[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61091-61098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29251]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DENALI COMMISSION


Denali Commission Work Plan for Federal Fiscal Year 2001

ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Denali Commission was established by The Denali Commission 
Act of 1998 to deliver the services of Federal Government in the most 
cost-effective manner practicable to communities throughout rural 
Alaska, many of which suffer from unemployment rates in excess of 50%. 
Its purposes include, but are not limited to, providing necessary rural 
utilities and other infrastructure that promote health, safety and 
economic self-sufficiency.
    The Denali Commission Act requires that the Commission develop 
proposed work plans for future spending. In accordance with the Act, 
the Commission solicited project proposals from local governments and 
other entities. The Act further requires that the Commission publish 
annual work plans in the Federal Register for a 30-day period, 
providing an opportunity for public review and comment.
    This Federal Register Notice serves to announce the 30-day 
opportunity for

[[Page 61092]]

public comment on the Denali Commission Work Plan for Federal Fiscal 
Year 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Staser, Federal Co-Chairman, 
Denali Commission, 510 `L' Street, Suite 410, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, 
Phone: (907) 271-1414, Fax: (907) 271-1415, Email: JS[email protected], 
http://www.denali.gov.

SUPPLEMETARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Denali Commission Work Plan can 
be obtained by contacting the Denali Commission as provided in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
Jeffrey Staser,
Federal Co-Chairman.

Denali Commission 2000-2001 Work Plan

November 15, 1999.

Work Plan--Contents

Part One--Denali Commission Purposes and Approach
    Purposes of Commission
    Challenges to Development and Economic Self-Sufficiency
    Commission Relationship with Other Organization
    Commission Schedule
    Staffing
    Funding Criteria
    Additional Criteria for Infrastructure Projects
    Additional Criteria for Economic Development Projects
Part Two--Fiscal Year 2000 Work Plan
    Project Selection Process for FY 2000 Bulk Fuel Program and 
Utility Upgrades
    Other Power Related Projects Under Review
    Other Projects Under Review
    FY 2000 Work plan
Part Three--Work Plan for FY 2001 and beyond
    FY 2001 Work Plan
    FY 2002 and Beyond--Defined Funding Needs

Part One: Denali Commission Purposes and Approach

Purposes of Commission

    The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, PL 105-
277) states that the purposes of the Denali Commission are:
    To deliver the services of the Federal Government in the most cost-
effective manner practicable by reducing administrative and overhead 
costs.
    To provide job training and other economic development services in 
rural communities, particularly distressed communities (many of which 
have a rate of unemployment that exceeds 50 percent).
    To promote rural development, provide power generation and 
transmission facilities, modern communications systems, bulk fuel 
storage tanks, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs.

Challenges to Development and Economic Self-Sufficiency

    Geography--The State of Alaska encompass twenty percent of the 
landmass of the United States, encompassing five (5) climatic zones 
from the arctic to moderate rain forests in the south.
    Isolation--Approximately 220 Alaskan communities are accessible 
only by air or small boat. Some regional hub communities are separated 
by over a thousand miles from their State Capital.
    Unemployment--The economy of rural Alaska is a mix of natural 
resource extraction and traditional native subsistence activities. Many 
Alaskans are absolutely dependent on subsistence hunting and gathering. 
Cash paying employment opportunities in rural Alaska are scarce; 
unemployment rates exceed 50% in 147 communities.
    High cost and low standard of living--Over 180 communities suffer 
from inadequate sanitation and a lack of safe drinking water. Residents 
pay up to 61 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity even with State 
subsidies for rural power.

Commission Relationship With Other Organizations

    The Commission intends to act as a catalyst to encourage local, 
regional, and statewide comprehensive assessment, planning and ranking 
of needed infrastructure improvements and economic development 
opportunities and training needs.
    The Commission working with existing agencies or other 
organizations whenever feasible, intends to improve coordination and to 
streamline and expedite the development of needed infrastructure, 
economic development, and training.
    The Commission may build on the work of both Federal and State of 
Alaska agencies to identify statewide needs, to establish priorities, 
and to develop comprehensive work plans.
    The Commission will seek the support and involvement of affected 
local communities, governing bodies, businesses and other 
organizations.
    The Commission will encourage partnerships between government, non-
profit organizations, and businesses to expedite sustainable economic 
and infrastructure development.

Commission Schedule

    The Commission will hold quarterly public Commission meetings and 
make every reasonable effort to maximize public participation in plan 
development and update.
    In order to integrate the Commission work plan with the federal FY 
2001 budget cycle, the Commission intends to have the FY 2001 work plan 
completed by December 1999. This will complete a multi-year work plan, 
which will be updated at least annually.

Staffing

    The Federal Co-Chairman is solely responsible for Commission 
staffing and administrative matters. Staffing will be kept to a 
minimum, and the Commission will utilize staff detailed from federal, 
state, or other organizations to the maximum extent possible. Contract 
support will also be utilized where appropriate.

Funding Criteria

    The following criteria are intended to foster careful and 
systematic planning and coordination on a local, regional and statewide 
basis for infrastructure and economic development, and to strongly 
support local involvement in project planning and implementation.
     Projects should be compatible with local cultures and 
values.
     Projects that provide substantial health and safety 
benefit, and/or enhance traditional community values, will generally 
receive priority over those that provide more narrow benefits.
     Projects should be sustainable.
     Projects should have broad public involvement and support. 
Evidence of support might include endorsement by affected local 
government councils (municipal, Tribal, IRA, etc.), participation by 
local governments in planning and overseeing work, and local cost 
sharing on an `ability to pay' basis.
     Priority will generally be given to projects with 
substantial cost sharing.
     Priority will generally be given to projects with a 
demonstrated commitment to local hire.
     Commission funds may supplement existing funding, but will 
not replace existing federal, state, local government, or private 
funding.
     The Commission will give priority to funding needs that 
are most clearly a federal responsibility.

Additional Criteria for Infrastructure Projects

     A project should be consistent with a comprehensive plan.
     Any organization seeking funding assistance must have a 
demonstrated commitment to operation and maintenance of the facility 
for its design life. This would normally include an institutional 
structure to levy and

[[Page 61093]]

collect user fees if necessary, to account for and manage financial 
resources, and having trained and certified personnel necessary to 
operate and maintain the facility.
     Proposals should include a cost breakdown by phase 
including breakout for design, construction and annual O & M.

Additional Criteria for Economic Development Projects

     Priority will be given to projects that enhance employment 
in high unemployment areas of the State, with emphasis on sustainable, 
long-term local jobs or career opportunities.
     Projects should be consistent with statewide or regional 
plans.
     The Commission may fund demonstration projects that are 
not a part of a regional or statewide economic development plan if such 
projects have significant potential to contribute to economic 
development.

Part Two: Fiscal Year 2000 Work Plan

    In order to provide focus for the Commission's second season of 
work, the theme of ``Rural Energy'' was selected by the Commission to 
provide consistency and build on work completed in FY 1999. Bulk Fuel 
Storage and Utility Upgrades continue to be an important part of the 
Commission work.
    The following paragraphs describe in detail, the project selection 
process used by the Alaska Energy Authority. Throughout FY 2000, 
Commission and staff will be working on development of additional focus 
areas or ``themes''. The goal of the Commission is to build on the 
success of the energy program and increase the number of focus areas or 
``themes'' along with associated funding. The themes will consist of 
specific programs or project areas that show a great need and limited 
funding to address that need.

Bulk Fuel Storage

    Background--The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) documented major 
deficiencies associated with rural bulk fuel tank farms in 1991 and 
began the process of notifying communities that failure to correct 
deficiencies would result in substantial fines and suspension of fuel 
deliveries. Deteriorated tanks dating back to WW-II vintage were 
leaking petrochemical contamination into local water supplies causing 
sickness in children and elderly people. Lack of building code 
compliance further exposed residents to a high risk of catastrophic 
fire. Large numbers of tanks lacked adequate spill control features.
    Arctic and sub-arctic communities are totally dependent on these 
leaking fuel storage tanks for heat, power and light. In most 
instances, fuel is delivered annually by barge. Suspension of even one 
delivery would have catastrophic impact on local residents, many of 
whom live in a subsistence economy without cash to bring fuel tanks 
into compliance with federal standards or to pay fines. Overwhelmed by 
the cost and urgency of this crisis, residents appealed their plight to 
State and Federal Government representatives.
    In 1994 the Governor and Congressional Delegation responded by 
requesting a moratorium on enforcement actions until an effective 
solution could be found. With funds provided by Congress specifically 
for this purpose, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
working through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 
(DEC) and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA, formerly the Alaska 
Division of Energy), identified a work backlog, not including cleanup, 
estimated at approximately $450,000,000. Principle responsible parties 
were often traced to pre-statehood federal agencies or to a hodgepodge 
of now defunct entities. No one accepted responsibility.

Electric power

    Background--Rural communities of Alaska, much like the rest of the 
nation, are dependent on electric power for basic life support. Unlike 
most other areas of the country, Alaska's rural communities are remote 
(not connected to a power grid) and subject to extreme weather 
conditions. When a system fails, there are no backups and the life and 
safety of people are in jeopardy. Funding for upgrade and maintenance 
of systems has been grossly inadequate, resulting in many systems being 
unsafe, undependable, and very expensive to operate. A comprehensive 
assessment of needs has not yet been completed, but the AEA has 
identified a number of systems needing immediate assistance. The AEA 
has also identified some opportunities to replace or supplement high 
cost diesel power with alternative energy sources.

Project Selection Process for FY 2000 Bulk Fuel Program and Electric 
Power Utility Upgrades

    The Commission focused on the most severe problems first by drawing 
on an extensive database compiled by the Sate of Alaska in coordination 
with EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). This data was used to develop 
a preliminary ranking of communities based on the current condition of 
their facilities as reported by both State and Federal field 
inspectors. To these preliminary rankings the Commission then applied 
additional selection criteria, including:
     Citations or warning letter from EPA, USCG, or other 
regulatory agencies.
     Imminent threat to health and safety, or threat of winter 
system failure.
     Alternative or supplemental community/region specific 
funding opportunities, i.e., Federal through the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Sate through the Department of 
Education.
     Financial need based on existing costs, rates, and income 
levels.
     Community commitment and support of tribal elders.
    Factors reviewed by the Commission staff, working with Alaska 
Energy Authority, in formulating recommendations to the Commissioners 
included:
     Opportunity for consideration of small tanks and economies 
of scale.
     Community size.
     Cost sharing.
     Demonstrated administrative, operation and maintenance 
capability.
     Any federal tax delinquency of tank farm owner(s).
     Community contribution and commitment.
     Past experience working in the community.
     Unusual conditions or costs.
    Beginning in FY 01, two additional criteria will be key to 
selection for Denali Commission funding:
    1. Consistent with statewide energy strategy now under development; 
and
    2. Consistent with an adopted community based comprehensive plan
    Ultimately, project selection reflected the active involvement, 
cooperation and support of federal and state regulators, tank farm and 
electric utility owners, and community leaders.
Project Management Procedures
    The Commission determined that the most cost-effective manner to 
reduce overhead and adminsitrtive costs involved with managing its Bulk 
Fuel Storage Tank Program in FY 2000 was to take full advantage of the 
Alaska Energy Authority contracts and structure, while maintaining 
appropriate oversight.
    Key elements of project development used by the AEA are:
    1. Consult with Facility Owners and Community Representatives. 
Staff traveled to the community to meet with tank farm owners, utility 
owners, and community representatives to obtain information, to develop 
an initial project concept, and to determine

[[Page 61094]]

project participants. Community representatives include municipal 
government, tribal government, and the Village Corporation. The 
Commission made approval by village elders a prerequisite for funding. 
In this way, traditional cultural values are sustained and potentially 
harmful community impacts are minimized.
    Any tank farms that would not be included in the program for FY 
2000 are also identified and the reasons for such exclusion are 
determined. If deficient facilities will not be upgraded as part of the 
Commission's program, efforts are made to develop a plan with the 
facility owner on how those facilities will be brought up to code in 
the future.
    2. Consult with State and Federal agencies. The Commission asked 
the AEA to coordinate with other agencies and to determine potential 
sources for supplemental funding of the project wherever possible. 
Federal agencies include the USCG, EPA, HUD, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
and Public Health Service. State agencies include the Departments of 
Education, Environmental Conservation, and Transportation and Public 
Facilities.
    3. Develop Grant Agreement. When agreement is reached on a project 
concept, and funding has been identified, the AEA prepares a grant 
agreement and a ``consolidation agreement.'' Grant agreements not only 
formalize the funding commitment project but also commits grantees--the 
future owners of new or reconstructed facilities--to assist in project 
development and to properly maintain the projects in the future.
    a. Most labor is hired locally on` `force account'' by the local 
grantee or government entity. The only ``outside'' hires are typically 
foremen, who must have extensive experience, and specialized skilled 
labor (i.e., welders) not usually locally available. In the future, 
through focused training, we hope to be able to fill all positions 
locally or at least within a region.
    b. A private sector firm is retained to perform the project 
accounting, local payroll, and invoice payment, a significant advantage 
in cost and time compared with government administration, particularly 
in the context of tight construction schedules.
    c. Competitive bids are solicited for equipment and materials. The 
AEA has chosen to use State regulations for competitive awards among 
vendors.
    4. Develop Consolidation Agreement. The consolidation agreement 
binds all of the tank farm participants and records agreement on 
specific ownership and management structure for the new facility upon 
its completion.
    5. Place Project Funds and Set up Accounts with Trustee Accounting 
Firm. The AEA uses a standing contract with a private sector accounting 
firm to provide all accounting and payment services required. The 
Commission releases funding for projects involving Denali Commission 
funds to the trustee firm as oversight criteria are met.
    Disbursements to vendors for project materials, to engineering and 
construction management firms for services rendered, and to force 
account labor are made by the trustee firm only as directed by the AEA 
and/or Commission. The trustee firm, in order to ensure clear, up-to-
date budget and expenditure information for each project, provides 
monthly expenditure and activity reports.
    6. Projects Design and Site Selection. In consultation with the 
project participants and community representatives, the AEA then 
proceeds into site selection and project design. The participants must 
agree to the site and design before funds are committed to project 
construction.
    The AEA maintains standing contracts with local engineering firms 
for a broad scope of services. At the present time, the AEA has four 
such contracts in place that will remain in effect through December 
2000, at which time a new set of contracts will be issued. At any time, 
the AEA can issue one or more work orders to any of these four firms to 
immediately begin work on a project related task. These firms are 
primarily for project design, both for bulk fuel storage and for 
electric utility upgrades.
    7. Site Control. Similar contracts are in place with a right-of-way 
firm to immediately begin work on site control services, including all 
takes related to land ownership determination, ownership transfers, 
leases, and easements. The site control task begins in conjunction with 
preliminary designs specifically on the determination of land 
ownership. When the project design has been adopted, the contractor 
proceeds with all steps needed to acquire site control. The present 
contract runs through February 2000, at which time one or more new 
contracts will be issued.
    8. Permitting and Environmental Compliance. Commission oversight 
ensures that all applicable permits and regulations pertaining to 
project construction and operation are obtained or satisfied. Among 
these permit sand approvals are the following:
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a ``general permit'' 
that will expedite approval under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
for the placement of fill material in wetlands for rural bulk fuel 
storage facilities. This approval process, which is necessary for 
virtually all tank farm projects in rural Alaska, normally requires 3-4 
months to complete but is expected to require only 15-30 days under the 
general permit.
    The State of Alaska has adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) as part 
of its Alaska Administrative Code requirements for building permits. 
The UFC was not written for rural Alaska conditions and, in some cases, 
is difficult or impossible to apply to rural Alaska tank farms. 
Therefore, the AEA and the State Fire Marshal signed a memorandum of 
agreement that provides practical solutions to problems posed by UFC 
requirements. The agreement reflects consideration for dispensing tank 
placement, tank setback, flood protection, fire-resistive supports or 
pilings, dike wall materials, equipment placement inside the secondary 
containment area, overfill prevention equipment, and bulk transfer to 
small tank vehicles.
    9. Construction Management and Local Hire. Local hire is a basic 
principle of the Commission. The Commission seeks to stimulate the 
creation of not only jobs, but also careers. Local labor helps hold 
down project costs. Local hire means that people who are knowledgeable 
about the project will remain in the community after construction.
    As mentioned above, four project management firms supplement the 
AEA's in-house ability to provide overall project management. These 
flexible contracts are set up on a work order basis--whenever the AEA 
needs to assign a project manager to a project, it will be able to 
issue a work order that specifies the particular individual or skill 
set to be assigned. This provides access to as many project managers as 
needed, whatever the workload demands.
    This is essential to maintaining the force account construction 
approach that has been successful in the past and has been well 
received by local communities. A project manager is needed to 
communicate directly with the community grantee, the design engineer, 
the site control contractor, and the on-site construction foreman; to 
handle material procurement, scheduling and transportation; and to 
provide financial management and control.
    10. Operations and Maintenance. The Commission oversees the 
preparation and proposal process, including details on operations and 
maintenance (O&M) responsibility. Local sponsors must participate in 
addressing their estimated

[[Page 61095]]

O&M budget and revenue requirements. The Commission also supports 
training for tank farm operators.
    11. Insurance. The AEA purchases liability insurance to cover 
damages that may be claimed during the construction phase of our 
projects, and arranges pollution and liability insurance coverage for 
consolidated tank farms after the project is complete and placed in 
operation. To date, insurance applying to the operational phase has 
been purchased by the AEA on behalf of the new tank farm owner for the 
first year of operation--no commitments have yet been made for 
succeeding years.
    12. Regulatory Plans. A part of the AEA scope of work for every 
tank farm project is the preparation of all required regulatory plans, 
including the Operations Manual and Facility Response Plan required by 
the USCG and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan 
required by EPA.
    13. As-Built Drawings and Project Completion Report. Closeout tasks 
include as-built drawings and a project completion report, along with a 
final project accounting.
    Long-Term Follow-up. The AEA developed and maintains a rural tank 
farm database. They plan to continue re-visiting rural tank farms on a 
three-year rotating schedule to update information on tank farm 
conditions, and to provide limited circuit rider services. In the 
future, the Commission may expand and integrate these programs into 
other initiatives. For example, every three years, staff or contractors 
could examine both the tank farms and electric utility systems in each 
community, update the data base on current conditions, and provide 
preventive maintenance services as needed for both fuel storage and 
electrical systems. This may expand to include all utilities in the 
future.

Other Power Related Projects

    Statewide energy needs assessment and planning is being undertaken 
in a cooperative arrangement between the State and federal government 
in order to guide capital funding decisions. The Commission is a 
partner in this effort with the State and U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Rural Development. A comprehensive assessment of issues and 
their inter-relationships will be completed by December 1999. 
Development of a comprehensive energy strategy is expected to begin in 
January 2000.

Other Projects

    The Commission received numerous local or community specific 
recommendations. To date, these include economic development, 
infrastructure, and capacity building projects. Consistent with its 
published criteria, the Commission will evaluate each of these projects 
and determine eligibility and priority for funding.
    Due to the massive needs of rural areas, and the need to improve 
the coordination of federal and state programs, the Commission has 
initiated several cooperative efforts to enhance coordination among 
federal and state agencies, and encourage comprehensive community-based 
local and regional planning. As the results of these efforts 
materialize, the Commission will develop strategies, or ``funding 
themes'', to most effectively accomplish its statutorily mandated 
goals. In the meantime it is the intent of the Commission in funding 
``Other Projects'' to advance the development of funding themes. When a 
new funding theme is developed by the Commission, the purpose, process, 
and deadlines for seeking assistance will be announced to all rural 
communities and/or regional organizations in Alaska.

                     FY 2000 Project/Funding Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Funding category and category class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure: Subtotal..................................   $15,000,000
Economic Development: Subtotal............................     2,000,000
Job Training, Education, Capacity Building: Subtotal......     2,000,000
Administration: Subtotal..................................     1,000,000
                                                           -------------
    Total.................................................    20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part Three: Work Plan for FY 2001 and Beyond

    The Commission determined that the scope and scale of 
infrastructure issues facing rural Alaska are staggering. The following 
table summarizes identified needs for infrastructure categories such as 
drinking water and wastewater utilities, power utilities, and fuel 
storage.
    The backlog of work in the Bulk Fuel Storage Program alone has been 
estimated by the Alaska Energy Authority to be approximately 
$450,000,000. No estimate is currently available for some fundamental 
needs, including health care facilities and telecommunications.
    Assessment of needs and refinement of estimates will be an ongoing 
process. The total of known infrastructure needs is estimated to be 
over $10 billion. Allocation of funds to various funding categories and 
classes within those categories (see following table) will be based on 
a formula agreed to by the Commission at the beginning of each fiscal 
year. For FY 2000 the formula allocates 75% of available funds to 
infrastructure, 10% to economic development and 10% to job training and 
capacity building. The Commission has a statutory limit of 5% for 
administrative expenses.
    On-going feasibility work will guide specific project selection and 
approval at quarterly Commission meetings.
    Of necessity, the Commission's work must be phased over a number of 
years based on the urgency of competing needs and availability of 
funding. The theme of rural energy, as one important prerequisite to 
all other utilities and economic development, guided the decisions for 
FY 1999 and will continue to be a primary area of focus in FY 2000. For 
planning purposes, the Commission budgeted $45,000,000 using the 
Commission approved formula. This funding increment is based on the 
addition of one or possibly two themes for FY 2001. The theme(s)* will 
build on the success of the existing program and provide funding for 
programs and/or projects that demonstrate a great need, federal 
responsibility, and limited amount of funding to meet the need. A 
graphic representing the ``theme'' concept is shown below. For 
illustration, the graphic shows a basic program amount of $5 million 
(Economic Development, Training, Administration, etc.), $15 million to 
be applied annually to the first theme, and incremental amounts of $10 
million for subsequent themes.
BILLING CODE 3300-01-M


[[Page 61096]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO99.002



BILLING CODE 3300-01-C

    The Commission seeks to be informed by the public year to year as 
to how best to allocate its efforts and thus reserves the option of 
chaning its allocation formula after hearing from the public. Likewise, 
there may be variations in specific areas of focus from year-to-year to 
reflect the public sense of priority and judgement of the Commission. 
Once the Commission approves specific projects, they are assigned to a 
category class.
    The incremental budget plan for FY 2001 is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Funding category and category class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure: Subtotal..................................   $33,750,000
Economic Development: Subtotal............................     4,500,000
Job Training, Education, Capacity Building: Subtotal......     4,500,000
Administration: Subtotal..................................     2,250,000
                                                           -------------
    Total.................................................    45,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: In FY 2001 in addition to other applicable criteria, any 
project selected for funding should be a part of a community based 
local or regional comprehensive plan. Additionally, any energy 
related projects should be consistent with the comprehensive 
statewide energy strategy.

    The following table summarizes current estimates of needs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Funding category and category class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure:
    Housing Construction/Development..................    $1,800,000,000
    School Construction and Major Maintenance.........       530,000,000
    Power Utilities...................................       168,000,000
    Fuel Storage......................................       450,000,000
    Drinking Water Facilities.........................
    Waste Water Utilities.............................     1,058,000,000
    Waste Management Facilities.......................
    Health Care Facilities............................             (\1\)
    Airport Facilities................................       926,000,000
    Road Construction.................................     5,600,000,000
    Port Facilities...................................       214,000,000
    Telecommunications................................             (\1\)
    Community Facilities..............................             (\1\)
    Other.............................................             (\1\)
                                                       -----------------
        Subtotal......................................    10,546,000,000
Economic Development:
    Comprehensive Planning............................             (\1\)
    Other.............................................             (\1\)
Job Training, Education, Capacity Building:
    Comprehensive Planning............................             (\1\)
    Other.............................................             (\1\)
                                                       -----------------
        Total.........................................    10,546,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Appendix A for background Information on this table.
\1\Unknown.

Appendix A

Housing Construction/Development

    Need: $1.8 Billion.
    Annual Funding: $58-87 million.
    Source: Housing and Urban Development FY 1999 Report.
    Background: According to the FY 1999 report published by HUD, 
Alaska has a need for 12,519 new units. At an average cost of 
$145,000 per unit, the total need for new housing is approximately 
$1.8 billion. This estimate does not include repairs and renovation 
projects. The number of units needed has increased from the 1990 
census, which showed over 11,000 units needed.

[[Page 61097]]

    At the current rate, 400 to 600 units are constructed in Alaska 
each year (approximately $58-87 million).
    Projects are prioritized and funded in a variety of ways 
including grants to local housing authorities, regional housing 
authorities, low interest loans, and transfers to other agencies.
    Entities providing funding for housing includes, but may not be 
limited to, HUD, AHFC, and USDA.

School Construction and Major Maintenance

    Need: $530,183,470.
    Annual Funding: No recurring funding source.
    Source: Final Agency Decision: 4/5/99; Project Priority List 
Published by the State of Alaska Department of Education.
    Background: Based on requests from individual school districts, 
the State of Alaska Department of Education (DOE) has compiled a 
listing of school construction and major maintenance projects. DOE 
has reviewed the project requests and distilled the eligible 
projects to list that totals $530,183,470.
    The state school construction program is not currently funded. 
This program is the primary responsibility of the state and will 
remain such. However, there may be opportunities for the Denali 
Commission to assist the state in areas that are federal 
responsibility such as bulk fuel storage upgrades.
    The Denali Commission will continue to work with the State 
Department of Education, and at the point when a school construction 
program is funded, will work to determine if there is an opportunity 
for the Denali Commission to assist with some federally mandated 
component of the program.

Power Utilities

    Need: $168,000,000.
    Annual Funding: No program of annual funding.
    Source: Percy Frisby, Director, Alaska Energy Authority.
    Background: According to the Alaska Energy Authority (formerly 
the State of Alaska Division of Energy), they have needs in the 
following categories for the following amounts.

$68,000,000  Power Plant Construction and Rehabilitation
$100,000,000  Power distribution system construction, expansion and 
rehabilitation

    The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a state agency commissioned 
with oversight of energy related infrastructure in rural Alaska. The 
agency functions predominantly in areas that are typically not 
covered by a utility cooperative. These power plants and 
distribution systems are typically in areas where the economic base 
is insufficient to bond or self-fund construction of the power 
facilities and other sources of funding are required. At the current 
time, the AEA is the only source of funding for these projects, and 
there is no defined funding stream to take care of the above stated 
needs.
    Another interest of the Denali Commission is to work towards 
conserving energy usage in rural communities. Efficiencies such as 
generator efficiencies, structure insulation, waste heat recovery, 
transmission efficiencies, and alternative power generation are all 
possible topics of consideration for the Commission.

Fuel Storage

    Need: $450,000,000.
    Annual Funding: $15-18 million ($8-10 million Denali 
Commission).
    Source: Division of Energy (Alaska Energy Authority) Briefing 
Report dated September 24, 1999.
    Background: The Alaska Energy Authority initiated an assessment 
of all bulk fuel tank farms in rural Alaska communities in 1996. The 
three-year project assessed the condition of the tank farms, 
including the total fuel capacity of each in terms of gallons.
    Approximately 180 communities were surveyed during the three-
year assessment period. Total storage capacity of the surveyed 
communities is 75,221,754 gallons. Assuming an average cost to 
upgrade as $6/gal, the total cost to construct new code compliant 
tank farms in each community is approximately $450,000,000.

Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste

    Need: $1,057,512,641.
    Annual Funding: $78.1 Million; $18 Million ANTHC, $21.6 million 
FC&O (Incl. AHFC, EPA, USDA-RD and state).
    Source: Sanitation Deficiencies System Update, May 1999, 
Published by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Department 
of Environmental Health and Engineering, Division of Sanitation 
Facilities Construction.
    Background: The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) 
is the responsible organization for administering the Public Health 
Service (PHS) construction program here in Alaska. The currently 
defined needs, according to the ANTHC/PHS Sanitation Deficiency 
System that estimates the overall need in the areas of Water/
Wastewater/Solid Waste, to be $873,670,525. Currently the ANTHC 
receives approximately $18,000,000 annually to perform this work. 
ANTHC has responsibility for the tribal communities and the mission 
is to provide facilities for Native Alaskans. There is some overlap 
with the VSW program.
    Source: SFY 2000 Capital Budget Priority Lists, 12/16/98; 
Published by the State of Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation, Division of Facility Construction and Operations.
    Background: Village Safe Water (VSW); The State of Alaska 
Village Safe Water Program is a division of the State of Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation's Facility Construction and 
Operations (FC&O) Division. The division provides grants for 
planning, design, and construction of water, sewer, and solid waste 
projects in small, rural communities throughout Alaska. The 
currently defined needs as submitted by VSW only reflect the 
requests from communities interested in projects. This amount does 
not reflect the overall need. The current list of requested projects 
totals $105,690,744. The current funding level for VSW is 
$41,890,574.
    Municipal Matching Grant and Loan Program provides grants and 
loans to medium sized communities for planning, design, and 
construction of water, sewer, and solid waste projects. The program 
is a division of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation's Facility Construction and Operations (FC&O) Division. 
The currently defined needs as submitted only reflect the requests 
from communities interested in projects. This amount does not 
reflect the overall need. The current list of requested projects 
totals $78,151,372. The current funding level of this 50% matching 
grant program is $18,164,200.
    It should also be noted that the information provided by FC&O is 
not broken out by project type, nor does the division have the 
resources to provide such a breakout.

Health Care Facilities

    Need: Unknown.
    Annual Funding: Unknown.
    Source: None.
    Background: There is no comprehensive source of information 
relating to the needs for local healthcare facilities. Typically, a 
community or village will build a clinic and lease the facility back 
to the organization responsible for healthcare in their community. 
The Commission has allocated funding to complete an assessment of 
healthcare facility needs during the next year.

Airport Facilities

    Need: $926 Million.
    Annual Funding: $58-87 Million.
    Source: 995 Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska; 
Published by State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 
Facilities. And the current FAA Aviation Improvement Program (AIP).
    Background: The Federal Aviation Administration currently 
provides most of the funding for airport projects throughout the 
state. The state or local sponsor will contribute roughly 10% in the 
form of match. There are 1,112 designated airports, seaplane bases, 
and aircraft landing areas in the state of Alaska. The Alaska 
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT& PF) owns and 
operates 261 public airports, the majority of Alaska's public 
airports. Additionally, 23 public airports are owned and operated by 
local governments.
    Backlog of airport projects in the state amounts to 
approximately $926 million ($1.3 billion in an informal, 1997 tally 
completed by statewide aviation).
    Historically, funding that the state receives for airports from 
the FAA AIP program has ranged from $58 million in 1990, to $81 
million in 1998.

Road Construction and Major Maintenance

    Need: $5.6 Billion.
    Annual Funding: $320,000,000.
    Source: 1995 Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska; 
Published by State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 
Facilities.
    Background: The State of Alaska administers all of the Federal 
Highway funding allocated to Alaska with the exception of money 
specifically designated

[[Page 61098]]

for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which amounts to approximately $14 
million per year. Although overall funding levels are up for roads, 
the BIA share has slipped from $16 million under ISTEA. The BIA 
funding does not go far considering it must provide for 
approximately 200 tribes.
    Overally needs for highway and road projects were estimated at 
$5.6 billion in 1995. Average funding levels are estimated at 
approximately $320 million, up from approximately $220 million under 
ISTEA.
    Most of the FHWA funding stays in the rail-belt, with some 
funding going to rural communities for sanitation roads and trail 
markings. Funding for projects off of the road system goes primarily 
to the larger hub communities.

Port Facilities

    Need: $214 Million plus.
    Annual Funding: Varies by year, typically between $0-5 Million.
    Source: 1995 Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska; 
Published by State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 
Facilities.
    Background: The State owns 78 of 95 public harbor facilities, 
operates those harbors through agreements with local governments, 
and provides financial and technical assistance to communities 
expanding or developing new harbors to meet demand and economic 
development objectives. The state of Alaska DOT&PF estimates that 
there are approximately $214 million in deferred maintenance, port, 
and harbor projects. The department's goal is to eventually be out 
of the harbor and port business with the possible exceptions of 
Alaska Marine Highway System facilities, and several refuge floats 
in remote areas.
    In recent history, there has been little to no funding for ports 
and harbors in the state of Alaska. Most of the funding that is 
received provides match to Corps of Engineers funding. Some funding 
appropriated in recent years has gone to repair and transfer of 
selected harbors in the state. In rural Alaska, there is an as yet 
undefined need for harbor facilities for small communities located 
in the coastal areas and along the river systems. Many communities 
currently pull small boats up on to the beach and in some locations, 
this can be hazardous and environmentally detrimental. The Denali 
Commission may consider undertaking an assessment to determine the 
needs in this area.

Telecommunications

    Need: Unknown.
    Annual funding: Unknown.
    Background: Telecommunications and Internet technologies, which 
are revolutionizing daily life in the United States, are not 
reaching most Alaskan communities. The positive impact Internet 
connections will have on education, training, healthcare and 
economic development in rural communities can not be overemphasized. 
The negative impact of leaving the rural communities behind in 
technological advances will only further compound the challenges of 
self-sustainability for rural Alaska.
    The remoteness and sparse populations that so uniquely identify 
rural Alaska also are the primary limitations for private 
telecommunications to justify connections in most communities.
    Typically, small communities have access only through the local 
public school or library, and tribes may have access through a 
program being implemented by the Department of Interior. Private 
users are prohibited from accessing these federally subsidized 
services. So, an individual who wishes to access vital information, 
obtain distance education or training, open a web-site for commerce, 
or have an e-mail account from home, must use ``1800 dial-up 
access''. Such service in rural Alaska costs between $200-$400 per 
month for basic e-mail and minimal Web browsing.
    The Denali Commission will evaluate the availability of basic 
telecommunications, Internet technologies, and other advanced 
telecommunications in relation to the future of economic 
development, education, training and healthcare in rural Alaska.

Community Facilities

    Need: Unknown.
    Annual Funding: Unknown.
    Background: Communities have a need for community assembly 
facilities for various purposes, including planning, meetings, 
traditional functions, and recreation for youth. These facilities, 
when available, are heavily used in rural communities. No assessment 
mechanism is in place for determining statewide needs for community 
facilities.

[FR Doc. 99-29251 Filed 11-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3300-01-M