Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/24/2011 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Northern Rail Extension | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 24, 2011
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Bob Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joe Paskvan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: NORTHERN RAIL EXTENSION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTOPHER AADNESEN, President and CEO
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation titled,
"Northern Rail Extension."
BRIAN LINDAMOOD, Project Manager
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the PowerPoint presentation
titled, "Northern Rail Extension."
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions following the PowerPoint
presentation titled, "Northern Rail Extension."
JIM DODSON, President/CEO
Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation (FEDC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions following the PowerPoint
presentation titled, "Northern Rail Extension."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:08 PM
CO-CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.
Representatives Thompson, Gatto, Miller, and Saddler were
present at the call to order. Representatives Austerman and
Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress. Senator Paskvan
was also present.
^Presentation: Northern Rail Extension
Presentation: Northern Rail Extension
1:02:55 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the only order of business
would be a presentation regarding the Northern Rail Extension by
the Alaska Railroad Corporation and the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs.
1:03:51 PM
CHRISTOPHER AADNESEN, President and CEO, Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED), began his briefing on the Northern Rail
Extension and the Tanana River bridge. He called attention to
slide 2 which was a map of the area surrounding the Tanana River
crossing. Mr. Aadnesen turned the slide presentation over to
the project manager and remained available for questions.
1:06:01 PM
BRIAN LINDAMOOD, Project Manager, Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC), in response to Representative Gatto, said he is also the
project manager for the Port MacKenzie Rail Extension. The
Northern Rail project began around 2005, and its purpose is to
extend the Alaska Railroad (ARR) approximately 80 miles from
North Pole to Delta Junction. This extension will provide year
around surface transportation access to the military training
ranges on the south side of the Tanana River that are now only
accessible by air, or by ice bridges during a brief period in
winter. The extension will also provide an alternative mode of
transportation between Delta Junction and North Pole for
freight, and will provide transportation security in the case of
a disruption in road access. Additionally, a secondary benefit
of the first phase of the project includes the construction of a
levee which will attenuate the threat of annual flooding in the
Salcha area.
1:08:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) completed a large flood control project in that area.
MR. LINDAMOOD advised the area of Salcha affected by this
project is very upstream from the reach of the previous work.
The USACE project blocked three low-lying channels of the Tanana
River from spilling into Piledriver Slough, but the river has
eroded around the blocks. In further response to Representative
Gatto, he explained a slough block is an earthen dike.
1:09:52 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD presented slide 4, which was a project timeline.
He advised that the U.S. Department of Transportation, Surface
Transportation Board (DOT/STB) was the lead agency, beginning
its review of environmental impact statement (EIS) work in 2005,
and approving the final EIS document in January, 2010. At that
time, the project moved from preliminary engineering and
environmental work to final design. Construction
Management/General Contractor was the chosen design-delivery
method - instead of the traditional design/bid - because of the
difficult technical nature of the project and construction
challenges. In fact, ARRC thought it important to benefit from
the contractor's expertise early in the project during design
and engineering decisions. This process also allowed for more
cost-certainty, and problems were addressed early in the
development of the project. The first construction permits were
submitted in June 2010, and most are now pending approval. Mr.
Lindamood turned attention to slide 5 titled, "Project Phases,"
and explained that the project is divided into four phases:
Phase 1 is construction of the Tanana River bridge; Phase 2 is
extending rail 13 miles to the bridge, which can be completed in
two years to coincide with the completion of the bridge; Phase 3
is extending rail 30 miles to connect the two military training
areas; Phase 4 is extending rail 38 miles to Delta Junction. In
response to Representative Gatto, he confirmed that the initial
estimated cost of the project is $800 million.
1:13:07 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response to Representative Austerman, affirmed
that the project is broken into four major phases, and could be
broken into smaller phases later, depending upon funding. In
further response to Representative Austerman, he stated that
construction of the bridge could take four years and extension
of the rail 13 miles could take two years.
1:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for the cost of Phase 1, which is
construction of the bridge.
1:14:17 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD, in response, presented slide 6 titled, "Phase 1:
Tanana Crossing at Salcha," which was a map showing all of the
project components of Phase 1. Indicated on the map were the
following: bridge, approximately 3,300 feet in length; levee;
upgrade of Tom Bear Trail, which connects the project to the
Richardson Highway; east bank staging area; left bank
embankment; four bridges over sloughs; four red spur dikes for
embankment protection. Slide 7 was the Joint Pacific Alaska
Range Complex (JPARC) Modernization and Enhancement EIS which
indicated the location of Tanana River staging areas and 500-
person camps strategically located near ARR.
1:17:26 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN clarified that the camps would be built by the
U.S. military.
1:17:41 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD said correct. He then presented slide 8 titled,
"2008 Flood Event," and pointed out the 2008 flood was the
highest recorded flood event since 1967. During the flood,
surveyors and hydrologists recorded data that was then used to
calibrate models for permitting applications. This data has
helped the permitting process by convincing regulatory agencies
of the present situation, and the purposes of ARRC's proposals.
However, the flood significantly destabilized the braidplain of
the river by moving sandbars and trees; in fact, the main-stem
of the river is now causing erosion at the planned location of
the levee, the bridge, and the approach to the bridge.
1:19:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER observed that a major change was wrought
in the river by one flooding event, and asked whether the
construction of the levee and other structures would mitigate
future events.
MR. LINDAMOOD said, "Yes, it would significantly attenuate it."
There are two aspects to the flooding in Salcha; as the town
sits on a gravel riverbed, as much water is running through the
riverbed as is on the surface. After the levee is built,
surface water will not flow over property, but the ground water
will continue to inundate low-lying areas during flooding. The
levee will help during short-term ice dam events.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether there could be a negative
effect on the integrity of the levee, bridge, and road system.
MR. LINDAMOOD said no. His department has designed the levee
with over 400,000 tons of construction material to keep it in
place and, after much research and study, the bridge was
designed with single column, 12-foot diameter piers because they
will shed ice and debris. He further explained that regular
events do not change the braidplain of the river, but changes
occur in the river five to ten years after a major flood event.
Furthermore, ARRC is currently going through a rigorous review
process with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to ensure that there
will be no harmful downstream or upstream effects from the
bridge or the levee.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER surmised flood events will not have a
detrimental effect on the integrity of the bridge.
MR. LINDAMOOD concurred.
1:23:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled that levees did not protect New
Orleans [during the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina in
2005]. He asked for the source of Mr. Lindamood's confidence in
levees.
MR. LINDAMOOD stated that difficulties for this project have
arisen because of FEMA's renewed scrutiny of this type of
project. As a matter of fact, this project is at a disadvantage
because the sort of engineering techniques and guidelines used
to design levees in New Orleans are not equivalent to the flows
seen in Salcha during breakup, particularly with ice.
Furthermore, FEMA guidelines do not apply to braided rivers of
this nature; however, ARRC continues to work with FEMA and USACE
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), to fully address
and vet these issues. Mr. Lindamood advised that many of the
levees in New Orleans were 20-30 feet high whereas the majority
of the levee in Salcha is less than 6 feet high. He assured the
committee FEMA regulations are stringent, and he said he has no
doubt that this levee is designed to withstand a 100-year flood
event with the main channel of the river 40 percent blocked by
woody debris stacked on top of the bridge. In fact, there are
additional engineering factors which attenuate flooding that
FEMA did not take into account.
1:26:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, after confirming that the Tanana River
connects with the Yukon River, said, "The point is, that's a lot
of ice." He recalled the situation in Eagle, in which ice in
the river rose over 60 feet and "roared through the town."
MR. LINDAMOOD acknowledged working with USACE and FEMA on
problems caused by ice. Ice jam events on the river happen in
spring, during relatively low flow. Flooding at Salcha due to
ice jams are a function of the main-stem of the river moving
closer to Salcha. After construction of the levee, the river
will be redirected back into other portions of the braidplain
that are now occasionally dry.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO recalled his experience living in the area,
and questioned the wisdom of spending "so much money to fix it,
and being nervous about whether the fix will even work."
1:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed her understanding that ARRC is
requesting $44 million to help put in dikes. She asked whether
there is an effort to work with the local community and the
state to study this situation. The community of Salcha needs to
review the potential impacts of another event and whether it is
ready for them, as do all communities. Although USDHS is
working on that, there is a need to bring other entities
together to learn about the costs of changes and other lessons.
MR. LINDAMOOD observed this is already being done; for example,
the engineers made levee alignment shifts in order to include
Salcha Fire and Rescue within the protected zone. Additionally,
FEMA requires ARRC to provide an operating and maintenance
manual for the levee, which will define specific procedures for
the coordination of first responders, and maintenance of the
levee, thus there have been multiple community meetings in
Salcha to inform the community. Staff will be available to the
community during construction, and after construction there will
be a maintenance building. Furthermore, ARRC has been working
with Fairbanks North Star Borough to identify and address as
many concerns as possible.
1:33:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether building the bridge is
predicated on building the levee.
MR. LINDAMOOD explained ARRC has an EIS to build a bridge that
requires construction of a levee, and from a regulatory
standpoint, the two are tied together. In further response to
Representative Austerman, he clarified that the bridge will not
work without the levee, because the river has a very wide flood
plain - sometimes two miles wide - and the flood regime dictates
that when the water comes up to the banks it spills over. The
largest concern about the project was whether the river would
stay under the bridge after its construction, so engineers
looked at ways to harden the banks upstream. The engineers
determined the levee was necessary because "you can't make [a
bridge] long enough," since the first 35 miles of the project
are in the flood plain. In fact, the embankments for ARR will
need to be mitigating against the floodwater effects of the
river. Although other options were studied, he concluded, "We
can't have a bridge without a levee, and from a regulatory
standpoint, we can't have a levee without a bridge."
1:36:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked when the initial plan for bridge and
levee design, and funding, occurred.
MR. LINDAMOOD indicated at the end of 2007, and early in 2008.
Prior to that, other options were under consideration. In
further response to Representative Miller regarding available
data, he said the engineering team studied aerial photographs of
the historical movement of the riverbanks taken at regular
intervals beginning in 1937, which show there has been
consistent movement to the right. A study of the hydrology of
the river was completed after the 1967 flood, and he estimated
37 years of gauge data is available. Additionally, there are
recommendations from hydraulic engineers, FEMA, and USACE on how
to develop flood events for a region, based on available data.
He pointed out that the 1967 flood event, which was used to
derive the 100-year event timeline, was bigger than a 100-year
event. Because the record for this region is short, he
explained, "These sorts of large events tend to move around the
map a little bit, until you get, you know, 50, 60, 80, 100 years
worth of data, but ... I believe we don't reach overtopping
until the 500-year event, which has not happened." Mr.
Lindamood restated his confidence in the regulatory and
technical reviews of the proposal.
1:40:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether there was a roadway
associated with the project.
MR. LINDAMOOD responded that the initial proposal includes an
access road off the Richardson Highway which would share the
same surface as ARR across the structure. After crossing the
main-stem of the Tanana River, the road would diverge into a
separate road to the military training areas. In further response
to Representative Miller, he explained this is a single set of tracks
and in case of a derailment, there are extensive emergency management
procedures in place that are practiced on a regular basis with
other agencies.
MR. AADNESEN advised that derailments on a bridge do not happen
very often; however, ARRC has had significant experience and
knows how to access both ends of a bridge with cranes. This
bridge will have a wider deck than most, but the logic of the
reaction would be similar to that of other ARRC facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER announced there has been a train
derailment in Fairbanks and expressed his interest in comparing
clean-up times between downtown and remote locations.
MR. AADNESEN advised the clean-up time is the same, although
more time is needed to get equipment to a bridge on the Tanana
River.
1:44:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to slide 6, and asked whether
the levee should continue on the other side of the bridge.
MR. LINDAMOOD indicated that downstream of the bridge, the flow
of the river returns to its natural hydrologic condition.
1:45:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO described the condition of the Tanana River
Bridge at Nenana, and said there were no issues with the
suspension bridge.
MR. LINDAMOOD agreed that the conditions of the river are very
different in that location, whereas at the project location
there is a substantial amount of bedload and the river is very
active. At Nenana, a lot of the instability of the bedload from
the glacier is relieved, and there is also a large rock
formation on one side of river. In further response to
Representative Gatto, Mr. Lindamood explained moving the bridge
to a better position would place it too far from its purpose.
The braided condition of the river extends several miles south
of Chena Pump, and earlier options to place the bridge there
were discounted.
1:48:10 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD presented slide 9 titled, "Project Funding."
Funding in place at this time includes a U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD)/Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant in the
amount of $44.2 million that expires in 2013, and an additional
DOD/FRA grant in the amount of $60 million that expires in 2014.
The second grant is unique in that it may only be applied for
the main bridge structure itself. Finally, $40 million is
available from the state capital budget. He noted a previously
expected grant in the amount of $12 million is not forthcoming,
and cautioned that funding deadlines actually precede the
expiration dates by about six months.
1:50:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER surmised the grant funds cannot be used for
another purpose or put on hold.
MR. LINDAMOOD said correct. In further response to Co-Chair
Saddler, he said DOD money for the project could not come out of
JPARC funding. Continuing to slide 10 titled, "2011 Cost
Estimate," he said some adjustments in the phasing of the
project have been made, putting the current cost estimate for
the "base" project at $150 million. To date, $16.5 million has
been spent on rights-of-way, permitting, and engineering, and
just over $11 million has been projected for construction
management. There is an estimated contingency of over $10
million, for a grand total for Phase 1A of a little under $188
million. In further response to Representative Austerman, he
clarified that not quite all of the $16.5 million has been
spent, and that this money came from the $44.2 million DOD/FRA
grant.
1:52:54 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD explained slide 11 titled, "Cost Escalations,"
saying the cost estimate for April 2010, was $158 million;
however, additional costs addressing the movement of the river
and river erosion were $3 million, additional permit
requirements for issues related to security cost $13 million,
and additional permit requirements for issues related to bridges
and culverts cost $15 million. Slide 12 pictured the erosion of
the river at the site of the proposed bridge in 2009, and where
the river threatens to divert into Piledriver Slough, despite
efforts begun in 1967 by USACE to block it off.
1:57:19 PM
MR. AADNESEN informed the committee the aforementioned derailed
train in Fairbanks consisted of seven empty covered hoppers, was
re-railed within 30 minutes, and is operating now.
1:57:46 PM
MR. LINDAMOOD presented slide 13 which was a re-sequenced cost
summary of the Tanana Crossing, and also indicated ARRC's budget
request for $44 million. He then described what is needed to
advance the project, beginning with funding and resolution of
the permits, which is expected "hopefully in the next month or
two." Meetings with the permit agencies are progressing,
although there is still a lot of work to do, particularly with
EPA. The congressional delegation has been helpful. Mr.
Lindamood acknowledged the difficulty of releasing federal
funding for construction; in fact, FRA will not release the
remaining funds for construction until ARRC can demonstrate
there is a documented funding plan, and that the military has
signed off on the proposal. The approaching expiration of the
grants is now critical because the levee must be built before
the bridge, and construction of the levee will take six to eight
months. Thus, if the levee is not under construction by May or
June 2011, construction on the bridge will not begin by this
fall, and the project will be pushed back for one year. He
warned that the $60 million grant is then put into jeopardy,
because this money can only be used to build the bridge. Mr.
Lindamood assured the committee "We have done everything we can
from a construction phasing standpoint."
2:01:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired as to when the project
started.
MR. LINDAMOOD restated that the EIS started in 2005. In further
response to Representative Austerman, he expressed his belief
that the $44 million grant was appropriated in 2007, and the $60
million grant was appropriated in 2008.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN observed ARRC is "struggling with EPA
to get your permitting process done."
2:02:49 PM
MR. AADNESEN confirmed that ARRC is having a very difficult time
with EPA, which is being represented by USACE during the
permitting process, with EPA oversight. An official with USACE
has promised a final permit ruling from USACE during the first
or second week in March; however, EPA could veto the USACE
decision, and then the project would have to be approved by an
Undersecretary of the Army, a possibility that would cancel the
project. Furthermore, without appropriate funding from the
legislature, preparatory work cannot start, and again the
project would be canceled. Thus, the ARRC board of directors
will decide on the project in March or April, before ARRC spends
money on preparatory work. Mr. Aadnesen restated FRA's
conditions on its funding and concluded that funding from the
state cannot be less than $44 million to save the project.
2:04:55 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON asked whether any federal funds that have been
spent will have to be paid back if the project fails.
MR. AADNESEN deferred to Mr. Lindamood.
MR. LINDAMOOD said he was unsure; however, ARRC did not move
forward with any spending without FRA's approval.
2:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether last year, when ARRC
received state funding in the amount of $40 million, it
anticipated additional funding of $44 million this year.
MR. LINDAMOOD opined the additional funding was not anticipated.
In further response to Representative Austerman, he said the
escalation in cost was mainly due to regulatory issues during
last year and before.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN surmised these costs were
"unanticipated that you couldn't take care of or you couldn't
anticipate, similar to if EPA or the Corps says 'no'."
MR. LINDAMOOD said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN restated that this is an $800 million
project that is trying to complete Phase 1, without any
guarantee of funding for Phases 2, 3, or 4.
MR. LINDAMOOD said correct. In response to Co-Chair Thompson,
he advised that the project is one of "independent utility."
Although the EIS was for the entire project, different pieces of
the project can be permitted as long as "those pieces, in and of
themselves even if nothing else gets built, still has
independent utility over and above the whole project."
Therefore, surface access for the military to its training area
serves as an independent utility of the bridge.
2:07:46 PM
MR. AADNESEN recalled many meetings with the Alaska military
command; in fact, Lieutenant General Dana Atkins, Commander,
Alaskan Command, U.S. Pacific Command; Commander, Elmendorf Air
Force Base, Alaska, suggested re-scoping of the project to a
bridge with a wide highway surface, for the military's
transportation needs, and installing the rails later. For the
committee's information, Mr. Aadnesen asked Mr. Lindamood to
explain the changes to the original EIS signed by EPA.
MR. LINDAMOOD opined EPA's position is dumbfounding. Seven
cooperating agencies, along with USACE, authored the EIS. The
STB does an EIS a bit differently because it is regulating a
commercial railroad, thus ARRC paid for the EIS, answered
questions, and provided technical information, but was informed
at the same time as the public of the final report. At the
release of the final EIS, USACE requested a supplemental EIS,
which ARRC did and called a permit. In February 2008, EPA
issued a letter which stated the EIS had been determined to be
an adequate document, and endorsed STB's proposed actions and
the proposal that was ultimately licensed. Last fall, EPA
suddenly informed USACE it had serious concerns over the permit
application and in December, suggested that USACE not issue a
permit and that EPA would veto the permit, because the proposed
location of the bridge was not the best alternative. Mr.
Lindamood said EPA has not explained, or changed, its position.
At this point, there are two legal issues: whether STB has
exclusive regulatory authority over rail corridors through the
U.S. Constitution Interstate Commerce Clause, superseding the
Clean Water Act of 1977; whether EPA has the ability to reverse
its decision. The ARRC is pursuing these legal issues.
MR. AADNESEN expressed his belief that ARRC has taken every
measure possible to address this situation because returning
$104 million in federal funds, for a project that was once
approved, would be onerous for the corporation.
2:13:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN appreciated the clarification.
2:14:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether there are currently any non-
military uses for the road, bridge, or extension.
MR. LINDAMOOD replied no, because the road goes onto a live
military range. In fact, ARRC will cede any control over the
use of the bridge by entities other than ARRC and the military,
to the military.
2:15:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER has heard there is support for the
extension of the railroad system to Canada and the Lower 48 by
this route.
MR. AADNESEN acknowledged the Phase 1 extension to Delta
Junction is the connection point for a route into Canada;
however, Canadian National Railway Company does not have plans
to build rail northwest at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER recognized the dynamics of the river.
Furthermore, there were $3 million in cost escalations for the
past movement of the river. He asked whether further redesign
would be necessary due to more changes in the river, if
construction began immediately.
MR. LINDAMOOD answered likely not. The engineers have come to
the determination that the river is changing daily, and ARRC's
outstanding issues with USACE are related to the amount of
approach that is required.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for assurance that "once we build
the levee, we've stabilized this particular bank, we've
stabilized that problem."
MR. LINDAMOOD said correct.
2:17:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reviewed the projected costs for the
phases of construction, and asked for the projected cost of
Phase 2, which connects the bridge and levee to the existing
rail at Eielson Air Force Base.
MR. LINDAMOOD responded that preliminary cost estimates are
approximately $80 million. In further response to
Representative Austerman, he said ARRC does not anticipate
returning to the legislature for funding for that phase.
MR. AADNESEN added there is no commercial reason for ARRC to
build Phase 2 at this point. If the military determines there
is a need for rail transportation, ARRC would seek funds;
however, ARRC cannot borrow to do that because there is no
incremental revenue source to float bonds or support borrowing
funds from a bank, and FRA funds cannot be used as there would
be no passenger service.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for clarification.
MR. AADNESEN further explained that ARRC does not have the money
to build that extension and it is not needed as the road and
bridge will provide access. The military and ARRC have no
problem not proceeding with Phase 2 as there is no revenue
source for ARRC, and the military can use the road and bridge.
He restated that ARRC will not be requesting funding for Phase 2
next year.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked why ARRC would build a bridge and
a highway.
MR. AADNESEN advised the bridge will ultimately be a rail bridge
and the decision when to build the railroad section is dependent
on whether the military wants to use flatcars for transportation
to the training site.
2:21:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for an overview statement on the need for
the entire project.
MR. AADNESEN stated the impetus for this project is the state,
as ARRC's charter requires it to support economic development in
the state. The bridge is in the future railroad route between
North Pole and Delta Junction, and it will support the long-
range plan for the military to move traffic to its bases further
south, and for future passenger service. He opined this is a
piece of infrastructure development that will also allow
economic development in mining areas and populated areas of the
region. Although there currently is no source of incremental
revenue to ARRC, the benefit is to keep the military in Alaska,
provide access to its training grounds, and expand its use of
JPARC and the international possibilities thereof.
2:24:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for confirmation that EPA was an agency
involved during the scoping process.
MR. LINDAMOOD replied yes. He clarified that EPA was not a
cooperating agency, but reviewed and provided comments to STB
throughout the project. In further response, he said EPA
endorsed the location of the bridge.
2:24:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA understood there is no passenger or
economic purpose for the rerouting at this time.
MR. LINDAMOOD confirmed that at this point ARRC will own and
maintain the levee and will be responsible to FEMA to ensure
that the levee is not used inappropriately. The corporation
will also own and maintain the bridge, but the military will
control access.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her concern with the issue of how
to get people around and to the state in safe ways, such as by
train. However, the expenditure of state money should require
an element of planning that will help Alaskans' develop local
economic projects.
2:27:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for the financial impact to ARRC if the
project does not go forward.
MR. AADNESEN restated ARRC's interest in economic development.
Additionally, the corporation has invested time and engineering
work in the project over a long period of time. The only
economic benefit of the project's demise to ARRC is that it
would not have to finance the maintenance of the bridge, as
there is no source of revenue that would be impacted.
2:30:03 PM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), informed the committee the bridge is
very important to military access and to other functions of
DMVA; for example, the Division of Homeland Security & Emergency
Management (DHS&EM), and Fairbanks North Star Borough regard the
proposed levee as critical to help with emergency management
efforts in Salcha. He stressed that the most important aspect
of the project is the access to JPARC, which would support the
active duty military's interest in the expansion of that area.
The state has designated this land and airspace - about the size
of Indiana - to be used for military training with the goal of
providing access for local training of the Stryker Brigades, the
Alaska National Guard, and for active and routine training
exercises. However, the military's future needs for this area
will be for larger-scale, joint military training efforts
involving over 6,000 troops, and with battlefield realism. The
isolation of this area would allow all branches of the armed
forces to participate in "a true joint effort that you, you
won't get anywhere else in the United States of America." In
order to execute this training plan, a bridge structure is
required to replace the undependable ice bridge that is
available only under certain weather conditions. Mr. Pierre
stressed that this is the economic value of this project, not
only from its use by Alaska's military installations, but when
it is proven to be "a training element that is beyond
comparison, [and] that other significant moving pieces of the
United States military, whether they're from Hawaii or
California or beyond, will come to use." He described how units
from other states would travel to this area and train for about
two weeks to one month, and then spend time in the community
before returning home. The bridge is critical to bringing in
"those training dollars." In addition, there is also a local
safety issue as troops now drive on the Richardson Highway from
their installations to the training area. This is a dangerous
situation for the military members in their vehicles, and for
civilians, as convoys travel slowly in all kinds of weather. In
fact, in 2006 two members of the military travelling in a convoy
on a public road were killed in a highway accident.
2:35:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for the current access to the Donnelly
Training Area.
MR. PIERRE advised the area is accessed via the Richardson
Highway and through an access road.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked how many years it would take for the
military to make up its $104 million investment.
MR. PIERRE stated the benefit to the military would be in the
unparalleled realism in training. This explains the money and
effort put into building the bridge. Although active duty
military members cannot advocate for the project because of
military spending cuts, this project will clearly show Alaska's
commitment to the military.
2:37:11 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON agreed installation of the bridge will help
ensure that the military stays in the state.
MR. PIERRE relayed DMVA's direction from the governor to look at
the military industrial complex in Alaska, ensure there is
support for what is here, work for expansion, and utilize this
economic engine throughout the state.
2:38:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether the training cycle runs year
around.
MR. PIERRE advised the training cycle would depend upon the
needs of nearby communities, airspace needs, and information
gleaned from the public comment process presently underway.
2:39:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked how much access into the training
area will be provided beyond the bridge.
MR. PIERRE advised that once active duty military has permanent
access to the training area, capital infrastructure funds will
be available to install electronics, barracks, roads, and
additional developments. In further response to Representative
Austerman, he said active duty military is not concerned with
Phase 3, which brings rail 30 miles to the middle of the
Donnelly Training Area, because the bridge will allow the
training area to be used to its full extent. However, the
Alaska National Guard would use the rail extension to move large
equipment and personnel to and from Fort Greely.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether the training area is
currently used "from the Delta Junction end."
MR. PIERRE indicated no. He added that there is a section of
JPARC that is used on a limited capacity dependent on the ice
bridge. He confirmed that there is no access from Delta
Junction.
2:42:47 PM
MR. PIERRE, in response to Representative Gatto, restated that
active duty military is currently using the ice bridge during
the months when it is sturdy enough to cross for Stryker Brigade
training. In further response, he added that training during
other months and seasons, and guaranteed access, is needed "in
the bigger scheme of national training efforts, and joint
training exercises with thousands of troops ...."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to unexploded ordinance and asked
whether that area is used by citizens.
MR. PIERRE said there is no unexploded ordinance in the area
now; however, in the future designated areas where ordinance is
dropped will be off-limits and monitored. This is also a topic
of the scoping and public comment process underway.
2:44:51 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON has heard that changing weather patterns could
trap equipment on the training area side of the river.
MR. PIERRE said correct.
2:45:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER expressed his belief that the purpose
behind military training is to prepare troops for combat
readiness by putting them in locations where there is damage to
infrastructure. Foreign occupation of an area without a bridge
may be an appropriate training challenge.
MR. PIERRE stated the concern for dependability in
infrastructure development for training is to ensure the safety
of individuals and equipment. Although realism is needed,
troops need to learn to use the assets procured for them in
defense situations. A well-developed, well-served training area
will allow for this to take place.
2:47:41 PM
JIM DODSON, President/CEO, Fairbanks Economic Development
Corporation (FEDC), supported the previous testimony of the
president of ARRC and the deputy commissioner of DMVA on the
necessity of building the bridge. He added that Alaska's
economy is strengthened by the military industry; in fact, 16
percent of Alaska's payroll is from the military. Access to
JPARC supports not only Alaska's military, but would bring
military training opportunities into Alaska from all over the
world, and increase local economic activity. He pointed out
that the percentage of Alaska's economy dependent on the
military is equivalent to that of the oil industry. Mr. Dodson
warned that impending cuts in military spending will increase
competition between states to attract military activities. He
opined that JPARC is the best military training area in the
world, and providing access is a very wise long-term investment
in the military industry that will support Alaska's future
economy.
2:50:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked what kind of mineral development
possibilities the bridge and rail extension would provide.
MR. DODSON relayed a department of the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF) has performed extensive studies of the project
corridor, and estimated the value of known mineralization in the
area at $6.5 billion. This is another source of significant
future economic development for Alaska. In further response to
Co-Chair Saddler, he said there is a significant deposit of the
rare earth mineral molybdenum that would be accessed by the
bridge.
2:52:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether an alternative to the levee
and two-mile-long bridge would be to cross the river at Eagle
River and access the training area and the railroad there.
MR. PIERRE responded that alternative does not provide the same
training opportunity to meet the critical needs of the military.
The military land at Eklutna Flats and adjoining Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson is very small and, although utilized for
air drops, parachute training, and simulated activity, it is not
sufficient in size to support a joint level of training and to
simulate real battle scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that this alternative is a bridge
to Port MacKenzie and beyond.
MR. PIERRE advised the military works with the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) with regard to land that is allocated
for certain uses, and the JPARC training area has been allocated
for this specific use. He acknowledged that DNR has not been
approached for a change-in-allocation or a change-in-use plan;
furthermore, DMVA and active duty military want to be good
partners with DNR, and responsive to the communities affected.
2:55:54 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2-24-11 military and vet affairs committee briefing.pdf |
HMLV 2/24/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Tanana Access Leave Behind.pdf |
HMLV 2/24/2011 1:00:00 PM |