Dr. Paul J. Valihura, Volpe Center, USDOT Hovercraft Transportation in Alaska: CZM & NEPA Hurdles

the introduction of a new mode of water related ABSTRACT transportation in remote coastal Alaska.

The United States Postal Service (USPS) INTRODUCTION received an unsolicited proposal from Alaska Hovercraft Joint Venture for a two-year Implementing an alternative marine demonstration program for the transport of transportation mode in the remote regions of bypass and non-priority mail by Hovercraft on a Alaska is not only technically challenging, but year-round basis from the city of Bethel to eight environmental regulations and traditional and remote Alaskan villages. The demonstration cultural belief present additional complexities. program evaluated the merits of using a This paper provides a case study that outlines Hovercraft to replace fixed wing airplanes to some of the critical regulatory and social reliably transport mail. An Environmental challenges faced by the project proponents and Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant the options that help with the successful Impact (FONSI) and Alaska Coastal implementation of a unique alternative mode of Management Program (ACMP) Consistency marine transport. Determination were completed for the two-year demonstration program. The Alaska Department of Government Coordination (DGC) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM concurred the EA and FONSI. The Trustees of Alaska, on behalf of seven Alaska Native The USPS conducted a two-year demonstration villages, or their representative councils, and the project from July 1997 through June 1999 to Association of Village Council Presidents transport bypass and non-priority mail on a year- (AVCP), brought legal action claiming the EA round basis by Hovercraft from the city of and Determination were inadequate. Legal Bethel to eight remote Alaskan villages along proceedings and an appeal resulted in rulings in the Kuskokwim, Johnson, and Pikmiktalik favor of the USPS. The USPS consequently rivers. The eight villages were Atmautluak, considered adopting permanent service using Kasigluk, Napakiak, Napaskiak, Nunapitchuk, this unique mode of marine transportation. A Akiachak, Akiak, and Kwethluk (see Figure 1). Supplemental EA, FONSI and ACMP The purpose of the project was to determine the Consistency Determination were completed for reliability of Hovercraft technology as a method permanent service to nine villages. The local of transporting bypass mail in this region of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) office did not Alaska. concur that the action was consistent with regional ACMP policies. Alaska DGC The Demonstration Program was subsequently concurred with the local CZM office. The USPS extended to June 2000 in order to complete initiated an elevated review process to ecological monitoring and allow for transition to reconsider the merits of the determination. After permanent transport service. The demonstration public hearings and implementing mitigation project partially replaced the daily transportation permanent service was allowed to proceed. This method of using fixed-wing airplanes. case study highlights some of the complex environmental, CZM and Environmental Justice Prior to the beginning of the Demonstration issues and successful measures involved with Program the proposed action had to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Bypass Mail Transport Procedures and ACMP policies. A Demonstration Program EA, FONSI and ACMP Consistency Bypass mail is third class or bulk mail and non- Determination were completed with the help of priority mail that would arrive from Anchorage the John A.Volpe National Transportation in the Postal Hub of Bethel and is transported Systems Center, U.S. Department of directly to the villages, thus “bypassing” Transportation. Mitigation was established in processing within the Bethel Post Office. The the form of an ecological monitoring program Hovercraft transports bypass mail to the villages and formation of a Hovercraft Resolution on an every-other day schedule, which is less Committee. The Alaska DGC concurred with than the everyday schedule of airplane delivery, the documents and mitigation actions. A court but is within USPS Bypass mail service suit was filled by the Trustees of Alaska, on standards. The USPS continues to transport behalf of seven Alaska Native villages, or their First-class, Express and Priority mail daily by representative councils, and AVCP, against the aircraft to the villages. While transporting mail, Demonstration Program claiming the EA and the Hovercraft stays within the banks of the ACMP Consistency Determination were not Kuskokwim, Johnson, and Pikmiktalik rivers, appropriate. A court decision and appeal upheld and adjacent tributaries and sloughs. Weather the validity of these documents. and river conditions dictate the Hovercraft operational speeds. Speed is reduced during Based on the positive results of the periods of heavy river traffic and inclement demonstration project and an ecological weather, and at bends in the rivers. Some river monitoring program, the USPS considered sections are opened for a short time for transporting bypass mail by Hovercraft on a commercial fishing, an activity referred to as a permanent, year-round basis from the city of Commercial Opening. Hovercraft operations are Bethel to nine Alaskan villages along the suspended in areas where Commercial Openings Kuskokwim, Johnson, and Pikmiktalik rivers. are taking place from one hour before to one This action was proposed to begin in July of hour after the Opening. 2000, following the end of the demonstration Program. A Supplemental EA, FONSI and At each village, a landing site was designated for ACMP Consistency Determination were the Hovercraft to off-load mail. Local villagers completed for the proposed action. The local landing their boats already disturbed these CZM office did not concur that the action was selected landing sites. No docks, piers, or ramps consistent with regional ACMP policies. Alaska were constructed. The selected landing sites DGC did not concur with the USPS Consistency allow the Hovercraft to comply with the Federal Determination and found in favor of the local Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal CZM office in-part by applying the concept of Transit Administration (FTA) recommended “due deference” to local knowledge and maximum noise level criteria. If a landing site tradition. The USPS initiated an elevated review or route back to the village flooded in the spring, process to reconsider the merits of the an alternate previously disturbed landing site determination, focusing on the science of the would be substituted pending concurrence of the ecological monitoring and Hovercraft village. Hovercraft approach, landing, and exit Resolution Committee proceedings. Subsequent procedures depend on these site-specific informal and formal public hearings during the features. elevated review process, combined with suggested mitigation actions by all parties, An agent meets the Hovercraft at the river’s resulted in a reversal of the DGC finding. edge to accept the mail for transport to the Permanent transport service began July 2000. villagers and to transfer outgoing mail to the Hovercraft. The agent either has access to a vehicle or uses an all-terrain vehicle, tractor, or snowmobile and trailer to haul the mail and any other freight, as is done with shipments arriving by airplane or barge. Access from the landing Near the completion of the first two years of the sites to each village is over established trails, demonstration project, it was evident that more roads, or waterways. Non-priority mail is time was needed to complete the ecological delivered to the post office, while bypass and monitoring and evaluate Hovercraft mail any other freight is delivered directly to the transport. A Categorical Exclusion for the consignee, usually the village store. continuation of the Alaska Hovercraft Demonstration Project was executed (USPS, Hovercraft Design Characteristics 1999b), thereby extending the two-year demonstration project until June 30, 2000. The British Hovercraft model AP.1-88 was used during the demonstration (Figure 2). The AP.1- Finding of No-Significant Impacts 88 has an overall width and length of approximately 36 feet by 70 feet and is powered The EA concluded that there would be no by two Deutz 390 hp marine diesel engines, significant impact on the environment from use which provide lift, and two Deutz 500 hp diesel of the Hovercraft to transport bypass and non- marine engines, which propel the craft. The priority mail and the USPS subsequently issued AP.1-88 can obtain a cruising speed of 50 miles a FONSI. The ecological monitoring and per hour (mph) and has a load capacity Hovercraft Resolution Committee were (passengers plus freight) of 8 tons. The mentioned in the conditions of the FONSI. Hovercraft can travel during most severe These conditions were further supplemented by inclement weather conditions and navigates the ACMP Consistency Determination process using radar as well as GPS. The Hovercraft with ADGC. participated in many successful medical evacuations when weather conditions precluded CZM Consistency Determination emergency evacuation by airplane. During the ACMP Consistency Determination Environmental Assessment process discussion between the USPS and ADGC lead to several additional procedures. The Demonstration Project was environmentally Alaska DGC concurred that with these reviewed in the July 1997 Final Alaska additional concessions (see Demonstration Hovercraft Demonstration Project Program Legal Proceedings below) that the Environmental Assessment (USPS, 1997b). Demonstration Program was consistent with Although the USPS did not anticipate any ACMP policies (ADGC, 1997). The significant impacts, ecological and safety Demonstration Program began transporting monitoring were conducted during the bypass mail July 1997. demonstration project in order to obtain additional empirical data on potential impacts of the Hovercraft mail transport activity. Part of ECOLOGICAL MONITORING & USPS decision to complete the monitoring was in respect for the culture and tradition of the RESOLUTION COMMITTEE Alaska Natives and the sincee issues The Demonstration Program EA found that no surrounding subsistence resource use of fish and significant adverse impacts were likely during waterfowl in the project area. In addition, the the two-year project. NEPA regulations do not USPS offered to assemble a Hovercraft require monitoring if no significant adverse Resolution Committee. Several other impact is found. However, after careful recommendations developed during the ACMP consideration of the Yupik tradition and culture Consistency Determination review process were and the importance of fish and waterfowl as added as conditions to the Demonstration subsistence resources the USPS decided that Program. mitigation should be established for the Demonstration Program. The USPS implemented ecological monitoring procedures The monitoring was designed to provide and established a Hovercraft Resolution information to test the hypothesis that there was Committee. The willingness of the USPS to no significant adverse impact to bird and fish offer mitigation demonstrated their resources and thus to subsistence efforts focused consideration of Environmental Justice issues on those resources. and respect for the people within the project area. In retrospect, these two actions by the Waterfowl resources were evaluated by USPS turned out to provide valuable determining flushing reactions in response to the information to address the permanent use of the Hovercraft and motorboats, waterfowl use of Hovercraft during ensuing Coastal Zone habitats along the riverbanks, and waterfowl use Consistency Determination public hearings. It of habitats outside of the riverbanks. The study should also be noted that as part of the respect conducted surveys of waterfowl abundance for local knowledge and tradition the USPS along sections of the rivers traveled by the approached AVCP before starting the Hovercraft (test areas) and compare these to Demonstration Program for their help hiring sections where the Hovercraft did not operate Native Alaskan local ecological observers and (reference areas). The study gave some insight boat operators. AVCP declined helping based into whether or not waterfowl were “leaving the on their involvement in the initial court suit. area” as a result of the Hovercraft and thus not available to subsistence hunters. Aerial transects Ecological Monitoring were surveyed over test and reference areas using fixed-wing aircraft to document breeding The July 1997 Demonstration Program pairs and general waterfowl use of habitats in EA/FONSI declared fish, waterfowl and areas near the rivers. This enabled an evaluation subsistence monitoring to obtain data on actual of whether or not the Hovercraft adversely impacts of the Hovercraft project (USPS, affects the use of nearby habitats by waterfowl, 1997b). The successful scoping of the and thus potentially the breeding capacity of the monitoring effort was aided by considerable birds. input from local residents and regulatory agencies. To guide the ecological monitoring The flushing responses of approximately 9,000 efforts and to ensure that the monitoring birds, nearly half of which were waterfowl, were addressed concerns expressed by the public and observed over four monitoring campaigns. regulatory agencies, the USPS prepared a Waterfowl, which are important subsistence programmatic monitoring plan to investigate animals, were found to flush almost 100 percent impacts to wildlife, fish, and subsistence (USPS, of the time in response to both the Hovercraft 1997c). Upon completion of the monitoring and motorboats. described in the 1997 plan, a second monitoring plan was developed to refine and focus the A total of 1,311 waterfowl were observed along second year of monitoring based upon local Hovercraft routes on the Kukowkwim and input and the results of the monitoring Johnson Rivers using a motorboat to compare conducted during 1998-99 (USPS, 1999). The waterfowl abundance in reference areas along results of all the monitoring was summarized in the Pikmiktalik and Gweek Rivers. The results U.S. USPS Hovercraft Transportation of Alaska of these observations suggest that the Hovercraft Bypass Mail Ecological Monitoring Summary is not affecting waterfowl abundance along the Report, March 2000 (USPS, 2000a). Kuskokwim and Johnson Rivers. Thus, there should be an insignificant impact on the The Alaska Hovercraft Ecological Monitoring availability of waterfowl for subsistence harvest Program evaluated the nature and extent of along rivers where the Hovercraft travels. impacts from use of the Hovercraft to fish, waterfowl, and subsistence efforts. The intent Aerial surveys for breeding waterfowl and was not to quantify the exact number of fish or general waterfowl use of habitats on and near birds that might be affected by the Hovercraft. the rivers were conducted during which 4,865 waterfowl were observed. Waterfowl numbers Only eight fish were found dead from observing on, adjacent and away from the rivers were 3,690 miles of river. Direct mortality from the collected for both test and reference areas. Hovercraft of the eight fish was suspect. The Essentially, the same numbers of birds were conclusion from approximately 4,000 miles of found in the areas where the Hovercraft operated observations is that the Hovercraft has an and in areas where it did not operate. Thus, it insignificant impact on adult fish as it passes. can be concluded that the presence or absence of the Hovercraft does not have a significant effect A total of 87 beach seinings were conducted, on breeding waterfowl nor on general use of including 49 reference seinings (immediately habitat. after the Hovercraft passed) and 38 control seinings (fish were observed prior to the The potential for mortality to adult fish in the Hovercraft passing) on the Kuskokwim (Figure rivers was assessed by watching for floating 3) and Johnson Rivers (Figure 4). (i.e., injured or dead) fish behind the Hovercraft Approximately 9,000 juvenile fish were and in its wake. To assess the potential impact individually identified and vitality assessed. of the Hovercraft on juvenile fish in shallow There were no significant differences in the rates areas, study areas were established where the of injury to juvenile fish captured in the test Hovercraft was intentionally routed onto shallow seines (80) to those in reference seines (119) beaches where small fish were known to be (Figure 5). This result shows there is an present. Beach seining was used to collect fish insignificant impact to juvenile fish in shallow at these sites immediately following passage of water as the Hovercraft passes over them. the Hovercraft to determine if the Hovercraft was injuring fish in shallow areas. The A total of 85 stranded fish were observed at 73 investigation into potential fish stranding caused Hovercraft landing events. These few stranded by the Hovercraft’s wake was based on the fish would not represent a significant adverse measurement of wave heights from the impact on the population. Hovercraft’s wake and on observations of dead or stranded fish on low-gradient beaches and at A total of 101 paired netting tests, including Hovercraft landing sites. To assess if the both set nets and drift nets, were conducted on Hovercraft might be having an effect on the Kuskokwim and Johnson Rivers. No subsistence gillnet fishing, test fishing studies significant difference resulted between the were conducted to discern possible differences number of fish caught when the Hovercraft in catch rates when the Hovercraft travels by a passed or did not pass the nets (Figure 6). gillnet. Lastly, there was local concern that Hovercraft passing subsistence nets does not winter Blackfish fishing success was decreased significantly change the number of fish caught. in areas where the Hovercraft operated. Seventeen ice-fishing holes were observed The monitoring team trailed directly behind the during winter blackfish surveys along the Hovercraft for a total of 263 miles on the hovercraft route on the Johnson River. Kuskokwim and Johnson Rivers during ten Underwater observations of blackfish behavior surveys from 1997 to 1999 in an effort to in response to the hovercraft traveling past the observe the Hovercraft’s effect on adult fish fishing hole were recorded for a total of twenty mortality. These observations were a result of pass-bys. The results of the underwater reports from Native Alaskan’s that significant observations revealed that during the majority of numbers of adult fish came floating to the the pass-bys, there was very little or no reaction surface as the Hovercraft passed. No fish from the blackfish. None of the blackfish mortality or injury was observed directly behind appeared to be injured. An interesting anecdotal the Hovercraft during the monitoring. To note is that, although there were local claims that augment these surveys each monitoring team the hovercraft decreased fishing success, so member was asked to record any injured or dead many fish were caught during the season that fish while working on the Hovercraft route. local fisherman suspended fishing. Consistency Determination for the Hovercraft Hovercraft Resolution Committee Demonstration Project. However, a court suit was filed claiming the Determination and EA Great care was taken to select optimum routes were unsatisfactory. A ruling and appeal and loading sites that were acceptable to both followed. residents and wildlife regulatory agencies. Fine- tuning of the Hovercraft's operation is CZM Consistency Determination anticipated as experience is gained, which should lead to a less impacts. An additional The USPS worked closely with the Alaska DGC avenue for the refinement of the operational during May through July 1997 to fully address parameters would result from the use of a concerns raised during the NEPA and CZM voluntary Hovercraft Resolution Committee. review process. The USPS attempted, for the The Committee monitors the project, suggest sake of expediency, to comply voluntarily on operational changes to mitigate potential several issues identified by local concern (USPS, problems, and advise the USPS of any other 1997a). The concessions developed between the concerns regarding the project. The Committee USPS and Alaska DGC further defined the was chaired by the USPS and met monthly for mitigation outlined in the EA/FONSI. The three years. Invitations were extended to local concessions included: 1) an enhanced discussion representatives of US Fish and Wildlife Service, of subsistence fishing and hunting issues in the US Coast Guard, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Final EA; 2) establishing the ecological Refuge, Cenaliulriit CZM Office, Alaska Fish monitoring program to consider fish, waterfowl and Game, Alaska DEC, Alaska DGC, AVCP, and subsistence issues; 3) inviting USPS, Hovercraft Operator, and representatives representatives of the Bethel office of Alaska of Bethel and each village. Department of Fish and Game to be on the Hovercraft Committee, with membership offers Teleconferencing was established to allow to each of the villages, and AVCP; 4) monthly village representatives to participate from their Committee meetings; 5) the USPS agreed to homes or village offices. The meetings were share any relevant data that was collected with open to the public and to encourage public input the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; 6) a specific time was established during each semi annual reporting on the progress of the meeting for public commenting. A standard Demonstration Program to Alaska DGC; and 7) Issue Report was developed for accountability an observer would be on board the Hovercraft that allowed Committee Members to record during start-up to identify any immediate concerns and have these concerns addressed by impacts. Some of these same concessions were the Committee. Feedback to the originator of identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and the Report was an important part of the process Game for CZM Consistency concurrence to make sure they knew that the regulatory (ADFG, 1997). The Alaska DGC and USPS agencies and the Committee heard their concern. concurred that with these additional concessions Approximately 75 Issue Reports were received the Demonstration Program was consistent with and addressed (not all of these were concerns, ACMP policy (ADGC, 1997). The USPS some were in favor of the operation) by the fulfilled the actions and the Hovercraft began Committee. The issues were predominantly on transporting bypass mail in July 1997. ecological and safety concerns and mail service. Legal Proceedings DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Shortly after the Hovercraft began transporting LEGAL PROCEEDINGS bypass mail the Trustees for Alaska, on behalf of AVCP, contacted the Hovercraft Operator and Close cooperation between Alaska DGC and the USPS during July 1997 to informally discuss USPS prior to the start up of transport service stopping the Demonstration Program. Their resulted in concurrence of the ACMP “initial review of the project reveals that the proposal does not comply with the Coastal Zone Because the Alaska Native Communities could Management Act…and the National not show violations of ACMP Policies or NEPA, Environmental Policy Act” (TOA, 1997). The the Appeal Court affirmed the District Court’s USPS and Alaska DGC considered the concerns summary judgment in favor of the USPS on raised by the Trustees of Alaska and did not May 25, 2000 (USCA, 2000). agree. A formal lawsuit citing these same concerns was entered in August 1997 against the USPS by the Trustees of Alaska, which PERMANENT TRANSPORT represented AVCP, seven Alaska Native SERVICE villages, or their representative councils.

On March 20, 1998 the court declared “that the Based on the positive results of the two-year villages have not demonstrated any compelling demonstration project and the ecological reason to ignore the DGC’s determination of monitoring program, the USPS considered consistency…It follows that the Villages’ transporting bypass mail by Hovercraft on a assertions that the project violates the CZMA or permanent, year-round basis from the city of the habitat and subsistence standards of the Bethel to nine Alaskan villages along the ACMP and the CCMP are without merit” Kuskokwim, Johnson, and Pikmiktalik rivers. (USDC, 1998). Furthermore, “the FEA This action was proposed to begin in July of rationally and persuasively explains why the 2000, following the Demonstration Program. A Project will not have a significant impact on the supplemental EA and ACMP Consistency environment…is not arbitrary and capricious or Determination were completed for the proposed an abuse of discretion….USPS’s decision must permanent Transport service. be upheld” (USDC, 1998). The ruling found the USPS to be in compliance with ACMP Policies and NEPA (USDC,1998). The Hovercraft Supplemental EA Demonstration Program continued to transport mail to the villages of the Kuskokwim delta. A “Supplemental EA” (SEA) was completed in Draft and Final form on the proposed action of Appeal and Final Ruling permanent service (USPS,2000b). Although USPS regulations do not specifically require the An appeal by Trustees of Alaska, on behalf of preparation of SEA for this proposed action, the AVCP, seven Alaska Native villages, or their USPS determined that an SEA would be useful representative councils, followed the District due to the subtle changes in the proposed action Court’s summary judgment. According to the being considered. These proposed changes Appeal Court’s finding (USCA, 2000) the include the status of the program from a Alaska Native communities contend in their demonstration project to a permanent service appeal “that the Project violated CZMA because and the addition of one village (Tuluksak) to the it is inconsistent with Alaska’s coastal transport route. Alternate modes, such as trucks, management program…and violates NEPA snowmobiles, boats, all terrain vehicles, and because the USPS’s Final Environmental planes, are used on an incidental basis to Assessment contains errors, omissions, and supplement Hovercraft transport. First-class, failures of analysis that invalidates its ‘Finding express, and priority mail continues to be of No Significant Impact’” (USCA, 2000). A primarily transported by aircraft. All other compelling reason to overturn the ruling on the conditions established during the two-year CZMA could not be established by the Alaska demonstration program concerning landing sites, Native Communities. In addition, a review of operating within the river banks, agent help at the substantive conclusions of the Final EA was the landing sites, and commercial fishing shown not to be flawed. Furthermore, it was openings continue with permanent transport “concluded that the Environmental Assessment service. The ecological monitoring completed is sufficiently well-documented and explained.” during the Demonstration Program helped understand potential impacts to waterfowl, fish daily Hovercraft operations would be planned to and subsistence activities based on technical minimize passbys of sensitive locations such as observations rather than speculation, traditional villages and fish camps; and 16) The Hovercraft beliefs, or inference. would not operate during spring ice out to prevent unsafe conditions on the rivers. Mitigation Measures Finding of No Significant Impact Based on the SEA no measures are required to mitigate because the proposed action would During the Hovercraft Demonstration Project, result in no significant adverse impacts. the Hovercraft Resolution Committee, consisting Operations were, however, designed to reduce of federal regulatory agencies, state regulatory the level of impact and to provide benefits to the agencies, community representatives, and the public when possible. During the demonstration USPS, met monthly to discuss the operation of project, the Hovercraft project implemented a the Hovercraft. During the three years these number of mitigation measures to ensure that meetings were held, the government agencies impacts are avoided to the maximum extent have never alleged the Hovercraft operation to possible. These mitigation measures have been be in non-compliance with their respective effective, as evidenced by the fact that the regulations. Not once was the Hovercraft insignificant impacts of the project were further operation found to implicate safety, subsistence, reduced and/or compensated. These actions commercial fishing, oil spills, or any other were indicated as part of the proposed operational concerns. After careful and permanent service. The more important thorough consideration of the ecological mitigation actions implemented were: 1) Only monitoring results, Hovercraft Resolution disturbed sites would be used for landings areas; Committee actions, and other facts contained in 2) Only existing disturbed paths would be used the SEA, the USPS found that the proposed to bring the bypass mail to the village from the federal action was consistent with the NEPA. landing site; 3) No piers or other structures Therefore, the USPS issued a FONSI (USPS, would be constructed at the villages or in the 2000b) with respect to the proposed action. water; 4) Winter fish net poles would be Because no significant adverse impacts were provided to those who want them; 5) The expected from the proposed action, an Hovercraft would not operate from one hour environmental impact statement was not before to one hour after a commercial fishing prepared. Consequential contract proposals lead opening; 6) The Hovercraft would take all to contractor being selected who chose to use an practical measures to avoid driving over AP.1-88 style Hovercraft. subsistence fish nets; 7) The Hovercraft would suspend operations during fall freeze up to allow CZM Consistency Determination ice to thickly freeze; 8) The Hovercraft would avoid cracking ice during winter ice up by The villages receiving permanent bypass mail observing ice conditions behind the Hovercraft transport service by Hovercraft are within the from a snow machine; 9) Operation would be Ceñaliulriit Coastal Zone Management (CZM) coordinated with the US Fish and Wildlife District. After careful analysis and consideration Service to minimize potential impact to caribou of issues submitted by the public and federal and migrations; 10) The Hovercraft would use all state agencies, the USPS determined that the practical measures to avoid fish camps; 11) At proposed action is consistent with enforceable the request of villages, landing sites would be ACMP Policies. The Ceñaliulriit CZM District changed during winter; 12) The Hovercraft Office did not concur with the USPS would offer medical evacuation services; 13) Consistency Determination and Alaska DGC Upon request the Hovercraft would brake ice in supported the District Office finding (CCMD, front of villages to improve river access in the 2000). The USPS respectfully requested spring; 14) The Hovercraft would be restricted reconsideration of the Alaska DGC to travel within the banks of the river; 15) The determination and an elevated review process regulatory agencies opinions are extended more followed. significance in the decision process.

PERMANENT TRANSPORT During the initial review of the USPS’s Consistency Determination Alaska DGC relied CZM ISSUES upon the local Ceñaliulriit Coastal Zone Management District Office for their expertise, On February 13, 2000 the USPS submitted an experience and judgment to interpret CZM ACMP Consistency Determination (USPS, Policies (CCMD, 2000). The District Office 2000c) for the permanent transport of bypass declared that the proposed action was mail by Hovercraft to nine villages outlined in inconsistent with Ceñaliulriit Costal the Supplemental EA. The USPS had concluded Management Program enforceable Policies A-1 that the proposed action was consistent with the Subsistence Use, A-2 Access to Resources, F-2 relevant enforceable policies contained within Coastal/Riverine Erosion. G-1 Minimize CZM Management Plan. The Ceñaliulriit Impacts, G-4 Facility Siting and Design, G-7 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) District Location of shipping Routes, N-1 Mitigation, Office did not concur with the Determination and N-2 Public Need (CCMD, 2000). Based on (CCMD, 2000). After citing “due deference” to input from the villages the Ceñaliulriit District the local Ceñaliulriit District Office, Alaska Office Board found significant adverse effects to DGC found the USPS Determination was not subsistence use areas. consistent with ACMP Policies. The USPS respectfully requested reconsideration of the After the Ceñaliulriit District Office submitted finding and the process for an elevated review their opinion, Alaska DGC issued a draft began. “proposed” finding. Alaska DGC concluded that the Hovercraft operation was not consistent ACMP Consistency with CZM policies based on the “due deference” given to the Ceñaliulriit District Office. The State of Alaska’s CZM program sets However, it also concluded that the proposal standards and develops procedures to guide would be consistent if the Hovercraft was only coastal development throughout the state. The used in the winter and winter fishing poles program is a land-use planning tool to ensure would be replaced if damaged by the Hovercraft. that coastal resources are preserved, protected, No other stipulations for landing sites, noise, and enhanced, and, where necessary, restored. The other operational parameters were provided. program details standards for various land uses, including transportation facilities and It is interesting to note that the Alaska navigational facilities and systems. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DFG), at the CZM Program divides the state into regional request of Alaska DGC, reviewed the USPS’s offices governed by a Board of Directors made Determination and found the proposed action “to up of local representatives of the region. The be consistent with the standards of the Alaska Ceñaliulriit Coastal Zone Management District Coastal Management Program” (ADFG, 2000). Office, with a Board of Directors made up of As a local regulatory agency (offices in Bethel local Alaskan Natives, reviewed the USPS’s and member of the Hovercraft Resolution Consistency Determination. Committee), with local knowledge, their statement carries “due deference” status. Alaska DGC is responsible for regulating state However, the Alaska DFG conclusion was not CZM policy and relies upon each District Office mentioned in the Alaska DGC finding. for their help interpreting enforceable policies. It is ADGC policy to give extra weight to the Informal Negotiations local CZM Office opinions based on their local knowledge. This weighted policy is referred as An appeal of the “proposed” finding was “due deference” and local CZM offices and discussed between Alaska DGC and USPS. Informal teleconferences were convened during actions, and the results of the Hovercraft the spring of 2000 to include representatives of Resolution Committee (in-part identifying that AVCP, USPS, Ceñaliulriit Coastal Zone Office, concern of significant adverse impact was not Hovercraft Contractor and Alaska DGC. Issues raised by the local CZM office or other were discussed and options considered. Alaska regulatory agencies during the three years of DGC issued a final “Proposed” Consistency monthly Hovercraft Resolution Committee Determination on June 16, 2000 (ADGC, 2000a) meetings). indicating non-conformance based on the issued cited above. Furthermore, Alaska DGC cited AVCP, Ceñaliulriit District Office, and village villagers who subsist in the areas along the representatives presented how they perceived Hovercraft route identified significant adverse significant adverse impact and gave examples of impacts to their use of subsistence resources and actual impacts (first or second hand). Some of that the villagers no longer had comfortable the issues identified were: monitoring results access to their subsistence resources with the were not consistent with local knowledge; Hovercraft intimidating them and disrupting Hovercraft impacts fish and birds; Hovercraft their activities. “The hovercraft affects local shakes water and produces strong winds; subsistence user access to fish because it affects Hovercraft swamps boats; river is too narrow for how they view the river and their access to it…at the Hovercraft; delivery is not prompt; village issue are impacts to activities on the river rather stores are not well stocked; the Hovercraft than impacts to river resources” (ADGC, 200a). Resolution Committee is biased; passengers An elevated review process to reconsider the using the Hovercraft do not have timely trips finding was respectfully requested by the USPS (compared to airplanes); and Villages oppose the (USPS, 2000d). Hovercraft.

At the suggestion of Alaska DGC, an informal There were differences in opinion whether or not meeting took place on August 16, 2000 in the Hovercraft causes significant adverse Bethel, Alaska, to allow an opportunity for impact. At the conclusion of the meeting explanation of ideas and concerns about the approximately 14 items to mitigate concerns of Hovercraft Project, identify areas of agreement year-round Hovercraft operation were offered by and disagreement, and use a consensus approach the USPS. The Ceñaliulriit Coastal Zone Office to resolve outstanding issues (ADGC, 2000b). counter offered with winter operation of the AVCP, USPS, Ceñaliulriit Coastal Zone Office, Hovercraft and declined the mitigation offered and the Hovercraft Contractor were invited by by the USPS. Alaska DGC to attend the meeting. After AVCP contacted residents of all of the affected villages Although the USPS could refute claims of to attend this meeting Alaska DGC concurred significant impact with the ecological with the invitations. No local federal or state monitoring that was accomplished during the regulatory agencies, that may have had “due Demonstration Program, Alaska DGC was deference” on the issues being discussed, were inclined to give “due deference” to the invited to speak at the meeting and reporters traditional and cultural knowledge presented by were not allowed to attend. Ample time was the Ceñaliulriit CZM Office and other attendees given to present information, ask question and at the informal meeting. The initial finding of discuss options. Alaska DGC allowed any Alaska DGC remained unchanged. An impasse statements of concern regardless of applicability was evident and the USPS respectfully requested to ACMP Polices. the decision be elevated through the appeal process to a Director-Level Public Hearing. The USPS explained service mandates, cost of service, and alternative modes of transport mandates. Three years of ecological monitoring was summarized showing little impact, the extensive public outreach to listen and resulting Director-Level Public Hearing and landings and existing paths to the village will be Finding used; structures will not be constructed in the landing areas; winter fish net poles will be A Director-Level Public Hearing was convened replaced; commercial fishing openings will be on September 5, 2000 in Bethel, Alaska. ADGC avoided; avoid fish nets; will not operate during invited the USPS, Hovercraft Contractor, and fall freeze up; avoid cracking ice in winter; and Ceñaliulriit District Office to attend. Several travel only within the banks of the river. The Native Alaskans did come to the meeting and USPS agreed to the mitigation items as part of spoke in favor of the Hovercraft. The USPS their proposed action. Further elevation defense was based on the results of the procedures were halted and the USPS ecological monitoring showing little impact, Consistency Determination was accepted. little expressed concern by federal and state regulatory agencies (including Alaska DGC, It is interesting to note that if the USPS did need Alaska DF&G, USF&WS, and local Ceñaliulriit to elevate the decision it would go to the Coastal Management Office) during the three Commissioners Level of review. This would years of monthly Hovercraft Resolution entail another public hearing with a Committee meetings, and concurrence by the Commissioner level panel convened to hear the Alaska DF&G on consistency of the proposed merits of the appeal. The location of the action with CZM policies. The USPS offered 14 meeting would have most likely taken place in mitigation items to help alleviate concerns of the Juneau, Alaska. year-round service. The Ceñaliulriit CZM Office cited local knowledge and tradition indicated a significant adverse impact would CONCLUSIONS occur from the operation of the Hovercraft. “Due deference” was stressed as personal This case study highlights some of the complex accounts were offered of how the Hovercraft environmental, CZM and Environmental Justice impacted local resident’s lives. The Ceñaliulriit issues and successful measures involved with CZM Office declined mitigation offered by the the introduction of a new mode of water related USPS and counter-offered with winter operation transportation. The following “lessons learned” of the Hovercraft as a compromise. The USPS highlight the key conclusions of studying this contractor indicated that they could not operate project’s implementation. economically with only winter transport and leaving the Hovercraft idol the remainder of the Environmental Justice year. The most significant lesson to be gained by On September 15, 2000 Alaska DGC issued a studying this marine transportation project is to Proposed Director-Level Consistency Finding properly address the needs of local communities. (ADGC,2000c) based on the regional-level Actions that take in consideration Environmental Public Hearing, file information, and Director- Justice issues and other environmental Level elevation meeting. The finding disagreed regulations and guidelines were implemented to with the USPS’s Consistency Determination. protect unique segments of the population. The However, if the mitigation items offered by the USPS, from the very inception of the USPS were incorporated as part of the Demonstration Program, took extra steps to Consistency Determination Application, the respect the culture and tradition of the Alaskan project could proceed. The mitigation items Native people. This not only included a were: Hovercraft operator would help break up significant public outreach and involvement ice in front of the village during the spring on program of listening and discussions, but major request by the villages; operations will be actions such as the ecological monitoring planned to minimize pass-bys; adequate public program and the Hovercraft Resolution notice of the mail delivery schedule will be Committee. Based on initial scoping pubic provided; disturbed sites will be used for meetings in each of the villages and Bethel, three years of monthly Hovercraft Resolution Public Involvement Committee meetings, meetings in each of the villages and Bethel during 1998 and 1999 to The USPS believes that public involvement is explain the monitoring results, public review of fundamental to understanding the culture and the monitoring plans prior to commencement of tradition of the local people as well as the field work, invitations to join the monitoring understanding the environmental process and teams when they were in the field, meetings with proposed actions. As a consequence, the USPS village elders to refine the monitoring plans, and made an extraordinary effort to engage the other outreach activities the USPS has an native Alaskans, local residents, general public, impressive record of respect and listening. and resource agencies. Toward this end, the USPS conducted numerous public meetings and Allegations and court suits can plague any information exchange opportunities in support of project. However, the actual record will always the EA, established a Hovercraft Resolution defend how well Environmental Justice issues Committee and requested public and resource were considered. Those actions can be a direct agency input into the ecological monitoring and function of a program’s ultimate success or SEA. failure. Information and views from federal, state, and Ecological Monitoring local agencies and the public are important in providing insight on the issues pertinent to the In consideration to the Alaskan Native tradition proposed action and ultimately a project’s and culture the USPS agreed to implement implementation. Without the clear action of ecological monitoring even though it was not public outreach early in the planning and required under the NEPA. The technical decision stages a project is unlikely to be information developed during that program and successfully implemented. the public involvement incorporated as part of that work played a pivotal roll during the NEPA Regulatory Agencies and ACMP review process. With the science that was obtained with the monitoring, claims of Close working relations with federal and state significant impact could be considered in the regulatory agencies help focus concern and context of factual documented and peer assist the regulatory agencies carefully monitor reviewed information. The monitoring effort the project. Initial scoping meetings were held was designed to respond to local reports of to focus the EA and begin a working relation observed or suspected impact (this was with each of the local Federal and State effectively accomplished with the help of the regulatory agency’s representatives. Additional Hovercraft Resolution Committee’s Issue meetings and consultations were held throughout Reports). Thus, local knowledge and traditional the project. In addition, the monthly meetings of concerns directed the monitoring effort and not the Hovercraft Resolution Committee provided strictly the scientists or federal and state the regulatory agencies with a continuous regulatory agencies. feedback of the overall operation of the Hovercraft project. Each month representatives Anticipating the need of factual information for from the villages, AVCP, and the public were use in the context of anecdotal or real claims that allowed a voice to express their concerns. The may surface during a project is critical to the regulatory agencies could be alerted to any success of a project. Making the decision to potential or actual problems and take immediate implement the action of obtaining technical action. Furthermore, by involving the regulatory information based on societal reasons of respect, agencies in the review and comment of proposed when it is not strictly warranted by statute or monitoring methodology they could be assured regulation, takes wisdom and vision and - in that proper techniques would result in the particular - compassion. collection of appropriate data. The review of the draft monitoring reports also provided the regulatory agencies an opportunity to make sure streamline the NEPA process and lead to project data interpretation and conclusions were implementation. consistent with the data. References The support of regulatory agencies, gained through close working rapport and involving ADFG, 1997. Letter from C. Wayne Dolezal, them early in the planning process, can facilitate Alaska DFG, to Maureen McCrea, Alaska DGC a project’s implementation. concerning Coastal Zone Consistency Determination for the Hovercraft Project. June Streamlining NEPA with Resolution 16, 1997. Committees ADFG, 2000. Email from Wayne Dolezal, Introducing a controversial project or one of Alaska Department of Fish and Game, to unfamiliar technology is difficult from both the Maureen McCreas, Alaska Department of regulatory agency and public perspectives. Government Coordination, concerning the Early in the planning process regulatory Hovercraft Supplemental Environmental agencies must comment on the proposed action Assessment and Compliance with the Alaska and may know little of the technology or Coastal Management Program. May 10, 2000. potential impacts. The public would like some control after they have “bought into” the project. ADGC, 1997. Letter form Maureen McCrea, Offering a resolution committee where both the Senior Project Review Coordinator, Alaska regulatory agencies and public can meet and Department of Government Coordination, to Jim monitor the project as well as offer operational Nawrot, USPS, concerning Final Consistency suggestions allows a committed action of Response Kuskokwim River Mail Delivery. structured oversight after agreeing to the September 5, 1997. project’s implementation. Thus, offering the resolution committee as part of the proposed ADGC, 2000a. Letter from Maureen McCrea, action can facilitate the review and acceptance Project Review Coordinator, Alaska Department by the regulatory agencies and public. In some of Government Coordination, to Jim Nawrot, instances this could streamline a proposed USPS, concerning Proposed Consistency project’s National Environmental Policy Act Finding for Mail Delivery via Hovercraft. June (NEPA) review process. 16, 2000.

In the strict legal context of the NEPA resolution ADGC, 2000b. Letter from Gabrielle LaRoche, committees are not necessarily considered as a Coastal Zone Coordinator, Alaska Department form of mitigation. However, regulatory agency of Government Coordination, to Jim Nawrot, approval and public acceptance of the proposed USPS, concerning August 16, 2000 informal action by committing to a resolution committee public hearing on Hovercraft Consistency as a form of mitigation for the Hovercraft Determination. August 9, 2000. Demonstration Project was successful in agency and public NEPA review and eventual ADGC, 2000c. Letter from Pat Galvin, implementation of the project. The process of Director, Alaska Department of Government selecting committee members, establishing Coordination, to Jim Nawrot, USPS, concerning committee protocol, the dynamics of committee September 5, 2000 Public Hearing and Director- work, selecting committee chair, and other Level Consistency Determination. September pertinent subjects necessary to successfully 15, 2000. implement resolution committees all need to be considered before proposing to establish a CCMD, 2000. Letter from Gail Alstrom, Resolution Committee. None the less, if Program Director, Cenaliulriit Coastal properly established a resolution committee can Management District to Maureen McCrea, Project Review Coordinator, Alaska Division of Governement Coordination concerning the USPS, 2000c. USPS Alaska Coastal USPS Consistency Determination. May 10, Management Consistency Determination for 2000. Federal Activities for the Permanent Transport of Bypass Mail by Hovercraft. February 3, TOA, 1997. Letter from Stephen Koteff, 2000. Trustees of Alaska, to Richard Jensen, USPS Counsel, concerning the Hovercraft Project USPS, 2000d. Letter from Jim Nawrot, USPS, compliance with CZM and NEPA. July 16, to Maureen McCrea, Alaska DGC concerning 1997. Coastal Zone Consistency Determination Request for Elevation. June 20, 2000. USCA, 2000. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion on Akiak Native Community (et al) vs. USPS. May 25, 2000. Dr. Paul J. Valihura is the Principal Author USDC, 1998. US District Court of Alaska and is a Senior Environmental Scientist at the Order from Chambers on Akiak Native John A. Volpe National Transportation System Community (et al) vs. USPS. March 20, 1998. Center, DOT. Dr. Valihura has over 25 years of professional experience and graduate education. USPS, 1997a. Letter from Susan Keotting, He has served as principal author of the USPS Counsel, to Maureen McCrea, Alaska Hovercraft Demonstration Program EA and DGC concerning Coastal Zone Consistency SEA, Program Manger for the Hovercraft Determination for the Hovercraft Project. June ecological monitoring effort and Vice- 26, 1997. chairperson of the Hovercraft Resolution Committee. He has prepared environmental USPS, 1997b. United States Postal Service impact statements and mitigation plans, Alaska Hovercraft Demonstration Project monitored construction and permit compliance, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No facilitated hazardous waste compliance, Significant Impact. July 1997. instituted community involvement, and completed ecological field monitoring. In USPS, 1997c. Alaska Hovercraft addition to his environmental science Demonstration Project Ecological Monitoring background, Dr. Valihura also has collegiate Plan, USPS. August 1997. teaching experience. Overall, he specializes in interfacing infrastructure development projects USPS, 1998. Categorical Exclusion for the with residents, regulatory agencies, and the Continuation of the Alaska Hovercraft natural environment. Dr. Valihura has a Ph.D. Demonstration Project. November 10, 1998. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

USPS, 1999. Alaska Hovercraft Demonstration Project Ecological Monitoring Plan, USPS. April 1999.

USPS, 2000a. Alaska Hovercraft Demonstration Project, Ecological Monitoring Summary Report, March 2000.

USPS, 2000b. Alaska Hovercraft Demonstration Project, Supplemental Environmental Assessment/FONSI. 2000.