02/04/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR2 | |
| HJR11 | |
| Overview: Department of Natural Resources - Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys | |
| Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game - Division of Wildlife Conservation | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2011
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Urging the Alaska Historical Commission to prepare
recommendations for the naming of a geographical feature in the
state as a permanent legacy in recognition of President Ronald
Reagan's service to the United States of America.
- MOVED HCR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Urging the United States Congress to refrain from passing
legislation that designates land in Area 1002 of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness.
- MOVED HJR 11 OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - DIVISION OF
GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME - DIVISION OF
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 2
SHORT TITLE: RONALD REAGAN LANDMARK
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE
01/21/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/11 (H) RES
02/04/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 11
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING ANWR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
01/21/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/11 (H) RES
02/04/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE MICHEL, Staff
Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 2 on behalf of Representative
Stoltze, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HJR 11.
ADRIAN HERRERA
Arctic Power
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 11.
ROBERT SWENSON, State Geologist & Director
Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation of the Division of
Geological & Geophysical Surveys.
COREY ROSSI, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Division of
Wildlife Conservation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:38 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Dick,
Herron, Munoz, P. Wilson, Gardner, and Feige were present at the
call to order. Representative Kawasaki arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HCR 2-RONALD REAGAN LANDMARK
1:06:13 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Urging the Alaska
Historical Commission to prepare recommendations for the naming
of a geographical feature in the state as a permanent legacy in
recognition of President Ronald Reagan's service to the United
States of America.
1:07:03 PM
JOE MICHEL, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Stoltze,
sponsor, explained that HCR 2 is a resolution urging the Alaska
Historical Commission to prepare recommendations for the naming
of a geographical feature in the state after the nation's 40th
president, Ronald Reagan. The Alaska Historical Commission is a
nine-member commission that advises the governor on programs
concerning history and pre-history, historical sites and
buildings, and geographic names. The members of the commission
also serve as state representatives for the Alaska geographic
names program; in that capacity the commission reviews and
provides recommendations regarding names proposed for physical
features in the state. Currently, there are 17 geographic sites
in Alaska that have been named after former presidents of the
U.S. Mr. Michel noted that the timing of HCR 2 is to
commemorate the centennial of President Reagan's birth. Alaska
has recognized President Reagan several times by declaring
February 6th Ronald Reagan Day, but has no permanent memorial to
honor him.
1:08:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether the sponsor had
any ideas regarding possible geographical features or would it
be left up to the commission.
MR. MICHEL answered that the sponsor has no geographical
features in mind and is leaving it up to the Alaska Historical
Commission to make a decision with regard to the geographical
feature.
1:09:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, upon determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
1:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HCR 2 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HCR 2 was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 11-OPPOSING ANWR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION
1:10:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11, Urging the United States
Congress to refrain from passing legislation that designates
land in Area 1002 of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as
wilderness.
1:10:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that HJR 11 relates the legislature's opposition to
any wilderness designation in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR), particularly in Area 1002. With the passage of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in
the 1980s the federal government made a promise that Area 1002
would and could be developed for oil and gas resources.
Representative Millett informed the committee that ANWR
resolutions and legislation are the main topic of energy
discussions in Congress. A notable resolution that has been
introduced by Congressman Markey is H.R. 139, which proposes
designating [ANWR] as a wilderness area. Furthermore,
Secretarial Order 3310 basically provides the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) the ability to make a wilderness area
designation. Representative Millet opined that all of Alaska's
ANWR lands are under attack, but particularly Area 1002. She
pointed out that a resolution, such as HJR 11, provides for the
legislature's voice to be heard. She noted that she has been
assured that these types of resolutions make it into the hands
of those who need to see them and relay that Alaskans are
environmentalists by nature and that the state's resources are
developed in a careful and mindful manner.
1:13:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related his support for HJR 11, but asked
whether the sponsor would accept [the inclusion] of a "WHEREAS"
clause regarding national security.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she would be amenable to the
addition of such a provision.
1:13:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the status of U.S.
Congressman Markey's resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related that usually a Congressional
resolution supporting the opening of ANWR garners 50-80
cosponsors, which isn't a lot. However, the concern is that
every year such efforts gain momentum. She noted that such
Congressional action has been stopped because of the actions of
the Alaska State Legislature. She also noted that 78 percent of
Alaskans are in favor of opening ANWR for development.
Representative Millett said that she could obtain the status of
the Congressional legislation.
1:14:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony.
1:15:07 PM
ADRIAN HERRERA, Arctic Power, began by informing the committee
that he is responsible for running the Arctic Power Offices in
Washington, D.C., and promoting the environmentally responsible
opening of ANWR, Area 1002, to oil and gas [development]. He
mentioned that he has been working in this capacity for about
six years now. He also mentioned that Arctic Power is a
501(c)(6) Alaska-based grass roots organization with the sole
goal of the successful passage of environmentally responsible
oil and gas development legislation on Capitol Hill. Mr.
Herrera then related that Arctic Power strongly supports HJR 11
and encourages passage of it. Arctic Power does its upmost to
prevent the passage of legislation proposing to declare Area
1002 as wilderness lands. It's important, he opined, to have a
basis to argue these points, which HJR 11 provides and codifies
in a manner that's acceptable to Congress. Resolutions such as
HJR 11 are helpful when Arctic Power debates these matters with
congressmen who disagree with Arctic Power's position.
1:16:51 PM
MR. HERRERA highlighted the provision of HJR 11 that speaks to
the September 2010 announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service that it will conduct a wilderness review in its
environmental impact statement (EIS) regarding all three areas
of ANWR: refuge lands, wilderness lands, and Area 1002 that is
neither. The opinion of the Alaska attorney general, as well as
Arctic Power, is that the decision to include a wilderness
review is in direct conflict with ANILCA and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). He related that ANILCA
specifies that no study for removal or any removal of land in
Alaska may take place without Congressional approval.
Therefore, Arctic Power believes [the EIS] violates that
principle. With regard to NEPA, when considering an EIS that
discusses wilderness plans, all alternative land uses must be
considered. However, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service forbade
the discussion of oil and gas exploration in Area 1002 when it
heard public testimony last year. The draft report for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) will be submitted April
2011 and the final report in April 2012. He recalled that it
has been said that fighting this issue on Capitol Hill is a
long-term process due to the checks and balances of democratic
government. However, if it's ever declared wilderness, the
process to undo it would be even more difficult. In fact, he
personally believes such a designation would be impossible to
change. Therefore, Arctic Power strongly encourages the state
to do what it can to fight legislation or reports that prevent
the option of exploration in Area 1002.
1:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested that Mr. Herrera provide a brief
history regarding the establishment of Area 1002 and how it was
compromised in the ANWR legislation.
MR. HERRERA explained that in 1980 ANILCA was implemented, which
expanded what was originally referred to as the Arctic National
Wildlife Range to 19.5 million acres and divided it into the
existing three sections. The southern section was designated as
refuge lands as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge Act, the
center/original section was designated as wilderness lands, and
Area 1002 that was neither wilderness or refuge lands but rather
designated as an area that was set aside for the study of
potential oil and gas exploration and development. The ANILCA
stipulated that it was up to Congress to decide and couldn't be
decided by national monument status from the president or
through an administrative act. The study took place between
1980 and 1986 and in 1986 the first report from the U.S.
Department of Interior recommended development of Area 1002.
Coincidentally, the first ANWR CCP by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Services was released in 1986. Therefore, between 1987 and 1995
there was fairly contentious debate. In 1995 both bodies of
Congress passed an act to allow development of Area 1002, but it
was vetoed by President Clinton. To date, 12 pro-ANWR
development pieces of legislation have passed the U.S House and
3 such have passed the U.S. Senate, for a total of 15 pieces of
legislation that have passed through Capitol Hill in support of
the development of ANWR legislation. Mr. Herrera said he didn't
recall any successful passage of legislation against the
development of ANWR.
1:21:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if Arctic Power still has the
support of the community of Kaktovik.
MR. HERRERA replied yes, adding his belief that the majority of
the residents of Kaktovik support this issue as does Mayor Annie
Tikluk.
1:22:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that in a 2007 League of
Conservation Voters questionnaire, President Obama said he
strongly rejects drilling in the refuge [ANWR]. He asked if
there have been any other documented statements on ANWR from
President Obama.
MR. HERRERA offered his belief that President Obama's position
remains the same, although he hasn't made many direct statements
on ANWR in the past few years. Of note, December 6, 2010, was
ANWR's 50th anniversary and there was a large push by the
environmental movement to support national monument status for
ANWR. Letters promoting the aforementioned were sent to the
White House, but there was no response other than stating the
need to review all alternative energies when devising the
nation's energy plan. He opined that the lack of comment from
the White House and the president is a significant message.
1:24:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, upon ascertaining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
1:24:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HJR 11 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objections, HJR 11 was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
^Overview: Department of Natural Resources - Division of
Geological & Geophysical Surveys
Overview: Department of Natural Resources - Division of
Geological & Geophysical Surveys
1:25:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be an overview from the Division of Geological & Geophysical
Surveys.
1:25:28 PM
ROBERT SWENSON, State Geologist & Director, Division of
Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), began by noting that the committee's packet
should include his slide presentation and the DGGS's annual
report, which includes all the projects DGGS is currently
undertaking. He directed the committee's attention to slide 2,
which relates the mission of DGGS:
Conduct geological and geophysical surveys to
determine the potential of Alaskan [sic] land for
production of metals, minerals, fuels, and geothermal
resources; the locations and supplies of groundwater
and construction materials; and the potential geologic
hazards to building, roads, bridges, and other
installations and structures.
MR. SWENSON then moved on to slide 3, which is a digital
elevation model of Alaska. One of the main challenges is the
scale in Alaska. The red polygon on the map is the same size as
Colorado, which puts into perspective the size of Alaska in
comparison with a state that also has a significant resource
base. He then reviewed the tertiary, youngest, sedimentary
basins in the state; these are the locations of oil and gas and
coal resources in the state. The tertiary sedimentary basins
are distributed across the state, with the two primary resource
development areas being in the North Slope and the Cook Inlet
regions. He continued by pointing out all the mineral
occurrences, all the load deposits that have been identified
across the state. The orange dots are those deposits that are
in active development/production. The [pink] triangles are
those [deposits] that have had historic production and the red
triangles are those [deposits] with potential for production.
Mr. Swenson highlighted a series of dots that illustrate the
huge amount of samples of geophysical analyses across the state
and the vast breadth of potential across the state. However, he
noted that not all areas will have the potential to achieve
resource development.
1:29:29 PM
MR. SWENSON pointed out the series of circles in the lower part
of the map, which illustrates the areas which the division is
reviewing in terms of tsunami hazards. Part of DGGS's mandate
is to review geological hazards to the state's infrastructure
and residents. He then pointed out the active volcanoes in the
state, which DGGS in partnership with the University of Alaska
Fairbanks, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Alaska
Volcano Observatory address. He also highlighted the seismic
activity, active faulting, in the state that is of significant
focus of DGGS in terms of infrastructure and public safety.
Alaska is a very active state seismically, he stated. Mr.
Swenson then directed attention to the series of very light-
colored polygons for which DGGS has acquired high resolution
geologic information, high resolution geologic maps. On this
slide, although it doesn't seem that DGGS has covered much of
the state, it actually has mapped a tremendous amount of the
state. Still, there's much of the state left to map.
MR. SWENSON, referring to slide 4 entitled "Alaska Geological
Facts," pointed out that Alaska's resource endowment is
unequaled anywhere else in the U.S. The state has more
seismicity, volcanoes, and geologically hazardous areas than any
other in the nation. Furthermore, Alaska has 156,000 square
miles of state-controlled land. Although that state-controlled
land is the primary focus of DGGS, the division does a lot of
work on Native and federal acreages as well.
1:31:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if DGGS extrapolates what landowners
next to state land have [in terms of geologic and geophysical
resources].
MR. SWENSON replied yes, noting that the geology does not stop
at geopolitical boundaries. Often, there is better exposure on
other acreage. Depending upon access to that acreage, DGGS has
performed geophysical surveys and mapping efforts on federal
acreage in concert with the USGS as well as the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM).
1:32:33 PM
MR. SWENSON, returning to his presentation, directed the
committee's attention to slide 5, which is DGGS's organizational
chart. The division staff totals 48. He characterized his
staff as very dedicated. The division has six different
sections, each of which has its own mandate and focus. The
areas of focus are energy resources, mineral resources,
engineering geology, volcanology, geologic communications, and
the geologic materials center. One of the key areas is geologic
communications because of the importance of getting the
information into the appropriate hands. The information, he
noted, is mainly in a digital format. With regard to the
geologic materials center, he opined that the collection is
astounding. Referring to slide 6, which highlights the 2010
DGGS field projects, he related that DGGS had the most field
programs since his time with the division. The slide
illustrates that DGGS is working across the state on various
projects in the areas of mineral resources, energy resources,
engineering geology, and volcanology. The projects being
tackled by the engineering geology section are working on a
number of hazards issues in terms of infrastructure and
community safety. The most recent work of the engineering
geology section was in Kivalina to review detailed geology of
sites for possible relocation.
1:34:21 PM
MR. SWENSON, moving on to slide 7 entitled "High Resolution
Geologic mapping," said that currently the state is covered with
geologic maps. However, each geologic map isn't equal as the
map depends upon its resolution. The 1:250,000-scale geologic
map has been published for most of the state. Although those
are good and useful maps, the resolution is relatively low.
Such maps aren't of sufficient detail for resource
identification or geologic hazards analysis. He noted that the
committee packet should include handouts that describe geologic
mapping and how it's used.
1:35:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled meeting a geologist from the
University of Alaska who discussed aerial mapping and the need
for a receiver or upgrades to [the mapping equipment] in order
to receive the full benefit.
MR. SWENSON related his understanding that Representative
Gardner is referring to the geodetic correction, which is a big
issue across the state. He explained that the geologic maps
also use topographic information. In most areas, the current
elevation information of the state is not up to the same
standard as the rest of the U.S. The topographic maps have
contours for elevation. When those maps were made, the
information had to be projected on the ellipsoid, since that's
the shape of the earth, so that the map represents what the
ground is seeing. Therefore, when a survey is conducted if the
surveyor doesn't have the corrected geoid, elevations can be as
far off as 30 meters. Such level of discrepancy is insufficient
for infrastructure, specifically airports and other such
infrastructure. Therefore, DGGS is in the process of a
statewide effort to correct the geoid via the lower resolution
gravity data that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is in the process of collecting. He also
mentioned that higher resolution elevation information, from 30
meter resolution to 10 meter resolution, is also being
collected. In areas where resolution needs to be at the meter
or centimeter scale, DGGS is in the process of collecting [Light
Detection and Ranging] LiDAR information. He explained that
LiDAR information is laser information that's collected from an
airplane. "So, we're behind the curve, but we're certainly
moving towards trying to get forward on that," he stated.
1:38:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as the cost of obtaining this
data.
MR. SWENSON confirmed [that obtaining this data and mapping]
costs a lot. For example, the LiDAR survey from Fairbanks to
Anchorage along the road would cost about $500,000 for a mile
wide at about 10 centimeter resolution. He noted that it's a
multi-agency effort to obtain better elevation information for
the state. Probably close to $4 million has been spent on this
effort and much federal funds have been leveraged in order to
cover 10 percent of the state with 10 meter resolution. Much of
the effort has been to prioritize the areas to be surveyed
because it's not possible to obtain high resolution data for the
entire state.
1:39:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether this information is
important when performing mineral studies or for safety when
flying. She inquired as to why this detailed information
matters.
MR. SWENSON said that it depends upon a number of issues.
Still, having the correct elevation is incredibly important for
all types of resource and infrastructure development. The
ability to extrapolate the topography into the data sets
provides DGGS the ability to extract the geologic information
that's used for resource and hazard assessments. The resolution
becomes important depending upon the information being
collected. For example, for some areas data at the 30 meter
resolution may be adequate, while for other areas more detailed
resolution is necessary.
1:41:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his understanding that the USGS is
typically charged with making maps of the U.S. He asked if the
USGS is engaged in a process to do that across the country. If
so, he questioned where Alaska ranks in the priority list.
MR. SWENSON confirmed that the USGS is engaged in making maps
throughout the country. Although the USGS is making an effort
in Alaska to update the data, Alaska is behind in terms of the
resolution of its topography. He noted that the USGS has a
large priority list, and thus it's looking at some of the higher
populated areas in the Lower 48.
1:42:42 PM
MR. SWENSON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, explained
that a depth sounder on a boat relates [depth and topography]
information in relation to the boat, not in the context of the
earth.
1:43:28 PM
MR. SWENSON, returning to his presentation, told the committee
that an incredible amount of data goes into the detailed
geologic mapping illustrated on the previous slide. Slide 8
entitled "DGGS Integrated Mapping Program" illustrates the
various layers of data used. Depending upon what is being
mapped, different types of information are used. The top three
layers on slide 8 are the different airborne geophysical
information. The surface geology is very important because
there has to be an understanding how to interpret the remote
sensing information that DGGS receives. The bedrock geology is
really the focus in many areas as is mineral locations, and land
status data. Again, many different data sets are used to
produce these maps. A few examples of the results of the data
sets and maps are related on slide 9 entitled "Program Results."
He informed the committee that DGGS has completely altered and
updated the entire stratigraphic column for the North Slope,
which is incredibly important in terms of the exploration of the
oil and gas on the North Slope. A key matter in an exploration
effort is understanding the location of the reservoir bodies
within the context of all the rock that has been deposited on
the North Slope.
MR. SWENSON, referring to slide 10, said that he put forward the
resource development chain in order to put into context how DGGS
would go forward using the data DGGS generates as well as other
data sets in order to move from a point of not understanding a
resource to the point of production. He reviewed the various
links: data, land, capital, regulatory, exploration, and
production. The key point, he emphasized, is that everything
moves in one direction; that is each link is of equal
importance. He pointed out that there is also a feedback loop,
which DGGS does by gathering information from any type of
exploration of the resource, which is placed in DGGS's data sets
and iterated through the data sets for the next phase of
exploration.
1:46:53 PM
MR. SWENSON moved on to slide 11 entitled "Engineering Geology
Infrastructure Studies." He explained that once the process
reaches production, it has to be brought to market and that
requires infrastructure. The DGGS is involved with
infrastructure in terms of geologic hazards and material sites.
The division, he related, performs a lot of work in identifying
fault hazards in the state that would impact the state's
infrastructure as well as material sites for the construction of
any infrastructure. Mr. Swenson pointed out that the next few
slides relate the "areas we're moving to." In Alaska, an
incredible amount of attention is paid to the energy situation
in the state. This coming summer, DGGS will be focusing on the
Susitna Basin in terms of its resource potential. Slide 12
highlights the Airborne Geophysical/Geological Mineral Inventory
(AGGMI) program, which is incredibly important. A number of
airborne geophysical surveys have been shot across the state and
there is a prioritized list of new areas. Of the 40 million
acres that have been identified as potential for minerals, a
little over 6 million acres has been covered with high
resolution geophysics. The next slide, slide 14, illustrates
some of the areas the division is focusing on in terms of
geologic hazards related to climate change, which is important
particularly when relocating communities. As was mentioned
earlier, volcano monitoring is a program in which DGGS, USGS,
and UAF partner. The program has been very busy recently.
There are monitoring stations on an incredible number of
volcanoes on the Aleutian Chain as well as in the Cook Inlet
region. He pointed out that the obvious issues [with regard to
volcanoes] are aviation and public safety.
1:49:04 PM
MR. SWENSON, referring to slide 16 entitled "Alaska Energy Data
Inventory," informed the committee that the Alaska Energy Data
Inventory (AEI) is one way to disseminate the information DGGS
has to the public. Furthermore, DGGS is working with the Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) to [disseminate] all the energy
information for local energy development. He explained that a
geologic distribution is being used so that one can access a
map, circle the area of interest, and obtain all the available
data for those energy resources.
1:49:36 PM
MR. SWENSON then moved on to the slide entitled "Alaska Geologic
Materials Center." The map at the top of that slide illustrates
the distribution of samples. About 13 million feet of
exploration and production drilling represented in the samples
that [DGGS] has; these are from diamond-drill core samples. In
response to Representative P. Wilson, informed the committee
that these samples are stored at the Geologic Materials Center
that is located just outside of Eagle River. The division is
involved in a concerted effort to upgrade the facility as it's
at about 170 percent of capacity right now. In fact, beyond the
original facility there are 60 shipping containers that have
been filled with samples and the samples continue to grow.
There has been an incredible effort to move the sample
collection into a reasonably modern facility. In fact, two
years ago DGGS received a capital improvement project request
and is in the process of receiving architectural engineering
design for a new building. This sample collection, he
emphasized, is one of the cornerstones of the state's data
infrastructure. All companies entering the state seeking
resource development come to the center because it has such a
collection of samples from throughout the state that is
available for modern analysis. For example, the collection
includes core samples from throughout the state that can be
tested for rare earth elements now that they are a hot
commodity.
1:51:58 PM
MR. SWENSON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, related
that the plan is to design a facility at 150 percent with the
capability and utilities to allow for expansion, when it's
necessary. He informed the committee that the division has the
statistics regarding how fast it's gaining data. Therefore,
there's an understanding of the size facility that's necessary.
In further response to Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Swenson
told the committee that DGGS has limited ability to perform
modern technical analysis. However, the division has a system
by which companies can take samples off-site for analysis, but
there is a stipulation that all the material that isn't consumed
must be returned. Furthermore, all the data, not
interpretations, obtained from the analysis must be provided to
the state as well.
1:54:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his understanding that when companies
drill their own core samples, those samples are proprietary for
a few years after which those samples become part of the public
domain.
MR. SWENSON agreed with Co-Chair Feige's understanding, adding
that the type of information DGGS receives is dependent upon the
permit and the statute. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC) controls the confidential two-year cycle of
proprietary information.
1:55:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether DGGS has considered using Kulis Air
National Guard Base as it has a number of buildings that the
state will take possession of soon.
MR. SWENSON replied yes, explaining that DGGS went through a
comprehensive review of all available state space. He noted
that he could provide the committee a report on that search.
1:55:52 PM
MR. SWENSON, returning to his presentation, directed the
committee's attention to slide 18, which lists DGGS's 2010
Accomplishments. He highlighted that DGGS is able to complete
1,700 square miles of geologic mapping in high priority areas
and over 600 square miles of high resolution geophysics.
Furthermore, DGGS is involved in a $1.8 million project to
acquire high resolution LiDAR from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and the
Canadian border. In conclusion, he told the committee that the
DGGS Annual Report the committee has is also available online
and he would be happy to answer any questions about it.
1:56:57 PM
MR. SWENSON, in response to Representative Herron, said that
Milt Wiltse, former state geologist, was a role model for him.
Mr. Wiltse had an incredible background in airborne geophysics,
which he started.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, noting that Mr. Swenson has been the
state geologist since 2005, asked him to share his newest
challenge.
MR. SWENSON opined that the Geologic Materials Center is his
biggest challenge at the moment because he truly believes it's
the cornerstone of the access to data for the state's resources.
However, the center is sorely inadequate for a state like Alaska
and thus it is imperative the facility be upgraded. The other
challenge is in regard to the lack of high resolution
information for Alaska. The ability to access and facilitate
the responsible development of the state's widely dispersed
resources is very limited, in terms of the amount of data that
DGGS can provide.
1:59:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to existing projects that are the
results of efforts of DGGS.
2:00:07 PM
MR. SWENSON informed the committee that DGGS performed the
airborne geophysics for Livengood, released it to the public,
and then followed it up with surface geologic mapping. The
geologic interpretation of the Money Knob site within the
Livengood survey found vertical faulting and uplift. The past
drilling had a geologic model in mind that was very different
than the reality of the site. The airborne geophysics allowed
interpretation at a much finer scale, which showed that it was a
thrust fault. The division published that geologic map, which
became a critical part of the understanding of International
Tower Hill Mines Ltd. and led to a change in the drilling plan.
Mr. Swenson said there are a number of different situations
similar to Livengood. He clarified that DGGS's job is to help
facilitate the understanding of those little geologic details
that may change an entire exploration model. Mr. Swenson then
highlighted the Cosmopolitan site offshore of Anchor Point,
which was only [explored] due to a DGGS sample.
2:02:26 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
^Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game - Division of
Wildlife Conservation
Overview: Alaska Department of Fish & Game - Division of
Wildlife Conservation
2:02:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the last order of business would
be an overview from the Division of Wildlife Conservation.
2:06:06 PM
COREY ROSSI, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by reviewing the
mission of the Division of Wildlife Conservation: "To conserve
and enhance Alaska's wildlife and habitats and provide for a
wide range of public uses and benefits." He then reviewed the
primary goals of the division, which are "to (1) protect,
maintain, improve, and enhance the wildlife resources of Alaska;
and (2) provide for their greatest use by the people, consistent
with the sustained yield principle, for the well being of the
people and the economy of the state." As with other agencies,
the Division of Wildlife Conservation serves a broad range of
users. Mr. Rossi then informed the committee that the Division
of Wildlife Conservation is one of six divisions within ADF&G
and has 242 authorized positions, of which 178 are full-time and
64 are part-time/seasonal. The division staff is divided in the
five regions around the state and each region has a regional
supervisor, a management coordinator, a research coordinator,
and area biologists.
2:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether there are vacant
biologist positions within the division.
MR. ROSSI answered that currently the division has vacant
positions as it does periodically. He opined that it's rare
that there isn't some position [open] since the division has so
many staff. In further response to Representative P. Wilson,
Mr. Rossi said he didn't have a number for the positions that
are actually biologists as opposed to technicians and other
designations. However, he offered to provide that information
to the committee.
2:09:40 PM
MR. ROSSI, returning to his presentation, directed the
committee's attention to the slide entitled "Core Service
Overview." He said that surveys and inventories of big game are
a large part of the division's work as it seeks to ensure that
decisions on population and harvest objectives are based on
adequate scientific information. Another important service is
harvest assessment. Although wildlife research is important, he
emphasized that the Division of Wildlife Services is a
management organization and the underpinnings of that management
is science. Another large part of the division's core service
is intensive management, which is primarily the predator control
program that also includes habitat management.
2:10:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related the concern she has heard that
the predator control program, particularly aerial wolf hunting,
gives the state a "black eye" nationally and globally.
Therefore, she requested that Mr. Rossi discuss less
controversial ways of controlling predators, such as
sterilization programs for wolves.
MR. ROSSI stated that there are a number of ideas on how to
manage the damage caused by predators. The damage, he
clarified, is that upon prey populations, which in the case of
wolves would be moose and caribou populations. The most
effective and direct path to mitigating the damage is to remove
the predator from the situation by either killing or relocating
it. However, relocating wildlife is expensive. Additionally,
sometimes predators are relocated to areas where the habitat is
already at capacity and thus the predators have difficulty
competing with others, can't find adequate resources to sustain
themselves, or out compete the existing predators which results
in the loss of a predator. Therefore, the shortest and most
economical path is the removal of the predators.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related his understanding that there isn't
any aerial wolf hunting in the state, rather there is aerial
predator control.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that she is merely inquiring as
to the cost and effectiveness of aerial wolf killing versus
sterilization.
MR. ROSSI said that it's difficult to provide a direct
comparison, which assumes the same result, because sterilization
would not necessarily correct the problem. The goal, he
identified, is to increase prey not remove predators. With
sterilization, a direct comparison can't be made because it
doesn't necessarily work the same. He noted that sterilization
has been tried experimentally in the 40-Mile area with mixed
results.
2:15:32 PM
MR. ROSSI, returning to his presentation, continued reviewing
the division's core services, including the special areas
program, education and outreach program, wildlife diversity
program, and wildlife viewing program. With regard to the
division's funding, Mr. Rossi informed the committee that the
division receives Pittman - Robertson, federal, funds, which are
available on a matching basis. These funds are the result of
excise taxes on sporting goods. The division also receives
funds from [the Alaska Department of Fish & Game] that are from
the license fees and also receives funds from the state general
fund and the federal State Wildlife Grant Fund. Mr. Rossi then
turned to the survey and inventories program within the
division. Within the survey and inventories program, the
division conducts population estimates, age-sex counts, twinning
rates in moose, and habitat inventories. Of importance with the
survey and inventories program are the composition surveys,
which review a group of moose and determine the percentage of
population that are bulls, cows, and calves. The aforementioned
helps monitor the condition of the population and what's
available for harvestable surplus. With regard to the harvest
assessment program, there is mandatory reporting for all
harvests. The division attempts to assess the harvest
quantity/quality and hunter effort, which are important to those
conducting the harvest. Mr. Rossi then turned to the wildlife
research program, which is a large and well developed program.
He informed the committee that there are wildlife researchers in
each of the five regions of the state and often multi-year field
studies are performed. Research is conducted on big game, non-
game, marine mammals, water fowl, and small game. He noted that
the division has identified small game, such as ptarmigan,
grouse, and hare, as areas in which it hopes to be more
aggressive.
2:18:31 PM
MR. ROSSI moved on to the core service of intensive management,
the law for which is in Alaska Statute. Intensive management
law does include habitat and predator management. Currently,
the intensive management programs encompass less than 10 percent
of the state. Each time a new intensive management area is
initiated, there is a specific plan with specific objectives and
measures associated with the plan, and the plan is reevaluated
periodically to measure its effectiveness. An ineffective plan
is eliminated or made more effective, he said. Mr. Rossi
clarified that per statute the intensive management law:
· mandates the production of human benefits from certain
defined ungulate populations
· to enhance, extend, and develop the population to
maintain high levels or provide for higher levels of
human harvest
· to achieve a high probability of success for human
harvest of the game population
2:19:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related that he lives in Area 19, Western
Alaska, that has been severely impacted by past wildlife
management. Therefore, he asked if Mr. Rossi foresees any hope
for the moose population returning to what it once was.
MR. ROSSI informed the committee that there are a number of
areas for which the division has increased populations to the
population objective. However, there are areas in which the
division has not quite met the objectives and thus continues to
move toward the objective. Moreover, there are areas the
division has been unable to help at all, which he attributed
primarily to land ownership patterns. For instance, the Yukon
Flats area has been especially difficult because although the
area has some of the best moose habitat in the state, it has
some of the lowest moose density in the state. In some of the
areas, such as Area 19 and the Southern Alaska Peninsula, there
has been a turn around. Area 20A is an example of a now very
high density moose population that also has a high predator
population as well. Therefore, a temporary reduction in the
predator population allowed the prey to increase and then the
predator population increased as well. Mr. Rossi reiterated
that although sometimes the limitation to the [intensive
management program] is cost, the primary limitation is land
ownership patterns. For example, the entire Alaska Peninsula is
completely closed to caribou hunting. Unfortunately, it's
difficult for the division to implement a predator management
program because the caribou calve on the federal lands. In
contrast, the caribou in the Southern Alaska Peninsula calve on
state lands. Therefore, the division has had the ability to
manipulate the situation such that the Southern Alaska Peninsula
is very productive. He then reviewed the history of the
Southern Alaska Peninsula Caribou herd that resulted in the
removal of wolves. In the first year, 28 wolves were removed
from the Southern Alaska Peninsula and the caribou population
grew from .5 calves per 100 cows during the fall count to 39
calves per 100 cows; a substantial increase. During the second
year, only eight wolves needed to be removed and there were 43
claves per 100 cows. This year 2 wolves were removed from the
Southern Alaska Peninsula and there were 47 calves per 100 cows.
Therefore, the hope is that in the next year or so the Southern
Alaska Peninsula herd will have a few surplus bulls and thus
allow Tier II hunting in the area.
2:25:28 PM
MR. ROSSI, returning to his presentation, moved on to the
special areas program, which is an important program to the
division. He said that most would think of the special areas
program as the state's version of the wildlife refuge program.
There are 32 special areas encompassing 3.2 million acres,
including refuges, critical habitat areas, and sanctuaries.
There are 12 refuges, 17 critical habitat areas, and 3
sanctuaries. He mentioned that the division has a fairly well
developed education and outreach program that includes hunter
education programs, school-based programs, outdoor skills, moose
and bear awareness, and shooter safety. In fact, [the
division's] educators were meeting in Juneau this week to plan
how to make the public education programs more robust,
informative, and useful. The division also has the connecting
children with nature program as well as the wildlife diversity
program, which was commonly known as the non-game program. The
wildlife diversity program was initiated in 2002 and has
steadily grown. He informed the committee that the wildlife
diversity program implements Alaska's Wildlife Action Plan.
Currently, the program has three biologists that cover the five
regions of the state and there is one program coordinator in
headquarters. The wildlife diversity program is funded by the
State Wildlife Grant Program. He noted that the program is for
species that aren't traditionally hunted, and therefore not
eligible for other funding. The wildlife diversity program has
the following goals:
· Keep Common Species Common
· Recover Species at Greatest Risk (listed species)
· Conserve Habitats & Ecosystem Function
· Expand Knowledge Base for Conservation
· Engage People in Conservation
· Increase the Power of International Partnerships
MR. ROSSI, returning to the special areas program, related that
there has been success in the Anchorage and Mat-Su Valley area
where user groups have spontaneously developed. He highlighted
the organizations of the Friends of Potter Marsh and the Friends
of Palmer Hay Flats.
2:29:06 PM
MR. ROSSI then directed attention to the wildlife viewing
program, which the division is trying to develop. The wildlife
viewing program seeks to encourage safe enjoyment of Alaska's
wildlife in a natural setting, create and promote opportunities
for wildlife viewing in communities, assess current viewing
sites and develop new ones, and seek creative ways to fund the
program. Mr. Rossi opined that although the wildlife viewing
program is very important, traditionally it has been grossly
underfunded. According to a 2006 Fish & Wildlife Survey,
496,000 people participated in wildlife viewing in Alaska in
2006. In that same year, 208,000 Alaskans enjoyed wildlife
viewing. Furthermore, wildlife watchers spent $581 million in
Alaska in 2006. The aforementioned numbers illustrate and
support that the wildlife viewing program is important.
2:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, returning to the intensive management
program, stated his support for the state's intensive management
areas, which he believes work, and highlighted the success of
the program in McGrath and Unit E in Bethel. He then related
his belief that if wolves aren't controlled, they will decimate
the moose population. He then asked if the department,
specifically the division, has a position on the legislation he
introduced last year addressing hunting and fishing reserves.
MR. ROSSI related that at this point the department hasn't
developed a specific decision, but the department is supportive
of enhancing wildlife populations for the use of people. "We
manage these resources on behalf of people," he said.
2:32:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if Mr. Rossi has read Representative
Dick's book regarding wolves in the Holitna area.
MR. ROSSI replied no, but noted he has heard about it.
2:32:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related that there are a group of citizens
in Juneau who are interested in a critical habitat designation
for the Taku River, which is an international river that is home
to five species of Pacific salmon. She asked whether a critical
habitat designation could be structured in such a way that it
would have an impact on barging activity on the river. The
barging activity originates in Canada and then enters Alaska.
MR. ROSSI said he could not speak directly to that specific
issue. However, when there is a critical habitat designation,
how other uses impact the critical habitat area is evaluated.
In further response to Representative Munoz, he agreed to
research this specific situation with the Taku River.
2:34:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK agreed that the moose population is
flourishing in McGrath. However, he attributed that to the fact
that the wolf hunters live in McGrath and only [hunt] out to 50
miles beyond McGrath due to the cost of [fuel]. He then asked
if there is any entity in Alaska working to help get the moose
population back [in the areas beyond McGrath].
MR. ROSSI answered that there are various sportsmen's groups
doing so. He also noted that [increasing moose populations] is
very important to the division. To that end, the division has
been reviewing ways in which to make its intensive management
programs more efficient. The division has been exploring how to
have a smaller footprint, such as concentrating intensive
management close to a village.
2:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related that residents of Lime Village have
special privileges to hunt in Lake Clark National Park &
Preserve, but he understands that there isn't anything to hunt
there due to the lack of predator control in that area. He
opined that prey animals, such as moose and caribou, on federal
lands aren't protected, and therefore it's important to
emphasize the need for intensive management on state lands.
2:37:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to health of the Porcupine Caribou
herd.
MR. ROSSI answered that it's doing very well. In fact, the
Central Arctic Caribou Herd is also doing well. A photo census
of the Porcupine Caribou herd has been completed, which is the
first censuses in 10 years. These caribou censuses are
expensive and difficult to do due to the weather. The Porcupine
Caribou Herd is currently being recounted, but at the moment the
population appears to be substantially higher than previously
thought. On the Canadian side, the minimum threshold for
utilization of the caribou is about 115,000. The [division]
recently told the Canadians that there are a minimum of at least
123,000 caribou in that herd, although he believes the recount
will find there are closer to 200,000 caribou.
2:39:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE remarked that the aforementioned information is
very different than that from various groups in the Lower 48.
He noted that he represents a part of Delta Junction, where at
times there is conflict between agriculture users and bison.
The bison were introduced to the area in the 1920s and the herd
size is about 360 animals. There is debate regarding whether
the bison can be considered an invasive species.
MR. ROSSI characterized the situation in Delta Junction as a
difficult one in which the division manages the area for
multiple users. The Delta bison herd is a very popular herd
with hunters, so much so that it's almost impossible to draw a
tag. However, he acknowledged that the bison are responsible
for some damage to agricultural producers in Delta Junction.
Therefore, the division has worked closely with the agricultural
producers in Delta Junction to develop solutions. Recently, the
Wildlife Services Program under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture has been contacted for its expertise in finding
solutions.
2:41:24 PM
MR. ROSSI, in response to Representative Herron, said he didn't
know that anywhere is free of the danger of hogs. He pointed
out that Down South hog populations are expanding rapidly and
are difficult to manage. He opined that it would be unlikely
for hogs to be able to survive and proliferate in Alaska to the
point of being a problem. With regard to coyotes, coyotes have
been in Alaska for a very long time albeit not in the abundance
they are in some areas. The division is concerned about the
areas where the abundance of coyotes may impact sheep.
Therefore, the division is doing surveys now to determine the
impact of coyotes on other species.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON mentioned that coyotes are a menace where
he lives and coyotes are caught all the time. The advantage of
killing coyotes is that they are not as "sexy" as wolves [in the
eyes of those in the Lower 48], he said.
2:43:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, referring to the slide entitled
"Wildlife Diversity Program Goals," requested explanation of the
goal to increase the power of international partnerships.
MR. ROSSI used endangered birds as an example. He reminded the
committee that a number of the endangered birds are only in
Alaska for their breeding season and then they move on to other
countries. Therefore, it's very important to have international
partnerships in terms of management, particularly with migratory
birds. The same would be true with marine mammals, he said.
Mr. Rossi pointed out that the state can do all it can to
protect a species when it's in the state, but it can't control
what occurs in other countries.
2:44:58 PM
MR. ROSSI, in response to Representative Dick, informed the
committee the division has been working for about 15 years to
reintroduce wood bison to Alaska. Wood bison were extirpated
from Alaska 150-200 years ago. Wood bison are a close cousin to
the Plains bison, which are located in Delta Junction and
elsewhere in the state. Not only was the wood bison extirpated
from Alaska, but it's also endangered in Canada. Near Portage,
there is a captive wood bison population of about 90 animals and
there is the expectation of about 30-40 calves this spring. The
goal, he related, is to restore the wood bison species to
abundance. There is a lot of interest in the wood bison,
ranging from those Interior residents who would like the wood
bison to be returned to abundance in Alaska as a food source and
those who want to view it. However, there are complications in
dealing with the federal government, specifically the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service that administers the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Rossi explained that the situation is one in which the
division wants to release the wood bison in March 2012, but it
has been confounded with difficulties with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service regarding special rules associated with the
release. In fact, the optimum release site was identified in
the Yukon Flats, but Doyon told the division it didn't want them
released there because it didn't trust that the federal
government would follow through and allow Doyon to continue to
develop its resources. Therefore, the division is working
diligently with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to obtain a
special rule such that the wood bison can be released and
established in abundance.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK related that his constituents want the wood
bison to be reintroduced, but not if it would result in the
inability to access the land and more [unnecessary] regulations.
MR. ROSSI said he is sensitive to that.
2:48:57 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE mentioned that he had recently seen a national
hunter magazine article that spoke highly of Mr. Rossi. He
opined that Mr. Rossi seems to have a good reputation and he
looked forward to working with him in the future.
2:49:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.