Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/14/2018 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB272 | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 14, 2018
6:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative John Lincoln, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act establishing the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 330
"An Act authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to
disclose confidential information in an investigation or
proceeding, including a lease royalty audit, appeal, or request
for reconsideration and issue a protective order limiting the
persons who have access to the confidential information."
- MOVED CSHB 330(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 272
SHORT TITLE: TANGLE LAKES STATE GAME REFUGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/16/18 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/18
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) FSH, RES
02/13/18 (H) FSH AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/18 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/18 (H) Moved HB 272 Out of Committee
02/27/18 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/28/18 (H) FSH RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR
02/28/18 (H) DP: EDGMON, TARR, KREISS-TOMKINS,
STUTES
02/28/18 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, NEUMAN
02/28/18 (H) NR: CHENAULT
03/07/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/07/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/07/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/12/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/12/18 (H) -- Public Testimony --
03/14/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 330
SHORT TITLE: DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/05/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/18 (H) JUD, RES
02/16/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/16/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/21/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/21/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/23/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/23/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/26/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/26/18 (H) Moved CSHB 330(JUD) Out of Committee
02/26/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/28/18 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 1DP 5NR 1AM
02/28/18 (H) DP: CLAMAN
02/28/18 (H) NR: EASTMAN, KOPP, STUTES, LEDOUX,
REINBOLD
02/28/18 (H) AM: KREISS-TOMKINS
03/09/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/09/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/12/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/12/18 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/14/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ALICIA SIIRA, Deputy Director
Alaska Miners Association (AMA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition during the hearing
of HB 272.
RUTH MCHENRY, Volunteer Staff
Copper Country Alliance
Kenny Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support during the hearing of
HB 272.
LINDA RUTLEDGE
Kenny Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272.
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive Director
Resource Development Council (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 272.
BRUCE ROGERS
Gakona, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272.
ED KING, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 272.
JOE DONAHUE, Board member
Copper Country Alliance (CCA)
Kenny Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272.
CATHY TEICH
Talkeetna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272.
FELICIA RIDEL
Kenny Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support during the hearing of
HB 272.
KATHRYN MARTIN, Senior Vice-President
Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna Inc.)
Corporate Headquarters
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 272.
MICHELLE ANDERSON, President
Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna, Inc.)
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 272.
ED KING, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 330.
ACTION NARRATIVE
6:37:39 PM
CO-CHAIR ANDY JOSEPHSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Representatives
Josephson, Lincoln, Parish, and Birch were present at the call to
order. Representatives Drummond, Johnson, and Tarr arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 272-TANGLE LAKES STATE GAME REFUGE
6:38:31 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 272, "An Act establishing the Tangle
Lakes State Game Refuge; and providing for an effective date."
6:38:36 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony to invited testimony
on HB 272.
6:39:40 PM
ALICIA SIIRA, Deputy Director, Alaska Miners Association (AMA),
on behalf of AMA's executive director, disagreed that renewable
and nonrenewable resources cannot coexist with public use and
habitat, which Alaska's history has proven completely false, she
said. The sponsor statement read, "Although most activities
within the proposed refuge pertain to renewable resources, there
is potential for non-renewable activities, which could
irreparably damage both the ecosystem and the wildlife that
depend on it." She said the AMA disagreed with this statement.
A century of experience shows this premise that one must choose
between renewable and nonrenewable resources to be false.
Alaska's economy has been built on the premise that Alaskans need
not choose between environmental protection and economic
development. The philosophy that renewable and nonrenewable
resources cannot coexist in a region, which this bill was
predicated upon, would be a "death-knell" to the state's economy
and state revenue, she said. She spoke in opposition to HB 272.
6:41:30 PM
MS. SIIRA paraphrased from a portion of the letter from the
Alaska Miners Association dated March 6, 2018, in members'
packets, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Denali Highway Region around the proposed refuge
has been the subject of mineral exploration since the
turn of the century. The large Valdez Creek Mine, just
east of the Susitna River, was discovered in the early
part of this century and reclaimed in the early 1990s.
Beginning in the early 1990s, modern mining
exploration increased in this region. The proposed
refuge area and lands to the north, where access would
be impeded by the refuge, was explored for over 20
years by American Copper and Nickel Company (ACNC),
Anglo American, Fort Knox Gold (a different company
than the one mining near Fairbanks), Nevada Star
Resource Corporation, Pure Nickel, and a few others.
Since 2000, DNR has granted approximately 20
exploration permits and the same number of permits for
placer mining in the region. While most are outside
the proposed Refuge area, a number have included work
within the Refuge area as well.
MS. SIIRA said the region's history has shown that nearby large
mines, such as Valdez Creek Mine have not created the long-term
impact asserted by the sponsor and years of recent exploration
have avoided the predicted impacts.
MS. SIIRA continued to paraphrase a portion of the letter from
the Alaska Miners Association dated March 6, 2018, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Exploration has included most of the techniques used
to find hard-rock minerals including field mapping,
aerial and ground geophysical exploration, soil
samples, water samples, rock sampling, and exploration
drilling. Almost all of the recent exploration has
been helicopter supported. It has left little ground
disturbance or long-term visual affect.
MS. SIIRA said that as members know, the designation of a Tangle
Lakes State Game Refuge was not a new idea. When it was proposed
previously and with exploration activity underway, DNR
[Department of Natural Resources] field personnel were questioned
and very few people using Tangle Lakes, or the Delta Wild and
Scenic River even knew that mineral exploration had been
occurring. The area under discussion already benefits from a
system of protections through DNR's Special Use Area designation.
Most of the proposed Refuge area is within DNR's Tangle Lakes
Archaeological District Special Use Area, which was established
in 2003. She referenced regulations in 11 AAC 96.104(b)(24),
noting that through the aforementioned regulation, DNR assessed
the area and concluded that mining and mineral and mineral
exploration impacts were easily controlled through mining's
extensive permitting and inspection process, although leasehold
location order 26 put companies on notice that DNR would be
looking closely to protect the cultural resources of this area.
MS. SIIRA continued to paraphrase a portion of the letter from
the Alaska Miners Association dated March 6, 2018, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
DNR, like BLM before it, concluded that unrestricted
motorized recreation had the greatest potential to
cause significant impacts to these resources. For that
reason, DNR enacted rules for recreation and received
additional legislative funding for field personnel to
manage recreation this area. This Special Use Area
provides already a vehicle for special rules should
those rules become necessary.
MS. SIIRA continued to paraphrase a portion of the letter from
the Alaska Miners Association dated March 6, 2018, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
A Refuge With Only Average Habitat? DNR's land use
plan, written with DF&G's help and endorsement,
indicates that the vast majority of the refuge has
only moderate habitat. The proposed refuge is split
between two DNR Area Plans: Tanana Basin Area Plan,
Subunit 5C2; and Copper River Basin Area Plan, Subunit
28.
DF&G has provided the fish and wildlife expertise for
these plans. As part of these plans, the agencies
rated habitat in each area into one of 5 categories.
As part of the plans' public process, the habitat
ratings were published for public comment. The plans
concluded that the vast majority of what is proposed
for the Refuge is in the middle habitat category
(which the plans termed "Prime" habitat).
In addition, BLM analyzed a modern mining scenario in
a 2011 Environmental Assessment for the Delta Wild and
Scenic River. It concluded, "If exploration leads to
the discovery of an economically viable deposit, the
deposit will likely be developed only through
underground mining (not open-pit) techniques. If so, a
mine could be developed in a similar manner as the
Pogo Mine (about 38 miles northeast of Delta
Junction). Surface disturbance will vary depending on
mine design, construction of roads, power line
corridors, selection of tailing disposal method, and
other factors. The Pogo Mine has a permitted
disturbance of 425 acres." Four hundred and twenty-
five acres is roughly 0.3% of the proposed refuge's
area. This modern mining scenario hardly makes the
case that Alaska must choose between habitat and our
jobs or income.
MS. SIIRA stated that if it was not closed, the proposed refuge
and surrounding area is likely to be explored again.
MS. SIIRA continued to paraphrase a portion of the letter from
the Alaska Miners Association dated March 6, 2018, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
While the proposed refuge is not presently being
explored, it is likely to be explored again. The
Tangle Lakes region is known to be a highly
mineralized area, in the Nikolai Greenstone geologic
terrane that is host to the incredibly rich Kennecott
copper deposits.
Most recently Pure, Nickel explored the area both
within the refuge and in the area to the north, in an
area where the refuge would discourage additional
exploration.
MS. SIIRA commented it was her understanding that the committee
had a letter from the company Pure Nickel stating that it chose
to drop its claims in 2013 due to the global mineral investment
climate and not for lack of mineralization.
The recent exploration showed significant potential of
nickel, platinum metals and elements, and other
minerals. These minerals are included in a recently
published list by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) of minerals that are critical to national
defense and the economy. A secure supply of domestic
sources of minerals is a priority for the United
States, and it should be for Alaska as well.
6:47:22 PM
MS. SIIRA stated that while exploring Alaska and the area, the
Pure Nickel camp employed up to 40 people, many of whom were
Alaskans, and spent more than $25 million in the state. In just
one year it spent $400,000 in claim fees, of which a significant
amount has gone to the Alaska Permanent Fund. Closing this area
to mineral entry would ensure no further economic benefits from
exploration and eliminate the possibility of a producing
operation and jobs and revenue associated with the mine. It is
proven that Alaska does not have to make the choice between the
environment and resource development. Alaska's miners strongly
oppose the proposed refuge, she said.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said his map of the area [in members' packets]
showed that the area north of the proposed border [of the Tangle
Lakes State Game Refuge] was vastly more replete with potential
mineral resource occurrences than within the proposed refuge
area. He asked for further clarification on her testimony that
mining to the north would be discouraged if there was a refuge.
MS. SIIRA clarified the AMA thought that mining activity would
generally be discouraged. During mining exploration, companies
are not sure where the deposit might be located so to have a
portion nearby closed off, which might include a significant
portion of the deposit would discourage exploration and
development, she said.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON referred to letter from Pure Nickel, Inc.,
which he offered to provide to members. He read from the letter
from Mr. David McPherson dated March 6, 2018, "We are very
frequently contacted by companies who wish to purchase the
information we developed so that they can re-stake the claims and
continue exploration in the area." He acknowledged that while it
might be true that this bill could make it more difficult to
continue exploration in the area, HB 199 expressly would allow
the re-staking of the claim. He asked whether Ms. Siira agreed
with Mr. McPherson's statement.
MS. SIIRA responded that she was unsure on the specifics. She
offered to research it and respond to him and noted she had not
personally seen the referenced letter.
6:50:58 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, in terms of compatibility, pointed out the
state has made policy decisions that not everything is
compatible, and has set aside conservation units that reflect
this policy, such as Denali National Park.
MS. SIIRA answered yes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON directed attention to page 7, line 21, of HB
272, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(c) Except for valid rights and interests in mineral
claims existing on January 1, 2019, including the
right of access to those claims, the land and water
areas of the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge are closed
to mineral entry under AS 38.05.185 - 38.05.275.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said it seemed as though Pure Nickel concern
about re-staking the claims would be alleviated at some level by
that language.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his belief that there was
prejudicial language in the sponsor statement, which includes
language, "irreparable damage." He said that typically mining
work requires bonding, restoration and mining reclamation, such
as reseeding. He offered his belief that language was harsh, but
he liked to think that the DNR and the mechanisms the state has
in place protect the public, property, and the state interests in
these lands.
MS. SIIRA responded that the state has a robust and thorough
permitting system that requires bonding, reclamation, and an
opportunity for public comment to keep the environment safe
during resource development.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH agreed.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked for further clarification on Ms. Siira's
comment about "moderate habitat". He suggested that Mr. Meehan,
with Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) might be able to
define the term. He remarked that the management plan maps [in
members' packets] were fairly dated, with one dating from 1986,
and the other one more recent. He suggested that other terms
have been used by DNR, including "high value" and "prime
habitat." He asked whether she had seen those terms being used
to describe habitat.
MS. SIIRA answered that she had not, but she would ask the
executive director about it.
6:55:10 PM
RUTH MCHENRY, Volunteer Staff, Copper Country Alliance,
representing Copper Country Alliance, related her first glimpse
of the Tangle Lakes area was in 1960, when she traveled on the
Denali Highway during a Girl Scout trip from Haines throughout
the newly-formed state. She later returned with her
grandparents, and her grandfather shot a caribou to provide meat
for his family. In 1988, she moved to the Copper River Basin and
joined her late husband on caribou hunts: some of which were
successful, and some were not. She described the Tangle Lakes
area as a "glorious place to be" then and now.
MS. MCHENRY said that she and her current husband visited the
area several times a year to hike, pick berries, and to enjoy the
vast, open landscape. The Nelchina caribou herd has provided
residents from Copper Basin, Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, and
Fairbanks with an important meat source. Since groceries are
expensive in Alaska and more so in rural Alaska, subsistence
hunting provides residents with meat for their freezers. In
fact, hunting represents the most important draw to the area, and
she noted that over 17,000 permits were issued this season and in
the last one. During summer, tourism and recreation are equally
as important, providing small Alaskan-owned tours, lodges, gas
stations, and tour companies with income. Large daily Princess
Cruise tours and small locally-owned tour operators show tourists
the scenic alpine region - one of the few drive-through alpine
zones in Alaska. She related that the committee previously has
heard testimony about the importance of outdoor recreation to
local businesses.
MS. MCHENRY related that many Ahtna, Inc., one of 13 Alaska
Native Regional Corporations, shareholders and their families
also depend on the Nelchina herd. Ten thousand years ago, Native
Alaskans hunted this same area and left behind such a dense
number of stone tools that the Tangle Lakes Archeological
District was created to help protect artifacts; however, the
district does not protect the herd or other wildlife. A refuge
would protect hunting and trapping, she said. She described the
Tangle Lakes region as so important that it has acquired a
"refuge" status even with the threat of mining. She referred
members to retired ADF&G biologist Robert Tobey's memo about
caribou, moose, ptarmigan, furbearers, and waterfowl [in member's
packets].
MS. MCHENRY related that the larger part of the proposed refuge
is in Management Unit 5C [North Slope of the Alaska Range] of the
Tanana Basin Area Plan. She quoted a portion of the management
intent of Unit 5C: "Fish and wildlife habitat is designated a
primary use in this unit. Values include prime-rated habitat for
moose, caribou, grizzly bears, and sheep [(B-1 habitat; see
Appendix A, Glossary)]." The habitat classification for the
Tangle Lakes area is prime habitat, which she quoted as being:
"Prime habitat are those capable of supporting maximum densities
of one or more species groups on a long-term basis and are
necessary for perpetuation of those populations."
MS. MCHENRY argued that the Tanana Basin Area Plan does not use
the term "moderate" habitat [as stated by the AMA in earlier
testimony]. She agreed that C-1 lands were considered
"moderate"; however, the Tangle Lakes area does not contain C-1
lands and consists primarily of B-l lands, she said. "Recreation
is designated a primary use. High scenic values at the southern
tip of Unit 5C should be protected," she quoted. Those high
scenic value lands are exactly the ones along the north side of
the Denali Highway in the proposed refuges, she said. She stated
that the two area plans were signed off by the DNR and ADF&G
commissioners.
7:00:50 PM
MS. MCHENRY, with respect to the importance of retaining wildlife
habitat, stated that biologists report that caribou use different
parts of their range in different years. They also use the area
during different times during the year, depending on factors
including snow depth and how recently the animals have fed on
plants. She expressed concern about the habitat degradation
since caribou graze and require substantial habitat area to
survive. Biologists are unsure of the threshold of habitat
degradation before it will affect the caribou herd.
MS. MCHENRY offered her belief that a new mine in the Tangle
Lakes area would significantly affect habitat. She attributed
habitat loss to current mining and exploration, including the
potential of future mining. Other projects and activities that
posed potential impacts on the caribou herd include the proposed
Susitna Dam and military exercises with low-flying jets. Even
though she has loved traveling to the Tangle Lakes area, she also
acknowledged that highways fragment the caribou herd's habitat,
too.
MS. MCHENRY said she has followed mineral exploration activity in
the Tangle Lakes area for 17 years. Modern hard-rock mining
typically alters land on a large scale, including underground
mines, but especially open pit mining, she said. Although Pure
Nickel, Inc. advised people they were uncertain of the type of
mine being proposed, either type of mine would require massive
waste and tailing storage, mill buildings, power lines, and
roads. She expressed concern about the problem ore trucks would
have on the Denali Highway roadway and tanker trucks on the
Richardson Highway to other motorists, including tourists.
Although Rock Creek Mine, near Nome was permitted under the
state's "rigorous permitting process," it was shut down after two
months because of water problems and never reopened.
MS. MCHENRY stated although helicopter-assisted mineral
exploration may not have long-term impacts, the purpose of
exploration leads to mining which does have long-term impacts,
with some mining operations requiring perpetual treatment. The
DNR permitted exploration in the Tangle Lakes region, but she
questioned why the DNR would permit exploration if the department
intended to refuse future mining. She suggested members should
ask DNR if it has ever refused a hard-rock mine permit mine.
MS. MCHENRY, in response to whether viable mineral deposits exist
in the Tangle Lakes region, said that 11 of the 45 exploratory
holes drilled were in areas north of the proposed refuge. Today,
there are no hard-rock claims in the proposed refuge or north of
its boundaries after three major foreign mining interests pulled
out. Even Pure Nickel, Inc., a foreign junior exploration
company eventually relinquished its claim within the proposed
refuge or the explored area, she said.
7:05:21 PM
MS. MCHENRY stated her belief that it is time to grant ADF&G full
management of this important region. Alaskan hunters, fishers,
berry pickers, photographers, and paddlers care deeply about this
area. They want future generations to enjoy the area as it is
today, she said. These people are not "rabid Outside
environmentalists," people who represent outside organizations,
or mining companies based in Canada, London, or China. Instead,
these are Alaskans who are here for the long term, she said. She
urged members to pass HB 272.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH acknowledged that Kenny Lake was about 150
miles closer to the proposed refuge than his district in
Anchorage. He said he was not supportive of this bill. He
expressed concern with the lack of engagement with those "in it
for the long haul." He pointed out several letters submitted in
opposition to the bill, including Ahtna, Inc. who opposed HB 272
because it would prevent shared multiple-use opportunities.
Further, the Copper Valley Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter
in opposition to the bill. He acknowledged that tourism has
merit but asked how jobs in resource extraction industry compared
to jobs in the housekeeping and hotel industry. He suggested
there were opportunities in the natural resources industries that
would be curtailed if those opportunities were shut down. He
expressed concern that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough had not been
consulted, since it touches the western edge of the proposed
refuge. He reiterated his concern over opposition stemming from
a regional corporation and a government entity. He said he was
very concerned about the proposal.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that the Ahtna, Inc. regional
boundaries were not in the proposed refuge.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for confirmation on the boundaries.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he has looked very carefully and attested
that Ahtna Regional Corporation did not have land in the proposed
region.
7:09:37 PM
MS. MCHENRY said she reviewed Ahtna, Inc.'s recent letter [of
February 13, 2018] and she was perplexed from their supportive
stance in 2007 to one of opposition. She surmised that Ahtna,
Inc. may have misunderstood the proposed bill; for one, it
referred to the proposed refuge as a park. She questioned who
would get [mining] jobs and if they would pertain to locals. She
highlighted that the refuge was currently being used by more
people, culturally and to support the economy.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON acknowledged that housekeeping jobs do not pay
as well as mining jobs. He stated that when the bill was
introduced it was paired with testimony on the value of outdoor
recreation. He asked whether she had a sense of the economic
value of the region to its present uses since she has lived in
the region for so long.
MS. MCHENRY responded that many people transit the area bringing
numerous visitors to local businesses. She said the Hub, a major
gas station in Glennallen, is "pretty well jammed" between
Memorial Day to Labor Day during the tourism season.
7:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for further clarification on Copper
Country Alliance.
MS. MCHENRY stated that the seven-member board was in support of
HB 272.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether other members have subscribed
to the Copper Country Alliance's mailing list.
MS. MCHENRY stated that Copper Country Alliance consisted of 50
members located in region, noting this is a sparsely-populated
area. She recalled that in 2010-12 she gathered a number of
signatures for the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that she located a copy of the
letter she previously mentioned [in members' packets]. Ms.
McHenry was number 687 of 823 signers of Save Tangle Lakes and
many people in the Valdez to Delta corridor signed the letter.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked to correct an earlier statement by the
Co-Chair. He stated that virtually the entire Denali Highway was
in the Ahtna, Incorporated region. He further stated that nearly
half of the area falls in the Ahtna, Inc. region.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON disagreed, noting his research showed that
Ahtna land was to the south of the proposed refuge, towards the
coast and Wrangell-St. Elias. He offered to review it further,
but his sense was that the land south of the highway was public
land. He remarked that there might be an historic Native
Corporation regional boundary since the entire state was taken up
by 12 Native Regional Corporations. He wondered if
Representative Birch's reckoning meant there was not any public
land in Alaska but rather that it was all Native Regional
Corporation land.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH answered no; however, he meant there should
be some engagement with the entities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON emphasized the need to clearly identify
land ownership. She offered her belief that some of the land was
Ahtna, Inc. land.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether Representative Johnson could
identify that the land was owned by Ahtna, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated that the committee must
consider land status. She did not believe the corporation owned
the land; however, the committee should consider what proposed
refuge land fell within Ahtna, Inc. lands and how it might impact
the corporation.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked that his home in Anchorage falls
within the Cook Inlet region; but he owns his home fee simple.
He said he was puzzled and did not understand the argument.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that a portion of the proposed refuge
falls in Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB). He acknowledged that
the MSB might not own the land, but it fell within the borough
jurisdiction and political boundary. He said he thought it would
be irresponsible not to contact [the entities] in some capacity.
7:19:54 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
7:20:24 PM
LINDA RUTLEDGE stated her family has had a homestead since 1979
on Mile 3 of the Edgerton Highway. Her family has large
subsistence vegetable gardens and the Nelchina caribou herd,
which they value and respect, has been the family's source of
meat for 38 years. Certain areas along the Denali Highway are
important to the Nelchina caribou herd, she said. The proposed
Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge provides a prime feeding area for
the herd. Caribou migrate to the Tangle Lakes area in the fall
and often winter there. The lake system supports rich vegetation
from lichens to an extraordinary array of blueberries. Bears,
fox, swans, and ptarmigan were among the wildlife that feed on
the rich blueberry patches. Her family, like many other
Alaskans, gather a winter's supply of blueberries at the Tangle
Lakes. She recalled a hunting partner called this area a "bread
basket" since it provides so much food.
MS. RUTLEDGE asked members to consider that as Alaska's climate
changes food sources will become very important. She did not
understand jeopardizing the health of the Nelchina caribou herd
for short-term mining extraction. She acknowledged that people
were just part of the equation. The Nelchina caribou herd
deserved to have the proposed game refuge as their homeland and
their right to thrive. She urged members to visit the Tangle
Lakes, which is surrounded by lush tundra with the Alaska Range
as a backdrop. She urged members to support HB 272. She further
urged members to talk with the Native population in the area as
she felt they, too, would want to protect the Tangle Lakes.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested Ms. Rutledge may wish to collect
written testimony and signatures from neighbors.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether her family hunts in Tangle
Lake or elsewhere in the region.
MS. RUTLEDGE responded that they travel to the Tangle Lakes, but
they also follow the caribou to the Susitna area. She remarked
that wintertime was important to the Nelchina caribou, that, at
times, overwinter in the area. She expressed concerned about
food sources and prime habitat. In response to Representative
Drummond, she related that she lives approximately 80 miles from
the Tangle Lakes, perhaps more.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said that since Ms. Rutledge lives in the
area, she was likely well aware of the conflicts with the Ahtna
Inc. -Native Regional Corporation region's land use. She said
she was vaguely aware that the corporation does not own every
square inch of the land. She asked whether the Ahtna Inc.'s
lands were posted as closed to hunting.
MS. RUTLEDGE agreed.
7:27:51 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC), stated that the RDC is a statewide trade association
comprised of individuals and companies from Alaska's oil and gas,
mining, forest products, tourism and fisheries industries as well
as the 12 land-owning Alaska Native corporations, municipalities,
individuals, labor unions, and other trade associations.
MS. HALL stated RDC's opposition to HB 272, An Act Establishing
the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge. She stated that the RDC's
position has been to encourage the exploration and responsible
development of Alaska's natural resources. Creating a new refuge
would restrict or eliminate the potential opportunities in the
Tangle Lakes area, including mineral development and tourism.
Further, it would create new restrictions to land use at a time
when our state faces fiscal and other challenges.
MS. HALL states that Alaska already contains over 70 percent of
the nation's national parkland, 84 percent of the national
wildlife refuge land, two of the nation's largest national
forests, two of the largest state parks in the union as well as a
number of other state conservation units. She said the RDC
supports continuing to manage the Tangle Lakes area for multiple
use, such as recreational, hunting, subsistence and other
potential uses, including mining. She said these activities can
coexist. Instead of creating another refuge in Alaska, the state
must focus on ways to show that Alaska is "open for business;
that Alaskans are serious about growing the economy. The
proposed area consists of mining claims previously held by
various companies and individuals. Mining and mining exploration
have occurred in the area, which has not had a significant
adverse impact on wildlife.
MS. HALL reminded members that Alaska already has a comprehensive
regulatory and permitting system in place to protect its land,
environment, and fish and wildlife resources. Any proposed
project in the region would be thoroughly scrutinized and well-
vetted through the extensive permitting process and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process, she said. In
closing, she urged members to oppose HB 272.
7:30:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how many members Ms. Hall represented
and how many of the RDC's members reside within the Tangle Lakes
region.
MS. HALL answered that the RDC has hundreds of corporate and
individual members representing tens of thousands of Alaskans in
the resource and support industry sectors. She was unsure of the
specific number of residents in the region who were also RDC
members, but she offered to research and report back to the
committee.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked why the proposed refuge in HB 272 would
be bad for tourism.
MS. HALL answered that the proposed refuge would create new
restrictions to land use, which would potentially impact
opportunities in the area, including tourism. She remarked that
restricting land use would also create uncertainty and additional
regulatory processes that would impact a tourism operation to a
mining claim.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that the committee will ask Mr. Meehan
from ADF&G to respond at a future hearing.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for clarification of the process RDC uses
when it takes a position. She recalled that tourism was under
the RDC's umbrella.
MS. HALL responded that it would take time to discuss the RDC's
internal policy process; however, the RDC does have general
policy positions that it has vetted with the 78-member board.
She related that typically the RDC's policy positions are
developed in November or December, prior to the next legislative
session. She said that the RDC's position is to encourage
responsible development of Alaska's natural resources. In
addition, one of RDC's members, Ahtna Inc. brought the bill to
the RDC's attention.
CO-CHAIR TARR related her understanding that RDC prioritizes
mining interests over tourism interests since there is an
inherent conflict between these two interests. Although tourism
was listed as one of RDC's interests, she was not hearing that
reflected in today's testimony.
MS. HALL responded that the RDC believes all resource industries,
including mining, tourism, fishing, oil and gas, and forestry
industries can coexist. She pointed out that one interest is not
placed above the other when the RDC prioritizes its positions.
She offered her belief that tourism relies on mining and
minerals; for example, without minerals computers would not be
possible. She said the mineral potential in the area was
unknown. She attested that these minerals are not only for
important for jobs and the economy in Alaska but are exported to
other countries and help to ensure safety in the nation.
7:36:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked that she had not seen the RDC take a
position that she has considered pro-tourism but has found the
RDC's positions favor natural resource development extraction.
She offered to follow up with individual members of the RDC's
board involved with the tourism industry. She has heard them
engaged in legislative efforts to increase tourism marketing,
make Alaska a destination, and increase the number of visitors.
She characterized the tourism industry as being a sustainable
long-term industry. She expressed her disappointment that she
had not heard this represented in any of the RDC's positions.
MS. HALL offered to provide policy position on tourism, an
industry that she said the RDC has long supported.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH encouraged the committee to attend the
annual RDC program. He recalled that the annual program has an
extensive presentation on tourism forecast, and cruise ship
passenger forecast.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON agreed the RDC has a great program, noting he
has previously attended it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she appreciated the RDC providing a
balanced view on HB 272.
7:39:31 PM
BRUCE ROGER provided a brief history of his family activities in
the Tangle Lakes area. They have lived in the Gakona area for
the past 17 years and enjoy recreational activities in the Tangle
Lakes area, including hiking, hunting, and berry picking. He
spoke in support of HB 272.
MR. ROGERS viewed the Tangle Lakes area as unique and accessible,
that a person could hike across relatively easy terrain without
chartering a plane or using off-road vehicles (ATVs or four-
wheelers) for access. Archeological evidence has suggested that
people have used the area for hunting for at least 10,000 years,
supportive evidence that the area provides critical habitat for
the Nelchina caribou herd. He offered his belief that HB 272
offered a good strategy to maintain critical habitat and hunting
opportunities.
MR. ROGERS explained that he has reviewed the DNR's Tanana Basin
Area Plan, noting the proposed refuge was partially in Unit 5 of
the plan. The proposed refuge seemed consistent with the plan
since the Tanana Basin Area Plan listed fish, wildlife, and
recreation as priorities for management of the area. Under the
bill, mineral exploration and development opportunities would
still be available north of the proposed refuge. He suggested
that mining development within the pro Tangle Lakes area would
change the character of the area for a long time and put
additional pressure and disturbance on the Nelchina caribou herd.
He remarked that the Nelchina caribou herd has provided residents
in the Copper Basin and Palmer-Wasilla area with attractive
hunting and recreational opportunities. He said that the
proposal seemed balanced. He urged members to support HB 272.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what proportion of residents use [the
Tangle Lakes area] for subsistence.
MR. ROGERS answered that probably 50-75 percent of the hunters in
the region use the Tangle Lakes area.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked for further clarification on parameters
to re-stake a claim in the proposed refuge.
7:43:51 PM
ED KING, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that under
[Alaska statutes] AS 38.05.262, that when a claim is abandoned
all rights are exhausted and cannot be rekindled under this bill
after the effective date.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON read a portion of the bill: Section 1, AS
16.20.043(c) on page 7, lines 21-24, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(c) Except for valid rights and interests in mineral
claims existing on January 1, 2019, including the
right of access to those claims, the land and water
areas of the Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge are closed
to mineral entry under 24 AS 38.05.185 - 38.05.275.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON interpreted this language to mean that parties
who have valid rights and interests in mineral claims existing on
January 1, 2019 could continue to work the claims and have access
to them.
MR. KING answered he was correct; if a person has existing rights
on that date, those rights would continue, but after that date no
new rights or interests in mineral claims could be established.
For example, Pure Nickel could not re-stake its claims after
January 1, 2019, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether the administration supports HB
272.
MR. KING advised that the DNR has not taken a position on this
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reviewed the Ahtna, Incorporated land
status on its website. She offered her belief that she has
identified the proposed refuge boundaries and it appeared to only
be state or federal lands. She asked whether Mr. King was
familiar with the boundaries of the proposed refuge and if the
proposed refuge would infringe on any Ahtna Incorporated lands or
selected lands.
MR. KING said that to the best of his knowledge all lands within
the proposed Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge are state selected
lands and the proposed refuge does not contain any Ahtna
Incorporated selected lands.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN, with respect to the Ahtna, Inc.
boundaries, reminded the committee that it heard a lot of
testimony on the Pebble Mine project and the regional ANCs
[Alaska Native Corporations] provided valuable perspectives to
the committee even though these entities did not own land in the
proposed Pebble Mining area. He appreciated Representative Birch
and Johnson strongly advocating to consult with [Ahtna, Inc.],
along with MSB [Mat-Su Borough]. Although he did not advocate
deferring to these entities, he felt that the ANCs, boroughs,
municipalities, and tribes brought important perspectives to the
process.
7:48:13 PM
JOE DONAHUE, Board Member, Copper Country Alliance (CCA), offered
one of the things that sets Alaska apart from the rest of the
United States and the world was access to truly wild places. That
access was important, whether it was for world class hunting or
just paddling and camping, he said. He spoke in support of HB
272. This bill would reserve Tangle Lakes for hunting and the
area and range was very important for the Nelchina caribou herd.
The Nelchina caribou herd has attracted hundreds of hunters each
year. He related his understanding that there were not any
current hard-rock mining claims in the area, so it made sense to
him to reserve it for hunting and other recreational purposes.
MR. DONAHUE said the bill would bolster tourism by protecting
what tourists travel to see: the caribou and the beautiful
landscape in the proposed Tangle Lakes refuge. He said he was
lucky to have hunted and picked berries in Tangle Lakes with his
family and he recalled great memories of his time in the area.
He said his wife has traveled there since she was a child and
also recalled canoeing, berry picking, and caribou hunting in the
Tangle Lakes with her family. He would like to share this area
with his infant daughter when she is a little older, he said.
His family hoped to continue to canoe, pick berries and hunt in
the area. He reiterated his support for HB 272 because it would
offer recreational activities in the Tangle Lakes for generations
to come by protecting the land so important to the Nelchina
caribou herd. He asked members to please do their part to
protect this beautiful region for the rich experiences it offers
to all future Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH offered his belief that nothing will change
if the bill failed. He stated that HB 272 would restrict the
multiple use of this area. He said he is familiar with the area
and the recreational opportunities that people have enjoyed but
those opportunities will continue to exist for generations to
come.
7:51:48 PM
CATHY TEICH stated that her significant other has hunted in the
Tangle Lakes area since 1971 and she has picked berries there for
twenty years. She stated that many people depend on caribou
resources for food, especially since grocery prices are
significantly higher in the Copper River region. In fact, people
rely on caribou and moose to the extent that if it was no longer
available, they would do without meat. She said she engages in
photography in the Tangle Lakes area, taking photos of the
pristine wilderness. She agreed with the previous testifier who
said, "Alaska is special." Alaskans were lucky to have these
special areas that some states do not have, and large mines would
destroy habitat and change the area. She qualified her remarks
by stating she was not opposed to all mining; however, she was
opposed to massive mines that would destroy habitat that has
sustained caribou for 10,000 years. Many people from urban
populations, including Talkeetna, Wasilla, Eagle River, and
Anchorage hunt there. She expressed concern that urban hunters
and the expansion of J-BER [Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson]
would place additional pressure on the [Nelchina] caribou herd.
She urged support for HB 272 to create the refuge for the
animals.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked if the Nelchina caribou herd spent
most of its time in Amphitheater Mountains or Eureka Creek areas
where the proposed Tangle Lakes State Game Refuge would lie.
MS. TEICH responded that it depended upon the year; that the
caribou range was far and wide, so it was difficult to determine
where they would be at any given time. She agreed that the herd
ranges in the areas mentioned and north of the Denali Highway
near Tangle Lakes and the entire area was important to caribou.
7:56:24 PM
ELICIA RIDEL stated she and her family has lived in the Kenny
Lake area since 1977 and prior to that in Fairbanks where her mom
homesteaded in the 1940s. She clarified that her husband hunts
and she does not; however, her family has relied on game meat,
fish and their garden to survive. She expressed that she loved
to go where hunters go because they find the good places like
Tangle Lakes. She loved the unique geology of Tangle Lakes and
gathers berries and takes photographs in the area. Four of her
five children hunt, she said.
MS. RIDEL related that she previously had a mining claim and her
husband had a dredge, so she spoke from experience about her
belief that harvesting, including hunting, fishing, berry picking
will last longer. She explained that once minerals were
extracted the jobs would be gone, leaving behind a mess. She
reiterated that with planning sustainable resources like
harvesting or tourism can last forever. She remarked that mines
close; she has been in the Wrangell Mountains and felt she was
the first person there only to discover abandoned mine shafts.
She recalled seeing abandoned dredges in Fairbanks. She referred
to publication: Rocks, Rivers, Mountains, and Glaciers: A
Selective Introduction to Geology that has a mile-by-mile
geologic description of the Denali Highway. She offered her
belief that many people would also enjoy doing something similar
while contributing to the local economy and meshing with the
local lifestyle. In closing, Ms. Ridel said it has been getting
harder to find game that rural residents rely upon, so she urged
members to please support HB 272.
7:59:09 PM
KATHRYN MARTIN, Senior Vice-President, Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna
Inc.), Corporate Headquarters, said that Ahtna Inc. was very
concerned about Alaska's economy and feels that yet another new
refuge in the state would be detrimental to the economic
development opportunities in the region and in the state.
MS. MARTIN said that this bill would restrict land use, prevent
mineral development, hinder tourism, and interfere with the
customary and traditional hunting practices. She acknowledged
that the bill sponsors and supporters have good intentions, but
the corporation's experience has shown that this type of
legislation only serves to further restrict land use and resource
development so essential to a healthy society.
MS. MARTIN said that Alaska has so little land not currently
designated as parks, preserves, and critical habitat. The state
needs to maintain small multiple use areas remaining in the
state. This type of restriction would hinder the formation of a
borough since it would remove a significant land base from the
borough land selection pool. She echoed earlier comments, that
this area is part of Ahtna, Incorporated's traditional territory.
In fact, at one time Ahtna, Incorporated's territory covered 23
million acres; however, when ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act] passed the corporation was only given 1.7 million
acres of land. This area has historical and cultural
significance to the Ahtna people; that at least four leaders in
in her region depend on this area for subsistence purposes. She
clarified the distance of Kenny Lakes from the Tangle Lakes
proposed refuge. She reported that Paxton is 72 miles from the
Glennallen Junction, that Kenny Lakes was about 40 miles south of
Glennallen or 112 miles from the proposed refuge.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked for clarification on why customary and
traditional hunting uses would change under a refuge.
MS. MARTIN responded that she did not think it would change but
it would be more restricted. She said that Ahtna, Inc. has felt
the impacts of Wrangell - St. Elias National Park and Preserve,
Denali National Park and Preserve, and the Tetlin National
Wildlife Refuge. She acknowledged that these were national parks
and a national refuge but these areas that are designated as
refuges, units, parks, or critical habitat areas have restricted
utilization of the areas. In response to Co-Chair Josephson, she
responded that Ahtna, Inc. was aware HB 272 does not create a
park.
8:02:42 PM
MICHELLE ANDERSON, President, Ahtna, Incorporated (Ahtna, Inc.),
spoke in opposition to HB 272. She said there has been no public
process, no community meetings. She stated [the sponsor] decided
it was in the state's best interest to make the area being
discussed a state refuge. She was unsure of the exact definition
of a "state refuge" since it was not easy to find in [statute or
regulation].
MS. ANDERSON said that the proposed [Tangle Lakes State Game
Refuge] area represented an important historical value to the
Ahtna people. She related that scientists have validated this
and it is what the Ahtna elders have always told them. She
agreed that while Ahtna Corporation may not own the lands, the
people have stories about these lands. She stated that her clan,
the Udzisyu or caribou clan used to own Paxson Lake. She said
that she could tell members hours of stories relating to the
history and traditional and customary use of the area.
MS. ANDERSON said she appreciated what Ruth McHenry and others
have said about trying to protect subsistence for future uses;
however, Ahtna Inc.'s experience with parks or refuges is that
the people must endure more rules and regulations that need to be
memorized to use the lands. She remarked that she was not too
keen on that idea.
MS. ANDERSON said all Alaska Native Regional Corporations have a
mandate from the Congress to develop and use their lands for the
economic benefit of its shareholders. She expressed concern with
the proposed refuge since it was close to land to which the
corporation has been given title. She said she would appreciate
a thorough vetting of this concept before anything substantive is
done. It would be a travesty to establish a law without talking
to the people that it is going to affect, she further said.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked how many Ahtna, Incorporated
shareholders she represented and how many live in the region and
interact with the proposed refuge.
MS. ANDERSON answered that she represented 2,025 shareholders not
including Tribal members who are not shareholders. She offered
to provide more precise figures. She said that the corporation
crossed a threshold last year when more than half of its
shareholders live outside the region. She explained that Ahtna,
Inc. has been experiencing outmigration just as with other hubs
in the state.
8:07:37 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, in response to Ms. Anderson's comments on public
process, explained that these legislative hearings provide a
public process, including public testimony, consideration, and
individual legislators having the ability to do amendments. The
legislature does not usually have community hearings since it is
based in Juneau. She referred to a letter in members' packets
that was signed by 823 individuals and businesses who were in
support of [creating a state game refuge] some years ago.
Further, a letter of 2008 [no specific date or person referenced]
from the Board of Game highlighted the board's discussions and
interest in forming a Tangle Lakes game refuge. She read from
the letter, as follows:
We recognize the potential for mineral extraction in
this area and in associated mineral leases but remain
convinced the long-term value of maintaining wildlife
habitat far outweighs the potential benefits of
possible development projects known at this time.
CO-CHAIR TARR also referred to a 2002 memo from the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game during former Governor Murkowski's
administration, which provided evidence of 16 years of awareness.
She was unsure how the Ahtna, Incorporated leadership would not
be aware of the issue that has spanned 16 years.
MS. ANDERSON remarked [HB 272] was news to her.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his belief that just over ten years
ago Ahtna, Inc. supported the concept of a refuge.
MS. ANDERSON offered her belief that it was a prior Ahtna
administration and was under different circumstances and the
conversation was different, as well. She recalled that the prior
president was weighing in on the Tangle Lakes concept with the
Board of Game. She recalled that the previous president thought
the proposal to create a refuge was in the corporation's best
interest at that time.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN asked for clarification on any efforts or
land selection in forming a borough.
MS. ANDERSON answered that there has been a great deal of
conversation about creating a borough. She thought it warranted
concern to restrict land use when it could be part of the borough
and used for a different purpose.
8:12:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 272.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that HB 272 would be held over.
[HB 272 was held over.]
8:12:28 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON passed the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.
HB 330-DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO
8:13:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 330 "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to disclose confidential information in an
investigation or proceeding, including a lease royalty audit,
appeal, or request for reconsideration and issue a protective
order limiting the persons who have access to the confidential
information."
[Before the committee was CSHB 330(JUD)]
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he did not intend to offer Amendment 1.
He related his understanding that Amendment 2 would not be
offered, as well.
8:14:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled
30-GH2820\D.3, Nauman, 3/12/18, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "limiting"
Insert "meeting the requirements of (c) or (d) of
this section that limits"
Page 4, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 38.05.020 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) Unless the protective order meets the
requirement of (d) of this section, a protective order
issued under (b)(15)(B) of this section must
(1) limit access to the protected
information to
(A) an officer, employee, or agent that is
directly involved in conducting or managing the
participation of a party in the royalty or net profit
audit or appeal;
(B) a person reasonably expected to testify
or provide sworn evidence on behalf of a party in the
royalty or net profit audit or appeal;
(C) a person that directly reviews and
approves the conduct and management of a party's
participation in a royalty or net profit audit or
appeal; and
(D) a person whose approval is necessary
for a party to settle or otherwise resolve a portion
or all of the matters or issues related to the royalty
or net profit audit or appeal; and
(2) prohibit use of the information for a
commercial purpose.
(d) Unless the protective order meets the
requirements of (c) of this section, a protective
order issued under (b)(15)(B) of this section may
disclose only information under the terms and
conditions agreed to by the party whose information
would be disclosed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
8:14:22 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH explained that Amendment 3 would strictly
limit the access of confidential information shared under the
protective order to those directly involved in conducting or
managing an audit or appeal, to those who will testify or provide
sworn evidence and to those whose approval is necessary to settle
or resolve an audit or appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said DNR's staff has suggested that this is
already accomplished under the current language in the bill or
has suggested a broader scope of access; however, he would like
to insert clarifying language which is essentially language
contained within a protective order issued by the court. He said
having this language in statute would provide further assurance
that confidential information is protected.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated that Amendments 3 and 4 will address an
issue brought to the committee's attention by the Alaska Oil and
Gas Association (AOGA). She related that each amendment offered
a different approach.
8:15:43 PM
ED KING, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said he appreciated the
AOGA raising the concerns and the DNR does not object to
restrictions on protective orders since they are limited. The
bill as currently written provides that the protective orders are
limited, he said; however, he understood industry sought
additional clarity. He said the DNR would like the language to
parallel existing statute. He related the language in AS
43.55.040 accomplishes the same goal and provides that clarifying
and restrictive language for tax issues and disclosure of
confidential data, which was what Amendment 4 intended to do.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON identified Amendment 4 as the amendment
labeled D.5.
CO-CHAIR TARR reminded members that the committee was considering
Amendment 3, labeled D.3.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked if the language in forthcoming
amendment, Amendment 4 would mirror Title 43, which is
essentially a protective order for the Department of Revenue.
MR. KING answered yes; that the first portion of Amendment 4 is
exact language and the remainder is tailored to royalties in the
context of DNR.
8:18:12 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated he observed the House Judiciary
Committee's previous hearing on this issue. He recalled that Mr.
Hurley, Conoco Phillips Alaska, Inc., had expressed concern that
if protective orders were not designed right the royalty audits
might not be done swiftly and his company or others could suffer
because, if they underpaid, the company would incur an 11 percent
royalty interest.
MR. KING responded that was exactly why the reason for HB 330;
that there currently was no process to protect information
disclosed under the current statute, AS 38.05.036(f), which gives
the DNR the authority to disclose confidential data during a
royalty audit. He clarified that the bill currently before the
committee does give the department the ability to disclose this
information, but because the authority is not expressly stated -
the process is not expressed within in the language - when the
department encounters a situation in which terms cannot be agreed
upon for the release of confidential data, it becomes very
difficult for the department to complete the audit. The seven
pending audits awaiting the commissioner's approval cannot be
resolved because the department cannot disclose the data, he
said. He agreed with Co-Chair Josephson that when audits are
pending, they accrue 11 percent interest.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified that Mr. Hurley did not express
complete approval for the bill.
MR. KING interjected that Mr. Hurley did speak to his concern.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said he found the arguments for Amendment 4
compelling but asked how Amendment 3 would be superior to
Amendment 4.
8:20:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he preferred the tighter language of
Amendment 3. He stated that the legislature has a duty and
responsibility to assure that the state is protecting private
information while it conducts its audits. He felt confident
Amendment 3 was a better approach.
CO-CHAIR TARR related her understanding that in some
circumstances the language in Amendment 3 was so restrictive that
it would not be possible to resolve the [disclosure of
confidential information] issue. She asked for further
clarification on language to resolve [the disclosure of
confidential information during a royalty audit].
MR. KING responded that circumstances for each company is unique,
so the structure of the companies was also unique. The ability
to tailor a protective order to meet each company's needs
requires a certain flexibility in protective orders. The DNR
wanted to address the concern AOGA previously raised, but it also
wanted to avoid having language so restrictive that a
hypothetical situation might identify a situation in which a
protective order could not be issued.
MR. KING explained his concern with Amendment 3. He said
Amendment 3 has four requirements that must be met in order to
issue a protective order without the approval of the company.
The department wanted to avoid circumstances that would prevent a
protective order from being issued. He related a scenario in
which a company had one section that dealt with audits but had
approval authority for audits was in another section of the
company, so an officer might not be available to provide
approval. He offered his belief this raised the concern that
other situations might also arise that could prevent a protective
order from being issued under Amendment 3. Therefore, the
department found the language in Amendment 4 to be superior.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated his support for Amendment 3.
8:22:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR maintained her objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Birch voted in favor
of Amendment 3. Representatives Josephson, Tarr, Lincoln, Parish
and Drummond voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by
a vote of 1-5.
8:24:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 30-GH2820\D.5,
Nauman, 3/12/18, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 4, lines 2 - 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(B) issue a protective order limiting the
(i) persons who may access the information
to legal counsel, consultants, employees, officers, or
agents of a party; the protective order may only allow
a person to access the information under this sub-
subparagraph if it is necessary for the person to know
the information in connection with the royalty or net
profit share audit or appeal; and
(ii) use of the information to matters
related to the royalty or net profit share audit or
appeal;"
8:24:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
CO-CHAIR TARR reiterated her concern this language might be so
restrictive that a protective order could not be issued. She
stated that Mr. King had a high level of concern that the
language in Amendment 3 would restrict the confidential
information to only those who had a right to have access to the
information, but it was not so restrictive that it would prevent
the department from resolving pending royalty audits.
MR. KING answered that he could [unequivocally] agree that the
language in Amendment [4] explicitly stated that the confidential
information could only be used for the purposes related to the
royalty or net profit share audit [or appeal] and that the
information is limited to matters related to that royalty or net
profit share audit [or appeal]. Further, those express terms
provide or should provide enough clarity to appease the concerns
raised by AOGA. He remarked the department believes that even
without Amendment [4], the intent of this bill is not to disclose
information to anyone for any purpose other than the reason of
the bill; [to resolve the disclosure of confidential information
during a royalty audit or appeal].
MR. KING spoke in support of Amendment 4, noting the department
was happy with the amendment even though it did not find it
really necessary in order to appease the concerns. He offered
his belief that it does appease [AOGA's] concerns.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated that she appreciated the issue being brought
to the committee's attention, so it could be resolved. She
appreciated that AOGA wanted to be as careful as possible and she
acknowledged the reasons for the caution. She offered further
consideration with industry and offered her intention to provide
swift action to resolve future issues that may arise. She
reiterated her intention was to avoid language being so
restrictive that it would not accomplish the goal.
8:26:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
8:27:19 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to report CSHB 330(JUD), as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 330(RES) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
8:28:25 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at [8:28
p.m.].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 272 Supporting Document-AK-BHA Position.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB 272 Supporting Document-emails.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB 272 Supporting Documents-HFSH Letters.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Additional Document-Maps.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Fiscal Note-DFG.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Fiscal Note-DNR.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Land Management Plans.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Opposing Documents(Combined) Ahtna, AMA, CVCC.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 PPT for HRES March 7.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Sectional Analysis ver U.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Supporting Document Cultural Resource Plan Denali Hwy.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Supporting Document News Article, CBC Mining activities, not hunting, responsible for northern caribou declines.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Supporting Document News Article, Michigan State University, Mining can damage fish habitats far downstream.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Supporting Document_CCA media_release.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Supporting Document-Letter to Legislators.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 Supporting Documents BOG, ADFG, BHA.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB272 ver U.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| Copper Basin Mngmt Plan, Unit 28.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| Tanana Basin Area Plan, Unit 5b.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| Tanana Basin Area Plan, Unit 5c.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| Tanana Basin Area Plan, Abbrevs & Definitions.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |
| HB330 Transmittal Letter 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 ver A 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Fiscal Note DNR-DOG 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Presentation 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Opposing Document-UCM Letter 2.21.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Proposed Amendment 2.23.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Vote 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 330 Overview Presentation by DNR 3.8.18.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 330 CS(JUD) Version D 2.28.18.PDF |
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 330 Amendment One - D.1 - Rep. Birch 3.12.18.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 330 Amendment Two - D.2 - Rep. Rauscher 3.12.18.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 330 Amendment Three - D.3 - Rep. Birch 3.12.18.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 330 Amendment Four - D.5 - Rep. Tarr 3.13.18.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB 272 Supporting Document-emails.pdf |
HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 272 |