Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120

04/06/2021 10:00 AM House FISHERIES

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHB 54(FSH) Out of Committee
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
Heard & Held
-- Invited & Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
              HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES                                                                            
                         April 6, 2021                                                                                          
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Geran Tarr, Chair                                                                                                
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair                                                                                        
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins                                                                                          
Representative Andi Story                                                                                                       
Representative Dan Ortiz                                                                                                        
Representative Sarah Vance                                                                                                      
Representative Kevin McCabe                                                                                                     
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
All members present                                                                                                             
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 54                                                                                                               
"An Act establishing  the Alaska Invasive Species  Council in the                                                               
Department of Fish  and Game; relating to  management of invasive                                                               
species;  relating to  invasive  species  management decals;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
     - MOVED CSHB 54(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
HOUSE BILL NO. 82                                                                                                               
"An  Act relating  to surface  use restrictions  for oil  and gas                                                               
leases; relating to  gas leases in Kachemak Bay;  relating to the                                                               
renewable  energy  grant fund;  and  providing  for an  effective                                                               
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
BILL: HB  54                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT                                                                                        
SPONSOR(s): FISHERIES                                                                                                           
02/18/21       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21                                                                               
02/18/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/18/21       (H)       RES, FSH                                                                                               
02/24/21       (H)       RES REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER FSH                                                                        
02/24/21       (H)       BILL REPRINTED                                                                                         
03/11/21       (H)       FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
03/11/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/11/21       (H)       MINUTE(FSH)                                                                                            
03/12/21       (H)       BILL REPRINTED                                                                                         
03/18/21       (H)       FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
03/18/21       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/18/21       (H)       MINUTE(FSH)                                                                                            
03/25/21       (H)       FSH AT 10:30 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
03/25/21       (H)       -- MEETING CANCELED --                                                                                 
03/30/21       (H)       FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
03/30/21       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
04/01/21       (H)       FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
04/01/21       (H)       <Bill Hearing Canceled>                                                                                
04/06/21       (H)       FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
BILL: HB  82                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: GAS LEASES; RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT FUND                                                                            
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
02/18/21       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/18/21       (H)       RES, FSH                                                                                               
03/01/21       (H)       RES REFERRAL MOVED TO AFTER FSH                                                                        
03/01/21       (H)       BILL REPRINTED                                                                                         
04/06/21       (H)       FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner                                                                                                 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  During the hearing of HB 54, answered                                                                    
HALEY PAINE, Deputy Director                                                                                                    
Division of Oil and Gas (DOG)                                                                                                   
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)                                                                                           
Anchorage, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  On behalf of the administration, introduced                                                              
HB 82 via a PowerPoint presentation, entitled "HB82 GAS LEASES,                                                                 
RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT FUND," dated 4/6/21.                                                                                     
SEAN CLIFTON, Program and Policy Specialist                                                                                     
Division of Oil and Gas (DOR)                                                                                                   
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)                                                                                           
Anchorage Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT:  On behalf of the administration, answered                                                                
questions related to HB 82.                                                                                                     
JOSH WISINEWSKI                                                                                                                 
Seldovia, Alaska                                                                                                                
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 82.                                                                        
PENELOPE HAAS                                                                                                                   
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society (KBCS)                                                                                        
Homer, Alaska                                                                                                                   
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HB 82.                                                                        
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
10:15:46 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR GERAN TARR called the  House Special Committee on Fisheries                                                             
meeting to  order at 10:15  a.m.  Representatives  McCabe, Story,                                                               
Kreiss-Tomkins, Ortiz,  Vance, Stutes,  and Tarr were  present at                                                               
the call to order.                                                                                                              
               HB 54-INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT                                                                            
10:17:01 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR  announced that the  first order of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL NO.  54,  "An Act  establishing  the Alaska  Invasive                                                               
Species Council in  the Department of Fish and  Game; relating to                                                               
management  of invasive  species;  relating  to invasive  species                                                               
management decals; and providing for an effective date."                                                                        
CHAIR  TARR  related that  the  proposed  funding of  the  Alaska                                                               
Invasive  Species  Council  with $60,000  from  the  unrestricted                                                               
general fund (USG) came up as an  issue.  She said Amendment 1 is                                                               
an idea that would address the issue.                                                                                           
10:18:11 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  STUTES moved  to adopt  Amendment 1,  labeled 32-                                                               
LS0057\W.1, Bullard, 4/5/21, which read:                                                                                        
     Page 1, following line 4:                                                                                                  
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of                                                                    
     Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:                                                                         
          LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the                                                                           
        legislature that the Department of Fish and Game                                                                        
     support the activities of the Alaska Invasive Species                                                                      
     Council,    established    by   this    Act,    through                                                                    
     contributions, grants, and other  forms of funding that                                                                    
     do  not  involve the  use  of  money from  the  state's                                                                    
     general fund."                                                                                                             
     Page 1, line 5:                                                                                                            
          Delete "Section 1"                                                                                                  
          Insert "Sec. 2"                                                                                                     
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
10:18:23 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR  objected for discussion purposes.  She explained that                                                               
Amendment 1 is  legislative intent language.   She recounted that                                                               
adjusting the  fiscal note was  suggested, but the  committee was                                                               
advised that that  was something for the  House Finance Committee                                                               
to potentially  address.   She further  recounted that  there was                                                               
also  a concern  about the  [Alaska Department  of Fish  and Game                                                               
(ADF&G)] commissioner  being prevented  from moving  forward with                                                               
seeking  grant  funds.   Therefore,  she  continued, Amendment  1                                                               
seems  like  a better  option  because,  through discussion,  the                                                               
committee  can establish  its intent  that [the  council] not  be                                                               
funded through  the UGF.  She  said the bill's next  committee of                                                               
referral is the House Resources Standing Committee.                                                                             
10:19:48 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired about  the reality of other funding                                                               
truly happening should Amendment 1 pass.                                                                                        
CHAIR TARR  replied that  her sense from  talking with  the ADF&G                                                               
commissioner is  that he feels  comfortable there would  be grant                                                               
opportunities.     She   said  she   is  also   aware  of   grant                                                               
opportunities  and that  there may  be federal  funding as  well.                                                               
She further related  that a provision in the  "hatchery bill" [HB
80] would  keep $2.50  from the fee  as a  statutorily designated                                                               
receipt  for   invasive  species  management.     She  cautioned,                                                               
however, that  [HB 80]  is still  moving through  the legislative                                                               
process, so the committee cannot get  ahead of itself.  She asked                                                               
Commissioner Vincent-Lang to further address the question.                                                                      
10:21:30 AM                                                                                                                   
DOUG VINCENT-LANG,  Commissioner, Alaska  Department of  Fish and                                                               
Game (ADF&G),  responded he is  convinced that there are  pots of                                                               
money available  which could  be tapped  to support  the proposed                                                               
Alaska Invasive Species  Council without using UGF  the first two                                                               
or three  years.  He noted  that HB 54 originally  had regulatory                                                               
authorities associated  with it  as well as  the council  and his                                                               
thought  was that  a first  positive step  would be  to form  the                                                               
council to evaluate  some of the issues  associated with invasive                                                               
species and  come together with  some solid  recommendations that                                                               
could be moved  forward.  He said ADF&G is  looking internally at                                                               
other funding  sources such as  state wildlife action  grants and                                                               
the  fish  and game  fund,  given  the importance  that  invasive                                                               
species play in  the state and the threats they  pose to Alaska's                                                               
existing fish and game resources.                                                                                               
10:22:36 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR removed her objection to  Amendment 1.  There being no                                                               
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                     
10:23:02 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  asked whether the [proposed]  council would                                                               
be looking at  invasive birds and animals in  addition to looking                                                               
at invasive aquatic species.                                                                                                    
CHAIR TARR  referenced [page 2]  of the bill detailing  the tasks                                                               
and membership in  the council.  She answered  that the intention                                                               
with designating  the Department  of Natural Resources  (DNR) and                                                               
ADF&G as  participants in  the council  is [to  address] aquatic,                                                               
terrestrial, vegetative,  and other living organisms.   The point                                                               
will be for  the council to have that  comprehensive overview and                                                               
plan, she added.                                                                                                                
10:24:16 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  TARR specified  that as  a committee  bill, the  committee                                                               
will  be  working with  the  next  committee  of referral.    She                                                               
offered her appreciation  to the members for working  on the bill                                                               
and said it will be beneficial for all of Alaska.                                                                               
10:24:46 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved  to report HB 54, as  amended, out of                                                               
committee  with   individual  recommendations   and  accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.    There  being no  objection,  CSHB  54(FSH)  was                                                               
reported out of the House Special Committee on Fisheries.                                                                       
         HB 82-GAS LEASES; RENEWABLE ENERGY GRANT FUND                                                                      
10:25:20 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR  announced that the  final order of business  would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL NO.  82, "An Act relating to  surface use restrictions                                                               
for oil and  gas leases; relating to gas leases  in Kachemak Bay;                                                               
relating to  the renewable energy  grant fund; and  providing for                                                               
an effective date."                                                                                                             
CHAIR TARR noted that  HB 82 is by request of  the governor.  She                                                               
invited Ms. Haley Paine from  the Department of Natural Resources                                                               
(DNR) to present the bill on behalf of the administration.                                                                      
10:26:04 AM                                                                                                                   
HALEY  PAINE, Deputy  Director, Division  of Oil  and Gas  (DOG),                                                               
Department  of   Natural  Resources  (DNR),  on   behalf  of  the                                                               
administration, introduced  HB 82  via a  PowerPoint presentation                                                               
entitled, "HB82  GAS LEASES, RENEWABLE ENERGY  GRANT FUND," dated                                                               
4/6/21.   She displayed  slide 2,  "MAIN PURPOSE,"  and explained                                                               
that the main  purpose of HB 82  is to allow the  Division of Oil                                                               
and Gas to  lease and capture revenue  from state-owned resources                                                               
that underly  lands restricted to  surface use.  She  stated that                                                               
HB 82  would not open  Kachemak Bay or  any other closed  area to                                                               
surface  development;  the  bill  aims only  to  capture  royalty                                                               
revenue  from geology  drained  through  adjacent development  on                                                               
nearby   unrestricted   lands.     She   said   modern   drilling                                                               
technologies  enable oil  and  gas to  be  safely developed  from                                                               
adjacent lands with no impact  to the surface of restricted areas                                                               
including  offshore, which  means  that  the non-surface  leasing                                                               
would not  threaten the fisheries  of Kachemak Bay.   The primary                                                               
benefit  of  HB   82  would  be  increased   revenue,  Ms.  Paine                                                               
specified;  lands  with  surface  use  restrictions  would  still                                                               
provide revenue  in the  form of lease  sale bids,  annual rental                                                               
payments,  and royalties  if made  available for  subsurface-only                                                               
development.   She said the  state would  be able to  protect the                                                               
lands   using   established   regulatory  methods   while   still                                                               
maximizing the economic recovery of its resources.                                                                              
10:28:29 AM                                                                                                                   
MS. PAINE  moved to slide  3, "WHAT  HAPPENS IF WE  CAN'T LEASE,"                                                               
and stated that the mean  concern is the mechanism for collecting                                                               
royalties.   She explained that  if the unleased land  is drained                                                               
from wells on  adjacent leases, royalties may not be  paid to the                                                               
state or  revenue could be  diminished.  For instance,  she said,                                                               
the  wellhead may  be  located  on private  lands,  and this  may                                                               
prevent the  state from  realizing the  revenue unless  remedy is                                                               
sought  through the  Alaska Oil  and Gas  Conservation Commission                                                               
(AOGCC) and  a correlative  rights claim.   She pointed  out that                                                               
leasing is the standard mechanism  for establishing a contractual                                                               
relationship between  the state and  the developer.   Through the                                                               
lease,  she  continued,  the state  exercises  its  authority  to                                                               
comply with  mitigation measures  and to  require the  sharing of                                                               
drilling and reservoir data, data  which is integral to the state                                                               
for understanding the extent of its resources.                                                                                  
10:29:30 AM                                                                                                                   
MS. PAINE related  that the maps on slide 4,  "THE SUBJECT AREA,"                                                               
depict the  subject area discussed  in Section 2  of HB 82.   She                                                               
said  the bill  seeks to  allow gas-only  leasing of  the subject                                                               
area  while maintaining  the  current  surface use  restrictions.                                                               
She noted that the blue  hatching specifically shows the township                                                               
in question, Township  5 South, Range 15 West.   She related that                                                               
the subject area  is adjacent to active development  on the Kenai                                                               
Peninsula, which  includes the  Seaview Unit  approved by  DOG in                                                               
October 2020.   She drew  attention to the Cosmopolitan  Unit, an                                                               
offshore lease  area currently under development  from the Hansen                                                               
Pad located  onshore on  private lands.   This  is an  example of                                                               
successful  access of  offshore resources  without impacting  the                                                               
surface use of  the waters, she continued.  She  pointed out that                                                               
the  hatched  green  line  delineates   the  current  Cook  Inlet                                                               
areawide sale  boundary, and  the solid  red line  delineates the                                                               
Kachemak Bay oil and gas closure area.                                                                                          
10:31:15 AM                                                                                                                   
MS. PAINE reviewed  the sectional analysis provided  on slides 5-                                                               
7.   She displayed  slide 5 and  said Section 1  would add  a new                                                               
section,  AS 38.05.176,  to AS  38.05 specifying  that a  statute                                                               
restricting  the surface  use of  an  oil and  gas, or  gas-only,                                                               
lease area does not also  restrict leasing and development of the                                                               
subsurface of  that area from  unrestricted land.  She  said this                                                               
is a  general provision intended  to broadly capture  the purpose                                                               
of this  bill and  address future  surface use  restrictions that                                                               
may be imposed on the state's natural resources.                                                                                
MS. PAINE moved to slide 6 and  said Sections 2 and 3 would amend                                                               
AS  [38.05.184]  to  authorize   DNR  to  offer  gas-only  leases                                                               
specifically  within  [Township  5  South,  Range  15  West],  as                                                               
depicted on the map on slide 4.   She specified there would be no                                                               
right  to use  the  surface  of the  land,  in  keeping with  the                                                               
original intention of  the Kachemak Bay oil and  gas closure area                                                               
to protect  the region's  fisheries.   She said  [AS 38.03184(b)]                                                               
would  be amended  to  acknowledge the  exemption  that would  be                                                               
created with the new subsection (h).                                                                                            
MS. PAINE displayed  slide 7 and said that in  recognition of the                                                               
unique nature of the area to  be leased, Sections 4-6 would amend                                                               
AS 42.45.045(b)  to allow the legislature  to appropriate revenue                                                               
from these  specific leases to  the Renewable Energy  Grant Fund.                                                               
The   governor,  she   related,  recognized   in  this   bill  an                                                               
opportunity to add funds to  this account, and revenue would come                                                               
from the  state's rentals and  royalties collected  through these                                                               
specific  leases.   Such  appropriations  would  occur after  the                                                               
constitutionally required deposits to  the Alaska permanent fund,                                                               
she noted, and  all appropriations would be at  the discretion of                                                               
the legislature.  She explained that  the final sections of HB 82                                                               
would  move  language  about  the  Department  of  Revenue  being                                                               
manager  of  the fund  and  would  provide  for  the bill  to  be                                                               
effective immediately.   She displayed slide 8  and concluded her                                                               
presentation by inviting members to ask questions.                                                                              
10:34:16 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   STUTES  asked   whether   she   is  correct   in                                                               
understanding that this development  could conceivably take place                                                               
without this  [proposed] lease, it  is just that the  state would                                                               
not receive any revenue for it.                                                                                                 
MS. PAINE confirmed  that Representative Stutes is  correct.  She                                                               
explained  that given  the current  and planned  development from                                                               
onshore,  the  reservoir  could potentially  be  drained  by  the                                                               
currently planned  vertical wells due  to the way  the subsurface                                                               
geology  works.   Even without  attempting to  go through  to the                                                               
subsurface  of  the  lands  underlying  the  water,  she  further                                                               
explained,  the  pressures  from  the  permitted  development  of                                                               
unrestricted  lands  could allow  the  gas  molecules to  migrate                                                               
over.   But, she  said, at  that point  in time  it would  not be                                                               
considered  from a  state lands  lease, so  the state  would lose                                                               
that revenue or have that  revenue diminished.  While there could                                                               
be  a remedy  through AOGCC,  she continued,  it would  involve a                                                               
lengthier  discussion and  some  of the  more immediate  revenues                                                               
from rentals and lease sale bids would not be realized.                                                                         
10:36:02 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  remarked that a  change like this  is going                                                               
to get  attention in her community.   She asked whether  there is                                                               
an estimate for the revenue that could be had should HB 82 pass.                                                                
MS. PAINE responded that an exact  figure is not had at this time                                                               
because the  unit and area  around it is still  being delineated.                                                               
At this time,  she added, there is only one  well looking to come                                                               
online as  soon as  a pipeline  is built  onshore to  connect the                                                               
existing onshore infrastructure.                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE surmised  that the  project believes  it is                                                               
going to be profitable.  She said  it would be helpful for her to                                                               
know the  figure as  soon as  DOG has an  estimate.   She related                                                               
that from the perspective of her  district it is a heavy lift for                                                               
any  changes because  the  proposed area  is  a critical  habitat                                                               
area.  She requested  DOG to speak to the history  of oil and gas                                                               
in  Kachemak Bay  and how  subsurface drilling  is so  much safer                                                               
than an oil rig.                                                                                                                
10:38:03 AM                                                                                                                   
SEAN CLIFTON, Program and Policy  Specialist, Division of Oil and                                                               
Gas (DOR), Department of Natural  Resources (DNR), recounted that                                                               
the Kachemak  Bay oil and gas  closure area was conceived  in the                                                               
mid-1970s after  the George Ferris  rig became stuck in  the mud,                                                               
which Representative Vance's constituents  no doubt have in their                                                               
minds.    He further  recounted  that  lease buybacks  were  then                                                               
approved  by  the  legislature and  afterward  AS  38.05.184  was                                                               
enacted  to explicitly  protect  that habitat.    He stated  that                                                               
nothing in HB  82 would change that.  He  further stated that the                                                               
explicit desire  to protect and  preserve the habitat  is honored                                                               
by not  allowing any surface impact    from the water  surface to                                                               
the seafloor there  would be no drilling  offshore, no pipelines,                                                               
no platforms,  no jack-up  rigs.   Mr. Clifton  added that  HB 82                                                               
would only open that offshore acreage  so the state can lease it,                                                               
which  is   the  state's  usual  contractual   relationship  with                                                               
developers, and  the developers could then  access from offshore,                                                               
and the state could receive royalty revenue from that.                                                                          
10:39:55 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  confirmed that  the George  Ferris incident                                                               
is very  ripe in people's  minds as  they are very  protective of                                                               
their bay.   She asked whether  a spill or leak  could happen and                                                               
inquired what the response would be.                                                                                            
MS. PAINE answered  that no well casings would be  placed in this                                                               
area.   She said everything would  only happen from the  shore so                                                               
there would  be no pipelines  and no infrastructure;  there would                                                               
be nothing that could leak  and pollute the waters.  Furthermore,                                                               
she continued,  there are extensive state  and federal regulatory                                                               
prevention and  protection laws,  as well  as extensive  plans to                                                               
ensure  safety.   These measures  are well  documented throughout                                                               
Cook  Inlet, she  added, and  Cook Inlet  has been  the home  and                                                               
successful  avenue of  oil and  gas development  since the  early                                                               
1960s.   She noted  that there are  several critical  habitat and                                                               
refuge areas within  Cook Inlet, so the division is  aware of the                                                               
protections that need  to take place to honor those  areas and it                                                               
is common  throughout Cook Inlet  development to  prevent surface                                                               
use in certain areas.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  remarked that Ms. Paine  answered the other                                                               
question  she was  going to  ask  about whether  there are  other                                                               
critical habitat areas in Cook Inlet.                                                                                           
10:42:30 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ asked  why  this particular  bill is  being                                                               
seen now.  He further asked  about the changes in technology that                                                               
would  now allow  an  onshore  developer to  gain  access to  the                                                               
resources under the subsurface of Kachemak Bay.                                                                                 
MR. CLIFTON  replied that part  of what  has changed is  that the                                                               
southern end  of this sale  area has recently  seen a lot  of new                                                               
lease activity,  almost exclusively  from Hilcorp  Energy Company                                                               
which  is acquiring  leases from  [the state]  and local  private                                                               
resource owners.   The Kenai Peninsula is unique in  having a lot                                                               
of homesteaded land  that was patented before or  at statehood to                                                               
include the mineral  estate, he noted, whereas  the state retains                                                               
the  mineral  estate  on  most  of the  land  that  was  acquired                                                               
afterward.   Regarding newer technologies,  he said there  is the                                                               
ability to  drill deeper  or longer  lateral wells  and hydraulic                                                               
fracturing  ("fracking") technologies  have  advanced.   Fracking                                                               
has been  around for more than  a century, he continued,  but the                                                               
newer fracking technology  allows a single well to  get access to                                                               
more  gas migrating  to it  than may  have been  possible in  the                                                               
1970s, and this is a newer  opportunity to get access to gas from                                                               
onshore that may have been less likely a few years ago.                                                                         
10:45:31 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ  recalled an earlier statement  that if this                                                               
development were to  happen it would not include  any pipeline or                                                               
infrastructure.  He asked how  the natural gas elements would get                                                               
transferred to the land without any pipeline or infrastructure.                                                                 
MR. CLIFTON responded that while the  rock is solid there is pore                                                               
space  where gas  molecules  can  move through  it,  so gas  will                                                               
migrate  through  the pore  space  to  the  well.   Fracking,  he                                                               
explained,  opens more  of that  pore  space, and  holds it  open                                                               
farther from  where the well is  drilled, so the gas  can migrate                                                               
quite a  long way  to that wellbore.   The  differential pressure                                                               
also  helps the  gas move  to the  well and  then up  through the                                                               
wellhead on  the surface.   He said this allows  development from                                                               
one to four  miles offshore that doesn't involve  drilling a well                                                               
or establishing a pipeline offshore in the water.                                                                               
10:47:16 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE requested a  description of how directional                                                               
drilling would  work in this field,  such as how far  inshore the                                                               
drill rig would  be, where the mud storage would  be, and at what                                                               
depth  the blocker  would be  set before  it goes  underneath the                                                               
shoreline and into [the seafloor below] the water.                                                                              
MR. CLIFTON answered that he  doesn't know the specific depths of                                                               
the pool  that is proposed  for development in the  Seaview Unit.                                                               
He  said he  could  refer to  the  division's published  decision                                                               
establishing the participating area and  get those details to the                                                               
representative's office  later today.   Wells  can be  miles deep                                                               
and  miles long,  he explained;  for  example, the  wells in  the                                                               
Cosmopolitan Unit  are being  developed from  an onshore  pad and                                                               
reach  out as  far as  four miles  offshore.   He said  [today's]                                                               
drilling technology  allows for  steering the  well with  quite a                                                               
degree of control  and accuracy through the strata  to reach very                                                               
specific targets.                                                                                                               
10:49:14 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that  the committee's concern is the                                                               
fisheries, so it  is important to know how deep  it will be under                                                               
the shoreline, to  know about the drilling mud,  and those things                                                               
that  could affect  the fishery.   He  pointed out  that in  most                                                               
drill operations  the drilling  mud is  a problem  with disposal,                                                               
cleanup, and  leakage.  He said  it would be helpful  to show the                                                               
mechanics of it when explaining this to concerned citizens.                                                                     
MR. CLIFTON replied  that the AOGCC does extensive  review of the                                                               
engineering plans for each well that  it permits.  He said a main                                                               
job  of  the AOGCC  is  to  protect the  environment,  especially                                                               
drinking  water aquafers  and waters  relied upon  for fisheries.                                                               
The AOGCC, he continued, would never  permit a well to be drilled                                                               
if there  appeared to be any  threat to a drinking  water aquafer                                                               
onshore or fishery waters offshore.                                                                                             
MS. PAINE  added that while  the area  in question is  a specific                                                               
township,  the  division  does  not have  before  it  a  specific                                                               
project  that  describes  how  this  would  be  developed.    The                                                               
division, she  offered, can provide information  to the committee                                                               
about the  currently approved participating  area onshore  at the                                                               
Seaview Unit, which would have  information like the depth of the                                                               
reservoir  being  targeted.    She  said  DOG  could  also  share                                                               
information from  the Cosmopolitan Unit, though  that information                                                               
would be  different because  that unit is  accessing oil  and the                                                               
bill's proposal is  gas only.  She pointed out  that the original                                                               
legislated closure was  specific to oil, which  is another reason                                                               
DOG  is  going for  gas  only  and  non-surface access  for  this                                                               
leasing area.                                                                                                                   
10:52:32 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES  stated she  was alarmed  to hear  the term                                                               
fracking because  she knows it  is a very  controversial process.                                                               
She surmised that [the proposal]  is a fracking process and asked                                                               
whether much fracking is currently happening in Alaska.                                                                         
MR. CLIFTON responded that fracking  is very common and safe, and                                                               
almost all  oil and gas wells  are fracked because it  improves a                                                               
well's performance.   He reiterated  that fracking has  been used                                                               
for more than a century and said  the only reason it has become a                                                               
new hot  button topic is  because the technology  around fracking                                                               
has  improved and  allowed  the  development of  shale  oil.   He                                                               
stated that  the engineers  at AOGCC look  in detail  at fracking                                                               
and  everything  else  from  the  well's  engineering  design  to                                                               
disposal of the  fluids once the job is finished.   He said there                                                               
is  no reason  to see  fracking as  unsafe or  as any  kind of  a                                                               
special threat to the fishery.                                                                                                  
10:54:52 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES  remarked that fracking cannot  be all that                                                               
safe  because  she  understands  that  at  least  one  state  has                                                               
outlawed it.                                                                                                                    
MR.  CLIFTON  answered  he  has  heard that  one  or  more  state                                                               
legislatures have  proposed to ban  fracking in their  states but                                                               
said  that  does  not  mean  from  a  scientific  or  engineering                                                               
perspective there  was any good  reason for them  to ban it.   He                                                               
maintained that  most of the activist  information about fracking                                                               
is misinformation  and not based on  science.  He stated  that if                                                               
it were  a genuine  threat "the  very smart  folks over  at AOGCC                                                               
would  not be  allowing  it to  go on,"  and  the information  is                                                               
available to the public every time AOGCC permits fracking.                                                                      
MS. PAINE  added that  the information DOG  will be  providing on                                                               
the nearby  developments will show  that hydraulic  fracturing is                                                               
already  occurring very  close by  and is  permitted in  the Cook                                                               
Inlet sale area.  She said the  track record can be seen based on                                                               
the  years  of operation  of  nearby  fields and  should  provide                                                               
assurance that  this is a  very regulated and  researched avenue.                                                               
She specified that DOG would  not be proposing anything here that                                                               
is  not already  widely used  throughout the  state; experimental                                                               
technology or methodology is not trying  to be used in this area.                                                               
She said  everything would be  happening at subsurface  depths of                                                               
at least 6,000 feet below the waterline underneath the surface.                                                                 
10:57:10 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE STORY recalled the  statement that the benefits of                                                               
this  proposal include  revenue  and  access to  more  gas.   She                                                               
surmised the  division had done  an assessment and that  it would                                                               
be  helpful  to  receive  the  information  from  the  division's                                                               
assessment of the pros and cons of this project.                                                                                
MS. PAINE replied  that the cons for not moving  forward with the                                                               
bill would be  the lost revenue to the state  and the possibility                                                               
of inefficient  development of these hydrocarbon  resources.  She                                                               
said there could be unwitting  development from the differentials                                                               
in pressures in the geology and  the state would thereby lose its                                                               
potential revenue.   She  stated that the  division does  not see                                                               
any environmental  or other concerns  when weighing  the benefits                                                               
and risks  of this proposal.   She  related that when  she emails                                                               
the  information to  committee members,  she will  reference some                                                               
documents  in DOG's  Cook Inlet  Best Interest  Finding.   In the                                                               
finding for the entire sale area,  she said, DOG took a hard look                                                               
at  the fish,  wildlife, habitat,  and communities  and evaluated                                                               
everything as a holistic picture  for oil and gas development and                                                               
the  benefits to  the  state.   For  this  discrete township  the                                                               
greatest con seen  by DOG is the lost potential  revenue that can                                                               
occur, she  reiterated.   The approved  development area  for the                                                               
Seaview  Unit  is currently  at  a  60/40 split,  she  specified,                                                               
meaning  60 percent  is held  by  private mineral  owners and  40                                                               
percent by the  state.  At this point in  time, she explained, if                                                               
those offshore  areas proposed in HB  82 are drained in  some way                                                               
the  state would  not have  its proper  revenue share  because it                                                               
would be  splitting it  amongst these  other parties.   Reservoir                                                               
data  is  something that  only  becomes  available to  the  state                                                               
through the  formal lease  contract, she noted,  so if  the state                                                               
can  formally lease,  capture, and  quantify  what the  reservoir                                                               
target is then  the state can justify and  reallocate those tract                                                               
factor percentages to further allow  for the state to realize its                                                               
true potential.   She advised  that while  she does not  have any                                                               
specific numbers, it  could sway it from 60/40  to perhaps 75/25,                                                               
just as a number to throw out in favor of the state.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE STORY  stated that  DOG's assessments on  the fish                                                               
wildlife, and community for this project would be helpful.                                                                      
11:01:23 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE  offered his  understanding that  Ms. Paine                                                               
said there is private land  where the subsurface rights are owned                                                               
because  it  was  pre-statehood   and  that  people  are  already                                                               
considering  or already  drilling  there, and  they can  possibly                                                               
suck the gas out of this  field and leave the state with nothing.                                                               
He inquired whether he is  correct in understanding that fracking                                                               
is hydraulic  and done with  millions of gallons of  water, which                                                               
is why one or more states  have prohibited it.  Those millions of                                                               
gallons of  water are pulled out  of the local aquafer,  he said,                                                               
and injected into  the hole where the  hydraulic pressure expands                                                               
the rock and creates fissures that  the gas can come through.  It                                                               
isn't  that  the fracking  causes  the  aquafer  to go  away,  he                                                               
continued, it  is that  the fracking process  takes water  out of                                                               
the aquafer, which affects the local wells.                                                                                     
MR. CLIFTON responded that he  doesn't think there is anywhere in                                                               
the U.S., and certainly not  in Alaska, that any drilling company                                                               
is allowed to  inject waste fluids into an aquifer.   He said the                                                               
development wells and  the waste disposal wells  are thousands of                                                               
feet deep, often miles deep,  whereas drinking water aquafers are                                                               
usually  100-400  feet  deep.     He  further  stated  that  when                                                               
permitting a  waste disposal  well the AOGCC  looks at  where the                                                               
waste  fluids would  be  injected and  the  possibility of  their                                                               
migrating into a  place where they could  contaminate aquafers or                                                               
surface waters and the AOGCC  would never permit a waste disposal                                                               
well that had  any such risk.   That there might be  some risk to                                                               
drinking water aquafers  is a concern he has heard  before in the                                                               
fracking debate, he  continued, but the waste  disposal wells are                                                               
much deeper  than are  the aquafers and  waste is  never injected                                                               
into  an aquafer  that  people  drink from  or  that  is used  to                                                               
irrigate crops.                                                                                                                 
MR. CLIFTON continued  his response.  He  said private landowners                                                               
themselves are not developing any  of this because they typically                                                               
cannot  afford the  millions of  dollars required  to permit  and                                                               
drill  a  well  and  establish  the  infrastructure  required  to                                                               
produce gas, let alone build a  pipeline extension to bring it to                                                               
market.   Rather, he stated,  many of the private  mineral owners                                                               
in this area  have signed a lease agreement with  Hilcorp and for                                                               
those leases  within the Seaview  Unit they are  working interest                                                               
owners just  like the state is  within that unit, and  they share                                                               
in the value of production for their royalties.                                                                                 
11:06:07 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE  asked whether it  is correct that  in this                                                               
case the  private landowner would  be getting the  royalties, not                                                               
the  state.   He  further asked  whether it  is  correct that  if                                                               
landowners  with subsurface  mineral rights  lease their  land to                                                               
Hilcorp, then Hilcorp  would not have to pay  the state anything,                                                               
Hilcorp would just pay the private owner.                                                                                       
MR. CLIFTON answered that in  the lease agreement [the state] has                                                               
a royalty  rate, which in  most cases in  the Cook Inlet  is 12.5                                                               
percent, and  it is  allocated by  parcel or by  lease.   He said                                                               
there  is  also some  engineering  involved  to figure  out  what                                                               
percentage of  each parcel is  contributing gas to  the producing                                                               
well.   The calculation  of the  percentage that  is contributing                                                               
and the  royalty rate, he  continued, determines how much  of the                                                               
value of that produced gas goes  to each mineral owner.  He added                                                               
that he  would provide the  committee with the schedule  by which                                                               
that has  already been  figured out  for the  Clark Participating                                                               
Area in the Seaview Unit.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked  whether it is correct  that the 12.5                                                               
percent  does  not go  to  the  state,  it  goes to  the  private                                                               
landowner if that private landowner has the subsurface rights.                                                                  
MR.  CLIFTON replied,  "Yes that  is  correct, ...  the State  of                                                               
Alaska  does  not  receive  any   revenue  from  private  mineral                                                               
interest lands."                                                                                                                
11:08:20 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR  TARR recalled  that the  type  of drilling  would be  from                                                               
vertical wells.   She read  from Section  1, page 1,  lines 8-10,                                                               
which state, "lease  or gas only lease in  specified acreage does                                                               
not  also  restrict  subsurface  use for  oil  and  gas  resource                                                               
development  that can  be accomplished  by drilling  from acreage                                                               
that does not have surface  use restrictions."  She asked whether                                                               
this language would enable directional drilling of any kind.                                                                    
MS. PAINE  confirmed that  the general  nature of  this provision                                                               
would permit any sort of  well, vertical or horizontal, to access                                                               
the subsurface  of a restricted  land from an  unrestricted land.                                                               
She stated  it is  correct that in  the township  being discussed                                                               
here it is  thought through vertical, but a lateral  well is also                                                               
possible.  She  said there are lateral wells  in the Cosmopolitan                                                               
Unit that are accessing the subsurface.                                                                                         
11:10:03 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR  remarked that that  is possibly where there  could be                                                               
more concern  about the  overall environmental  impact, including                                                               
for fisheries.  She said she  looks to how the local community is                                                               
responding  to a  proposal,  but the  committee  packet does  not                                                               
provide  any information  as  to whether  the  division has  held                                                               
public meetings or whether local  government has taken positions.                                                               
When it  is the first  of something,  she stressed, a  concern is                                                               
whether it sets a precedent for future proposals.                                                                               
MS. PAINE responded  that at this time there have  been no public                                                               
meetings to  discuss the  bill with the  local communities.   She                                                               
explained that the  public is addressed through  the broader Cook                                                               
Inlet sale area  as a part of the best  interest finding process.                                                               
Any  time the  division goes  to dispose  of the  several million                                                               
acres in the  Cook Inlet, she further explained,  it engages with                                                               
members  of all  communities, nongovernmental  organizations, and                                                               
local  government  organizations  through  public  notice  and  a                                                               
public comment  period; so, the  sale area itself of  the greater                                                               
Cook Inlet  has had a  very robust  public comment period.   But,                                                               
she  continued,  for  HB  82  the division  has  not  yet  worked                                                               
directly with those  same public folks.  If this  bill were to be                                                               
passed, the  division would  need to expand  the Cook  Inlet sale                                                               
boundary  to include  this area.   To  do that,  she stated,  DOG                                                               
would  have   to  call  for  new   information  and  supplemental                                                               
information from the public before  it could change the sale area                                                               
boundary.    There would  be  a  public  notice process  and  the                                                               
opportunity  to comment,  the division  would  then review  those                                                               
comments  and   provide  responses,   and  then   decide  whether                                                               
expanding the  sale area is  in the  best interest of  the state.                                                               
She specified that HB 82  lays the legislative possibility for it                                                               
but there would  still be a separate public process  as a part of                                                               
the sale  area best interest  finding that would  incorporate and                                                               
alert the public and allow them of their ability to participate.                                                                
11:13:04 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  stated that  her job is  to look  after the                                                               
best interests of  her people while [Ms. Paine's] job  is to look                                                               
after the  best interests of  the state.   She recalled  it being                                                               
mentioned that there are private  landowners benefitting from the                                                               
royalties, not the  state, at this time.  She  inquired about the                                                               
ratio of private to public land within the proposed area.                                                                       
MS. PAINE  answered that  that will be  part of  the supplemental                                                               
information  which will  be  provided to  the  committee for  the                                                               
Seaview Unit  decision as well  as the Clark  Participating Area.                                                               
It will include  the names of the individual  parcels and royalty                                                               
percentages, she  said, and  will be provided  in a  detailed map                                                               
format after today's discussion.                                                                                                
11:14:13 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE  commented that it  feels like she  is being                                                               
asked to  choose between  providing a source  of revenue  for the                                                               
people  of her  district  who homesteaded  and  helped build  the                                                               
community versus  providing a  source of  revenue for  the state.                                                               
She said being asked to expand  further south in the Kachemak Bay                                                               
area and potentially transferring revenue  from the people to the                                                               
state gives  her great heartburn.   She advised that she  will be                                                               
asking more  questions about  the proposal  so the  committee can                                                               
make a more informed decision.                                                                                                  
MS. PAINE responded  by posing a scenario in  which the resources                                                               
[within the proposal]  are drained and the money is  going to the                                                               
private  landowners instead  of the  state.   In  that case,  she                                                               
explained,  the state  would petition  the AOGCC  for correlative                                                               
rights  and  go  through  the process  to  demonstrate  that  the                                                               
state's  subsurface area  is  being drained.    Instead of  going                                                               
directly to  landowners, the money  would maybe  sit in a  pot at                                                               
AOGCC  until   litigation  resolved  who  ultimately   has  those                                                               
resources.   But, she  continued, [the state]  would also  be out                                                               
the revenue  that would be realized  from the rentals as  well as                                                               
from the  bonus bids  from leasing  the tracts.   So,  while [the                                                               
state]  could  hope to  remedy  some  of  the royalties  after  a                                                               
correlative rights process,  other revenues would be  left on the                                                               
table and lost to the state.                                                                                                    
11:17:00 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  MCCABE stated  it would  be helpful  to know  how                                                               
many people in  this area would be affected, how  many leases are                                                               
had by Hilcorp  on lands where the subsurface rights  belong to a                                                               
private citizen,  how many  parcels there  are, and  whether pads                                                               
have been  completed and  drilling underway.   He asked  what the                                                               
difference is between vertical drilling and horizontal drilling.                                                                
MR. CLIFTON  replied that all  wells start vertically and  have a                                                               
series of  progressively narrower  and narrower  casings designed                                                               
to keep  the well  stable.   Once at the  target depth,  he said,                                                               
they  break out  and steer  towards  the target  or steer  around                                                               
obstacles to be avoided such as other wells or an aquafer.                                                                      
11:19:06 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR  stated that HB 82  would be held over.   She observed                                                               
that there is no Department  of Revenue fiscal note and requested                                                               
that one  be prepared  given there  are questions  about revenue.                                                               
She  confirmed  that  receiving  the  Cook  Inlet  Best  Interest                                                               
Finding would be helpful, as well  as the number of private owner                                                               
leases requested  by Representative  McCabe.  She  also requested                                                               
an estimated  timeline on  the AOGCC  process that  was described                                                               
and examples of where the state has used that process.                                                                          
MS. PAINE agreed  that the division would follow up  with all the                                                               
requested items.   She stated that the Seaview  Unit decision and                                                               
the  Clark Participating  Area will  also answer  the correlative                                                               
rights question  and Representative McCabe's questions  about the                                                               
depth of  the potential reservoirs  and the pad that  has already                                                               
been built and improved in the area.                                                                                            
11:21:21 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 82.                                                                                    
11:21:40 AM                                                                                                                   
JOSH  WISINEWSKI,   stated  he  is  a   Kachemak  Bay  commercial                                                               
fisherman who setnets,  fishes for halibut out of  his skiff, and                                                               
participates in  the state and  federal subsistence  fisheries in                                                               
the bay.   He testified  that he adamantly  opposes HB 82  or any                                                               
form  of  surface  or  subsurface  oil  and  gas  development  in                                                               
Kachemak Bay.   He said  the bill is completely  inconsistent and                                                               
oppositional with the purpose and  spirit of designating Kachemak                                                               
Bay  as  a  critical  habitat  area  to  protect  the  ecological                                                               
integrity that supports the area's commercial fisheries.                                                                        
MR. WISINEWSKI referenced  the [4/1/21] gas spill  from a Hilcorp                                                               
underwater pipeline  located 80 feet underground  near Platform A                                                               
in [Cook  Inlet], essential habitat  to beluga whales  and salmon                                                               
stocks.   He  said  any  type of  spill  or  discharge event  [in                                                               
Kachemak Bay] would immediately  disrupt the region's fishing and                                                               
tourist economy  that is  worth $1 billion  annually, as  well as                                                               
cause  irreparable harm  to  the  ecology of  Kachemak  Bay.   He                                                               
concluded by  stating that  oil and  gas development  in Kachemak                                                               
Bay is not worth the risk and not compatible with the fisheries.                                                                
11:24:27 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE  inquired about the  kind of boat  used for                                                               
fishing by Mr. Wisinewski                                                                                                       
MR. WISINEWSKI  replied he has  a 22-foot skiff he  built himself                                                               
for  setnetting and  a slightly  larger  skiff for  halibut.   He                                                               
added that he does all his fishing in Kachemak Bay.                                                                             
11:25:03 AM                                                                                                                   
PENELOPE   HAAS,  Kachemak   Bay  Conservation   Society  (KBCS),                                                               
testified in  opposition to  HB 82.   She  said the  Kachemak Bay                                                               
area is very  rich and the bill proposes a  fundamental change to                                                               
the way  that a critical  habitat area and  fisheries protections                                                               
are  considered.    She  maintained  that  lateral  drilling  and                                                               
fracking  underground into  areas  closed to  oil  and gas  would                                                               
change the balance  between oil and gas  and fisheries protection                                                               
in Kachemak  Bay as well as  across the state.   She related that                                                               
KBCS disagrees  with DNR's statement  that this poses no  risk to                                                               
fisheries, and said  it poses a substantial risk  to fisheries in                                                               
Kachemak Bay and in the rest of  the state.  She stated she would                                                               
provide the committee  with a list of evidence on  the impacts of                                                               
horizontal  drilling   and  fracking  to   underground  aquafers,                                                               
drinking water,  and waters that  fish use  and need.   She urged                                                               
the committee  to ask DNR about  the broad implications of  HB 82                                                               
and how  it relates to  Kachemak Bay and  relates to the  rest of                                                               
Alaska and said KBCS opposes this precedent setting change.                                                                     
11:27:28 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR TARR closed public testimony on HB 82.                                                                                    
CHAIR TARR announced that HB 82 was held over.                                                                                  
11:29:22 AM                                                                                                                   
There being no further business before the committee, the House                                                                 
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:29                                                                   

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 54 Sponsor Statement - Version W 1.28.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HRES 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM
HB 54
HB 54 Version W 1.15.21.PDF HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HRES 4/16/2021 1:00:00 PM
HB 54
HB 54 Fiscal Note - DEC-CO 3.5.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Fiscal Note - DFG-DSF 3.5.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - ADFG Invasive Species Presentation 3.11.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - Alaska Invasive Species Partnership Presentation 3.11.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - USFWS Alaska Invasive Species Presentation 3.11.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - Ka'aihue Presentation - 3.11.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - ADFG Newsletter - Invasive Species 4.2021.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - Cost of Managing Invasive Species in Alaska 7.2012.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - States with Invasive Species Fees or Stickers 7.24.20.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Supporting Document - WA Invasive Species Council Fact Sheet 1.2017.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB54 Sectional Analysis - Version W 3.18..21.pdf HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Letters of Support 3.10.21.pdf HFSH 3/11/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 54 Testimony Katherine Schake Homer Soil Water District 3.18.21.pdf HFSH 3/18/2021 11:00:00 AM
HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54
HB 82 Sponsor Statement 1.28.21.pdf HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/4/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 2/1/2022 11:00:00 AM
HB 82
HB 82 Version A 2.18.21.PDF HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/4/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 2/1/2022 11:00:00 AM
HB 82
HB 82 Sectional Analysis - Version A 2.23.21.pdf HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/4/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 2/1/2022 11:00:00 AM
HB 82
HB 82 Fiscal Note One - DNR-DOG 1.27.21.pdf HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/4/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 2/1/2022 11:00:00 AM
HB 82
HB 82 Supporting Document - Gas Leases-Renewable Energy Grant Fund Presentation - DNR 4.6.21.pdf HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 5/4/2021 10:00:00 AM
HFSH 2/1/2022 11:00:00 AM
HB 82
HB 54 Amendment One 4.5.21.pdf HFSH 4/6/2021 10:00:00 AM
HB 54