03/06/2024 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB168 | |
| Presentation: Resident Hunters of Alaska (rhak) | |
| Hjr20 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 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 James Kaufman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to wrongfully seized game."
- HEARD AND HELD
PRESENTATION(S): RESIDENT HUNTERS OF ALASKA (RHAK)
- HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
"Urging withdrawal of proposed Bureau of Land Management
regulations affecting the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska;
and urging meaningful engagement with tribes, local governments,
and affected communities."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Urging withdrawal of proposed Bureau of Land Management
regulations affecting the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska;
and urging meaningful engagement with tribes, local governments,
and affected communities.
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 168
SHORT TITLE: COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFULLY SEIZED GAME
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) BJORKMAN
01/16/24 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (S) RES
02/16/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/16/24 (S) Scheduled but Noret Heard
02/21/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/21/24 (S) Heard & Held
02/21/24 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
ELIZABETH THOMAS, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 168.
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director
Resident Hunters of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Resident
Hunters of Alaska (RHAK)
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS BAKER, District 40
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor for HJR 20.
ELIZABETH REXFORD, Staff
Representative Thomas Baker
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefly introduced herself.
DOREEN LEAVITT, Director
Natural Resources
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS)
Utqiagvik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HJR 20.
JOSIAH PATKOTAK, Mayor
Utqiagvik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HJR 20.
BRIDGET ANDERSON, Senior Vice President
External Affairs
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HJR 20.
KARA MORIARTY, President and CEO
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HJR 20.
ANDY MACK, Chief Executive Officer
Kuukpik Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for HJR 20.
NAGRUK HARCHAREK, President
Voice of the Arctic Inupiat
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
D.J. FAUSKE, Director
Government & External Affairs
North Slope Borough
Utqiagvik, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HJR 20.
KATIE CAPOZZI, President
Alaska Chamber of Commerce
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
LEILA KIMBRELL, Executive Director
Resource Development Council (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
KEN GRIFFIN, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 20.
CAROLINE SCHULTZ, Director
Government Affairs
ConocoPhillips
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HJR 20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:38 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Wielechowski, Kawasaki, Kaufman, Dunbar, Claman, Co-
Chair Giessel, and Co-Chair Bishop.
SB 168-COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFULLY SEIZED GAME
3:31:18 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
168 "An Act relating to wrongfully seized game."
3:31:45 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced public testimony.
3:32:06 PM
ELIZABETH THOMAS, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 168. She recounted being cited for harvesting
an illegal bull in 2021 and was found not guilty. She noted that
the game was donated before her plea, and despite winning her
appeal, she is still awaiting the return of her property.
3:33:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked who the appeal was made to.
3:33:44 PM
MR. THOMAS replied that the Alaska State Troopers appealed the
State's decision, which was made by Magistrate Newport in
Petersburg.
3:34:07 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether she supports or opposes SB 168.
3:34:14 PM
MS. THOMAS replied that she supports SB 168.
3:34:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI acknowledged having an extensive discussion
with Ms. Thomas on this case. He asked for confirmation of his
understanding that the situation involved hunting a moose with a
broken tine, which was confiscated by an Alaska State Trooper.
The moose weighed approximately 1,000 pounds, resulting in a
loss of 1,000 pounds of meat, and has still not been returned
after two years.
3:34:56 PM
MS. THOMAS replied that is correct.
3:35:11 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR said that at the last committee hearing, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) claimed that efforts were
made to find a replacement animal for the lost meat. He asked
whether the department attempted to find a replacement animal
for the lost meat and whether an alternative moose was offered.
3:35:35 PM
MS. THOMAS replied that there was a delay in communication, but
recently, a law enforcement official reached out to her about
potentially compensating her with a moose from Anchorage.
However, specifics about the compensation amount have not been
provided, and there are still many unanswered questions.
3:36:26 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP closed public testimony and held SB 168 in
committee.
^Presentation: Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK)
PRESENTATION: RESIDENT HUNTERS OF ALASKA (RHAK)
3:36:31 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of a presentation by
the Resident Hunters of Alaska (RHAK).
3:37:01 PM
MARK RICHARDS, Executive Director, Resident Hunters of Alaska,
Fairbanks, Alaska, presented an overview of the Resident Hunters
of Alaska (RHAK). He said RHAK is a hunting conservation
organization with approximately 3,500 members statewide. Its
primary focus is to ensure that future generations of Alaskans
have the same hunting opportunities that are available today.
3:37:28 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced Senator Bjorkman was in attendance.
3:37:48 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 2 and summarized board oversight of
state hunting opportunities:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Our State Constitution Mandates a Resident Hunting
Priority
"The state of Alaska constitution is unique, in that
it contains an article that exclusively addresses the
management of natural resources within state lands and
waters. Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution is the
result of historic achievement in which the state of
Alaska established the chief principle that all
resources should be managed under a public trust
doctrine for the citizens of Alaska. Under section two
of Article VIII, the Alaska "legislature shall provide
for the utilization, development, and conservation of
all natural resources belonging to the state,
including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of
the people."
MR. RICHARDS stated that RHAK is linked to art. VIII,
Constitution of the State of Alaska, which designates wildlife
resources as a public trust intended for the benefit and common
use of Alaskans, meaning residents should have priority in
harvesting wildlife, whether for food or trophies. However, the
constitution is not being upheld. Alaska is the only western
state without restrictions on non-resident hunters to ensure
that resident hunters have priority. He offered to discuss
potential solutions to address the problems caused by this lack
of regulation.
3:38:34 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR recalled having a conversation with Mr. Richards
and wanted to put it on the record. He noted that the
constitutional doctrine encompasses more than just personal use,
such as commercial fishing. He asked if the maximum benefit for
Alaskans could also include activities like wildlife viewing,
and inquired whether the position is that the maximum benefit
always means resident hunting, or if there is a broader
interpretation of that provision.
3:39:18 PM
MR. RICHARDS said it has been argued in court that allowing many
non-resident hunters could provide significant financial
benefits accrued to the department, state, and guide industry.
However, as argued by RHAK's attorney, the specific provisions
in art. III take precedence over the general provisions in art.
II, Constitution of the State of Alaska. The common use clause
in art. III mandates that residents have hunting priority.
3:40:10 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 3 and detailed the four regulatory
boards overseeing hunters and guides:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska Board of Game (BOG):
7-member panel appointed by the Governor and confirmed
by the legislature. Broad authority from legislature
over all hunting seasons, bag limits, allocations
among user groups. Regulates the number of hunters in
the field. Directs ADFG how to manage our wildlife
ADF&G Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC):
Research and Survey & Inventory of game populations.
Advises BOG. Manages our wildlife according to BOG
directives. Neutral on all allocation proposals.
Conducts predator reduction programs authorized by the
BOG.
Big Game Commercial Services Board (BGCSB)
Licenses guides & regulates the number of guides in
the field, also regulates transporters
Federal Subsistence Board (FSB)
Regulates hunting seasons and hunters on federal
lands, ability to lock out non-federally qualified
hunters on federal lands
3:41:04 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked for confirmation of his understanding that
the commissioner has the authority to override a board decision.
3:41:18 PM
MR. RICHARDS replied that it is technically correct.
3:41:23 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN said his comment was also about line of
authority; it seemed odd that authority was totally delegated to
the board.
3:41:35 PM
MR. RICHARDS replied that the legislature granted broad
authority to both the Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries
to allow them to function effectively, as it would be
impractical for these matters to keep coming back to the
legislature. However, he noted that he has never seen the
commissioner override a decision made by the Board of Game, even
after appeals or when decisions were perceived as incorrect.
3:42:00 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 4 and explained the concerns
surrounding hunting regulations:
[Original punctuation provided.]
WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?
There is no statutory requirement that the Board of
Game shall allocate our wildlife resources to
prioritize resident hunting opportunities. So, we end
up with:
• No clear resident hunting priority for Intensive
Management game populations
• A moose draw permit that allocates 50 percent of
the permits to nonresidents
• A caribou draw permit that allocates 25 percent
of the permits to nonresidents.
• Unlimited nonresident Dall sheep hunting in some
areas that leads to sheep conservation
concerns, hunting restrictions and closures
• A coveted Kodiak brown bear draw hunt for
residents with odds so low that one may never
draw in their lifetime, but nonresident guided
hunters are awarded up to 40 percent of all the
permits and are guaranteed an opportunity to hunt
MR. RICHARDS stated that locations with draw permit hunts
indicate insufficient wildlife populations to allow everyone the
opportunity to hunt. Despite laws and regulations that emphasize
the importance of big game species like moose and caribou for
providing food for Alaskans, the Board of Game has made
decisions that contradict these laws and regulations. For
example, a moose draw hunt allocates 50 percent of the permits
to non-residents, and the board has made most of those permits
guided to benefit individual guides. Additionally, the popular
caribou draw hunt allocates 25 percent of permits to non-
residents. The board allows unlimited non-resident sheep hunting
on state lands with declining sheep populations, permitting non-
resident guided hunters to take 60 percent to 90 percent of the
sheep. The board also allocates up to 40 percent of coveted
Kodiak Brown Bear draw permits to non-resident guided hunters,
purposely gaming the system in favor of these hunters.
3:43:14 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 5 and explained the Central Arctic
Caribou Herd (CAH) Crash of 2016:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CAH) Crash 2016
• CAH is Intensive Management population important
for providing food for Alaskans
• Population objective: 28,000 32,000 animals
• Herd declined to 22,000 animals in 2016, hunting
restrictions necessary for all
• Board of Game restricted resident and nonresident
hunting seasons and bag limits and the next 2
years nonresidents took majority of the harvest
from that declining caribou herd.
3:43:56 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 6 and spoke to the Kodiak brown bear
draw permit system:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Kodiak brown bear draw permit system
Resident hunters: must apply for a draw permit, pay
application fee, with a 1-3 percent chance of drawing
most permits
Nonresident guided hunters: do not have to submit a
draw permit application, or pay a fee, have 100%
opportunity to hunt Kodiak brown bear
MR. RICHARDS stated that the social media post referenced
depicts a non-resident who went on five guided Kodiak brown bear
hunts before obtaining a coveted 10-foot bear. He cited a reply
from a resident hunter congratulating the non-resident but also
expressing frustration over the disparity, as the resident had
to wait 10 years to draw a permit while the non-resident could
hunt whenever desired.
3:44:32 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 7, which shows a map of the Alaska
Drawing Permit Hunt Supplement for 2024-2025. He spoke to the
categorization of drawing permits for non-guided and non-
resident guided hunters on Kodiak. He said the map highlights
various permit hunt areas within the Kodiak National Wildlife
Refuge where guides have exclusive concessions. Despite being
labeled as lottery-based draw permits, these non-resident
permits are actually allocated to individual guides for each
concession area to manage as they see fit. On the right side of
the slide, there is an advertisement from a guide in one of
these exclusive concession areas, promoting the ability to
bypass the permit process entirely. This practice has been
ongoing for decades. Proposals to change the structure of these
hunts for non-resident guided hunters have been submitted but
consistently voted down. At the last regional meeting changes
were again requested. The Chairman of the Board of Game
remarked on the record that these hunts are incorrectly labeled
as draw hunts since non-residents have 100 percent opportunity.
Despite this acknowledgment, the board voted against the
proposed changes, allowing the scheme to persist. It is
appalling that residents can apply for Kodiak brown bear permits
their entire lives without success, while non-residents with
guided hunts have 100 percent opportunity.
3:46:08 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 8 and spoke to an existing draw
permit lawsuit:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Cassell v State of Alaska, Board of Game
brought by Dr. Robert Cassell from Wasilla
What the lawsuit is about: Up to 40 percent of all
Kodiak Brown Bear draw permits are allocated to guided
out-of-state hunters. This type of exclusive
allocation of permits to nonresident hunters is a
special privilege not allowed according to Article 8
of our state constitution:
Section 3. Common Use
Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish,
wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for
common use.
MR. RICHARDS said art. VIII, Constitution of the State of Alaska
clearly mandates that Alaskans have common use of wildlife
resources. Granting exclusive hunting privileges to non-
residents crosses this line and is unconstitutional. The Cassell
v State of Alaska, Board of Game lawsuit was recently heard by
the Alaska Supreme Court, and a decision is expected to take at
least one year. Regardless of the court's ruling, he does not
expect the case to resolve the issue. He suggested that as
demonstrated by numerous examples, a legislative solution will
likely be required to address the problem.
3:47:01 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked how non-residents are permitted to engage
in commercial fishing in Alaska if the interpretation is that
wildlife resources should be reserved for common use by
residents only.
3:47:38 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that it's not a direct comparison because
the constitution has been amended to allow limited entry for
fishing. He clarified that his focus is on hunting rather than
fishing issues.
3:48:01 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for confirmation of his understanding that
the provision under art. VIII, Constitution of the State of
Alaska encompasses fish, wildlife, and water.
3:48:08 PM
MR. RICHARDS acknowledged current state fishery issues and
agreed it could be interpreted that way.
3:48:14 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired about funding concerns if the case
is ruled unconstitutional, noting that a large percentage of the
Division of Wildlife Conservation's budget comes from non-
resident hunting. He inquired about ideas for addressing this
issue, given that non-resident hunting contributes approximately
81 percent of the budget, along with the three-to-one Pittman-
Robertson match.
3:48:56 PM
MR. RICHARDS noted that 75 percent of funding for wildlife
conservation comes from non-resident hunters. He added that in
every western state with strict non-resident limits, non-
residents still provide the bulk of funding due to higher
license and tag fees. Despite raising non-resident tag fees in
Alaska, they remain the lowest compared to other western states,
where a sheep tag can cost around $2,500. He pointed out that
one significant issue is the "must be guided" law [AS
16.05.408.], which limits funding opportunities. For example,
there are about 15,000 non-resident big game hunters in Alaska
annually, with 8,000 to 9,000 being do-it-yourself caribou and
moose hunters. If Alaska were to offer unguided permits for
species like brown bears in areas where more bears are needed to
be taken, it could generate significant revenue. Hunters would
pay application fees, a license fee, and $1,000 for a tag if
they win the permit. Opening such hunts could raise substantial
funds and address some of the issues created by the current
guide law.
3:51:12 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 9 and spoke to non-resident sheep
hunting on state lands:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Unlimited Nonresident Sheep Hunting on State Lands
If you had the only state in the country with thinhorn
Dall sheep, what would happen if you:
Allowed unlimited nonresident sheep hunting
opportunity
Required all nonresidents to hire a guide to hunt
sheep • Didn't place any limits on guides
A guided sheep hunt costs upwards of $25,000
MR. RICHARDS said the demand for Dall sheep by hunters from the
lower 48 states and globally far exceeds availability. Thin
horned Dall sheep are found only in Alaska and Yukon and
Northwest Territories of Canada. The Board of Game's management
of declining sheep populations on state lands has led to issues
driven by money and greed, resulting in non-resident guided
sheep hunters crowding out residents and taking the majority of
the harvest, particularly in Unit 19C in the western Alaska
Range. This outcome was anticipated by wildlife managers from
the lower 48. Since RHAK's formation in 2016, they have
submitted proposals to the Board of Game to limit non-resident
sheep hunters on state lands to address crowding, conflicts, and
guide issues. However, these proposals have been consistently
voted down, despite the Board of Game's acknowledgment of these
problems. He questioned why the Board refuses to limit non-
resident sheep hunters and noted that the board, the guide
lobby, and the Big Game Commercial Services Board attribute the
problem to too many guides, suggesting that limiting the number
of guides is the solution. He mentioned that nearly $1 million
was spent on a proposed guide concession program, which was
legally questionable and failed to pass. This program is now
being reintroduced as the sole solution to the known problems.
3:52:44 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 10, which depicts a diagram of the
Board of Game's perspective on issues surrounding hunting
opportunities. He questioned why the Board of Game has refused
to limit non-resident sheep hunters. The board, along with the
guide lobby and the Big Game Commercial Services Board,
attributes the issue to too many guides, claiming that the only
solution is to strictly limit their number. The state previously
spent nearly $1 million on a proposed guide concession program
for state lands under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
This legislation, which had a $1 million fiscal note and was
legally questionable, failed to pass but is now being
reintroduced.
3:53:41 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 11 and explained alternatives to the
proposed Guide Concession Program (GCP):
[Original punctuation provided.]
DNR Alternatives to the Proposed Guide Concession
Program (GCP)
"The first BOG [Board of Game] alternative to the GCP
is for the board to further restrict non-resident
hunting opportunity. This could be accomplished by
expanding the drawing and/or registration permit
systems for non-residents, while simultaneously
reducing or eliminating non-resident general harvest
seasons and bag limits. This alternative would help to
address the issues of quality of experience and
conflicts between users by decreasing the number of
non-resident hunters in the field. It may also address
wildlife conservation concerns in cases where
overharvest is an issue."
"The first BGCSB alternative to the GCP is for the
board to reduce the number of GUAs [guide use areas] a
guide could register for. Currently a guide in the
state of Alaska can register in three GUAs per year
(not including Predator Control Areas). Reducing the
number of GUAs a guide can register for could reduce
the number of guides in a GUA, which would address the
issues of quality of experience and user conflicts."
MR. RICHARDS listed alternative solutions to the proposed guide
concession program, including options the Board of Game has been
asked to consider, such as placing limits on non-resident
hunters through a permit system. He said the slide also shows
how the Big Game Commercial Services Board could regulate guides
using various mechanisms under its authority. He expressed
disagreement from the Board of Game, the Big Game Commercial
Services Board, and the guide lobby for insisting that the guide
concession program is the only solution to these problems,
arguing that it primarily benefits the guide industry. He
recommended that solutions should be evaluated based on what is
best for the resource and resident hunters, rather than solely
considering the interests of the guide industry.
3:54:43 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL disagreed, noting that the guide concession
bill, which passed the legislature a few years ago, was vetoed
by the governor. She pointed out that the federal government has
a guide concession program for federal lands.
3:55:02 PM
MR. RICHARDS confirmed that the federal government has a guide
concession program, which the guide industry aims to emulate.
3:55:14 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 12 demonstrating a diagram of
inconsistent wildlife management practices and policies between
the Knowles and Palin administrations. He spoke to inherent
structural problems in wildlife management and said depending on
who is governor, he or she appoints a Fish and Game commissioner
who aligns with their agenda and to stack the Board of Game as
he or she sees fit, which results in a pendulum effect. This has
led to inconsistent policies and sometimes dramatic changes in
policies. He opined that this is a poor way of conducting
wildlife management and favors commercial interests. Guides
dominate the Board of Game; 100,000 Alaskans purchase hunting
licenses each year with less than one percent being guides.
3:56:39 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 13 and spoke to the Board of Game
appointment process:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Board of Game Appointment Process and other Reforms
(AS 16.05.221)
Members are appointed based on their "interest in
public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability
in the field of action of the board, and with a view
to providing diversity of interest and points of view
in the membership."
We are not adhering to the "diversity of interests" on
the board
MR. RICHARDS suggested that one of the main issues legislators
should address is the current structure of the Board of Game,
particularly in the appointment of its members. The state is not
adhering to the statute's requirement for a diversity of
interest in these appointments and the Board of Game continues
to lack this diversity. He opined that it is crucial to have
representation from the commercial industry on the board, but it
is evident that commercial interests often dominate. While
commercial interests are important, they should not overshadow
the interests of Alaskans and the well-being of our wildlife
populations. Additionally, the state permits board members who
are affiliated with and voting members of other organizations,
which is currently the case with one board member. He suggested
that anyone appointed to the board who holds a voting position
in an organization involved in Board of Game issues should be
required to step down from their organizational role while
serving on the board.
3:57:46 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 14 and spoke to non-resident and
non-resident alien permits:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Amendment to AS 16.05.256 Nonresident and Nonresident
Alien Permits
(SB 77 during the 31st legislature)
Whenever it is necessary to restrict the taking of big
game so that the opportunity for state residents to
take big game can be reasonably satisfied in
accordance with sustained yield principles, the Board
of Game shall [MAY], through a permit system, limit
the taking of big game by nonresident and nonresident
aliens to accomplish that purpose.
MR. RICHARDS urged the consideration of a legislative measure
requiring that any new hunting restrictions imposed by the Board
of Game should ensure that non-resident hunters bear the full
impact of those restrictions. He referenced Senate Bill 77,
carried by Senator Coghill during the 31st legislature, which
proposed a one-word change to AS 16.05.256 regarding non-
resident and non-resident alien permits. This bill was
introduced in response to the central Arctic Caribou Herd
decline, where board-imposed restrictions allowed non-residents
to take the majority of the harvest. The Board of Game managed
to avoid imposing the full impact of new hunting restrictions on
non-resident hunters partly due to the inclusion of the word
"may" in the statute.
3:58:40 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 16 and spoke to regulations of the
Board of Game:
[Original punctuation provided.]
16.05.255 (d) Regulations of the Board of Game
Regulations adopted under (a) of this section must
provide that, consistent with the provisions of AS
16.05.258, the taking of moose, deer, elk, and caribou
by residents for personal or family consumption has
preference over taking by nonresidents
What exactly is a "preference"? Is allowing
nonresidents to take the majority of the Central
Arctic Caribou herd harvest a resident preference? Is
allocating 25 percent of a caribou draw permit to
nonresidents a resident preference?
MR. RICHARDS pointed out that the intensive management law was
initially promoted to boost low prey populations and ensure food
for Alaskans. The harvest objectives for all identified
intensive management game populations are specifically set for
residents. He questioned why non-resident hunting opportunities
are allowed when these populations are below their objectives.
He cited the 40 Mile Caribou Herd, an intensive management
population currently in decline, as a potential example of a
future similar to the Nelchina Herd, which has been closed to
all hunting. Despite this, non-residents are still allowed to
take 25 percent of the total fall harvest.
3:59:30 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 17 and spoke to possible amendments
to intensive management statutes:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Intensive Management AS 16.05.255 (e) - (g) & (k)
(e) The Board of Game shall adopt regulations to
provide for intensive management programs to restore
the abundance or productivity of identified big game
prey populations as necessary to achieve human
consumptive use goals of the board in an area where
the board has determined that (1) consumptive use of
the big game prey population is a preferred use
Are these human consumptive use goals to benefit
Alaskans? Why do we allow nonresident hunting of IM
game populations that are under the population and/or
harvest objectives?
MR. RICHARDS spoke to potential amendments to the intensive
management definitions to clarify that the goals are intended
specifically to benefit Alaskans. Similar amendments could also
be applied to AS 16.05.255.
3:59:54 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 18 and described possible amendment
language:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Amending Intensive Management Definitions
AS 16.05.255(k) defines various aspects of Intensive
Management Law. It is often argued that IM Law does
not specifically mention a benefit to Alaskan
residents. Possible amendments:
AS 16.05.255(k)(2): "high level of human harvest"
means the allocation of a sufficient portion of the
harvestable surplus of a game population to Alaska
residents to achieve a high probability of success for
human harvest of the game population and considering
hunter demand;
AS 16.05.255(k)(3): "identified big game prey
population" means a population of ungulates that is
identified by the Board of Game and that is important
for providing high levels of harvest for Alaska
residents for human consumptive use;
AS 16.05.255(k)(4): "intensive management" means
...to enhance, extend, and develop the population to
maintain high levels or provide for higher levels of
human harvest for Alaska residents
MR. RICHARDS suggested that amendments to the intensive
management definitions would clarify that these goals are
intended to specifically benefit Alaskans.
4:00:22 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 18 and spoke to a possible amendment
to include sheep under statute involving intensive management:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Amending Intensive Management language to add Sheep
16.05.255(a)(13)(d): Regulations adopted under (a) of
this section must provide that, consistent with the
provisions of AS 16.05.258, the taking of moose, deer,
elk, [AND] caribou and sheep by residents for personal
or family consumption has preference over taking by
nonresidents.
MR. RICHARDS noted that there are proposals to conduct predator
reduction efforts to benefit sheep populations. However, since
sheep are not included in the intensive management statutes,
this poses a challenge. He suggested that adding sheep to the
intensive management list of species would greatly help ensure
that residents have a priority for hunting Dall sheep.
4:00:54 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 19 and spoke to drawing permit
hunts:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Drawing Permit Hunts
• There is nothing in statute that directs the
allocation of drawing permit hunts for moose and
caribou
• Many drawing permit hunts are open to both
residents and nonresidents equally
• Hunt bookers who work with guides can flood the
application pool to where nonresidents win a high
volume of permits
MR. RICHARDS said draw permit hunts are used when wildlife
populations cannot support hunting opportunities for everyone.
He noted that there is no statute requiring the Board of Game to
ensure a clear resident priority for these permits.
Consequently, moose permits are allocated 50 percent to non-
residents, caribou permits 25 percent to non-residents, and
Kodiak Brown Bear permits 40 percent to non-residents. He
emphasized that the state constitution mandates giving residents
a clear hunting priority for all wildlife resources, but there
is no statute directing the Board of Game to enforce this
priority.
4:01:43 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR questioned whether the applicants would be the
actual non-resident hunters or their guides. He then inquired if
non-resident hunters would have a designated set-aside,
potentially creating a similar situation as the state faces now,
or if all applicants would be in the same pool, which could
statistically reduce the chances for Alaskans to draw a permit
due to the influx of thousands of applicants from the lower 48
states.
4:02:21 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that the board allocates some permits
specifically for non-resident guided hunts, often requiring a
signed guide contract before applying. In these cases, either
the guide or the non-resident can apply. However, many draw
permits are open to everyone equally. Hunt bookers often make
agreements with guides and flood the application pool with tens
of thousands of permits, allowing non-residents to obtain a high
volume of these permits. He noted that other western states have
strict limits on non-resident hunters, typically allocating 90
percent to residents and 10 percent to non-residents, with some
variability. In Alaska, there are no comparable restrictions,
resulting in significantly different outcomes. He conveyed that
non-resident hunters appreciate the opportunities in Alaska.
However, they have also admitted that their own states would
never allow such a system.
4:03:42 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked him to describe the proposed solution for
brown bear hunting in Kodiak.
4:03:53 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that allowing residents to participate in
a draw permit lottery with only a one to three percent chance of
success, while non-resident guided hunters have 100 percent
opportunity, is clearly unjust. He emphasized that no other
state permits such a disparity. He further argued that the
allocation of draw permits should be adjusted, noting that no
other Western state allows such high non-resident opportunities
for coveted game species, particularly in draw permit hunts.
4:05:08 PM
MR. RICHARDS moved to slide 20 and summarized the intent to
limit non-resident hunting:
[Original punctuation provided.]
We want to share our state with nonresident hunters,
but there needs to be limits
We have nothing against guides, but the commercial
hunting industry can't be allowed to continue to
dominate decisions
Nonresident hunter dollars are important, but we can't
base allocation decisions on who brings in the most
money.
MR. RICHARDS urged that while non-resident hunters are welcome
in Alaska and the state aims to share its wildlife resources,
limits must be imposed. He acknowledged that guides offer a
valuable service but asserted that the commercial hunting
industry should not dominate wildlife management decisions and
allocations. Despite the importance of non-resident hunters'
financial contributions, decisions cannot be based solely on
revenue, as this conflicts with the state constitution and the
North American model of wildlife conservation, which ensures
equal consideration for all users. However, the state should not
give preference to non-resident hunters.
4:06:27 PM
At ease
4:07:27 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting.
4:07:34 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 20 Urging withdrawal of proposed Bureau of Land
Management regulations affecting the National Petroleum Reserve
in Alaska; and urging meaningful engagement with tribes, local
governments, and affected communities.
^HJR20
HJR 20-NAT'L PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA.
4:08:00 PM
THOMAS BAKER, District 40, State Representative, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sponsor statement for
HJR 20:
Sponsor Statement HJR 20
HJR 20 urges that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
withdraw a proposed rule affecting the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). The Resolution
also urges meaningful engagement with tribes, local
governments and impacted communities. There are many
flaws with this proposed policy. In short, the rule
lacks meaningful engagement, lacks legal durability
and has flawed economics.
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER noted that he brought forth HJR 20 in
response to BLM's proposed rule, which is a critical issue for
his constituents and the organizations represented. The proposed
rule was submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) on February 14 and has a minimum 30-day review
period before a final decision is made. He urged the committee
to support HJR 20.
4:09:12 PM
ELIZABETH REXFORD, Staff, Representative Thomas Baker, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself.
4:09:34 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced invited testimony.
4:10:05 PM
DOREEN LEAVITT, Director, Natural Resources, Inupiat Community
of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), Utqiagvik, Alaska, stated that she
represents the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAST).
She stated she supports HJR 20 as a resident of Kavik, a tribal
citizen of the Native Village of Barrow, and a tribal citizen of
the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope. She explained that
ICAST is a federally recognized tribe under the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934, with membership from the Native
Villages of Utqiagvik (Barrow), Point Lay, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut,
Wainwright, Anaktuvuk Pass, and Point Hope. The tribe's mission
is to exercise sovereign rights and powers for the benefit of
tribal citizens, conserve and retain tribal lands and resources
pursuant to Inupiat Tribal Law and customs, and improve services
for members and future generations. She highlighted the
importance of tribal government voices in laws and Constitution,
noting that all eight communities and nine federally recognized
tribes are directly affected by federal land decisions,
including NPRA, which is fully encompassed by the North Slope
Borough. The tribes have a legal entitlement to proper
consultation. The tribes were excluded from the decision-making
process when the proposed rule for managing and protecting the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska was announced on September
6, 2023, stating that this exclusion violated the federal
government's legal obligation for government-to-government
consultation. This significantly impacted the nine federally
recognized tribes of ICAST, with nearly 14,000 tribal citizens
residing mainly within the North Slope region and NPRA. The
proposed rule, established on September 8, 2023, with only a 60-
day comment period and deemed not economically significant,
would affect land management, regional tax bases, and access to
privately held lands, impacting the economics, health, and the
culture of tribal communities. She conveyed that ICAST disagrees
with the ruling of economic insignificance, which is a key
reason for supporting HJR 20. She described the BLM's failure to
properly engage with the most affected communities and the poor
timing and lack of respect for their ways of life as significant
issues. She noted that meetings were scheduled at the last
minute, rescheduled unexpectedly, or postponed without new
dates, and requests for rescheduling were often ignored. She
urged the committee to carefully consider the impact on the
people of the North Slope. She stressed that if HJR 20 is not
supported, it will have significant consequences for their
communities.
4:14:07 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL commented that her testimony brought back
memories of working for the North Slope Borough school district
for nine years. She expressed gratitude for the opportunity.
4:15:18 PM
JOSIAH PATKOTAK, Mayor, Utqiagvik, Alaska, said he has the honor
of serving as the mayor of the North Slope Borough and is
currently in his fifth month in office. He thanked the committee
and Representative Baker for their efforts in ensuring that the
concerns regarding the ruling are elevated in the spirit of
partnership in Alaska. Unity has been previously successful with
the legislature in resolving NPRA-related issues demonstrating
the effectiveness of uniting on such matters. He noted that Ms.
Levitt did an excellent job summarizing many of his viewpoints,
particularly regarding the ruling's classification as
economically insignificant. He highlighted that the North Slope
Borough is responsible for providing all municipal services that
might otherwise be handled by multiple entities. This includes
waste management, road maintenance, power generation, search and
rescue, and law enforcement, all of which are critical to the
community. North Slope Borough was not consulted about the
economic impact of the proposed rule, and he questioned whether
the Department of Revenue or the state had fully assessed this
impact. He expressed concern about the process not involving the
North Slope Borough in evaluating the rule's economic
significance. He stressed the importance of proper consultation
and oversight and said the ruling's impact extends beyond
financial considerations to include essential services. He said
he anticipates that the representatives sponsoring the
legislation would provide valuable input and thanked the
committee for their attention to this issue. He recalled
discussing these topics with many committee members and opined
that there is a shared perspective on the importance of
maintaining a stable economy and participation in it.
4:22:13 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL recognized his leadership in the North Slope
Borough.
4:23:03 PM
BRIDGET ANDERSON, Senior Vice President, External Affairs,
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), Anchorage, Alaska,
stated that she is a shareholder of ASRC and a tribal citizen of
the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and the Native Village
of Barrow. She said ASRC fully supports HJR 20 and values its
recognition of the federal government's obligation to engage
meaningfully with tribes, Alaska Native corporations, local
governments, and affected communities. She noted that there is a
unified stance among the North Slope region's elected officials
opposing the rulemaking in the NPRA, both in process and
substance. BLM has admitted that no North Slope entity, tribal
local government, or Alaska Native Corporation has endorsed the
proposed rule. She highlighted that, beyond the potential long-
term negative economic impacts to the region, as discussed by
Mayor Puj and Doreen Levitt, the lack of meaningful and early
engagement with ASRC and other regional entities is troubling.
Federal agencies are required to consult with Alaska Native
corporations under Executive Order 13.175 and by Congressional
direction. Despite this, there was insufficient communication
before the draft rule's release, and since its announcement on
September 6, there have been no explanations from the government
regarding the rule's necessity or the failure to follow proper
consultation procedures. ASRC represents eight North Slope
communities with over 14,000 Inupiat shareholders and holds
lands within and adjacent to the NPRA. Any federal actions that
limit access for economic or cultural activities will have a
negative impact on ASRC and its shareholders. She affirmed
ASRC's strong support for this resolution and stated that
adopting it would reflect the unified stance of the North Slope
in favor of HJR 20.
4:26:09 PM
KARA MORIARTY, President and CEO, Alaska Oil and Gas Association
(AOGA), Anchorage, Alaska, explained that AOGA represents the
majority of oil and gas companies in Alaska. A recent report by
McKinley Research Group concluded that the oil and gas industry
in the state remains, quote, 'a significant source of jobs, has
the highest economic impact of any other industry in Alaska, and
is clearly part of Alaska's future.' The report indicated that
the industry expects to invest over $14 billion in capital
expenditures from 2023 through 2028, with a substantial portion
of that being spent in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
(NPRA). Currently, over 1,800 people are working in the NPRA
this construction season alone. She noted that House Joint
Resolution 20 appropriately requests the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to withdraw its proposed NPRA rule. The rule,
as currently written, represents a complete shift in BLM's
management of the area, introducing many new standards and
procedural requirements that could adversely impact future
operations in the NPRA. Additionally, the proposed rule
conflicts with congressional intent to promote private oil and
gas leasing in the NPRA and affects the rights of current
leaseholders, raising concerns about the rule's legal
durability. She noted that the committee has a copy of AOGA's
detailed concerns about the rule from both a process and legal
perspective. Supporting this resolution would help the Alaska
State Legislature maintain its commitment to a fair and balanced
regulatory approach for the long-term economic and environmental
sustainability of the NPRA.
4:29:02 PM
ANDY MACK, Chief Executive Officer, Kuukpik Corporation,
Anchorage, Alaska, invited testimony for HJR 20, agreed with the
remarks given by Mayor Patkotak. He urged the need for continued
economic development in the NPRA for both local and state
purposes. NPRA remains the most productive area for ongoing oil
exploration. While acknowledging significant activity in other
areas, he emphasized the NPRA's critical importance to Alaska.
The village corporation for Noatak owns 145,000 acres of surface
land and shares subsurface rights with other owners. The
corporation has been involved in most major development
decisions in the NPRA over the past 20 to 25 years and opposes
the current proposed rule, which he believes did not originate
from the North Slope. Substantial communication exists between
regional and local entities, however, the proposal seems to have
been developed outside of Alaska. He expressed concern that such
proposals often do not align well with local needs and values,
as well as the impact on subsistence living. He quoted the
proposed rule, stating, "The bureau will provide appropriate
access to and within special areas for subsistence purposes to
the extent consistent with assuring maximum protection for all
significant resource values found in the areas." He expressed
concern that this approach could lead to subsistence being
valued less than other interests, despite its critical
importance to the community. He affirmed the corporation's
commitment to protecting subsistence while supporting reasonable
development, and underscored their focus on the long-term
economic viability of the North Slope borough and its
communities.
4:32:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL concluded invited testimony and opened public
testimony.
4:33:23 PM
NAGRUK HARCHAREK, President, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of HJR 20. He said the
Voice of the Arctic Inupiat is a non-profit 24-member board that
is made up of elected leaders from the region, including city
mayors, presidents, corporation CEOs, and leaders of various
regional organizations such as tribal colleges and school
district. He said the board recently developed a similar
resolution to HJR 20 opposing the NPRA rule. He noted that the
resolution and related documents are available online,
highlighting the Federal administration's conflicting rhetoric
and actions, which he believes are silencing their voices. He
reiterated that the entire NPRA is within the North Slope, and
no entity in the region supports the proposed rule. HJR 20
includes a comprehensive timeline of interactions with the
Federal government regarding the NPRA proposed rule, outlining
the consultation and public meeting process failures. He
emphasized the request to review the economic significance and
analysis of the proposed rule. He mentioned that the board
passed a motion supporting HDR 20 two weeks ago. He thanked
Representative Baker for introducing HDR 20 and addressing their
board and announced that the board will be issuing a letter of
support for the resolution.
4:35:36 PM
D.J. FAUSKE, Director, Government & External Affairs, North
Slope Borough, Utqiagvik, Alaska, listed the four communities
associated with the NPRA.
4:36:47 PM
KATIE CAPOZZI, President, Alaska Chamber of Commerce, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of HJR 20. She said the Alaska
Chamber, founded in 1953, is Alaska's leading statewide business
advocacy organization, with a mission to promote a healthy
business environment in the state. The Chamber has over 700
members, representing businesses of all sizes and industries
across Alaska, directly impacting 58,000 Alaskan workers and
$4.6 billion in wages. She reiterated support for HJR 20.
4:37:57 PM
LEILA KIMBRELL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support for HJR 20. She
said RDC, founded in 1975, is dedicated to advancing Alaska
through responsible resource development across various
industries, including oil and gas, mining, fishing, timber, and
tourism. She expressed opposition to the proposed NPRA rule,
noting that RDC is pleased to see the resolution moving swiftly
through the House and urged similar prompt action in the Senate.
She compared the current situation to last year's HJR 6, which
united the legislature in support of the Willow project and sent
a strong bipartisan message to Washington. The proposed rule
threatens to undermine the purpose of the NPRA by creating a
presumption against oil and gas development, which could
eliminate essential revenue, job opportunities, and vital
services in North Slope and Alaska Native communities. It fails
to balance responsible development with environmental protection
and reiterated support for HJR 20 to safeguard Alaska's future.
4:40:51 PM
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
support of HJR 20. He said the resolution is crucial for
addressing the national security and production concerns related
to the NPRA. He expressed support for the resolution's intention
to remove unnecessary regulations but emphasized that any
references to carbon sequestration should be removed. He argued
that carbon sequestration is an unproven and risky industry that
could jeopardize national security and future revenues, as seen
in recent failures in Australia and other places. He urged that
language related to carbon sequestration be excluded from the
resolution, as its inclusion undermines the resolution's purpose
and reflects a lack of confidence in its intent.
4:43:19 PM
KEN GRIFFIN, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
support of HJR 20. He said the inclusion of carbon sequestration
provisions in the resolution is detrimental to Alaska. He
suggested that carbon sequestration has proven harmful to
economies elsewhere and questioned why Alaska would be
different. He opined that carbon sequestration could worsen
Alaska's already poor economic situation. He emphasized his
belief in state sovereignty and criticized the federal reach
into state matters, asserting that Alaska should not act as a
victim. He expressed support for HJR 20 but strongly opposed any
language related to carbon sequestration, believing it to be
financially motivated and not beneficial for Alaska.
4:46:00 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on HJR 20.
4:46:11 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL highlighted the sections from lines 11 to 15 of
HJR 20, which discuss the increases in life expectancy between
1980 and 2014. She recalled reading about this information in a
medical article.
4:46:38 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired about the number of Alaska hires
for the projects currently occurring in the NPRA.
4:46:59 PM
MS. MORIARTY said she did not have the specific Alaska hire
numbers for current NPRA projects. However, according to AOGA's
most recent economic report, its member companies have an 87
percent Alaska hire rate. She offered to follow up to provide
specifics.
4:47:34 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the impact of the Willow
Project on the state treasury for the upcoming fiscal year.
4:47:42 PM
MS. MORIARTY replied that she does not have that information
available.
4:47:51 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL invited Caroline Schultz, Director of
Government Affairs for ConocoPhillips, to respond.
4:48:21 PM
CAROLINE SCHULTZ, Director, Government Affairs, ConocoPhillips
Anchorage, Alaska, answered questions on HJR 20. She said she
did not have specific information on the economic impact of the
Willow Project on the state treasury for the upcoming fiscal
year. However, she recommended referring to the Department of
Revenue's recently published Willow white paper, available on
its tax homepage. The document provides a comprehensive analysis
of the fiscal impacts, including near-term and long-term effects
on the state, the North Slope Borough, and other relevant
entities.
4:49:13 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked about the specific concerns with the
proposed rule, beyond the procedural issues related to tribal
consultation. She mentioned that while she is persuaded by the
testimony regarding the inadequate consultation with tribes, she
is interested in understanding the substance of the proposed
rule. Specifically, she inquired about the issues related to the
five special areas mentioned in the rule, which has not been
updated since 1977 and appears to be intended to promote
subsistence. He requested more information on how the rule's
substance could potentially be problematic.
4:50:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER replied that the rule would effectively
convert millions of acres within the National Petroleum Reserve
in Alaska into wilderness, which would prohibit the use of
motorized vehicles. This change would significantly impact
individuals who currently rely on motorized access to their
ANCSA allotments, hunting camps, or other important areas. For
example, someone with a cabin on ancestral land would be
required to walk or swim to these locations rather than using
vehicles, reducing their ability to access resources in a modern
context. This limitation would affect the practical use of the
land and resources, impacting local communities and their
customary practices.
4:51:35 PM
MS. MORIARTY added that the proposed rule contradicts the
congressional intent of the National Petroleum Reserve Act
(NPRA), which aimed to increase domestic oil supply as quickly
as possible. Instead, the proposed rule introduces a new
presumption that oil and gas activities should not be permitted
unless it is clearly demonstrated that they have no or minimal
adverse effects on significant resource values. This shift from
a development-focused approach to one requiring proof of minimal
impact fundamentally alters the purpose of the NPRA. She also
highlighted process issues, such as new requirements in the rule
that would allow for delays and denials of actions based on
vague concepts of uncertainty. This ambiguity could lead to
misinterpretation and create significant obstacles for approving
future and new activities on existing leases. She referred to a
comprehensive 24-page letter submitted by RDC detailing these
legal and process concerns.
4:54:43 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL invited D.J. Fauske, Director of Government and
External Affairs for the North Slope Borough, to speak to the
fiscal impacts of the Willow project on the state treasury.
4:55:05 PM
MR. FAUSKE asked Senator Wielechowski to repeat the question.
4:55:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI repeated the question.
4:55:28 PM
MR. FAUSKE stated that, according to the fall revenue forecast,
the estimated revenue from NPRA funds is approximately $2.3
billion, with $1.3 billion going to the State of Alaska from
production, property, and income taxes, and $1.2 billion to the
North Slope Borough. This estimate does not include the $3.9
billion in federal royalties.
4:56:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the Willow project is
projected to generate billions of dollars this fiscal year, even
though it is not yet producing any oil.
4:56:25 PM
MR. FAUSKE replied that the project is not generating revenue
this fiscal year. He said that the North Slope Borough supports
the resolution for various reasons, including not only economic
growth but also access to land. He noted that the NPRA was
promised for a specific purpose, and those promises have not
been upheld. He added that the Department of the Interior and
the Bureau of Land Management have intentionally skipped legal
steps in their own process. He expressed appreciation for
organizations like Voice of the Arctic and mentioned that not a
single organization in their region opposed the extension or the
proposed rule and emphasized their desire for their voices to be
heard. He acknowledged Senator Wielechowski's long-standing
efforts to support Alaskans.
4:57:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the law was broken and
inquired about the current status of the relevant lawsuit.
4:57:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER said to his knowledge, there are no
documented lawsuits currently. The issue has primarily been
addressed through resolutions and letters to the federal
government. He mentioned that Congresswoman Mary Peltola had to
arrange a private meeting with Secretary Deb Haaland to discuss
the matter due to the timing. He is unaware of any lawsuits
filed, given the short timeframe, but noted that someone else in
the room or online might have more information.
4:58:39 PM
MS. MORIARTY clarified that no lawsuits have been filed against
the rule because it has not yet been officially adopted; it is
still in the review process. The public comment period has
closed, and the rule is currently under final review by the OIRA
office. Should the rule be finalized and approved, she
anticipates that litigation challenges could arise, as there are
identified concerns that the rule may not align with
congressional intent or existing laws governing the NPRA.
4:59:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired whether having a Coastal Zone
Management Program in place would have mandated consultation
with tribes, the borough, and the state prior to the actions
currently being undertaken.
4:59:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER mentioned that the BLM provided
opportunities for consultation, but noted that the timing of the
consultation period coincided with the Fall whaling season, when
many residents of the NPRA and North Slope are engaged in
activities and are unable to participate effectively. He invited
Mr. Fauske or someone from the North Slope Borough to speak more
on this issue.
5:00:51 PM
MR. FAUSKE said the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope would
be better suited to address the tribal component of the question
regarding the North Slope borough process. He offered to share
detailed information with the committee in writing.
5:01:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI inquired whether updating carbon sequestration
and global decarbonization goals was a significant aspect of the
legislation that has already passed the House or if it was
merely an additional element included in the bill.
5:02:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BAKER replied that the inclusion of carbon
sequestration and global decarbonization goals in HJR 20 was
intentional. He clarified that carbon sequestration is already
being practiced on the North Slope and that the resolution aims
to ensure that the state retains the opportunity to explore
these options. If the rule is passed, it would limit the state's
ability to influence future resource development and renewable
energy projects. He noted that some investors require companies
to consider carbon sequestration to meet emissions standards,
which could impact investment decisions and operational
practices. The inclusion of this topic in the resolution
underscores the state's and communities' voice in these matters.
5:04:20 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL solicited a motion.
5:04:26 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP moved to report HJR 20, work order 33-LS1312\A,
from committee with individual recommendations.
5:04:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL found no objection and HJR 20 was reported from
the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
5:05:13 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL There being no further business to come before
the committee, Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources
Standing Committee meeting at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 20 version A.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Fiscal Note 2.26.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Supporting Document NPR-A Working Group Resolution Requesting NEPA Analysis 2.6.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Supporting Document VOICE Resolution 2.15.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Letter of Support AES 2.16.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Letter of Support ICAS 2.15.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Letter of Support ICAS NSB ASRC 02.16.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HJR 20 Testimony received as of 3.5.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| SB 168 DPS Fiscal note 02.24.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| HJR 20 Letter of Support ConocoPhilips 3.5.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| Resident Hunters of Alaska SRES Presentation 03.06.24.pdf |
SRES 3/6/2024 3:30:00 PM |