This meeting of the House Transportation Committee will now come to order
Time is 12 36 p.m. On Thursday
February 12th in Capra room 124
members present
represent Stutes
represent McKade
represent Mina
represent Saint Clair
Co-chair represent Kariq and myself co-chare
Representative Aisheid, that the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business.
Please take this time to silence your cell phones for the duration of the meeting.
Thank you for that.
Before we begin, I would like to thank Jordan Nicholson from House Records,
as well as Chloe Miller from the Juno LIO for staffing the committee today.
Our committee aides are Meredith Trainer and Stafford Griffin-Sakeo.
thank you all for your assistance. On today's agenda is a continuation of the
committee's February 10th meeting on the function of
the Alaska Marine Highway Operation Board, Cascade Point overview and update.
Today we're here invited testimony from the Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council on this topic.
So I'd like to welcome those two folks welcome to the house transportation committee
Mr. Tyler Breen is in the room and miss Lois Epstein
Epstein my apologies if I mispronounce that is online, please
approach a dice and begin your remarks and
For context because I did ask the two testifiers about how long they would be speaking
They thought about five minutes each, so I would like take questions after each
person has a chance to present. And Mr. Breen, go ahead and put yourself on the record and
thank you for being here.
Thank you, Co-Chair Ayeshide. For the
record, my name is Tyler Bream, policy analyst with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council.
I would like to walk through a timeline for the Cascade Point project because the order of decisions matters in determining whether the state committed funds in advance of public process and permit application analyses meant to inform project direction.
On March 9th of 2023, the governor and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
signed a memorandum of understanding with Gold Belt to pursue development at Cascade Point
that agreement established a public-private framework for advancing the site.
It did not, however, arise from a documented community-driven transportation needs assessment.
On September 10th, 2024, Grand Portage Resources announced that it had signed
to explore development of an ore terminal at Cascade Point,
stating that the quote designed for the ore
terminal will be integrated with planning
for a future Alaska Marine Highway System
ferry terminal, at the site, end quote.
In early 2024, Cascade point appeared in the Alaska
Marine highway system 2045 long range plan
as a project under feasibility evaluation,
not as construction decision.
At its March 5th, 2024 meeting, the Alaska Marina Highway Operations Board requested a more rigorous
economic feasibility analysis before the project were to be advanced. The Board reviewed and
endorsed that draft plan in April of 2025. However, between April and July of 25,
The language in the final long-range plan was altered without AMHOP consultation,
shifting from feasibility evaluation statements implying that a decision to move forward had
already been made using existing appropriations.
On October 29, 2025, AMHAOP issued a corrective action request, finding that the plan had
been materially changed.
The corrective-action request also emphasized that
for an economic analysis.
Amidst those unresolved concerns, on July 28th of 2025,
the Department of Transportation
executed a $28.5 million Stage 1 design build contract.
By entering into a design-build agreement
that includes both permitting and construction,
the contract inherently constrains the ability
to perform any meaningful alternatives, analysis,
or incorporate tribal consultation considerations
or public input.
The contract initiates $28.5 million dollars of project momentum out of sync with the process of identifying if and how the project should move forward.
The public comment period for cascade point, ferry terminal stage one, opened and closed after that contract was signed.
Meaning public input could not meaningfully inform the core design assumptions embedded in that agreement.
As of February 4th of 2026, a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps must now determine whether the application is complete, including the NEPA Review and a National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 assessment.
Because the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit triggers review under NEPA,
that review must evaluate the major federal action and its connected actions as a whole,
rather than segmenting components that lack independent utility,
or would foreclose the opportunity to consider alternatives.
Under standard practice, feasibility analyses, environmental review,
alternatives analysis, and tribal consultation occur before construction contracts are executed.
to determine whether a project should proceed, and if so, in what form, before public funds are committed.
Our concern is that the state has already committed funds to a
project that is not driven by community express transportation need,
that does not yet have secured funding for subsequent stages that comprise the full project,
that risk federal match and downstream funding if permitting a review is delayed or denied.
Committing these funds presumes the outcome before required baseline permitting review or consultations inform how to proceed.
The public development process is not the process of getting to a yes, but determining whether the yes is appropriate and in which context.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Chair Aishide. So I'm interested to know
Why CAC thinks that it's their job, I guess, to get
insert themselves between tribal and
Sort of shippo stuff in the government. I mean the C. Act would seem to be
You know according to your title
Conservation group so unless
It is completely your intent to find any possible way
to interrupt a project.
Why would you bother to get between the state and the tribes?
Through the co-chairs, Representative McCabe,
I would like to be absolutely clear that in no way
am I speaking on behalf of or as representation
of the Tribes.
However, as the policy analyst, it is my role to ensure that the public process and
the processes involved in these assessments is followed correctly.
To that end,
it's my job to insure that associated components, including tribal consultation,
are adequately represented in that process.
Follow-up?
Follow.
It's sort of an interesting position for Conservation Corps.
I mean, that would seem to fall under ACPURG or some other sort
of governmental watchdog organization, not a conservation group like you are.
So I'm also curious, you're a little unfamiliar to me.
How long have you been at C.E.A.C.?
Through the co-chairs, Representative McAvoy, I've been there for approximately two years.
Who is in your position before you?
Through the co-chairs representing McCabe, I believe Katie Rooks.
And then just a little confused on the queue.
Okay, yeah, and so I think
Representative St. Clair had said before, so then I'll go to Representative Nelson.
And just for the record, Representative Nelson did arrive at 1238.
So, representing St Clair.
Thank you, Mr. Coach, Chair.
Through the co-chair, how many of these have you done in the past?
and tribal level have you done before?
Through the co-chair, I'm in what capacity?
As an analyst, as in your capacity that you are right now?
Through The Co-Chair, Representative Claire,
I would be happy to provide my resume.
My work has dominantly focused on community development at USAID
and now at the state level.
One follow-up all up
I'm not looking for your resume. That's not what I am getting at is I'M trying to find out how many times you or see at
see seek
Yeah, see whatever your organization has
Inserted themself into similar situations
Mr. Brin, through the co-chair representative Claire
We have a
50-year history as an organization I
Don't have the exact answer to the number of projects that we've weighed in on
I could get an answer perhaps another time
Thank you. Yeah, and I'm just I am not sure if I heard it, but it's St. Clair
So I don't know if i heard my apologies. Okay
Next we have our episode Nelson
Thank you, Mr. co-chair apologize for my tardiness
As I was coming in you mentioned I can't remember if it was on slide two or three, but you made mention of the
report done by Ed King
Could you just repeat your comments on that and then a brief follow-up?
Through the co chair
representative Nelson
Yes, my comments were that the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board noted in their request for corrective action that
the report submitted by a king did not satisfy the board's request
for an economic analysis.
I'll probably exhaust my two follow-ups.
First follow up, what or why did it not
Is that something that I can see on what they specifically said did not satisfy their requirements for an economic analysis?
Through the co-chair, Representative Nelson, I cannot speak as to why AMHOP specifically did
not find it up to their standards.
However, more of the economic analyses portion will be present in my colleague's testimony.
Okay.
The second follow-up, I guess it's just a comment, is that I think from our previous testimony that there hasn't been an economic analysis that was done on there were a multitude of terminal projects that have happened.
And this is the only one that we have to look at.
that this is the only economic analysis that has been done relating to previous projects.
So my understanding, Representative Nelson, is that Ed King is
the most recent one, and I had asked about a cost-benefit analysis, so my
understanding was that the Ed king is... And it hasn't happened before?
Not to my knowledge, but I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
Okay, thank you. See no correction. I represent students and we'll go to represent McCabe and
Thank you, mr. Coachear. Appreciate it. So
I was looking for
The slide which I can't put my finger on just at this moment that has the dates of
The when you are reading off the date of what had transpired
Can you tell me when the MOU was signed?
Through the Coachea Representative Stutes, that was March 9th, 2023.
Prior to any of these other items taking place, am I correct?
Through The Coaching Representative, Stoots,
that is correct.
That's a red flag for me.
Thank you.
Perhaps I'm a cave. Thanks. Yeah, once again
I am not sure why CAC would care about MOUs and signatures and timelines and that sort of thing
What I think you should be caring about is a net reduction of
1,190 metric tons of CO2 for the
Cascoy cave point ferry terminal 250 passenger vehicles a hundred and thirty three
800 and 30
gallons of gasoline that are expanded. It would seem to me that a group that cares about the environment and cares
about conservation would be focused on that and the savings that we're going to get from that by building a road
which I don't know I guess basically my question is is there ever has there
ever been a project in CX history that you have supported?
Any build project any road any building that CAC has actually come out and said yeah
We would probably support that because it does reduce
CO2 and it saves
fossil fuels
through the co-chair
Representative a cave I appreciate the question because
The analysis as provided does not give sufficient information to determine whether there is a net savings and carbon reductions in order to do so you need to
do a scope one direct infrastructure
Assessment and that is the building itself as well as the fleet and fuel as noted that as a single variable within scope 1
Scope 2 would be municipal infrastructure for power heating and cooling etc. The associated emissions from that
In Scope 3, a singular variable within there would be indeed the fuel expended for value chain emissions,
so an individual driving to the location.
So to be effective, net reduction in carbon savings, there is currently not enough information
to determine if a net-reduction is actually a result of this.
are very much so in support of a robust public process that determines and
elucidates the best interest of the state and its communities.
Follow up. Follow-up.
Thanks, so I'm really looking forward to CAC's study on that,
so the scope one, scope two, what you were just talking about as far as the
environmental, that to me would seem to be where
inserting yourselves between tribes and worrying about whether the state is doing their job.
It would seem to me that you guys would be doing the studies so that
you'd know exactly how much carbon we would save or how
much we could expand building this road. I mean if you're, I don't know,
I guess I'm confused about the direction of your testimony.
And before I go to represent Kerry, you know, I just want you to know sir that we do value your choice on
what you present and
your freedom of choice to
Provide testimony, so thank you for being here represent. Kerry
Thank you through the co-chair. I Just want to start by thanking you
for Being here and for CX
robust engagement with the Co-chairs offices and the committee on this issue
I think it's really important that we respect all of the
people that come to testify before us, whether the
department or otherwise. And I just want to encourage members
to please try to do that today. I did have a I didn't want
to back up a little bit. So I was hoping you could start by
just telling me a Little bit more about CIAC as an
organization and what perhaps the mission statement is of
to co-chair Representative Carrick.
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
is a small regional nonprofit based here in Juneau
with supporters across southeast Alaska, the state,
and nationwide.
Our work focuses dominantly in our region.
And our mission is to protect the land air resources
for our state and the perpetuity to support the ecosystem services that we all rely upon.
No follow-up.
Thank you for that.
I think that's important to start with.
And there were I
think somewhere upwards of 600 public comments on the proposed cascade point project.
Many of those folks I imagine are not affiliated with CAC.
However, I was hoping you could comment on whether engagement in
SEAC as an organization increased or decreased as this project was being proposed and going
out for public comment.
In other words, is this a topic that the community has come to SEOC and also helped to provide
a push for SEIC to take a position on?
And would you say you're representing the public as well in that interest?
To co-chair representative character there has been significant uptake in
both, you know public as well as anonymous calls to CAC and
communications for us to take a strong position on this topic as a
project of
very contentious
Community concern here in June. Oh
One more follow-up follow up. Thank you through the co chair and can you just
Talk to me a little bit about some of the main points of interest for folks that are reaching out to
SEAC and asking to take a position. What's their, what are some
of their primary concerns other than just the process by which this project has gone forward?
To the coach, Representative Carrick, a significant concern is the interrelated
prize the full intended use of the mixed use or doc which the letter of intent with
gram portage resources implicates that ultimately while the state funding is intended towards
the ferry terminal construction that that same location is also going to be coutilized
from their new Amalgamine project that they've been exploring at the base of Herbert Glacier.
The documentation that we have seen from there press releases which includes this slide
notes that the intend to use containerized or shipment from the Base of
Herbert glacier out to Cascade Point where it would then be sent off in containerize
Just as a comment, Mr. Co-chair, I would say that this information here constitutes a strong reason for CX engagement and interest in this project. Thank you for sharing that
Representative Nelson
Thank You, mr. co-chare
I also appreciate you being here today and my questions are just to
Get to the facts. I think a lot of stuff is anecdotal or emotional
So I appreciate your answer before and to go to a comment that you just made to
Representative McCabe when you're talking about scope one two and three. What standard are you talking?
Through the co-chair representative Nelson those are the internationally recognized scopes for assessing
Carbon I worked on projects at my last row and
conjunction with USAID and identifying carbon
reduction strategies.
And those are the three scopes typically
used in measurements for third party accredited reduction
processes.
So is it a USA ID standard of scope 1, 2, and 3?
You said that they're internationally recognized.
What's the actual standard?
that you're applying to say that this one is inadequate.
Just what's the actual standard?
Through the kosher, Representative Nelson,
I can find the representative for your name.
I could find that the name and title of the project later date.
OK, thank you.
Thank you, and then just on these requests,
We'd like to have those just provide to the committee afterwards.
Representative Stutes.
Thank you.
Mr. Coacheire, I appreciate it.
So Mr Breen, first of all, let me say that we appreciate you and we
appreciate the fact that you are speaking up for the public.
This has been a less than a transparent transaction.
As we all know, this took place.
The reappropriation took
place after the legislature.
adjourned, and the MOU was signed after the legislature adjourn without any information
given to the legislator.
So it's imperative that there are organizations and people like you that are willing to step
up to that plate and represent the public.
of which 92% of them were in opposition to this.
So organizations like yours is imperative.
And then my question actually goes to the co-chairs
in light of the conversation we've had.
Has Ed King been invited to testify before this committee?
His name seems to come up quite frequently
and I would think that that would really,
he would be able to answer some of these questions
possibly some of these concerns. So that would be to the co-chairs. Thank you.
Yes. Uh, thank you, Representative Stoot.
So, uh, Mr. Ed King was invited to testify. He was supposed to
testify today. It was my understanding and he, um, did not accept the invitations.
My understanding, actually he declined the invitation is what my left hand person said.
Thank you, Mr. Coachear.
Representative Mina.
Thank You, Co-Chair Aishid.
Through the co-chair, I'm curious,
would CX engagement with the public on Cascade Point?
And hearing this extensive public comment,
if what you have all heard just related
to other aspects of the project besides the mine,
so I am curious about environmental impacts
as it relates to wildlife?
And also maybe outside of environmental impacts
Accessibility issues that we talked about on Tuesday related to the shuttle and people who don't drive
To the co-chair represent Amina a significant number of
related impacts
Have come to our attention
Significantly around
Forage fish species
You know, it's hard to extract this from the mining potential as
well, because that also affects the wildlife impacts.
But Cascade Point is an area that represents one of the last
herring and ooligan runs in southeast.
There haven't been consistent study.
population censuses from Department of Fish and Game over the last 20 years. But in 2025,
I believe they did do a summary review that found a run on the north end of the bay.
Forage fish as well as, you know, there are, I think, 40 anatomist streams within the corridor
that has come to, you know, light as a potential environmental impact related to this, so traffic studies and potential or contamination studies are related effects that are constituents have brought to our attention.
Thank you.
Rob, Senator McCabe.
Thanks.
Yeah, a couple things.
First off, this is for the co-chairs.
Ed King has moved to Oklahoma.
and he's not doing consulting work anymore, so before we mischaracterize why he is not here like he
is, you know, not wanting to come, there's a reason. He's
not doin' it anymore. So, second thing I have is we're going to get gold belt in here, right?
But I'm a little concerned that we are getting one side of the story without having a complete picture of all this.
You know, it'd be nice to see if Goldbelt has any letters of support for this, what their ideas are.
We've already heard it's a mile and a half.
I think we're as a committee for some reason or another.
I don't know if it is influence or what we our.
Focused on shutting down a project before it even really gets going or studied or has NEPA studies or any of that sort of thing
Well, you can you know
Well yeah, it's just frustrating to me that as a committee. We are we have a one-sided stance
We should be a Committee that has open honest transparent discussion
instead of instead, of just from a group that is
I thought we were going to hear about the environmental thing based on my comments from the other day and all of a sudden
I'm I am hearing an environmental group that is is commenting on
on the process and the dates and timelines and that tribal
You know the cultural thing and I I though I was going hear
about all the and so that's why I get a little upset and apologize, but
You Know I would really like to know where the scoping study is that that
environmental, if you get 600 comments as an environmental group, I would think that we would
be doing a study so that could actually understand the impacts of this road instead of just saying
no. As a state, we have to stop saying no without all the data, without the honest discussion,
in my opinion, just a comment. Thanks. Okay. And then I just had a couple things for the record.
I do not have knowledge that he's no longer in this business but with technology it's remarkable
that if people want to participate they can despite being in another state. And then my
understanding is we did we had we talked to a lobbyist to try to bring and go belt but
the lobbyist was unsuccessful so that's my understanding. I did have a question myself
By representing K by believe, you know, talking about tribal,
you. Is there a tribe involved in this or is it a Alaska native corporation?
And what's the difference?
To the co-chair, so cascade point, the project is on the traditional territories
I want to be very intentional in stating that, you know, we have spoken with tribal counterparts,
spokesperson for the Akkwan.
However, that in my testimony right now, I very specifically do not intend to communicate any of their messages.
I do speak for a tribe.
There is a significant difference between a tribe and a tribal corporation as legal entities and what the responsibilities mean for
consultation
That is part of the process that we're looking at and that
We are very much so advocating for the
process of that consultation and
Advocating that it occurs with the appropriate tribal representatives
Thank you
any representative Kerry culture Kerry thank you to the co-chair I just in brief
response to some of the comments from representative McCabe you know I think
what we're seeing with this project here and one might wonder why someone from
Fairbanks would really care about this is part of a continued mentality it would
the boundaries of beg forgiveness and ask permission on a project that were very heavily
on the side of begged forgiveness later. I mean the cascade point project had over 600
public comments. i just want to emphasize that again i think that's extraordinary.
i don't know of a single project in Alaska where you just put it out for comment and you're going to
AMHOB was opposed to it, the communities of Haynes and Skagway express significant concern.
I'm trying to find who supports this project that's not the industries that would directly
benefit from it and I am struggling to do that as I look at it.
I don't think that either mentality beg forgiveness or ask permission is the right stance in totality
for the department because they do have to be able to move deftly on projects and work
You know, I just I sort of take objection that
That there's not we're not offering sort
Of an opportunity for both sides to be heard both co-chairs have reached out to entities for their perspective
We've had the department come in and express their prospective
And I think as a state we have to we
Have to avoid saying yes without any thought given
to the will of the communities that are directly impacted and it feels to me like this project
is moving significantly in a that direction when you look at the timeline of when the MOU
assigned and the money was obligated to when public comment was actually taken there's a
significant lag in those things and I think that's part of why CAC was so adamant on getting an
We had many requests as co-chairs also for public comment and we we are not going to take public testimony on this issue
It's not a bill before us
But I just want to thank again
The engagement we have gotten both from the department and from SEAC because it's important to hear multiple perspectives on something as controversial as this project has been
so
Representative Mina and then I would like to move to the next testimony, but mr. Green
Rep. Amina before we give you a breather, but would like you to stay here for additional questions after the second
Rep's Amino. Thank you, co-chair. I shite through the co chair
I
Would love some clarification, you know, we've had a little bit of discussion about the need for process and looking at
environmental studies related to the project. So could you just
help clarify who's generally responsible for doing those environmental studies and
when throughout this public process, whether it's this project or similar projects, when
those studies happen.
Do they happen concurrently after these MOUs, et cetera, or do they happened prior to certain
steps in this process?
Through the co-chairs, Representative Mina, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be
the NEPA process. The actual performance of the analyses related to that process could be delegated
likely to Department of Transportation. However, the key point here is that those
analyses are intended to inform the design of a project, including an alternatives analysis.
And they typically happen before a contract is signed because the contract for construction itself would then prejudice the outcome of those analyses by constraining the suite of potential alternatives.
Thank you, and just to follow up through the co-charts.
And I may should have asked this from DOT, but have there been any of those types of studies at all, any types
of alternatives that we've seen or the public has seen?
Through the co-chair, Representative Mina.
The application, I understand the application was submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 4th.
That is after the contract was signed.
the US Army Corps of Engineers is now responsible for determining the
completeness of that application and a further NEPA process would then ensue.
That's just a moment. We are in the process of requesting the contents of
what underlying analyses went into that application.
However, none have been made public.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you, would like to move
to the second invited, has to fire.
That's Ms. Lo's Epstein.
Ms Epstein, what'd you go ahead and unmute yourself,
put yourself on your, on the record
and then start your testimony.
Thank you to the committee. Can you hear me? We can proceed. Wonderful. Thank
you for holding the hearing on the proposed Cascade Point Fairy Terminal
project. My name is Lois Epstein and I am an
Alaska licensed engineer with my own small business, LME, engineering and
policy located in Anchorage.
I have approximately 20 years of experience working on Alaska transportation issues throughout
the state, including extensive familiarity with transportation planning and financing.
I'm here today as a technical consultant for Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
which asked me to estimate the entire cost of the Cascade Point project and to assess whether
You should have, in your packet, a table is titled,
Estimating Cost with a Cascade Point Terminal Project,
which I developed recently.
The importance, sorry,
the importance of the table
is to show legislators based on a Alaska DOT estimate
and approximate capital cost of a cascade point project.
The statewide transportation improvement program for STIS and Alaska DOT presentations
in the committee last week only included stages one and two.
There is a needed stage three with associated costs that was missing.
This stage 3 is discussed as part of highway access in a key internal Alaska
The bottom line when including Stage 3 is that at present,
the cascade point project will cost, at the maximum capital cost over 120 million dollars
with a large portion, more than 60 million coming from state capital project funds for
needed ferry terminal construction and road bridge upgrades. Note that the estimated cost
Nor does it include maintenance costs.
I also would like to briefly comment on the February 5th and 10th AMHOB ADOT presentation
to the House Transportation Committee.
It's greatly concerning that the Alaska Marine Highway System 2045 long-range plan was altered
data complete without development of an economic feasibility study, which was requested by AMHAB.
They AMHAV documented its concerns with this change in its October 29, 2025 letter to the
legislature and governor Dunlavy, that also is contained in your packet. Additionally, the presentation
provided by AMHOP and ADOT cited the 2004 Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan in five slides.
That out-of-date presentation is of little to no use when making current transportation decisions.
Nevertheless, Alaska DOT has spent $4.5 million on design work for the Cascade Point Project
a project that's not reflected in a current regional transportation plan, nor endorsed
by the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board.
The federal government needs to approve regional transportation plans as they inform the state.
Importantly, there should be a moratorium on all additional cascade point project expenditures
until there is an updated Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan.
Notably, in December 2025, the federal government required the mass
superhero to repay nearly $6 million in federal funds for building an unused
ferry terminal that resulted from poor planning decisions by the state.
Moreover, I would add that the $28.5 million contract signed by Alaska DOT
could have been used instead as a state match for nearly 300 million dollars in
other state roads and bridges throughout the state.
Last, slide 18 entitled Cascade Point Ferry Terminal.
Fiscal net impact from the report by Ed King
is greatly misleading as the values for total additional
facility costs are only operational costs, not capital
As shown in the estimated cost table,
the capital costs for this project are substantial,
i.e. over 120 million,
and Alaska DOT needs to be transparent
with the legislature about those costs.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have,
and thank you for your capital consideration at these points.
Thank you, Representative Stutz.
Thank-you.
I am not sure if this is a question for you
or I say DOT in The Room.
Do you know is the anticipation that this, um, to be constructed ferry facility at Cascoy cascade point will be a facility that will
be utilized as a ferry dock 12 months a year, or will it.
Is it anticipated to use seasonally?
We do have Andy Mills in the room.
Mr. Mills, are you able to address that question
from Representative Stutes?
And I believe it was whether this new port
would be year round or seasonal.
For the record Andy Mills legislative liaison and special assistant to the commissioner at the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Through the chair representative students. I don't have that answer because it will depend again. We're early enough
In the process and again a design build means part of the the contract work is to work on a final design
And I understand that that can lead to confusion kind of a chicken-in-the-egg situation where if you
don't have a fully or finished design. Some of these elements then for review and impacts need
to reflect what that final design is. So just keeping in mind the year round facility, whether
it's used only during the summer months or there's a winter component to it, I think is yet to be
determined. I haven't heard that we've entertained what both would look like. And again, the road
banded and improved somewhere around 2012, 2014, somewhere in there.
My father lived out of Malga Harbour, far enough out that I remembered that project
widening and creating a considerable improvement to that corridor.
But of course, we've talked about, I believe, as Rep Nelson mentioned in a previous hearing that
the last portion of that is there, just needs to be impaved and
improved to get to the terminal site.
So just to clarify Mr.. Mio's the the seasonality or permanent year round is to be determined is that what I heard not
Response yes or no, maybe
So to the co-chair
I don't know, I believe I've heard both arguments, but of course I would never ask a legislator to tell me yes or no, they're going to get 27 votes on a bill.
So I try not to do yes-or-no's only because I know that there's variability in what's, and I never want to give you a statement that is inaccurate.
I appreciate that. Did you have a follow-up?
I do, so I just want clarify that
As much possibility of it being seasonal as that there is it
being a year round operation.
Through the co-chair of representatives, I would not want to give you an answer that is inaccurate.
I've heard both discussed.
I don't know what the current approach is.
That both have options and both come with costs.
Both are very real possibilities.
Fair enough.
Fair Enough.
Thank you.
Thanks. So I have a couple of questions for Mr. Mills if that's if
that is okay. It's okay with him. But yeah, he might have to go
somewhere. I'm on your time. Okay.
So, I am curious, is this a typical DOT project? I mean, most
of the time we see a step thing and it seems to me because of
the involvement of another partner that isn't a state entity that this might
be a little bit atypical.
So, through the co-chair, Representative, that's a good and valid point.
Again, it's not quite a public-private partnership, a traditional P3, but, again, the staging
of an MOU early on was to establish that relationship before certain other substantive steps could
be taken.
My understanding is that if a partner is working on a project and they have the permits, we
attempt to to partner. So, um, again, I'm I am not lead on this item. It's south coast director
Goens is going to be he may already be in Senate transportation right now for this exact same topic.
So apologies. He's not here. he's prepping for that. Follow up follow up. Thanks.
So a couple of things that I say that i heard from Mrs. Miss Epstein. Um,
When when did we actually know about the grand portage thing?
Before the memo after the Memo after this stage three seems like there's a discrepancy in the timing there to me
And I'm kind of going off a memory because I don't have it right in front of me
Yeah
Through the chair representative McCabe, I actually believe the CX slides show
2024 announcement and I I
2023 before that. So if they're again, I think Mrs. Lois's testimony, we would be happy to provide
more comprehensive response that goes through if the committee would desire. But from the slides
alone, that was a yes. I'll take that as a Yes. It I can see from here 2019, of course predates the
I don't know because I've been with the department for five years, which is 2020
ish. So I would have to seek clarification on when certain mining claims or interests were
publicly known, but certainly the announcement.
on these slides shows it is afterwards.
One more?
Yeah, great.
Yeah.
That'd be great if you could, you know, it would be
great to see the timeline, because I know representative
Stutz has some concerns about when the timelines were done and when
the MOUs were down and and, and
when we knew, we need to know when you knew what.
Isn't that how that goes?
So I have one more question.
I was also here when
we established the AMHUB, representative Stutz and I had many, I found
I never thought, and I heard Ms. Epstein say this,
that the approval is statutorily required from the AMHOB.
I thought there were an advisory board,
isn't that how we establish them?
So through the co-chair to represent in McCabe.
Yeah, I believe what I've heard was
that AMHAW had not approved.
And so I guess you certainly could take that a few ways,
but it was good clarification as
with all deference to, of course, the bill maker.
There is, has been some friction in the perception
of what AMHOP's role is as an operations board,
which is advisory and on the record was shown as advisory.
And I know that we always attempt to provide clarity
on where that stands as far as in approval.
I'm very familiar with the 1965 and I can pull it from there.
No, those are old books, new books.
Okay. We can read it if desired, but it's advisory and consultation,
but not approval of actions that apartment has the role of finalizing
and taking final action.
So, thanks.
So we'll go to Representative Nelson.
Thank you Mr. Coacher question for Mr Mills through the co-chair the previous
testimony said that there was stage one stage two and stage three that's laid
out for us here and that you withheld a stage 3 essentially for that
I was wondering if you could clarify once again on your previous presentation that we've gone over on stage one or stage two and
the discrepancy between a potential stage three that is before us.
Through the coach here to represent Nelson, I would have to look at this.
Mrs. Lois's testimony and assertions were not provided ahead of time.
So I'm happy to go through and look at those the timing of a stage three.
I believe was in relation to step specific documentation and estimates.
But I would want to back and make sure I am answering the question correctly so
that I answering it accurately.
Follow up.
Could I clarify with Miss Lois if she's still online?
Yeah.
Epstein.
Miss Epstein, I apologize.
Ms. Epstein, did you hear that question and can you address that through me to represent Nelson?
Ms Epstein are you still online we cannot hear you? Oh
Apologies through the co-chair
Lois Epstein. Thank you representative Nelson. I would
I'd like to clarify that Stage 3 was not included in the AMHOP ADOT presentation.
It's a term that I use.
However, it is included, in 2019 internal DOT memo, that there needs to be upgrades of
I'd have to look that up to the point where this project starts.
So it is an important part of the upgrade that is needed, but was not talked about in
terms of this full project in the presentation to
the committee. So stage three at this point is my term,
but I encourage the Committee to be asking additional questions about that.
the any potential road upgrades on the existing payment.
Through the co-chair to represent Nelson, absolutely.
And so regional director Chris Goens
is actually the best person who could provide that
because it's the terrestrial link to it.
And if there's an omission in this presentation,
it was because I think we're trying to keep the scope
to cascade, but there are many.
follow-on pieces such as again the national highway route going to
To be honest on this particular project, we could have multiple
presentations that address sort of
Different pieces of this conversation. So again apologies if the committee asked for or desired something beyond what we put in that presentation
We can provide that in writing as follow up
Sure, I'd like to move on because I want to make sure our last
a couple of people, but thank you, Representative Stuth.
Thank you Mr. Coacherer, Ayeshide, Mr Mills.
I understand this is an unusual project and there's pieces
that haven't yet been put into the puzzle
and then there is a bigger picture.
So is it standard operating procedure for DOT to sign
a multi-million dollar contract before you have public comment?
on an issue that affects the public the way this does?
Is that standard procedure?
So through the co-chair at the Rep. Stu,
it's a very good point you make.
I think what's missing here is that the Public Comment Period
you're pointing to was not the only public comment period
associated with this project.
And there were, again, I believe we had in the presentation
before a substantial timeline of history going back 20
And there are various sort of stage gates and elements of of input there
And I think that that may miss although I I cannot and do not want to speak for any other entity
I heard it suggested that again our private sector partner in this gold belt would
elucidate more of the conversation, but if they have permits, I'm assuming that there was a public comment period for some of their activities as well
So that's that a good question to ask for our partners. Well, follow up briefly. Thank you
Mr. Mills, this is not a 20 year old project.
This is a new project,
this not the same project that existed 20 years ago.
It's not same people, it's just not.
And so my concern is you don't have the puzzle pieces
put together, you even don have
the whole project lined out.
You don t know what the cost is.
But yet, DOT has signed a multi-million dollar contract without public input, so to speak, on the whole package to go forward.
And that's what I'm curious to know is if that standard operating procedure for DOT.
Understood, through the co-chair to represent our students.
It is actually quite standard.
We can show you the different magnitudes of different projects, but there has to be money of phase one,
enough information to provide that next step. Obviously, committing certain funds is a necessity
at different stages of the project. I think what you're articulating is the amount in the method,
in this case. And so I understand the difference that you you are asking about.
I would also again point back to the question that was asked. How many other
public-private partnerships, have we engaged in and attempting to compare a sort of a
project that doesn't involve a private partner with something that does makes this a bit of an apples to oranges?
Last one. Thank you. I agree with you, I appreciate it,
but
this isn't any other project and it's
I'll just leave it at then.
Thank you.
Representative Mina.
Thank You, Co-Chair.
I shied through the co-chair.
I wanted to ask you directly instead of alluding to you in the background of the question that
I asked earlier related to the environmental study.
So what environmental studies has been done on this project and if there have been that
have be submitted to Army Corps of Engineers, can those be made public?
To make sure I'm accurate on what is, I would want to get that back to you in writing.
I am not primary.
I've not really working on this particular project.
A jack of all trades is a special assistant, which is an inch deep, a mild wide.
It means I don't have a direct answer for you, but I
am happy to have our team get you maybe a timeline or some more information
on the environmental piece, what it might miss.
And so I'd ask if you want it to be included, are you looking for us
gold belt or any other permit holder what their piece of that was as well because I don't want
this conversation to miss perhaps a significant component.
to follow up through the co-chair.
I think any information just related
to those environmental studies, so both from DOT
and if there is any publicly available information
from Goldbelt as well, I feel all of that
would be helpful so that the public can know
what studies have been done related
to the environmental aspects of the project
and what has been submitted so we understand
the broader process and timeline of Cascade Point.
Thank you. Thank You, and then I
Have a question. This is for miss Epstein online and
I'm just doing this by recollection
So my understanding is this project, you know going to a a new
ferry terminal would have some savings and
Please help me understand this I
The number in my head is it might save $765,000 a year.
Am I correct in that?
Through the co-chair, your call.
To the Co-Chair.
Yes, go ahead.
Okay.
The numbers you were presented and the slide only represent operational costs.
They don't include anything about the capital cost.
So I don't think they're very informative, particularly because they are less than a million dollars a year.
So, I would encourage the committee to dig a little deeper into the capital costs.
And I tried to summarize it in the cost estimate table that you have because those are the real significant numbers.
And that's where I will put my attention.
And then just as a very brief follow up,
I look back at my written testimony and I said it is the project.
was not endorsed by the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board.
I was talking about the federal government needs
to approve regional transportation plans.
So just to clarify, I never said that they were
in the position to do anything other
than be advisors and consultants to ADOT.
Okay.
Well, thank you.
My understanding is some people have to leave.
So I would like to thank Mr. Mills
Being here, I didn't expect you.
I would also like to thank Mr. Breen and Ms. Epstein for being here.
The next meeting of the House Transportation Committee will be held on Tuesday, February 17th at 1.30 PM following the meeting
of The House Finance Subcommittee for Transportation, which begins at 12.
30 PM.
On Tuesday, February 17th, after that meeting, we will finish our presentation on advanced construction and hear from the department on their consolidation efforts.
So at the time of 136 early,
we stand adjourned.