Legislature(2021 - 2022)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/27/2021 01:30 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Municipal Ports & Harbors | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2021
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robert Myers, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Mike Shower (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: ALASKA MUNICIPAL PORTS & HARBORS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on Municipal Ports
and Harbors.
RACHEL LORD, Executive Secretary
Alaska Association of Harbormasters & Port Administrators
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on Municipal Ports
and Harbors.
JOY BAKER, Port Director
Port of Nome
City of Nome
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on Alaska's Deep-
Draft Arctic port at Nome.
CARL UCHYTIL, Port Director
Juneau Docks and Harbors
City and Borough of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on the American
Society of Civil Engineers Report on ports and harbors.
STEVE RIBUFFO, Port Director
Port of Alaska
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on the Port of
Alaska.
PEGGY MCLAUGHLIN, Port Director
Port of Dutch Harbor
City of Unalaska
Dutch Harbor, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on the Port of Dutch
Harbor.
SHAWN BELL, Harbormaster
Haines Borough; Member
Board of Directors
Alaska Association of Harbormasters & Port Administrators
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on the Port of
Haines.
MARK HILSON, Acting Port & Harbors Director
Ketchikan Port and Harbors
City of Ketchikan
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered a PowerPoint on the Port of
Ketchikan.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:04 PM
CHAIR ROBERT MYERS called the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Shower (via teleconference) and Chair
Myers. Senator Micciche arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA MUNICIPAL PORTS & HARBORS
OVERVIEW: ALASKA MUNICIPAL PORTS & HARBORS
1:33:40 PM
CHAIR MYERS announced the business before the committee would be
an Overview of the Alaska Municipal Ports and Harbors. He
welcomed the first of eight presenters, Mr. Nils Andreassen.
1:34:11 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
Juneau, Alaska, began his presentation by reviewing the
municipal perspective, slide 2. He said municipalities own and
maintain 112 of 133 ports and harbors or 84 percent of the
coastal infrastructure that spans a coast longer than the entire
US coast. Municipalities have responsibilities other than ports
and harbors, including services for police, hospitals, water,
wastewater, and schools. Ports and harbors contribute to
economic activity, defense, infrastructure development and
public health and safety.
1:35:26 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 3, which depicted a map showing
the location of the 39 Alaska municipal ports and harbors in
Alaska.
1:35:36 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 4, which depicted a map showing
the 133 ports and harbors in Alaska color coded as a home-rule
city, first-class city, second-class city, or ones registered
under federal law. He stated that local governments own 117
public ports and harbors in Alaska, including 17 that were never
owned by the state and 82 that were transferred by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF). The
state owns 15 harbors but no ports, he said.
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the maps on slides 5-6 that showed the
communities served by the Alaska Marine Highway System. He said
it is important to note that besides the direct benefits to
communities, indirect benefits extend to most Alaskans.
1:36:45 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed slide 7, Value of Port Communities.
While most of the communities are served by air, the value of
port infrastructure translates to the community being better
able to be a good partner to the state. These communities have
stronger economic activity, contribute more to public education,
public safety, and the state's retirement system. These
communities take on more debt related to infrastructure.
1:37:30 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed statewide planning on slide 8. He noted
that AS [44.42.050] requires the state to develop a list of all
projects but the state doesn't have a good plan for municipal
coastal infrastructure. The state relies on the U.S. Corps of
Engineers (USACE) for planning for ports in its long-range
Statewide Transportation Infrastructure Plan (STIP) but USACE
has not conducted any studies since 2010. He suggested the state
might consider that municipal-owned infrastructure has a
statewide impact on economic activity, which intersects with
intermodal connections to state infrastructure. He acknowledged
that there are no good ways to bring these municipal assets into
statewide planning.
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed port and harbor funding on slide 9.
Since there is not a mechanism for statewide planning, ports and
harbors are left out of the funding process. Within the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), some
funding is included for AMHS terminals but not for broader
improvements to its ports and harbors. The legislature
transferred many of its port and harbor assets to local
governments through two programs, the Municipal Harbor Facility
Matching Grant Program (MHFGP) and the Transportation and
Infrastructure Debt Service Reimbursement (TIDSRA), which was
created by House Bill 528 in 2002. These are the two ways the
state can invest in coastal infrastructure, he said.
1:40:10 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.
MR. ANDREASSEN stated that in terms of past port and harbor
improvements, the state has not reimbursed local government for
those investments from Aleutians East and False Pass harbor to
Mat-Su port upgrades.
1:40:55 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the 2011 Regional Ports and Harbor Study
on slide 10. He stated that the USACE produced this study
consisted of a thorough compendium of regional port and harbor
needs. Besides listing recommendations, it also captured the
value of the need. However, the study has not been updated since
2011.
1:41:37 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN turned to slide 11, Intermodal Connections and
Road Connectivity. He stated that AML tried to replicate some of
the US Army Corps of Engineer's regional studies. In terms of
intermodal connections, the study did not capture all the ports
and harbors, but it was clear that ports don't end at the port
but connect to communities and statewide infrastructure.
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the facility amenities and services as
shown on the graph on slide 12. He said each port and harbor
provides services based on user needs, many of which are
critical.
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the capital project costs on slide 13.
He related that respondents to AML's recent study reported $1.6
billion in planned projects. In the ten years since the USACE's
regional study, port and harbor needs have increased from $166
million to $389 million in unplanned projects, he said.
1:43:26 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the detailed capital project costs shown
on slide 14. He said the pandemic changed the decisions made at
the local level, including deferring capital project costs.
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the facilities scorecard on slide 15. He
stated that this infrastructure needs investment and
improvements.
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the Alaska infrastructure report card on
slide 16, which was based on survey responses and gave Alaska an
overall score of "D."
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the value of ports on slide 17. He
stated that investing in ports and harbors also relates to
Alaska's economy and the state's overall transportation system
since most of Alaska's goods transit these facilities.
1:45:39 PM
MR. ANDREASSEN reviewed the final slide, "What Choices Will We
Make?" At one time, the state decided to make large investments
in infrastructure for ports and harbors. He offered his view
that if the state currently engaged in a similar level of
planning, the state could think differently about infrastructure
development.
1:47:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if he had a list of comments from the
facilities scorecard and infrastructure scorecard. He noted the
discrepancy from a B minus to a D. He noted that facilities
range from very high-quality ones to a few moorings at a river
mouth.
MR. ANDREASSEN commented that if the following presenters did
not answer his question, he would provide more detailed
information. He said it might be as simple as who responded to
which survey.
1:48:59 PM
RACHEL LORD, Executive Secretary, Alaska Association of
Harbormasters and Port Administrators (AAHPA), Homer, Alaska, on
behalf of AAHPA began a PowerPoint on ports and harbors. AAHPA
was incorporated in 1999. The core purpose is to promote and
serve Alaska's ports and harbors. This non-profit does this
through advocacy, acting as a communication and information
resource, and promoting sustainable, safe, and secure
infrastructure.
She stated that as shown on slide 3, AAHPA's membership consists
of 43 port and harbor facilities, consisting of 39 Alaska
Municipal Ports and Harbors, the Alaska Railroad, two Alaska
Native associations and the Port of Seattle Fisherman's
Terminal.
1:50:00 PM
MS. LORD reviewed the distribution of ports and facilities as
shown on a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF) map [on slide 4]. She stated there could be up to 10
port and harbor facilities within a single municipality.
MS. LORD referred to the maps on slides 5-6. She said AAHPA
represents approximately 90 percent of Alaska's municipal port
and harbor facilities. She turned to the map on slide 6, noting
that AAHPA has nearly 60 agency members and partners that help
create and sustain the port and harbor facilities.
MS. LORD reviewed slide 9. She said the association is
predicated on the belief that communities are interconnected.
Alaska's ports and harbors are critical to nearly every
community in the state.
1:51:32 PM
MS. LORD provided a brief overview of AAHPA's work, which
focuses on network and resource sharing. This includes holding
an annual conference, producing a monthly newsletter,
maintaining an email list, and providing training opportunities
through national partnerships. AAHPA engages in advocacy work,
working with the Alaska Municipal League, the legislature, and
the Alaska delegation on member-supported issues, including the
Harbor Facility Grant Program. AAHPA also acts as subject-matter
experts on Alaska's ports and harbors. Finally, AAHPA gathers
information to track and understand infrastructure needs,
economic benefits, and regulatory hurdles for its members.
She stated that significant infrastructure was associated with
docks and harbors, including docks and floats, ramps, utilities,
uplands, maintenance, and staffing.
1:52:31 PM
MS. LORD stated that the association supports the Municipal
Harbor Grant Program [slide 11]. This program prioritizes
critical projects using an established vetting process. Further,
the program provides for a 50 percent local match, which must be
in hand before applying for grant funds, she said.
She said AAPHA provides the legislature with resolutions in
support from its members, the Alaska Municipal League, and
communities throughout Alaska. AAPHA's Board of Directors
supports a significant sum for the program to fund harbor
recapitalization efforts for the next decade.
MS. LORD reviewed Harbor Grants on slides 14-15. This program
significantly leverages local dollars to provide critical needs
for the state's intermodal transportation system.
MS. LORD turned to slide 16, which discussed the typical
terminology for ports and harbors. In the Lower 48, harbors are
often considered marinas and ports and tend to focus on the
movement of cargo on and off vessels, whereas in Alaska, these
terms are often used interchangeably since many of the state's
facilities provide port and marina infrastructure and services.
1:54:25 PM
MS. LORD said the remaining slides provide some notes from a few
communities not presenting today. She stated that slide 17
contained some photographs from Dillingham. Dillingham acts as a
hub for the communities [of Portage Creek, Ekwok, New Stuyahok,
Koliganek, Clarks Point, Ekuk, Manakotak, Twin Hills and
Togiak].
1:54:42 PM
MS. LORD related that the Aleutians East Borough sent in
schematics and photographs of ongoing projects in Akutan and
Sand Point as shown on slide 18.
MS. LORD stated that Kake has actively worked on its port and
harbor infrastructure [slide 19]. She reported that Kake was in
the process of applying for a federal Port Infrastructure
Development Grant with the Federal Maritime Administration.
1:55:05 PM
MS. LORD turned to a photograph and overview of Skagway [on
slide 20]. Skagway not only serves the local community but it is
part of a larger economic engine in the region, as is the case
for most Alaskan communities.
MS. LORD turned to the community notes for Emmonak on slide 21.
Emmonak received a $23 million Better Utilizing Investments to
Leverage Development (BUILD) grant. She explained that its port
facility would serve the Lower Yukon communities.
MS. LORD advanced to slide 22 and touched on the opportunities
ahead. She read the motto, "Strong Alaskan communities make a
strong Alaska." She provided her contact information [on slide
23].
1:56:27 PM
CARL UCHYTIL, Port Director, Juneau Docks and Harbors, City and
Borough of Juneau, Juneau, Alaska, said he serves as the past
president of the AAHPA and the American Society of Civil
Engineers - Alaska Section (ASCE). He said he also authored the
Ports and Harbors Report Card for the State of Alaska.
MR. UCHYTIL reviewed slide 2, the 2017 Ports and Harbors Grade:
D. He stated that ASCE, Alaska Section, evaluated and reviewed
nine infrastructure elements. Overall, the state received a C
minus. However, Alaska's Ports and Harbors tied with the Alaska
Marine Highway System and the Water and Wastewater for the
lowest score. The process was evaluated against criteria,
including capacity and condition, funding and future needs,
maintenance and operations, public safety and resiliency and
innovation. This evaluation was vetted through a national
process. In response to Senator Micciche's earlier question, he
stated that what dragged down the state's grade to a "D" was the
lack of an Arctic Deep Water Port plan, the Port of Anchorage
lacked any recapitalization momentum, the Southeast Alaska
regional cruise ship approach accommodating the larger neo-
Panamax vessels was incomplete. The Small Boat Harbor matching
grant was uncertain.
1:58:24 PM
MR. UCHYTIL reviewed slide 3, ASCE, Alaska Report Care, Ports
and Harbors:
• Alaska has 33,000 miles of coastline, more than the
entire continental US combined.
• Three of the top 10 fishing ports are in Alaska
• Dutch Harbor (first by weight), Kodiak & Naknek
• Tourism is essential to Alaska economy
• Nearly 60% of all tourists arrive via cruise ship
• Tourism is largest private employer in Southeast
Alaska
• The United States is an Arctic Nation but for Alaska
1:59:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his belief that the state invested
significantly in its ports and harbors. He suggested that ports
and harbors could be evaluated per capita, split between
industrial, commercial, and sport uses. He asked whether he
genuinely believed that Alaska's ports and harbors deserved such
a low score.
R. UCHYTIL responded that he believed the grade was accurate. He
pointed out that this grade evaluated ports and harbors in 2017
but the state has made improvements since then. The state was
struggling to develop a deep-water port at the time, and the
Port of Anchorage had issues. He said he believes the Alaska
Report Card grade for ports and harbors will improve in the next
evaluation.
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that other metrics could be
considered, including population. He said he would not consider
Alaska's ports and harbors to have such a low score. He pointed
out that the Arctic Deep Water port was a new concept. He stated
that the state continues to secure the matching grants. He said
he does not believe Alaska deserves this grade. He did not think
the rating should be based on a wish list but it should be a
rating on the resources available, what the state can provide,
rather than being based on the future.
2:02:35 PM
CHAIR MYERS asked for the average grade for ports and harbors in
the Lower 48.
MR. UCHYTIL answered that ASCE just released its latest report
card. The overall score for the U.S. was a "B" for ports and
harbors.
MR. UCHYTL turned to slide 4 and discussed ports and harbors
factoids. He stated that Alaska has about 50 small boat ports
and harbors, including lodge ramps and remote harbors. In
comparison, the Lower 48 has more than 10,000 harbors and
marinas.
MR. UCHYTIL discussed the proposed Arctic deep draft port in
Nome on slide 5. Joy Baker will speak to this more specifically.
He emphasized the importance of a deep draft port by pointing
out that the distance between Nome and Los Angeles is the same
distance between Nome and Tromso, Norway.
2:04:38 PM
MR. UCHYTIL reviewed the issue created by the Panamax versus the
Neo-Panamax ships. He stated that there is a need to invest in
Southeast Alaska cruise ship docks to accommodate the larger
vessels. The Panama Canal expansion in 2016 has been significant
for cruise lines due to the economies of scale to operate cruise
ships. Prior to 2016, Alaska did not have full capacity for Neo-
Panamax vessels. The two docks shown on slide 6 could
accommodate a 965-foot vessel and an 800-foot vessel. Currently,
the Port of Juneau can handle the Neo-Panamax cruise ships.
2:05:28 PM
MR. UCHYTIL turned to slide 7. He stated that tourism is a
regional market. Not only did Juneau expand its docks but new
private docks were built in Hoonah, Ward Cove and Ketchikan.
2:06:08 PM
MR. UCHYTIL discussed the Alaska DOTPF Harbor Facility Grant
Program on slide 8. He said the program was established in 2006.
It has only been fully funded twice since its inception. Port
directors and harbormasters need certainty in funding.
2:06:32 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether a local match was available so if
the Harbor Facility Grant Program were fully funded, work could
commence.
MR. UCHYTIL answered that the program requires municipalities to
provide proof of local match before applying for small boat
harbor project grants.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified his question was whether communities
have shovel-ready projects if the program were fully funded.
MR. UCHYTIL answered yes. For example, if grant funding were not
available in Juneau, the City and Borough of Juneau would move
forward on construction using 50 percent of its 50 percent
match.
2:08:18 PM
MR. UCHYTIL referred to Alaska Port & Harbors Grant Funding Win
on slide 9, which listed projects:
Emmonak Dock (2018) $23.1M (BUILD)
Port of Alaska (2019) $25M (BUILD)
Port of Alaska (2020) $20M (PIDP)
Port of Seward (2020) $20M (PIDP)
He said the availability of grant funding has improved.
MR. UCHYTIL reviewed the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) 2021 Ports & Harbors Grade: TBD, noting that the trend is
moving in the right direction. Slide 10 read:
• Congress authorization to designate Nome as Deep
Draft Arctic Port was more than a decade in the
making
• Port of Alaska - Port Modernization Project is
underway
• Private Investment for Cruise Ship Docks has built
capacity for tourism economy
• Small Boat Harbor matching ADOT Grant remains
unfunded and uncertain
2:10:04 PM
STEVE RIBUFFO, Port Director, Port of Alaska, Municipality of
Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, turned to slide 2. He stated that
90 percent of the freight that comes to Alaska comes by water
and half arrives in Anchorage. About 50 percent of the freight
remains in Anchorage and the rest is distributed to destinations
via the road and rail system. He reported that the port stayed
open during the pandemic. In fact, the port had a record year,
moving 4.7 million tons of fuel and cargo in 2020. He stated
that this increase was largely due to jet fuel and refined
petroleum products. The port also experienced a record year of
$14.3 billion in revenue in 2020 compared to $12.7 billion in
2019.
2:11:39 PM
MR. RIBUFFO referred to slide 3, which illustrated the port as a
statewide cargo transport hub. The Anchorage port provides a
connection point to the Glenn Highway and the Seward Highway. It
lies three-fourths of a mile from the main railyard for the
Alaska Railroad and five miles from the Ted Stevens
International Airport (AIA). He stated that the North Star
Stevedore Terminal and the Alaska Marine Lines Terminal is less
than four minutes by truck. He related that a significant amount
of the freight offloaded from cargo ships is destined for
Western Alaska via barges. The value added as a port relates to
the relative closeness to the transportation system to get goods
to consumers, he said. The Alaska Port at Anchorage provides a
nexus between Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) and the
Marathon Nikiski Refinery.
2:12:53 PM
MR. RIBUFFO discussed the port's three functions on slide 4:
commerce, national defense and disaster resiliency and response.
The port is one of 17 commercial strategic seaports, providing
support to the U.S. Army in Alaska. He said 20 percent of the
cargo supports military missions or is sold at the exchanges,
commissaries, and gas stations. He highlighted that every state
or federal disaster response plan relies on the port. The port
is actively involved in disaster planning regularly, he said.
2:14:22 PM
MR. RIBUFFO reviewed the Port of Alaska Modernization Program
(PAMP) points shown on slide 5:
• Replace aging docks and related infrastructure
• Improve operational safety and efficiency
• Accommodate modern shipping operations
• Improve resiliency to survive extreme seismic
events and Cook Inlet's harsh marine environment
MR. RIBUFFO stated that the Port of Alaska had just turned 60
years old. The port suffers from a significant corrosion
problem. The best solution is to demolish and rebuild a
resilient facility completely.
2:15:12 PM
MR. RIBUFFO stated that the project's first phase is the
Petroleum and Cement terminal. Landside construction began in
2017. In 2020, underwater construction of the trestle and
platform occurred, as shown on slides 6-7.
MR. RIBUFFO turned to slide 8, a video clip depicting the
construction project. He identified the contractor as Pacific
Pile and Marine. He described the work necessary to turn the
platform into a working dock, including installing mooring
dolphins and catwalks, connecting hoses to a cement
infrastructure for offloading cement that will tie into the
existing petroleum plumbing through the valve yard to the 3.1
million barrels of petroleum storage at the port. He estimated
that the petroleum and cement terminal construction would be
finished by late November 2021. He anticipated that a ribbon-
cutting ceremony would be held in December 2021.
2:16:55 PM
MR. RIBUFFO described the North Extension Stabilization Project
shown on slide 10. He stated that the Municipality of Anchorage
submitted a request to CAPSIS for $136 million, of which $121
million would be for Phase 1 of the project and $15 million
would cover onshore facilities replacement. This was the only
project submitted. He directed attention to the foreground,
which showed the failed expansion project. Unfortunately, that
project was declared unstable and must be removed. The port is
currently in litigation with the Federal Maritime Administration
(FMA) but it hopes to prevail sometime in the early fall. He
characterized the project as "shovel ready."
2:18:05 PM
MR. RIBUFFO turned to slide 10. He discussed the $121 million in
2022 construction, including that the first portion of the north
end must be removed before construction. Once construction
begins, the port will need room to maneuver vessels safely to
the main dock since it will be operational during construction.
Otherwise, it would be difficult for Matson and TOTE Maritime to
maneuver its sizeable vessels. In fact, it would be dangerous to
do so, especially during winter storms and winds. He hoped that
funding for the dock removal would come from the settlement with
FMA; if not, the port will need to borrow financing because the
project must be built.
2:19:33 PM
MS. LORD noted that Brian Hawkins, the Homer Harbormaster, may
not testify today.
2:20:00 PM
JOY BAKER, Port Director, Port of Nome, City of Nome, Nome,
Alaska, reviewed a graphic on slide 2 showing the extent of
vessel movement in the Bering Strait during the ice-free season,
despite the remoteness of the area. The table on slide 12 showed
the number of northbound and southbound vessels from 2009-2020.
She pointed out the increase in traffic was 110 percent during
this 12-year period.
2:21:36 PM
MS. BAKER stated that the Port of Nome serves as a critical
refuel and resupply point for vessels traveling to and from the
Northwest Passage. This has placed additional demand on the
three ports shown on slide 3, Ship Resupply.
2:22:14 PM
MS. BAKER discussed commodity movement on slide 4. She reported
that cargo and fuel are their primary commodities. Still, the
port continues to see an overwhelming growth in exporting rock,
gravel, and sand materials for construction projects throughout
the region. She directed attention to the green bars on the bar
graph, which show gravel tonnage. She said she anticipated that
in 2021, the port would export more material than in 2020. The
area experienced low construction in the region for several
years, but ample local construction projects are happening.
2:23:35 PM
MS. BAKER turned to recent port improvements on slide 5.
Although she won't cover the individual projects listed, members
may wish to review them. She stated that this shows port
improvement projects in active and planning status. Just as
other port directors indicated today, Nome has numerous
infrastructure gaps. As the vessel traffic continues to grow,
the Port of Nome lags. The city has worked to get projects to
shovel-ready status, then apply for federal grants. She said the
city understands it must provide match funds for projects.
2:24:47 PM
MS. BAKER turned to slide 6, which shows the dredge area for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This feasibility study
will expand and deepen the federal dredge limits to mitigate
significant vessel congestion in Nome's small boat harbor. She
said smaller vessels would moor upriver to allow cargo gravel
and fuel vessels to operate safely in the harbor and move their
products more efficiently.
MS. BAKER pointed out the Snake River Development funding phase
as a smaller side project shown on slide 7. She stated that this
schematic shows the conceptual layout of the moorage system and
shoreside development, which would separate the smaller vessel
traffic from the larger ones.
MS. BAKER advanced to slide 8, Port Waste Reception Facility at
Nome. She said this would be the first port waste reception
facility in the Arctic. She related that significant concern
exists about oil spills, discharges, and bilge water. The City
of Nome hopes to develop the project in the next two or three
years.
2:27:01 PM
MS. BAKER reviewed the port expansion design phase on slide 9,
which she said was also known as the Arctic Deep-Draft Port. She
stated that the 116th Congress authorized the design and
construction last December. The City of Nome is in the process
of signing a design agreement with the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), so the design would likely begin in a couple
of weeks. It appears that the USACE is considering a phased
approach to extend the existing causeway on the west side first.
Next, dredging would occur in phase 2, followed by relocating
the east breakwater as a causeway in phase 3. She said she hopes
the concept design will be available by the end of the year.
This project would provide five additional docks to add to the
three current docks at the Port of Nome.
2:28:31 PM
MS. BAKER emphasized the targeted benefits of the deep-draft
port at Nome on slide 10, including enhancing national security
and life safety, environmental safety, economic and cultural
sustainability, research, and tourism. The photo insert shows
tracking for the LNG tankers that came through unescorted in
January 2021. It could have turned out very differently, she
said. The Port of Nome needs to be prepared, so it is doing
what it can to develop and grow its infrastructure.
MS. BAKER acknowledged that the ports and harbors in Alaska all
have significant needs. She said everyone needs to do their part
to help raise the ASCE Report Card score.
2:30:15 PM
MS. BAKER turned to slide 11, which depicted a cartoon drawing
showing the proposed expansion.
2:30:33 PM
At ease
2:31:30 PM
CHAIR MYERS reconvened the meeting.
2:31:42 PM
PEGGY MCLAUGHLIN, Port Director, Port of Dutch Harbor, City of
Unalaska, Dutch Harbor, Alaska, stated that she also serves as
the Vice President of the Alaska Association of Harbormasters
and Port Administrators (AAHPA). She began a PowerPoint to
identify port projects, emphasize the need for infrastructure,
and demonstrate how interconnectivity bolsters commerce
throughout Alaska. Slide 1 showed a photo of the Unalaska Marine
Center. She highlighted the Port of Dutch Harbor's three major
projects for rehabilitation: Unalaska Marine Center's $40
million expansion program, dredging the Iliuliuk entrance
channel and upgrades to the Robert Storrs Harbor.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN described the importance of Dutch Harbor. First,
the international port of Dutch Harbor is the westernmost
container terminal in the U.S. Second, Dutch Harbor is the only
international container terminal in the state. Two international
ships sail to Dutch Harbor on a weekly basis and a third company
ships international containers on a seasonal basis. Third, Dutch
Harbor is a year-round, ice-free port. It is the southernmost
port in the Arctic, sitting on the great circle route. Finally,
Dutch Harbor is the largest fishing port in the nation.
2:33:52 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN turned to an illustration of the Robert Storrs
Harbor on slide 2. Since USACE is picking up the Iliuliuk
Entrance Channel dredging project, the Robert Storrs Harbor is a
priority for the community. She said the harbor is a state-owned
facility and was transferred to the city for $1 and towed to its
current location. However, the 40-year-old harbor has failing
electrical and water systems so it costs more to repair than to
replace. This project would double the harbor capacity and
accommodate the vessels on the waiting list. It would strengthen
the system to handle winds, replace the electrical system and
provide year-round water, fire suppression and access for the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This harbor serves the
60-foot and under class of vessels and is the home harbor for
the state's fishery vessels.
2:35:51 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN reviewed the Unalaska and Dutch Harbor statistics
on slide 3, which compared the Dutch Harbor port to the Unalaska
Marine Center. She reported that nearly 60,000 containers cross
the Unalaska Marine Center municipally owned port facility. She
highlighted Dutch Harbor transfers over 2.6 billion pounds of
cargo annually, over 60 million gallons of fuel and the
community receives 120,000 to 125,000 40-foot containers.
2:38:42 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN turned to slide 4, which showed the Aleutians
Domestic Shipping Routes. She emphasized that nothing happens in
a vacuum in the shipping world. This slide illustrates the
shipping routes from Tacoma to Anchorage and Kodiak. Anchorage
moves cargo from its port to the rail and Railbelt system.
Kodiak serves its outlying communities with barge service.
Unalaska serves Akutan, St. Paul, Sand Point and King Cove. She
characterized this as being a hub system so if something were to
happen, it would impact everyone in the system. For example, if
processors can't obtain supplies, they can't process their fish.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN reviewed the Fuel Routes on slide 5. The blue
line represents the Great Circle Route, which provides the most
direct route from the Western US to Asia. The fuel distribution
and barges follow that line, she said. While not every vessel
stops in Dutch Harbor, every vessel passes through it. Dutch
Harbor provides a fuel storage hub for places north that are
iced over and supplies fuel to some of the local island areas.
She said Dutch Harbor currently transfers fuel to vessels while
they are on the water.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
performed a cost-benefit analysis and determined it was
economically beneficial to dredge to 60-foot depth to better
serve fuel tankers. In addition, the dredging is important
because container ships are not getting smaller. She reported
that the D7 class vessels that serve Anchorage and Dutch Harbor
are almost 35 years old.
2:41:16 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN highlighted the Great Circle Route Traffic on
slide 6, which captured a one-day snapshot of vessel traffic.
She stated that the green triangles on the slide represented the
bigger ships, such as tankers and container ships. She said
about 4,500 of these larger vessels pass through Dutch Harbor
each year. She directed attention to numerous triangles along
the coastline, busy with vessel traffic. Thus, coastal ports
need infrastructure to service fuel and cargo. She reiterated
that what happens in one port affects the other ports because of
their interconnectivity.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN discussed slide 7, "Three-month Vessel Traffic to
Dutch Harbor." She explained that this slide depicts lines that
provide a visual sense of the Dutch Harbor's vessel traffic that
serves Dutch Harbor, King Cove, False Pass, Sand Point and
Kodiak ports. First, these vessels purchase supplies and fuel,
deliver fish and cargo, and need moorage. Finally, their crews
fly out on planes, which means more fuel sales and transfers in
the communities. The City of Unalaska and AAHPA strive to
promote maritime aspects because it supports other ports and
harbors, providing jobs, revenue, and commerce throughout
Alaska.
2:44:24 PM
MS. MCLAUGHLIN turned to last slide, Aleutians: Marine
Transportation Capital Projects, which listed the funding for
the three Dutch Harbor/Unalaska projects:
• USACE: ILIULIUK ENTRANCE CHANNEL DREDGING $40 million
• Robert Storrs Harbor $9 million
• Unalaska Cruise ship terminal $13 million.
2:45:12 PM
CHAIR MYERS advised members that this ended the formal slide
presentations but two additional presenters were online.
2:45:46 PM
SHAWN BELL, Harbormaster, Haines Borough; Member, Board of
Directors, Alaska Association of Harbormasters & Port
Administrators (AAHPA), Haines, Alaska, stated he has fond
memories of his family's setnet site at Clam Gulch on the Kenai
Peninsula and of commercial fishing in Cook Inlet and Bristol
Bay. He said Alaska's waterfront infrastructure is essential
because fishing fleets depend on them to safeguard their
vessels, businesses rely on ports to deliver necessary goods and
community members enjoy these facilities for the quality of life
they bring. In touring some of Alaska's ports and harbors, he
has witnessed the success stories of well-planned and executed
projects as well as the struggles of underfunded and failing
facilities due to impacts from the harsh Alaska environment over
time. Although this PowerPoint will report on the conditions and
needs of Haines's ports and harbors, these issues are not unique
to Haines but are shared by most small communities in Southeast
Alaska.
2:47:53 PM
MR. BELL Haines presented a PowerPoint update of the Haines
ports and harbors. He explained that Haines inherited its ports
and harbor facilities from the state and federal government.
MR. BELL reviewed the Lutak Dock Cargo Port history on slides 1-
2. The Haines Lutak Dock was built in 1953 by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Ownership is split between AMHS and
the Haines Borough, he said. After the state transferred
ownership of the dock to the Haines Borough, the community and
the state benefited from imports and exports of fuel, timber,
and cargo. Since Haines is connected to the road system, the
Haines harbor and port facilities also benefit many other
communities, he said.
MR. BELL turned to slide 3. The photographs show the structural
condition of the Lutak Dock, which is failing due to its age and
the engineering practices used during construction. He cited the
structural assessment by PND Engineers, Inc., which indicated
that the structure has reached the end of its 60-year service
life and further utilization is effectively on borrowed time.
This assessment was given seven years ago, he said. Alaska's
cargo ports are important to Alaska to encourage growth and
foster private industry investment. He expressed concern that
private industry will not invest in the Haines community if it
cannot rely on safe and functional port and harbor facilities.
MR. BELL reviewed the Haines Small Boat Harbor on slide 4. He
stated that the harbors in Haines were also transferred to the
Haines Borough from the state. In 2008, using the Municipal
Harbor Grant Program funding, the Haines Borough replaced the
Haines small boat harbor's concrete floats. With further
assistance from the state, Haines has made progress towards a
much overdue harbor expansion. The project planning began 30
years ago, he said.
2:50:23 PM
MR. BELL reviewed photographs on slide 5 that illustrated the
2017 construction project to extend the harbor breakwater and
dredge out a new basin and provide for additional upland. The
picture shows an open basin since the work is not yet completed.
He turned to slide 6, to a cartoon image showing what the
finished project would look like. The Haines Borough has
stretched its funding to the limit for this project. However,
Haines still lacks funding for the drive-down work float to
support the fishing fleet and the new moorage floats for the
expanded harbor basin. Although this project will be an economic
driver for Haines, its benefits will ripple through the state.
MR. BELL concluded the presentation by stating that he described
two facilities critical to Haines and ultimately to the state.
However, many small coastal communities received critical
waterfront infrastructure that is old and inadequate. These
communities have partnered with the state and federal government
and local industry to keep them functional. These small
communities cannot support the multimillion-dollar projects to
remedy the infrastructure. Since Alaska is a maritime state, it
must invest in coastal infrastructure to thrive as a state.
These projects will not only benefit local residents but the
entire state, he said.
2:52:53 PM
MARK HILSON, Acting Port & Harbors Director, Ketchikan Port and
Harbor, Ketchikan, Alaska, began the presentation by stating
that rather than focusing on Ketchikan's infrastructure, he
would address the financial implications to the Port of
Ketchikan due to the pandemic.
2:53:54 PM
MR. HILSON stated that slide 1 showed the four berth docks that
parallel the downtown core. He noted that the Port of Ketchikan
is a deep-water port capable of accommodating 1.2 million cruise
ship passengers each year. He expressed concern that the port
has a limited ability to accept Panamax vessels but the industry
is transitioning to these larger vessels. Alaska has a network
of ports that work in concert to provide attractive cruise ship
itineraries. Due to Ketchikan's location, it is usually the
first or last stop for cruise ships. Although the port
infrastructure is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars,
it was unused in 2020 and may not be used during 2021.
MR. HILSON turned to Ketchikan Harbors shown in photographs on
slide 2. Four of its five harbors were transferred from the
state to the City of Ketchikan, he said. The city float was
constructed by the city but the rest of the harbors were
constructed by the state or territory prior to statehood. All
its harbors, except for Bar Harbor were rebuilt. Since Ketchikan
is on an island, these harbors provide necessary infrastructure
to accommodate Alaskan residents with their water transportation
needs. Further, the harbor offers mooring for yachts, he said.
2:56:11 PM
MR. HILSON reviewed the "Current Situation" on slide 3, which
read:
• Port Fund
• Began 2020 with a $10.8M reserve but now in danger
of insolvency due to loss of 2020 and 2021 Cruise
Seasons ($21.3M)
• Absent an infusion of funds from other sources, the
City will have to transfer other City controlled
funds in order to keep the Port Fund solvent.
• Harbor Fund
• The Harbor Fund has suffered losses due to a lack of
seasonal moorage revenue due to the effects of the
pandemic.
•
2:56:13 PM
MR. HILSON said the main economic driver for the community is
sidelined. Thus, Ketchikan has been disproportionately affected
by the pandemic. He reported that the Port Fund will be
insolvent by the end of 2021. He stated that the Port Fund would
need an infusion of $3.2 million to remain solvent. The Harbor
Fund finances are closely tied to the port since they share
expenses.
MR. HILSON, in response to Senator Micciche's earlier question
to Mr. Uchytil, stated that the City of Ketchikan was not in any
position to match a 50-percent Municipal Harbor Facility Grant.
He suggested that it was not likely to do so in the near future.
He displayed a bar chart on slide 4 showing the Port Fund
revenues from 2016 to 2021. Port revenues were $10 million in
2019 but dropped to virtually nothing in 2020 and will likely be
nothing in 2021.
2:57:40 PM
MR. HILSON turned to slide 5, "How to Finance Needs?" He
paraphrased slide 5, which read:
• Given the existing fiscal constraints on the Port
Enterprise Fund, loss of passengers to Ward Cove,
disruption of the local economy and the City's current
debt load, conventional financing to undertake further
improvements to the Port may be unlikely for the near
term.
• Even if conventional financing were available, voter
approval of additional debt is highly questionable
2:57:43 PM
MR. HILSON stated that the City of Ketchikan used conventional
financing to redo one berth. However, conventional financing
will not be an option. He offered his belief that the Ward Cove
development was good overall but it would likely cause some
headwinds for Ketchikan.
MR. HILSON paraphrased the "Immediate Needs" on slide 6, which
read:
• Port Debt Service, Lease Payments, and Operations.
• Port Projects
• Berth III Mooring Dolphins and Bollards ($5M)
(Shovel Ready) Berth I and II Corrosion
Maintenance and Cathodic Protection ($15M)
• Harbor Projects
• Bar Harbor Concrete Float Replacements ($7.5M)
MR. HILSON said with little incoming revenue it is virtually
impossible for the City of Ketchikan to continue with its port
and harbor projects, several of which are shovel ready. For
example, the City of Ketchikan would like to expand one of its
existing berths to accommodate the Neo-Panamax vessels that the
industry is rapidly moving towards.
2:59:24 PM
MR. HILSON reviewed the bullet points on slide 3 "More Rough
Seas Ahead" that read as follows:
• With no cruise ships in 2020 and 2021, Ketchikan
anticipates losing approximately $33M in revenue overall.
• Fixed costs (P&H operations, Berth III Debt Service,
Berth IV Lease Obligations) will continue to drain the
Port Fund.
• The longer maintenance is deferred, the more expensive
it will become.
• Port Fund revenue recovery will be slower since the
City is now in a competitive environment with the new
berths at Ward Cove. The McDowell Group estimates that
Ward Cove will reduce City revenues by 20%.
• Lingering Pandemic effects for 2022 cruise season.
3:00:13 PM
MR. HILSON concluded the presentation with a quote by Mayor
Robert Sivertsen to Governor Dunleavy on March 12, 2021, shown
on slide 8, which read as follows:
The City of Ketchikan's financial future is uncertain
and we look to the State of Alaska as our last option
to stabilize what has become a financial tailspin for
us and all tourism communities that rely on cruise
passenger visitation. The City of Ketchikan asks your
office to prioritize the financial effects the
pandemic has waged on Alaska's cruise port communities
when the State considers how to best direct its
portion of American Rescue Plan relief funds.
3:00:58 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged that Ketchikan was in a rough
place due to the lack of revenue. He suggested that he would
contact some of the presenters, including Mr. Bell, Mr. Uchytil,
Ms. Lord and Mr. Hawkins, about the Municipal Harbor Facilities
Grant funding. He welcomed members to join him, perhaps by
teleconference, so applicants could provide more detail to
understand the priorities better. He estimated the applications
totaled $23 million. He surmised the grant requests required a
50 percent match.
3:03:07 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Myers adjourned the Senate Transportation Standing
Committee meeting at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AK Assoc Harbormasters & Port Adminstrators.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Municipal League Ports and Harbors.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Nome Arctic Deep Draft Port.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Port of Alaska - Anchorage.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Port of Homer.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Unalaska - Port of Dutch Harbor.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| ASCE Ports and Harbors Report Card.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Port of Ketchikan.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Haines Harbor.pdf |
STRA 4/27/2021 1:30:00 PM |