Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
01/30/2014 01:00 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Update: State Rail Plan; Haines Railroad Study and G7g;|| Army Corps of Engineers: Update on Arctic Ports | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2014
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Dennis Egan, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough
Senator Click Bishop
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Hollis French
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Craig Johnson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Shelly Hughes
Representative Harriet Drummond
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ALASKA STATE RAIL PLAN UPDATE, HAINES RAILROAD STUDY AND G7G;
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UPDATE ON ARCTIC PORTS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MURRAY WALSH, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the Alaska State
Rail Plan (ASRP) Update.
BRUCE CARR, (former) Director
Strategic Planning
Alaska Railroad Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on the Alaska State Rail Plan.
MATT VICKERS, CEO & Partner
Generating for Seven Generations (G7G)
Vancouver, BC
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the "All Commodity
Rail Transport to and from Northern Pacific Tidewater."
LEN WILSON, Managing Director & Partner
Generating for Seven Generations (G7G)
Vancouver, BC
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the "All Commodity
Rail Transport to and from Northern Pacific Tidewater."
LORRAINE CORDOVA, Economist & Project Technical Lead
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information on the Alaska Deep-
Draft Arctic Port Study.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:54 PM
CHAIR DENNIS EGAN called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Transportation Standing Committees to order at 1:03 p.m.
Present at the call to order were Senators Dyson, Fairclough,
Bishop, and Chair Egan, and Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, Lynn
Isaacson, Feige, Johnson, and Chair Wilson.
^Update: State Rail Plan; Haines Railroad Study and G7G;
^Army Corps of Engineers: Update on Arctic Ports
Update: Alaska State Rail Plan; Haines Railroad Study and G7G;
Army Corps of Engineers: Update on Arctic Ports
1:04:44 PM
CHAIR EGAN announced that the order of business would be updates
on the Alaska State Rail Plan (ASRP) and the G7G Northern Rail
to Tidewater Plan, as well as an update on Arctic Ports.
1:05:52 PM
MURRAY WALSH, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), Juneau, Alaska,
presented information on the Alaska State Rail Plan (ASRP)
update. He said that DOTPF has been working for over a year on
the ASRP update. The last time an update was done was in 1990,
shortly after the state acquired the Alaska Railroad.
CHAIR WILSON noted the arrival of Representative Lynn and the
presence of Representative Hughes and Representative Drummond.
MR. WALSH highlighted the purposes for having the ASRP: to set
forth state policy, to present priorities and strategies to
enhance rail service, and to serve as the basis for federal and
state rail investments. He addressed the reasons why DOTPF is
involved with the ASRP. Alaska statutes assign DOTPF the
responsibility to plan for all modes of transportation. There is
more than one railroad in the state. The movement of freight and
passengers involves more than just a railroad. It makes sense to
have DOTPF involved in ASRP planning.
CHAIR EGAN noted that Bruce Carr was online.
1:08:45 PM
MR. WALSH cautioned that the plan is not an Alaska Railroad
Corporation plan. He described the project as a higher level of
planning and a public undertaking. The State Rail Plan is part
of the state's transportation plan. The needs of both the Alaska
Railroad and the White Pass & Yukon Route are identified in the
plan.
He said the State Rail Plan must be coordinated with the State's
Long Range Transportation Policy Plan. In September of 2013, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released new guidance for
preparing state rail plans to which DOT intends to comply. There
are two federal agency fund sources, FRA and the Federal Transit
Association (FTA). He stressed the importance of maintaining a
professional planning relationship with those two agencies.
MR. WALSH explained that the State Rail Plan established
advisors made up of a steering committee, a technical advisory
group, and a project team. The steering committee has met twice
so far. The technical advisory group consists of 26 people from
the private sector and government agencies. On the project team,
HDR from Anchorage is the lead contractor.
MR. WALSH showed a map of Alaska's Current Rail System. The
White Pass Route only provides service from Skagway to the
border of Canada for cruise ship passengers.
CHAIR EGAN asked if there is a rail corridor all the way to
Whitehorse.
MR. WALSH said there is a corridor, but the track is not all
intact to Whitehorse.
SENATOR DYSON inquired if freight is being hauled on the White
Pass Route and whether there are plans to install a third,
standard-gage rail.
MR. WALSH clarified that there is no freight moving on that
line; it is an excursion line. There was an effort initiated by
Eagle Resources to begin freight movement in order to re-refine
and transport tailings from the Whitehorse Copper Mine. White
Pass declined to do so.
1:12:40 PM
Representative Drummond asked if the White Pass Route only
operates during tourist season.
MR. WALSH said yes.
MR WALSH turned to Alaska's vision for railroads. He said the
vision adopted by the steering committee reflects a change in
Alaska's attitude about railroading, in general. When the state
bought the railroad in 1985, the situation was dire. There was a
belief that the federal government was going to abandon the
railroad. The original legislation, which was involved in buying
the railroad, specified that the railroad had to attempt to sell
itself to a private party and report to the legislature every
five years. That has changed.
CHAIR EGAN announced the arrival of Senator Bishop.
1:14:39 PM
MR. WALSH continued to say the vision today is to foster growth
and trade, build prosperity, connect and support communities,
and provide safe and efficient freight and passenger services
coordinated with other transportation modes, regionally and
internationally.
He shared the past history of the rail. The rail has played an
important role in the development of Alaska's economy and in
national defense: military transport, construction and resource
development (TAPS), passenger service, transport of hydrocarbon
and petroleum products, transport of natural resources, such as
coal and gravel, and supply of building materials, equipment,
and other commodities.
He detailed the present planning for the rail. Rail volumes and
revenues, along with industrial activity, have decreased since
2005. The Port MacKenzie and Northern Rail extensions are under
construction. There continues to be a need for external
financial support for major safety and efficiency improvements.
The public would like commuter service.
MR. WALSH showed a graph of the Alaska Railroad freight
operations between 2005 and 2012. Both gravel and bulk petroleum
have declined, but coal has remained relatively stable. He
predicted that freight would increase in the near future.
He spoke of the future of the rail. He indicated that the
industrial renaissance Alaska has been preparing for is finally
happening for shale, oil, mining, LNG, coal, and natural gas. He
said the state is going to need more rail service. The Port
MacKenzie and Northern Rail extensions are complete and fully
operational. There is demand for rail commuter service in
Southcentral Alaska that would link the Mat-Su Valley with
Anchorage.
1:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled a project fair in 2008 where
the Alaska Railroad made a presentation regarding a commuter
rail plan that requires cooperation between Anchorage and
Wasilla. It would be 52 minutes from Wasilla to downtown
Anchorage. They currently have one commuter rail car but need
two more to provide adequate service. They also need to
determine the distribution of rail riders at each rail end, such
as park and ride or a bus transit system. She said this plan has
been ready to go for at least five or six years, but lacks
investment.
MR. WALSH pointed out that the State Rail Plan intends to update
that commuter plan. He added that "the railroad is growing
evermore ready to engage in commuter service." There is another
major improvement called the Wasilla Realignment that would make
a big difference in how fast commuters could be transported to
downtown Anchorage and would eliminate five "at grade"
intersections. He noted that at grade intersections continue to
be the biggest local-level issue with the railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND inquired if the Wasilla Realignment is
the next step in track straightening. She recalled that in 2008
all the track straightening planned had been done.
MR. WALSH noted there are other track-straightening projects, as
well. The Wasilla Realignment solves the worst curve on the
line. The railroad has required the right-of-way that was
needed. It is a $37 million project, as of two years ago. He
mentioned a need for more capital investment money. He explained
that what is required is a regional transit authority consisting
of an agreement between Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and the
state. There is no statutory authority for it yet and is a
necessary requirement for a commuter rail system.
1:21:24 PM
MR. WALSH described the State Rail Plan's future direction. It
includes making sure the railroad is available to support the
future context and to identify defensible means to evaluate and
enable new rail lines. He listed the Plan's goals: promote
economic development, maintain systems, support the rail's role
in international exports, emphasize interconnectivity with other
modes of transport, increase passenger rail service, and support
safe and environmentally responsible rail operations.
MR. WALSH highlighted the State Rail Plan objectives. The first
objective relates to passengers. Currently, there is inner city
passenger service, but the plan sets out to develop a
Southcentral regional transit organization. This would require
legislation and new equipment. The plan would include Anchorage
International Airport in regular public rail passenger service.
It would maintain passenger equipment in a continuing state of
good repair. In includes a complete realignment of the Wasilla
track and a higher speed track for commuter trains. It would
also support connectivity with other transit options.
He turned to the State Rail Plan freight objectives. He stressed
the importance of increasing rail carrying capacity to the
emerging U.S. standard of 315,000 pounds per car. That would
open rail use to more freight options in Alaska.
He addressed the capital improvement context of the State Rail
Plan. He noted that Positive Tran Control (PTC) should improve
safety, but at a substantial cost. He highlighted the need for
additional investment in track, depots, and equipment needed to
operate commuter trains.
1:24:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked why Alaska Railroad Corporation
freight operating levels are lower.
MR. WALSH explained that freight revenues have trended lower
over the last several years. There were upticks in 2013, which
he said causes him to be optimistic.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked what type of capital improvements
would improve freight operating revenues. He wondered if
extensions or upgrades would.
MR. WALSH replied that what would increase freight revenues the
most would be enabling the line to carry double-stacked
containers by enlarging the tunnels between Whittier and
Fairbanks. What has to happen is the Portage Tunnel's roof has
to be raised; the Whittier Tunnel is already tall enough.
He pointed out that certain routes, Wasilla, North Pole, and
Nenana realignments, cost a lot of money and don't make money or
add customers for the railroad; they make it safer and more
efficient, which the State Rail Plan supports.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted the capital projects were listed
next in the presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND shared a personal story about driving
through the Whittier Tunnel on the way from Anchorage to
Whittier. She said she noticed how high it was. She asked if the
Portage Tunnel is closer to the Seward Highway and is used only
for rail, not for passenger vehicles.
MR. WALSH said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how long the Portage Tunnel is.
She recalled the Whittier Tunnel is much shorter.
MR. WALSH responded that the Portage Tunnel is much shorter,
less than a mile, and would be cheaper to expand than the
Whittier Tunnel.
1:28:08 PM
MR. WALSH continued to explain short/near-term capital projects.
He reported that an upgrade of docks in Whittier and Seward
would add capacity and would have the potential to add revenue.
He reiterated that at-grade crossings are the single biggest
safety issue.
CHAIR WILSON asked what "at grade" means.
MR. WALSH explained that at grade means a junction where a road
and a railroad meet at the same grade.
He discussed the mid-to-long-term capital projects included in
the State Rail Plan. He highlighted rail service to the Yukon as
a resource opportunity. He showed a map of the Haines Rail
Study. In the Alaska Canada Rail Link Study all routes were
evaluated for their economic viability as railroad extensions.
There are four places in British Columbia where the Canadian
Rail system ends. Of all those lines, the Skagway/Haines link to
Carmacks had the most economic potential due to the Crest Iron
Ore Deposit in the Northeast Yukon, one of the world's largest
iron deposits. It could produce 28 million metric tons per year,
76,000 metric tons per day, equaling seven trains a day. The
Haines Rail Study is being done by the City and Borough of
Haines.
1:31:13 PM
MR. WALSH reported on long-term capital projects: an extension
to the North Slope, an extension to Canada, and an extension
from the Yukon River to Nome. He said, "There is a pretty good
case to be made that it would have been far better for Alaska
had we extended the railroad to Deadhorse when we built the
pipeline to begin with."
He described the State Rail Plan preliminary draft policy
recommendations: plan for and reserve corridors, prioritize and
commit to capital project assistance, authorize regional transit
organizations, which would need legislative action, and pursue
rail service extensions.
He concluded with the next steps in the State Rail Plan. A draft
plan that conforms to federal regulations will be available in
the spring of 2014. There will also be on-line open houses
featuring preliminary findings and the draft plan.
CHAIR EGAN thanked Mr. Walsh for his presentation.
SENATOR BISHOP noted that general freight began to increase in
2011. He asked if general freight includes drill casings.
MR. WALSH said yes.
SENATOR BISHOP predicted that the general freight would trend
upward. He said there was a period where the amount of drill
casings shipped north decreased from 100 million pounds to 66
million pounds. Every indication shows that the amount of drill
casings shipped will increase.
He brought up the new hard aggregate in the Cantwell area and
the possibility of new rail service there. He requested more
information on that issue.
1:34:45 PM
CHAIR WILSON noted Representative Tarr has joined the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE commented on the hard rock aggregate in the
Cantwell-Healy area which could be used to make roads more
weathering-resistant. There is a suggestion to build a spur line
to facilitate loading a gravel train closer to the deposit.
Currently, the aggregate is being trucked a fair distance. He
asked if that project was on the capital project list.
MR. WALSH offered to find out. He noted the railroad is
currently shipping gravel from Kantishna.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE suggested Mr. Walsh talk to Ahtna Regional
Native Corporation, the owner of the mineral resource.
CHAIR EGAN asked Bruce Carr if he had anything to add.
BRUCE CARR, (former) Director, Strategic Planning, Alaska
Railroad Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska, commented on the Alaska
State Rail Plan. He thanked Mr. Walsh and his team for the
effort they have put forth into developing the State Rail Plan.
1:37:13 PM
CHAIR EGAN introduced the next topic, G7G - Northern Rail to
Tidewater.
MATT VICKERS, CEO & Partner, Generating for Seven Generations
(G7G), Vancouver, BC, presented information on the "All
Commodity Rail Transport to and from Northern Pacific
Tidewater." He introduced himself.
LEN WILSON, Managing Director & Partner, Generating for Seven
Generations (G7G), Vancouver, BC, presented information on the
"All Commodity Rail Transport to and from Northern Pacific
Tidewater." He introduced himself.
MR. VICKERS, as a hereditary leader, acknowledged the
traditional territory in Alaska. He recalled the history of his
people's involvement with the naming of Generating for Seven
Generations (G7G). He listed the partners of G7G.
CHAIR EGAN noted the arrival of Senator Fairclough.
MR. VICKERS discussed his involvement with the original stewards
of the land and the conflict between energy needs and the
environment. He said the idea to preserve the coast from
pollution generated the idea of having a rail transportation
method. He shared the process of involving all First Nation
players in the project.
1:42:14 PM
MR. VICKERS said that up until 2011 the project was just a
vision. Involvement with AECOM facilitated the vision becoming a
real project. AECOM did a scoping document for the government of
Alberta to confirm the viability of the rail project. Based on
$1 million of bituminous export per day from Fort McMurray, the
rail project was found to be viable.
He spoke of government support for the project. He noted one of
the first to voice support was the Mayor of Fairbanks, Luke
Hopkins. Governor Parnell expressed support, as did the Yukon
Territory. Alberta was the first government to contribute funds
- $1.8 million - and British Columbia's support is still
pending.
He described the Canadian federal government support in the form
of a letter from Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources. It
is expected that they will provide funds for a feasibility
study. Saskatchewan, Northwest Territory, and U.S. federal
government have not been approached to date.
1:45:15 PM
MR. VICKERS noted an April 30, 2013, letter to G7G from the
Government of Alberta. It indicated that it had provided a grant
of $1.8 million to the Van Horne Institute, which was heavily
involved in the original studies of 2005 and 2007. The grant
allows the Van Horne Institute to work with Michigan Tech, the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and other organizations or
companies involved in the feasible study.
1:46:20 PM
He discussed the G7G Railway Corporation's map of the project.
The original map from 2011 was not the same. AECOM produced the
current version of the route. Instead of going directly from
Fort McMurray to Peace River, in order to keep the railroad at a
1 percent grade or less, the route now goes up to High Level and
on to Fort Nelson. If the Alaska Rail goes to Delta Junction,
the G7G rail will join it there where it can offload bitumen
from the Alberta Oil Sands into TAPS, bringing the pipeline back
up to capacity.
He mentioned other spurs being considered; Fort Saskatchewan,
Peace River, and Northwest Territories.
1:48:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if the scoping document was based on
1 million barrels of bitumen per day.
MR. VICKERS said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE questioned if that was the number of
barrels produced or the number to inject into TAPS. He asked if
diluent would be needed for injection.
MR. VICKERS pointed out that the feasibility study will provide
that information. He emphasized that full funding is needed in
order to complete the feasibility study.
He highlighted mineral opportunities. Michigan Tech and the
University of Alaska are working on the mineral aspect of the
pre-feasibility study, which should be done by the end of March.
The goal is for the rail to be "all commodity" and so the study
will include minerals and bitumen from Alberta.
1:49:59 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked what the dotted lines on the map represent.
MR. VICKERS replied that they show possible spur lines.
Currently, the focus is on the main line.
He continued to discuss mineral exports. On an earlier
presentation, it showed that the rail from Watson Lake came down
to Hazleton; now it will go to Stewart. G7G is trying to coax
the BC Government to participate financially with both the pre-
feasibility study and the feasibility study. Spur lines to
Haines and from Tok to Port MacKenzie also have tidewater access
and provide back haul opportunities. The port of Valdez would be
the end point for bitumen from Alberta.
1:52:33 PM
MR. VICKERS remarked that the key to the G7G project is to
ensure that social license is in place from the beginning. He
used the example of the difficulties Enbridge's is having with
their pipeline gateway by not addressing social license first;
coming to the communities first and applying for permits and
licenses after that. He stressed the importance of the "Duty to
Consult and Accommodate" with respect to the Native Alaskans and
the First Nations.
He described the methodology of community consultation when
working with the First Nations on the Plutonic Power Project.
That methodology is used as a Best Practice in consultation
accommodation.
1:54:18 PM
MR. VICKERS described the benefits of this project for First
Nations: the recognition of rights and title, respect and early
engagement, good relationships, equitable partnerships, and
employment opportunities. He said 50 percent of the equity will
go the First Nations along the route.
He shared information about aboriginal alliance stakeholders.
From Athabasca oil sands Nations, all of the Treaty 8 in
Northern Alberta, Northeastern British Columbia Nations, Kaska
Nations, Yukon Nations, to six villages from the border to Delta
Junction, G7G contacted stakeholders. All 633 chiefs in Canada
signed a resolution of support for the project. The indirectly
affected were also included.
1:56:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if there were any problems working
with two different countries.
MR. VICKERS stated that all entities are treated equally.
He noted territorial boundaries of the First Nations.
1:58:29 PM
MR. VICKERS described the benefits of the project for Canada.
The project would unlock the bottleneck for transporting
Canadian oil, minerals, and other commodities to offshore
markets, an accelerated increase of royalty and tax revenues,
the economic hauling, export, and import of all commodities, an
increase in long-term and permanent employment, and a positive
impact on stakeholder relationships.
He listed the benefits of the project for Alaska: connect to the
rail network of North America, specifically the Lower 48 states,
enhance utilization of infrastructure (TAPS, ports, etc.),
economic hauling, export, and import of all commodities,
accelerated increase of royalty and/or tax revenues, an increase
in long-term and permanent employment, and a positive impact on
stakeholder relationships.
MR. VICKERS presented the project timeline beginning with the
strategic plan to project construction. In October 2011, AECOM
developed the strategic plan and scoping document and G7G
received $1.8 million from the Government of Alberta. From
there, AECOM immediately entered into the pre-feasibility study.
Next is the comprehensive feasibility study which entails
developing a business plan to give to the three perspective
funders who have said they can fund the project for up to $25
billion. He called it a very aggressive schedule. The federal
government in Canada has said it is stepping up the approval
process. Project approval will be followed by a bankable
business plan and then two years of project construction.
He said the equity partners are First Nations for 50 percent
equity and AECOM at 10 percent equity. Forty percent is
available to like-minded investors. He concluded that G7G is
excited about the forward progression of the project.
2:02:01 PM
He spoke of other opportunities like project manager, shipper
contracts, rolling stock, operations and maintenance, commercial
agreements, and material supply.
CHAIR EGAN thanked Mr. Vickers for the presentation
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON expressed excitement about both projects
because of the ability they bring for connections between
countries and communities. He pointed out that the project
depends greatly on Alberta Tar Sands. He asked what would happen
if Keystone is built.
MR. VICKERS said he has been asked that question as it relates
to a number of proposed projects. He maintained if all those
pipelines went ahead, they would be filled to capacity within 15
years and "still need extra." He also noted that a pipeline can
only ship one commodity, whereas a rail can ship every
commodity.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to a map of mineral resources
located in First Nations lands. He noted Canada has given
territories and provinces control of their land, unlike the
United States. He inquired as to how much traction there is for
mineral development in the corridor or whether there is
reluctance by property owners.
MR. VICKERS replied that a key element, especially in the Yukon,
is the number of investors that have leases, but find it far too
costly to get their product to market. He predicted the rail
will be a game changer overnight. A number of mining operations
are getting more excited about the project.
2:05:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE commented that many schemes have been
presented to the legislature over the years. He asked to see the
scoping document and the pre-feasibility study.
MR. VICKERS said the pre-feasibility is still out and will be
available to the Alberta Government by the end of March.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked if there has been a discussion with
TAPS about the $1 million barrels of bitumen. He maintained that
that amount would not go into TAPS. He suggested running the
rail to a port facility in Valdez or pre-refining the bitumen.
MR. VICKERS noted there has been some discussion with TAPS
otherwise the plan would not have gotten this far. He understood
that TAPS was designed for 1.8 million barrels per day. He said
he appreciates the information.
MR. WILSON added that part of the study examined how close the
rail could get to Valdez.
2:08:29 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked which minerals are shown on the map and
whether the provinces and mining companies have offered funding.
MR. VICKERS said he could not name the minerals; Michigan Tech
and the University of Alaska are involved with that portion of
the study. He said G7G did contact mining associations and
chambers of commerce, but they are slow coming to the table.
SENATOR BISHOP said he has been to Canada frequently and is
impressed by their large vision. He thanked G7G for the
presentation and wished them the best of luck.
2:10:29 PM
CHAIR WILSON asked how many mines are in British Columbia.
MR. VICKERS offered to provide that information to the
committee.
MR. WILSON said the corridor has numerous mines and, if 1 out of
every 800 go through, there will be a billion dollars' worth of
revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for the length of the whole rail
route and the Alaska portion, and how much each costs.
MR. VICKERS explained that the whole rail is roughly 1,600
miles; the Alaska portion is about 240 miles. He said AECOM
estimated it would cost between $12 billion and $13 billion. The
pre-feasibility study predicts the single tracking would cost
about $15 billing and twin tracking would be close to $20
billion.
MR. WILSON added that a lot more emphasis was put on Capex, so
G7G was not surprised at the larger number. For every three
billion dollars, it only raised the tolling charge one dollar.
It brought safety, operation, and maintenance way down.
2:13:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON related that positive train control
(PTC) is important in the United States. He asked if G7G has
included a PTC component into the study, due to the possible
transportation of passengers, and whether that component
affected cost.
MR. WILSON said the project is "purpose built" and uses all
technology available at the onset.
CHAIR EGAN thanked the presenters.
He acknowledged the presence of Commissioner Kemp.
2:15:35 PM
CHAIR EGAN welcomed Ms. Cordova.
LORRAINE CORDOVA, Economist & Project Technical Lead, U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska, presented information on
the Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port Study.
MS. CORDOVA related that the Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port Study
is a subset of the Alaska Regional Port Study and a 50/50 cost-
shared study with the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF). She addressed reasons for needing the Arctic
Port Study. In 2008 and 2010 the Army Corp of Engineers, with
DOTPF held two conferences, one on harbor infrastructure
becoming a part of the state's transportation improvement plan
(STIP), and the second on marine infrastructure needs.
CHAIR EGAN noted the arrival Representative Herron.
MS. CORDOVA said that the second conference resulted in a list
of 1,600 projects and the list was provided to the various
regions to be included on STIP. She described a planning
charette held in May of 2011 that included the Coast Guard,
Navy, Marine Exchange, DOTPF, Army Corp of Engineers, and other
governmental agencies, to address deep-draft needs across the
state. The charette produced a project need statement regarding
the increase of traffic and lack of ports in the Arctic.
2:20:25 PM
MS. CORDOVA shared the study authority which allows the Corp of
Engineers to work in Alaska. The Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port
Study was initiated in December of 2011 with an amendment to the
original contract.
MS. CORDOVA showed a map of the study area, which is over 3,000
miles. The committee realized that one deep water port was not
enough for the Arctic area. At the time, the Northern Water Task
Force had just released a draft of their report on recommended
sites. In addition to the Northern Water Task Force site, two
other sites were added to the list of sites from the Roads to
Resources Program. There were 14 sites to begin with, and the
committee had to choose one in order to start the feasibility
study.
2:22:39 PM
MS. CORDOVA described the site selection criteria and listed the
primary criteria for the evaluation of each site's physical
suitability as a deep-draft Arctic port: the port's proximity to
the mission - oil and gas or mining, intermodal connections,
upland support - hospital, groceries, (population), natural
water depth at minus 35 feet and minus 45 feet, and navigation
accessibility (wind, wave, and ice data).
2:25:04 PM
She addressed the site shortlist. The committee assigned values
to all 14 sites for all purposes and all criteria, using equal
weights. Under that scenario, Nome, Port Clarence and Cape Darby
came out ahead. When looking at oil and gas site locations and
the minus 35 foot depth, Nome, Port Clarence, and Barrow came
out ahead. When evaluating for proximity to mining sites and a
water depth of minus 45 feet, Nome, Cape Darby, and Port
Clarence appeared. It became apparent that Nome and Port
Clarence would be able to support multiple kinds of economic
activities.
MS. CORDOVA showed a map of the study area on the Seward
Peninsula where Nome and Port Clarence are located. She shared
the problem statement that came out of a planning charette in
Nome in April of 2013. Residents of Nome, Teller, and Brevik
Mission were invited, as well as Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA,
Crowley, Bering Marine, Arctic Liaison, DNR, DOT, and the Corp
of Engineers. They met for a week and came up with a problem
statement: "Increased vessel traffic coupled with limited marine
infrastructure along Alaska's Western and Northern shores poses
risks for accidents and incidents, increases response times for
Search and Rescue, and requires international coordination."
2:28:51 PM
She highlighted a list of opportunities that could be addressed
while meeting the mission of the problem statement: develop
local and regional economies, decrease the cost to exist in the
Arctic, improve cooperation and sharing between Nome, Port
Clarence, and Teller, provide protected moorage to support
offshore oil and gas endeavors, fishing fleet, and resource
extraction vessels. Also, provide vessel repair and maintenance
support, improve international relationships, increase U.S.
exports, optimize economic benefits while preserving natural
resources, raise awareness of U.S as an Arctic nation, and
provide upland support to vessels. She stressed the key
opportunity to raise awareness of the United States as an Arctic
Nation.
2:30:02 PM
She shared the initial array of eight alternatives for ports on
the entire Seward Peninsula; Nome, Cape Riley, Point Spencer
came up most frequently. At this point the process had 23
alternatives.
She showed a map of the communities: Lost River Mine, Brevig
Mission, Teller, Cape Riley, Point Spencer, Graphite Creek Mine,
Rock Creek Gold Mine, and Nome.
2:34:48 PM
MS. CORDOVA explained Arctic traffic trends. She said vessel
traffic has increased from 2008 to present in the Northern Sea
Route. There were 71 vessels in 2013 that carried about 1.4
million tons of cargo. It is projected that Arctic traffic in
the Northern Sea Route will increase 30-fold over the next eight
years.
She pointed out that vessels going on the Northern Sea Route or
on the Northwest Passage need to go past Alaska shores. Canada
and Russia are building infrastructure currently, whereas the
United States is not. She compared vessel traffic in the Arctic
to that in the Panama Canal, which had 14,000 vessel passages.
She said even in eight years, vessel traffic is predicted to be
only ten percent of what goes through the Panama Canal. She
listed the advantages of the Northern Sea Route over the Panama
Canal.
2:36:54 PM
MS. CORDOVA showed a map that depicts what 800 miles looks like,
comparing Dutch Harbor to Port Clarence in Alaska to a Seattle-
California distance and to a New York-Jacksonville distance. She
noted had the Shell support vessels in 2012 been able to forward
station out of Port Clarence instead of Dutch Harbor, they would
have saved 800 miles in travel.
2:38:18 PM
MS. CORDOVA reported on the Nome proposal, which will
accommodate line haul fuel barges, ice breakers, cargo barges,
tankers, Coast Guard cutters, NOAA research vessels, landing
craft, and tugs. It will extend the existing causeway 2,150
feet, demolish the existing spur breakwater, and construct a
600-foor concrete caisson dock. It would connect the City Dock
and the West Gold Dock and dredging would take place. Disposal
will probably be used for beach nourishment.
She showed an overhead view of the Port of Nome and described
the dock plans, and showed another view as it currently exists.
She noted lack of harbor space and said that last year there
were 150 days where barges were waiting offshore to unload
cargo.
2:41:01 PM
MS. CORDOVA highlighted the Point Spencer proposal which will
accommodate line-haul barges, tugs, ice breakers, oil and gas
support vessels, and heavy lift barges. A caisson dock would be
constructed, dredging would take place, and upland facilities
would be developed. A proposal to connect a road to the
Nome/Teller Highway is very expensive.
She showed an overhead of Point Spencer.
MS. CORDOVA explained the Cape Riley proposal which would
accommodate shallow draft mineral extraction vessels and
lightering vessels. She showed a map depicting the dock site.
She discussed the timeline of the USACE process schedule. During
the May 15, 2013 meeting the 8 alternatives were proposed. The
tentatively selected plan for November of 2013 did not meet the
deadline. There were now 23 alternatives, which caused concern
at agency headquarters. The USACE now needs to complete real
estate and NEPA work. The public review will not happen in March
2014. The timeline has been pushed back and the plan is to keep
the public informed by newsletter on the progress of the study.
2:47:27 PM
MS. CORVOA addressed what happens after the feasibility study is
signed by the chief of engineers. She said the final feasibility
report goes to Congress for action to authorized and appropriate
to construct. She shared the state and federal websites
available for more information on the study.
CHAIR WILSON asked for the status of mining claims along the
water in Nome.
2:50:24 PM
MS. CORDOVA explained that those are year-to-year mining leases
and the footprint for the causeway extension would only affect
one mining lease.
2:51:29 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH thought working with lease-holders could be a
perfect public/private partnership.
MS. CORDOVA said the Corp does not have a mechanism for that
type of partnership.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH requested a follow up on that question.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if there were any cost estimates for
each of the three proposals.
MS. CORDOVA explained that the Port of Engineers requires a
proposed project to have the highest net benefit to the nation.
Currently, the study has considered each site alone, and the
sites in combination. The combination of Nome and Point Spencer
will probably be chosen and will probably be around $100
million. Cape Riley is an option for the state to consider. She
explained the state has the option to select a locally preferred
plan, or a larger plan, but it would have to be 100 percent non-
federal funding.
2:54:53 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if the project is 100 percent federally
funded.
MS. CORDOVA explained if the state continues to be the sponsor
along with the Corp, there would be 50/50 cost sharing of the
feasibility study. The cost sharing for the construction is more
complicated with general navigation features, such as
breakwaters and causeway dredging, being 65 percent funded by
the federal government. Local service facilities features, such
as docks, utilities, and airport upgrades, are 100 percent paid
for by the state.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH wished to see more information about the
state's obligation in moving forward with multiple projects and
whether they could be phased over time. She drew attention to
the differing needs of the projects.
2:57:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR questioned how the 8 alternatives were
expanded, then reduced to three. She asked if some of the
alternatives were not included in the presentation.
MS. CORDOVA clarified that three geographic sites were chosen
and the 23 alternatives relate to variations in dock lengths and
water depths.
2:58:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES thanked Ms. Cordova for her presentation.
She asked what Ms. Cordova's best guess is for the time a vessel
might actually pull into a port.
MS. CORDOVA said that 2020 is the best-case scenario if all goes
perfectly.
CHAIR EGAN thanked the presenters.
3:00:32 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Egan adjourned the Joint Senate and House Transportation
Standing Committees at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| G7G Alaska (January 30 2014).pdf |
STRA 1/30/2014 1:00:00 PM |
Railroad |
| Arctic Ports 30Jan14.pdf |
STRA 1/30/2014 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Joint Trans Committee State Rail Plan 1 30 2014.pdf |
STRA 1/30/2014 1:00:00 PM |
Railroad |