Submitted via email
December 5, 2024
Susanne Fleek-Green
Superintendent
Lake Clark National Park and Preserve
240 West 5th Avenue, Suite 236
Anchorage, AK 99501
Su***********@np*.gov
Re: Draft NHPA Sec. 106 Programmatic Agreement for the Johnson Tract Transportation & Port Site Easements
Dear Superintendent Fleek-Green:
The undersigned individuals, organizations, and businesses provide the following comments to the National Park Service (NPS) on the proposed National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) as part of its evaluation of the proposed easements for the Johnson Tract mine within Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. Given the Secretary’s broad discretion regarding the conveyance of Transportation and Port Easements, unlike mandatory conveyances under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the procedural requirements contained in Section 106 of the NHPA154 U.S.C. § 306108. and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 implementing regulations apply, and the conveyance of the easements is an undertaking under the NHPA.
Our comments focus on the following primary inadequacies with the draft PA: limited Tribal participation, an overly constrained Area of Potential Effects (APE), failure to include ethnographic resources in cultural resources surveys, and unreasonably short timelines. We are also attaching a copy of the draft PA that is marked-up with comments and suggested edits, which should be included as part of our formal comments.2Draft PA suggested edits attachment prepared by Trustees for Alaska. We urge NPS to address these issues prior to finalizing the PA to ensure compliance with NHPA Section 106.
A. Tribal Participation
The draft PA indicates that potentially affected Tribes will be invited to sign the PA as Concurring Parties. This is inadequate. As sovereign governments, Tribes should have the same opportunity to participate in the PA as state and federal agencies. At the very least, Tribes should be invited to participate as Invited Signatories consistent with federal regulations.336 C.F.R. § 800.6(c)(2)(ii) (“The agency official may invite an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties located off tribal lands to be a signatory to a memorandum of agreement concerning such properties.”). The final PA must be revised to correct this oversight.
B. Area of Potential Effects
The APE in the draft PA is woefully inadequate to address adverse effects on historic properties from the undertaking, including properties listed in NPS’s National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Per Section 106 regulations, APE means “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties…”436 C.F.R. § 800.16(d). In other words, the APE is not merely the specific area in which activities related to the undertaking will take place, as the current APE in the draft PA is drawn5Draft Programmatic Agreement at 24 (Appendix A). but rather the geographic area within which the undertaking may cause direct or indirect changes to historic properties.
Both activities within the Transportation and Port Easement Areas and the activities outside ofthe Easement Areas the easements enable, such as development and operation of the mine, use of the airstrip, and vessel traffic to the port, are certain to cause “alterations in the character or use” of historic properties beyond the narrow APE depicted in the draft PA. For example, the Snug Harbor Cannery (Cannery), listed in the NRHP, is located roughly one mile from the proposed Port Easement Area.6Property ID No. 100009319, Property Name: Snug Harbor Packing Company, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm (accessed Nov. 17, 2024). The Cannery’s remote and pristine location, the abundant surrounding marine ecosystem, and the local fishermen who rely on Tuxedni Bay’s healthy fish stocks are central to the unique historic character of the Cannery. Through the related business, Snug Harbor Outpost, the Cannery’s owners welcome paying visitors to experience and learn about the natural beauty and unique maritime history of the Cannery and the surrounding area, which in turn supports their upkeep and restoration of the of the Historic Place. Impacts to the character and use of this property that will result from disturbances such as clearing, work camps, and overland transport are not accounted for in the exceedingly narrow proposed APE.
As reflected in the attached copy of the draft PA, the Planning Phase APE relies on an overly narrow APE that does not extend beyond the specific proposed Easement Areas. This is inadequate. Even more troubling, the draft PA suggests the Planning Phase APE “may” be amended during the Construction and Operation and Maintenance Phases of the project.7Draft Programmatic Agreement at 10 (section VII(B)).
This must be corrected. The presence and activities of an industrial port facility within the Port Easement Area, including “receiving, shipping, storage, and incidental handling of minerals…, along with receiving, shipping, storage, and incidental handling of all other equipment, goods, fuel, supplies, waste, material, personnel, or other resources…,”8Draft Programmatic Agreement at 4 (section I(A)(2)). would without a doubt cause “alternations” to, and have adverse effects on, the above described characteristics and use of the Cannery.9See 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(2).
We note that the draft PA states that the Transportation and Port Easements Areas depicted in Appendix A may shrink as the Phases progress. To the extent this statement suggests the narrow APE contained in the draft PA may adequately account for impacts associated with the project’s post-planning phases, it is misleading. The intensity of activities within the Easement Areas will drastically expand from the Planning Phase to the Construction and Operation and Maintenance Phases. Given NPS and the Department of Interior’s (DOI) experience and knowledge of mining projects and related infrastructure, as well as the completed Johnson Tract mine plan NPS is required to have received per the 2020 Agreement between DOI and CIRI,10U.S. DOI, Agreement on the Process for Approval of the CIRI Easements and Land Uses, Johnson Tract, Alaska at § 3 (Jul. 27, 2020). NPS should be able to determine the geographic area likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by the undertaking. These impacts will extend far beyond the APE included in the draft PA.
In the final PA, we urge NPS to identify an APE for the Planning Phase that extends, at a minimum, two miles either side of the easements as outlined in the attached draft PA. This two-mile corridor may need to be expanded in certain areas where the topography and vegetation increase the reach of visual, noise and olfactory disturbances. In addition, the Planning Phase APE should be expanded to include, at minimum, the Tuxedni Channel and the coastline on either side of the channel (Lake Clark National Park and Chisik Island/Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge), due to expected increased vessel traffic and associated effects, such as increased noise, visual impairment, water and air pollution, and other detrimental impacts to the setting of historic properties. Further, considering the extensive impacts associated with later phases of the project, we urge NPS to identify and adopt an APE for the Construction and Operation and Maintenance Phases in the final PA that includes, at minimum: the proposed mine and related infrastructure footprint with adequate buffers; the entire Johnson River watershed; the entire Bear Creek watershed; and all of Tuxedni Bay, including Chisik Island, Tuxedni Channel, and the southern and northern coastlines. The APE should be described in the text, including its width, length, and other pertinent details. Other parties, including Alaska Native Tribes, may have additional suggestions about the area that should be included.
C. Ethnographic Resources Must Be Considered
The draft PA overly focuses on archeological resources, but ethnographic resources, including inventories, investigations, interviews, site visits, and other efforts in coordination with Tribal government representatives, are essential to ensuring cultural resources surveys are complete. Furthermore, Tribal members who share their special expertise with NPS should be compensated for their time and effort on par with other experts, consultants, and contractors. Extensive outreach to and engagement with Tribal governments is essential, as merely sending an email or letter and inviting Tribes to share their knowledge would not be sufficient.
D. Extension of Comment Periods
Involvement of the public, including through adequate public comment periods, is “essential to informed Federal decision making in the section 106 process.”1136 C.F.R. § 800.2(d)(1). The nature and complexity of the Johnson Tract mine project, to which the Transportation and Port Easements are central, and its effects on historic properties, including the Cannery and yet-to-be identified historic properties, are significant. The public, Signatories, Invited Signatories, Concurring and Consulting Parties need adequate time to review documents and provide meaningful feedback.
We urge NPS to extend the various 30-day comment periods in the draft PA to a minimum of 60 days. This includes the periods to review and comment on draft cultural resource management plans,12Draft Programmatic Agreement at 8, Appendix C. draft plans for additional identification and evaluation,13Draft Programmatic Agreement at 10, Appendix C. cultural resource reports,14Draft Programmatic Agreement at 11, Appendix C. draft historic properties treatment plans, 15Draft Programmatic Agreement at 13, Appendix C. and proposed determinations of eligibility and findings of effect.16Draft Programmatic Agreement at 11, Appendix C.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
| Cooper Freeman Alaska Director Center for Biological Diversity Bridget Maryott Jen Woolworth Maddie Halloran Emily Hikes Jasmine Jemewouk Suzanne Steinert Alexis Will Bonnie Gestring Deborah Boege Tobin, PhD David Raskin Phil Francis Gershon Cohen, PhD |
Abraham & Mariah Porter Co-Owners Snug Harbor Cannery David Coray & Joanne Edney Ben Bressler Claudine Haynes Marina Haynes Oscar Haynes III Dustin Solberg Paula Kulhanek Dr. Ann Harding Brooke Bartleson Arthur Leforestier Mary Farrell |
Attachement: 2024-12-5_JT NHPA Sec. 106 Draft PA Comment Letter.pdf