Allotment

Certified Native Allotment

State, Federal, and Other Private

SCALE

0 2 MILES

F
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
MANO ENGINEERINGF INC.

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.
The unclear land ownership has potentially dramatic effects on land use
and development. An episode in early 1983 highlights this possibility. A
pending native allotment was discovered within the project"area of the small
boat harbor immediately prior to startup of construction. The project was
almost cancelled, but the City was able to negotiate with the allottee and

the BIA, and removed the claim.
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.

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 construc-
tion, docks, warehouses, storage yards, fish processing and cold storage
plants, the power plant, the sewage plant, and the airport.

2-66

Residential - Includes homes, duplexes, apartments, and mobile homes.

Public Institutional - Public or government uses not defined 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. Includes parks, cemeteries, green-
belts, or drainage easements.

Often land use is mixed, such as a store with apartments 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.

TABLE 18

Bethel Land Use - 1982

Land Use Acres % of Total % of Developed
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

2-67

UTILITIES

Electrical Utility
The electrical power in Bethel is generated by Bethel Utilities Corpora-
tion, a privately owned utility. The power facility, located behind the
Public Health Service Hospital, operates four 2,100 Kw diesel generators
which have a combined 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 project 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*

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.

2-68

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 estimated 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 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 constructed 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

construction 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.

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.

2-69

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). Darbyshire
and Associates, in 1980, estimated the hydraulic load on the sewage lagoon
as 124,300 gallons per day. This figure 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 privately 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 collection 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. Honey-
bucket service is provided at least once a week. Holding tank evacuation
can be provided weekly, and many customers receive service "on call". In

'
ovember 1981 the Public Works Department provided honey bucket collection
f'or 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.

2-70

The remaining businesses 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

businesses.

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 land-
fill site. At present there are approximately sixty dumpsters provided for
residential and commercial users throughout the City. All residential
users are charged $7.50 per month forr the dumpster service. Dumpsters may
also be indivdually leased on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis. An addi-
tional twenty-five dumpsters are scheduled to arrive this year (Bethel
Public Works).
The limited collection service is provided to approximately 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 for commercial use. The Bethel Public Works Department operates two
trucks for refuse coll@ction and dumpster containers.
The Bethel sanitary landfill site is a ten-acre open site located direct-
ly 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. Haintenance
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 eliminate the major
problems with operating a landfill site through the use of a thermal incine-
rator. The thermal incinerator would be installed subsequent to construction
of the new public utilities maintenance facility (Bethel Public Works).

2-71

its

TWO WATER TANK

FIGURE -18

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

U t I I i t i e s

Water

Sewer

Proposed Sewer

Lift Station

Pump House

Sewage Lagoon

Sanitary Landfill

Electricity

SOURCE: INVIRONMENTAI. SCIENCE AND E14GINEERING

SCALE
__j
0 1 MILE

Th:,"paration of this (map, document, atc.) as
ft. Cod m parl by Woos from the A)a$ka Coaltal ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Mao e
Mel Ocoamc a,d Atmospher,
m 'o' be .1fin of C-1.1 Z.. :
b,bofl. AN13 ENGINEERING, INC.
Allinis U ' "T"T" .1 Com".'"'
admmisbered by the Er-io- .1 C-'."'y N ... ms,
O.pa,tro.ol at Co.onno nd hgionl Aft.e,

Public Works

The Public Works Department, located in the Braund building, consists
of the utility office and utility maintenance 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 provided to the community. The construc-
tion of a new utility maintenance facility has been approved by Bethel voters
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 maintenance of streets, roads, boardwalks,
drainage improvements and parks; and the maintenance of vehicular and sta-
tionary equipment and overhaul of all city-owned facilities. The Public

W
orks Department is also responsible for the management and operatiori of
the dredge and tender, which 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,
Tundra Ridge and Hanger Lake roads, and East Avenue in Lousetown (Bethel
Public Works).

The six mile paved road or "Airport Road" is maintained by the State

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
Natural drainage patterns are invariably disrupted with the construction
of roads and other urban land uses. Major drainage problems occur at Fifth
Avenue, Ptarmigan and City subdivisions (Bethel Public Works). To divert
runoff away from subdivisions and off local streets, the Public Works Depart-

ment installed several culverts last summer. Additioaal 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 increa sed work load during the summer, the
hiring of additional personnel is essential.

2-73

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 consi-

derations.

Housing
The Office of Management and Budget has recommended the termination of
HUD 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 nationwide. Funding for the con-
struction 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 maintained the construction of seventy homes will begin

next year.
HUD loan insurance programs are available but due to uncompetitive
business rates and extensive application requirements (for lending insti-
tutions), these are not being utilized.
The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) has a low income and
regular loan iasticaace program which is currently in effect and is expected
to remain so in the future. Through the AVCP Regional Housing Authority
between sixty and seveaty homes have been assisted by the AHFC program
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

2-74

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 housiag 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 receiv-
ed a 72% reduction in authorized funds, and further reductions are anticipated.
Although the State is continuing its CETA program, the program has made
major revisions due to the federal reductions, resulting in a 62% funding
decrease. It is diffLetilt to determine how the State CETA program will be
supported in the future, though it is likely that without the legislative
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 considerable 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 busLaesses, which is gene-
rated from both local people and outsiders who work or use the hospital.

Economic Development
The major federal economic program that supported community economic
development projects was administered by the Economic Development Admin-
istration (EDA). This program has subsequently been terminated by the
Federal government. 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 requires a Corigressioaal appropriation. Furthermore, these

2-75

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
from State legislated appropriations, or combinations of State and private
funding.
In addition to community developmment projects, Federal and State poli-
cies and funding programs influence major regional economic developments.
Policies and programs which will likely affect Bethel's economy include
petroleum exploration and development, mining activities, and reindeer hus-

bandry.
Additional oil-related revenues to be gained by the State will depend
on the successful exploration and development 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 in the Kuskokwim area, Bethel would likely become a major trans-
portation 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 oa the ecoaomic viability of reindeer herding in the Calista

region.

Environmental Quality
The major issue in Bethel conceralkig, envirorimetital 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.

2-76

A related State policy in the form of enforcement of standards is found in
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). ADEC has infor-
mally 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 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 sub6i8teice use the highest

priority when the resource cannot satisfy all uses. An initiative was on
the fall 1982 ballot to repeal the subsistence priority law. If the Inttiative

had passed, subsistence use would have lost its' priority standing. This
measure was defeated by the voters by a comfortable margin.

Home Rule

A policy concern that has become a local issue is the proposed change
f rom 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 publtc 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.
4. The City could exercise eminent domain by ordinance.
5. Should a borough be formed, the City would automatically have a
representative on the assembly.

Home rule would provide with more flexibility and autonomy in governing
its affairs, but it would also mean accepting new responsibilities.

2-77

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

TRANSPORTATION-

Air Transport

Three areas in Bethel are used f or 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 company'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 inclement weatrier
when tying down oa the river becomes hazardous (Alaska Department of Trans-
portation 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 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 and associated taxiways,
the North general aviation apron and associated taxiways, and the parking lot.

Long-term development plans include resurfacing the runway, 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.

2-78

Passenger service from Anchorage is provided twice daily by Wien Air
Alaska and five times weekly by Sea Airmotive. In addition, Alaska Int er-
national 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.

TABLE 20

1980 Bethel Airport Activity

% Increase
1978-1980

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 Service Station, Bethel

In 1979, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF) projected growth of Bethel air traffic Oa-,P-d 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:
Projection 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 Mail 9.7 14.1

2-79

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 Kuskokwim Transportation, 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). During the summerof 1982, the dock was extended up Brown
Slough for a length of 400 feet. The Brown Slough segment is used for trans-
shipment of 'cargo onto river barges. The dock can accommodate only one
ocean-going barge at a time. The dock limitation forces some barges to
unload at other riverfront locations, which adds rehandling 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 Lines, Northland Services, and Southeast Alaska Barge Line. In addi-
tion, 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.

-a

Ml
Mg,
M0%

IN'S .1V

W
A 40

2-go

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 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 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 geophy-

sical hazard section.

2-81

LAKE
HARBOR ACCESS
ROADS
14

TURNING C
1030 F E E
P R
OJECT D
-4 IFT M L
v... ... . . .

.... ...... . ....... ........................
LAKE

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

... ..... ..

. . . .......
4b
..........

........ ....
......... .
........... oe.,-
.. ...... .. .... . . .......
..............
............ .. .
1:9 HIN A IN
"100 PROJECT DEPTH
...................... .
L\V
-4 FT ML ....... ......

..........
......... .. P"
..............
ANLD
... .............. ...
...... ..... ........
0

--mum
""-we ---me

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

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

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

...........

ACCESS CHANNEL
12 70 Ff
PROJECT DFPTH
-4- FT MLLW

FIGURE 19

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF B E T H E L

Proposed Small Bo-at Harbor Design

Dredged Channels

Commercial Areas

Dredge Disposal Areas

Project Boundry

Existing Shorel ine

Centerline of existing road

Centerline of proposed roads

SOURCE: U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

S C A L E
N E I

0 200 400 600 FEET

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
EBEAND ENGINEERING, INC.

Small Boat Harbor

Proper moorage f or 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 small boat harbor is expected to be operational in Spring 1984. 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

DESIGN TOTAL 850 1196 1737 2587

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The total project cost estimate is $4,241,000. The harbor will provide
benefits from reduced weather damage, reduced theft and vandalism, improved
subsistence, commercial fishtag, travel and freight savings and employment.
The benefit/cost ratio has been estimated at 1.21.

The most significant environmental impact of the proposed harbor project
is the destruction of forty-two acres of wetlands (Corps of Engineers).
Possible specific impacts include loss of some waterfowl and muskrat habitats,

2- 83

disruption of fish habitat and changes in the benthic community (Corps of
Engineers). The entire forty-two acre site is located in the floodplain.

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 dredged material is being piled to form a wall that comes within thirty
feet of the river. The sides will be sloped at a ratio of 3:1 and will be

seeded.

Two areas on the boat harbor site have been designated commercial. The
existence of the boat harbor would likely encourage other commercial develop-

ment in the Lousetown area. The expected commercial activities and the

traffic to and from the boat harbor will add congestion and strain to East
Avenue, which is already overburdened, and to Lousetown, which is already

congested.

Land Transport

The Automobile

Traditionally, the automobile has not been an important mode of trans-
portation in Bethel. Bethel has only approximately 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 speci-
fies vehicle registration for calendar year 1980.

2-84

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.

Bethel has extensive taxi cab service with f if ty-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 Facil-
ities 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-Kusko-
kwim Crossing for the Alaska State Legislature. 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

2-85

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.

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 for the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities 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 boa,-s.
UT is undecided about the economic feasibility of air cushion vehicle operation
during the winter (Hoffman).

Pedestrian

A large portion of Bethel residents walk as their primary 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 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.

2-86

jj@

ij@
jr o

1A I

F I G U R E 20

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C I T Y OF' BETH EL

Bethel Transportation

#MNEN@ Major Arterial
*0000*0090 Co I I ector

-------- Boardwa I k

Tank Farm

Proposed Small Boat Harbor

Cargo Dock

Aircraft Activity

SOURCE: ENVRONIAEi,4TAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEIRINC,

SCALE

0 1 MILE
!M7

The Preparation .1 this (Map. doc.meffl, o1c. I was
Iffienod 1. part of loads ]TOM the Alston Coastal ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Management Program Ad the office of Coastal Zone
V@nn Allaugement. National Oceanic and Atmospheric E S Fw ANO ENGINEERING, INC.
at* AdrohnittrMlon, U.S. Depinment of Commerce,
QQ
Werl-leftrwri 0, In. D.... .1 Co....fty PIAWAg.
Department at Communitif and Regional Affairs.

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 approximately 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 (J/Kwh) 12.8 14.3 17.2 NA
Average Cost including
surcharge and tax (4/Kwh) 15.9 17.2 21.8 NA

NA = Not Applicable

Source: Bethel Utilities Corporation

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

2-88

Petroleum

Chevron U.S.A. owns and operates the bulk petroleum distributorship in
Bethel. The Chevron tank farm 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.

FIGURE 21
1979 Per Capita Energy End Use(Million BTU)
201.3

189

162.5
SOUTHWEST, TOTAL PER CAPITA ENERGY USE - 279.0
F1

STATE, TOTAL PER CAPI 526.7
TA ENERGY USE

75.3

54.7

3@A
30.9
23.3
r77771
14.3

3,4 6.6

I NDUST., MISC. TRANSPORTATION COMMERCE MARINE NATIONAL DEF. RESIDENTIAL

SOURCE: ALASKA LONG TERM ENERGY PLAN- DRAFr

2-89

Figure 21 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 22 emphasizes the stark difference in energy end use in the
southwest region as compared to the rest of . the state. Transportation is
'proportionately a far larger energy-user in the southwest than the state as
a whole, while residential and industrial uses use a far smaller share of
southwest energy than in the state as a whole.

FIGM 22

1979 Energy End Use BySector
Southwest (percent) State(percent)
INDUSTRY, M I SC. RES I DEN TI A L -2.4
COMMERCIAL MARI N E- 1.2
4.0

COMMERCIA

5.9 TRANSPORTATION
NATIONAL 38.2
DEFENSE
19.6
RESIDENTIAL

14.3
INDUSTRY, MISC
T RANSPORTAT ION 4.4 30.8
b7. 7

MARINE 6.3

NATIONAL DEFENSE

SOURCE STATE OF ALASKA LONG TERPO ENERCY PLAN- DRAFT

2-90

Regional Energy Supply
End use energy (energy in a usable form) in the southwest 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

23.

FIGURE 23

1979 Energy Supply (percent)

Southwest State

E LECT RIC IT Y

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 Pt.AN-DRAFT

2-91

Potential Energy Sources

Hydro
The hydroelectric dam proposed near Bethel that has been most thoroughly
studied 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* Electricity Costs
Busbar Cost of Electricity (4/Kwh)

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, however. The Alaska Power Authority 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.

The "Bethel Area Power Plan Feasibility Assessment: Regional Report" by
Harzi Engineering indicates that the Kisaralik River hydro project is not an
economically feasible means to provide low cost power in the Bethel area. It
also indicates a more likely and economical source of power to be the proposed
Chikuminik Lake Hydro Project. (Report available from the Alaska Power
Authority.)

2-92

Wind

The potential f or 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 operational 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 low wind days), almost enough to
power one house at current Bethel consumption levels. Table 28 summarizes
the characteristics 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 Ywh

2-93

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 longterm payoff of a small wind system is becoming economic-
ally 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 permafrost precludes
extraction (Retherford Associates).

Waste Heat

Bethel Utilities Corporation began operation in January, 1982, of a
project that taps waste heat from its generators and supplies heat to the
PHS Hospital. A chance exists of hookup agreements being reached 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 ave rage 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 Asso-
ciates).

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

2-94

(Seifert and Zarling) concluded that active solar hot water heating was
economically competitive with electric hot water heating (at 10@/Kwh), but
not quite competitive with oil fired hot water heating when oil cost 531/
gallon. Residential electricity now costs 214/Kwh and oil costs $1.31/
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/ft2)

V = Average Daily Radiation on Vertical South-Facing Surface
W = Average Daily Radiation on Vertical West-Facing Surface
E = Average Daily Radiation on Vertical East-Facing Surface
H = Average Daily Radiation on Horizontal Surface

V f 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

2-95

TABLE 30

Passive Solar Heating Potential - Small 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 thermal storage
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 common 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

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:

2- 96

Estimate of Wood Heat Use in Bethel - 1981

1970 Census est imate 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, emer-
gency 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 weatherization 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 could be a thermal reduction plant for solid waste. Subterranean
housing is an energy efficient construction style that has some historical
roots in the lower Yukon-Kuskokwim region (Angaiak, Personal Communication).

Exploration for Petroleum and Natural Gas
Exploration and testing activities have indicated that a moderate poten-
tial exists for natural gas and petroleum reserves in the Bethel area. Tests
in 1959-61 near Numavakpak Lake, 30 tuiles 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).

2-97

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.

2-98

"
Rp
R,

N
-k
d
M

VH
M" "N'

@-1 IFN@.
go

-404
@g6v @n:..

COMMERCIAL FISHING AND FISH PROCESSING

Commercial Fishing
Commercial f ishing 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 f ishery has
grown considerably since statehood and represents an important source of
income to the people of the Kuskokwim area. Bethel has become a major
center for area fishermen with the establishment of several fish buying
operations and reliable transportation facilities.
90
W
A

IU14

2-99

The most valuable commercial f ish species in the Kuskokwim River are
the five species of Pacific salmon: king, coho or "silver", chum or "dog",
red or "sockeye", and pink or "humpback". Although all f ive 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 f ishing gear made f rom local materials. Both
drif t and set gill nets are legal types of commercial f ishing 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 Quinhagak
area. The Lower Kuskokwim District, from Eek Island to Mishevik Slough
below Tuluksak, encompasses the largest area and supports the greatest com-
mercial fishing effort. The Lower Kuskokwim. River fishing effort from 1965-81
is presented in Table 31.
TABLE 31
Kuskokwim River Commercial Effort Data, 1965-81

Year King 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

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

2-100

The management of the commercial salmon f ishery is conducted 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 salmon to satisfy sub-
sistence needs and meet salmon escapement 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 fishing 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 dis-.rict 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 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.

2-101

TABLE 32

Kuskokwim River Catch Data, 1976-1981

Kuskok im
River17 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

1/ 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 fishermen

was estimated at $3,767,000. The economic value represents the gross dollar
value of catch to fishermen, 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 whitefish fishery occurs incidental to
the Nugust coho season 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

2-102

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.

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

Source: Sea Grant Study, Table 4.65.

2-103

Fish Processing
Fish processing in Bethel is limited to three major fish buying opera-
tions: 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 transpor-

tation. 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 f reezers
are used for the storage of heads, roe, and seconds. Crow exports up to one
million pounds of fresh salmon annually.
The largest portion of the Kuskokwim River salmon catch is purchased by
Kemp and Paulucci. The company works in agreement with the Kuskokwim Fisher-
men 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 fish are transferred to a Japanese tramp in Bethel and shipped to
Japan.

Processing capabilities were further increased in Bethel with the com-
pletion 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 constraints 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 to integrate the processing of
other commercial resources into the existing plant capacities.

2-104

In recent years, the local demand for whitefish has stimulated the
development of a small commercial whitefish fishery. An important considera-
tion 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 proces-
sing 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 operat-
ing 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
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).

2-105

FOREST DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Resource Potential

Reid, Collins, Inc. released a study in June, 1981 of the forest develop-
ment 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 local 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 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 facil-

ity.

2-106

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 local products. The fuel demand of the mill example would
be 22.5 gallons per hour or 180 gallons per shift.

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 potential. Coal, oil, and natural
gas potential are discussed in the Energy section.

2-107

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 proximity 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 resource 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.

2-108

FIGURE 24 PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALES IN SOUTHERN
BERING AND NORTON SOUND

KOTZEBUE

Om
Ile olo ST. LAWRENCE as
ISLAND Norton
S und

UNALAKLEET
NORTONSOUND

Sale 57

NAVARIN BASIN St. Matthew 04,
Sale 83

NUNIVAK v"
ISLAND

BETHEL

DILLINGHAM 0
St. Paul pl C2
Brist0i
St. George I& NORTH ALEUTIAN SHELF
Proposed Sale 92

ST. GEORGE BASIN

Sale 70

COLD BAY
W,
NAVARIN BASI NJ @Is
St
Sale 83

MAKUSKIN

DUTCH
HARBOR
Sowce: Ala,la OCS Office, 1983 2-109

FIGU

A laska Depa
Resources P
Gas Leasing
(South%A

m lt I v

NOMINATIO
M Minch

MCGRATH
Holitna
@SKOKNN" -B Bristol
BETHEL ANIAK

DI LI HA

0
C36 G 0 100 SCALE 2 0 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 November, 1982 480 MMbbls 2.01tcf .14 .26 .67MMbb1s 523bef
(Sale 57)

St. George Basin February, 1983 1.12 Bbbls 3.66tcf .28 .37 314MMbbls 1.39tcf
(Sale 70)

*Navarin Basin March, 1984 2.47 Bbbls 8.95tcf .41 .41 1.01Bbbls 3.67tcf
(Sale 83)

St. George Basin December, 1984 N 0 T AV A I L A B L E
(Sale 89)

North Aleutian Shelf April, 1985 300 MMbbls 2.93tcf .22 .22 66MMbbls 645bcf
(Sale 92)

Norton Basin October, 1985 200 MMbbls 1.2tcf N0 T A V A I L A B L E
(Sale 100)

Navarin Basin March, 1986 N 0 T AV A I LA B L E
(Sale 107)

St. George Basin December, 1986 N 0 T AV A I LA B Ll
(Sale 101)

Basin-wide estimate

Sources: Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Tremont (from U.S.G.S.)
U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service

TABLE 36

Petroleum Potential for Proposed Sale Areas in Southwest
Alaska (State of Alaska Onshore and Nearshore Schedule)

Petroleum
Sale Area Sale No. Date Scheduled Potential

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.

2-112

Sources of Potential OCS Impacts on Bethel
Any OCS-related impacts on Bethel are likely to originate f rom 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
f rom 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 Impacts
The industries in Bethel most likely to be impacted by OCS development
are the transportation and construction sectors. Offshore and onshore OCS
facilities require shipments of cargo and people. If Bethel were to experience
a "mode rate -impact" scenario, its role as regional transportation center
would be significantly expanded. A "mode rat e-impact " scenario would also

increase the demand for Bethel construction services due to construction

needs in the lower Yukon region.
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 100 (formerly #88).

2-113

TABLE 37

Estimated Direct Employment Impact on
Nunam-Kitlutsisti Region* From Norton
Basin Lease Sale 100 (formerly 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
Source: Husky, Webesky, and Kerr.

Table 37 projects direct employment impact from lease sale 100 only and
does not account for Norton Basin lease sale 57. Table 38 projects direct
OCS employment impact on Bethel from lease sale 100 only.

TABLE 38

Projected Direct Employment Impact on Bethel
From Norton Basin Lease Sale 100

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 employ-
ment opportunities. Employment opportunities 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
opportunities in Bethel, which may result in a small population increase.

2-114

Potential OCS-Related Facilities

A variety of facilities are associated with OCS development. 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 could possibly
serve as an air support facility due to its position as the major air trans-
portation 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 obstacles 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 pipeline 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),
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 capa-
bility 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 activi-
ties. In contrast the socio-economic impact on Bethel would likely be small
due to Bethel's distance 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.

2-115

Potential Environmental Impacts
Potential environmental impacts on Bethel f rom. 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.

2-116

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 res pondents 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 activity 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 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 volunteers 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

2-117

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.

2-118

ANALYSIS

Chapter 3
RESOURCE

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 cul-
tural cultural resource analyses follow the lines developed in the previous
sections. Also a land use compatibility 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

Z-@

..............
ME,

'Is

E i
W.M.

"C s%1I
VVI:

IS,

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

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 development or increased resource utilization. Natural occurances
of the Kuskokwim River include flooding and bank erosion.
Past urban . development has occurred without consideration 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 develop-
ment, a condition that is compounded by the fragility of the permafrost that
underlies Bethel. Construction of roads and buildings which exposes the
permafrost 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 accelerates erosion. Better construction practices may be help-
ful in reducing dramage to the permafrost.
Most of the fish and wildlife habitats surrounding Bethel can be classi-

fied 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 inten-
sified 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.

3-3

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 drastically alters
the physical appearance of Bethel. Most of the developed portion of Bethel
lies within the flood plain. Efforts need to be made to discourage future

construction in the flood plain.

IJ
@1,904

.. ...... ....
,... .......

3-4

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The City of Bethel has experienced tremendous population growth over
the past two decades. Bethel's role as a service, transportation, and econo-
mic 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, particu-
larly those which affect Federal and State expenditures for the support of
social service agencies, employment assistance programs, the PHS hospital,
and capital projects; and major regional economic developments, including
forest products, mining, and petroleum activities.

Future population growth in Bethel will necessitate increased 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 construction of
the new public utility facility will alleviate the immediate problems; how-
ever, the development of a comprehensive long range utility plan is badly

needed.

Increased community growth will also demand the construction and develop-
ment of facilities and areas for cultural and recreational pursuits. Funding
for such facilities has mostly come from State legislated appropriations
which will continue to be the only reliable source of 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
maintenance 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 mainte-
nance 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 demanded by the community. The City is entitled to

3-5

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 municipal expansion is
the land use implications of the certification of pending native allotments,
which encompass a 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 landowners, 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 activi-
ties, and intense multiple use combine to warrant special attention to river-

front land use.

As the City of Bethel experiences increased community development the
potential for conflicting land uses is certain 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 conflicting land and water uses

and activities is provided in the Land and Water Use Compatibility Matrix.

3-6

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

Over the past two decades Bethel has experienced tremendous economic
growth concurrent with its population growth. The growth has been directly
related to the expanding role of Bethel as the center of transportation,
government, and services for southwest Alaska. Recent governmental cutbacks

have severely impacted government and social services, 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, tourism, and expansion
of the transportation industry.
Electricity is produced in Bethel and all the surrounding villages by
expensive diesel generators. The Kisaralik River Hydro project has been
proposed as a source of inexpensive 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 Continental Shelf (OCS) activities
has caused considerable concern in Bethel. Bethel's role as the transporta-

tion and service center for 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 population growth and
a sudden influx of OCS-related population may overload the services. Bethel
needs more specific information concerning potential OCS impacts.
The transportation needs of Bethel have expanded significantly in the
past and are expected to continue growing in the future. Plans f or the
immediate future include construction of a badly needed transshipment dock

and construction of a small boat harbor. The small boat harbor has 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

3-7

neighbors. The proposed Yukon-Kuskokwim crossing would have a significant
impact on port activity and would increase availability of some consumer
products in Bethel.

'iAZ'
OR

AIRS

iE
. . . . . . . . . . . .

Commercial fishing (primarily salmon) is a major component 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 promo-
tion of the Kuskokwim 300 Sled Dog Race.

3-8

CONFUCTING LAND AND
WATER USE DEMANDS

In the planning and approval of future land uses and activities along
coastal areas, development which may adversely 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 expla-
nation 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 fairly subjective. The
matrix should be considered only as a guide for the district's coastal plan.

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 agencies 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. See glossary for definitions of water-dependent and water-related.)
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.

3-9

Subsistence - refers to the use of the river for subsistence 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 processing 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.
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 designed 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.

3-10

RZ)
(D Fl-
0
F1_
0 (,D 'E,
Fj.
r (D
0 0:@ -. H. H-
.0
F'
rD =r F1 (D (D Fl-
C-) "1 11 (D (D (D
0 CU n @Z) I (D
B C-+ 0 (D C:
_0 (D E3
Oj H-
C+ C-) F1 F@ (D
0 rt, F-

0 @5 go* e 0 0 Residential
(5 00 0 000 0 00 0 005 0 Cmrnercial
0 0 (n 0 000 0 00 0 0 O@ 0 Industrial
0 e @5 000 0 * 0 0 0 m 0 Open Space

0 09 0 e 0 e @5 00 0 e 0 0

0 e 9 e 0 0 e 0 0 e 0 e e 0

e e@ 0 000 9 00 0 00(5

00 0 00(5 0 00 0 0 0 e

@5 00 0!5 0 (@ 0 0 e 0 0 @5 0

0 00 0 000 000 0 0 0 e

00 0 0 e e 0!@ e 0 00 0 0

PJVERFRONT

ND USE STUDY

Chapter 4
LA

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 use 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 infor-
mation on current uses, and considerations for redevelopment of the area.
It is not a land use plan, nor does it endorse the ideas presented.
The background information was prepared by the Planning Department.
The design considerations for riverfront revitalization are taken from a
preliminary report prepared for the City by ESE/Kasprisin Pettinari Design.
The 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 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 Petro-

leum 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 year. During summer, over 1,000 privately owned river skiffs and boats

4-1

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 riverfront 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.

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 27)
Current waterfront land use falls into four (4) primary categories:
residential, commercial, industrial, and undeveloped. For purposes of this
report, the properties under review are those immediately adjacent to the
river and Brown Slough up to the bridge, 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 extending
from Mission Road south behind the old Public Health Service (PHS) Hospital.

4-2

MISSION L

RESIDENTIAL

OLD PH.S. HOSPITAL

K E Y

1. MAIN STREET
FUEL DOCK AIVD 2. N.C. MARINA
TANK FARM 3. SWANSON'S STO
4. SWANSON'S MAR

5. ELM FISH PLANr

6. UNITED TRANSPO@

7 PROP SHOP
8. BROWN'S SLOUGA

9. CROW FISH PLA

/0. KEMP- PAUL UCCI

HATELY PROPERTY BETHEL

FIGURE 27
RIVERFRONT X

................ .
......... ...... SMALL BOAT
.... ....
HARBOR SITE

C K

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

..... .... ..

LOUSETOWN

3CALIE: I inch 500 feet

>REPARED BY CITY OF BETHEL

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 39 and 40). 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 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

4-4

(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 Distribu-
tion (summer gasoline sales) and Dull's Gasoline Sales. Water-related com-
mercial operations include four marinas: 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 Kitlutsisti offices; the Adult Educational Center; Buck
Rogers 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 of ten 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 industrial 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. Residential lots in other neighborhoods,
such as Lousetown, will also be affected-.

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 Petr.oleum

Tank Farm.

Also underway is testing of a steel pipe system for building the remainder
of the seawall. The City will receive an additional five million dollars for

4-5

seawall construction in 1983. Where the next phase will be constructed is
yet to be determined. Funds for the completion of this project will continue

to be sought.
Work began on the small boat harbor project in early 1983. The City
acquired approximately 50 acres from the Bethel Native Corporation and a

Native allotment applicant 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 harbor will be partially operational in the
summer of 1983, and fully operational in the summer of 1984.
The City dock/port was built in 1975. Initial construction created
240 feet of docking frontage: construction in 1982 increased docking frontage
an additional 900 feet along the western bank of Brown Slough. An expansion
of the dock warehousing area is being pursued in 1983.

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 subsistence 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 residents
surveyed in 1979 indicated that they obtain some form of food through subsis-
tence activity; one third (30%) of those surveyed obtain 50% or more of
their food through subsistence.
Presently this food and resource gathering activity (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.

4-6

During winter, snowmachines and other f orms of transportation use the
river heavily. Similar access problems occur during winter with access
conditions being generally poor.

A major concern of the community is the retention and improvement of
multiple use of the river including subsistence, commercial fishing, commer-

cial 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 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 considerations will be paramount in seawall design.
During seawall construction, the need for construction access /easements will
begin the change along the riverfront.

Riverfront Land Use

The next step, given the critical importance of the riverfront to city

inhabitants, is to develop a land use plan for the riverfront from the small
boat harbor to the old fox farm area, including Brown Slough up to the bridge.
The land use plan must 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

4-7

developing the plan itself Inclusion of this report does not endorse the
ideas it presents.
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.

4-8

o Ship sizes
- barge requirements
feet to 300 fe
feet to 100 feet
- draft (loaded)
bethel waterfront sixteen (12-16)
o Operations
revitalization study existing situa
pass/pass sys
double handli
a conceptual report article is pi
picked up, and
lack of ramp fac
ramp additions
on/roll off system
(forklift) pick
(rolls on) and
seawall/port requirements it in the storag
labor, time, mac
0 Seawall requirements portable ramps
- deep enough penetration to withstand major barge o
undermining; significant i
- strong enough to withstand ice on-shore land
action; larly in the
- tight enough for heavy barges; ramp capabilit
- high enough for erosion/inundation (15) feet.
control;
- appurtenant bank stabilization; o Transportation co
o Port requirements - day use boat do
- capacity enough for two (2) ocean portation;
going barges or one (1) ocean going - cargo docks fo
barge plus loading of two smaller change/temporary
river vessels; - boat harbor, 1,
- dock height for most vessels should and support faci
be 10-12 feet above mean level low - sea plane tran

water.

- 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; determirwnts
- 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
� 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 concepts

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.

A-Y

L-rfl@

high adMi

pixed UIP@

-k

hMVU

wo 250 0 wo low

graphic WAIO
kaod4l" p9ttinmi doWgn
2031 SOMILI-I's
328-

Cho.Oh twro

FIGURE 23

policy considerations

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
4.1 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 future
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;

Eil o Circulation

C 1 Establish Main Street-
First Avenue-Elm Street

a
s a collector street;

C2. develop a lime rock or
hard surfaced service-
IL2
V, work road through the
general cargo dock area
in an alignment paral-
lel to the seawall;

0. abandon First Avenue
west of Main Street
from future considera-
Le
tion as a through
street;

Ln c4. designate a pedestrian
trail system throughout
the waterfront area
V
coordinated with a
seawall walkway segre-
gated from motorized
vehicles;
A 5 C5. establish an easement
along the eastern edge
of Main Street right-
of-way for a pedestrian
KUSKOKMM RIVER walkway connecting the
waterfront to the
center of Bethel;

FIGURE 29 NORTH

--------------------- o River Access

Al. 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
\0 neighneighborhood
subsistence support
facility;
0
A3. Brown Slough pull-out
U" area just south of the
ffdxod
bridge on the east side
of the slough;
:7@3
A4. The First Avenue-Mis-
sion Lake Road area,
west of Main Street;
this area is utilized

0
for winter and summer
access, non-commercial
in nature;
Z'
A5. Main Street access to
F1
mercial.
retail and com
C2
facilities;

Lj
A6. Standard Oil, for fuel
L4 purposes only.

FIGURE 30

bethd wWerf ront mah st/oast phase i
kasplain pottinad doWgn / EN

FIGURE 31

mmm MMM MM MMM

design concepts immediately east of 9 initiaLe 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 9 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;
provide floats and segregate motorized
gangways for small vehicles from designated
Construct seawall tor a boat and fishing boat pedestrian ways, partic-,
length of approximately tie-up (short term);
2000 feet west of the ularly the top of the-
general cargo dock to provide short term intercepting drainage
the Mission Lake Road/ parking and drop-off/ berm;
First Avenue juncture; pick-up lanes for clearly designate all
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;
provide a medium duty
0 provide open storage crane or hoist for
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.

1@ S1 A.

'44

FIGURE 32

u@vsta 00
rfr.,-Ln@ V-V
k=Wlsln W"Ined dWgn ESE

Phasa III-IV-v: Main Street/East

6 Complete backf ill 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
6 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
conditions; 6 expand floats and 4 expand and hard-surface
gangways to handle peak parking areas along

First Avenue, complete include village news weather protected
with load 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 p r o v i d ecommunity movement around dock
a "village annex" could shelters which permit extensions, investigate
MAW-067,

FIGURE 33

the types of extensions a r e a sf or 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

1 777\1'

kesprisin pettinarl design EsE
bothd watarf r1o Ug ---FIGURE '34
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
ja=

the slough; establish a% pedestrian provide area and secur-

ity lighting;- Provide floats and ties (B2a) and port area
gangways along seawall viewing (M);
allocate a staging area for visitor and subsis-
for subsistence and tence small boat 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-W-V: Browns Slough for neighborhood activi- near boat pull-up

E@A

(Dug e IV FIGURE 35
kaWrialn pwirwi ftWgn EM

cargo dook phaSE

kaWoln peftinmi doWgn ESE

FIGURE 36

Phase IV-V: Cargo Dock
Initial phases of the cargo dock are already by forklift on hard
in operation. 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;
a work base during muddy
periods and spring 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.

WETLANDS STUDY

Cha ter 5

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 informa-
tion 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 assess-

ment 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 information.
(Study prepared by James R. Newman, Gil Peterson, and Edward N. West of
ESE.) The 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.
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 Management program, particularly
the COE's desire for refinement of the vegetation map to indicate
the extent and quality of Bethel's wetland areas.
3. The COE's intention to issue a general permit (General Permit
#81-4) for the Association of Village Council President's (AVCP)

5-1

Regional Housing Authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. This application 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) 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
qualitatively investigated for applying all three Corps criteria. These
are located on the accompanying map (Figure 37).
The field work was carried out on August 17 and 18, 1982. Participants
were Steve Gabor (planner), City of Bethel; Dr. James Newman (ecologist),
ESE; Dr. Gil Peterson (environmental planner), ESE; Dr. Edward West (ecolo-
gist), ESE; and Joe Williamson (environmental 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 jurisdiction. All sites contained

5-2

wetland vegetation; only numbered sites two and six did not qualify in all
three criteria categories. These sites did not exhibit the appropriate soil
and hydrology characteristics for wetland classification. However, sites
of the type like number two and six are mostly confined to slopes with 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 classifying land for urban u se.
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, interpretation of
the high altitude photography and review of topographic 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. Wetlands that perform functions important to the public

interest exhibit 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 detrimentally affect

natural drainage and other hydrological characteristics;
4. Shield other areas from wave action;
5. Serve as valuable storage areas for storm and flood

waters;
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

5-3

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, provides a much greater variety and density of vege-
tation. In close proximity to the river, streams and sloughs, the wetlands
have a greater likelihood of exhibiting COE defined characteristics 1, 3,
4, 5, and 7. By contrast, the wetland area outside of the 100 year flood
plain, though relatively level, has a primitive drainage pattern, less
dense vegetation and a lower likelihood of exhibiting wetland functions
important to the public interest. The investigation team therefore defined
two types of wetlands, significant and non-significant.
Significant wetlands are major drainage ways, sloughs and lakes (includ-
ing a 25 foot set back from the high water mark) and the undisturbed areas
of the f lood plain. All undisturbed land below 17.8 feet elevation (mean
lower low water) is within the 100 year flood plain (C.O.E. 1981), and is
considered significant wetlands. Land located above this level is considered
non-significant wetlands (see Figure 37).

5-4

fib,

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

..........

"IVA ........
dog^,

.41

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

..... .....

........... .
A
FIGURE 37 7 1 mile
PREPARED BY CITY OF BETHEL 4K 0 TEST SITES

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 Register 47, No. 141,
Thursday, July 22, 1982). The COE has 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 soil conditions (see 33 CFR Part 323). The activities regulated
under these two laws include construction of structures, excavation or dredg-
ing, and fill activities. Wetlands permitting is specifically concerned with
dredge and fill activities.
The jurisdiction of the two laws overlap. The permitting process includ-
ing 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 protecting rivers, lakes or wet-

lands and other similar water resources, 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 communities, 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.

5-6

Any project or development proposed within the city limits of Bethel
(and likely for miles beyond the city limits) would come under COE jurisdic-
tion. Approval from the COE will, therefore, 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 Department 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 Governmental
Coordination Unit (formerly Division of Policy Development and Planning).
The consistency determination is made on the basis of the Bethel Coastal
Management Plan, once adopted. City comments are given "great weight" by
the GCU in their analysis. (See wetlands policies in Chapter 7 and the
implementation discussion in Chapter 8.)

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.

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.

5-7

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 initiated discussion with the COE toward obtaining
a general permit for fill activities associated with individual residential

construction in non-significant wetlands.
As discussion proceeded, the scope of the general permit was broadened.
The public notice for the general permit, published April 27, 1983, states
the coverage of the permit as follows: "Activities authorized under this
general permit will include the placement of fill material for the construction
of foundation pads for structures, associated driveways and parking areas,
and for the construction of roads." (General Permit 83-4, City of Bethel,
Alaska.)

Significant wetlands are exempted from the general permit: individuals
wishing to place fill in significant wetlands mus,t apply for individual
permits from the Corps of Engineers.
The general permit, if issued as proposed, does contain a number of
specifications that must be met by the permittee, i.e. , anyone filling in non-
significant wetlands. Minimum widths and depths of roads and driveways are
given. A minimum distance of 25 feet between the toe of the fill and the
high water mark of any drainageway, slough or lake must be maintained. Fill
material must be free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Other special
conditions are also listed. The entire permit is not reproduced here as it
is still a draft document, currently being circulated for public review and
comment. Copies can be obtained from the City of Bethel Planning Department
or the Regulatory Functions Branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in

Anchorage.

HOW THE GENERAL PERMIT WILL WORK
Anyone wishing to fill (pour a sand pad, for example) a wetlands area
should first contact the City Planning Department to determine if the area
involved is covered by the general permit. This will be determined from the
1:500' map the City has developed.

5-8

If a question exists regarding whether or not a specific property falls
within the significant wetlands, an individual determination will be made by
planning department staff. This will involve review of larger scale contour
maps and a visit to the site. The definition of significant wetlands (given
above) will be the basis of the determination, keeping in mind the best
interests of the community.
If the property involved is covered by the general permit, the process
outlined in the public notice for the general permit is as follows:
1. No less than ten (10) days before beginning work, the permittee is
to contact either the City Planning Department (if fee-simple land) or the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (if trust land or land subject to 25 CFR 1.4). This
is to allow the planning departments of these two governments the opportunity

to monitor activities authorized under the permit.
2. The fill is placed.
3. Within thirty (30) days of completing the fill activity, the
permittee must notify the Alaska District Corps of Engineers.
Contacting the City or the BIA prior to the placement of fill also

provides an opportunity for the developer to double-check his or her plans, to
ensure that they meet all applicable special conditions of the general permit.
If the property involved is not covered by the general permit, i.e., is
in the significant wetlands, the developer must secure an individual wetlands
permit from the Corps of Engineers. In this instance, it is recommended that
the developer work with the City Planning Department in designing the site,
so as to facilitate COE approval.
Once an individual submits an application to the COE, notice is circulated
for public comment. Individual permits, like the general one, must be
certified by the State Governmental Coordination Unit (formerly DPDP) as
being consistent with the local coastal management plan. Part of that certi-
fication process includes asking the City for comment: the City's comments
are given "great weight" by GCU in making their decision (see Chapter 8 for
a more complete discussion of the consistency determination process).
The City will base its recommendation on an analysis of how the proposed
project meets the coastal management policies listed in Chapter 7 of this
Coastal Management Plan. If a developer works with the City in designing the
site and/or applying for the permit, it is more likely that a positive response

5-9

can be given to the state. Hence, it would be in the best interests of a
developer to discuss his/her plan with the City Planning Department.
NOTE: Lands held in federal trust, subject to 25 CFR 1.4, do not fall

into the jurisdiction of the City of Bethel. They are, however, subject to
the permitting authority of the Corps of Engineers. Developers of such lands
should deal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding wetlands permits.
The general thrust of the wetlands strategy is to discourage further
development in significant wetlands.

5-10

BETHEL

0
SUBSISTENCE USE AREA,
I Proposi*ng an Area
Meri*ti*ng

pecia en ion
(AMSA)

Chapter 6
IA

BETHEL SUBSISTENCE USE
AREA,99 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 residents used some form of subsistence

foods. Preserving opportunities 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 subsis-
tence 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 ACMP guidelines provide criteria for judging whether or not an area
qualifies as an AMSA. Generally, 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 is "areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gather-
ing, and foraging." (6 AAC 80.160)
The purpose of this chapter is to propose an area for consideration for
nomination as an "Area Meriting Special Attention." The area used for subsis-
tence hunting, fishing, food gathering and foraging by Bethel residents
overlaps Bethel and Ce-naliulriit Coastal Management districts.

6-1

AJJ@WHAK

Cree,

00000'
BE H E
wErmL

O,v A.U.S.A.
ftErHEL

0
APAKIAK Y- SKIAK
/V C,
0

I inch 4
*100'

Prepared by Citj

The area which receives the heaviest use for subsistence fishing, includ-
ing placement of f ish camps, extends along the Kuskokwim River, f rom the
Johnson River on the south, to the Gweek River on the north. (See Figure
38). 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
Cefialiulriit, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Resource Service Area. The
Cefialiulriit 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, Ceffaliulriit Coastal Management Plan).
The terrain included in the AMSA is moist tundra, with lakes and rivers.
Current management responsibility and ownership is mixed, with a variety of
state and federal agencies, local municipalities, native corporations and

private owners.
The Bethel and Ce5aliulrilt districts will jointly develop the management
plan for the AMSA as the AMSA includes lands in both districts. Bethel
proposes coordinating this effort with Cefialiulriit, appropriate state agen-
cies and any other interested or affected party.
The AMSA management plan will be adopted as a significant amendment to
both Bethel and Cefialiulriit coastal management plans. Further details on
the process for the nomination and development of the management plan for the
"Area Meriting Special Attention" are yet to be finalized.

6-3

BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR

POUCH AW
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811
PHONE: (907) 465-3568
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
October 14, 198 1 8-1983

Mr. James P. Burgess, Acting Chief
Coastal Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
Page Building One
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. _2@
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Burgess:

On behalf of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council (CPC), the
Office of the Governor, Office of Coastal Management (OCM)
formally submits the Bethel District Coastal Management
Program (DCMP) for incorporation into the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP) as a routine program implementa-
tion action.

On September 29, 1983, the CPC approved the Bethel DCMP.
For your reference, enclosed are copies of the Bethel
Coastal Management Program, OCM's revised findings and
conclusions on the Bethel DCMP, and the order of adoption
for the Council's action adopting this program.

As you are aware, the ACMP gained Federal approval on
July 9, 1979. Any change in an approved State program
must be viewed either as an amendment to or as routine
program implementation of the approved State program. OCM
has reviewed the Bethel DCMP in light of the criteria for
determining if the program change is.an amendment, as set
out in 15 CFR 923.80(c). The following are the results of
the review:

1. Boundaries: Requirements for the coastal
undary are given at 6 AAC 85.040. The Coastal
Policy Council adopted the biophysical bound-
aries of Alaska's coastal area. Neither the
requirements for boundaries nor the biophysical
boundaries have been changed by the Bethel DCMP.
The boundaries are identified and mapped at pp.
1-10 to 1-11 of the Bethel program document and
include all of the area within the City of
Bethel.
1:8.

01-A35LH

James P. Burgess - 2 - October 14, 1983

2. Uses Subject to the Management Program: The
ACMP provides, at 6 AAC 85.080, criteria for
definition of subject uses. These criteria have
not been changed by the proposed action. More-
over, the subject uses are defined at page 7-24
of the Bethel DCMP. These uses are consistent
with 6 AAC 85.080.

3. Criteria or Procedures for Designating or
Ranaging Areas of Particular Concern or Areas
for Preservation or Restoration: The criteria
for designating and managing areas of particular
concern are included with the ACMP regulations
at 6 AAC 80.160. These are not affected by the
proposed action. Moreover, the Bethel DCMP does
not designate any areas meriting special atten-
tion.

4. Consideration of the National Interest: The
jKCMP provides for consideration of the national
interest in its guidelines and standards by
requiring that a variety of resource uses be
addressed and by requiring recognition of uses
of State concern. These requirements are not
affected by the proposed action. Moreover, the
Bethel DCMP has met all pertinent requirements.

As a result of this review, OCM has concluded that the
Bethel DCMP does not represent substantial changes in or
to the ACMP. Consequently, OCM considers the incorpora-
tion of the Bethel DCMP into the ACMP to be a matter of
routine program implementation. Therefore, I request the
concurrence of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, with this
determination within four weeks of receipt of this letter
as required under 15 CFR 923.84(b)(3).

In compliance with 15 CFR 923.84(b)(2), notice of this
action has been given to the general public and affected
parties, including State and Federal agencies. Copies of
this notice and a distribution list are enclosed. Com-
ments are due to your office by November 10, 1983. Your
concurrence is anticipated by November 17, 1983.

James P. Burgess - 3 - October 14, 1983

Should you have any questions, please call Amy D. Kyle,
OCM Senior Analyst at (907) 465-3562.

Sincerely,
a 00 -
Ji'myers
Coordinator
office of Coastal Management

cm/840

Enclosures

1. Program document
2. Revised findings and conclusions
3. Order of adoption
4. Public notice
5. Distribution list

cc/enc: Bill Brah, OCRM, Washington D.C.

cc: Jay Hogan, DGC, Juneau
The Honorable Jon Halliwill, Mayor, City of Haines
Nelda Warkentin, DCRA, Anchorage
Cheryl Keepers, Bethel

COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN

Chapter 7

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREFACE

This chapter is divided into five distinct sections, each having a different
purpose. While some items appear in more than one section, the duplication

is necessary.

The first section is a broad look at the issues and goals of the coastal
management plan. It provides the context for the local focus of the plan.
It sets forth the aspirations of the City, and will serve to guide City

actions into the future.

The second section discusses the relationship of the issues and goals to
the background information and the resource analysis found in Chapters 2 and 3

of this document.

The third section notes that no new management authorities are being
established by this plan, and refers the reader to a list of who is to regulate

what activity in the City.

The fourth section lists what activities are subject to this coastal
management plan, and what uses will be considered proper or improper.

The fifth section lists the coastal management policies which are to be
the "rules" of the Bethel Coastal Management Plan. This is the section of
most importance to state and federal decision-makers. It is also the section
the City will use in determining if a particular project is consistent with
the coastal management plan.

7-1

ISSUES, GOALS, 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 maintaining desirable existing conditions. Issue state-
ments represent 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 guidelines for public officials so as to ensure that decision
making is in keeping with the stated goals and objectives and to serve as the
basis for developing detailed standards; and Implementation represents the
various public and private actions necessary to realize the goals and objec-

tives.

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.

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 and many structures have been

7-2

moved more than once to escape the advancing water. Attempts at stabi-
lizing 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 commercial and indus-

trial use of the river.

Policies:

. Adequate access shall be provided for in the design process for erosion

control measures.

. Adequate space for commercial and industrial use shall be provided for
in the design process for erosion control measures.

. Public access shall be the highest priority use in any lands reclaimed
by 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.

7-3

The City shall include adequate commercial and industrial use as a
determinant in the design process and erosion control measures.

RIVER & WATERFRONT USE

Issue:

The lifeline of Bethel is the Kuskokwim River. It represents a resource
with many opportunities, which in turn have produced conflicting demands
for the use of the river and the waterfront. Without planning based on
the articulation of community preferences in a spirit of goodwill 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 subsistence. The competition
for location along the river has resulted in mixed land use, traffic
congestion and associated 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 conveyance (transportation), and
private boat use.

� Protect and enhance subsistence use of the river.
� Protect and enhance public access to/from river for water and land

vehicles.

Objectives:
Space shall be provided for river use facilities, including public and
private docks, haul out areas, launch ramps, commercial cargo handling

facilities and floatplane ports.

7-4

Policies:

Priority shall be given to waterfront uses which are water-dependent

and water-related.

. Other uses will also be allowed if adequate space is provided for water-
dependent and water-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.
. 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 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.

7-5

@. ...... .

Goal:

Subsistence shall be recognized as an important dimension of the lifestyle

of Bethel residents.

Objdctive:
Develop an open space system and other features of the Comprehensive
Plan that will facilitate the pursuit of subsistence activities.

7-6

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.

Policies:

. Drainageways and lakes shall be kept free from development.
. Development in subsistence use areas identified and designated in
accordance with 6 AAC 80.120 shall be discouraged. Potentially conflict-
ing uses or activities in subsistence use areas may be authorized if a
study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed potentially con-
f licting use or activity upon subsistence usage is conducted and appro-
priate safeguards to assure subsistence usage are provided. [6 AAC
80.120(d)]
. Development in the proposed Bethel Subsistence Use Area AMSA shall be
conducted in accordance with the management plan for that area, when
adopted.

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 shall be established

� The City shall nominate the area used most intensively by Bethel residents
for subsistence activities as an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA).
� The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When necessary,
the city shall seek additional federal, state or other funds for imple-

mentation.

HABITAT

Issue:

Residential and commercial development in Bethel alters vegetation and

7-7

topography through the creation of sand pads and use of other construction
techniques. Site development sensitive to critical habitat characteris-
tics 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.

Policies:

� Habitats shall be managed in accordance with ACMP standard 6 AAC 80.130.
� Roads constructed over drainageways that contain fish shall be
adequately culverted or bridged to allow for fish passage.

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 implementation.

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 significance of these wetlands varies and development
policy needs to be formulated for future growth. (See wetlands chapter
for definition of significant and non-significant wetlands and their
details.)

7-8

M..
IN

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

Goals:

. Develop a wetlands management strategy that will reduce the impact of

flooding on structures and properties in the city.
. Facilitate local compliance with federal law.

Objectives:
Obtain general permit f rom U. S. Army Corps of Engineers f or f ill in non-
significant wetlands.

7-9

� 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:

� Wetlands shall be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, to avoid
adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, and to avoid the destruc-

tion of important habitat.
� New development in significant wetlands shall be discouraged unless:
- there is significant public need for the proposed use or activity;
- there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need which
would conform to the above policy; and
- all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the above
policy are taken.

� A minimum distance of 25 feet shall be maintained between the toe of any
fill and the high water mark of any drainageway, lake or slough.
� Roads constructed over drainageways shall be adequately culverted or
bridged to maintain normal surface water flow and fish passage (where
appropriate).

Implementation:
� The City shall seek a general permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for fill in non-significant wetlands.
� 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 discourage development within

significant wetlands.
� 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.

7-10

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.

-W

7-11

Goal:

. Provide for adequate surface drainage.

Objective:
. Develop a drainage element as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policies:

� Drainageways and lakes shall be kept free from development.
� No development shall take place without adequate measures to provide
for natural surface drainage and run-off.
� Natural drainageways and catchment basins shall be the preferred use
for managing surface drainage.
� Roads shall be properly ditched and culverted.

� Roads constructed over drainageways shall be adequately culverted or
bridged to maintain normal surface water flow and fish passage (where
appropriate).
� Road banks shall be seeded to prevent erosion.

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 lakes.

� The drainage element of the Comprehensive Plan shall address standards

for new construction and associated fill that will act to minimize the

creation of drainage problems.
� 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.

7-12

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 collec-
tion 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 lakesi 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.
� Develop solid waste disposal system adequate for City needs.
� Study the actual impact of gray water runoff, and develop any necessary
strategies to lessen negative effects.
� Initiate 'a study to determine the effects of and alternatives for fish
processing by-product disposal.

Policies:

� Sewage, waste and gray water disposal in Bethel shall meet the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation standards.

� Waste incineration shall meet or exceed ADEC standards for air quality.
� Recycling shall be encouraged.

Implementation:
A waste disposal plan for the City shall be developed and incorporated
into the Comprehensive Plan. All actions shall be consistent with that
plan.

7-13

� 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 col-
lection 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.
� 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 sedi-
ment. 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:
� Development shall be carried out in a manner which keeps blowing sand

and silt under reasonable control.

� Roads shall be covered with gravel.

7-14

Waste incineration shall meet or exceed ADEC standards for air quality.

Roadbanks shall be seededo

Implementation:
. The City shall develop standards to control the release of wind-borne
sand and silt from roads, sand pads and sand pits.
. 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

fundso

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. Community 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 Plan which
addresses pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

7-15

� Design and construct a trail system that minimizes pedestrian and
vehicular conflict. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic should be kept

separate.
� Improve pedestrian access.
� Maintain traditional winter trails to villages.

Policies:

� Future development shall take place in such a way as to minimize pedes-

trian and vehicular conflict.

� Future development shall allow for the continued use of traditional

winter trails.

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 ease-

ments.

� 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.

RECREATION

Issue:

A need exists for adequate recreation facilities.

Goal:
Provide adequate recreation space and facilities for all Bethel residents.

7-16

Objective:
Develop a long-range plan for parks and recreation.

Policies:

. Selected municipal properties shall be designated for recreational

purposes.
. Parks or mini-parks shall, to the extent feasible, be provided in all

city neighborhoods.
. Development of recreational areas shall be in accord with ACMP standard

6 AAC 80.060.

Implementation:
� A long range parks and recreation plan shall be developed and made an
element of the Comprehensive Plan.

� The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When necessary,
state, federal or other funds will be sought to implement the above.

MINERALS EXTRACTION

Issue:

A need exists to coordinate and plan for efficient use of sand resources

within the City.

Goal:

To maximize resource use while minimizing the negative effects of sand

extraction.

Objective:
Develop a long-range plan for sand extraction.

Policy:
Mining and mineral processing shall meet ACMP standard 6 AAC 80.110.

7-17

Implementation:
� A long-range sand extraction plan shall be developed with the input of
all interested parties.
� The City shall provide funds to accomplish the above. When necessary,,
state, federal or other funds will be sought to implement the above.

7-18

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 dis-
cusses seawall projects at the cargo dock and fuel dock and illustrates the
importance of the River as a transportation corridor. The Subsistence sec-
tion 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 plannin,g
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, and recreation. Riverbank stabilization pro-
jects need to consider 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

7-19

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 allotments 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, transportation 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 on community
services. The economy of Bethel is in a vulnerable position because of an
overdependence on government and support industries such as transportation
and service. Continued 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 Transportation

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 the city. Related issues include Subsistence,
Recreation, Drainage and Wetlands.

7-20

Future planning for open space must refer to current land use and owner-
ship 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 Management 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 of natural drain-
age is discussed in the Geophysical Hazards and Public Works sections.
Large scale maps (1":1001) 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 conventional waste disposal services to
the entire community. The need for expanded services and the development of
a comprehensive utility plan is implicit.

7-21

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.
Onshore 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 develop-
ments obstruct commonly used trails (see Transportation section). The major
local and regional trails have been identified and are illustrated 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.

7-22

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

One of the principles of the coastal management program is to use - to
the greatest extent possible - existing governmental authorities and agencies
to implement local coastal management plans. Within state and federal govern-
ment, a number of cabinet level departments, as well as divisions and agencies
within those departments, have statutory responsibilities 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.

7-23

USES & ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO
THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Me 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 con-
struction 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

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.

7-24

. Land uses of more than local concern, including those that confer signi-
f icant environmental, social, cultural or economic benef its 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 established by statute.

ACMP guidelines state that these uses must be treated fairly in local
plans, and not be unreasonably excluded or restricted. Policies in the Bethel

plan generally reflect state coastal management objectives, and do not unreason-
ably 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.

7-25

COASTAL MANAGEMENT POUCIES

The policies listed below are the "rules" of the Bethel Coastal
Management Plan. These are the policies to be used by local, state and
federal decision-makers in determining if a specific proposed use is
consistent with the Bethel Coastal Management Plan.
The list is roughly grouped by issue or topic area. In some cases, a

policy will be listed under more than one heading. When this occurs, it
will appear with its original number: it will not be renumbered.

GENERAL POLICIES WHICH APPLY TO
ALL DEVELOPMENT IN CITY LIMITS

Community Growth
1. . Future development shall take place in such a way as to minimize
vehicular and pedestrian conflict.
2. . Future development shall allow for the continued use of traditional

winter trails.

Wetlands Development
3. . Wetlands shall be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, to
avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, and to avoid the

destruction of important habitat.
4. . New development in significant wetlands shall be discouraged unless:
- there is significant public need for the proposed use or activity;
- there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need

which would conform to the above policy; and
- all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the

above policies are taken.
5. A miminum distance of 25 feet shall be maintained between the toe of
any fill and the high water mark of any drainageway, lake or slough.

7-26

6. Roads constructed over drainageways shall be adequately culverted or
bridged to maintain normal surface water flow and fish passage (where
appropriate).

Drainage
7. . Drainageways and lakes shall be kept free from development.
8. .No development shall take place without adequate measures to provide
for natural surface drainage and run-off.
9. .Natural drainageways and catchment basins shall be the preferred use
for managing surface drainage.
10. .Roads shall be properly ditched and culverted.
6. .Roads constructed over drainageways shall be adequately culverted or
bridged to maintain normal surface water flow and fish passage (where
appropriate).

11. . Road banks shall be seeded to reduce erosion.

Habitat

12. . Habitats shall be managed in accordance with ACMP standard 6 AAC 80.130.
13. . Roads constructed over drainageways that contain fish shall be adequate-
ly culverted or bridged to allow for fish passage.

Waste Di posal
14. . Sewage, waste and gray water disposal in Bethel shall meet the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation standards.
15. . Waste incineration shall meet or exceed ADEC standards for air quality.
16. . Recycling shall be encouraged.

Air Quality
17. . Development shall be carried out in a manner which keep blowing sand

and silt under reasonable control.

18. .Roads shall be covered with gravel.
15. .Waste incineration shall meet or exceed ADEC standards for air quality.

11. .Road banks shall be seeded to reduce erosion.

7-27

Development along the Waterfront
19. . Priority for development along the waterfront shall be given to water
dependent and water related uses and activities.
20. . Other uses will also be allowed if adequate space is provided for
water-dependent and water-related uses.
21. . Adequate opportunities for subsistence use of the river shall be
provided.
22. . Increased public access to the river for land and water vehicles
shall be provided.
23. . Development along the riverfront shall allow for adequate public

access.

24. . The river, including tributaries and sloughs, shall be kept free of
navigation hazards.
25. . Public access shall be the highest priority use in any lands reclaimed
by erosion control measures.

Geophysical Hazards (Development in Hazardous Areas)
26. . Residential construction in already platted and developed flood
plain areas not in the significant wetlands shall be allowed if it
meets the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
27. . Development in areas threatened by erosion shall not be permitted
unless siting, design and construction standards for minimizing pro-
perty damage and protecting against loss of life are met.

Subsistence Use

7. . Drainageways and lakes shall be kept free from development.
21. . Adequate opportunities for subsistence use of the river shall be
provided.
28. . Development in subsistence use areas identified and designated in
accordance with 6 AAC 80.120 shall be discouraged. Potentially

conflicting uses or activities in subsistence use areas may be auth-
orized if a study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed

potentially conflicting use or activity upon subsistence usage is
conducted and appropriate safeguards to assure subsistence usage is
provided [6 AAC 80.120(d)].

7-28

29. Development in the proposed Bethel Subsistence Use Area AMSA shall be
conducted in accordance with the management plan for that area, when

adopted.

POLICIES WHICH APPLY TO
SPECIFIC USES AND ACTIVITIES

Erosion Control Measures

30. . Adequate access shall be provided for in the design process for erosion

control measures.

31. . Adequate space for commercial and industrial use shall be provided for
in the design process for erosion control measures.

Trails

1. . Future development shall take place in such a way as to minimize
vehicular and pedestrian conflict.

2. . Future development shall allow for the continued use of traditional

winter trails.

Recreation

32. . Selected municipal properties shall be designated for recreational

purposes.
33. . Parks or mini-parks shall, to the extent feasible, be located in all

city neighborhoods.
34. . Development of recreational areas shall be in accord with ACMP standard

6 AAC 80.060.

Energy Facilities
35. Any energy facility necessary for future development shall be sited
according A.C.M.P. standard 6 AAC 80.070.

Transportation and Utilities
36. Transportation and utility routes and facilities shall comply with

the A.C.M.P. standard 6 AAC 80.080.

7-29

Fish and Seafood Processing
37. Development of new facilities for commercial fishing and fish processing
shall meet the general policies in this plan.

Timber Harvest and Processing
38. . Timber harvest and processing shall meet A.C.M.P. standard 6 AAC 80.100.

Mining and Mineral Processing
39. Mining and mineral processing shall meet A.C.M.P. standard 6 AAC 80.110.

7-30

IMPL ENTATION

Chapter 8
EM

IMPLEMENTATION

The intent of this coastal management plan is to benefit the community of
Bethel by furthering the common good. It is with this understanding, and in

a spirit of helpfulness, that the plan is to be implemented.
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, "consistency",
allows the plan to affect actions beyond those of the City proper. This is
described in the section titled "Coastal Management Policies: 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.

Coastal Management Policies: How they will be implemented locally
The coastal management policies listed in the previous chapter are the
basis of this plan: they are the "rules" for local coastal management.
Whether backed by City ordinance (such as the subdivision ordinance) or
federal law (such as wetlands permitting), these are the policies which shall
0
be followed 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 a state agency
with permitting responsibilities, will use these policies in their review of
a proposed project.
This plan does not establish any new review procedures or new layers of
bureaucracy. It relies on existing procedures, such as the building permit
system and subdivision review process. It does add new policies to these
procedures. It also gives new responsibilities to the decision-makers,
as they must ensure their actions are in conformance with this plan.

8-1

'Di
Di

fij

. .. ...... .

@AA
IMF&

8-2

There are currently three types of routine local action that will
incorporate the coastal management policies. They are. building permits,

review and comment on state or federal permits, and Planning Commission
actions. **

In the granting of building permits, the coastal management policies
will simply be added to the list of criteria considered before granting a
building permit.
For example, one of the non-coastal management criteria considered is
whether or not a building will meet the yard requirement for distance from
the property line. This is routinely checked when reviewing a building permit

application.
Once this plan is adopted, conformance with coastal management policies
will be added to the process. A checklist or other similar format will be
used by Planning Department staff to make sure all pertinent City regulations

are met.

From the point of view of an applicant, the steps will be as follows:
1. Pick up and fill out the building permit applicationi
2. Submit the completed application with the appropriate fee to the
Planning Department.
3. Planning Department staff reviews the application. If additional
information is necessary, staff will contact the applicant and

request it.
4. If the application shows the project will conform to all applicable
City regulations, including coastal management policies, the pre-
liminary building permit will be issued. (The preliminary permit
is valid for 120 days.)
5. When the project is permanently positioned on the lot, the applicant
submits an as-built survey to the Planning Department
6. Planning Department staff grants the final permit.
If the application shows that the project will not meet all applicable
City regulations, the following steps will be taken:

* If a de@eloper is proposing to put any fill(sand) in wetlands. the
steps outlined in Chapter 5 also apply. See Chapter S. especially pages
5-8 through 5- 10. for a discussion of the COE general permit.

8-3

A. Planning Department staff will contact the applicant and present
the problem.
B. Together, the applicant and staff will discuss the problem and
try to resolve it. This may be a matter of providing more
information to City staff, or may involve modifying the project.
C. If the problem is resolved, the preliminary permit is granted
and things proceed as usual.
If the problem is not resolved, the applicant can appeal to the Planning
Commission. If not satisfied with the Planning Commission's decision, an
appeal can be made to City Council. These steps are contained in state law
(AS 29.33.110). If the negative decision is made on the basis of a coastal
management policy, the applicant can appeal to the State Coastal Policy
Council. These steps are outlined in the ACMP guidelines. (AS 46.40.100)
In most cases, a developer can anticipate a two to three day processing

time for preliminary building permits.
For actions that go before Planning Commissoin for review, such as
subdivision approval, a coastal management analysis will be added to the
usual procedural steps. Planning Department staff will prepare a written
analysis of the proposed project's consistency with applicable city regula-
tions, including the coastal management policies. (This is, in effect, a
local "consistency review"). The Planning Commission will use this analysis
in making their decision.
The precise steps involved, from a developer's point of view, are not
listed here as they vary, depending on the nature of Planning Commission
action needed (e.g. plat approval, subdivision approval, vacation of an
easement, etc.). Most are established by ordinance or statute: contact the
Planning Department for specific instructions.
In all cases, it will be necessary for a developer to contact the Planning
Department in advance of the Planning Commission meeting to provide staff the
time to prepare the written review. Again, if in the process of doing the
analysis, more information is needed, the staff will contact the developer.
If it appears that the proposed project will not meet coastal management
or other criteria, staff will contact the developer to discuss the problem.
Staff will work with the developer to resolve any problems, in the spirit of
helpfulness cited in the introduction to this chapter.

8-4

The analysis provided to Planning Commission will note any unresolved
issues: Planning Commission then decides what action to take.
If a developer is dissatisfied with the Planning Commission decision,
he/she can appeal to City Council. If the decision is based on coastal
management policies, and the developer is still dissatisfied with the City
Council decision, the state Coastal Policy Council is the final recourse, as

noted above.

Adding the consistency analysis to projects going before Planning
Commission will increase the time needed for processing, 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.
The third local action that will routinely occur is City review of a
permit application submitted to a state or federal agency.
Many projects will need state or federal permits in addition to a local
building permit. 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 directly to the appropriate agency.
When agencies or clearinghouses send the Planning Department a notice
of pending permit action on a project that will affect Bethel, the proposed
project will be reviewed for consistency with coastal management policies.
The Planning Department will prepare this analysis, and send a copy of its
findings to the permitting agency (or clearinghouse) 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 recom-
mendation to deny approval will be made. In some instances, the analysis

8-5

may recommend specific stipulations be included in the permit which would
bring the project into conformance with the coastal management policies.
Reference to the policies used in these instances will be provided.
Developers are urged to discuss their projects with the Planning Depart-
ment 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, Plan-
ning Department staff can provide suggestions on how to best meet relevant

requirements.

Coastal Management Policies: 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, by the Federal Department of
Commerce, both state and federal agencies must ensure that their actions are
consistent with this plan, to the maximum extent practicable. This affects
agency actions: projects they plan in Bethel must meet coastal management
policies. (There is one exception: federal lands are excluded. However, any
.,spillover impacts" of actions on federal lands that have "direct effects" on
state lands or waters are reviewed for consistency.)
Probably more importantly, their decisions on permits must be based on

local coastal management policies, as well as their own criteria. Local
review and comments on permit action will influence agency decisions.
In the case of federally initiated or permitted. activities, the state
clearinghouse reviews proposals for consistency with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. The clearinghouse contacts the local district and must
give "great weight" to the views of the district regarding the project's
consistency 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 that the
earliest possible notification be sent to the Planning Department 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

8-6

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.
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.

Meeting Goals and Objectives
Another aspect of implementing the plan involves the follow through on
the goals and objectives listed in Chapter 7. Most of these activities will
be the responsibility of the Planning Department: for example, amending the
Comprehensive Plan or developing a drainage plan.' Planning Department
will pursue these objectives as aggressively as possible given staff and
budget constraints.
The following studies or plans have been identified as necessary for
follow-through for the coastal management plan. They are listed in order of

priority:.
. Drainage study (ready to begin)
. Comprehensive Plan update (scheduled for summer of 1983). Elements to

be added to the Comprehensive Plan include:

drainage

trails

subsistence resource use

recreation

open space

air quality

Waste disposal plan

Riverfront Land Use

Subsistence Use AMSA

Mineral Extraction

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 Administration 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 Depart-
ment 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 depar-

tment to handle these tasks.

Current staffing includes a Planning Director, Planner, Planning Techni-
cian and Coastal Management Coordinator. The latter three report to the
Planning Director. The Planner is currently responsible for consistency

reviews.

Maintaining this staffing level will be necessary once the Coastal
Management Plan is adopted, given the additional implementation responsibi-
lities. Additional staff will not be required for plan implementation. The

estimated annual expense for these positions and related support costs is

$185,000.
There are no current plans to change the organization of the Planning
Department. Correspondence relating to coastal management should be sent to:

Planning Department
City of Bethel
P.O. Box 388
Bethel, AK 99559

8-8

PUBUC
PARTICIPATION

Chapter 9

PUBUC PARTICIPATION

The Alaska Coastal Management Program requires that a district program
include "evidence of effective and significant opportunities for public parti-
cipation" 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. Consi-
derable energy has gone into this effort, based on the belief that this plan
should address issues identified by citizens, and use their opinion" and
wisdom in fashioning solutions to existing problems.
The basic element in the effort to ensure the representation of different
viewpoints in the planning process has been the formation of the "coastal
management working group". Representation from various organizations was
sought, including the Bethel Native Corporation, Orutsaramuit Native Council,
Lousetown Development Association, Celialiulriit (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, pro-
viding coastal management staff with considerable guidance and feedback, par-
ticularly regarding issues, goals, objectives, implementation, and policies.
Working group meetings 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.)
Two general public meetings and one public hearing were held prior to
the publication of the public hearing 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.

9-1

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 prior to printing the public hearing
draft included 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).
The public hearing draft was published in February 1983. A summary was
printed as an insert to the local newspaper in March. Coastal management
staff also appeared on the "Yuk to Yuk" show prior to the first public meeting
to discuss the public hearing draft and to inform people about the meetings

scheduled.

An intensive public awareness campaign was conducted in March. Public
service announcements were made for radio and television, and were given
considerable air time on KYUK. Advertising was placed in the newspaper,
meeting notices were on cable TV, and notices were posted in many locations

around town.

Initially one public meeting and one public hearing were scheduled. At
those meetings, people requested more time to consider the plan and additional
meetings to discuss it. Six more topical meetings were held in response to
their request, and one additional public hearing. In sum, considerable public
input was generated at those meetings. This draft of the Bethel Coastal
Management Plan reflects substantial public participation and is the better

for it.

9-2

I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX I
I
I
I LOCAL PLACE NAME MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-4

;04
OIL

AI.

-4

csj t. 4
4L
ti

41'

4
10

#4l

616

40z

00 0

SIM m

FIGURE 41

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

CITY OF BETHEL

Place Names and Neighborhoods

1. TUNDRA RIDGE 12. "ALLIGATOR ACRES"

2. AIRPORT 13. KILBUCK SCHOOL

3. FUEL DOCK 14. POST OFFICE

4. P.H.S. HOSPITAL 15. KUSKOKWIM COMMUNITY

COLLEGE
5. TRAILER COURT

16. CITY OFFICES
6@ CITY SUBDIVISION

17. MISSION LAKE
7. A. S. H. A. HOUSING
8. SEWAGE LAGOON 18. FIRST AVENUE

19. CARGO DOCK
9. CITY DUMP

20. LOUSETOWN
10. MIKELNGUUT ELITNAUVIAT
SCHOOL 21. SMALL BOAT HARBOR

11. HIGH SCHOOL 22. HANGER LAKE

23. BLUEBERRY FIELDS SUBD.

SCALE

0 1 2 MILES

PREPARED BY THE
CITY OF BETHEL

I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX 11
I
I
I
I GLOSSARY/ DEFINITIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GLOSSARY/DEFINITIONS

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program. Established by the
Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977. Standards and
guidelines of the ACMP are contained in 6 AAC 80 and
6 AAC 85.

AMSA Area Meriting Special Attention, an area which may require
special management because it has outstanding value to the
general public, is particularly sensitive to change, or
because plans for the area or claims upon its resources
could preclude other uses.

CPC Coastal Policy Council., a 16 member body, composed of nine
local elected officials and seven cabinet members to over-
see the ACMP.

COE Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Army.

CENALIULRIIT Yukon-Kuskokwim Coastal Resource Service Area Board (see
figure 1 for area involved).

DEVELOPER For purposes of this plan, anyone making an improvement on
a lot in Bethel. This includes the construction of an
external building or structure, water or sewer facility, or
external changes that constitute a betterment of real
property.

DRAINAGEWAYS Areas which serve as collectors for runoff, including lakes,
sloughs, and areas that channel water into them. Refer to
the Bethel Planning Department for questions on specific
locations.

FLOOD PLAIN That area of land adjoining the channel of river, stream,
watercourse, lake or similar body of water which will be
inundated by a flood that can reasonably be expected for
that region. Land below 17.1 feet elevation, mean lower
low water.

HIGH WATER The maximum height or stage reached by rising water.

LAKE Standing body of water with a surface area of 1/2 acre
or more,

MEAN LOWER LOW WATER The mean height of the lowest waters at a parti@
cular point over a considerable period of time.

TRUST LANDS Lands held for Alaskan Natives by the federal government.
Actions on these lands are regulated by 25 CFR 1.4.

A-2

WATER-DEPENDENT Refers to a use or activity which can be carried out
only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use
requires access to the water body.

WATER-RELATED Refers to a use or activity which is not directly depen-
dent upon access to a water body, but which provides goods
or services that are directly associated with water-depen-
dence and which, if not located adjacent to water, would
result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services
offered.

WATERFRONT For purposes of the policies in this plan, the waterfront is
the land adjacent to the Kuskokwim River and to Brown Slough,
from the mouth of the slough to the bridge.

WETLANDS Land that exhibits the following characteristics:
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)
of two or less, and
c) the presence of water (free) in the soil.

SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS Major drainageways, lakes and sloughs (including
a 25 foot setback from the high water mark) and the
undisturbed areas of the flood plain. (Below 17.1 feet
elevation mean lower low water). Map available from the
Bethel Planning Department.

NON-SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS All other land areas within the city.

A-3

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 S9 S9 s
I IN STUDY AREA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

IMPORTANT PLANTS OF THE WET TUNDRA COMMUNITY

Characteristic Species

Bog orchid Platauthera dilatata
Cotton grass Eriophorum angustifolium
ssp. subarcticum
Sphagnuni moss Sphagnum rubellum

Additional Species

Shrubs

Dwarf birch Betula nang ssp. exilis
Blueberry Vaccinium uliginosum
Labrador tea Ledum palustre ssp. decumbens
Willow Salix fuscescens

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 Iris setosa ssp. setosa

Grasses and Sedges

Beach rye grass Elynius arenarius ssp. mollis
March arrowgrass Triglochin palustris
Oat grass Hordeum brachyantherium
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. m aritima

Lichens, mosses and liverworts

Al- 4

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.
Shrubs Additional Species

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
Monkshood Aconitum delp @i@ifolium ssp.
delphinifolium
Violet Viola epipsila ssp. repens

Grasses and Sedges

Bentgrass Agrostis borealis
Bluejoint reed grass Cal-amagrostis canadensis
Cotton grass Eriophorum angustifolium ssp.
subarcticum
Hair grass Deschampsia caespitosa
Mountain timothy Phleum commutatum
Wood rush Luzula parviflora
Sedge Carex pluriflora

Fern Relatives

Alpine clubmoss Lycopodium alpinum
Fir clubmoss L. Selag-o- ssp. selago

Lichens and Mosses

A-5

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 palUs-Ttre ssp.'decumbeus
Prickly rose Rosa acic0--aris
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-6

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 hoyl Pigmy Shrew
Lepus americanus Snowshoe Hare
Lepus othus Arctic Hare
Castor canadensis Beaver
Dicrostonyx groenlandicus Collared Lemming
Sunaptomys borealis Bog Lemming
Lemmus trimucronatus Brown Lemming
Clethrionomys rutilu-s Red-backed Vole
Microtus miurus Tundra Vole
Ti-crotus 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
Can_@s -1upes Wolf
Gulo gu7-o Wolverine

A-7

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
Prosopi'@m -cylindraceum Round Whitefish
Oncorhynchus tsha@y-tscha King Salmon
Oncorhynchus ner15 Red Salmon
Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon
Oncorhynchus gorB-uscha Pink Salmon
Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon
Salmo gairdnerii Rainbow Trout
Salvelinus-alpinus Arctic Char
Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout
Thymallus arcticus Grayling
Osmerus eperlanui-- Boreal Smelt
Llypomesus olidus Pond Smelt
Dallia pectoralis Blackfish
Esox lucius Northern Pike
Lota Iota Burbot
Catostomus catostomus Longnose Sucker
Cott-us cognatus Slimy Sculpin
Pungitius pungitius Ninespine Stickleback
Gasterosteus aculi-atus Threespine Stickleback

A-8

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

GAME MA

23 25

21 20

19
14
16

6
15
7
5
17

10
Yukon Kuskokwim Rq

I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX V
I
I
I
I SOURCES USED FOR RESOURCE
I A ESSME
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SOURCES USED FOR
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT

Climate

Alaska Department of Fish and Came. 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 Atmos-
pheric Administration Climactic Atlas of the Outer Continental
Shelf Waters and Coastal Regions of Alaska, Vol. 1. 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.

Malone, John. (Personal Communication) Malone & Malone, Bethel.

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
_6_sl@ar J-.-fe-rrians, Jr. 1965.

A-10

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 cf
an Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report. April, 1981.

. Bethel Small Boat Harbot Report. Detailed
Project Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bethel, Alaska.
August, 1981.

Flood-Insurance Study. City of Bethel, Alaska.
Prepared for the Fea-er-a-F-Tnsurance Administration, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. January, 1975.

Flood Plain Information. Kuskokwim River, Bethel,
Alaska. Prepared for tWe- 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. January, 1975.

A-11

Flood Plain Information. Kuskokwim River, Bethel, Alaska.
Prepared for the City of Bethel. December, 1968.

Bank Stabilization, Bethel, Alaska. Draft of an Environ-
mental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report. April, 1 81.

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 a-nd 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-12

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 Library Historical Monograph No. 7.

Schwalbe, Anna Buxbaum. Dayspring on the Kuskokwim. Moravian Press,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. 1951.

A-13

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. Bethel 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 for City of Bethel, April, 1981.

. A Report on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Crossing.
Prepared for the Senate Special interim committee on Transportation,-7T-a-sla
State Legislature, December, 1981.

Hoffman, James. (Personal Communiration). 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,
August, 1981.

,A-14

Recreation

Darbyshire and Associates. City of Bethel Comprehensive Plan. October. 1980.

Dittman, Martha and Rahn Parker. (Personal Communication). City of Bethel,
Department of Parks and Recreation.

Population

Alaska Consultants. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions and Forecast North
Aleution Shelf and Navarin BasTn 'sSocioeconomic Systems. Draft Technical
Memorandum. Prepared for BLM Alaska O.C.S. Office. April, 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section. 1980 Census 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.

U.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-15

Labor

Alaska Consultants. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions and Forecast North
Aleutian Shelf and Navarin Basin's Socioeconomic Systems. Draft TechnicaT-
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, 1979.

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-16

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-ra-n-cfi-m.
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-17

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.

Energy

Alaska Consultants. Baseline Socioeconomic Conditions North Aleutian Shelf

and Navarin Basin's Socioeconomic Systems Draft Technical Memorandum. Prepared
for BLM, Alaska OCS Office, April, 1981-.

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, T9-81.

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 T11-ternative Electric Energy Resourcces in
the Bethel Area. Prepared for the Alaska Power Authority. February, 1980.

. A Regional Electric Power System for the Lower
Kuskokwim Vicinity. Prepared for the Alaska Power Administration. 1975.

A-19

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 an conomic 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. 1981.

Forest Development

Cook, Bob. (Personal Communication). Kuskokwim Native Association.

2 0

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 and 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 the 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, Alaska
Outer Continental Shelf Office, June, 1980.

Dames and Moore. Review of Supply-Demand and Marketing Problems of OCS Oil
and Gas from the Cering-Norton Lease Sale. Technical Memorandum Number BN-
25. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
Office, June, 1980.

A-21

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 Scenarios, Sociocultural
Systems Analysis. T@echnical 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
Assumptio@-s-and Black Deletion Alternative for Proposed Federal Lease Sales
in the Bering Sea and Norton Sound. T-e-cNn-1-ca-F-Paper No. 1, BLM, Ala-s`Fa--0TS-
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
States, A Summary. Open File Report 81-192, 19-8-T.-

Tourism

Berger and Associates. Western and Arctic Alaska 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.

%-22

I
I
I
II
I
I APPENDIX VI
I
I
I ginif
I " " JUAl G
I WETLANDS PERMIT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Publgc Notice
US Arm Y* Corps i 1 27, 1983
of Engineers Identific tion No.: General Permit 83-4
Alaska District iIn reply refer to above Identification Number

GENERAL PERMIT 83-4
CITY OF BETHEL, ALASKA

Upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and pursuant to Section
of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217), 33 U.S.C. et. seq.), the
Secretary of the Army intends to issue a permit to the general public to
place fill material into wetlands within the city of Bethel, Alaska.
Activities authorized under this general permit will include the placement
of fill material for the construction of foundation pads for structures,
associated driveways and parking areas, and for the construction of roads.

INTRODUCTION

General permits are considered appropriate for activities which are
substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual and
cumulative adverse environmental impact when performed separately and
which would provide a more effective administration of the Clean Water Act
without creating an undue burden on the public. A preliminary review of
the general permit concept indicates that an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required. However, an Environmental Assessment will
be prepared before issuance of the General Permit.

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES COV ERED UNDER THIS GENERAL PERMIT:

The proposed general permit would authorize the placement of sand, gravel
or rock, which is free of toxic substances, in conjunction with the
construction of foundation fill pads for structures, driveways and parking
areas, and for road construction. Driveways must be a minimum of 20 feet
wide. Roads constructed in dedicated rights-of-way must have a 25 foot
wide driving surface and the road surface must be a minimum of 3 feet from
the existing ground surface.

The general permit would be in effect for a period of 5 years. At the end
of the 5-year period, an evaluation of the program would be made and at
that time it would be decided whether or not this permit should be
renewed. The District Engineer may, at any time during this 5-year
period, alter, modify, or revoke this permit, if he deems such action to
be in the public interest. The District Engineer will monitor fills
authorized by this general permit to the extent possible given the
prohibited transportation costs and great distances involved.

A-23

PROCEDURE:

A Department of the Army general Permit would be issued in accordance with
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217, 33 U.S.C. 1344
et. seq.) and would be limited to work in wetland areas. The placement of
fill material into other waters of the United States may require
individual authorizations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and,
if in navigable waters of the United States, under Section 10 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1899.

When the proposed general permit has been issued, the placement of fills
as described herein may be accomplished by the general public without the
need for individual permits for each undertaking.

1. SPECIAL CONDITIONS

a. That the permittee must contact the city of Bethel (or the Bureau
of Indian affairs if the land is under Federal trust status or subject
to 25 CFR 1.4), no less than 10 days before beginning work under this
permit. This is to allow the planning departments of those two
governments the opportunity to monitor activities authorized under
this permit.

b. That the permittee notify the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers
within 30 days after completing any fill activity authorized under
this permit.

c. That wetlands identified as significant on the attached map (the
undisturbed areas within the 100-year floodplain of the Kuskokwim
River) are excluded from this permit. Individual Department of the
Army permits will be required for fill activities taking place in
those areas.

d. That a mimimum distance of 25' will be maintained between the toe
of the fill and the high water mark of any drainageway, sloug'h, or
lake. The City of Bethel will maintain large scale maps (1"=500') in
their offices depicting the drainageways, sloughs and lakes referred
to in this special condition.

e. That the fill material to be used will be free of toxic pollutants
in toxic amounts.

A-24

f. That any roads or driveways constructed under this permit will
conform to specifications determined by the City of Bethel (or the
Bureau of Indian Affairs if the land is under Federal trust status or
subject to 25 CFR 1.4).

g. That roads constructed over drainageways wil) be adequately
culverted or bridged to maintain normal surface water flow and fish
passage. Roads constructed over drainageways which contain fish will
require a permit from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Information regarding such permits can be obtained by writing the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Region IV, Habitat Division, 333
Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99502 or call (907) 344-0541.

h. That sides of the fill will be stablized by maintaining 3:1 or
more gradual slopes, and by seeding or planting with vegetation.

i. That the permittee will construct and maintain the fill in good
condition so as to prevent erosion and non-point sources of pollution.

j. That the activity will not take place in, or adversely affect a
known archaeological site.

k. That authorization under this permit does not eliminate the need
for the permittee to obtain other required permits, licenses or
approvals of City, State or Federal governments within the State of
Alaska.

2. General Conditions:

a. That all activities identified and authorized herein shall be
consistent with the terms andconditions of the general permit and any
activities not specifically identified and authorized herein shall
constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this general
permit which may result in the modification, suspension or revocation
of any authorization in whole or in part, as set forth more
specifically in General Conditions j or k hereto, and I -n the
institution of such legal proceedings as the United States Government
may consider appropriate, whether or not this permit has been
previously modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part.

b. That all activities authorized herein shall, if they involve
during their construction or operation, any discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States and their adjacent wetland, be at all
times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent
limitations and standards of performance, prohibitions, pretreatment
standards, and management practices established pursuant to the Clean
Water Act (PL 95-217 33 U.S.C. 1344), the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532; 86 Stat. 1052) and pursuant to
applicable State and local law.

N.-25

c. That when the activity authorized herein involves a discharge
during its construction or operation, of any pollutant (including
dredged or fill material), into waters of the United States, and
adjacent wetland, the authorized activity shall, if applicable water
quality standards are revised or modified during the term of this
permit, be modified, if necessary, to conform with such revised or
modified water quality standards within 6 months of the@ effective date
of any revision or modification of water quality standards, or as
directed by an implementation plan contained in such revised or
modified standards, or within such longer period of time as the
District Engineer, in consultation with the Regional Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, may determine to be reasonable
under the circumstances.

d. ThaT the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered
Species Act, or endanger the critical habitat of such species.

e. That the permittee agrees to make every reasonable effort to
execute the construction or operation of the work authorized herein in
a manner so as to minimize any adverse impact on fish, wildlife, and
natural environmental values.

f. That the permittee agrees that he will execute the construction or
work authorized herein in a manner so as tc minimize any degradation
of water quality.

g. That the permittee shall allow the City of Bethel or the District
Engineer or his authorized representative(s) or designee(s) to make
periodic inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure
that the activity being performed is in accordance with the terms and
conditions prescribed in the general permit.

h. That the permittee shall maintain the structure or work authorized
herein in good condition and in accordance with approved plans and
drawings.

i. That this general permit does not convey any property rights,
either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges; and
that it does not authorize any injury to property, or invasion of
rights or any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws -or
regulations nor does the general permit nor any authorization obviate
the requirement to obtain State or local assent required by law for
the activity authorized herein.

A-26

j. That an activity being performed under authorization of this
permit may be summarily suspended, in whole or in part, upon a finding
by the District Engineer that immediate suspension of the activity
authorized herein would be in the general public interest. Such
suspension shall be effective upon receipt by the permittee of a
written notice thereof which shall indicate (1) the extent of the
suspension, (2) the reasons for such action, and (3) any corrective or
preventive measures to be taken by the permittee which are deemed
necessary by the District Engineer to abate imminent hazards to the
general public interest. The permittee shall take immediate action to
comply with the provisions of such notice. Within 10 days following
receipt of a notice of suspension, the permittee may request a hearing
in order to present information relevant to a decision as to whether
the authorization should be reinstated, modified or revoked. If a
hearing is requested, it shall be conducted pursuant to procedures
prescribed by the Chief of Engineers. After completion of the
hearing, or within a reasonable time after issuance of the suspension
notice to the permittee if no hearing is requested, the authorization
will either be reinstated, modified or revoked.

k. That this general permit, may be either modified, suspended, or
revoked in whole or in part, if the Secretary of the Army or his
authorized representative determines that there has been a violation
of any of the terms or conditions of this permit or that such action
would otherwise be in the public interest. Any such modification,
suspension, or revocation shall become effective (30) days after
receipt by the permittee of written notice of such action which shall
specify the facts or conduct warranting same unless (1) within the
(30) day period the permittee is able to demonstrate satisfactorily
that (a) the alleged violation of the terms and the conditions of this
general permit did not, in fact occur or (b) the alleged violation was
accidental, and the permittee has been operating in compliance with
the terms and conditions of the permit and is able to provide
satisfactory assurances that future operations shall be in full
compliance with the terms and conditions of this general permit or (2)
within the aforesaid (30) day period, the permittee requests that-.-a
public hearing be held to present oral and written evidence concerning
the proposed modification, suspension or revocation. The conduct of
this hearing and the procedures for making a final decision either to
modify, suspend or revoke this permit in whole or in part shall be
pursuant to procedures prescribed by the Chief of Engineers.

1. That any modificatioi,, suspension, or revocation of either
authorization under this permit or this permit itself shall not be the
basis for any claim for damages against the United States.

M. That the general permit does not approve the construction of
particular structures, the authorization or approval of which may
require authorization by the Congress or other agencies of the Federal
Government.

A-27

n That if and when the permittee desires to abandon the activity
authorized herein, the permittee must restore the area to a condition
satisfactory to the District Engineer.

o. That this permit does not authorize the interference with any
existing or proposed Federal project and that the permittee shall not
be entitled to compensation for damage or injury to the structures or
work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from existing
or future operations undertaken by the United States in the public
interest.

p. That no attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the full
and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to
the activity authorized by this permit.

q. That if the permittee during prosecution of the work authorized
herein, encounters a previously unidentified archeological or other
cultural resource within the area subject to Department of the Army
jurisdiction that might be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, he shall immediately notify the District
Engineer.

r. That the permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of
authorization under this permit or upon its expiration before
completion of the authorized work, shall cease from any discharge of
dredged or fill material and desist from future discharges. If the
permittee fails to comply with the direction of the Secretary of the
Army or his authorized representative, action will be taken leading to
the referral of the case to the U.S. Attorney.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

The decision whether to issue the proposed general permit will be based on
an evaluation of the probable impacts of the proposed activities on the
public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for'-.both
protection and utilization of important resoures. The benefit which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balance
against its reasonable foreseeable detriments All factors which may be
relevant to the proposal will be considered, among these are conservation,
economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, historic values,
fish and Wildlife values, flood damage prevention, land use, navigation,
recreation, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.

A-28

No permit will be granted unless its issuance is founa to be in the public
interest. The evaluation will include application of the guidelines
promulgated by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency under
authority of Secton 404(b) of the Clean Water Act.

ENDANGEREU SPECIES:

Preliminary determinations indicate that the proposed activity would not
affect any endangered species or their critical habitat as defined by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (878 Stat. 844). Formal consultation
pursuant to Section 7 of the Act with the Department of Interior is not
required for this proposed activity.

HISTORIC PLACES:

The National Register of Historic Places, and the latest published version
of the Federal Register have been consulted in regard to the proposed
general permit. No sites within the city limits of Bethel were listed on
those registers.

WATER QUALITY CERTIFIATION:

A Certificate of Reasonable Assurance or waiver of certification is
required for this activity under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
(Public Law 95-217). This certification, or waiver thereof, is issued by
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Pouch 0, Juneau,
Alaska, 99801, telephone (907) 465-2670.

CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY:

The State of Alaska, Division of Governmental Coordination will review
this work for consistency with the approved Alaska State Coastal
Management Program.

REPORTING AND MONITORING:

The proposed general permit will be conditioned to require indivfduals
performing work under the permit to report to the District Engineer the
location, description, and size of the area to be filled, including
applicable drawings, and a description of the purpose and intended use of
the fill within 30 days after completion of the project.

This requirement will provide a means of monitoring activities authorized
by the General Permit and will enable a review of this work for compliance
to the special conditions. Onsite monitoring is expected to be
accomplished by the U.S. Army of Engineers, with the assistance of other
Federal, State, and local agencies, as funding and manpower dictate.

RESPONSE:

Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in
this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider the proposed
general permit. Requests for public hearings shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

Written statements received in this office within 30 days of the
publication date of this notice will become a part of the record and will
be considered in the determination. Any response to this notice should be
mailed to the Alaska District, Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Regulatory
Functions Branch, Pouch 898, Anchorage, Alaska, 99506. If further
information is desired concerning this notice, contact Ms. Mary F. Leykom
at (907) 279-6733 or 279-4123.

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

District Engineer
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers

A-30

ciT-y L_iMiTS OF BeTtltL-

95A
C,

JIF-

*0.0
.Y@
FTI
71

C7
... .......
LP
C)
7-7)
..... . .....

co
rrn 0
c.A
.Z . ... .. ....... ...
0,
vk,
C7
LA
gotth S, 'XI.

IN D@SICMJM

W To Scwr

[T - ------------------

ISCM -T
-S6

scDPE---
stncntlc@, OR--@

WETLANDS WITHIN Tilt
City um irs oF Bt-mtL, AY\

N-32 SMtET 2 OF 3 19K)..

FDOND.LTION fILL PnD5 fR 3TRUCTUM

StMt@j@ Ce- ?-@ff-0-6--4Ttb

MINIMUM

laNG htLb UaTEP, QmE

@5' NNIMLIM 'SU-6ACK FECn T-M- ltt OF Ttlit
F[L@- To TtIC hL6" I-AaVA<,, OF AM 1)12i@il N A 6- L13 AN(
'Sk-ouGol CV- LtWt 1-10 f@sfff

WETLANDS WIT11IN T-hff-
CiTY LIN'ITS OF 3Enit-l-tAK
77,
@htLb @LJ@@@U@ME

&-33

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I I

APPENDIX VII

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,
IT i n- g- r- _s Research & Sanctuaries initiate program to esta-
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-34

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Y.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
the environment.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

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-35

Entity Legislative Title Responsibility

Environmental Protection Agency (@ont'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

k-36

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 46.03.1.00 except for domestic
AS 46.03.050 sewage into approved
AS 46.03.090 sewage system.
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-37

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 iacluding 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-38

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

Alask-a 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-39 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
I o t s .

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.

4 0,

I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX V
I
I CITY ORDINANCE SUMMARIES
I
I WHICH APPLY TO THE COASTAL
I MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS OF THIS
PRINTING (JUNE 1983)
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I

Applicable City Ordinances (Summaries)

APPENDIX VIII

ORDINANCE #114
Establish a building permit system for 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 improvement:
a) encroaches on any right of way;
b) causes the placement of fill on any City right of way when the
width of the fill 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 require-

ments. 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 final plats for such purposes;
establishing minimum subdivision design standards; providiag minimum improve-
ments to be made or guaranteed to be made by subdivider; setting forth proce-
dures 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.

A-41

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 descrip-
tion 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, compliance 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.
It also sets penalties for conveying land before plat approval and

recording or recording a plat without Planning Commission approval.

ORDINANCE #138

Establishing the location for structures, improvements, and structural alter-
ations 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 institutional 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-42

ORDINANCE #66

Establishing land use regulations to conf orm to requirements of the National
Flood Insurance Program*

In order to make f lood insurance and f ederal/f ederally regulated f inancial
assistance available, it establishes a land use permit system for areas within
the flood plain. It requires protection of construction in areas vulnerable
to floods, and insures that subdivisions and development of land in Bethel is

consistent with the need to minimize flood.

i\@-43

3 6668 14102 4614