Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
02/05/2024 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Pikka Project Update and Net Zero | |
| Eo 124 Prohibiting by Regulation Live Capture, Possession, Transport, or Release of Native/exotic Game or Eggs. | |
| Eo 126 Eliminating the Wood-tikchik State Park Management Council | |
| Eo 134 Eliminating the Recreation Rivers Advisory Board | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2024
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator James Kaufman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: PIKKA PROJECT UPDATE AND NET ZERO
EO 124 PROHIBITING BY REGULATION LIVE CAPTURE & POSSESSION
EO 126 ELIMINATING THE WOOD-TIKCHIK STATE PARK MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
EO 134 ELIMINATING THE RECREATION RIVERS ADVISORY BOARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE BALASH, Senior Vice President
Santos Energy Solutions
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the Pikka Project update.
KYLE KOHMAN, Senior Manager
Santos Energy Solutions
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the Pikka Project update.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented EO 124 on behalf of the
administration.
RICKY GEASE, Director
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented EO 126 on behalf of the
administration.
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented EO 134 on behalf of the
administration.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:34 PM
CO-CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kawasaki, Wielechowski, Dunbar, Claman, Co-
Chair Giessel, and Co-Chair Bishop.
^Presentation: Pikka Project Update and Net Zero
PRESENTATION: PIKKA PROJECT UPDATE AND NET ZERO
3:32:03 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of a presentation
by Santos.
3:32:28 PM
JOE BALASH, Senior Vice President, Santos Energy Solutions,
Anchorage, Alaska, co-presented the Pikka Project update. He
moved to slide 2 and noted that Santos has a presence in
multiple jurisdictions outside of Alaska.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Founded in 1954 and headquartered in Adelaide,
Australia
• One of Australia's largest domestic gas suppliers
and leading LNG supplier in the Asia Pacific
region
• Merged with Oil Search in 2021
• Global footprint with operations in Australia,
Papua New Guinea, TimorLeste and the United
States (Alaska)
• About 4,000 employees globally
• Santos is 51 percent owner of Pikka with Repsol
partnership 49 percent
• Strong stakeholder support aligned through long-
term land use agreement with Kuukpik
• Current Alaska workforce of 259; growing to ~430
by year-end
• Moving to new downtown Anchorage office this year
About Santos About Santos in Alaska About Pikka
• Discovered in 2013; Horseshoe discovery in 2017
confirmed giant oil field
• Pikka to be net zero (Scope 1 & 2 emissions,
equity share) from first oil
• Core acreage position is on State land
• Other long-term benefits focused on sustainable
support of community
3:35:34 PM
MR. BALASH said Santos' equity emissions will be net zero as it
proceeds with project development. He said the company's core
acreage is on state land and there are several other associated
long-term benefits with development that accrue to the
community. Santos is well accustomed to working in sandy
environments, but has put a premium on attracting talent with
arctic experience in Alaska. Roughly 82 percent of employees
were hired from within the state.
3:36:43 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 3 and spoke to the map depicting core
acreage and state leases in Alaska. He said Santos is a
significant holder of state leases. The upper left part of the
map focuses on Nanushuk Formation and includes areas with
clinoforms and stratigraphic traps that exist in succession from
east to west. Santos holds additional acreage positions that are
excluded from the map, but the area shown is the core focus.
3:37:44 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 4 and summarized the Pikka project
timeline:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Bringing Pikka to Life
Pikka Project: Phase 1
• Final Investment Decision (FID) taken in August
2022 - $2.6 billion (gross)
• Completed major contracting & issued purchase
orders under awarded contracts totaling more than
$2 billion
• Development drilling began in June 2023
• 45 total wells and 397 MMbbl from 1 pad
• Shortest well: 7,600 ft / Longest well: 30,000 ft
• Nanushuk Processing Facility (NPF) modular design
approach with growth in mind for Phase 2
• Winter 2023: 1,200 beds on North Slope
• First oil planned for 1H 2026
• Adding 80,000 BOPD down TAPS
MR. BALASH added that the drilling commitment extends beyond the
first oil extraction date and carrying costs will top over three
billion dollars when the project is fully developed. Santos has
completed five well projects, is currently on its sixth, and
will soon start the seventh. Once the 80 thousand barrels of oil
per day (BOPD) enters the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, it will
result in costs spreading across all barrels, which would result
in a lower taps tariff by $1.15 within the first ten years of
development.
3:40:34 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked for confirmation of his understanding that
the shortest well is 7,600 ft and the longest being 30 thousand
feet.
3:40:40 PM
MR. BALASH replied that is correct.
3:40:43 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if Santos has an extended reach drilling
rig.
3:40:45 PM
MR. BALASH replied that Santos has one of the more powerful rigs
on the North Slope. He noted that its vertical depth is
relatively shallow, but in response to concerns from the Nuisqut
community, Santos agreed to move its pad further away from the
river. The consequence is that its wells are longer and steeper,
which presents some challenges, but Santos has a tremendous crew
and the rig itself has one of the best safety records on the
slope.
3:41:47 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how far the well location was moved in
response to the request by the Nuiqsut community.
3:41:58 PM
MR. BALASH said he would need to identify the specific distance,
but stated his belief that the pad was moved more than one
thousand feet.
3:42:14 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many of the 1,200 occupied beds are
for hires from Alaska.
3:42:31 PM
MR. BALASH responded that the 259 hires are on the
organizational chart and the 1,200 hires are primarily
contracted hires. The head of the operators in Fairbanks advised
Mr. Balash that he prioritized hiring within the state.
3:43:32 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 5 and spoke to stakeholder support and
vendor statistics:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Local Content and Contribution
Strong stakeholder support aligned through royalty and
Land Use Agreement
Long Term Land Use Agreement with Kuukpik
• Subsistence preservation and open access with close
cooperation and transparency on planned activities
to minimize impacts
• Provisions for employment, training and business
development
• Other long-term benefits focused on sustainable
support of community
• Community projects total ~US$59 million gross (US$31
million net 51 percent working interest)
Local Content & Contracting
• Project committed to local content and sourcing
where possible
• Alaska vendors (Native and Non-Native) account for
~45 percent of vendor spend to date
Tax & Royalty Impacts to Local Stakeholders
• North Slope Borough receives 95 percent of all local
tax revenue from oil and gas-related property taxes
• ASRC receives royalty payments for its mineral
rights ownership
MR. BALASH added that the Pikka project is unique because the
leases are issued by the state, but the surface is owned by
Kuukpik, the Village Corporation for Nuiqsut, with whom Santos
entered a land use agreement. Subsistence representatives live
in the camp and report back to Kuukpik to ensure development
activities meet expectations consistent with the spirit of the
agreement. Santos also considers work opportunities for Kuukpik-
affiliated companies. Most development purchases were done
externally and brought to Alaska, but he anticipates that the
number of Alaska Native vendors will grow over time and said
every shareholder will benefit from phase 1 of the project.
3:46:48 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) v. Arctic Slope Regional Corporation settlement has an
impact on the state's share of royalties.
3:47:00 PM
MR. BALASH replied that the agreement struck between ASRC and
DNR settled dispute over whether Alaska Slope Regional
Corporation (ASRC) could select certain lands. He conveyed that
the split between ASRC and the state depends on the specific
lease and described the royalty breakdown.
3:48:12 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR acknowledged that challenges have arisen from the
Willow Project and its impact on state finances as a result of
the producer having existing production taxes in other parts of
the state. He asked whether Santos or Repsol would have
production taxes or other tax payments to the state that would
be impacted by investment expenditures on the project.
3:49:04 PM
MR. BALASH replied that Santos does not currently produce or
have a production tax in Alaska. He stated his belief that
Repsol does not have one either but recommended reviewing
production tables. In the initial years of production, Santos
would pay royalties, property taxes, and corporate income taxes.
However, he shared his presumption that Santos would not have a
large production tax to pay as a result of carried over losses.
3:49:53 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the current status of the road
dispute between the state and ConocoPhillips.
3:50:05 PM
MR. BALASH responded that Santos is currently operating across
the road infrastructure on the North Slope. He said Santos
needed assurance and sought a multi-use land permit from
Division of Oil and Gas (DOG), which was granted in April of
2022. The permit itself was appealed to the commissioner, who
found in DOG's favor and the case was taken to court at the end
of 2022, where it currently sits on administrative appeal in
front of Judge Andrew Guidi.
3:51:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said some people have agreed with the legal
opinion brought forth by ConocoPhillips. He asked for further
insight.
3:51:29 PM
MR. BALASH replied that the case is a complicated tale of woe.
As a result of a separate road issue associated with the Mustang
Road, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
took a position similar to what was taken by ConocoPhillips in
its appeal of the miscellaneous land-use permit. The argument
made was that the two companies are parallel. ConocoPhillips
cited litigation stating that the legislature sided with AIDEA
and therefore sided with ConocoPhillips in its dispute, which
Santos perceived as strange.
3:53:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the potential impact on either
the state or the Pikka project if the state loses the lawsuit.
3:53:40 PM
MR. BALASH asked Senator Wielechowski to clarify whether he
would like the perspective of Santos or as a former DNR
commissioner.
3:54:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that he would like to know the
state's perspective to understand the risks.
3:54:09 PM
MR. BALASH responded that Santos believes it was presented with
a certain demand for compensation for road use that amounted to
hundreds of millions of dollars, resulting in a 20 percent
increase in project costs. If Santos was required to pay an
uncapped amount determined by the incumbent, constraints would
be placed on the Pikka project and future projects. It would
result in having to wait to identify, discover, permit, and
develop a resource. Mining companies and others would experience
investment obstacles if the legislature changed tax provisions.
3:56:24 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN requested an estimated timeline for a court
decision and whether an unfavorable ruling would stop the Pikka
project in its tracks.
3:57:10 PM
MR. BALASH responded that Santos has not yet reached the
litigation stage where merits are argued. He forecasted that the
court decision would likely not halt the Pikka project. He
stated his belief that the state has multiple tools to assure
access and the department would continue to work with Santos to
ensure access. He opined that the company could continue to
operate but would potentially need to pay fees in the worst case
scenario.
3:59:11 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 6 and spoke to the project costs and
the project execution risk reduction:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Facilities Design & Logistics Approach
Phasing & standardized truckable design reduce cost
and risk
Project costs reduced through:
• Standardized truckable NPF ~$200MM savings vs.
typical North Slope sealift design
• Driven by standardization of design and equipment
• 14' x 130' x 16' x 90-ton modules
• Facilities built in Canada and then transported
via barges and trucks to Alaska development site
Project execution risk reduced through:
• Contracting: Engineer Procure Fabricate (EPF lump
sum)
• Utilizing proven and standard equipment / designs
• Truckable modules
• Increasing seasonal transport window from 1 month
to 10 months
• Reducing peak activity levels
• River lift modules increasing fabrication window
up to 3 months
• Leveling workforce needs
• Installing modules that are trial fit in
fabrication yard
• New build Seawater Treatment Plant (STP) versus
de-bottlenecking existing 40-year-old Kuparuk
River Unit (KRU) STP
4:00:00 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if the modules would be intact and without
damage from roads.
4:00:08 PM
MR. BALASH replied that there may be some risk involved in
transporting modules on the Dalton Highway, but reassembly would
be more costly. Certain production modules have sensitive
electronic components that need to remain intact. Santos
estimates savings of two-to-three hundred million dollars.
4:01:10 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for confirmation that the transportation
route for truckable loads would move from the ALCAN to Fairbanks
to Deadhorse.
4:01:23 PM
MR. BALASH replied that many of the loads follow that route, but
some are routed to tide water and barged to Valdez.
4:01:45 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI alluded to a trucking disagreement on the Alcan
Border near Fairbanks.
4:01:58 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 7 and spoke to Phase 1 infrastructure:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Beyond Phase 1
Lower capital requirements and breakeven, higher
returns for subsequent phases
Expansions leverage Phase 1 infrastructure
• Roads and pipelines
• Seawater treatment plant
• Pad space for facility expansion
Processing facility concept (future phases)
• Design once build multiple
• Install proven module designs
• Significant cost savings targeted through:
Minimizing North Slope work Minimal footprint
increase
Post-phase 1 activities
• Entered concept select for Phase 2
• Evaluating expansion plans
• High-grading well stock
• Quokka delineation late 2024-2025
MR. BALASH added that Santos could conceivably take on the next
phase by 2026.
4:03:00 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 8 and spoke to financial running room:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Significant, Long-Term Supply Portfolio
Self-funding development pipeline plus providing
significant returns
• Cash flow from Phase 1 will be very robust
• Self fund whilst providing returns to shareholders
MR. BALASH added that the map on the right shows net resources
by unit and the graph on the left depicts a stylistic
representation of anticipated future growth. He stated that
Santos expects that rocks could sustain multiple projects in 80
thousand BOPD increments for a long time.
4:04:32 PM
MR. BALASH moved to slide 9. He ascribed the points as "how
Santos describes Alaska to investors."
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska
World-class resource in tier 1 jurisdiction, with
significant optionality
World-class resource base of scale with 2P reserves of
165 mmboe and 2X o 438 mmboe
Significant free cash flow: modular design can self-
fund future development phases and fund returns to
shareholders
Leveraging significant infrastructure in place
Operational team with significant North Slope
experience
Stable regulatory environment and supportive
stakeholders
4:05:41 PM
KYLE KOHMAN, Senior Manager, Santos Energy Solutions, Anchorage,
Alaska, co-presented the Pikka Project update. He briefly spoke
to slide 10 on the net zero commitment:
[Original punctuation provided.]
"Pikka Phase 1 will be net zero (Scope 1 and
Scope 2 emissions, equity share) from first oil."
4:06:33 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 11 and highlighted the three types of
scope emissions:
• Scope 1 includes the bulk of emissions that are directly
from company operations. A lot of the field is electrified,
so most operations are run by the processing facility
electric generation.
• Scope 2 emissions are emitted on the company's behalf.
• Scope 3 emissions are up- and downstream emissions
associated with the manufacturing products used. Santos
only sells products to countries or companies with a net
zero commitment.
4:08:03 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 12 and described the corporate vision
and strategy.
[The list below is in chronological order from the earliest
goals to longer-term objectives.]
Vision 2040: Purpose and Plan
"We are a global energy company committed to helping
the world decarbonize to reach net zero emissions
through reliable, affordable and sustainable energy."
• Backfill and sustain
• Decarbonisation
• Low carbon fuels
MR. KOHMAN added that existing assets are on decline, so Alaska
production would fulfill the backfill and sustain approach.
Santos seeks to decarbonize legacy assets and maintain a net
zero approach for new projects.
4:09:13 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 13 and summarized the net zero
philosophy:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska Decarbonization
Net zero philosophy, approach, and plan
• Avoid
o Design and operate efficiently to cost-effectively
minimize direct emissions from operations
• Reduce
o Direct reduction of operated emissions post-design
• Offset
o Indirectly reducing emissions through nature-based or
technology solutions, including carbon capture and
storage (CCS)
4:10:16 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 14 and explained the 'avoid' point:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Pikka Phase 1 Net Zero
Avoid - Low GHG Intensity by Design
Minimized emission design
• Central power generation
• Waste heat recovery units for turbines to reduce
heat needs
• Highest EPA standards for rig emissions
Top quartile carbon intensity for Pikka Phase 1 within
global oil and gas GHG performance
• 14tCO2e/mboe at 53% lower than average
conventional onshore developments
Paris Agreement aligned low GHG intensity oil produced
in an environmentally responsible manner
4:11:33 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 15 and explained the 'reduce' point:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Pikka Phase 1 Net Zero
Reduce - Carbon Abatement
Post-design emission reduction
• Strategic alliance with ASRC Energy Services to
develop carbon abatement solutions for Pikka
• Drawing from global corporate experience to
further reduce direct emissions
• Longer term: alternative power solutions for
North Slope operations
MR. KOHMAN said Santos is seeking to bring the Australian
approach that involves legacy assets to Alaska.
4:12:35 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 16 and explained the 'offset' point:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Pikka Phase 1 Net Zero
Offset - Nature-Based
Near-term nature-based carbon solutions
• Letter of Intent (LOI) signed with large Alaska
Native landowner to develop a forestry management
project
• Initial scope could completely offset Santos
share of Pikka Phase 1 carbon emissions with
high-quality credits registered for the voluntary
market
• Additional beneficial social outcomes for local
communities
Supported Alaska legislation to form state nature-
based offsets program (SB48 - Passed)
4:14:03 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether Santos negotiated the offset
agreement with one of the Alaska Native Regional Corporation or
the state.
4:14:12 PM
MR. KOHMAN replied that Santos negotiated an agreement with one
of the regional corporations but said he could not disclose
specifics.
4:14:37 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked when Santos adopted its net zero
philosophy.
4:14:52 PM
MR. KOHMAN responded that Santos is based in Australia and
implemented a compliance regime or "cap & trade system" in 2012.
The vision for 2040 was announced in 2022.
4:15:58 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the federal 45Q tax credit incentive
shaped the 2040 plan.
4:16:16 PM
MR. KOHMAN stated his belief that the 45Q tax credit did not
have a strong influence on the net zero commitment. Santos views
the United States as a favorable regime to deploy the company's
corporate expertise. The net zero commitment was based on
shareholder expectations and board requirements.
4:16:58 PM
MR. KOHMAN moved to slide 17 and spoke to CCS technologies:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska CCS Consortium
Offset - Technology-Based
• Unique interest in Arctic-capable CCS technology
and pursuing equity ownership
• Extensive project execution, stakeholder
engagement, technical, and regulatory experience
• Interest in utilizing federal funding to
accelerate project development
• Supporting Alaska legislation to form CCS
regulatory framework
Direct Air Capture (DAC)
DAC Technologies in the Arctic: 1 MTA (gross) of
carbon capture potential
Point Source Capture
Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU): 3 MTA (gross) of Carbon
Capture potential
Carbon Storage
Subsurface evaluation: World-class Carbon Storage
potential on North Slope (275 GT gross) and Cook Inlet
(43 GT gross)
AK LNG H2 Hub Storage: 2 MTA (gross) carbon capture
potential partnering with Alaska LNG
MR. KOHMAN stated that Santos desires equity ownership of
projects and would like to utilize federal funding to accelerate
project development and associated technologies. The company has
both Alaska-based and global experience on project design,
execution, and development. Santos applied for federal funding
to develop and evaluate direct air carbon capture and is
reviewing operational capabilities of various technologies
suitable for the Arctic. It was then awarded with a feasibility
phase, which provided early funding to establish four direct air
capture hubs in the United States that could fund up to $550
million at a 50 percent match could establish at least one hub.
He noted that point-source capture million ton/year (MTA) is
closer to five per year of carbon capture potential. There are
over 20 frame five turbine generators in the Prudhoe Bay area,
which could be replicated across the field with funding support.
4:20:17 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if other companies are making investments
similar to Santos.
4:20:41 PM
MR. KOHMAN replied that the Alaska consortium has been
approached by several interested companies seeking to
decarbonize assets, but some operators are self-reliant and do
not have any interest in outsourcing. He stated his belief that
other companies in Alaska and in other states are pursuing
carbon capture technology.
4:21:34 PM
MR. KOHMAN continued speaking to slide 17. He said Santos is
considering establishing hubs on the North Slope and in the Cook
Inlet region that could serve industrial emitters and pair with
direct air capture technologies. Alaska liquefied natural gas
(LNG) applied for a federal grant for a hydrogen hub designation
and asked Santos to conserve and support the hub as a carbon
capture and storage solution.
^EO 124 Prohibiting by Regulation Live Capture, Possession,
Transport, or Release of Native/Exotic Game or Eggs.
EO 124 PROHIBITING BY REGULATION LIVE CAPTURE, POSSESSION,
TRANSPORT, OR RELEASE OF NATIVE/EXOTIC GAME OR EGGS
4:23:43 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of EO 124
Prohibiting by Regulation Live Capture, Possession, Transport,
or Release of Native/Exotic Game or Eggs.
4:24:21 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADFG), Anchorage, Alaska, presented EO 124 on behalf of
the administration. He referenced the clean list in statute that
outlines exotic game allowed and prohibited in the state. Many
non-native species are acceptable, such as cats and dogs, that
do not pose a threat to the environment. In the past, the clean
list was administered by the Alaska Board of Game. The Governor
found that it is in the state's best interest to transfer
regulatory authority to the Board of Fish and Game. Approved
exotic mammals, birds, and reptile species are found on the
clean list under 5 AAC 92.029. Before an exotic animal is added
to the clean list, a careful analysis must be conducted. EO 124
would allow proposals to be acted on more quickly. An emu was
brought into the state and a decision was drawn-out, so the
Governor and ADFG agreed that the process was too time-consuming
and determined that transferring authority would ensure
efficiency. He noted that robust scientific review and a public
process would remain under EO 124. The fiscal impact would be
minimal, but ADFG determined that it would likely be zero.
4:28:38 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for the outcome of the pet emu case.
4:28:46 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the emu was confiscated and
underwent a lengthy three-year process for a decision to be
made.
4:29:24 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI inquired on the types of studies required
before a decision is made by Alaska Board of Game.
4:29:50 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the ADFG reviews literature, looks
at survivability, and conducts an analysis that is provided to
the Alaska Board of Game.
4:30:37 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI mentioned a specific case regarding non-native
fish species. He asked if the potential introduction of a non-
native fish, such as tilapia, would be determined by the
commissioner.
4:31:24 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG stated he would review conditions to determine
the impact on the environment and native species in the area.
4:32:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if EO 124 would give the commissioner
the authority to adopt regulations and make two-way changes to
the clean list.
4:32:31 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that it would go both ways. He provided
the example of wild boars that could be both beneficial and
detrimental to the environment, but it is unlikely ADFG would
authorize this type of species.
4:33:17 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for a list of prohibited species.
4:33:23 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the list exists under
administrative code 5 AAC 92.029 and listed several examples.
4:34:34 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the department should allow
the introduction of farmed species like salmon or pike in
certain areas under the provision. He stated that scientists
have expressed concerns over the breeding of certain species.
4:35:22 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that fish are covered by a fish
transport permit and managed under a different authority.
4:35:57 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI sought clarification of his understanding
that pike could not be transferred under current law and whether
a future commissioner could use their discretion.
4:36:35 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that the clean list deals with game
species, so fish are covered under ADFG's fish transport
authority.
4:37:02 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL added clarification that the clean list only
includes game species.
4:37:14 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN sought confirmation of his understanding that the
emu case was the only incident that prompted permitting
challenges and wondered if any other situation created problems.
4:37:42 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG said he could not identify any other case at
this time. He highlighted the impact of exotic food imports and
the likelihood of faster permitting under the new process. The
need to increase permitting flexibility and expedite the process
was mentioned during an Alaska Food Security and Independence
Task Force meeting.
4:38:53 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN stated his understanding that a public board
would no longer exist to review these types of cases. He said he
finds it interesting that EO 124 would transfer full authority
to the commissioner and would potentially bring in more exotic
species as a result of the individual emu case.
4:40:15 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that the Administrative Procedures Act
would continue to allow public input.
4:40:29 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if a mechanism exists to approve species at
a faster pace than the three-year process.
4:40:56 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that despite ADFG's efforts, the emu
case demonstrated that under current provisions it was not
possible to shorten the three-year process.
4:41:14 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI spoke to a presentation on biology from 2005
that he found on the ADFG website that cautions managing
invasive species using a non-scientific approach. He expressed
concerns that EO 124 would neglect science if the decisions are
made through an administrative process.
4:43:22 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented that he would likely prefer to
maintain a slower process when considering the introduction of
non-native species. He listed several examples of non-native
species that have caused problems with the natural habitat of
those areas.
4:44:06 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL held EO 124 in committee.
^EO 126 Eliminating the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management
Council
EO 126 ELIMINATING THE WOOD-TIKCHIK STATE
PARK MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
4:44:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of Executive Order
126 Eliminating the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council.
4:44:50 PM
RICKY GEASE, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska,
presented EO 126 on behalf of the administration. He spoke to
slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Wood-Tikchik State Park
• 1,541,759 acres near Dillingham
• Established by Legislature in 1978 (AS 41.21.161)
• Primary purpose: protect the area's fish and
wildlife systems (important breeding grounds) and
continued subsistence and recreational activities
• Largest state park in the U.S., managed by 1 park
employee
4:46:14 PM
MR. GEASE moved to slide 3 and spoke to the Alaska State
Constitution:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Wood-Tikchik State Park
• Alaska State Constitution Article 8, Section 7:
Special Purpose Sites: Legislature may
reserve land from the public domain
• Legislature closed the park land and water to
"multiple use" and dedicated area as special
purpose site (closed to oil and gas leasing,
mineral entry) (AS 41.21.160-167)
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is
responsible for managing fish and game resources
within park
4:46:54 PM
MR. GEASE moved to slide 4 and summarized the 7-member Wood-
Tikchik State Park Management Council makeup.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Management Council Members
• 7-member Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council
is established in AS 41.21.163.
• Governor appoints one member from three nominations
submitted by each of the following:
the village council of Koliganek
the village council of New Stuyahok
the village council of Aleknagik
the city council of Dillingham
the Bristol Bay Native Association, Inc.
the commissioner of natural resources
the commissioner of fish and game
4:47:39 PM
MR. GEASE moved to slide 5 and listed management council
responsibilities:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Management Council Responsibilities
• Management council provides feedback,
recommendations and local insight regarding
management, operations, facilities
• Meetings serve as a forum for public input on
park management
• Members set agenda items, discuss topics such as
park user conflicts, resource issues, proposed
developments and proposed regulation changes
• The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council
shall develop a management plan for the park with
the advice and assistance of the department (AS
41.21.164)
• DNR, ADF&G must consult with each other and the
management council before adopting regulations
4:49:00 PM
MR. GEASE moved to slide 6 and listed ways in which DNR supports
the management council:
[Original punctuation provided.]
DNR's Support Role
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation coordinates and
supports the Management Council by:
• Providing staff to develop management plan
• Issuing public notice for meetings
• Assisting with agendas
• Taking meeting minutes and/or recording meeting
• Posting meeting minutes and/or recording meeting
• Coordinating appointments through Governor's
office
• Filling requests for information from DNR Council
has met online since 2020 and the most recent
meeting was February 1, 2024.
4:49:44 PM
MR. GEASE moved to slide 7 and explained the intent of EO 126:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Executive Order 126
WHAT:
• Sunsets the management council. DNR will develop
management plans and receive stakeholder input
through traditional channels and creation of
citizen advisory board
WHY:
• Creates efficiency and establishes single point
of contact for park management
• Eliminates duplication within state government
• Aligns management activities with those of other
parks
FUTURE:
• Management processes don't change revisions
subject to robust public process and multiple
input opportunities
• Alaska Department of Fish & Game remains involved
in management plan development, associated
activities
4:51:01 PM
MR. GEASE moved to slide 8 and listed stakeholder engagement
tools:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Future Stakeholder Engagement
DNR has other important engagement tools:
• Creation of a local citizen advisory board
covering the parks in the local region (Lake
Aleknagik State Recreation Site)
• Citizen advisory boards assist park staff with
management and development issues
• Alaska State Parks director appoints members for
up to 3-year terms
• Members are representative of multiple user
groups
• Active boards in Chugach, Juneau, Kachemak Bay,
Ketchikan, Kodiak, Mat-Su, Northern Region and
Seward
4:53:00 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked to move back to slide 4. He expressed
appreciation for the diversity in the makeup of the management
council and wondered if there were problems with seats being
unfilled.
4:53:54 PM
MR. GEASE stated his belief that one vacancy exists in
Dillingham. There are eleven regional advisories around the
state.
4:54:39 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if there is anything currently preventing a
statutory change.
4:55:06 PM
MR. GEASE replied that it is in the purview of the legislature
to designate statutory change. He said there are fewer vacancies
when councils are filled at the local level.
4:55:34 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if there were any problems with the current
management council successfully fulfilling its duties.
4:55:50 PM
MR. GEASE replied no. He said one restriction is the limit to
Wood Tikchik State Park and suggested that a parallel board
could be created.
4:56:50 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN commented that the largest state park in the
country is currently managed by one park employee. He stated
that the new proposal would remove meaningful public contact. He
expressed concerns over EO 124 given the successful performance
of the current board.
4:58:08 PM
MR. GEASE replied that the Governor's office sought efficiency
and a reduced layer of bureaucracy. He expressed appreciation
for public input received through regional advisory councils.
4:58:35 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN stated his belief that the public likes the
current structure.
4:58:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL commented that the single park employee who
manages the largest state park is minimally compensated.
4:59:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL held EO 126 in committee.
^EO 134 Eliminating the Recreation Rivers Advisory Board
EO 134 ELIMINATING THE RECREATION RIVERS ADVISORY BOARD
4:59:06 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of EO 134.
4:59:30 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, presented EO 134 on behalf
of the administration. He spoke to slide 2 of the presentation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Advisory Board
Created by Recreation Rivers Act of 1988 (AS
41.23.400-510):
• The primary purpose of the Act is for the
establishment of the six recreation river
corridors for their maintenance and enhancement
of fish and wildlife population for recreation
and economic use ensuring multiple use
management.
• Established a Governor-appointed, 13-member
advisory board representing:
(1) commercial fishing;
(2) sport fishing;
(3) sport hunting;
(4) conservation;
(5) subsistence
(6) forest products;
(7) mining;
(8) powerboat users;
(9) recreationally-oriented commercial users;
(10) other recreational users;
(11) private property owners within the
recreation river corridors;
(12) the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning
Commission from the membership of the planning
commission; and (13) the mayor of the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough or the designee of the mayor
• Six Recreation Rivers
1. Little Susitna River
2. Deshka River (Moose/Kroto Creeks)
3. Talkeetna River
4. Lake Creek
5. Talachulitna River
6. Alexander Creek
• 460 River Miles
• Mile-wide corridors totaling 260,000 acres
5:01:10 PM
MR. GOODRUM moved to slide 3:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Advisory Board
• Requires DNR write a management plan
Original Management Plan adopted in 1991
• Plan establishes management guidelines
Manage activities consistent with statutory
purposes
Protect fish, wildlife, and the river's free
flow
Identify special recreation values and manage
intensity and types of recreational use
Designate management guidelines for development
activities
Designate management guidelines for commercial
recreation activities or development
Provide for transportation and utility
corridors, public safety, and law enforcement
Provide for reasonable access
Establish criteria and timelines to review
future proposed uses for compatibility with AS
41.23.400
5:01:43 PM
MR. GOODRUM moved to slide 4 and spoke to advisory board
responsibilities:
Advisory Board Responsibilities
The Board assists in preparing, adopting, and revising
the recreation river management plan and regulations
affecting use and management of the recreation rivers.
MR. GOODRUM added that there have been many errors since the
board was re-constituted in November of 2021. He said 18
meetings have been scheduled since.
5:02:33 PM
MR. GOODRUM moved to slide 5 and summarized EO 134:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Executive Order 134
WHAT:
• Sunsets the advisory council; transfer the
functions and duties of the Susitna Basin
Recreation Rivers Advisory Board to DNR
WHY:
• Creates efficiency and establishes single point
of contact for management
• Eliminates duplication within state government
• Resulting in increased performance and
accountability
FUTURE:
• Any changes to the Susitna Basin Recreation
Rivers management plan must already go through a
robust public process in consultation with
affected municipalities, state agencies, and
stakeholders that requires public notice, public
comment periods, and meetings in the affected
communities
5:03:51 PM
MR. GOODRUM moved to slide 6 and presented the sectional
analysis for EO 134:
EO 134 Sectional Analysis Detail
Sec. 1, Page 1: Provision adds a new section to the
uncodified law providing the governor's findings that
it is in the best interests of efficient
administration to transfer the functions of the
Recreation Rivers Advisory Board to the Department of
Natural Resources, and to eliminate the board as it is
no longer needed
Sec. 2, Page 1: Provision amends AS 41.23.440(a)
(relating to management plans for recreation rivers
and corridors) to delete the reference to the advisory
board. The DNR commissioner would no longer be
required to consult with the board when preparing or
revising a management plan for each of the six
recreation rivers and their corridors. The
commissioner and each affected municipality would
still be required to consult with public and state
agencies
Sec. 3, Page 2: Provision repeals AS 41.23.430 which
established the Recreation Rivers Advisory Board
Sec. 4, Page 2: Provision adds a new section to the
uncodified law to provide guidelines for the
transition period that would be required by this
executive order
Sec. 5, Page 3: Provision established an effective
date of July 1, 2024
5:04:58 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the board has experienced any challenges
completing its work since it was re-constituted.
5:05:17 PM
MR. GOODRUM replied that four of 18 meetings were cancelled due
to quorums, which presented challenges. He said when the board
was convened in the late 1980-90s, getting stakeholders together
proved difficult.
5:06:06 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for the timespan of the 18 meetings.
5:06:14 PM
MR. GOODRUM replied that 18 meetings have occurred since 2021.
5:06:29 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for the current number of appointed
members.
5:06:40 PM
MR. GOODRUM replied that there are 10 out of 13 were appointed.
5:06:49 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if certain members are automatically
appointed under statute.
5:07:16 PM
MR. GOODRUM replied that is correct.
5:07:22 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL held EO 134 in committee.
5:08:31 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 5:08 p.m.