West Susitna Access Programmatic Agreement Review Session

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ryan Anderson. I'm the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and welcome to the PA, the Programmatic Agreement review meeting for the West Susitna Access Road project. I was just going to go through briefly through the agenda and kind of give everybody a quick rundown of what we're planning on covering today, and then we thought we'd go through introductions. So we'll give that a shot.

Today on the agenda, I mean, what we're trying to do here is we have the 45-day public or the tribal review process going on for the programmatic agreement. And so, I mean, really the purpose of today's meeting was several reasons. One is to give everyone a good project update because we know it's been some time since we've all gotten together and been able to do just that good project update of where we're at, have the presentation on the programmatic agreement and provide people that opportunity to ask any questions or clarifiers that they may need on that document. We have a comment matrix also that was sent out as part of that document, and if there's any questions or comments on that as well, just to really kind of go through all of those pieces and parts to, to this, to get through this part. So We're looking forward to it.

I think we brought, you know, the full team here today so we can have a good solid discussion going forward. So with that, I think the best thing to do is maybe we go through and do introductions. Let's see, do we have a way to facilitate that? Maybe Shannon or Danielle? Okay.

Yeah, um, do you want to go online, everyone? Does that work for you? Okay, so I'll just start off really quick. I'm just here to support, uh, Shannon McClarty, Communication Director for Alaska DOT, and then we'll go online. Online, I see Alana Shaw.

Introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, this is Alana and I am with K'naihté Indian Tribe.

In the room? We're going to start down here. All right, and then Angie Wade, introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, Angela Wade, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, and Jessica Winstaffer, Environmental Stewardship Director.

Yes, Stephanie Thompson with Alexander Creek Incorporated. Just want to let everybody know though, it's a tribal review. I called around when I found out yesterday about this meeting. I guess they got my email wrong and I called around the other tribes and they didn't hear about this meeting. They had to search for it.

So I, I think we need to maybe go through what you have planned, but also to have another meeting with everybody present. So, yeah, so it's not— we can talk about— Justin, go ahead and go online. Online. I see a few Yeah, this is Chris Hughes. I'm with HDR.

I oversee a lot of the work that HDR has been doing on the project. Thank you.

Betsy Oliver, I did around Historic Trail Alliance. Thank you, Betsy.

Chris Paris.

Took me a couple steps to unmute. Yeah, US Army Corps of Engineers.

Hi, Mark Rollins, cultural resource specialist with DOT. I'm just filling in for Eric Hilsinger today.

Christina with FHWA.

Yeah, this is Christina Mounts, Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division. I'm the environmental program manager here.

Yeah, good afternoon. This is Jacob Gundek in the room. I'm with DOT and PF, field operations lead on the project.

And online, Connie Downing.

Connie Downing, I'm the chief administrative officer for Tyonek Native Corporation.

Erda Adams, K'nik Tribe. Deborah Corbett.

I'm here. Yeah, Deborah Corbett, Kenai Itzi Indian Tribe. Tribal archaeologist.

Richard Porter, CEO of K'nik Tribe.

Doug with DOT and PIA. Yeah, hi everyone. Doug Colwaight, statewide environmental program manager at DOT.

Jamie Morendi, I'm the senior Alaska operations manager for TAIYA Time with Native Corporation.

Emily with FHWA. This is Emily Haynes with Federal Highways Alaska Division.

And then Holly McKinney. Hi, I'm Holly McKinney, Cultural Resources Manager for the Federal Highways Program at DOT.

Deputy Commissioner. Yes, I'm Katherine Keith, Deputy Commissioner with DOT, and I'm also acting Central Region Director right now. Director Holland resigned effective a month ago, so.

Jack Carrera. Good afternoon, my name is Jack Carrera and I'm counsel for Federal Highways. Thank you.

I'm up next. Good afternoon. This is Sheena Duvall. I'm with HDR. I'm a senior cultural resource specialist.

Jenny Blanchard.

Hi, this is Jenny Blanchard. I'm the archaeologist with the BLM Acreage Field Office. And my camera isn't turning on. Um, sorry, but hello.

Chris Bruns, Chief Engineering Geologist, Alaska DOT.

Jocelyn Simpson.

Hi, I'm Jocelyn. I'm an engineering geologist with DOT.

I'm Sarah Mydahl. I'm Deputy SHPO with the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. Jocelyn Swindell.

I am Jocelyn Swindell. I'm with DOT Commissioner's Office, and I'm the program coordinator and on the tribal team.

Hi everyone, Danielle Tessen, DOT Communication Team. I'm happy to be here today and Yeah, just wanted to address to the invites. We did pull from Alaska Native Chamber and the list that she'd been coordinating with, and so we used that list, but I would love to talk with you after too on—. Yes, that one. All right, I'll just go through the rest of the online.

See if we got a number here. Casey Miller.

Good evening. This is Casey Miller at the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Kyle Foster.

Hello, this is Kyle, CEO at Oklutna Inc.

Michelle Schmidt.

Hi, this is Michelle Schmidt, land manager with CIRI. Can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you just fine. Monty Rogers.

Hello, Monty Rogers here. Here I'm owner of Cultural Alaska Archaeologist here on behalf of and supporting Alexander Creek and Eklutna and Tyonek and Chickaloon.

Randy Worden.

Good afternoon, Randy Worden, FHWA Alaska Division.

RL Darby. Roseanne Darby, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Kenaitze Indian Tribe.

Ruby Walaya Williams.

Hi, Ruby Woloia Williams, Dena'ina Cultural Center Manager for the Kenaitze Indian Tribe.

Tim Tannenbaum.

Oh, sorry about that delay. Tim Tannenbaum, Engineering Geologist with State of Alaska DOT.

And, uh, you sing?

Also present.

Uh, Bree, what's your same?

Engineering geologist with DOT.

Hey, I'm Sonny Mauricio, Public Information Officer for DOT.

Is that everybody? Okay, well, thanks everyone. I really appreciate everyone making the time for today. I know that's important these days, you know, time's important. So appreciate that.

One thing we wanted to make sure we did was a good project update for everyone. And one thing we wanted to do just up front was to give everyone a quick run-through of our updated website. That's something that we've been working on over the past couple of months just to make sure we're doing a good job getting information out to everyone and, you know, having that place people can go to for the latest and greatest. And so I was going to ask Danielle to kind of give us a quick run-through and work through that. Yeah, happy to.

And as we pull that up to share for those in the room and those on Zoom right now, We're really excited actually with the, with the new website for a couple of reasons. As you'll start to see, is it does take on a different look and feel and also message. And, and it's a, there's a message here that as Carolina shows, we get to the other tab. Yeah. You know, at the top you've got an overview tab that, that goes over just essentially a lot of, of what you all have been experiencing and, and going through with this project.

But with each tab, there's, there's more information. For instance, yeah, go ahead and scroll down a little bit. You know, Carolina has been able to go on site, myself, and we've been able to capture some of the story of, of the work that you all have been doing together. As well as right there, Carolina, where you have it is just kind of sharing more transparent of work that's been done. Who kind of owns that work or who's been in charge of that.

And that's something that we don't always see on these project websites. It's kind of sometimes you're like, what's going on? I looked at this, you know, where are we at in the project? So with this one, we just wanted to take a little more time and just go a little bit deeper than we usually do. And with this website, it's always an iteration of work.

So as work continues, You know, you'll see new items being added. A little bit lower is a video that, that was pretty fun for us to, to, to shoot on site. And it's just really just taking a look at what's, what's going on out there right now. You'll continue to see updates, you know, particularly on this tab, the Tribal Relations tab, where we're really wanting to just share the story of, of all the work that, that you all have been a part of and Today, after this meeting, we are recording, and, and I, I know that there's people that maybe didn't get the invite, or as Commissioner mentioned, time is, you know, we've got a lot going on. So what we want to do is have that, uh, this meeting on this website and just be absolutely transparent throughout the whole process and, and kind of provide above and beyond with, with insight to these types of meetings.

So that's, that's the vision moving forward. We're always open to feedback. If there's something on here that's either confusing or potentially something that you just have a question about, you know, we've got a good communication team here today and there are so many of us here today because we are focused on this and telling the story. So we just invite you to go ahead and reach out at any time if you see anything or if you want to see more of something and just invite you to keep looking back because we'll continue to add, like after today, All the meeting material, the, the recording and, and all of those types of items will continue to update there. Yes.

And we've got a couple people who just joined online. Matt Billings, if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and who you're with. Hello everybody. Yeah, Matt Billings. I'm the Northern Region Materials Engineer with the Department of Transportation.

And Natalie Velez. Hi, my name is Natalie Velez. I'm the land and environment director for Native Village of Eklutna.

Thank you both. Okay. Okay. And one thing with the website too, that, that will be the repository. So as we complete things like geotechnical reports or design documents, I mean, those go on the website.

So if anyone's wondering where the latest and greatest of the final report is, that will be the place to find it as well. So that'll be important to report. Okay, so we can move on, I think. Yeah, Danielle and Shannon. Okay, I think we've got a couple more slides that we want to go through.

You know, as we start today, we just, we really wanted to start too with this slide just on how to submit your comments. So We know we're here today because we're— we've already started the 45-day tribal review period. And so just out in the front, we wanted to show— I'm hoping most of you that have received this letter, and if you haven't, it was printed in the packet here and it will be on the website following this meeting as well. But the letter is from Commissioner, and it's just letting folks know how to provide comments, and that's just for this PA process, right? This isn't for the larger comment period after.

And so if you wanted to right now, there's a QR code on the screen. You're welcome to, to just engage with that right now if you would like. But we wanted to be upfront with that and we'll come back to this too at the end. And then moving forward to the next one, you know, something that, that we wanted to just take a moment and ask questions and kind of set the foundation for today is with this slide on ground rules. I know for most of you, you've worked with Alaska Native Chamber, you've met many, many, many times, and there's been processes built.

And what we at DOT, you know, our leadership's really big on setting meeting structures so that we can get the most done in the most respectful and effective ways. And one of the strategies we use is It's just calling out what we like to see in Hindi. And so for instance, you know, that could be for today as we move forward with these presentations and comments, if you wouldn't mind just stating your name, like your first and last name and who you're with. This just helps with the record and ensuring we know, you know, who's speaking. And so that would be a good ground rule for today because we have quite a few folks here today.

Another ground rule that, that could be good for today is we do have an agenda that has a couple presentations. As Commissioner mentioned, you know, we'll have a project update. We've got a couple items to kind of go through and share. And so in order to, you know, accomplish a good amount of work and go over this large PA document, we want to ensure that we have time for comments and questions. And so we will allow a good amount of time at the end and throughout.

If there's a few questions, you know, we can work through those too for maybe a little bit, but we want to, we really want to focus on kind of getting through that update that's been promised, working through those items, and then leaving time at the end for more of a facilitated discussion. But wanted to open the floor and actually ask if there are certain things that you all have seen as you've worked other, there's things that you wish you would have seen. Um, and just allow that moment right now before we—. Yes, this is Stephanie Thompson. Uh, we have concern, um, with the tech reports, and we also didn't get a reply from Eric Hilsinger about our concerns.

DOT, you We saw a letter written to ACHP that everything was addressed, in which it wasn't, and it still hasn't been addressed, and it shouldn't have gone forward. And it has still gone forward. It still hasn't been addressed, and you're moving forward without sitting down and working that through with the tribes. So it's a big concern with this sudden found this report and a lot of people did not get the invites. And though you sent it out, I called them yesterday and today when I got the notice from you.

And most of the main people that have been here for the whole year did not get the invite and it was sent out right before spring break. And a lot of our tribalists, Jessica just got in from Hawaii yesterday morning. She didn't get an invite. Angie was on from Chicagoland, was on break also from spring break. I called down to Kanaites and luckily some of the ones I got online are the ones that I called.

They had no idea that this meeting was taking place. Michaelene was at a fish meeting that she ran over. She didn't know about it and she called Connie and the others from Tionik. So The one, this is ongoing concern with this. When you reach out to the tribes, there are many things like you who have this job, but many of the tribes have a lot of other things on their plate and they need to know this.

And this is really important to us and it has been important. And many of the things have not been addressed. So it's our concerns that you guys are not adhering to the 106 process.

And you're pushing this along. Um, we've said it many times, and I just want to go on the record on that.

Really appreciate it.

I'm just allowing time if there's anyone online that wants to talk about Crown Goals for today as we move forward. Still allow another brief moment for that if someone's thinking.

Okay. Hearing none, moving forward today in this meeting. Do you have a comment? Yeah, please just state your name and who you're representing. And then also be aware that, yes, at the end we'll have a nice discussion period to talk about more.

As well as some of our staff will be here to continue talking at the end as well. But with that, we can keep the meeting moving forward and move on to the next slide.

And from here, you know, to kind of kick us off, you know, we've got project updates and some other items coming up. But before we started that, we just wanted to a lot of time for, um, NCI to give their update, um, for the next 15 minutes or so.

15 Minutes? We only got 2 hours, right? Well, ho ho ho. Want to go first? Go first?

I can go first because mine will kind of lead into what you're going to talk about. Okay. Um, Thank you for the invite and the opportunity to talk. What Richard and I are going to be covering is the tribal partnership with the state and talk about a draft document discussion that we're having. And it really started with the Federal Highway meeting last week in Washington, D.C. with Michael Harkin and We've asked a few ideas and had discussion in terms of tribal consultation engagement, tribe-to-tribe consultation engagement.

So Richard's going to talk about that. We had a meeting, a council meeting on Friday, and we presented them these options and discussions that we're having in the tribal council. Fully supported that and passed it so we can have and go over this in today's meeting. What— these aren't really directly related to the programmatic agreement, but it is a process within the programmatic agreement that can be improved on. And it's also the section I'm going to cover is the partnership and how other tribes in Alaska can partner with the state, and it kind of shows a foundation of, of what we're developing here that is still in development as we move through with this project.

So the tribal and state partnership for infrastructure projects provides an opportunity for tribes to be decision makers on projects occurring within their region and their traditional territories. The partnership is outlined in a Memorandum of Agreement that includes responsibilities for preliminary engineering, construction planning, and mechanisms to transfer funds through a Section 202 funding agreement for the work the tribe assumes under the MOA. This work can range from archaeological fieldwork to bridge and culvert design for fish passage, leading to final design. During construction phase, the tribe continues to participate in construction inspection activities for road, bridge, and culvert work to ensure compliance with the engineer's specifications. The tribe may also participate in activities including but not limited to invasive species mitigation, vegetation and fish rehabilitation, and potentially through agreements with other tribes that have expertise and experience in these certain areas.

K'nik Tribe, uh, we don't carry expertise in all these different fields, and we really want to collaborate with other tribes in terms of what do they have within these fields and what are their interests. Within the project order that, that they could be a part of.

This partnership structure will vary depending on the tribe and the project, but the foundation includes the Memorandum of Agreement, a Section 222 Funding Agreement, and includes, which we are currently working on with the state legal and federal highway legal, Tribal, Alaska Native Corporation project consultation and engagement procedures.

A key challenge in these partnerships is that tribal, federal, and state governments operate under different legal and policy frameworks. While tribes are recognized as sovereign governments by the federal government, state process for tribal engagements have developed over time But state, federal, and tribe can make consultation and coordination more complex to define and implement. And, and that's really a challenge that we're facing right now throughout the project. This tribal-state partnership for infrastructure projects provides an opportunity to improve alignment, strengthen coordination, and enhance how tribal consultation and engagement is implemented and practiced. Since this type of partnership is relatively new for the state and Alaska, Knik Tribe and Alaska Department of Transportation are working collaboratively to develop consultation and engagement procedures with the tribes and Alaska Native corporations.

And once again, this is a new for CNIT. It's probably new for a lot of tribes in Alaska. And this is a, a really a live process as we start to navigate through this partnership with the state for infrastructure projects. The section that Richard Porter is going to cover is, is really probably one of the more important procedures within a project in consultation and engagement. What does it look like?

You're really dealing with 3 different agencies, the tribe, the state, and Federal Highway. And that is complex because each one has their own policies and procedures. So how do we navigate through to best get the tribes and the tribes heard? And so I'll turn this over to Porter for his section. Well, first of all, Bert wrote me this nice little script and he knows how horribly I follow scripts.

So, and also all the script does is reiterate what he already already set to make him sound like a genius. So I'm just going to go with it and fire it from the hip. He knew I was going to do that anyways. I want to welcome everybody here. I've been doing this for a long time.

This is not my first sitting down with programmatic agreement under the 106 process. This NEPA is being triggered. A lot of the people that online and in this room, we've been doing this thing for 20-something years together from my work when I was at the Environmental Protection Agency, when I was at DOD, and when I worked for Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, and since I've been working for the last almost 20 years at the, at Tlingit Tribe.

So it's not our first rodeo, but like Bert said, it's a new rodeo. Some rules have changed. The relationship between the state and the, state and the tribe, there's been a certain openness and certain opportunities that come from that openness. And from that partnership, we, we look at new avenues to be able to get, to get funding, partnerships, traditional knowledge. You know, technical knowledge.

Tribes are more advanced than they ever have been in the last 20-something years. They bring a lot to the table. I mean, case in point, look at Chickaloon and the people that they have sitting on there. I'm really— I'm always impressed with the amount of knowledge that they have mixed with their traditional and technical knowledge to be able to answer some of these things. So I think that we need to be really, really patient with each other.

We need to really look at that and, and look at this as a new framework between these partners. And this particular new framework is constantly going to be in draft form. And from that draft form, we need to know, we need to understand that we need to massage that in a way to be able to get it to, get it to a point to where everybody can agree and then realize that it ain't probably not going to stay at that particular point, that it'll, it'll go through its changes. As The TTP of this is the Tribal Transportation Planning and person that's the sponsor of this project for the WASAR, for the Western Sedona Road. We invite the tribes to reach out to us and keep an open dialogue with us, and even to call it as a T2, right?

T2T tribal— I'm using that word. I'm on script now. As we're using that as tribal, tribe-to-tribe consultation. From federally recognized tribe to federally recognized tribe. And we also open that up to the ANCSA corporations.

Now, Stephanie, I know that we're going to have to deal with that a little bit differently in that sometimes you feel like you're left out because you're— no, you don't have federal recognition and you don't have the ANCSA. So I know that there's an issue, but we don't want anybody to feel left out. And you always—. Huh? You are recognized.

Okay. All right. So we want to make sure that that telephone and that email can be used. To access us at any time as sponsor of this. Our council did approve on March 13, 2026, that we would go through a consultation and engagement procedure.

So very loose, and, and that's set forth there. We can, we can sit down and have that conversation. If we have anything written up, we can also get what that looks like and take, take whatever comments that you guys might have on that consultation, on that, on that consultation framework. Behalf. So we want to make sure that as the TTP sponsor, that we are and will be fully transparent in this process.

We look forward to it. We think it's a great opportunity. We've never been in this position. Like I said, we've sat in a lot of different programmatic agreements throughout the years, and this is the first one that Connect Tribe has been placed down as, as a required signatory. So we know that, like Spider-Man says, with that response, you know, with that, with that type of thing, it comes a lot of, a lot of responsibility.

So we, we don't take that lightly. So we enjoy that transparent— hope that our conversations with the tribes and the corporations can happen with fluidity that's been needed to be able to get this project done in the right way. So thank you guys for all being for that. We only took up 10 minutes. I can take up 5 more.

I just want to add to what he's saying. The consultation engagement, like I said, it's draft form. It's a discussion that we're having with state legal. And we will continue with federal highway legal in D.C., Michael Harkin, who's the one we've been talking to. And at a really high level, when you look at some recommendations made in terms of consultation and engagement with tribes and Alaska Native corporations, there's also tribal— tribe-to-tribe consultation.

And I think everything needs to be on the table so we can have a discussion and build a framework of communication and engagement and consultation. That all tribes can agree on. And we may not agree on every detail of it, but I think having that discussion is critical, not just for this project, but for all other projects that tribes enter with the State of Alaska. And that's the bigger picture of what we're dealing with here and really what we want to lay a good blueprint or start in terms of that. This consultation, and this is just what we're talking about and what I'm going over right now really quickly, is not— it's what we're talking about doing is two meetings, one with tribal Alaska Native corporations leaders as a project consultation.

This participants would be tribal Alaska Native Corp Council board chair and presidents. Tribal Alaska Native Corp executive management, Alaska Department Commissioner upon request by consulting parties, Federal Highway Alaska Division Office Director upon invitation. Now this is really high level in terms of what we want to— who we want at the table. The second meeting is the West Susitna Access Road tribal Alaska Native Corp technical engagement meetings. And this is really to dive into more detail on the details of the project work.

This would include the department staff, tribal department staff, Alaska Native Corp project staff, tribal consultants, Alaska Native Corporation consultants, designated tribal representatives, and Alaska DOT project staff, Federal Highway project staff, Army Corps of Engineers. The list goes on, and this is more technical. This is about the field work and the actual planning going on. In the meeting prior with the leaders and the consultation with the tribes, this will also be a topic, and we've outlined specific agenda items for both, but we won't go into that because it's just an outline. It's something we want feedback from the state, from tribes, and Federal Highway as we move forward and hopefully adopt something like this.

This is critical for any project. All right, and the difference here is you got 3 different agencies following their own policies and how they consult and how they engage, and we've got to find a way to align it so the information gets out to the tribes and the Native corporations the same information. All right, and the communication there is more solid. So anyways, this is in development and it's something we're working on and tribes should be seeing this incorporation, should be seeing this here in the next couple weeks. Yeah, we had a really good tribal leaders meeting about probably about a week and a half ago, and the important thing to look at is that To put it in simple terms of what Bert's talking about, if you're going to have a knife fight, have a knife fight.

If you're going to have a gunfight, have a gunfight. But be real clear on what those rules are. In other words, if you're going to have the meeting at the tribal leaders level, bring your tribal leaders. Don't bring your technical staff. If you're going to have it at the technical level, make sure that you say technical, right?

So everybody brings the right people and you're not having conversations that are not appropriate or messed, you know, messed in the dialogue. So I think it's important to have those particular ground rules before you even have the meeting and state what the meeting is for, who's going to be there. So 15 minutes.

Okay, well, thanks for— thanks for—. Um, yeah, more on that to come, huh? Yes, more. So moving forward on to a little bit more on project update, what we have on screen right now for those that are online is a timeline. And with that, we'll have Jacob will kind of run through, and this is the start to kind of that project update.

So we're going to go through some timeline options. And then following this is we'll get into a little bit more into the geotechnical side of things. But to start, we'll go ahead and, Jacob, I'll let you go with the timeline. Yeah, thanks, Danielle. So it's been a while.

Since most of us met last, if I remember correctly, the last PA meeting was September last year, so several months ago. If you recall, a project was initiated in 2023. In August of '24, there were a number of public meetings and comment periods regarding the environmental review process. And then in '24, in the fall time, HDR started with their consultant staff on some field investigation work. And that was also an initial kickoff meeting for the idea of a programmatic agreement.

Throughout the winter of '25 into '26, the programmatic agreement was initiated. Meetings occurred from spring of '25 all the way through to September of '25. As we wrapped up that last meeting in early September, The field staff were still continuing work. And so a quick update for those since that meeting, we wrapped up a number of geotech investigations at the Little Sissetna and material sites nearby. Our Chris Bruns will speak to that next.

We also had K'nik Tribe and their contractor, Northern Land Use, supporting those efforts through archaeological monitoring and surveying. We had a number of other consultants through HDR that were in the field performing preliminary design investigations. We had an H&H study conducted, which is hydraulic and hydrological study. We had a bathymetric survey done on the rivers and the streams. We had fish habitat studies conducted throughout the corridor in early September.

And then obviously OHA, as we were meeting and wrapping things up there in September, they were in the field and continued in the field till late September, early October on cultural resources, specifically between mile point 15 and 18, which is near the Susitna River. Now, as things wrapped up at the beginning of October in the field, it required a lot of field reporting and drafting and some reviews of the drafts and then the final reports from all the field work. So throughout the winter, the team continued to work on the draft PA, which went out for review on March 5th. The team also continued with planning for anticipated 2026 geotechnical investigations. Again, Chris will speak to that here in a few minutes.

And we also updated our permitting for 2026 fieldwork. And as of March 9th, 2026, we received the Corps permit for performing geotechnical investigations within waters of the US. So I'll leave it at that for now. And that's kind of a brief timeline. I'll open it up if there's any questions before I hand it off to Chris Bruns to go into more details on the geotechnical investigations.

Seeing no and not hearing any questions. A small question. Yeah. On page 1 of this booklet, it describes what is a frontier road and includes maintenance is seasonal. My understanding is that the plan for this road is it would be maintained year-round.

Is that what is there? What's the up-to-date on that? Is that known yet? Sure. Yeah.

So frontier roads are kind of this way we're looking at things in Alaska where we're trying to build a basic road for basic purposes to get at some basic needs out there. And so some examples are like the Tanana Road up near Fairbanks. If you go down by Manly Hot Springs and you go towards the Yukon River, that's— we built that as kind of a frontier road. It's about a 16-foot-wide road. It's gravel.

We try to keep it open in the wintertime. It depends with the storms and everything. So it's at times it is seasonal, but it says resources allowed. So if we're able to and we have the resources for our Meno crews to go plow and those types of things, we do that. But if we're not able to do it because we have other resource needs, then we can't.

Now there's opportunities if with a partnership with CNIC or other, other ways like that, that potentially this could be open full-time. We haven't come to those agreements yet, so at this time, you know, it could be a seasonal road.

Okay, thanks. I represent a winter trail, so knowing whether it's going to be plowed and maintained in the winter makes a big difference for trail crossings and things like that. Yeah, absolutely. And that's, you know, with our— a lot of things are changing on us. So just last fall, the governor had an administrative order that moved the Recreational Trails Program to DOT.

And so that actually opened up some dollars for us where we can do some maintenance activities associated with trails. So that might be another way that we can, you know, work some of these things out depending on that coordination, you know, with the trail users. So There's opportunities there, I think, depending on what we learn from people, what we're looking at.

Appreciate the question.

Justin, we can probably go to the next slide here, and I'll open it up for Chris. Okay, so I'll just real quickly kind of go over what we've done so far, how we've done it. And what we have planned for the near future. In August, September last year, we started work on the Little Susitna Bridge to drill the, the abutments, the approaches, relief culverts. We were not able to complete the center pier because we didn't have our Corps permit yet, but we will be getting to that.

We did explore several material sites. We did 2, 4, 5, and 6, and we pre-marked all of the other bridge locations just so we could kind of get our eyes on it and help us for forward planning. So that's what we've done so far out there. Next slide, please. Another one of the interesting things that we've had, northern land use through K'nik Tribe, we have cultural observers out there.

We have an observer with each of our rigs and our crews. The purpose for them out there is to guide our drill crews around and make sure that we're avoiding any known cultural resources prior to us moving into a site. The observers, they pre-clear and document the site condition, and they help us with our equipment movement plans. During the drilling, they observe our operations to document anything that they see or deal with any inadvertent discoveries. They also help us ensure that we're avoiding any culturally modified trees so that none of those are disturbed or removed.

And then once we've completed drilling on a site, they document, photograph, and they write a close-up for the condition of the site when we leave it. So next one. So moving in toward the end of this month, we are planning on going back out there at the end of March. We will be working on the Little Susitna Tributary Bridge Foundation, completing the Little Susitna Center Pier drilling, and then also dealing— exploring material sites 1, 15, 16, and completing centerline test hole drilling between miles 0 to 2. And so that's what we have planned for the immediate future.

Next one. This is just kind of a brief overview of the site so far. We've basically worked the area between 0 to 3. We've pre-marked all of the bridges all the way to the end of the project. So once we complete this round, we'll have 6 bridges left to drill, 6 more material sites, and centerline work to be completed.

That's where we're at right now. Anybody has any questions for me? Yeah, I do. I actually invite Quanti and Angie to reply on concerns with the geotech site 1 and then the things that we were concerned with that was not addressed.

And that's why we put our concerns into letter that wasn't addressed. Which, which, which site specifically? Geotech, a bunch. Well, Jenny's on, and Angie and Monty can talk to that if you will.

Angie, this is Monty. I'll let you go ahead and, uh, address this. Hello. Hey, uh, hi. Thanks for that, Steph.

You know, in that timeline, I'm just really kind of disappointed to be completely skimmed over for the work that we have done out there on the entirety of the center line, but we're so easily skipped over, which is something that the other crews have not done, which is a little bit disappointing. There are sites that we know of in some of those materials sites that we have some significant worry for that we found in this last, uh, survey that need a more thorough inspection. And I'm not sure through SHPO and everybody else's oversight if these sites got molested anyway. I have not been able to overlay maps and check and see what you guys have done versus what we know exists. And I'm not really sure the coordination is allowing for such a thing either, but I have some real concerns over things I have seen with my own two eyes, with my boots on the ground, out there, on site.

But we were not asked when it came to the geotechnical sites at all. And so that's a big misstep. All the other, uh, teams that are supposedly good at CMTs do not know them like we do. And that's a fact. So that's what I'll say from, for now.

I see Jenny, you've got your hand raised.

Yeah, but you can go ahead and respond to Angie's comment first. I had a comment about the timeline and schedule that was just discussed beforehand. But please go ahead and respond to Angie first.

I guess I, I would need to know what, what sites specifically we're talking about, and then that would be, I think, Shippo and Northern Land Use would probably need to be involved in that discussion. I mean, everything that I know about that the— our observers and we have mapped out there, we do avoid. If there's something else that I'm not aware of, that would be— need to be another discussion.

This is Angie Wade again. I didn't say my name before. But that is something that I would hope the powers that coordinated things were— that was what we were supposed to blindly trust was happening because we were uploading these sites every day at the end of the workday. So, if they were missed and/or hit with the geotechnical stuff without further investigation, and the problem is that the geotechnical sites are the sites with good drainage, and those are places, micro terraces on this landscape that have been peopled for a long time. So, you're going to have bad interaction.

So, when we look at these spaces, uh, we need to make sure that everybody's data is going over it. And around and through these spots so that nothing is missed.

Okay.

This is Sarah Maitel with the SHPO's office. Angie, when you said that you weren't able to map and overlay, are you not able to access the mapper that's kind of through the share site with HDR?

No, I, I don't access that enough to be a thing that I can do on the regular. Yeah, that's not— mapping is not a thing that comes easily to my laptop. For like connectivity? The data points are— the data points that were provided by Chiclun are mapped in the mapper though. And, and an LUR who was out there does have access to that data and is regularly accessing that data.

So I assume that's the data they're drawing from in order to ensure that the geotech crew is avoiding marked trees that were surveyed by Chip Lundy. Yeah, when they're on site, they have all of those points that are on the, the HDR site on their, on their devices so that they can keep us from, or get, enable us to avoid them as far as what's, what's mapped right now. And Andy, this is Stephanie Thompson. So one of the concerns also was at the beginning, Eric Hilsinger said that they were using Champi's book to make sure that many of our sacred sites and historical sites were looked at. And through this whoever K'nik hired, um, many of the things are not referred to that are just plain to see.

Looking in the book at Lususitna, on that site alone was a site where it saved the people, where they took birch bark for their canoes, where they found the moose and the bear. It was a site that's relevant, and it wasn't even marked. That's a continuing concern is we rely on you to do what you say and use these Kempitz book as a guide on that. And it wasn't even referred to. I mean, it's something we wrote as a concern going forward.

A lot of the historical places are in there. And we— those are important to our tribes. There's somebody.

Oh, there's Monty. Monty can address that more clearly than I.

Hello everyone, this is Monty Rogers. And to build on Stephanie's point, When we look in the mapper, there are not places that the tribes have identified through consultation letters. The tribes have identified a few ethnographic places and even provided initial boundaries, and those have— those do not appear in the cultural mapper. So A couple are based on creeks and streams. Another one is a linear ridge, but they're not in the mapper, and the tribes have provided them through consultation letters.

This is Sarah Mydell again. Just a quick question for that. Are those sites that have been identified Was it noted that they were shareable or were they marked sensitive and confidential? And, and I will add that some of the layers in that cultural map mapper are not accessible to all, all viewers. So we can, I can double check on that as well.

But, um, I think everything that's captured in ATRS as well as the CMT data that were collected, um, is in the mapper. Now, not all layers are accessible to everyone because of those concerns around confidentiality. Right. And so my understanding of the, the workflow for that is that the cultural staff who are on site, which I presume also includes the cultural observers, has the highest level of information. And so they would have access to some of those locations that say the geotech engineers on site would not have.

For those reasons.

To address both Sarah and Sheena's points, one, the tribes did not mark them confidential beyond what was in the consultation letters to your office and DOT and that kind of thing, so they could certainly be documented. And Sheena, these were— these cultural places, the tribes provided initial information through consultation letters. They are not in the AHS. They're not done through the CMT survey. Okay, thank you.

This is Mark Rollins. Wanted to just clarify, through consultation, was that consultation with DOT and not separately with Federal Highways? That is correct. Okay, thank you. With DOT, yep.

If they are not in the cultural mapper yet, HDR can coordinate with DOT to make sure that we and the tribes to that, that indicated in their correspondence these places to make sure that we get them accurately located in the maps, in the Cultural Mapper, perhaps on a separate layer somehow that indicates that they're not AHRQ sites, but a separate category of resource. I don't know. I mean, the AHRQ site, Mrs. Sarah Mydall, isn't necessarily to say, you know, who or what data source it comes from. And so it just— like, looking at the information that we have, and if we need to get AHRQ numbers for them, that can be a part of that process as well.

So action item.

Did Jenny have a— she still has her hand up.

No worries. Um, we make sure everybody gets through what we're talking about before. Um, Jenny Blanchard, I'm the archaeologist for the BLM. BLM is the administrator for the Etihad National Historic Trail. Um, so I just wanted to clarify, you're talking about the plan for March and April and what was happening, and I just kind of want to clarify what exactly is happening in March and April because you're talking about drilling the foundations for these, uh, bridges and everything.

And I just want to clarify because, I mean, nothing has been approved as far as like the project overall, and it made it sound like you're like drilling the bridge foundations for this. And so can you clarify the geotechnical drilling or anything else that is happening this spring?

Because, and, you know, I also, at some point it'd be nice to get an update on the NEPA timeline for this project too, since some of the agencies and tribes here would like to participate in that as well. So I just wanted to kind of clarify what is actually happening this spring, since I didn't— I think I misunderstood or wasn't clear on what they were talking about, the drilling that was happening. Thank you. Right. So I think, I think I might— to make sure I have your question clarified, this is geotechnical drilling.

It's not actual installation of anything. Our whole purpose is to identify the subsurface conditions to actually do a later construction. So this is literally just an investigation for soil conditions.

We're planning right now on the map that's actually on the screen, the Little Susitna Tributary, the first bridge, that's the one that we're going to be at when we go back out. We should be drilling that next month.

Okay, thank you.

Did I, did I address your question all the way there, or? Yes, thank you. Okay. I do just want to come back to where we opened and just address how for this meeting, you know, the purpose is to share, share the document, ensure everyone has access to the PA document. Recognize we are still in draft and there's still plenty of time to provide comment and to make sure everyone knows how to provide comment and then give a project update.

We will have a little more time at the end for, for some good discussion. But maybe this item is one that should have a breakout session with a, with a targeted team to kind of dive a little bit more into, into some of these, these items. Does that sound good, Chris, with you? Yeah, yeah, I can do that. Okay.

And, and just looking at time, and, and so we can still get the— I know the whole reason we're here is the PEA, which is our next agenda item. And so I know that that's what people are interested in as well. Um, and so if you want to keep scooting along and we're going to move into that topic, and then at the end when we have time for more discussion, come back to that. That sounds good. I completely agree.

We'll never get through this presentation if we have to stop, even though it's important work. I think everyone's here for the PH.

Okay, well, great. Well, I, as I mentioned earlier, I'm Sheena Duvall. I'm a Senior Cultural Resource Specialist with HDR, and I've worked with a number of folks in the room and on the phone for many years. So I'm glad to be amongst familiar company and I appreciate being here. I'm filling in a little bit for Eric, who has jury duty obligations, civic duty obligations today.

And so Eric put these slides together and I agreed to kind of walk through them. And I have been involved over the last year or so in many of the consultation meetings that occurred on the programmatic agreement. HDR is working with DOT to support the project, including Section 106, but not limited to Section 106 work. I'm also joined here today with my esteemed colleagues, Mark Rawlins from DOT Central Region PQI and Sarah Mydle, who's the acting chief of the Office of History and Archaeology and Deputy SHPO, both of whom— well, Mark, I think, hasn't been as involved in this as Eric's been the lead PQI on this. This particular project, but Sarah and I have been working together a lot with all of you through all the consultation meetings that we've had on this, on this document.

So just as a couple intro slides on the National Historic Preservation Act, Eric put together these slides to just kind of reiterate some of the language that is in the NHPA. You know, and it's, and its intent, and then, you know, the policy of the federal government in cooperation with other nations and in partnership with the states, local governments, tribes, and organizations to, one, use measures including financial and technical assistance to foster conditions under which modern society and cultural resources can exist in productive harmony to fulfill social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations, contribute to the preservation of non-federally owned cultural resources, pre-contact and historic resources, and give maximum encouragement to organizations and individuals undertaking preservation by private means. And another, I think, relevant here is to encourage public and private preservation and utilization of usable elements of the nation's built environment. So, next slide, please.

So, as many of you know and have been involved in this and, and several other projects consulting under 36 CFR Part 800, the Section 106 regulations, which essentially intend to balance the needs of federal projects with the needs of historic preservation. And it's a process where, wherein we all sit down and consult, as we've been doing over the last couple years, several years on this project, to consider what resources may be out in the project area, how the project may affect them, and try to reach a goal of balancing the needs of the project and the consideration of the resources that are out there. That are important to people. And so by doing that, we go through a process of developing an APE, an area of potential effect. We work through strategies around identification and evaluation of resources that are located in the project area, ones that we already know about, ones that we don't yet know about.

And then we go through a process of assessing how the project might affect those resources. And finally, in order to mitigate that, the parties work together to try to find ways to first avoid any impacts to resources by modifications to a particular project, minimize impacts, and if necessary, if resources cannot be avoided and need to be disturbed or damaged in any way, to mitigate that, that effect.

Next slide.

So this is a slide that is taken from our confidential cultural resources mapper that HDR maintains on behalf of DOT for the project that demonstrates the preliminary area of potential effects as it's captured in the PA. Appendix A of the PA has a narrative description of the APE. Which is essentially 500-foot buffer on either side of the project centerline and the exterior boundaries of all material source locations, bridges, etc. The one exception to that is the— I think it's 1,000 feet upstream and downstream from the Big Sioux, given that what we know about the density of cultural resources and important places in that particular area. This mapper also shows any inventory that has been done either by HDR, OHA, or NLURA to date, I believe.

And—. However, if I may interrupt. Yes, please. This is Sarah Mydall. It looks like NLURA's surveys from 2025 aren't mapped here.

Okay. And so the survey coverage is larger than what we're seeing here. It's just, I, I'm guessing a selection of which layers not mapped. They, they are in the mapper now. They're not demonstrated on this slide, but if anybody needs assistance getting into the mapper, I encourage you to contact me directly and I can work with you to get into the mapper.

We can also work with Caroline at HDR, which, who many of you have been in touch with, to get into the mapper. So there are a select number of people that have access to this mapper. We do keep, keep it confidential. The, the overall project has a project mapper, and then we have a separate mapper for the confidential cultural resource information.

Okay, next slide.

So as I mentioned, through the 106 process, we're required to go through, identify some sort of identification effort. And Section 106 does allow for projects of this size and scope, and often, and often with linear projects because of the way that they are developed, Section 106 does allow for phased identification and evaluation. So we would look at the project in phases, and that's kind of what has been proposed in the PA for this, for this particular project, that the identification would unfold in a, in a phased manner based on the project components.

So that's what this slide is describing. I don't know, Sarah or Mark, if you have anything to add on that.

Okay, next slide.

So as all who were involved in many of the meetings that occurred last year I think they, as Jacob mentioned, they commenced around August of 2024, and then we held meetings. Some of us held meetings monthly and even weekly over the last year up until about October, September, October of 2025. There was kind of a larger PA consulting party meeting on a monthly basis or on a quarterly basis, and then many of us were also involved in a smaller, more tight-knit working group programmatic agreement team who got together, I think weekly we were meeting at some point, just to kind of get into the nitty-gritty weeds of the language and the PA. And so we've had, we have record of all of those meetings. Those meetings were facilitated by the Alaska Native Chamber, who was working under contract to HTR on behalf of this project. And so, Christy was facilitating those meetings and managing the comments and capturing comments and incorporating that into the document up until we had kind of a pencils-down moment in late September, early October with the PA. And at that point, I think as Jacob mentioned earlier, it began its review.

The PA underwent review by the Department of Law here. As well as statewide DOT personnel. I don't know if you have anything to add on that. Between, say, October and late February, you all have been working on that intensively with law review. And I think also working on resolving some other, some other questions and things.

And I think just to provide an update on that, this is Sarah Mietel again, that I think whenever we were talking timeline at our last meeting in fall of The thought had been that that legal review might take 30 days, and it in fact took a little bit longer for a number of reasons. And so that's part of the reason why it's been so long since we've all gotten together. And it was just one of those things, making sure that they had the time and addressing the questions to make sure that this was adequate. Yeah, and I would just add, I mean, the time-wise, I mean, yeah, we're a little, we're a little late here. We had a typhoon hit the West Coast door of Alaska.

Oh, that too. And that, you know, it was all hands on deck for DOT. So if you look around this room, many of these people that you're looking at were directly involved in that response. And so we, we took all of our energy and we put it there for a while. Yeah.

And we're still putting on. We're back. Thank you for that reminder. It's been an eventful, like, year or so. I was forgetting that we had that disaster as well.

Yeah, we haven't forgot. Every day still for us. So yeah, actually helping with that, that we— yeah, and then that's all, you know, listed too. So the tribes have been involved with that also. Yeah, yeah, it's been, it's been amazing how everyone came together on that.

They still are. Yes.

So this bulleted list, um, that Eric's provided, the purpose of the agreement is to outline How to phase identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects, as we discussed. Any mitigation measures if historic properties cannot be avoided. The goal, as I've understood since I've been involved in the project, is from, from DOT's perspective, is to avoid as much as possible and to minimize impacts so that they are not adverse to any historic properties or archaeological resources or significant cultural sites in the project area. But if they cannot be avoided, then, you know, the programmatic agreement provides an opportunity for development of mitigation measures and treatment. It provides methods for responding to any inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources, including any inadvertent discoveries of human remains.

It accounts for any potential unanticipated effects to these properties. And it also outlines how signatories, concurring parties, and consulting parties will consult going forward. It is very much a living document and intended to kind of guide our conversations about the project going forward. It doesn't end with signature. In fact, it pretty much begins with signature on the document.

It also provides a means for amending the document if necessary.

OK, next slide.

So some of this we've gone over in the timeline, but the document was based on a PA that was developed for the Sterling Highway 45 to 60 project as a model, but it was then customized with key items, you know, for this particular project.

You know, through those consulting party meetings, we've workshopped with consulting parties in weekly and monthly gatherings. We've gotten together on site. I've been on site once, but I know a number of you have been on site multiple times with DOT and other partnering agencies, tribes, and consulting parties. And solutions were incorporated by live editing during those meetings.

I believe that the project has done a lot to right now redesign based on what is known. There's a lot that's still not known, but based on what is known, I think the project has done a lot to adjust and shift in certain areas.

So this next slide talks about finalizing the draft. So as I mentioned, we kind of had a pencils-down moment in October when we wound down live editing and it started to undergo legal review and review by internal DOT cultural resource leads.

And so now— and then the typhoon and your attention You know, many, many folks were involved in responding to that. And, and it kind of prolonged the timeframe that had originally been anticipated. But on March 5th, DOT sent out a letter to the different consulting parties to invite them to participate in a 45-day review of the document as it currently stands. And that leads us to, I think, where we're at today. Next slide.

Sarah, or, well, Mark had to go, but do you have anything to add on that? Am I missing anything? I think we'll be good. We're going to start to get into the meat of the kind of the agreement of where it's at at this point. So we're good.

Okay, so the signatories include SHPO as a required signatory, DNR as an invited signatory, as a landowner and manager, K'nik Tribe as an invited signatory, and 202 project partner, which we just talked about. And DOT is a required signatory, not invited signatory. I think that's an error in this. As the project proponent, DOT is a required signatory and acting as the lead federal agency under their 327 agreement with FHWA. And as you all know, those of you who have been involved in this in the past, required and invited signatories have the authority to execute, amend, or terminate the agreement.

And then concurring parties are invited to sign. Concurring parties are recognized in the PA, but they do not have authority to amend or terminate the agreement. And concurring parties will continue to be consulted— concurring and consulting parties. Will continue to be consulted on, on the development of identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects methodologies that will be incorporated into the document.

Next slide.

So next steps, the expectation is that the document will be executed by signature by the required and invited signatories, and also if they choose to do so, the concurring parties.

If maybe we should pause right there. Yeah. Yeah. Just quick interjection. So the next steps, the one that's missing in through there is obviously we're having our comment period.

Those comments will come in, will be reviewed, incorporated, and at that point, we'll be getting into this next steps space. So the comments that we're looking to get those, it's not a you know, a perfunctory thing. It's going to be important. And so really looking forward to, you know, seeing this next piece come in.

Good. It also has been extended to a 45-day— and I think that's—. How far are we in on that 45 days so far? Uh, so we sent out March 5th and it'll conclude on April 20th.

I believe that was included in the letter also that you all sent. Yeah, with deadline. Okay. Yeah. And then I know there may be some answers to the question about the NEPA timeline and everything, but the PA obviously does have— the signed and executed PA obviously does have implications with respect to NEPA, the NEPA timeline as well.

Including analysis under 4 if necessary, 4 of the Department of Transportation Act. And so that, you know, it all precipitates and affects the NEPA timeline for the project as well. But the PA is a legally binding contract, and it obligates DOT and the other parties who are involved to ensure that the identification, evaluation, and assessment of effects, as well as mitigation, is carried out the way that it is prescribed in the, in the PA. And this PA in particular, like the 45 to 60 PA, has a lot of still to be developed sections that will solicit input from consulting parties and tribes, such as how we're going to go about conducting identification, how mitigation will unfold if necessary, you know, ethnographic research that has been requested by the tribes, things like that. Some, some really important pieces still need to be developed in the document, and the document lays out how frequently we will meet to discuss those, those pieces that still are under development and who will be involved in that and timeframes and all of that.

So I think that covers the PA and where it's at.

So this is Jacob Gondek with DOT and PF. What we plan on, and we briefly discussed it already, is again moving into continued efforts on the preliminary design for geotech investigations. Anticipate that starting up at the end of the month at the Little Sisseton area and then proceeding throughout the project. Historic properties will continue to be identified by K'nik Tribe's contractor, NLURA, and we also have planned efforts with OHA to continue their studies out there and surveys. The administration's goal is to get to construction as early as possibly this fall.

Obviously, that'll be dependent on the findings and what we, we see is out there at the geotech investigations. And the reason I mentioned that is, you know, the bridge, for example, is one location where it's already been shifted once based off of what was identified in the field. A material site was considered unusable. And so there's been modifications based off of these preliminary findings, which are helping to identify potential impacts to the area.

One other comment to add is the Susitna River Bridge is obviously going to be a considerable bridge, and we anticipate that to take several years to plan and to construct. So the project is anticipating phasing the project from east to west as it moves along.

And I just wanted to remind everyone again that You know, as Sheena had mentioned, the PA overall is just— once it's signed by the signatories, it's just the beginning stages, and it outlines identification, evaluation, finding of effect, mitigation, and consultation on how we'll proceed through the project.

If I may, Sarah Miedel with the SHPO. So one of the things, just as a heads up, that in the legal documents and whatnot, it'll say that Section 106 is concluded when the PA is signed, but the consultation continues and is ongoing. And so just kind of highlighting that for awareness because that can be confusing, just to reemphasize that the consultation will continue and everything that the PA says that we're going to do or we're going to consult on, it's, it's going to be happening and in there.

Yeah, the only other thing I had to add was with Eric absent today, I, you know, he did want to mention that he's working on a findings letter for what's been identified to date and with the plan of issuing a finding of no adverse effects for what's been surveyed. So that's all I had on this project and At this point, I'll open it up for questions. And I think, you know, we've got a good amount of time left for discussion and Q&A, but before we jump into that, I know for me, what can be confusing sometimes is like, how do I provide my comments? Where does like, where do I go? And so, Carolina, if you want to go back to slide 3, and we can leave that up for a moment, and we can even take people to public input where that's one of the options.

But on the, on the screen, as you'll see, uh, it was in the letter as well of, of how to provide that comment. And like we said before, you know, that, that's open till April 20th, so lots of time. Um, but just wanted to have this up here because this is really the way to, to provide the, the edits or comments on, on the, on the document, which is why we're here today. And so if we have extra time, you know, we can pull up public input, kind of show you some of that, or you're welcome to email or any other way that works for you. But just wanted to share that so that that wasn't unknown before we start discussion.

Okay, I have a question. Sarah Maito. Since this is new, the public input opportunity for the website and the specific email, is this the only the only way that we are to provide comments? No, and in the letter it's open too. So if we wanted to, it says, you know, if your tribe prefers to provide comments.

Oh, oh, all right. No, I didn't mean that. No, I know who you are. I guess what I was referring to is in here we're open to that, but we wanted to provide a way for people to just go through and have it, you know, in there. It can also be comments may be submitted directly to this email, right?

And so yeah, definitely open, but, but wanted to also kind of funnel it. So, and the reason this email, the dot WSU, is there's, there's a team on it, so it's not going to one person where it gets lost, maybe, you know. Instead, there's a group of, of us. And so, uh, those are the two, the two focused ways that we would suggest because then it's documented. So this is Stephanie Thompson.

So all this paperwork that you've handed out here, a lot of people online don't have it. Is there a way you can email them? Yeah, and this whole packet is already on the public input site to be downloaded, and so we can drop that in the Zoom chat now. It's all that's up there. If you could also, a lot of people, like I said before, did not get the invites.

And some of the ones that you did invite, there were one for each tribe only, and some of those people were at the beginning of the process and it went to the wrong people as we looked through. Jessica Weinstaffer was here consistently. She did not get the invite and some of the others. Um, so if you did have all the things from last week's chambers, you will find that in those records all those emails, email addresses are in of those that have come to all these meetings. I suggest if you drop it into all of them via the email plus the ones online, um, would be more most helpful.

We see that.

And just going to jump in and say there's been a lot of great discussion so far today. Some answers, which is good, but there's some, some questions and comments that obviously will take more time. So this is really a good opportunity to ask those couple of brief questions and make sure that we're documenting those questions as we move forward. Especially because this is the time, you know, as people are developing comments, they want to make sure they have clarity on something that they want. So this is an excellent time to ask those questions.

I'm not sure if the tribes— Stephanie Thompson again— would want to be able to look through this and have another meeting like this before the April 20th. To maybe come up with the questions and look at it more thoroughly and meet, like Richard said, as the tribal leaders together so that we have more concise questions that we can ask, and that way we can come prepared for them. If that would be possible, maybe beginning of April or end of March sometime, just to get a little comfortable to review that. That would be helpful also.

Stephanie, can you clarify that real quick? You asking for the tribes to get together ourselves and develop it? I think we should do that, to get together to go to the PIA itself to— because we—. Yeah, we could—. The last meeting we did have that meeting and we clarified a lot of our concerns there.

And I think going through this more thoroughly and then coming together and looking at what what we all agreed on. And as we go forward, the conference would, would help facilitate that. And then that'd be great. And then from there, then we can meet again here and bring all that here so we will be organized and not miss anything and make sure that it's covered. And then we don't waste your time either.

I mean, you could definitely put that together. Appreciate that.

I know a lot of people have worked hard, so. Okay, so when do you say the next meeting was? Or the end of the comment period is on the 20th. And, and I will just revisit the purpose of today's meeting was to make sure people had access, they knew where to find it, sure, they knew how to provide a comment. And so I think, I think what you're saying is with that follow-up is a great—.

I'll, I'll send out a Doodle for the 30th and the 31st of March. So it sounds good. Yeah, let me see. We kind of talked about some dates. Let's see where it is.

Yeah, either that or the beginning of April, maybe say, you know, because the tribes are so busy, send out a poll, see where the majority of them can meet, and then we'll get where—. Get 7:30. I'll look for that first meeting. Great. Thanks.

Oh, we've got a hand offline. Angie, if you want to go ahead.

Hi. Yeah, thanks. So going back to the review of the PA and the different signatories, we, as well as numerous other tribal entities have been involved since, uh, that August 2024 meeting, and we have continued to request to be an invited signatory, as have other tribal entities that have also been involved throughout. And while I understand that there's a long list of reasons that K'nik Tribe is an invited signatory, it's not exclusive to them, their interest in the project and their interest in the cultural resources of the project. So I'm reiterating in this large group that Chickaloon Village Traditional Council requests to be an invited signatory.

And I think there are other tribal entities, I know there are other tribal entities that have made that request at numerous previous meetings on the PA, and so it's in your records. Thanks.

This might be too broad of a question, but what is the DOT's expectation—. Expectations from the concurring parties?

You want to take that, or you want to—. I don't—. Yeah, I mean, so what—. Well, I mean, okay, so we're trying some new things here, like with our partnership with G'Nig, and then of course with the current parties. I mean, it's really that what we've been trying to do is make sure everybody's involved in the project as we go through.

Um, you know, we have those good discussions and, you know, the best we can. And really, as this thing goes forward, I think what you heard from Kanikabit today was this isn't just during preconstruction. This is we carry forward into construction and we keep going, recognizing that there's still a lot that everybody's learning out there. We're still learning things with our geotechnical investigations and whatnot, you know, and how the alignments may be and then those types of things. So it's really just that continuous process of, working together to make sure that as we go forward, you know, we're— everybody understands what it is we're doing.

I mean, we may not all agree. I think that's, you know, something that we all understand, but everybody's informed and we're moving this thing forward in the appropriate ways. So that's, that's really, yeah, from my perspective, and I'm not a PQI or anything like that, but that's—. The administrator said it best, Lance. That's why it's called consultation and not resolution.

And Sarah might also— apologies for just pushing that one off, but to kind of speak a little bit more directly to that concurring party's question and what does that role entail. And pretty much the only distinction really for a concurring party and consulting party is that we're kind of got to that place where we have an executed agreement document. And even to sign as a concurrent party, that's 100% up to the prerogative of the entity signing. It in no way changes the ability to consult on the project or anything else, and it's really just a, a way for any consulting party to say, I participated in the consultation. As it's not considered an endorsement of the project in and of itself.

And so where the agreement documents— an attempt was made to make sure it was always consulting party as opposed to concurring, just to make sure that it's clear that you don't have to sign on. Like, so the ability to be able to participate, review documents, and everything else is, is there. And so it's less about what does the project expect of a consulting party. It's more of what role would that consulting party like to take in involving themselves in those reviews of documents and attending meetings and that sort of thing. Does that answer the question?

Yeah, thank you.

A bit unclear on the, the public input comments website. Right now the project's open for the 40-day, 45-day PA review. But is this an open— how does this comment website that's sort of open for comments all the time interact with specific open review periods for public comments or specific documents? Yeah, yeah, great question. And, and the reason that we have that is because it's only for the PA.

So this public input website is only for review for the PA process. Now, when you go into the larger public comment after this, that's going to look different because that's open to everyone, right? This is just specific to this document, right, with, with, with these folks. And so the public input site, it's not on our public website. And that might sound confusing because it's called— the site is called Public Input, but it's not on that West Sioux website we showed at the beginning of today's meeting.

It was sent as a link in the letter as like a portal, right? And so it's just a way to provide comments that you can do it from your phone. It's relatively simple just to give another option. And Carolina has it up on the screen right now. This is not being pushed on social media.

This is not being pushed out on press releases. This is not being pushed out on the online public notice or on the public website. It's essentially a portal for this team to provide info. And it, it comes in in a way that's trackable and our team is familiar with the site, so we use it. But also we're open to emails or other ways as well, right?

It was just an opportunity to do that. Okay, because that email is provided as a message to project team contact us on the main website. Correct. So the email itself is it has a team on it. There's a, there's a good amount of us on there monitoring it.

So that is another way because not everyone likes such online portals or anything like that. So we didn't want to say only on the, this public input site. So we wanted to allow a variety of ways to provide comment to open that up. And so if you, if you want to utilize public input, it's just for this, this PA review process. It's not being advertised.

It's just a way for us to offer a way to gather that. But we're open to, if you want to email it directly to the team, that's another way too. And we'll take that. Great question. Yeah, comments are clarified.

It can be.

I'll fill the void. Sarah Mittle again. So if it— the website and whatnot to submit comments is only available as a portal link, how is the public providing comments on the programmatic agreement? Is the PA open to all the public? Because Section 106 does include the public as a participating party.

There will be a public review period for the NEPA process that will also allow for review of the Section 106, the cultural resources analysis section of the NEPA document. Right. Which mentioned—. That NEPA public process doesn't do us any good for consultation on Section 106. I don't think we're talking about that particular process now, are we?

Well, it's part of this process. We're just talking about the programmatic agreement as it pertains to tribal content. So I don't, I don't know why that needs to be discussed right now. Unless you have concerns coming up in the future, but those can always be had in the future. I guess this, if you want, I can have an offline conversation with DOT to talk about how that public process is going to happen.

Because it's, it's not just a tribal. Yeah, but it's, it's disingenuous to have the conversation about the public and the tribe at the same time. Well, we're talking about execution of the agreement document. You're also talking about tribal— you're also talking about tribal state consultation that is just between the state and the tribes, which does not involve the public. I wish to be respectful, but—.

So do I. Section 106, it's— I'm speaking to how we get to the finish line for the PA. Oh, okay. And I'm just trying to figure out where we're at in the process so I can better advise DOT. And I'm just seeing that it's not being mentioned in terms of how that's going to happen. And so that's all I'm attempting to do at this point in time.

I mean, the purpose of this was a tribal review. That was the scope of this review so that we had that work with the tribes done. I mean, yeah, the public piece would have to follow. So, but the idea was first to work with the tribes. On this agreement.

That's what the terms—. Right. And I didn't— didn't seem like I was being, you know, disrespectful either. It's just that there's a place and time for the public comment. I think that would be later, not now.

Okay. So, um, I guess the— just for my own clarification, the next step slide, there is an intention to have that—. That next step for the public review Yes. Okay, thank you.

Hi, sorry to butt in, but I— raise the hand is sometimes challenging here. I'm on the website, the West Zoo Access DOT Transportation X website, and I'm just not finding what you're showing and what you've been showing.

And I know you had a QR code earlier, but I did not maybe understand that that was just a confidential QR code taking us to some confidential webpage. I don't know. I'm a little confused by going to the website that I thought you were guiding us to early in your presentation.

So we can—. This is Shannon McCarthy. We can put the link directly in the email. That website will go— we'll go live. We wanted to present it to this team first, uh, to this group first.

So that will be—. That will—. That's the old website will be replaced probably within the next 12 to 24 hours. Um, but this is the website that you should use. And we can also—.

I can— I just put it in the chat that it's publicly accessible. Yeah, it's publicly accessible, but there's a couple links out there that do need to be updated.

Does that help?

Yeah, thank you for clarifying that. And then what is— there was in the COVID letter a description of a comment matrix form that you wanted us to fill out. I hope it's more than that web-based comment form that you showed. It's better for us to have all of our comments in one place when we submit them. So is there a separate comment matrix form that you want us to fill out?

I think— this is Danielle Kasson with DOT. In the letter That says enclosed for your review, uh, R, and then it has the PA and then the draft comment. Um, that's on page towards the end of the PA document. It's already included that matrix and, um, that matrix is essentially the discussions that were had with Alaska Native Chamber and all the PA meetings and all the changes. So it's just documenting and showing.

The iteration of changes to get to this final document. And so the two items enclosed are— it's the PA, which is the doc— there's the letter of the PA, and at the end of the PA is the response matrix summarizing basically how the PA came to be. Does that make sense a little bit?

Yeah, okay. So the matrix that the letter is referring to is the former matrix that we were contributing to all last summer. That, that now makes sense. I did not understand that from the letter. And then, is there that— can you provide us a way to give you comments for the document so that we're doing it the way you want, but that's not on some online form because that's not the way that we as a tribal government submit comments.

We want to submit a signed document that our council agrees to, which wouldn't work the way you showed us the online form earlier. Yeah, that's a great point. And on that letter, I'll just read it so we all have it on record. Comments may be submitted through the public input website, and then there's a link, and then comments may also be submitted directly to [email protected]. So you're welcome to email a signed PDF that way.

Or if your tribe prefers to provide comments through separate government-to-government correspondence, we also welcome that approach. So definitely open to the different ways, just offering different methods. We're definitely open to that, whatever works for you.

Okay, yeah, so in the past there's been guidance on the way um, the entities have wanted our comments to look so that they can easily track where we're making the comment. I mean, that was like a 132-page PDF that was sent out. So, um, do we just kind of make up our own way of commenting? I want our comments to be taken into account, so that's why I'm kind of diving into some details here so that clear that when we submit our comments, it's the way DOT wants them so that they're incorporated, not ignored. No, this, this is perfect.

And if I go back to the why we have this meeting, this is why we're here today. So thank you. And, and I just on the public input side, Carolina, if you pull that up one more time, sorry. We did have a fillable section, so that, that's a good framework to follow if we just keep shoot down a little bit. So yeah, it's, it's name, it's, you know, organization, and then it's the section, um, and then the page number, and then either the written comment or that, you know, suggestion.

So that was kind of the framework to use if you were going to do a letter. And so there are—. There are line numbers. I'm sorry, there are line numbers in the document still. So Great.

Okay. We'll, we'll make our own matrix to get you.

Thanks.

This is Shannon Clark again, just jumping in. We can add a feature onto this public input site where we can attach— we can allow you to attach documents. PDFs, you know, that kind of thing, or documents.

Exactly, if you prefer.

Yeah, we wrapping up.

Sounds like it, huh? Okay, so one follow-up, just so we're real clear.

The next meeting, Knick is taking the lead on that. Is that—. Was that what I heard, Richard? No. Okay.

Not— because the next meeting that happens within the tribal governments getting together, from what we had conversation with, that we would take the lead on putting that meeting together. And that's in between the next time the comment period ends. Okay. So just to be fair with Stephanie's request—. But we've already talked about the tribes coming together, going to the— and going back on our last tribal meeting on our concerns and integrating that with review of PA and concerns here and what we go forward.

So before maybe the April 20th one, there might be a meeting to address those. So another DOT-facilitated meeting before April 20th. Yeah, and I think, Richard, we could let you know after that time when that might be good. I mean, it's It's a busy time of year for everybody. Yep.

It's hard to get everybody together. And maybe—. So the answer is semi-quasi-yes. Okay, so just so we're really clear, so the expectation right now for DOT is, um, okay, we'll, we'll stand by, and once we hear back, then we could schedule a subsequent meeting similar to this to facilitate going through the PA comments and And one of the things Bert and I have discussed that we weren't going to make mention, but it's a good time to do it now, is to help facilitate in gathering and putting a conglomerate of those comments together. And so that everybody can kind of get around on a standardized process.

So like Chickaloon suggested that if there is a standardized process, the way that these are put together, it'll be easier for DOT and CHCO to be able to facilitate those comments.

Okay, that's the plan. Well, yeah, I just want to say thanks to everyone. This is Ryan, Commissioner, for taking the time today. I think it was a good use of time, and thanks everyone for the, the very straightforward and, yeah, comments and, and things that we could do here today. So hopefully now with a little more clarity on where information lives on the DOT side and, you know, with who to reach out to.

And again, if there's any questions anyone has about getting comments in or anything like that, Danielle, I think you're point on this one. So Danielle Tesson is the point of contact on the DOT side for anything related to the PA comments. So yeah, thank you.

Yeah, I can just say it here. It's also in that letter. So my name is Danielle, last name T-E-S-S-E-N, and my email is my first name, so [email protected].

I also have a cell phone, 907-347-8353.

The team email works really great though, because there's a whole team. But I answer. Okay, thank you everyone.