The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) released a notice for a public comment period on December 31, 2019 regarding the Port of Nome, Draft Integrated Feasibility Report. The public comment period closed January 30, 2020 to review the 267 page document. The considered alternatives in the report describe lengthening the causeway and increasing the depth to accommodate larger vessels, with the project developed under the authority of Remote and Subsistence Harbors. Immediately, Kawerak Inc in cooperation with Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) wrote a letter formally requesting a comment extension period of 90 days which was denied by USACE.
Kawerak Inc continued to respond immediately and developed a letter to formally respond during the public comment period. Acting in line with our resource development policy , Kawerak advocates for peace, safety, clean oceans and environments. See Kawerak’s letter below, bringing light to unresolved issues the Feasibility Report does not address or consider. You can also download the Kawerak Port of Nome Modification Feasibility Comment Letter.
RE: Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the following project: Port of Nome Modification Nome, Alaska
Dear Mr. Howard,
Kawerak Inc. is the regional tribal consortium composed of 20 federally recognized tribes in the Bering Strait region with its main office in Nome, Alaska. Kawerak received the notice dated December 31, 2019 that requested input from the public on the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report. This comment letter is in answer to that call for information.
This project is being developed under the authority of the Remote and Subsistence Harbors and consequently is then exempted from national economic development benefit standards. Kawerak believes the full national economic development benefit standards should be incorporated along with an economic impacts study to address increased costs of maintenance that accompany expansion. Historically costs have been borne by local users and local taxpayers. A solution would be to withdraw the feasibility study and duplicate the effort to incorporate national standards.
Kawerak does not currently have a stance on construction of port expansion. However, we want to ensure that the process and final decision does not negatively impact the community or region. Kawerak offers the following comments for public consideration.
Recommendation #1: Extend the public comment period
The USACE must extend the public comment period for this complex project to at least 90 days. The Arctic is at low risk for conflict[1],[2]and there is no urgency to rush the comment period. Adequate time must be made for the nation to thoroughly review this project. It is clear that this project is a national political and infrastructure issue and requires careful consideration and critical review as reflected in our following comments.
There are many aspects of this project that are not fully considered and addressed, such as impacts to air quality, impacts to the community of Nome and Alaska Native indigenous people, and environmental justice considerations. The public may not have the time within the 30-day comment period to address the complex issues in a satisfactory manner unless a public comment extension is granted.
Recommendation #2: Withdraw the Finding of No Significant Impact
The USACE must withdraw the Finding of No Significant Impact for this project and issue an Environmental Impact Statement. This project has the potential to affect the community of Nome and the Bering Strait region in many ways.
Recommendation #3: Provide for Subsistence Uses in the Design
The USACE must provide for subsistence uses in the feasibility design. This should be in the form of a small subsistence boat harbor, reserved for small subsistence vessels, and must be incorporated into the design alternatives. If this provision is not incorporated, it seriously jeopardizes exemption from national criteria under the authority of the Remote and Subsistence Harbors and creates negative impacts for subsistence users. The design and structural alternatives need to have features that facilitate subsistence uses and activities and the welfare of the local and regional populations must be supported to include the social and cultural values of the area for subsistence. Per Section 2006 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2007, as amended by Section 2104 of WRRDA 2014[3], in determining whether to recommend a project under the Remote and Subsistence Harbor criteria, the Secretary must consider: the benefits of the project; public health; safety of the local community and communities that are located in the region to be served by the project and that will rely on the project, including access to facilities designed to protect public health and safety; access to natural resources for subsistence purposes; local and regional economic opportunities; and the welfare of the regional population to be served by the project. The subsistence users of the region and the community must be served by this project and a small boat design alternative needs to be included in this project for it to be exempted from national economic development benefit standards.
None of the structural alternatives provides for small skiff access to traditional subsistence resources or harvest areas from the Port of Nome. As noted previously, this study uses the authority of Remote and Subsistence Harbors, as modified by Section 2104 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014) and further modified by Section 1105 of WRDA 2016, but this study project does not design a port that meets the exceptions afforded under remote and subsistence harbors because no small skiff access is designed. The use of that authority must demonstrate that the project is justified by national economic development benefit standards, and meet the following considerations:
- public health and safety of the local community and communities that are located in the region to be served by the project and that will rely on the project, including access to facilities designed to protect public health and safety;
- access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
- local and regional economic opportunities;
- welfare of the regional population to be served by the project; and
- social and cultural value to the local community and communities that are located in the region to be served by the project and that will rely on the project.
Recommendation #4: Provide for Public Health and Safety of the Local Community
This study must provide for public health and safety of the local community from the potential harm caused by an oil spill. The present port is able to handle and berth most oil spill response vessels as they have drafts less than 22 feet.
“Due to a lack of available draft along the western and northern coasts, USCG activity is limited to small vessels and helicopters, with the nearest USCG station to Nome about 800 miles away on Kodiak Island. However, because of long sailing times through remote and often rough waters, safety and security concerns are paramount for vessels traveling through the study area. In addition, a large percentage of vessels working in the Arctic that travel through the region are oil and gas transport vessels. There are limited facilities and potentially supplies available to support clean-up activities, should a spill occur at sea, or at the coastal communities during fuel transfer. Currently, if a critical need for supplies arises, the USCG uses the Port of Nome to lighter goods to their deep-draft vessels. Spill response vessels with a draft requirement greater than 22 ft. would need to do the same.” (USACE IFRSEA page 10)
There are few oil spill response vessels that have drafts greater than 22 feet. Most OSRV’s can already dock in Nome and because of their inherent low draft design, can station in most places in the Arctic now; a port does not need to be built to accommodate these vessels.
Recommendation #5: Support Access to Natural Resources for Subsistence Harvest
The study must support access to natural resources for subsistence. Study objective 2.5, bullet point 3 does NOT meet the criteria to support access to natural resources for subsistence purposes within Nome and the region by “increasing navigation efficiency with the region.” The USACE indicates that any plan that is implemented as part of this study should take into account cultural, historic, subsistence, and other natural resources. The plan needs to ensure subsistence users in Nome aren’t subject to further access prohibitions and that the citizens of the community aren’t further limited to access port areas. Currently we are limited even when waters are frozen and there is no activity at the port. In section, 2.8 of the study the USACE notes the additional benefits that the Secretary may consider include social and cultural values, through increased access to subsistence activities, which support teaching activities, traditional foods, and food sharing. Though Alaska Natives are a majority group in this region, there are many arenas where Alaska Natives aren’t fairly represented in order to highlight their values, culture, and traditional practices.
Recommendation #6: Ensure that the Port Does Not Increase the Cost of Living
The USACE must ensure that this project does NOT negatively affect the residents of Nome by driving up the cost of living and impacting the housing and job markets. The USACE proposes that more efficient fuel and goods delivery from this project will tie directly into the considerations of Section 2006 WRDA 2007. However, highly seasonal jobs from this project, combined with small pools of local workers that cannot meet demand, will drive the need for non-local labor, which may not have the effect the USACE proposes – such as making equipment used for subsistence (boats, snow machines, ATVs) more accessible, and free up other resources or funds to utilize on subsistence. A further increase in non -local people because of this project may additionally affect cultural and archeological resources particularly as climate change causes more erosion and exposes cultural and archeological sites to looting and disturbance. The USACE’s “Project First Cost” does not include inflation. Nome’s inflation has steadily increased and for 2020, a large inflation and cost of living adjustment occurred. It is clear that project construction will cause a temporary (perhaps long lasting and permanent) inflation of rental costs and potentially decrease the availability of affordable housing in the community.
Recommendation #7: Do Not Create Additional Challenges for Nome Residents
The USACE project must not add to the challenges that Nome residents face. The USACE indicates several challenges that Nome residents face: 1) the need to replace aging or threatened infrastructure; 2) economic distress in the region; 3) food security; 4) outmigration has already resulted in the loss of one village, King Island; and 5) climate change impacts. Workers from diverse areas of the state and nation in-migrate to the Nome census area for work at higher rates than out-migration occurs[4]. This results in and contributes to a non-local workforce impact on local people. In-migration results in housing shortages, the USACE should indicate stronger narratives on socio-economic impacts as happened with the housing shortage because of the increase in offshore mining.
The Alaska Native population in Nome and the region are impacted by poverty and projects like the port modification could further displace local workers. In Nome, poverty also results in homelessness, with a disproportionate effect on Alaska Natives.[5] Nome’s poverty issues are relevant to the challenges identified by the USACE. The official poverty thresholds do not meet basic needs for living in this high cost region and job displacement would further push our already high poverty rate higher. Nome residents and residents of the region likely suffer at least one material hardship that is not different from those below the poverty line and so there must be some inclusion of those predicted hardships because of this project. The Trump administration is now considering a policy that would lower the poverty threshold even further by switching to the United States Consumer Price Index that may be less accurate for low income people, which would weaken assistance programs by reducing the number of eligible individuals and make the poverty line itself an even less accurate indicator of poverty.[6],[7]
Recommendation #8: Avoid Impacts to Cultural and Archaeological Resources
The USACE must ensure cultural and archeological resources are protected. Cumulative cultural impacts continue to be felt from the failure to properly mitigate archeological impacts. Though aspects of the cultural and historical importance of the port location may have been destroyed, there are continued efforts by the Alaska Native community to demonstrate the value of the area, and their concern has already been expressed to the USACE. Kawerak supports the draft memorandum of understanding being considered by the USACE for mitigation of archeological impacts as a step in the right direction.
Recommendation #9: Avoid Impacting and Mischaracterizing the Viability of Region Communities
The USACE must not affect or mischaracterize the long-term viability of remote and subsistence communities. Under the Community Viability Units (CVU) summary table and the Cargo Delivery Reliability (CDR) metric, the USACE should re-consider the essential factor of residents’ participation in subsistence activities and the ability to maintain the region’s unique cultural heritage. Preservation and continuation of Nome and the region’s cultural heritage is not dependent on this project.
Recommendation #10: Conduct an ANILCA Section 810 Evaluation and Analysis
Subsistence is the traditional way of life for residents of Nome. Major subsistence activities include the hunting of birds, large game, marine mammals, fishing, trapping, harvesting of plants and berries, and gathering logs for firewood. There are as many as 40 marine mammal hunting crews in Nome and hundreds more of other kinds of subsistence users. Because of the immeasurable importance of subsistence to Nome, the USACE must undertake an Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) subsistence analysis and evaluation of effects as required by ANILCA Section 810. All of the alternatives, including the no action alternative, may result in a restriction of subsistence activities for Nome residents. The study identified at least 100 impacts to subsistence ranging from city efforts to restrict subsistence through city ordinances; losing access; impacts to a culturally significant area; larger vessels displacing subsistence users; risk of pollution from numerous sources (oil spill, air pollution, discharge, etc.); displacement of subsistence species; more difficulty exiting and entering the port in small skiffs; socio-economic and cost factors that may make subsistence activities more expensive; and additional bureaucracies to manage subsistence activities at the port, just to name a few. Additionally, there are many more impacts that have not been analyzed for effect as required by ANILCA. The USACE is required to at least conduct an ANILCA Section 810 Evaluation of the effects of its federal decision for each alternative when there may be a significant restriction to the abundance of, availability of, or access to subsistence resources. The USACE referenced the proper and necessary ANILCA 810 guideline in section 12 but did not incorporate any evaluation of effects in the main body of the study or any of the appendices and has no plan to conduct an ANILCA evaluation of effects. That is not acceptable and is a significant and fatal flaw of the study. The USACE is obligated to explain why an ANILCA 810 evaluation of effects was disregarded and subsequently not completed. The USACE must at least hold separate public ANILCA hearings in the community facilitated and moderated by subsistence experts and must prepare and publish an ANILCA 810 evaluation of effects since the study is woefully inadequate in that regard. The USACE depended on a few local persons for community perspectives and thus was incapable of including the rich and valued culture, history, and practice of subsistence in Nome. To more accurately determine the effects of this management decision, the USACE must first analyze subsistence use (which the USACE did not adequately do) through an analysis of the impacts to subsistence resources and subsistence uses relied upon by Nome residents, especially the Alaska Native population. Regulation and conversation around subsistence use of the many species in Nome are passionate issues between the federal government, state government, local government and residents.
Recommendation #11: Properly Evaluate Air Quality Impacts
The USACE has underestimated air quality impacts from this project. In rural Alaska, reporting air quality violations is tremendously difficult and burdensome. Enforcing air quality impacts is also difficult because there are no local air quality enforcement agents in Nome or the region. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 9 would likely be used to monitor vessels. Ideally local people would be trained and certified using a standardized national method to report violations but that solution is neither planned for nor considered in long range planning. Even though ship air quality problems have been reported and identified, formal opacity readings that visually differentiate the opacity of the emissions requires trained personnel. The USACE’s requirement for contractors during construction is as follows (pg. 267):
“The contractors would be required to use equipment that is in good repair and meets applicable emission standards. Best management practices such as wetting work surfaces would be applied if visible lofted dust is noted.”
The USACE’s contractor requirements for mitigation must be referenced and must prohibit significant violation of air quality standards that would result in air quality health impacts.
Air pollution from shipping is a significant issue. When docked, cruise ships emit exhaust that can rival hundreds if not thousands of vehicles[8]. The entire coast of western Alaska is not within any IMO designated emission control area. If western Alaska were subject to the emission control requirement, vessels operating in Emission Control Areas would meet certain requirements such as:
- Fuel-sulfur concentration limits, or vessels may use an approved equivalent method (such as SOx scrubbers, also known as exhaust gas cleaning systems).
- Engines above 130 kW installed on vessels built (or modified) since 2000 must be certified to meet appropriate emission standards corresponding to the vessel’s build date (or modification date). As of January 1, 2016, engines installed on new and modified vessels are subject to the Annex VI Tier III NOx standards while those engines are operating in the ECA.[9]
CONCLUSION
The Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the Port of Nome Modificationis incomplete.
Informing the residents of Nome and the region about the impacts of this project is very important. The public must be involved and informed at each stage as the community and region will ultimately live with the long lasting impacts of this project, and their concerns/comments/questions must be considered and addressed.
As of the writing of this comment letter, the USACE has not published any public notice for this study in the Nome Nugget and no public meeting is scheduled in Nome prior to the comment deadline (Brent Howard, USACE, via e-mail of 1-15-2020). Nome and regional residents expect to find public notice in places that are accessible and obvious. Otherwise, it appears the USACE sought to avoid public notice and public engagement for this important project. Local people across Nome’s diverse socio-economic sectors must be educated on aspects of this project.
Protecting the environment and environmental compliance should be top priorities of the USACE. Regional residents have indicated repeatedly that our ocean should never be subject to pollution as they considered increased shipping in the Arctic.[10]
Kawerak works to protect and advance the economic sustainability of our communities. As Kawerak examines the possibilities of expanded tourism markets with increased shipping, it is clear the economic opportunities from tourism need to be considered as a whole. The small villages in rural Alaska lack the necessary water, sewage, and transportation services to accommodate the possibility of boosting tourism markets. Though this project may bring in economic opportunities, the regional impact is narrow unless village infrastructure needs are considered. Additionally, the USACE must consider the potential environmental damage to cultural and historic places brought on by tourism. For example, cruise ships dump large amounts of waste into the sea and could easily disturb different aspects of current cultural practice.[11] Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of cruise ships illegally dumping waste, and because of the highly remote aspect of our coast and oceans, enforcement may be difficult and lacking. It is Kawerak’s sincere concern that this project and increased shipping will not degrade our environment.
Besides waste discharge, threats of oil spills with increased ship traffic loom ahead. Western Alaska has been subject to thousands of gallons of spilled oil for decades.[12] Some oil spills have directly impacted subsistence resources such as marine mammals.[13] The USACE proposes there are draft limitations for oil spill response assets, but as this letter has clearly demonstrated most, if not all, of the kinds of oil spill response assets can be in Nome without port modification.
Kawerak advocates for peace, safety, clean oceans and environments as authorities deliberate on this project. There are ways to reduce the impact of this project we therefore ultimately recommend an EIS.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
KAWERAK, INC.
Melanie Bahnke, President
CC: Senator Lisa Murkowski
Senator Dan Sullivan
Representative Don Young
Senator Roger Wicker
Senate Committee on Transportation
House Committee on Transportation
USACE General ToddT. Semonite
Marine Mammal Commission
National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska
Representative Neal Foster
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Angus King
ATTACHMENT: 2007 Kawerak Resource Development Policy
[1]https://www.arctictoday.com/the-us-writes-but-does-not-implement-arctic-strategies/
[2]https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/695312.pdf
[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2242
[4]Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. Last updated September 2016
[5]https://www.nomecc.org/nome-emergency-shelter-team.html
[6]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/07/2019-09106/request-for-comment-on-the-consumer-inflation-measures-produced-by-federal-statistical-agencies
[7]https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-proposal-to-lower-poverty-line-draws-broad-opposition
[8]https://blog.elomatic.com/en/sulphur-emissions-does-one-ship-pollute-as-much-as-50-million-cars
[9]https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/international-standards-reduce-emissions-marine-diesel
[10]https://kawerak.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/BSVAS-report2016.pdf
[11]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X18308315
[12]file:///C:/Users/marine.advocate/Downloads/fy18-spar-annual-report%20(1).pdf
[13]https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ppr/spill-information/response/2012/18-stlawrence/
For other reading:
Nome Nugget Article http://www.nomenugget.com/news/army-corps-wants-public’s-view-port-upgrades
