Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/06/2014 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Mega Projects Overview: "ambler Road & Juneau Access" | |
| 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
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2014
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Lynn Gattis
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Dennis Egan, Chair
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Bob Lynn
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough
Senator Click Bishop
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Sam Kito III
Senator Donny Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
MEGA PROJECTS OVERVIEW: "AMBLER ROAD & JUNEAU ACCESS"
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARK DAVIS, Deputy Director
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion on the Ambler Mining district.
LOIS EPSTEIN, Professional Engineer (PE)
Arctic Program Director
Wilderness Society
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
megaprojects, including the Ambler Mining Industrial Road.
GRETA SHIRK, Corporate and Policy Liaison
Government Relations
NANA Regional Corporation (NANA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the EIS process
during the discussion of the megaprojects, including the Ambler
Mining Industrial Road.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an update on the Juneau Access
Road Project.
MICHAEL VIGUE
Division Operations Manager
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint on the specifics of
the Juneau Access Improvement Project.
CLAY GOOD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Juneau Access Road Project.
SANDY WILLIAMS, Chair
Citizens Pro Road
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Juneau Access Road Project.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:20 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Transportation Standing Committees to order at 1:02 p.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Transportation
Standing Committee were Representatives Kreiss Tomkins and P.
Wilson; Representatives Gattis and Johnson arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Present from the Senate Transportation
Standing Committee were Senators French and Egan.
Representatives Josephson, Chenault, and Kito III and Senator
Olson were also in attendance.
1:02:57 PM
^ Mega Projects Overview: "Ambler Road & Juneau Access"
Mega Projects Overview: "Ambler Road & Juneau Access"
1:04:55 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the only order of business would
be Mega Projects Overview: "Ambler Road & Juneau Access."
1:06:35 PM
MARK DAVIS, Deputy Director, Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AIDEA), Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED), stated that AIDEA took over the
Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Road in June 2014 from
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
primarily to change the character of the project and to change
the funding source.
1:07:30 PM
MR. DAVIS highlighted that the purpose of the project is to
provide access to the Ambler Mining District, which was
recognized by the passage of Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act in 1980 (ANILCA) as a potential mining district
selected by the state. ANILCA provided access to the mining
district in Title 11 [slide 1]. He said this project would
support exploration and development of the mineral resources in
the Ambler Mining District. In fact, economic studies have been
done to indicate that without a road the potential mines cannot
be developed.
1:08:09 PM
MR. DAVIS referred to the location, "Where is the Ambler Mining
District" [slide 2]. The Ambler Mining District is located
approximately 200 miles west of the Dalton Highway's Prospect
Creek. The area is a resource rich region 75 miles long that
contains copper, lead, zinc, and silver [slide 3]. There are
four major deposits, noting the one farthest along is the Arctic
region, being developed by a publically-traded company
NovaCopper Incorporated (NovaCopper). NovaCopper has entered
into a joint venture with NANA Corporation on the Bornite
deposit developed earlier by Kennecott Mine. NovaCopper filed
its original preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in
2011 and the EIS was updated in 2013. Both studies found the
project feasible, he said.
MR. DAVIS reported on the project development to date [slide 4].
The DOT&PF initiated transportation reconnaissance efforts in
2010, including conducting 20 community meetings, performing
preliminary engineering, providing estimates, as well as
conducting preliminary baseline environmental research data to
file an EIS. Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority
(AIDEA) took over the existing contracts that DOT&PF had with
DOWL Engineering. That work continued through the summer 2013
and pending this year's appropriation will continue its
engineering work during the next fiscal year (FY).
1:10:26 PM
MR. DAVIS reviewed the Analysis of Preliminary Corridors [slide
5]. The DOT&PF provided a preliminary analysis of corridors,
including evaluations based on the corridor length, the federal
conservation system units, Wild and Scenic Rivers'
considerations, salmon and sheefish habitat, and caribou
habitat. The DOT&PF developed routes that avoid endangered
species and caribou migration routes. The DOT&PF considered
material sites. He said that AIDEA has slightly adjusted those
sites and instructed DOWL Engineering to only use material sites
that contain asbestos-free gravel. He reported that naturally-
occurring asbestos has been found in some gravel sites, but
DOT&PF has reconfigured the design to eliminate using those
sites.
1:10:54 PM
MR. DAVIS discussed DOT&PF's Brooks East Corridor, designed as a
two-lane 32-foot wide gravel road 200 miles in length traversing
federal, state, and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
corporate lands, including Doyon land [slide 6]. The corridor
would touch a federal conservation area, called the
Transportation Utility System (TUS), which triggers Title 11
under ANILCA. The TUS corridor requires a separate EIS process
using standard form 299. The AIDEA concurs that the proposed
road will trigger Title 11, along with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process. Thus, the
DOT&PF will conduct a dual process moving forward to seek the
required permits. He said that AIDEA met with federal agencies
who confirmed the state is proceeding appropriately.
1:12:12 PM
MR. DAVIS turned to a map that highlights the proposed corridor
and alternatives [slide 7]. He pointed out the Ambler Mining
District is on the far left in black, the yellow indicates what
DOT&PF has been working on and the proposed road will pass near
the Andover Venture Corporate's SUN deposit. He emphasized the
map has two alternate routes drawn in green. The next step in
the process will be to file the ANILCA Title 11 and NEPA
process. Under the federal process, the agencies will consider
the yellow route and the dotted green alternate routes.
Therefore, AIDEA has been considering the alternate routes as
part of the process. He offered his belief that the federal
process will include continued refinement of the route, consider
impacts on the communities, and type of access to the road. He
characterized this as typical. In fact, it was the process used
in developing the road to the Pogo Mine. During the NEPA
process for the Pogo Mine, an agreement was reached to keep the
first 26 miles of the road open to the public and to remove the
next 26 miles of roadway when the mine is reclaimed. The
aforementioned outcome was a combined agreement by landowners,
the public, and the local governments. He emphasized that
during the NEPA process agreements can be reached in terms of
how to configure a road, which is different than the DOT&PF's
process since the department builds public roads for access. He
characterized the NEPA process as a totally different process.
1:14:04 PM
MR. DAVIS highlighted the community input on proposed access
[slide 8]. He reported that AIDEA has held numerous meetings in
the villages and received input on subsistence impacts, economic
issues and employment. The communities have primarily been
focused on access control. He anticipated increased employment
in the area noting that a majority of the workers doing
exploration work for Nova Copper thus far have been local hire.
Additionally, one of AIDEA's statutory requirements is local
hire to alleviate unemployment so that goal is applied to every
project. The public always asks how the Ambler Road Project
differs from the Dalton Highway [slide 9]. He provided a brief
history on the Dalton Highway that was originally limited to
industry traffic and closed to the public. The Dalton Highway
was opened to the public during the second Hickel administration
but was litigated by the North Slope Borough. The Alaska
Supreme Court essentially ruled that the road could be opened
because the Dalton Highway was built on a Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) right-of-way. Further, the state legislature
subsequently passed a statute requesting that the DOT&PF keep
the first part of the road open, which made it possible to keep
the second part open, too. Finally, the Dalton Highway had also
been placed on the federal aid highway system to allow federal
funds to be used for road maintenance. The proposed Ambler
Industrial Road would not use state or federal dollars beyond
state monies for permitting. He suggested that if the road is
deemed feasible by the AIDEA board and the mine is opened, that
AIDEA would look for private capital for the project.
1:17:11 PM
MR. DAVIS anticipated that the Ambler road would be similar to
Red Dog mine road since the proposed road will provide
controlled access for industrial use only [slide 10]. He
related that caribou cross the Red Dog mine road so caribou
watchers are paid. Although AIDEA financed the Red Dog mine
road it did not build the road. He pointed out the Red Dog mine
road's success with caribou crossings. In fact, the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game's (ADF&G) studies show that the
caribou has increased in numbers. Further, the state
understands the public will want to cross the proposed Ambler
Industrial Road so that need must be addressed as part of the
design. Additionally, the proposed project will use covered
containers to limit the potential for dust. The truck drivers
will be required to stop for caribou so commercial driver
training and enforcement will be provided.
1:18:45 PM
MR. DAVIS pointed out the Red Dog mine road showing a truck
driving down the middle of the road [slide 11]. Often,
industrial roads are one-way roads and follow the contour of the
land since this process requires less fill and disturbance and
reduces overall road construction costs.
1:19:25 PM
MR. DAVIS provided an overview of the proposed project schedule
[slide 12]. He reported that AIDEA has been conducting
community outreach and that effort will continue through 2018.
The routing and reconnaissance studies are complete but the
agency is still working on the route. As previously mentioned
the federal NEPA process and the ANILCA Title 11 process will be
used. The engineering process is ongoing. Originally the DOT&PF
projected the road costs at approximately $400 million for a
two-lane road; however, AIDEA will engineer it to a single-lane
road to substantially reduce the cost to well below $391
million. Road maintenance has been a consideration since a
single lane costs less to maintain. Thus the usage safety plan
will be implemented to run a series of trucks one way. With a
public-private-partnership (PPP) liability issues can arise and
safety precautions must be taken to lessen insurance costs.
MR. DAVIS briefly discussed the proposed tasks for FY 2015
[slide 13]. He reported that AIDEA continues to work on the
baseline studies using the NEPA process for the EIS. If the
project is approved it will move forward as a PPP. The AIDEA
and NovaCopper have entered into a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) which requires NovaCopper to keep AIDEA informed on the
mine and AIDEA to keep NovaCopper informed on the permitting
status.
1:21:44 PM
MR. DAVIS highlighted the FY 15 funding at $8.5 million [slide
14]. He stated a substantial amount of the funding will be used
for DOT&PF's geotechnical studies, the University of Alaska
hydrology studies, and for other contractors to assess the
environmental impacts. He pointed out $1 million for the third-
party EIS contractor, noting AIDEA will consult with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). He clarified that the
contractor works with the USACE to prepare the EIS but is paid
by AIDEA.
1:22:42 PM
MR. DAVIS reviewed the timeline for the project cost to
completion estimates [slide 16]. He anticipated an estimated
$8.5 million for FY 15 and FY 16 and an additional $7 million
for FY 17 and FY 18, although funds may not be needed in FY 18.
He related the PPP will be a design build process to finance,
operate, and maintain the road [slide 16]. He said that AIDEA
will seek a private partner to perform those functions since
AIDEA does not have a construction or design team. The
aforementioned process would be similar to the Red Dog model.
This process would also allocate some of the risk to the
partner. Although the PPP process has frequently been used in
other countries, it is becoming more prevalent in the U.S.
AIDEA' consultants have experience in this area, he said.
MR. DAVIS described the rationale for the PPP process is to
place some of the design and construction under the private
structure since the private sector tends to be more innovative,
faster, and less expensive than government [slide 17].
MR. DAVIS highlighted the spectrum of PPP or P3 options [slide
18]. He reiterated that the project would be a design, build,
operate, and maintain process, like the Red Dog mine road. He
advised that Teck Resources [formerly Teck Cominco] built and
maintained the road to the Red Dog mine but pays AIDEA a toll.
Thus, AIDEA has one person part time working on the Red Dog
Road; however, AIDEA is a finance development authority and
AIDEA works to limit staff on projects.
1:24:17 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked what will happen when the ore arrives in
Fairbanks.
MR. DAVIS answered that AIDEA will work with the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC) to build a small ore terminal, similar to
AIDEA's participation in the Skagway Ore Terminal.
Additionally, AIDEA has been working to identify the port, which
will be a separate part of the PPP process. This new terminal
could be beneficial since Alaska does not have export ports in
Southcentral Alaska, only import ports. He concluded that this
tends to dovetail with AIDEA's plans.
CHAIR EGAN hopes the Skagway Ore Terminal will be expanded.
MR. DAVIS responded that AIDEA has secured the bonding authority
for the facility, subject to legislative approval. He reported
that AIDEA signed the contract on January 14, 2014.
1:25:30 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked for further clarification that the proposed
Ambler Mining Industrial road would be a one-lane road that will
not be open to the public.
MR. DAVIS responded that access will be decided by the
consortium that owns it. He acknowledged that differing views
exist. Assuming fuel could be transported to the community by a
connecting ice road - if the drivers had commercial driver's
licenses (CDL) - could result in fuel at Fairbanks prices for
the community. AIDEA continues to be interested in the Interior
Energy project and one comment often heard throughout the
northern tier has been the price of fuel.
1:26:22 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked how many state dollars will be committed to
the project under the PPP process to make this work.
MR. DAVIS answered at the present time he can't provide a
definitive answer. Currently, the Interior Energy Project is
still under discussion. AIDEA has been working on a project
development agreement with the parties; however, the legislature
appropriated $125 million for the SETS loan and also
appropriated an additional $57 million. He anticipated that
AIDEA would provide about $80 million per the term sheet. He
emphasized that AIDEA could also bond up to $90 million;
however, although AIDEA has internally been running models it
has not yet determined the model. He said that AIDEA's
preference will be to use the least amount of state funding as
possible. If AIDEA were to use bonds it is possible the amount
would be zero, he said.
1:27:35 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked when the financial plan will be issued. He
wondered at what point in time the costs and obligations for the
state and private sector will be identified.
MR. DAVIS answered that the record of decision on the EIS is the
first step since the project can't go forward without it.
Additionally, AIDEA seeks to obtain an EIS with long shelf life.
Previously, AIDEA has experienced EIS timeframes that lapse,
especially on large projects and additional funds are necessary
to redo them. He indicated AIDEA will project the anticipated
opening date for the mine and will work on the model. He
offered his belief that the financial timeframe will probably
depend on commodities market.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed that sometimes the EIS must be redone and
she is happy to hear that AIDEA is coordinating this project
with the anticipated mine opening date.
MR. DAVIS remarked that AIDEA is working to "model" this out.
1:29:21 PM
LOIS EPSTEIN, Professional Engineer (PE), Arctic Program
Director, Wilderness Society, thanked members for the
opportunity to testify on the two proposed megaprojects. The
projects have ongoing questions related to whether the projects
should move forward, especially in the context of other
transportation needs, including a significant maintenance
backlog. She hoped to see additional oversight hearings on the
transportation megaprojects not being covered today. She said
she is testifying today on the proposed Ambler Road project, one
of several Roads-to-Resources (R2R) projects. Within the
governor's FY 15 budget proposal, the legislature will have
appropriated $77.5 million for R2R's projects. This amount
includes $32 million for the proposed Umiat road, which is not
being discussed today; however, she noted the lack of need for
the project as any oil produced can move through the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System without an adjacent road.
MS. EPSTEIN stated that as the former director, of the
nonprofit, Alaska Transportation Priorities Project, who issued
two editions of a report entitled Easy to Start, Impossible to
Finish in 2010 and 201, respectively, that documents the tens of
millions of dollars spent on planning road and bridge projects
that likely will not materialize because they do not have
realistic financial and business plans for funding the projects
and will not provide meaningful state benefits, particularly to
local residents impacted by the projects.
MS. EPSTEIN said her goal is to convince the committee, as
decision makers, that the administration has gotten ahead of
itself on the proposed Ambler Road Project by appropriating
nearly $18 million to date with another $24 million proposed
over the next three years to refine road details before a well-
developed business case has been made for the mine and without
ensuring local government support which AIDEA must have
according to its statute.
1:32:21 PM
MS. EPSTEIN suggested the project will provide state revenue and
if NovaCopper decides that the mine is not viable, for example,
if the price of copper goes down, the state will have lost $42
million. The proposed road to Ambler project would consist of a
211 to 370 mile road to the mining district. In April 2013,
NovaCopper and AIDEA signed an MOU essentially giving AIDEA the
lead rather than Alaska DOT&PF. AIDEA issues revenue bonds that
are paid back by industrial entities; however, it is unlikely
that NovaCopper and other companies will pay for the entire cost
of the road including its planning, construction, and
maintenance.
MS. EPSTEIN said, according to a 2013 NovaCopper press release,
the company expects to pay the state $9.7 million per year for
the 12-year mine life, for a total of $116.4 million for the
estimated $430 to $990 million road construction, with
additional costs for maintenance and operation.
MS. EPSTEIN said that in terms of the business case, NovaCopper
has not yet reached the "prefeasibility" stage. Before reaching
that point, NovaCopper's consultant recommended including
additional technical studies and other steps estimated to cost
over $6 million. In terms of local support, four communities in
the region: Bettles, Alatna, Allakaket, and Evansville have
passed resolutions against this project and more may pass as
other communities learn more about it. The Brooks Range Council
was established by Interior Alaskans in the region in 2012 to
oppose the regional land uses. The proposed routes raise
concerns about degradation of subsistence resources, including
moose and caribou, whose migration might be altered with a long
east to west road. She noted that the road to the Red Dog mine
is a north to south road. The proposed Ambler Mining project
road would also increase non-local hunting with adverse impacts
to fish including tributaries supporting Yukon River salmon.
The proposed project would increase traffic to this remote
region with a strong wild lands tourism-based economy, cause
potential significant asbestos exposure, and a decreased quality
of life. The mining industry provided $60.8 million in state
revenue in 2013, representing less than one percent of the
unrestricted tax revenue received by the Department of Revenue.
She concluded her testimony by stating concerns about AIDEA's
lead on this project. She highlighted that AIDEA does not
participate in state transportation planning, which means that
this funding will not go to other state transportation projects
and residents from other parts of the state will not have any
input in the decisions. She related her understanding that
AIDEA is meeting with communities in the region; however, AIDEA
will not be hearing from residents in other parts of the state
who would like to see this funding spent on other projects.
Additionally, AIDEA does not need to meet federal transportation
law requirements for transparency, including notification of
community meetings for its road project. As of last week, no
Ambler road information was available to the public on the
agency's website. Additionally, the PPP's plans need extensive
scrutiny by experts and the legislature. She pointed out the
dramatic change from a PPP for the proposed Knik Arm Bridge
project. Finally, since DOT&PF has spent substantial funds on
this project to date, she raised the question about how this
road could be a private road given the public funds expended.
She offered to provide legislators with contacts in the region
and statewide, both Native and non-Native, who could highlight
their concerns.
1:37:32 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked whether anyone has independently verified
the cost estimates for engineering.
MS. EPSTEIN said she has not verified the engineering costs,
noting the limited material on project costs. She acknowledged
other states have found it useful to have independent
verification since the tendency is to low ball the figures. She
stated that this has occurs worldwide, not just in Alaska.
Thus, it is important to have a disinterested party review
costs.
1:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled that the return of investment
would be limited. He asked whether she considered factors such
as job or social impact and benefits. He suggested that the
return to the state is secondary considering what a community
gains by having people gainfully employed.
MS. EPSTEIN answered that she cannot speak for rural communities
since she lives in Anchorage. She stated that she has been to
Bettles, and the community has expressed strong sentiment about
preserving the current local lifestyle, which would change with
the road. She suggested that professionals who analyze jobs
could better answer the question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON hoped to see the benefits testified about
since it is important to also look the positive aspects and not
just the negative aspects.
1:41:19 PM
GRETA SHIRK, Corporate and Policy Liaison, Government Relations,
NANA Regional Corporation (NANA), asked to testify in support of
the EIS process regarding the Ambler Road Project. She said
that NANA is very interested in seeing more information before
taking a final position on the project. In addition to being a
NANA employee, she is a shareholder. She grew up on the Kobuk
River in Kiana, spending days fishing, hunting, and harvesting
berries and greens from the tundra. At NANA, the mission is to
improve the quality of life for the more than 13,500 Inupiat
shareholders by maximizing the economic growth, protecting and
enhancing NANA's land and promoting healthy communities with
decisions and behaviors inspired by the Inupiat traditional
values. The Inupiat people have been Arctic developers, using
what they had to survive in the harsh and unforgiving land. The
Inupiat people live innovatively, creating tools and mechanisms
for survival. After the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA), NANA applied the same principles of innovation in the
business world. This can best be seen in the creation and
continued operational success of the Red Dog mine. She related
that for 25 years Red Dog, one of the largest zinc mines, has
stood as a model of responsible resource development founded on
the principles of consensus, cooperation, and mutual respect
between a mining company and the Inupiat people of Northwest
Alaska. In fact, 2014 marks the 25th year of operation at the
Red Dog Mine.
MS. SHIRK said that to date, NANA has received more than $1
billion in revenue from the mine, $608 million of which has been
shared with other Alaska Native Corporations through the Section
(7) (i) provisions of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The
Red Dog Mine has been an economic engine for the NANA region and
the rest of Alaska. Residents in Northwest Alaska, the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and
other areas of Alaska benefit from high paying mining jobs,
corporate dividends, social and cultural programs, and local
charitable contributions. Additionally, the Northwest Arctic
Borough has received nearly $120 million as payment in lieu of
taxes since Red Dog production began. As many of you know, the
state receives approximately $20 million annually from Teck
Alaska for the use of the haul road between the mine and port
sites. Due to the success of the Red Dog Mine, NANA looks to
other areas of the region for responsible resource development.
Today, NANA is engaged in an advanced stage exploration project
with NovaCopper. The upper Kobuk mineral project agreement
consolidates the landholdings of NovaCopper and NANA and
provides a framework for the exploration and potential
development of the belt for base and precious metals.
1:45:07 PM
MS. SHIRK related that NANA's Board of Directors has based its
decision on 15 years of local discussions, supported by
shareholder opinions as outlined in NANA's 2011 shareholder
survey showing that 93 percent of shareholders feel that mining
at Red Dog has positively impacted their communities through
jobs, training, village economic development, and other
programs. Approximately 86 percent of NANA's shareholders
support further responsible resource development on NANA lands.
She emphasized the importance of consultation and collaboration
to the Inupiat people's success. The Inupiat want and seek out
more information to make the most informed decisions. When it
comes to the potential Ambler Mining District road project, NANA
wants and needs more information. Thus, NANA is interested in
and supportive of the EIS. She offered her belief that it is
nonsensical to halt any options that could potentially improve
the economy of the NANA region and the quality of life for its
shareholders. She related that several avenues of input are
available through the EIS process. NANA has held independent
listening sessions with each of the 11 communities and NANA is
committed to continuing the process of consultation with our
shareholders. The DOT&PF and AIDEA have also been thoroughly
engaged in the region for the past several years. Through this
process, our shareholders have effectively influenced a
potential Ambler road project by diverting the proposed route to
avoid the Paw River to protect important sheefish habitat and a
traditional sacred area of the Kobuk River Inupiat.
Additionally, the state has heard concerns by residents
regarding limited access. Many non-government organizations
(NGOs), corporations, and other citizen's groups have advocated
and asked for a structured public process when it comes to
development propositions in Alaska and that is exactly what is
happening through the EIS process and consultation by state
agencies.
MS. SHIRK said that NANA is mystified by the efforts of other
groups that seek to prematurely draw conclusions about the road
proposition. She stated that NANA believes the Alaska Natives
who actually live in the area affected areas, and not special
interest groups, need to be at the forefront of the decisions
that impact the respective regions. While the development of
Red Dog mine has resulted in positive economic impact in the
region, the communities, families, and elders still struggle to
make ends meet due to the skyrocketing cost of living and high
energy costs in the region. In our modern world to simply be
pro-conservation or pro-development is not enough. The
challenges rural Alaska faces are complex, and need multi-
faceted and well-reasoned solutions. Special interest groups
have suggested in proposals that bicyclists in Wasilla have a
greater transportation need than the underdeveloped regions in
rural Alaska. She emphasized that NANA could not disagree more.
Well-reasoned and well researched options need to be provided to
Alaskans. She reiterated that NANA supports moving forward with
the EIS process and commits to the region's residents that NANA
will remain engaged every step of the way, ensuring that their
concerns, needs, and desires are at the forefront of these
discussions. During the discussions of the aforementioned
project, it is important that the public and private partners
and outside environmental groups understand that the foremost
priority is to protect the land and the subsistence way of life.
She said:
The Kobuk River is our home and because who we are as
Inupiat people is tied directly to the land,
subsistence is the highest and best use of NANA lands.
Every land use decision and how we engage in business
opportunities in our region is made with this
directive at its core. Now is not the time to allow
outside special interest groups to cut off the
consideration of options that could contribute to the
sustainability of our communities and the survival of
our region. Those decisions will be made by the
Inupiat people of Northwest Alaska and by our
Athabascan neighbors in the Interior. Thank you again
for the opportunity to testify.
1:49:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if Bettles, Evansville,
Alatna, and Allakaket are in the NANA region.
MS. SHIRK answered no.
1:49:43 PM
SENATOR FRENCH said he thought everyone would love to see
another Red Dog Mine, which is an economic engine everyone could
get behind; however, he hasn't heard of anyone stopping the
project before it is started. He wasn't sure it was accurate to
say that people want to derail the project. He thinks it's fair
to ask questions. He asked whether NANA has considered if the
road should be combined with the [proposed Ambler] mine EIS
since the road without the mine is "obviously a non-starter."
MS. SHIRK answered yes; however, she didn't know whether that
can be approached through a two-prong process. She suggested
that the NANA leadership and BOD could consider it.
CHAIR EGAN, in response to a question, answered that DOT&PF
elected to have AIDEA present.
CHAIR P. WILSON stated the next portion of the presentation
would be on the Juneau Access Road.
1:52:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:52 p.m. to 1:54 p.m.
1:54:10 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), began
by outlining the policy question and reasons the state should
consider extending the road to take over the functions being
served by ferries [slide 2]. He said the simple answer is that
the proposed Juneau Access Road will reduce the long-term cost
for the state and users while greatly expanding traveler
capacity and travel flexibility. He offered to expand reasons
this project is important not only for this region but to the
entire state.
1:55:12 PM
MR. OTTESEN outlined the advantages of day boats [slide 3].
First, he defined a day boat as a ferry intended to operate 12
hours or less from a home port, typically making one or more
round trips per day noting the U.S. Coast Guard limits day boats
to a 12-hour operational day. Consequently, the turnaround time
and how quickly loading and unloading happens is critical to
making day boats effective. Thus, it becomes important to not
have long "dwell times" at port so the day boat design, like the
Alaska Class ferry design, features a "roll on roll off" design.
Another advantage of day boats is that day boat operations don't
require crew hotel or restaurant accommodations since the crew
returns home each night. Finally, compared to a mainline ferry,
the day boats will accrue capital and operating savings.
1:56:20 PM
MR. OTTESEN turned to the reasons the state should consider a
road [slide 4]. Fundamentally, roads are less expensive over
time in capital and operating costs, although roads have a big
initial cost the cost ultimately results in cost savings over
time. Second, roads will greatly increase capacity by almost a
factor of ten. He offered his belief that the demand will be
high and traveler demand has been "choked" by a lack of
flexibility and the high cost of travel by ferry in Alaska.
Third, he emphasized that ferries restrict demand, reduce
flexibility, and increase travel costs, which can be
prohibitive. At the same time ferry subsidies in Alaska are
very high and continue in perpetuity.
1:57:31 PM
MR. OTTESEN showed a map that designates the state's preferred
plan [slide 5]. He pointed out the map shows Alternative 2B,
which would extend the road at the northern end of the Glacier
Highway, around Berners Bay, up the east side of Lynn Canal to a
point approximately due east of Haines in a river valley known
as Katzehin. The proposed Katzehin Ferry terminal would operate
ferries would run from Katzehin to Haines, from Katzehin to
Skagway, and run a small ferry between Haines and Skagway. He
estimated the ferries would serve Haines 10 times per day and a
separate ferry would run north to Skagway 6 times per day. The
mainline ferries that currently transits Lynn Canal would turn
around at Juneau and would not operate the current northern run
to Haines or Skagway.
1:58:27 PM
MR. OTTESEN outlined the advantages of preferred plan [slide 6].
First, the mainline ferry operating distance can be reduced by
186 miles per round trip voyage by eliminating the Auke Bay to
Skagway route. Second, as previously mentioned, the corridor
capacity would increase by a factor of ten. The capital cost
would drop over time since most of the initial investment is
retained over many decades. Although the pavement must be re-
surfaced periodically, bridges can be designed to last 75 years
and longer. Thus, the road bed, embankment, and other aspects
are long-term assets. He contrasted this with ferries, which
are replaced "piece-by-piece" over their 50-year life. He
detailed that steel is replaced, engines are replaced, and many
other components of the ship are also replaced. In fact, the
capital cost of a ferry isn't the initial building cost, but the
building cost is the cost of repeatedly replacing components
until eventually the state build the ferry again with little
residual value remaining. He predicted that one to two mainline
ferries could be eliminated from the fleet once the proposed
Alaska Class Ferries and the proposed road extension is in
service.
MR. OTTESEN reviewed the 50-year mainline ferry costs totaling
$1.72 billion [slide 7]. The cost to replace the Columbia and
Matanuska is estimated at $320 million. Further, maintenance
and operations for the ferries are calculated at $1 billion over
a ferry's 50-year life. Meanwhile, the annual operating deficit
per year is $20 million which totals $1 billion over a 50 year
period. One mainline ferry's cost over a fifty year period is
projected to total $1.72 billion, of which, an average of 30
percent will be recovered by fares and $700 million will not be
recovered.
2:01:34 PM
MR. OTTESEN reviewed the modal net per capita costs per
population served [slide 8]. The DOT&PF considered the
population of each census district and compared all the modes,
including the AMHS, rural aviation, and highway network for this
analysis The net revenue, divided by the population served,
arrives at a $1,000 per capita cost. At the same time, the
highway cost was calculated at approximately $40 per capita or
roughly 25 times less. Consequently, these cost savings drive
the decisions and debate toward roads. He said, "It's not a
trivial difference. It's a very large difference, roughly 40
times per capita."
2:02:46 PM
MR. OTTESEN reviewed the DOT&PF's current capital budget request
for FY 15 broken down by rural aviation, highways, and the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) [slide 9]. He pointed out
$174.6 million is the operating budget for the AMHS and is shown
in the large green portion on the slide. Although these figures
represent more than half of the department's budget, ferries
serve less than one percent of travel in the state. The
remaining 99 percent of travel is accomplished by the highway
system and the rural aviation system. He contrasted the stark
different in costs, noting that in times like these when the
state's budget is restrained the department must provide better
service at lower cost.
2:03:34 PM
MR. OTTESEN highlighted that ferry systems in other parts of the
world are faced with the same issues [slide 10]. He pointed out
that Canada's Prince Edward Island ferry ran an eight-mile run
between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. This ferry was
an obligation of the federal government to provide the ferry
service despite the cost with service begun in 1910. However,
the federal government created and funded a proposal to build a
bridge with a guaranteed 33-year subsidy and the builder
charging a toll. Those two revenue streams built the bridge, he
said. Ultimately, the Canadian government benefited by having a
fixed subsidy that would not rise with inflation. At the end of
the time period the government no longer had to pay the subsidy.
MR. OTTESEN turned to the E-39 Norway Highway [slide 10]. The
highway runs 800 miles and travels along a coast of fiords, big
mountains, and islands, very similar to Southeast Alaska's
geography. However, Norway has been systematically building
bridges and underwater tunnels to replace the ferry links.
Currently, Norway is down from 20 to 8 ferry links and plans to
continue over the next few years to reduce ferries until they
are all gone. He reported that all of the ferry runs are
between 10 and 40 minutes. Norway has been adding road legs,
building new terminals, and shortening the number of ferry
links. He reported that their longest tunnel is ten miles long
and is nearly 1,000 feet under water. The roads serve
communities smaller than Juneau. He highlighted Norway's
policy, which is to avoid the perpetuity costs. About 20 years
ago, the DOT&PF brought Norwegian engineers to Juneau and
canvased Lynn Canal. Their engineers did not see the proposed
Juneau Access Road as insurmountable or too challenging. In
fact, the proposed project mirrors what Norway has been doing.
He emphasized that similar projects have Federal Motor Carrier
Association have been built elsewhere and has been done well.
He pointed out Norway's coastline that shows the fiords and
terrain. In Alaska, the department has been working to shorten
water links, such as in Metlakatla. A day boat operates from
Prince of Wales Island and makes one or two round trips per day.
This ferry operation results in much more convenient service
than a mainline ferry service could offer.
2:07:28 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed the "take away" [slide 112]. He related
that replacing or shortening ferry routes with roads and using
day boats is a rational public policy response. It would lower
public and private costs, offer superior service to travelers,
and is attainable as other countries have demonstrated by
eliminating perpetual ferry subsidies.
2:08:02 PM
MICHAEL VIGUE, Division Operations Manager, Division of Program
Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), provided a status on the project. First, he reviewed
the purpose and need [slide 2]. The DOT&PF has been working on
a draft supplemental EIS. He said, "Our purpose and need
statement is to provide improved surface transportation to and
from Juneau within the Lynn Canal corridor." The department
would like to provide the capacity to meet transportation demand
in the corridor, provide flexibility, improve the opportunity
for travel, reduce travel times between communities, and reduce
state and user costs for transportation in the corridor.
MR. VIGUE said the draft EIS is built around those statements.
The draft EIS is an important element of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [slide 3]. The DOT&PF
must prepare a NEPA document for every federal-aid project that
the department builds and the process provides an opportunity
for the general public, local, state, and federal agencies to
have input into the process. The final EIS will include all
comments and responses which allows the public to see how the
issues were addressed. The EIS is a joint document between the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the DOT&PF. Although
it ultimately becomes an FHWA document, the DOT&PF assists in
the preparation. In fact, the DOT&PF has analyzed a number of
alternatives, which also must be consistent with the state's
2004 Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. The aforementioned
2004 plan is currently in the process of being updated and
represents the most current plan. Through this process, the
department will take into account travel demand and capacity in
the corridor, flexibility and opportunity to travel, travel
times, total project life costs, maintenance costs, user costs,
state costs, and the environmental impacts the project will
create.
2:10:58 PM
MR. VIGUE discussed the travel capacity and demand for
Alternative 2B (2020), comparing the current Lynn Canal service
with the service for the preferred Alternative 2B upon
completion in 2020 [slide 4]. Based on the 2012 AMHS schedule
Lynn Canal's capacity is 154 vehicles per day. In 2002,
Alternative 2B would provide a capacity of 1,484 vehicles per
day. However, the current summer traffic for 2012 in Lynn Canal
based on actuals totaled 71 vehicles per day. Based on traffic
forecasts, approximately 1,345 vehicles are predicted to travel
the corridor if Alternative 2B is completed in 2020.
MR. VIGUE discussed the current situation for Juneau to Haines
compared to Alternative 2B [slide 5]. He stated that the
current capacity from Juneau to Haines is 93 vehicles per day,
and if alternative 2B was built, the system could handle 848
vehicles per day between Juneau and Haines, which is nearly a
ten-fold improvement. The one-way travel time is 7.2 hours,
which includes wait times whereas under Alternative 2B the time
would be reduced to 3 hours. The current costs for a family of
four traveling from Juneau to Haines with a typical 19 foot
vehicle would be $215.00 which would be reduced to $31.20 for a
significant savings in money and time.
2:13:54 PM
MR. VIGUE pointed out that currently the AMHS provides one trip
per day for the Lynn Canal system, but under Alternative B would
increase and serve Katzehin to Haines with eight round trip
ferries per day.
MR. VIGUE turned to a similar slide for Skagway with similar
results [slide 6]. There would be a significant increase in the
capacity and a significant decrease in the time traveled and for
user costs.
2:14:37 PM
MR. VIGUE discussed the project history [slide 7]. First,
Juneau is the largest community on the North American continent
not connected to the continental highway system. Second, Juneau
is the only state capital not connected to the road system.
This project began in 1997 and in 2000 Governor Knowles declared
Alternative 2, an East Lynn Canal Highway route as the state's
preferred alternative. However work was suspended and two fast
ferries were ordered - the fast ferry (F/F) Fairweather and the
F/F Chenega. In 2006, a record of decision was issued by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and in August 2006, a
lawsuit was filed in federal district court and the court ruled
that the state failed to consider an alternative that would
improve ferry service without any requiring additional vessels
or terminals [slide 8]. In May 2011, the state appealed to the
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three judge panel ruled [2
to 1] to uphold the federal district court's decision. In
January 2012 the DOT&PF initiated preparation of a supplemental
EIS, which is the current process. The supplemental EIS
includes Alternative 1B, which is enhanced service with existing
AMHS assets. He offered to review the alternatives in more
detail.
2:16:45 PM
MR. VIGUE reviewed Alternative 1 - No Action [slide 9]. He
referred to six maps in members' packets. Alternative 1 would
mean a continuation of mainline service and would incorporate
the two-day boat Alaska Class ferries. The mainline service
would consist of two round trips per week in summer and one
round trip per week in the winter. During the summer, one of
the Alaska Class ferries would travel from Juneau-Auke Bay-
Haines and the other would travel from Haines to Skagway.
MR. VIGUE explained Alternative 2B - the East Lynn Canal Highway
would consist of constructing a highway from the Echo Cove to
Katzehin River [slide 11]. A shuttle ferry would transport
passengers/vehicles from Katzehin to Haines and another ferry
would provide transportation from Katzehin to Skagway.
Frequently, the department has been questioned for the reason
the road doesn't continue on to Skagway [slide 12]. In 1997,
the draft EIS analyzed the road continuing to Skagway and the
National Park Service (NPS) indicated that there were not any
(4) (f) impacts. He clarified that the FHWA cannot approve the
use of land from publicly owned historical sites unless there
are no feasible and prudent alternatives and harm to the
property from use is minimized. In 2004 the DOT&PF consulted
with the NPS and their updated plan indicated the Skagway and
White Pass District and historic landmarks are listed as a
(4)(f) resources. Thus, the FHWA advised the DOT&PF it cannot
impact the (4) (f) resources and Alternative 2B was developed to
terminate in Katzehin.
2:19:54 PM
CLAY GOOD, representing himself, stated that he does not have
any technical knowledge on the proposed access road, but he is a
community member. He owns property in Haines and travels there
once a month. He arrived in Juneau in 1967 traveling on the
ferry system. His family intentionally moved to Juneau,
recognizing its unique opportunities and attributes, including
community safety, clean air, water, nature, wildlife, hunting,
and fishing. He appreciated the community comprised of
indigenous and immigrant Alaskans who share resilience borne of
ingenuity, hard work, and patience. He has reasonable doubts
about the quality and integrity of DOT&PF's plan for the
proposed Juneau Access Road. He characterized the proposed road
as an expensive and dangerous road to a remote ferry terminal
far from the population center it is meant to serve. He
expressed concern in three areas, utility, safety, and economic
responsibility. He suggested that the inefficiency of driving
80 miles to the new ferry terminal, especially since it would
eliminate travel options for foot passengers. He asked how foot
travel would be accommodated, as well as the inconvenience of
traveling so far as compared to the current ferry travel. In
terms of travel, he found ferry travel to be the safest form of
travel in Southeast Alaska.
MR. GOOD described Lynn Canal as a steep, unstable mountainous
region much like Norway. He reported that the proposed road
would cross as many as 36 avalanche areas with 112 hazards and
rock slides. In fact, the DOT&PF proposed the road would be
closed 34 days a year. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) expects numerous animal collisions with vehicles and the
bear and goat migratory data is sobering. He asked what
DOT&PF's plans are for emergency search and rescues that would
be necessary and if the department would provide an avalanche
response team each winter. He asked whether the state will
provide public safety officers or if enforcement will fall to
the community. Further, driving a narrow road is far more
perilous than traveling in the comfort and safety of the AMHS
vessels. He has often traveled as a student and a teacher on
field trips throughout Southeast Alaska and the ferries are the
safest, most affordable transportation available. He related a
scenario in which he coached the National Ocean Sciences team,
traveling to Seward in February. He related he narrowly avoided
avalanches several times, which blocked other teams. He
contrasted this travel to taking 40 students on a winter ferry
to Haines with a bus driving to a remote ferry terminal. He
wondered which choice parents would make. He remarked that
accidents with animals will occur and he felt it was
irresponsible not to account for these enormous risks.
2:27:06 PM
MR. GOOD related his understanding in terms of economic
responsibility that many roads are justifiable since they
support multiple purposes and generate wealth than expenditures.
He asked for further clarification what part of the proposed
Juneau Access Road meets anything remotely resembling cost
effectiveness. The DOT&PF estimates the upfront cost of the
road and ferry terminal at $524 million although he anticipated
cost overruns and additional safety features. He wondered about
the cost of duplication of services since this option doesn't
eliminate ferries, but expands them. He expressed concern about
the cost of road maintenance in a zone prone to slides,
settling, freezing and thawing. Although he enjoys driving, he
has had experience driving on roads in Montana and has found
these roads under constant repair since it is bombarded by rock
slides.
MR. GOOD expressed further concern about the cost of snow
removal, avalanche control and abatement, emergency rescue, and
enforcement. He asked how the rest of Alaska will view the cost
of this road given the needs in other communities. He further
asked how this mega project would compete with other needs such
as safe water, affordable energy, waste treatment facilities,
disposal facilities, education, and public safety. He wondered
if the DOT&PF has considered the rest of the statewide needs
just so Juneau drivers can shave a couple hours off their
occasional ferry trip to Skagway. He suggested that his
priorities may differ, but fiscal responsibility is a priority
that most Alaskans share. He understood that the legislature is
working to cut budgets, set better priorities, but he did not
think Alaskans would believe the Juneau Access Road will help
the legislature achieve this goal. When Juneau voters were
asked, they rejected the road in favor of ferries. He concluded
that the proposed Juneau Access Road project is flawed,
specious, and disingenuous in his view. He wondered if the
DOT&PF could sell the idea of a proposed Juneau Access Road to
anyone if they can't sell it to Juneau. He looked forward to
hearing more about plans for the road and less about what is bad
about ferries. He thanked members for the opportunity to
testify.
2:30:35 PM
SENATOR FRENCH said he would like to be respectful to our guest
who spoke very passionately and in a grounded manner. He said
he is an Anchorage legislator and the closest comparison he can
make is the road from Anchorage to Girdwood. He recalled that
every year the communities suffer one to three horrific head-on
collisions on the road. He suggested the traffic on the
Anchorage to Girdwood road is twice the traffic planned for the
proposed Juneau Access Road. A few years back, the Anchorage
community considered doubling the width of the road to a four-
lane road to make it truly safe. He recalled the estimated cost
was $600 million for 30 miles. He wondered if he thought the
$500 million projected cost was accurate.
MR. GOOD answered that he doesn't have any expertise, but he has
never seen a "mega" project in Alaska that came in on budget.
He recalled earlier testimony that evidence exists to low ball
projects since they want the projects to go through and it
serves no purpose to overestimate costs. He offered his belief
that voters appreciate a more conservative estimate so the
project will not be partially completed.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed. She commented that she loves ferries
but the costs are so high that many legislators have been
complaining about costs in Southeast. She pointed out that the
costs are rising and the legislature must address the fiscal
issues.
CHAIR EGAN commented that he wished that the road would have
been built in 1972 up the west side of Lynn Canal. He said it
was favored heavily by the community, but was vetoed by the next
administration.
2:34:11 PM
SANDY WILLIAMS, Chair, Citizens Pro Road, stated he is a retired
DOT&PF employee. He provided a brief history. When Governor
Egan initiated a ferry system in 1962 it was never meant to
provide a permanent transportation solution in Southeast Alaska.
In fact, the AMHS was anticipated as an interim solution to
coastal communities as the young state developed its
infrastructure and planned for future growth. Currently, the
AMHS experiences a 200 percent subsidy. For every $3 in ferry
costs, the rider pays $1 and the state pays $2. In 1996, the
operating costs for the AMHS were $69.5 million and revenues
were $39.7 million and in 2013, the operating costs run $172
million and revenues were $53.2 million. Thus in 17 years the
state's subsidy has increased from $28.8 million to $119.7
million per year totaling a 69 percent subsidy.
MR. WILLIAM suggested that to responsibly serve the public the
state must lower the operating costs, provide greater capacity
and travel frequency, as well as significantly reduce user
costs. He surmised that continuing with the status quo will
increase the subsidy to in excess of $1 billion. The other
approach is to implement Southeast Transportation Plan to create
efficiencies by restructuring the existing ferry routes, replace
the mainline ferries with shuttle ferries, and construct new
roads to shorten ferry routes. In doing so, the Lynn Canal
highway would meet travel demand, reduce traveler costs by 90
percent, and would reduce annual operating costs resulting in
AMHS budget reductions. Unlike ferries, roads are long-term
investments that require occasional improvements to sustain
them. The initial costs are permanent or long-term in nature.
Portions of the Richardson Highway have gone without any
necessary major repairs in 50 years. He offered his belief that
when Alaskan builds the proposed Juneau Access Road it will face
some challenges, but nothing that can't be solved. The proposed
road will provide savings to the state, improve the economies in
Haines, Skagway, and Juneau, and lower transportation costs for
users.
2:38:01 PM
MR. WILLIAMS related that he was the original engineer for the
DOT&PF when the road was built from Skagway to Carcross. No one
argued against that road so he finds our community to be selfish
and short-sighted to argue against the proposed road now. The
aforementioned road was built the early 80s and there hasn't
been a major road extension built in Alaska in 34 years. He
said those living in Southcentral and Interior Alaska can
understand how critical the Alaska railroad, the Seward, and
Parks highways are to the state. He lamented that it is much
easier to be against a project than for it. The progressive
vision that guided those projects needs to be used today in the
Lynn Canal Highway. The federal dollars that will be spent on
the road can't be used for operational costs, funding schools,
or for social services, schools. He emphasized that the
legislature is key to effecting a meaningful change required to
address transportation in Southeast Alaska. He regretted that
some people have made this decision making uncomfortable and he
commended members' commitment to improve transportation in
Alaska and by moving forward aggressively to build this road.
2:39:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked about alternative 2B. He asked
for clarification on the operations of the Katzehin ferry
terminal.
MR. OTTESEN deferred to Mr. Vigue.
2:40:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asked whether he could outline how the
terminal would be staffed and whether any amenities would be
available for passengers awaiting ferries.
MR. VIGUE answered that the ferries would operate during the
summer months for 16 hours per day. He envisioned that the
ferry terminal would be a regular ferry terminal with a waiting
area and a parking area. He was unsure on staffing levels at
this time but offered to research and provides information to
the committee.
2:42:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked whether the terminals would be
maintained 24 hours per day or if staff would commute from
Juneau.
MR. VIGUE answered that staff must be on the day boat 24 hours
per day. He was unsure about the number of staff.
2:42:41 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that perhaps someone from Skagway or
Haines could staff the ferry terminal.
MR. VIGUE answered he was unsure on staff levels at this point.
He suggested that some of the details would be determined by the
AMHS, but he offered to find out and report back to the
committee.
2:43:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS was pleased to hear the DOT&PF was
emulating Norway's ferry and road solutions. He'd like to
emulate their oil taxation policies, as well. He asked whether
the road to Katzehin would be open in the winter.
MR. VIGUE answered yes.
2:43:49 PM
SENATOR FRENCH revisited the figures to Girdwood and noted the
summer traffic to Girdwood is 13,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day.
MR. OTTESEN answered yes.
SENATOR FRENCH pointed out that there would be about one-tenth
of the traffic on the proposed road. He asked for an update on
the cost estimate.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the project was just updated to $500
million. In further response to a question, he related the
update was done in November 2013.
SENATOR FRENCH asked for further clarification on the quotes for
on head on collisions. He reiterated the costs to widen the
road to Girdwood at $600 million. He asked for further
clarification on the costs for the proposed Juneau Access Road.
MR. OTTESEN answered that several issues make it different. He
suggested that the new road to Girdwood would require traffic to
be maintained. Additionally, high tension power lines and the
rail line would need to be relocated. He explained that the
project contains a park and Turnagain Arm has Beluga whales. He
suggested that widening the road from Anchorage to Girdwood has
every type of complexity imaginable.
2:46:16 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked for further clarification on the current number
of dollars available for the road.
MR. OTTESEN offered to obtain those figures. He suggested that
a combination of earmarked federal funds, some prior state
appropriations and prior federal appropriations, or permission
to use federal funds.
CHAIR EGAN noted additional money is in the proposed Governor's
budget. He asked for the totals.
MR. OTTESEN answered yes.
CHAIR EGAN related the state has $125 million plus to build two
day boat ferries. He wondered what would happen to the day
boats in Lynn Canal if the road is built.
CHAIR EGAN answered that the boats can meet other purposes and
are not fixed to Lynn Canal so he anticipated that the state
would proceed with the ferries.
CHAIR EGAN did not think the ferries could cross Dixon Entrance.
MR. VIGUE answered that the two Alaska Class ferries are
intended to part of the Juneau Access project and would run from
Katzehin to Haines and from Katzehin to Skagway.
2:48:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS envisioned the winter scenario
with avalanche shoots down and people off the Katzehin ferry
cannot get to Juneau due to the avalanche. He asked what would
happen to the stranded people.
MR. VIGUE answered that if people weren't able to get to Juneau,
the ferry would return them to Haines or Skagway.
2:50:06 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the joint
meeting of the House and Senate Transportation Standing
Committees was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Bettles Resolution Against Road to Ambler (2).pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Juneau Access Ferries and Roads Final for Joint TRANS.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 2014-03-03 Juneau Access Ltr of Support.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Dyson transp mode cost 13-9006 Final Letter Sent out 7-19-2013.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Juneau Access maps Alts 1 1B 2B.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Juneau Acess maps Alts 3 4A-D.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Juneau Access Haines Resolution.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Juneau Access road support.msg |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| DOT Juneau Access SEACC document.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Juneau Access SEACC opposition.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Ambler AIEDA Pres. 3-6-14.pdf |
HTRA 3/6/2014 1:00:00 PM |