Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
04/07/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation on the State Transportation Improvement Program (stip) by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2011
1:54 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION ON STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK LUIKEN, Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the overview of
the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview and answered
questions the discussion of the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
PAT KEMP, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an update on the Roads to
Resources Program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:54:25 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:54 p.m. Representatives Wilson,
Feige, Gruenberg and Petersen were present at the call to order.
^Presentation on the State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
PRESENTATION ON THE STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(STIP) BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES
1:54:53 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation on the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
1:55:31 PM
MARK LUIKEN, Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, introduced his team and discussed the DOT&PF's
mission. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
will be presented by Mr. Ottesen, he said.
1:58:02 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Program Development, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that he
would briefly discuss the Long Range Transportation Plan 2030
and the 2011 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
[slide 1]. The Long Range Transportation Plan was last approved
in 2008 and has a five-year life under federal law so the plan
will need to be replaced by 2013. The Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has begun its
efforts to update the plan [slide 2]. The consultant has
performed a data refresh, reviewing the new demographic data,
and how the highway and aviation and other systems are being
used. He related that the DOT&PF's commissioner would like to
integrate the new plan with the Strategic Plan this year [slide
3]. He reviewed the DOT&PF's overall planning structure. The
Strategic Plan sets the vision and broad agenda for the other
transportation planning documents while the Long Range
Transportation Plan (2030) provides the details of the DOT&PF's
policies. The federal government requires states to have a long
range transportation plan. Thus, the policy plan must be in
place in the STIP, or the state would not be to receive federal
funds. Since the state's transportation systems are so large
and its systems are complicated, it is not realistic for the
state to select projects at this level.
2:00:31 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed the subordinate plans, which include
regions, metropolitan areas, corridors, or subsystems, such as
aviation and ferry. Lastly, the DOT&PF has subject matter plans
for specific topic issues, major earthquake response plans. He
emphasized the plans are organized to work together. The final
piece of the planning process is performance measures, which
identify progress or delays in fulfilling the planning process
and is the starting point for the next planning cycle.
2:01:50 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how long it has been since the DOT&PF's
Strategic Plan was last prepared.
MR. OTTESEN explained Commissioner von Scheben prepared a small
plan but it did not get integrated into the overall plan. The
DOT&PF has worked to integrate the Strategic Plan that relates
to all of the DOT&PF's transportation plans. He reported that
the Strategic Plan will help guide the DOT&PF during the Long
Range Transportation Plan's preparation.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that the process seems
similar to the overall school planning process that school
districts use.
2:02:44 PM
MR. OTTESEN described the past three years in which the DOT&PF
has had very large funding, including the "Stimulus Funding."
The net effect of that funding has been to reduce the backlog of
projects. The STIP has provided a list of alternative projects
for the DOT&PF to use when a project encounters time delays due
to right-of-way or other issues. Since many of the projects
have moved forward, the department currently does not have
enough "shovel-ready" projects to capture all the federal
funding. He identified "shovel-ready" projects as those in
which the design, permits, and right-of-way have been performed
and the project is ready to receive federal funding for the
construction phase of the project. In response to
Representative Petersen, he answered that the funds he was
referring to are formula funds which will expire the end of
September 2011. The DOT&PF must be finished with the process by
September 10, 2011 in order to complete any wrap up required by
the FHWA.
MR. OTTESEN related that the projects must be "shovel-ready" to
qualify for funding, but does not mean that all of the design
and construction has been done or even that the project has been
awarded. Projects that are "shovel ready" are ones in which the
federal government has committed federal funding. The term is
the "obligation" of federal funds, when essentially the state
signs a contract with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
he said. In further response to Chair P. Wilson, he clarified
that the design, right-of-way, and permitting must be completed
prior to federal obligation.
2:06:05 PM
MR. OTTESEN referred to a chart that demonstrates the DOT&PF's
federal obligation process [slide 5]. He pointed out that
numbers on the right of the slide vary by funding year, yet the
DOT&PF obligated all of the federal funds for the five prior
years, he said. He referred to February 2011 column, noting
that $50 million was obligated thus far. The star at the top of
the chart indicates the 2011 target, he explained. The DOT&PF
must obligate about $350 million plus an additional $60 million
by the end of the federal fiscal year. He characterized this as
a "big, tall order" to fulfill.
MR. OTTESEN related that the DOT&PF went from not having enough
funding to not having enough projects to fund [slide 6]. He
explained that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) added $175 million in addition to the regular
funding in 2009-2010. Last year, the Congress decided not to
earmark projects so it restored the equivalent of five years of
earmarks to lapsable funding. Lastly, what helped contribute to
the issue was the anomaly in which bids came in under budget.
When that happens, the DOT&PF must find other projects to fund
with the cost savings or risk losing the funding. In further
response to Chair P. Wilson, he agreed that the STIP is a mix of
projects in different stages so all the design work or all the
construction are not done in one year. He characterized the
process as a factory with some projects taking from one to ten
years to complete.
2:08:53 PM
MR. OTTESEN referred to the Federal Highway Funding [slide 7].
He pointed out that the chart demonstrates federal funding has
steadily increased since 2008. He identified the increase in
2009 and 2010 was due to earmarks so the funding that previously
had been earmarked projects is distributed to the state as
"formula" funding, he said. The column for 2001 shown in green
represents approximately $60 million in unexpended funding.
Three weeks ago the Congress considered stripping the state's
funding and while it not happen it remains a threat so the
DOT&PF is anxious to obligate those funds. In doing so, the
overall target for projects will be raised, he said. In
response to Chair P. Wilson, he agreed the state is receiving a
little more money. Prior to Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (SAFTEA-LU) the
state received formula funds. At the time SAFTEA-LU passed,
some of the funds were "earmarked" so the formula funding was
also reduced correspondingly. The Congress has eliminated
earmarks so the formula has increased. Overall, this translates
to more projects.
MR. OTTESEN advised that the DOT&PF must obligate almost $400
million this year. Thus far, the regions have identified
approximately $259 million likely projects and another $150
million of possible projects. However, the DOT&PF must still
contend with third party permissions on projects, such as
permits, right-of-way, or local government decisions, so final
approval cannot be made. The DOT&PF has pared down the list to
about $272 million. This represents the department's best guess
on the total projects that will be "shovel-ready." Last year,
the DOT&PF's slippage was 50 percent and this year's estimate is
35 percent. While the amount of slippage sounds significant the
FHWA's performance measure allows 50 percent slippage or less.
However, the DOT&PF must still identify at least $121 million of
eligible projects to obligate [slide 8]. He referred members to
a bar chart that identified the projects in the STIP and funding
for the remainder of 2011 [slide 9].
2:13:41 PM
MR. OTTESEN identified the four major reasons projects must be
delayed [slide 10]. First, delays happen when permits are not
issued timely. Secondly, projects are delayed when the DOT&PF
encounters right-of-way difficulties such as when a significant
number of parcels must be purchased or ownership interests
become complicated. Third, the department may need to relocate
utilities, which may include negotiating with the utilities. In
response to Chair P. Wilson, he explained that when the state
relocates the utility, the state must pay for it. Lastly,
delays occur due to third-party issues such as obtaining
permission from local government or when documents must be
reviewed by multiple agencies. He commented that funding
shortfalls have previously been the source of delays but that is
not currently true.
2:17:03 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that the federal
funding may decrease.
MR. OTTESEN agreed one proposal is to reduce funding by an
overall 10 percent cut. In further response to Chair P. Wilson,
he acknowledged that the bill under consideration was not
friendly to Alaska. However, that bill is gone, he said. The
Congress is currently working on another bill that is more
favorable to the state. However, the state should be concerned
about the formula changes since the pie may shrink, he said.
2:18:45 PM
MR. OTTESEN cautioned committee members that in the event DOT&PF
cannot obligate its funds, that the federal aid would be cut and
returned to the U.S. Department of Transportation for
reallocation to other states [slide 11]. He pointed out that
Alaska has always been the recipient of this "end of year
reallocation of funds." He commended the DOT&PF for its ability
to obligate funds and obtain funding originally designated to
another state. However, any substituted projects must be
"shovel-ready," and that process takes time. It takes one to
two years for a simple project and much longer for more
complicated projects, he said. The DOT&PF can select substitute
any projects from the STIP with legislative budget authority.
In response to Chair P. Wilson, he affirmed the substitute
projects must already be in the STIP. He reported the DOT&PF
will evaluate the process in June and request any STIP
adjustment via the legislature.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the DOT&PF could make the STIP
adjustment on its own.
MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He related that the DOT&PF must get
FHWA and Federal Transit Authority permission. Thus far this
year, the DOT&PF has made two STIP amendments. He anticipated
another request would be made in June 2011.
2:20:33 PM
MR. OTTESEN identified actions the DOT&PF has taken to ensure
the state can obligate FHWA funds [slide 12]. The DOT&PF has
identified all feasible alternative projects. The state's
Office of Management and Budget Committees has been informed.
The DOT&PF currently has been working to manage the project
list, including tracking primary and alternate projects. In
response to Chair P. Wilson, he agreed the projects must be
included in the Capital Budget. He recalled that costs for re-
powering the M/V Columbia would need to be added to the
additional authorization.
MR. OTTESEN reviewed the lessons the DOT&PF has learned for the
future [slide 13]. The DOT&PF must prepare significantly more
projects each year to ensure ready alternates. The DOT&PF must
also obtain any necessary permissions including legislative
permission to make the substitutions. While the 2012 federal
funding is still uncertain, the state has enjoyed three years of
high funding. He characterized this as a trend that the state
should not overlook. The DOT&PF must anticipate the possibility
that funding may remain high.
MR. OTTESEN discussed other observations [slide 14]. He
remarked that the federal aid program workload has doubled in
just four years without any increase in DOT&PF design staff. He
expressed concern over the high pace and the lack of ready
project alternatives. "It's almost like a horse race. How long
can you keep asking the horse to go fast?" he asked. He
answered that the DOT&PF is no longer in a short sprint but is
now in a marathon.
2:23:26 PM
PAT KEMP, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), discussed the Roads to Resources
program [slide 1]. The Roads to Resources program began in 2003
as "short quick shots in the arm" on smaller economic
development projects. Currently, the DOT&PF has been focusing
on larger projects, which are larger projects, particularly ones
that would "fill the pipeline," create jobs, and increase
commerce. These projects are ones that are significant enough
that they would likely require an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and a U.S. Corps of Engineers permit, he said.
2:25:22 PM
MR. KEMP reviewed the guidelines for funding and design
standards [slide 2]. He pointed out that road construction is
costly, especially in rural Alaska, where most of the resources
are located. The DOT&PF has been considering building
acceptable, low-standard roads for its Roads to Resources (R2R)
program, which would cost about $750,000 per mile for
construction costs. These roads would consist of 16-foot wide
"pioneer roads," which would be strong enough to support
construction equipment. The DOT&PF would also consider other
features such as turnouts and may impose travel limits, such as
east bound traffic traveling in the morning alternated by west
bound traffic in the afternoon. He recapped the R2R projects as
ones that would provide basic road access to support the
resources ventures. The DOT&PF characterizes these as "long and
skinny" projects that use state funding and are constructed to
minimum designs.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether permits will be issued for a wider
road or only for the narrow access road.
MR. KEMP answered that each project would vary. He suggested
that the road to Umiat would likely be for a "wider footprint"
since it may be necessary to bring the road up to standard more
quickly than another project, such as the road to Ambler. He
explained the road standard would be a function of the
private/public partnership (PPP) with the developer, and each
project would be considered separately. He characterized the
process as similar to the one used for the Alaska Highway, which
was constructed in eight months and finished over fifty years.
The goal would be to build the R2R projects as quickly as
possible to facilitate the developer's needs to explore. He
envisioned that the original road would be a "pioneer road" used
to extract the ore or product and any upgrades would take place
over time. The roadway would be designated as an "Industrial
Use Highway (IUH)" a term used for 20 years, he said [slide 3].
The IUH would have stronger embankments to accommodate
overweight and oversize vehicles. The DOT&PF would charge
developers a toll to use the IUH highways. The Klondike Highway
in Skagway is an example of an IUH, which was developed when
mines opened up in Canada. The DOT&PF has received toll revenue
for the Klondike Highway for nearly 20 years. The DOT&PF has
anticipated $5 million in revenue per year will be generated
from the proposed road to Umiat. The Umiat road project would
be a long-term project developed under a PPP agreement. He
suggested that the project could initially be funded through
Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority (AIDEA) bonds.
In response to Chair P. Wilson, he responded that the Klondike
Highway is the only toll road the state operates. When mines
opened up in Canada, the ore shipper participated in the funding
to reinforce the roadway embankment. The ore shipper paid costs
up front, while others paid tolls. Currently, the DOT&PF is
working to revisit the 20-year-old regulations and probably will
increase the toll rate on the Klondike Highway, he said.
2:30:22 PM
MR. KEMP stated the annual maintenance and operation costs (M&O)
could be funded with IUH fees. He offered the DOT&PF
anticipates general fund revenues from tolls would exceed the
cost to maintain the toll road, he said. Since funds are
deposited to the general fund the department does not
specifically use toll revenue to perform work. In response to
Chair P. Wilson, he agreed that the potential exists to start an
infrastructure bank at some point to fund future resource roads.
However, he did not think the state is ready to do so at this
time. He pointed out the Klondike Highway will need additional
work, noting that the bridge is currently the "choke point,"
since it is not strong enough to accommodate the larger loads.
MR. KEMP reviewed the current Roads to Resources program. The
DOT&PF has three projects under consideration, including the
Umiat Oil and Gas fields known as the Foothills West project,
the Ambler Mining District, and the Western Alaska project also
known as the Road to Nome [slide 4]. He reported these three
projects are included in the Capital Budget this year.
2:32:50 PM
MR. KEMP discussed the R2R projects, noting Umiat is located on
the Colville River about 100 miles west of the Dalton Highway
[slide 5]. The DOT&PF studied three potential corridor routes
for the Umiat Road project, including two routes perpendicular
to the highway, and one at an angle near Galbraith Lake. He
related that the preferred corridor for the Umiat project is the
angled corridor. The geologists and geophysicists have
indicated by approaching at an angle could provide a better
accounting of resources, would avoid two major river crossings,
and would reduce capital costs.
2:33:54 PM
MR. KEMP related that the U.S. Navy first explored Umiat in 1946
in search of oil for the World War II war effort. It drilled 11
oil wells and one well produced 400 barrels for 93 days. In the
past year the state discovered 85,000 abandoned barrels of oil,
which represents a major cleanup for the U.S. Corps of Engineers
(Corps). As a result, the DOT&PF has initiated discussions with
the Corps to consider whether it would participate in road
construction to aid in the cleanup efforts. The estimated clean
up costs range from $135 million to $800 million. The DOT&PF
hopes for participation since the road could reduce the cleanup
costs by half. Currently, the Umiat project is in the
environmental impact statement (EIS) stage and the consultant is
gearing up for this season's field work. He reported that if
the funding is not approved this year the DOT&PF would need to
stop work sometime soon when the existing funding runs out. The
developer estimates the oil fields contain 250 million barrels
of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of gas. The state's Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) also estimated the reserves between
100 million and 300 million barrels of oil. He stated that the
oil is unique since the oil is about 37 degrees. The developer
would like to transport the oil as is to the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) via an underground conduit to keep it
cold. It would subsequently be heated at TAPS and transported
via a gas line. Thus, this project could potentially be brought
to a higher standard earlier in order to bury the pipeline.
2:36:32 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the pipeline work would be done at
the same time as the road to save money.
MR. KEMP answered probably not since road access is important to
provide access to do more drilling. He emphasized that road
access is of the utmost importance. The Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation is overseeing the 24-inch bullet line
from Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie, he said. He recalled the
estimated cost of the pipeline would be $8 billion, although the
projections include an estimated $4 billion for a conditioning
plant at Prudhoe Bay on a 70-acre parcel. The plant would
remove impurities from the natural gas. However, if the gas
were brought from the Gubik oil fields, which contains cleaner
natural gas, the conditioning plant would not likely be
required. Eliminating the conditioning project could save $4
billion. He stressed the importance of studying and reviewing
the project since new information can surface during the EIS
project. In response to Chair P. Wilson, he explained the U.S.
Navy initially discovered oil seepage. He recalled reviewing
the seismic information with Commissioner Luiken. He
characterized DNR as a really good partner. The DOT&PF just
received analysis from the DOR on the Umiat Oil and Gas fields,
noting the known oil reserves alone could represent
approximately $6 billion in revenue to state the over the life
of the project. The net present value of the oil is
approximately $2 billion, he said.
2:40:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the DOT&PF has talked to
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) as the leaseholders
for the area from Chandler River to Anaktuvuk River.
MR. KEMP answered yes. He acknowledged multiple leaseholders
exist. He pointed out that having multiple owners adds to the
complexity of the funding and raises issues of how to bring
another party on mid-stream or after the project is built. He
was unsure of how to accomplish that but acknowledged the
process is still in the early stages.
MR. KEMP discussed some of the attributes of the Umiat Oil and
Gas fields [slide 6]. This project would provide an access
portal into the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). The
DOT&PF would like to start construction in 2013, provided the
EIS and permitting process have been completed.
2:42:53 PM
MR. KEMP discussed the Ambler Mining District [slide 7]. He
pointed out the stars represent resource areas. The EIS
initially considered alternatives to tidewater and the Dalton
Highway. He related that the developer prefers highway access
rather than port access. The proposed plan would transport the
product via the Dalton Highway and the Parks Highway to Port
MacKenzie. The highway option offers facility and development
support, including other attributes of surface transportation.
He referred to a letter from Nova Gold the DOT&PF just received
containing mineral resource projections. He also referenced DNR
projections on mineral resources in the Ambler Mining District.
The Ambler area could support several massive sulfide mineral
deposits, each similar in size to Greens Creek mine in Juneau.
The Greens Creek mine has operated in Juneau for 25 years and
employs about 325 people. He suggested the Ambler Mining
District is so large it could support six Greens Creek mines.
The mineral belt area stretches 15 miles wide and 68 miles long.
A "pioneer road' would help facilitate additional exploration,
site development, and ore haul. He pointed out the importance
of caribou to the region and related the $1.25 million included
in this year's Capital Budget would be used for subsistence
studies. He related that the developer must also perform an
economic analysis, which is detailed in the letter he previously
mentioned.
2:44:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the DOT&PF has considered
a railroad rather than a road. He recalled that some federal
funds target railroad development.
MR. KEMP answered that a rail line requires a more detailed
alignment as well as permafrost considerations. He stated he is
not a mining expert so he preferred not to broach the amount of
ore.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether basic processing of ores
would be conducted onsite.
MR. KEMP answered he was unsure. He stated that he is civil
engineer and not a mining engineer. He offered to check and
report back to the committee.
2:46:40 PM
MR. KEMP discussed the Western Alaska Access project [slide 9].
He stated that this project is different since this highway
would not only access resources but would connect communities.
He offered his belief that the project could be built in stages
with immediate benefits. He said that the DOT&PF could build a
78-mile extension to Tanana. This would provide access to
resources and Tanana would have a connection by road, which
would lower its cost of living and promotes commerce. He said
he was unsure whether Tanana would want a road connection, but
used it as an example of how this project is unique. The
preferred alternative would be almost the lowest route and would
begin at Manley Hot Springs. He referred to the resources
indicated on the map by stars, noting some resources exist all
along the way. This project is not as far along as the other
two projects. This is more of a long-term project, he said.
MR. KEMP discussed project details for the Western Alaska Access
[slide 10]. The DOT&PF would develop this project in phases
because of its independent utility. The FY 12 requested funding
of $1.25 million would be used for survey, mapping and refined
cost estimates, he said.
2:49:00 PM
MR. KEMP pointed out other potential projects [slide 11]. The
DOT&PF has been working with DNR on future R2R projects,
including the rare earth element deposit access on the Prince of
Wales Island. The Niblack Mineral Development, Inc.'s copper
sulfide deposit has the potential to become another mine the
size of Greens Creek mine. He acknowledged that some developers
may not wish to have the DOT&PF involved in R2R projects,
whereas others may welcome partnerships. The DOT&PF's goal is
to create jobs and help promote commerce in the state. In
response to Representative Feige, he responded he was unsure of
the location of the location of the Deadfall Snycline coal
project.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on the term "PGE."
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE stated that the acronym stands for Platinum
Group Elements (PGEs).
MR. KEMP related his understanding that legislators may have
lots of questions, although some cannot be answered at this
time. He offered his belief that the EIS documentation will
answer many of the questions. He explained that the EIS will
cover the socio-economic, caribou studies, subsistence, and
natural environmental aspects. He stressed the importance of
maintaining a steady stream of funding to support the
permitting.
2:51:53 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that the R2R projects are
important. She referred back to the three R2R projects
discussed today and asked him to prioritize the projects.
MR. KEMP offered to rank the projects according to importance,
with the Umiat Foothills West Transportation project, Ambler
Mining District, and Western Alaska Access study project.
2:53:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested the need to communicate with
public so they feel like they are part of the process.
MR. KEMP agreed. He related that the department has held a
substantial number of informal public meetings. The Anaktuvuk
Pass has had three meetings to date. He stated that the formal
meetings will start during the EIS process. He stated that the
DOT&PF has selected a consultant and have signed a contract. He
contractor will conduct filed studies this year, including two
seasons of field studies to complete the caribou studies for the
Foothills West Transportation project. The DOT&PF is performing
work and hopes to have the EIS completed, including permits in
late 2012 on the Foothills project. He anticipated permits being
issued late in 2012.
2:56:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:56
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FINAL - Roads_to_Resources_House_4 7 11.pdf |
HTRA 4/7/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| House Trans STIP in 2011.pptx |
HTRA 4/7/2011 1:00:00 PM |