ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE  March 9, 2017 1:37 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Louise Stutes, Co-Chair Representative Adam Wool, Co-Chair Representative Matt Claman Representative Harriet Drummond Representative Chuck Kopp Representative Mark Neuman Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard Representative David Eastman (alternate) MEMBERS ABSENT  Representative Gabrielle LeDoux (alternate) COMMITTEE CALENDAR  HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Urging the governor to join the legislature in opposing the selection of the G South Alternative for the Sterling Highway Milepost 45-60 Project and supporting the selection of the Juneau Creek Alternative; urging the governor to request that the United States Secretary of the Interior initiate a land exchange under the Russian River Land Act; and urging the governor to request that the commissioner of transportation and public facilities and the Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration reevaluate the selection of the G South Alternative. - MOVED HCR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HCR 7 SHORT TITLE: COOPER LANDING BYPASS SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT 02/27/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/27/17 (H) TRA 03/09/17 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM BARNES 124 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HCR 7. DAVE KEMP, Regional Director Central Region Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HCR 7. RICKY GEASE, Executive Director Kenai River Sport Fishing Association Kenai, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 7. AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director Alaska Trucking Association (ATA) Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 7. JIM AMUNDSEN, Highway Design Chief Central Region Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) POSITION STATEMENT: Provided answers to question during the hearing on HCR 7. ACTION NARRATIVE 1:37:44 PM CO-CHAIR ADAM WOOL called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. Representatives Wool, Kopp, Claman, Eastman (alternate), Drummond, Sullivan-Leonard, Neuman, and Stutes were present at the call to order. HCR 7-COOPER LANDING BYPASS  1:38:14 PM CO-CHAIR WOOL announced that the only order of business would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Urging the governor to join the legislature in opposing the selection of the G South Alternative for the Sterling Highway Milepost 45-60 Project and supporting the selection of the Juneau Creek Alternative; urging the governor to request that the United States Secretary of the Interior initiate a land exchange under the Russian River Land Act; and urging the governor to request that the commissioner of transportation and public facilities and the Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration reevaluate the selection of the G South Alternative. 1:38:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented HCR 7. He explained that HCR 7 deals with the Cooper Landing Bypass. He said that the proposed concurrent resolution has three main objectives. The first objective would be to urge the governor to oppose the selection of the G South Alternative of the Sterling Highway, milepost 45-60, otherwise known as the Cooper Landing Bypass, and instead to support the Juneau Creek alternate. He said that HCR 7 would also urge the governor to request that the United States Secretary of Interior initiate a land exchange under the Russian River Land Act. He said the final objective for HCR 7 would be to urge the governor to request that the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and the division administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to reevaluate the selection of the G South Alternative. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT explained that the Cooper Landing Bypass has been under consideration by DOT&PF and FHWA for decades. He offered his belief that the Cooper Landing Bypass project, at one point, and perhaps still, held the longest running environmental impact statement (EIS) in the nation. He said that in April and May 2015 "the draft EIS and the draft ... Section 4(f) evaluation" were released for public review. He reported that on December 11, 2015, DOT&PF and FHWA announced that the G South Alternative was the preferred route. He noted that the final EIS and record of decision are both expected to be released this year. He said that although both DOT&PF and FHWA recognize the importance of the protection of the Kenai River corridor, the draft 4(f) evaluation did not adequately consider the negative impacts on fish habitats or the long-term environmental threats to fish and wildlife, nor did it consider the degradation of irreplaceable cultural resources of Alaska Native heritage. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said that the G South Alternative would also require an additional crossing of the Kenai River than the Juneau Creek Alternative and the replacement of an existing bridge. He pointed out that the Juneau Creek Alternative would bypass all crossings of the Kenai River. He said that a substantial portion of the G South Alternative would be built along the existing alignment adjacent to the Kenai River - 45 percent of which is located within 500 feet from the river or is a tier one stream. He noted that the Juneau Creek Alternative only has 25 percent located within 25 feet of the river or along a tier one stream. He reported that the Juneau Creek Alternative is estimated to cost about $50 million less than the G South Alternative. He said that only a small portion of the congressionally designated Mystery Creek unit, within the Kenai Wildlife Refuge, would be affected by the Juneau Creek Alternative. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said that the United States Secretary of Interior has congressional approval to initiate and conduct a land exchange with Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI). He added that the land exchange could include portions of the Mystery Creek unit. He urged the committee to remember that the long- term protection of the Kenai River and the opportunity to prevent major chemical spills and significantly decrease traffic adjacent to the Kenai River need to take priority in selection. He declared that HCR 7 is supported by the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and both the City of Kenai and City of Soldotna. He said that there are individuals available online for questions from the Kenai Peninsula Borough and DOT&PF. 1:43:35 PM CO-CHAIR STUTES opined that the decision seems like a "no brainer." She shared her curiosity in wanting to know why the G South Alternative was chosen. She surmised that the G South Alternative not only appears to be more costly but also seems it would have more impacts to the river beds. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT deferred to the department. 1:44:49 PM DAVE KEMP, Regional Director, Central Region, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that currently the department has Juneau Creek listed as the preferred alternative. He reported that there would be a record of decision sometime in the next six to nine months. He said that once the record of decision is completed the processes of environmental permitting, then design, then right-of-way acquisition, then construction could begin. He said that during each of those transitions there is a requirement that the department reevaluate the criteria that went into the selection. He said, for instance, that a land trade or one of the 4(f)s could change, which would mean the department would need to reevaluate the selection. He noted that if another change occurred between those points, then the department would be allowed to go back and look at the impacts that may change the selected alternative. 1:46:32 PM CO-CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. Kemp why there has been such a delay with the Cooper Landing Bypass project. MR. KEMP confirmed a previous comment made by the concurrent resolution sponsor that the Cooper Landing Bypass project does hold the longest running EIS in the nation. He explained that the Cooper Landing area is geologically very complex. He added that there is an array of historic sites in the area as well as 4(f) sites. He declared that the Cooper Landing Bypass project has more complexities than any other project the FHWA has ever seen. He said that there are not only a lot of resources being looked at on the project but there are also a lot of competing interests from a wide array of people. CO-CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. Kemp when the EIS began. MR. KEMP offered his belief the EIS began in the 1970s. CO-CHAIR STUTES said that although she understands complex, she is having a hard time understanding 50 years of complexity for this project. She surmised that aside from the fact the borough doesn't want the project to be developed, the project - for lack of a better term - seems to be a "dog and pony show" in Kenai. MR. KEMP explained that part of the complexity is caused by the vast number of different land owners involved. He added that there is an array of state and federal agencies included in trying to navigate the complex corridor of highway. He claimed that his department loves to build things and would love to build which ever alternative for the project, but he reiterated that there have been a lot of complexities. CO-CHAIR STUTES scoffed at the project taking over 50 years. She pointed out that a person could have retired twice in 50 years. 1:50:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the land exchange with CIRI would need to occur before the Juneau Creek Alternative could be implemented. MR. KEMP recognized that although the discussion has been ongoing for many years, neither DOT&PF nor FHWA can get involved in the discussion because it would compromise the process. He said that the head of the FHWA for Alaska was asked whether the Juneau Creek Alternative would be the choice if the department got involved in the discussion. He reported that the Alaska FHWA director made it really clear that FHWA would never predict what a result would be based on the action another party could take. He offered his best understanding that the answer to Representative Claman's question would be no, because a land trade cannot be used as a predecessor or guarantee that a selected alternative would be picked. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified his question by asking whether the Juneau Creek Alternative would be "off the table" if the land trade doesn't come to fruition. He offered his concern that CIRI might not grant the permission needed to develop through private land holdings unless the land trade takes place. MR. KEMP offered his understanding that without that particular land trade, the Juneau Creek Alternative would be a much more difficult option. He opined that the land trade would be a positive asset for the Juneau Creek Alternative. He said that he would follow FHWA's lead and not predict what would or would not occur based on a land exchange. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether - since it has not occurred yet - the alternative could be built without the land trade. MR. KEMP answered that it could be built if that was a selected alternative. 1:53:14 PM CO-CHAIR WOOL opened public testimony. 1:53:29 PM RICKY GEASE, Executive Director, Kenai River Sport Fishing Association, reported that a 15-day meeting recently took place involving commercial, sport, and personal use fisherman. He reported that meeting attendees worked through complex regulations with the Board of Fisheries. He noted that although there was little agreement throughout the 15 days of meetings, opposition to the G South Alternative was the one thing upon which attendees could all agree. He opined that through all the complexities and over 50 years, the G South Alternative is a solution no one wants. He declared that the Kenai River is the cultural, recreational, and economic lifeblood of the Kenai Peninsula and that the G South Alternative would provide less protection to the Kenai River than the Juneau Creek Alternative. He offered his understanding that the G South Alternative would not be held to the same standards as the Juneau Creek Alternative and would offer less protection to the people of the area. He surmised that the bypass proposed in the Juneau Creek Alternative would create less havoc for the Kenai Peninsula than the tearing up of the Copper Landing Highway that would be required under the G South Alternative. He pointed out that the G South Alternative would be $50 million dollars more expensive than the Juneau Creek alternative. He opined that with the current federal budget deficit, that amount is not "a rounding error." He shared that it is the belief of the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association that the land exchange discussion would be initiated by the new United States Department of the Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, and CIRI board of directors. He said that his organization urges DOT&PF to look at the Juneau Creek Alternative. 1:55:35 PM AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association (ATA), explained that ATA has over 200 members and is a company trade association that represents the interests of the trucking industry in Alaska. He emphasized that the Sterling Highway is the only land freight corridor to the Peninsula communities. He added that the Sterling Highway supports freight movement for commercial activities such as: fishing, oil and gas production, construction, refinery operations, and the consumer goods needed for all peninsula residents. He noted that the Kenai Peninsula is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. He said that ATA is opposed to the G South Alternative because it would keep the highway too close to the Kenai River. He shared that ATA has two major safety concerns with the G South Alternative. The first safety concern is because there are thousands of tourists in the Cooper Landing area every day during the summer who are not necessarily watching for truck traffic. He surmised that the potential conflict of mixing commercial vehicles and tourists could be avoided by choosing the Juneau Creek Alternative. He shared that ATA's second safety concern is in regard to the hazardous material that is regularly transported along the Sterling Highway. He opined that the effects of a potential environmental incident could be greatly lessened by choosing the Juneau Creek Alternative, which would move the highway away from the Kenai River. 1:57:40 PM CO-CHAIR WOOL, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HCR 7. 1:57:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how long a delay there would be to the project if the alternative changed. He inquired whether or not there are any time constraints on the project. He asked if decisions could still be made without affecting the completion date of the project. MR. KEMP explained that because of the size and complexity of the project, the plan has always been to complete it in phases. He said that one end of the project could be completed and then the other end. He pointed out that neither of those ends would affect whether or not the G South Alternative or the Juneau Creek Alternative were chosen. He estimated that it would take about four years to complete both ends. He noted that the final alternative wouldn't be "set in concrete" until both ends were completed. He said that the department would be four years out on making a final decision and then could start working on the right-of-way acquisition, actual design, and construction. He concluded that changing the alternative would not slow down the project. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired whether federal highway centerline projects have to receive full funding before construction could start. MR. KEMP pointed out that he spoke with representatives from FHWA about the Cooper Landing Bypass project yesterday. He reported that legitimate concerns about the preferred alternative were raised. He shared his belief that completing the project in portions would not be an issue for funding. He mentioned that there were plans fifteen years ago that had funding for a much larger portion of the road. He said for that project other sections of the road ended up being completed ten years ago and a decision was made to leave the Cooper Landing Bypass section until now. He opined that this section has parts on both ends that irrespective of which of the alternatives - Juneau Creek or G South Alternative - were chosen, would not make a difference, because they would be the same. He noted that the project completion date would be about four years out if the project started operations within the next year. 2:01:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for an update, in regard to funding, on where the state is with the project. He offered his understanding that the project was to be completed in four phases. He asked whether the state has approved funding for all four phases for the total project or if funding has only been allocated for just two. MR. KEMP deferred to Mr. Amundsen. 2:01:51 PM JIM AMUNDSEN, Highway Design Chief, Central Region, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), said the portions of the project that fall within the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are funded within that program. He explained that most portions are in what is referred to as "the out years," beyond the current three years of the STIP that is actively being worked; the funding has been identified and is being tracked in the out years but has not been specifically obligated yet. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that the first and last sections may have approved funding but the middle section does not. MR. AMUNDSEN corrected Representative Neuman by explaining that what is currently allocated is the funding for starting the design. He added that it is the only piece that falls within the next two years of the active STIP. He said that the following three years after that is when the department would be picking up the construction for the first two phases. He said that the follow on phase that Director Kemp previously mentioned is the part in contention and is four years out. He clarified that the design phase for that is in the out years of four to six years. He explained that the actual construction would be beyond the current six years of the STIP and is carried as an identified need for the out years beyond the six-year STIP. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that funding has already been allocated to a couple sections. He asked Mr. Amundsen whether or not he anticipates the approval of funding for the middle section no matter which alternative is chosen. He shared that he is curious how that additionally available $50 million could affect other projects on the STIP. MR. AMUNDSEN said Representative Neuman is correct that $50 million would have to be balanced either way. He said that the department is carrying the larger of the numbers going forward, so funds have currently been accounted. 2:04:23 PM CO-CHAIR STUTES asked for clarification that the two ends of the road are going to be the same regardless of which alternative is chosen. MR. KEMP answered that is correct. CO-CHAIR STUTES offered her understanding that the two ends of the road have been worked on for 50 years. She asked whether there were any certain areas of the road that were more troublesome than others. She wondered why it has not at least been started. MR. KEMP explained that the two portions on either end would be the same for either alternative. He said that before the G South Alternative there were other alternatives that did not have those similarities, so construction couldn't start on those sections of road until it was certain which one would be chosen. He said that the Juneau Creek and G South Alternatives have two sections on either end that are exactly the same. He said that the department could start work on both ends without deciding on a final alternative. He shared that FHWA requires reevaluation of alternatives before moving from one phase to the next. He explained that if anything changed over that time, then the alternatives would be reweighed. He added that even if a record of decision is made, it does not guarantee that the road would be built. CO-CHAIR STUTES asked when the determination was made to go with the G South Alternative. MR. KEMP answered that the G South Alternative was chosen as the preferred route in December 2016. 2:07:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP admitted that he is very familiar with the area in question. He said that one of the challenges has been from public comment between permanent and seasonal residents. He said that oftentimes seasonal residents weigh in after the project has started by contacting their congressional delegation. He surmised that DOT&PF has really been caught in the middle of the debate for decades, trying to get the community hearings, the notices, the public comment, the environmental studies, and deal with all the cultural sites and various land use groups and interests. He said that it is not insignificant that all the indigenous people on the Kenai Peninsula, all the affected cities, all the fisher groups, all the environmental groups, and all the land users have signed off on HCR 7. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP credited [Representative Chenault] with creating a well thought out concurrent resolution with widespread endorsement. He said that there is a little piece of land at milepost 55 were the Juneau Creek Alternative would just touch the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, and that is why the United States Secretary of Interior would need to initiate a land exchange. He opined that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has been a little recalcitrant about letting that happen. He surmised that the Juneau Creek Alternative would save users an hour driving in the summer when traffic is at a crawl and probably 15-20 minutes even for the year-round users in the winter. 2:09:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND shared her understanding that the G South Alternative would [address] traffic around Cooper Landing but would do nothing for the bottle neck at the Russian River. She opined that HCR 7 would take care of much more than just the congestion in the Cooper Landing Bypass. 2:11:10 PM CO-CHAIR WOOL shared his understanding that the G South Alternative would not bypass the Russian River. He inquired about the supporters of the G South Alternative and their reasoning. He asked whether the current alternatives have been in the works for the past four or five decades and have just been weighed for or against, or if the alternatives have constantly been in motion. He asked whether the Juneau Creek Alternative was only recently introduced. MR. KEMP deferred to Mr. Amundsen. 2:12:26 PM MR. AMUNDSEN said that all the alternatives that are currently in the plan and in the EIS have actively been in play since the beginning of the process. CO-CHAIR WOOL said that he has heard a lot of arguments in support of the Juneau Creek Alternative but wants to know what the arguments in favor of the G South Alternative are. MR. AMUNDSEN said that there are a number of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Forest Service, and other interest groups that are in equal legion compared to the folks in favor of the Juneau Creek Alternative. 2:13:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked Representative Kopp to reflect on his former time served as a police officer and to speak to the public safety concerns in the area. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reported that the section of the Sterling Highway between mileposts 45 and 58 is well known, in regard to public safety, as one of the most hazardous; the area has a high rate of accidents and fatalities. He noted one winter when there was a family wedding and half the crowd had to turn around and go back to Anchorage. He shared that that section of road has been a public safety concern for decades. He explained that while there are a lot of businesses and access points along the aforementioned stretch, there is no room to pass safely for a number of miles. He noted that there is a large volume of tractor trailers, motor homes, trucks with campers, and boats on a very winding road with many blind curves and apprehensive people "wanting to get some place," and bad things happen regularly. He offered his belief that the stretch of Sterling Highway between mileposts 45 and 58 is one DOT&PF's greatest risk roads in the state. He concluded, "For all those reasons, I would just say wholeheartedly that this is a traffic safety improvement." 2:16:04 PM CO-CHAIR WOOL pointed out one thing that has changed since the 1970s is there are probably a lot more cars on the road now. He offered his understanding that if the Juneau Creek Alternative were chosen, then the existing highway would still remain. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HCR 7 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCR 7 was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee. 2:16:59 PM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:17 p.m.