Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/09/2017 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HCR7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR7 ver A.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Document - KPB Letter 10.11.17.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - City of Soldotna Resolution.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - City of Kenai Resolution.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - Kenaitze Resolution.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - KPB Resolution.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - Sterling Highway EIS.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 - Cooper Landing Bypass Reasonable Alternatives Map.jpg |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - Sterling Highway MP 45-60 FAQ.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |
| HCR7 Supporting Documents - ATA Letter 3.9.17.pdf |
HTRA 3/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HCR 7 |