At the eleventh hour of the Haines Borough Assembly meeting, Assembly Members voted to add a smaller dock alternative to the plans for the Lutak Dock project. Those voting in favor voiced the need to recognize members of the public who prefer a smaller-footprint dock. The dissenting vote voiced concern that any further delay in the permitting process would put the entire project at risk.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, or MARAD has made it clear to the Haines Borough that the Lutak Dock project is on a very tight timeline if it wants to remain eligible for $20 million of federal funding. The “next steps” for the project were discussed at Tuesday’s Assembly meeting.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal agencies to review the effects on cultural properties of all projects they fund. Mayor Tom Morphet reported at last month’s assembly meeting that CIV was not in support of the current Lutak dock design. And at Tuesday’s meeting, Assembly member Gabe Thomas read from a letter from his father and Vice-President of the Chilkoot Indian Association Bill Thomas.
“We have been quiet about the rebuilding of Lutak dock,” Thomas read. “We want to let the Assembly be aware that we are concerned about our tribal members who live in Haines by continuing to delay the building. This could be very harmful to our members if the failure occurs and the cost of fuels and groceries are to increase significantly. We do not have the resources available to help our members through a failure. This may cause members to leave Haines, in order to survive. Costs are already high in Haines. We ask you to rebuild the dock immediately and prevent any possible forcing of our members to leave. This is their only home. We have been quiet on this issue because we see no issues in the Chilkoot traditional area. We also like the idea of not allowing ore over the dock by changing your Charter. We ask you to stay focused on the dock and not on a possible mine. Face that issue later. We have members that don’t support the mine, but we need the dock now.”
The next step for the Assembly is to review an Environmental Evaluation, or EA, draft. An EA is an evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed dock on the environment. The EA is required to suggest alternatives that could reduce or alleviate those impacts.
Assembly Members will review the EA draft, when it is made available, and then submit it to MARAD. Then MARAD can evaluate the EA and determine the next steps for moving forward with the dock rebuild.
At the previous Assembly meeting, environmental consultant Robin Reich said the EA draft in development compares the current dock design to two alternatives. The first alternative is no action. The second alternative is a rubble-mound design.
Assembly members were also told at the last assembly meeting that an EA draft would be ready for review by March 4th or 5th. But by Tuesday’s assembly meeting on March 12th, there was still no draft available.
Borough Manager Annette Krietzer told KHNS that the delay was partly due to a maintenance-cost-report comparison between the current design and the alternative. She said the other part of the delay is because MARAD asked for an intertidal survey for the rubble mound design alternative. Kreitzer said it’s not the best season for conducting an intertidal survey, but that a team traveled to Haines this week to perform the necessary work, and the EA draft should be available soon.
During Tuesday’s meeting Assembly Member Natalie Dawson asked that a third alternative design be added to the EA draft. Opponents of the current design, including Lynn Canal Conservation and members of the community, have asked for the Borough to consider a design that has a smaller footprint than both the current encapsulation design and the alternative rubble mound design. Dawson explained that adding an additional alternative design to the EA draft does not have to delay the permitting process by more than a few weeks. She said the addition could be “a few paragraphs”.
“Directing the Manager to provide language for a smaller riprap dock with no bulkhead as a reasonable alternative to a draft EA for consideration,” Dawson said. “So at that point consultants can work with the manager and through us with additional questions for clarification of exactly what that alternative looks like. But you don’t have to have full, completely analyzed, proofed and through-the-Planning-Commission engineering designs to get an alternative in the draft.”
The Assembly voted 4-2 to direct the Manager to add the riprap dock design to the EA.
Assembly member Gabe Thomas was upset with the vote. He said he is concerned that adding another design to the EA will stall the project. And that stalling the project will make it ineligible for federal funding. Thomas told KHNS that repairing the dock is not just essential for residents, but “critical”.
