Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
03/27/2023 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 | |
| HB125 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Mining Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2023
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Josiah Patkotak
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Maxine Dibert
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and relating
to trapping cabin permit fees."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA MINING UPDATE BY COUNCIL OF ALASKA
PRODUCERS AND ALASKA MINING ASSOCIATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 125
SHORT TITLE: TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/20/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/23 (H) RES, FIN
03/27/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MEGAN HILLGARTNER, Regional Land Section Chief
Division of Mining Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 125, gave a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "Trapping Cabin Permits."
JIM WALKER, Public Access Assertion & Defense Section Chief
Division of Mining Land and Water
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and responded to
questions during the hearing on HB 125
CHRISTY COLLES, Director
Central Office
Division of Mining Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 125.
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the sectional analysis of HB 125 on
behalf of the House Resources Standing Committee, sponsor, on
which Representative McKay is chair.
WAYNE HALL, Manager
Community and Public Relations
Teck Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint during the Alaska
Mining Update presentation.
KAREN MATTHIAS, Executive Director
Council of Alaska Producers
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint during the Alaska
Mining Industry presentation.
DEANTHA SKIBINSKI, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint during the Alaska
Mining Update presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:40 PM
CHAIR TOM MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Saddler,
Rauscher, McCabe, Dibert, Armstrong, Wright, Mears, and McKay
were present at the call to order. Representative Patkotak
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 125-TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND
1:03:34 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced the first order of business would be HOUSE
BILL NO. 125, "An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land;
and relating to trapping cabin permit fees."
CHAIR MCKAY explained it was the first hearing of the bill which
was introduced as a committee bill. The intent of the bill is
to update some outdated statutes regarding the construction and
use of trapping cabins on state land. He pointed out that there
is a known problem regarding the department's ability to allow
trappers to use already constructed cabins. The bill would
close the gap, allowing the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to better support the traditional use of state lands for
trapping.
1:05:19 PM
MEGAN HILLGARTNER, Regional Land Section Chief, Division of
Mining Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources, Megan
Hillgartner introduced herself as the Regional Manager for the
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining Land and
Water, Southeast Regional Land Office and explained that she
would present on HB 125 related to trapping cabin permits on
state land.
MS. HILLGARTNER began a PowerPoint presentation, [hard copy
included in the committee packet], titled "Trapping Cabin
Permits." She pointed out that statutes provided for the
issuance of permits for the construction and use of trapping
cabins on state land were created in the early 1980s and allow
the department to issue permits for trapping cabins for
temporary shelter while trapping. She explained that AS
38.95.075 was created to offer use of existing cabins without
prior authorization and that AS 38.95.080 was created to
authorize construction of new cabins.
MS. HILLGARTNER moved to slide 2, "Current Trapping Cabins
Statutes," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Alaska Constitution, Article 8
Title 38.95 Miscellaneous Provisions
AS 38.95.075 Permits for the Use of Trapping Cabins
(existing cabins)
AS 38.95.080 Trapping Cabin Construction Permits (new
cabins)
Trapping cabins are for temporary shelter while
trapping
MS. HILLGARTNER moved to slide 3, "Permits for Use of Trapping
Cabins (Existing Cabins)," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
AS 38.95.075 the commissioner shall issue a
nonexclusive, nontransferable permit to an individual
for the use of a trapping cabin when the applicant
provides to the commissioner a verified statement by
the local fish and game advisory committee of the area
in which the cabin is located that states that
(1) the applicant had used the cabin on a regular
basis for trapping before August 1, 1984;
(2) the past, present, and intended use of the cabin
is for temporary shelter while trapping; and
(3) the applicant is the owner of the cabin or has the
concurrence of the owner of the cabin or there is no
owner of the cabin
MS. HILLGARTNER explained that statute .075 prevented DNR from
issuing trapping cabin permits for existing cabins to new
trappers. The applicant must have used the cabin on a regular
basis for trapping prior to August 1, 1984. Trappers who wanted
to use the cabins but did not have a pre-1984 history of use
were not able to receive permits for those cabins.
MS. HILLGARTNER next moved to slide 4, "Trapping Cabin
Construction Permits (New Cabins)," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
AS 38.95.080 The commissioner may issue a
nontransferable permit for the construction of a
trapping cabin on state land to a person who meets the
following qualifications:
(1) the person must have an established trapline with
proof of regular use;
(2) the person must have a trapline of sufficient
length to justify the need for cabin construction.
MS. HILLGARTNER summarized the permitting qualifications under
which a trapper could construct a new cabin.
CHAIR MCKAY asked who would take on the work and the expense of
building new cabins, specifically whether it would be the State
of Alaska.
MS. HILLGARTNER responded that the person interested in
obtaining the trapping cabin permit would be responsible for
building and maintaining the cabin. It would not be done by the
state or with state resources.
CHAIR MCKAY asked, for example, if he built a trapping cabin,
whether he could rent it out to other trappers when he wasn't
using it.
MS. HILLGARTNER responded that the proposed legislation would
allow the department to authorize multiple permits for that
cabin to other trappers who demonstrate proof of trapping.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for the definition of "proof of
regular use".
MS. HILLGARTNER replied that "proof of regular use" can include
a verified permit from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) for trapping, proof of fur receipts, or proof of
trapping income.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether traplines had to be a
certain length.
MS. HILLGARTNER did not have that information available but said
she could get that information to him.
1:10:10 PM
JIM WALKER, Public Access Assertion & Defense Section Chief,
Division of Mining Land and Water, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, clarified that the question of sufficient trapline
length is made on a case-by-case basis. The idea is that a
trapping cabin becomes necessary when it is hazardous to run the
entire trapline on one day during the winter months. However, a
shorter trapline might necessitate a cabin due to difficult
topography. These are examples of what the Division of Mining
Land and Water adjudicates in considering a permit.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about proof of regular use and other
requirements that would be considered in the trapping cabin
permit.
MR. WALKER explained that obtaining a trapping cabin permit is
based on meeting certain requirements such as having a valid
trapping license, being 18 years of age, having a trapline, and
being in the business of trapping in a certain area as required
by the statute. The need for a cabin often becomes more crucial
as the length of the trapline is extended.
MR. WALKER clarified that meeting the specific requirements for
building trapping cabins on state lands is important to prevent
the trapping cabin permits from being used for recreation
purposes. He reminded the committee that trapping is a long-
standing Alaska tradition, so the bill wants to clarify, enable,
and bolster this traditional activity by removing some of the
impediments that exist in the present law.
1:14:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification of the 18-year-
old requirement, pointing out that a person can hunt at a much
younger age.
MS. HILLGARTNER reminded the committee that the bill concerned
the requirements needed to obtain a trapping cabin permit and
did not pertain to trapping itself. The trapping license is
obtained through ADF&G.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether someone younger than 18
could use the trapping cabin for trapping, and Ms. Hillgartner
said yes.
MS. HILLGARTNER presented slide 5, "HB 125 Overview" which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 125 revises AS 38.95.080 (new cabins) and repeals
AS 38.95.075 (existing cabins):
? Allows DNR to issue a trapping cabin permit for an
existing cabin
? Outlines conditions of the permit to include term
? Permit is valid for a period of not more than
10 years
? Director shall renew the permit for successive
periods of not more than 10 years
? Sets application fee and annual land use fee
1:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER reiterated the permitting process.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked how many cabins are currently on
state lands, how many permits are issued in an average year, and
what the anticipated increase in permits would be under HB 125.
MS. HILLGARTNER answered there are 83 permits on state lands.
The department currently averages one permit application per
year under .075 for the use of an existing trapping cabin
permit, and nine applications per year under .080 for new
cabins. She explained that they were unable to determine how
many more permits they might receive each year.
MS. HILLGARTNER continued her presentation with slide 6,
"Benefits," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Trappers will be able to obtain trapping cabin
permits for existing cabins on state lands, saving
construction time and costs
? Potentially resolves trespass issues by issuing
trapping cabin permits for existing cabins that are
used for temporary shelter while trapping
? Allows the Department to issue permits for cabins
currently that are used for trapping but do not
qualify under AS 38.95.075.
? Facilitates trapping industry growth as newer
trappers are now able use preexisting cabins
? Sets the fee in statute, which was a concern by
trappers
? Provides further clarity and guidance on the
conditions for issuing trapping cabin permits
CHAIR MCKAY presented a scenario wherein he received his permit,
built his cabin, closed his cabin at the end of the trapping
season, and then another trapper used his cabin, had an
unfortunate incident, and burned down the cabin. He wondered
what would happen in that situation.
MS. HILLGARTNER deferred her response to Christy Colles.
CHRISTY COLLES, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources, explained that
typically there are not permit requests for cabins already
authorized for someone else to build. The division does not
require bonding. It is a limited program, and such an incident
would be a civil matter not involving the division. Typically,
if the division permits more than one person for a cabin, it's
because the individuals know each other, they are family, or
there is a reason they want to be in the same cabin. The
division doesn't see a lot of applications for a cabin being
used by another trapper.
1:22:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who would be responsible for a
cabin when a permit ends.
MS. HILLGARTNER explained that the division would work with the
permit holder at the close of the permit to remove all the
improvements they installed on state lands. It is the
responsibility of the permit holder.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he knows that DNR or "someone" has
taken down cabins that have expired and wants to know whether
DNR can send the former permit holder a bill.
MS. HILLGARTNER deferred to Ms. Colles.
MS. COLLES said DNR does not send a bill. The department tries
to work with whoever is responsible for the cabin to remove it.
It might try to find another applicant who wants to use the
cabin. She explained that there are several reasons DNR might
have to take a cabin down including the difficulty of finding
the previous permittee if they have, for example, moved out of
state.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked what would happen if a permit holder
passed away after using the cabin for five years with five more
years left on the permit, and there are no adult children who
want to use the cabin.
MS. HILLGARTNER explained the department would try to find
another individual who might want to use that existing cabin
even for different purposes. For example, ADF&G might use an
existing cabin on state lands. The proposed legislation would
allow the division to issue permits for those existing cabins
where the permit holder may have passed away.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said it was his understanding that HB 125
would provide clarity about current informal rules and practices
as well as clarify ownership of trapping cabins. He questioned
whether a cabin could be left in place for emergency purposes
such as shelter for someone who is not a trapper.
MS. HILLGARTNER deferred to Ms. Colles.
MS. COLLES explained that typically the state does not like to
leave cabins no longer being used by a permit holder. If a
cabin is not in use, it will be catalogued as a "trespass
cabin." The state will look for someone who can take
responsibility for it such as for a commercial activity, for use
by a non-profit organization, or as a safety cabin. The
department does not like to leave cabins which are not
maintained because they could become safety hazards.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out it is a liability issue. The
state doesn't want to have "ghost cabins" where someone might
get hurt and look for someone to sue, the state being the deep
pockets. He questioned what type of non-profit would be willing
to take on the responsibility of a cabin no longer in use.
MS. COLLES mentioned Hut to Hut and Cabin Hoppers as examples of
two groups that have taken over the responsibility of cabins for
activities such as back country skiing. She discussed the
issues that might be encountered in several scenarios. Overall,
the division tries to find someone to be responsible for a cabin
because they don't want the state to know about a cabin and then
not maintain it. She again referred to "trespass cabins" and
how they can be used in emergency situations.
1:29:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification regarding types
of cabins. For example, DNR has given a permit for a trapping
cabin to be built and used for trapping, but the permit holder
no longer wishes to use the cabin for trapping. He questioned
how a non-profit, a 501(c)(3), can take over the cabin since it
is not a trapper. He explained that he was trying to understand
the state's cabin structure.
MS. HILLGARTNER responded that DNR has other programs which deal
with permitting cabins. She gave two examples: for guiding
purposes and the personal use cabin program. These are examples
of other instances for permitting existing cabins.
1:30:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT asked who is liable if a cabin is being
used off-season and an accidental fire or forest fire starts.
MS. HILLGARTNER described the existing regulations that cover an
agreement between the trapper and DNR. This includes a
requirement that the trapper assume full liability for forest
fire protection as well as for the cabin structure and the area
surrounding it.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE speculated that the 18-year-old
requirement is because a person must legally be 18 to enter into
a contract. It does not prevent a 16-year-old from trapping,
assisting family, or otherwise using the cabin for trapping
purposes.
MS. HILLGARTNER confirmed that is correct. She then concluded
the PowerPoint presentation with slide 7, "Conclusion" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The Department supports HB 125
• DNR worked with ATA (Alaska Trappers Association) to
address concerns
• HB 125 resolves the issue with the current statute
which prevents issuance of permits for existing cabins
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the finer points of cabin
permits as opposed to cabin ownership. He surmised that the
person who builds the cabin, owns the cabin.
MS. HILLGARTNER pointed out that the state holds title to the
land, and the individual constructing the cabin owns the cabin
and any improvements to the land.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS said she was still interested in numbers
and asked about cabins that were constructed but currently did
not have a permit holder. She wanted to know how many of those
the department was expecting.
MS. HILLGARTNER replied that she did not have that number with
her, but she would confer with her team and provide that
information in writing to Representative Mears. This number
would include how many applications might be in a suspended
status because they could not receive permits under the current
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS said nine seemed to be a lot of cabins to
be built in a year and asked for context. Did the number mean
there would be nine new cabins a year or were there nine new
applications the department could not issue?
MS. HILLGARTNER clarified that there were nine applications a
year for new construction and one application a year for use of
an existing cabin. Ms. Hillgartner deferred to Ms. Colles who
had more institutional knowledge regarding the number of
applications a year.
1:36:18 PM
MS. COLLES explained that the number nine referred to active or
existing cabins. The problem was that DNR had to issue trapping
cabin permits for existing cabins under the construction statute
because 075 with its 1984 requirement was too restrictive to
allow new permits. People might want a permit for an existing
cabin, but under the restrictions of 075, specifically the 1984
stipulation, DNR could not issue permits for existing cabins.
There were not actually many new cabins being built. Ms. Colles
explained that 075 has been very problematic, and under the new
statute she did not anticipate issuing nine construction
permits.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER sought to clarify his understanding that
people were requesting cabin construction permits when they
actually wanted to use an existing cabin but could not meet the
requirements under the current statute.
MS. COLLES answered by giving a hypothetical example. A permit
holder had previously applied for a trapping cabin construction
permit and subsequently used the cabin for ten years. Under 075
the trapper could only renew the permit using the trapping cabin
construction statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether people were then applying
for construction permits when what they really wanted was to
continue to use their existing cabins.
MS. COLLES explained that in these cases, renewals could be
facilitated by using AS 38.95.080. It was the department's
understanding that DNR could legally renew applications to the
person who had originally received the trapping cabin
construction permit. A more difficult problem comes up when a
person wishes to get a permit for a trapping cabin, but that
person was not the one who had constructed the cabin.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that Ms. Colles' answer
clarified the need for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented about the 1984 issue and its
relevance to HB 125.
CHAIR MCKAY asked for further questions and there were none. He
pointed out that the next hearing on the bill would include
public testimony, and he thanked Megan Hillgartner, Jim Walker,
and Christie Colles. He introduced staff member Trevor Jepsen
who would go through the bill mechanics.
1:39:39 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the House Resources Standing
Committee, sponsor of HB 125, reiterated that trapping cabin
permits were addressed in two separate statutes: AS 38.95.075
for use permits for existing cabins before August 1, 1984; and
AS 38.95.080 for trapping cabin construction permits. The
proposed legislation would repeal AS 38.95.075 and then would
define trapping cabin permits for both existing cabins and new
cabins under AS 38.95.080. In doing so, the bill would address
the issues DNR and Alaska trappers have with the statute.
MR. JEPSEN presented the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], entitled "House Bill 125 Trapping Cabin
Construction Permit (TCCP) Reform," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Sectional Analysis for Version R
"An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and
relating to trapping cabin permit fees."
Sec. 1 Conforming change to incorporate the new AS
38.95.080(g) (section 6 of this bill) into the fee
schedule regulations under AS 38.05.850(a).
Sec. 2 & 3 Restructures the existing AS 38.05.080(a)
and (b), which authorize the commissioner to issue
trapping cabin permits. Also clarifies who is entitled
to a permit for existing cabins on state lands.
Sec. 4 Clarifies the conditions for a permit that must
be included in regulations. This clarification
includes:
1. Providing more guidance on permit renewals
2. Detailing the process for multiple cabins under the
same permit
3. Specifying a procedure for unowned cabins
4. Setting statutory fee limits for the permits
5. Making several technical drafting changes
Sec. 5 Provides more explicit language to ensure that
a use permit cannot be misinterpreted as providing
ownership rights or preference rights to future
ownership.
Sec. 6 Creates two new subsections, which:
1. Further define the nonexclusive nature of the
permit by stating that the director may issue multiple
trapping cabin permits for the use of the same cabin.
2. Bars the department from charging additional land
use fees for the use or construction of a trapping
cabin.
Sec. 7 Conforming and technical changes to the
definitions section.
Sec. 8 Repeals AS 38.95.075 (permits for the use of
trapping cabins) to conform to the changes made in
this bill and to remove the outdated August 1, 1984,
reference point.
1:44:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about page 4, line 9, regarding
cabin use, and whether the term "trapping" included time spent
at the cabin during the off-season to prepare the cabin and the
area around the cabin.
MR. JEPSEN said the language could be more explicit in the bill
to include those types of activities.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned why language limiting cabin
usage was included in the bill. He asked, for example, whether
using the cabin to hunt for caribou would not be allowed under
the terms of the bill.
MR. JEPSEN pointed out that cabins are on state land and HB 125
deals specifically with the use of cabins for trapping purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification regarding the
language giving the commissioner latitude in permitting cabins.
He asked what criteria the commissioner would use to authorize
uses other than trapping.
MR. JEPSEN referred the question to Ms. Colles.
1:47:28 PM
MS. COLLES said HB 125 provides flexibility for allowing other
uses for the cabins.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that the language gives the
commissioner tremendous flexibility, perhaps even too much.
1:48:34 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 125 was held over.
1:48:57 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
^PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Mining Update
PRESENTATION(S): Alaska Mining Update
1:51:07 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
the Alaska Mining Update presentation.
1:51:20 PM
WAYNE HALL, Manager, Community and Public Relations, Teck
Alaska, began the Alaska Mining Update presentation by
discussing the values of the industry as well as the values of
NANA Regional Corporation which owns the resource where the Red
Dog Mine is located. He mentioned Inupiaq values and Alaska
Tech values, and he emphasized the core value is employees'
responsibility to each other in their safety culture and the
importance of speaking up when something is wrong.
1:53:23 PM
KAREN MATTHIAS, Executive Director, Council of Alaska Producers
(CAP), as co-presenter, began a PowerPoint presentation [hard
copy included in the committee packet], titled "Mining Industry
Update March 27, 2023," and drew attention to slide 2,
"Overview," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Global outlook: Increasing demand for responsibly
sourced minerals
Alaska's Advantage:
• Environmental excellence
• Community benefits
The future: From mineral warehouse to mineral
powerhouse
MS. MATTHIAS explained that she would cover the global outlook
and the soaring demand for minerals in both the use of renewable
technologies and in energy storage. She emphasized the
increasing non-partisan concern about U.S. over-dependence on
mineral import as well as the agreement that more domestic
production is needed. She pointed out that Alaska has
tremendous mineral resource potential.
MS. MATTHIAS moved to slide 3, "New Technologies are More
Mineral Intensive," which included: graphic representations of
how mined minerals are used in the modern home; how cell phone
technologies have driven the demand for an increasingly wider
range of minerals; how electric vehicles have driven the demand
for minerals; how many more minerals are used in modern
conveniences; the enormous increase in demand for specific
minerals just in electric vehicles; and a list of minerals found
in Alaska. Alaska has the largest zinc and silver mines in the
U.S. at the Greens Creek Mine and the Red Dog Mine.
MS. MATTHIAS moved to slide 4, "Growing Demand for Responsibly
Sourced Minerals," which emphasizes the anticipated need for 3
billion tons of minerals and metals to deploy wind, solar, and
geothermal power, and she spoke of the need for minerals which
can be found in Alaska. She explained that Alaska has better
health, safety, and environmental standards than other places in
the world which makes Alaska more attractive for global business
purposes. She talked about the many uses of cobalt and compared
mining in Alaska to cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, referring to the unacceptable use of 40,000 children
in those mines.
MS. MATTHIAS, in response to Chair McKay, explained how
resources used in the production of minerals for clean
technology, beginning with mining and continuing all the way
through to the end use, nonetheless result in a lower carbon
footprint than would be generated by fossil fuel technologies.
1:59:16 PM
MS. MATTHIAS moved to slide 5, "Is Recycling the Solution?" She
addressed the general question of recycling and whether it could
deal with the increase in demand for minerals; recycling is only
a small part of the solution as the minerals produced through
recycling only meet a portion of the demand. She moved to slide
6, "The US Dependency on Mineral Imports," and talked about
minerals extracted and processed by Chile, Indonesia, Democratic
Republic of Congo, China, and Australia, including copper,
nickel, cobalt, rare earths, and lithium. She referred to an
annual report by the U.S. Geological Survey which lists minerals
the country needs which are currently sourced from countries
without secure supplies. She said the US has massive mineral
resources but imports these minerals when they could be produced
in the United States.
MS. MATTHIAS moved to slide 7, "Bipartisan Support for Domestic
Mineral Development," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
President Biden: "We can't build a future that's made
in America if we ourselves are dependent on China for
the materials that power products of today and
tomorrow." 02/22/2022
Senator Sullivan: "Alaska has the critical minerals
the world needs now to support all of these new
technologies and of course to support our nation's
national defense. 02/07/2023
Senator Murkowski: "I've been working diligently to
educate my colleagues and the administration about the
vast potential of states like Alaska, and the
importance of allowing us to use the resources that
are in our own backyard." 06/23/2022
Representative Peltola: "Alaska has a long history of
safe and productive mining that benefits our
communities. The resources and critical minerals in
our state will be essential to our country's renewable
energy transition, and I believe that Alaska should
lead the way to that transition by continuing our
environmentally-sound mining practices." 03/24/2023
MS. MATTHIAS underscored the bipartisan support for continued
development of mining in Alaska. Increasing domestic production
would reduce our dependence on other countries and ensure the
minerals are produced under the highest environmental, safety,
and labor standards. She moved to slide 8, "Mining in Alaska:
Part of the Solution," which shows a map of Alaska communities
with mining industry employees and specifies three types of
mining activities: large producing mines; projects in various
permitting stages; and advanced exploration projects.
2:04:13 PM
DEANTHA SKIBINSKI, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), began her part of the presentation by positing that
Alaska is in an excellent position to further contribute to the
mineral supply chain. She referred to slide 9, "Alaska's
Advantage," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Alaska's Advantage
• Strict environmental regulations
• Excellent track record
• Community benefits
MS. SKIBINSKI talked about Alaska's success in permitting mines
in the state under strict environmental policies which are
designed not just for operational success but also for closure
and reclamation of the land. Safety standards are strict, and a
culture of safety has led to an excellent track record. She
moved to slide 10, "Strict Operational Oversight," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska: the best mine monitoring system in the world
• Water quality monitoring
• Bottom-to-top comprehensive biomonitoring
• 3rd party audits
MS. SKIBINSKI explained that mines are inspected multiple times
a year and the mines must report hundreds of actions to prove
compliance. She moved to slide 11, "Red Dog Improved Water
Quality," and discussed zinc levels in water improved through
the process of mining.
2:07:07 PM
MS. SKIBINSKI, in response to Representative McCabe, referred to
a report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
offered her understanding that environmentalists misuse the
reported information. She then deferred to Mr. Hall.
2:09:20 PM
MR. HALL offered information regarding different reporting
standards that result from varying ore body composition among
mines.
2:12:55 PM
MS. SKIBINSKI moved to slide 12, "Fort Knox Restored Nearby
Creek," and noted that Fort Knox had not operated in the area
previously but joined with ADF&G to rehabilitate the area. The
joint habitat restoration project exceeded goals for returned
fish and game. It was an award-winning project. She moved on
to photos on slide 13, "Greens Creek Improved Fish Passage," and
spoke about the mine's mitigation measures to offset impacts of
the mine development and to improve anadromous fish habitat
around the mine. She said fish populations were improved by the
work done on the weirs.
2:15:21 PM
MS. SKIBINSKI, referring to slide 14, "Reclamation and Closure,"
addressed what takes place after a mine closes. A mine's plan
for reclamation after closure is mandated under AS 27.19 and is
approved by the commissioner of DNR before operations are
allowed to begin. In addition, the mine must provide financial
assurance in the event that the reclamation obligations can't be
performed.
MS. SKIBINSKI moved to slide 15, "True North Kinross Alaska,"
with a photo of a meadow, a valley, and a stand of trees, with a
quote from DNR Commissioner Corri Feige positing that the system
of extracting commodities from the land and then remediating it
for another use serves global markets and employs Alaskans. In
response to Representative McCabe, she said there are five metal
mines and one coal mine which are Alaska's six large mines. She
emphasized that mining is done right in Alaska.
2:18:42 PM
MS. SKIBINSKI noted a map in the committee packet showing the
mines throughout Alaska, and then referred back to the
PowerPoint where she covered slides 16-21, outlining the
benefits of mining, including local business contracts, support
for schools, tax revenues for state services, money spent on
goods and services, training opportunities and jobs for
Alaskans, and Alaska Native and village corporations and their
shareholders. She then turned to Ms. Matthias to continue the
presentation.
2:23:38 PM
MS. MATTHIAS turned to slides 22-24 and spoke about how the
royalties and taxes from state, federal, and ANCSA land become a
portion of the income for the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority, the Alaska permanent fund, the state general fund
(GF), and Native corporations, specifying that taxes are paid to
the government; royalties are paid to the landowner. She
pointed out that for Alaska to see more royalties, there needs
to be more mining on state lands. She reviewed the various
mining industry payments to the state in 2022, totaling
$130,875,958. She went into detail regarding these comparisons,
discussing specific examples of how taxation contributes to the
general funds of communities located near the large mines,
subsequently helping fund local governments. In response to
Representative McKay, she explained that since the taxes are
based on a percentage, they do not need to be adjusted for
inflation. She noted that larger mines pay a larger percentage.
In response to Representatives McCabe and Patkotak, regarding
mill rates, she spoke about the large expanse of Juneau to
include the Greens Creek and Kensington mines, so the community
benefits from those tax revenues.
2:36:58 PM
MR. HALL continued the PowerPoint at slide 25, "The future is
built on materials," which illustrates the many uses for
minerals, including applications in medicine, aerospace, fiber
optics, digital devices, disease research, transportation, and
even the food industry. He moved to slide 26, which has a map
illustrating the places in Alaska with opportunities for mining.
He showed slide 27, "Pathway to (mineral) prosperity," and
emphasized that mines require a protracted timeline before
becoming profitable. He said infrastructure is important and
community support is key. He also emphasized the importance of
earning trust. He gave examples of the benefits of partnerships
between the state and the mining industry. Last, he emphasized
the necessity for a stable fiscal and regulatory regime. In
response to Representative McCabe, he said he thinks Alaska has
done well in attracting and retaining candidates; the federal
side of things seem to cause delay. He talked about
expenditures over a decade as related to mines opening.
2:51:38 PM
MS. MATTHAIS, in response to Representative Rauscher, talked
about the future of mining and a positive outlook.
2:53:46 PM
MR. HALL, in response to Representative Saddler, said that
smaller exploration companies find the resources and then look
for larger or more experienced mining companies with which to
partner. In response to a question from Representative Patkotak
regarding the 404 Primacy rule, gave an example of shortening
the permitting process by relying on state regulations rather
than federal.
2:59:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG requested that the committee be briefed
at a later date on six advanced exploration projects that are in
full or in part on state land. She said she would like to learn
about the projects and look at how revenue forecasts may impact
the state's future.
3:00:23 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AK Mining map and details FINAL .pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Mining Industry - community benefits.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CAP-AMA HRES 2023-03-27.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 125 Sectional Analysis version R.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| HB 125 Sponsor Statement version R.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| HB 125 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| 2023.03.20 DNR Legislative Presentation HB 125 Trapping Cabins.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |