1. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Northern Waters Task Force.
I am here today to give you an update on the Alaska Deep Draft Arctic Ports Study.
Global warming and the growing emergence of marine shipping via the Arctic Ocean via either Russia’s Northern Sea Route or Canada’s Northwest Passage, bring to the fore front that the US is an Arctic nation solely because of the State of Alaska.
Alaska is strategically located at the crossroads to Arctic intermodal travel, with a vast untapped natural resources while at the same time wanting to preserve a Native culture built upon a sustainable and traditional use of the Arctic environment.
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Alaska Deep Draft Arctic Ports Study
Michael Lukshin, P.E.
July 8, 2011

2. Arctic sea ice is shrinking and at the same time thinning.
As residents of Kivalina, Shismaref, and Unalalkeet,….. just to name a few Alaskan communities already know,…….. a smaller Arctic ice pack has left coastal communities more vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal erosion, including the loss of protective beaches, and nearby buildings and roads. These problems are at their worse during the annual fall storms of October and November and before the ice starts to freeze back toward shore.
Besides a shrinking ice pack, the depth of the ice is thinning. Once 80 feet thick at the time of Captain Cook,……… Arctic sea ice is now about 10 feet thick. This thinning is compounding the amount of ice shrinkage.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

3. (Transition) As a result….there is water where there used to be ice.
These increased areas of open water ……. are providing new opportunities for increased marine traffic in the Arctic
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

4. Arctic marine traffic is increasing
Some think of the Bering Strait as a chokepoint . Other’s consider it Alaska’s version of the Strait of Gibraltar.
The Bering Straight is….
It is 53 nautical miles or about 98 miles, wide at its narrowest point near
With around 325+ transits per year..
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

5. May 16-17, 2011 planning charrette
State Government
Governor Parnell requested funding for a 3-year Arctic Ports Study to support a deep draft port (minimum of -35 feet depth) and economic development in Alaska.
Federal Government
The Alaska Congressional delegation sponsored legislation highlighting the need for U.S. Arctic ports to support national sovereignty, environmental stewardship and life safety.
This spring there was a convergence in state and federal initiatives. The Governor requested funding for an Arctic deep-draft port and the Alaska Delegation sponsored legislation in the House and the Senate for a U.S. Arctic port.
You may be wondering what is a planning charrette? The word “charrette” is a French word meaning “cart”. A charrette is a rapid means of gathering subject matter experts together to reach a conclusion by a set timeframe.
The charrette was facilitated by Sarah Barton, RISE Alaska. Hosted jointly by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The charrette was held in Anchorage at the Denai’ai Center on May 16th and 17th. Fifty representatives of state and federal agencies and organizations worked with three panels and five breakout sessions to lay the foundation for the Alaska Deep Water Arctic Port Study and a future Arctic port in the State of Alaska.
The purpose of the charrette was to have these experts respond to the need and the opportunity for an Arctic Port or Ports……. to shape the study scope for Arctic ports development in Alaska.
The essential challenge was to optimize state and federal interest with the drivers of economic development
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

6. Panel #1 – Federal Interests
Primary mission is U.S. sovereignty and national defense.
Secondary mission is search and rescue, obviously a key interest of the USCG.
Closest deepwater federal ports serving the Arctic now is in Kodiak, though the USCG leases space in Dutch Harbor. It’s a long way from Kodiak to Barrow, approximately 940 miles (3 hours by C-130, 5 hours by helicopter). It would take a USCG cutter two days to travel to the arctic and up to four days to reach Barrow.
All the panel members emphasized the need for additional Arctic research and updated mapping/navigation information.
Note, the chart on the right. The majority of Western Alaska’s hydrography is denoted in yellow or gray color. Let me highlight that the yellow areas were collected from 1940’s to 1970’s. The gray area’s are pre-1940’s and consist mostly of soundings by lead lines!
Ultimately, the Federal agencies noted that “if an Arctic Port were built, they would use it”, but that the federal government is not under an initiative to development an Arctic Port or Ports. Only Congress can do that.
Panel members:
LCDR David Zezula, NOAA
Captain Adam Shaw, USCG
Colonel Kevin Brown, USAF-ALCOM (Alaska Command located at Elmendorf AFB)
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

7. Panel #2 – State Interests
The State Interests Panel focused on economic development with increased access to resources and construction of Roads to Resources……….such replicating the Red Dog Mine (located north of Kotzebue and near Kivalina ) or building the Road to Nome.
The main state interest is on economic development and mining. Several mines in the advanced exploration phase were mentioned, such the one at the Donlin Creek, a major gold prospect located on the Kuskokwim River near Aniak, and the Western Arctic Coal deposit in the Delong Mountains near Port Clarence. The Ambler District consists of 35,000 acres of patented and State of Alaska mining claims;
Despite these large Alaskan reserves, cost effective production is limited by the lack of a transportation system…..be it a of lack of roads, bridges, rails, or ports.
State Panel members also mentioned the poor state of digital mapping for the State of Alaska.
Panel members:
Steve Borell, Alaska Miners Association
Tom Crafford, Dept. of Natural Resources
Al Clough, DOT&PF Roads to Resources
Nick Mastrodicasa, DOT&PF Digital Elevation Mapping
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

8. Panel #3 - Funding Options
Who Pays?
When?
Our Money
Other’s Money
Now
Direct appropriation from GF
(Example state or local capital budget)
Appropriation from Federal Government
(Example: Federal Earmarks)
Future
(Borrowing)
Our Children
(Example: GO Bonds)
Other’s Children
(Example: Stimulus)
The Funding Options Panel explored potential fund sources and financing mechanisms. When you really look at financing the construction of a port, there are basically four options.
Public Private Partnerships (3P’s) – offer an enticing alternative that bridges the gap. 3P’s could use private capital funds to build an Arctic port, and then have port user’s pay over time. Clearly this would require a contract between public-sector and the private- party for a public service or good.
There is a substantial private sector role in 3P’s: typically design, finance, build and maintain, Costs borne by users (not taxpayers). Requires robust economics to cover risk and ensure a profit. Ownership transfers back to government after a time period.
But Alaska's sparse population, long distances, high costs, and difficult environment, not to mention the boom-bust commodity marketplace, make P3’s challenging without state government help from an agency like AIDEA.
Panel members:
Jim Hemsath, AIDEA
Jeff Ottesen, DOT&PF
Steve Boardman, USACE
Schawna Thoma for Senator Mark Begich
P3’s– Private capital funds; user’s pay over time.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF
Funding should relate to overall purpose. For example,
Sovereignty – federal issue, then the feds pay
Homeland protection – federal issue
Resource protection – federal and state issue
Search and rescue – federal, limited state
Off-shore resources – federal, limited state
On-shore resources – state issue
Economic development – state issue

9. Breakout #1 - Define Arctic Geography
The Arctic is defined by temperature, ice, law, politics or geography.
On the left…….the Arctic Council defines the Arctic by the 10 degree Celsius (50 degree Fahrenheit) isotherm, where the average temperature for the warmest month is below 10 degrees Celsius.
On the right…..Congress defined the Arctic Region to include the area north of the Brooks Range and the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers, including the Aleutian Chain.
Note that the both maps included the Aleutians Islands. …But the charette participants struggled to determine the southern boundary of the “Arctic”.
While it was easy for some to say that it is defined by the Arctic Circle, which would include traditional places like Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope, and Kotzebue. But using the Arctic Circle would leave out the communities of Nome, Golovin, Shaktoolik, and Unalakleet. Many of the charrette participants felt that although the Aleutians Islands are surely important in terms of gateways for transportation and fishing and maybe logistics for the Arctic, but that the Aleutians were too far away to be consider in the Arctic. . Several of the charrette participants saw Nunivak Island as the southern boundary for the Arctic Ports Study,
As Alaskans we already know what we consider to be the Arctic but that idea is difficult to put down on a map.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

10. Breakout #2 - Define Vessel Parameters
Diverse vessels types
Desired depth 20-50’
Increased traffic
SAR
Life safety
Spill response
Need tugs
Port infrastructure lacking
The second breakout session focused on ….what ships will travel in the Arctic over the next 20 years.
Presently there has been a diverse group of vessels using the Arctic, including large bulk carriers employed at the Red Dog Mine, a large gas liquid concentrates tanker that transited the Bering Straights from Russia to China in 2010, small cruise ships transiting the Northwest Passage from Europe and pleasure boaters seeking an adventure. Research, oil exploration, and military vessels were also identified.
The depth of these vessels ranges widely, from from barges and off-shore supply ships, to 28’ for a NOAA research vessel, to 50’+ for tankers and large bulk carriers.
At a minimum, the Arctic Ports Study is directed to study a depth of 35’, under the direction that the new Alaskan deepwater port could accommodate an USCG ice breaker.
With increasing future traffic will increased potential for a life-safety or environmental incident. With the USCG being so far away, most Arctic search and rescue missions or oil spill responses will fall to the boroughs and local communities to be the first responders. But Arctic communities lack all-weather helicopters and have little in the way of oil-spill response capabilities. Tugs become very important is there is an emergency in assisting a ship in trouble or stopping it if the ship has lost power. Tugs can also perform oil spill response missions.
All vessel types will desire appropriate upland and port support facilities. The closest ship maintenance facility is in Kodiak.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

11. Breakout #3 - Port Siting
No one port solution
Need port marine and upland facilities
Partnerships necessary
Federal
State
Local
Resource development and industry
A checklist for port development includes….one the marine side…..sufficiently deep waters; adequately charted waters; aids to navigation; pilots; tugs;…….and on the shore side………water, fuel, POL, power, cranes; large staging and lay down areas; warehouses; repair facilities, and means to connect to a road or an airport. A heliport is okay, but a 6500’ paved airport with hangers for search and rescue helicopters would be better….And local community support.
Potential sites noted in during the breakout discussions included:
Merkoryuk on Nunivak Island
St. Michaels in Norton Sound above the Yukon River mouth
Cape Darby for rock and gravel
Cape Nome for rock and gravel
Nome with dredging the existing port
Teller and Port Clarence, a port of refuge south of the Bering Straits
Cape Blossom in Kotzebue Sound
Delong Mountain Terminal at the Red Dog mine, also with dredging the existing port
Prudhoe Bay
In the absence of federal and state money, private interests are likely to initiate a port development…… and port location….. for a very particular use. Later, federal users (like the USCG, the US Navy, NOAA) will plan to build what has been developed. Participants highlighted the need for partnership and accommodation of both state and federal interests, along with industry.
As a Maersk executive said recently, “Ports are not about ships. Ports are about freight.”
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

12. Breakout #4 - Draft Study Outline
Executive Summary
Introduction
Driving Factors
Potential Port Sites
Land Access
Environmental Constraints
Vessel Parameters
Design Criteria
Port Site Evaluation
Port Structures
Port Layout Concepts
Infrastructure Requirements (Shore-side)
Cost Estimates
Schedule
Conclusion
The fourth breakout session focused on discussing and developing a draft study outline for the proposed Arctic Deep-Draft Ports Planning Study.
This outline is fairly generic. As we work further, we will need more guidance from decision makers and the Steering Committee on how the Arctic Deep Water Ports Study be used.
The tone of the report will depend on the Stakeholders, Context, Timing, and who the Audience is. For example, if the Arctic Ports Study will be used to advocate for funding from Congress then the structure of the report will need to be adjusted.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

13. Conclusion What’s Clear? What’s Unclear? Possible Interim Solutions
Next steps
What’s Clear?
It is clear that U.S. national sovereignty requires that the U.S. maintain a presence in the Arctic. The U.S. response to date has been tepid given the land grab underway by other Arctic nations, especially Russia. That Arctic traffic is growing, and with it the related requirement to respond to potential incidents with spill response, Search and Rescue, vessels in distress. That there is no obvious existing natural site for a deep-draft port in Western Alaska.. And finally, that a new Arctic Port or Ports will require public and private partnerships to build and maintain.
What’s Unclear?
That current NOAA charting and DNR mapping of Western and Northern Alaska is insufficient. And because physical setting, opportunities and constraints are unknown. The location of a future Arctic ports or ports is unknown. The actual process for decision-making during the selection of port sites is not defined. Funding has a lot to do with a final decision. Capital and Operating Fund sources are unknown. Will the driver be private resource and economic development by industry? Or the state? And/or will Congress underwrite development of the port as part of its national security and sovereignty? If so, how will this come together? And who would/should be responsible for a new Arctic port?
Interim Solutions
There may be some Interim Solutions. What one might call these the “Low Hanging Fruit”. The state could upgrade the roads to and airport around the port sites. We could look at building all-weather hangers for USCG helicopters or other emergency first responders. And we could study the idea of deploying mooring buoys or building offshore islands, like the oil-industry does, to facilitate lightering and fuel shipments to coastal villages.
Next steps
The charrette articulated the initial scope and issues for the Arctic Port Study to be conducted over the next three years, including discussions of the boundaries and conditions of the Arctic, vessel parameters and traffic, port siting criteria, and elements for inclusion in the process.
What we need is to broaden our outreach. To add industry, tribal, and community engagement and support.
With approval of the capital budget, the USACE and DOT&PF will develop t a work plan and schedule for delivery of the Arctic Deep-Draft Ports Study by We will incorporate the information generally provided by the Charrette participants, and continue to collaborate with related studies and programs: Institute of the North, Arctic Council, Homeland Security, NOAA, DOT&PF’s Digital Elevation Mapping Project, USCG High Latitude Study, U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap, DOD, University of Alaska, Alaska Miners Association, Marine Exchange as well as industry and community stakeholders.
Your upcoming Northern Waters Task Forces’ report will be most helpful…. to find out what additional criteria we should consider.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

14. Questions
For more information, contact: Michael Lukshin, State Ports & Harbors Engineer, DOT&PF Eric Taylor, Transportation Planner, DOT&PF Conference presentations, maps and summary are posted online at
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF

15. Possible Questions
Q: Will the Arctic be ice-free? A: No one is forecasting year-round navigation in the Arctic. It is not anticipated that there will be an ice-free port in the Arctic anytime soon. All this really means is that there may need to be multiple ports, some with seasonal use/ access only. Q: Is an Arctic Ocean, between Europe and Asia, route faster? A: Yes and no. It does save 3000 miles of shipping time but it carries a higher risk for ships because the Arctic is not ice-free. Timing is the essence of shipping. Like ballet dancers, the dancers don’t need to be especially swift but they do need to hit their marks perfectly on cue. That’s hard to do when you are dancing in and around a jumble of ice. Q: Why cant we put the Arctic port on the STIP? A: Ports and harbors not eligible for FHWA/FAA funding are therefore are not included in the STIP. Q: Are public-private partnerships a new idea? A: No. We used P3’s to build the early US toll roads and the transcontinental railroad. So you can see that they have been around for a long time. But they are being pursued with new vigor by DOT’s and state government given the challenging national and global financial market.
7/8/2011
Alaska DOT&PF