Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/07/2018 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Economic Benefits of Public Lands in Alaska | |
| HB272 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 272 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 272-TANGLE LAKES STATE GAME REFUGE
2:48:48 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 272, "An Act establishing the Tangle
Lakes State Game Refuge; and providing for an effective date."
2:50:56 PM
LISA DELANEY, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 272 on behalf of Representative Andy
Josephson, sponsor. Turning to her PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "HB 272, Tangle Lakes Game Refuge," she noted the
importance of outdoor recreation, marketing, and protecting the
state's renewable resources, and said she hopes to demonstrate
the value in establishing protected areas like game refuges. A
perk of refuge designation, she explained, means that effort
goes into accommodating the users of the area, which is done
through trail maintenance, outhouses, and so forth. She moved
to slide 2 and said the motivation for refuge designation is
that the Tangle Lakes area is very important to Alaskans for
recreation, hunting, and fishing.
MS. DELANEY addressed slides 3-4. She said Alaska has four main
categories of places of note: state range areas; anadromous
waters; controlled use areas, one of which already exists within
the proposed refuge boundaries; and state refuges, sanctuaries,
and critical habitat areas. The sponsor chose a refuge because
this category doesn't restrict recreation, hunting, or access,
whereas some of the other categories have certain restrictions.
The Board of Game and the Board of Fisheries regulate hunting
and fishing, she explained, so there would be no impact by the
establishment of a refuge. Refuge management plans go through
public comment, which provides the public with say in what goes
on within a refuge area.
2:53:31 PM
MS. DELANEY displayed slide 5 depicting a map of the proposed
refuge area, which encompasses about 156,000 acres. She said no
mining claims currently exist in the area, but that the map
shows where mines have been in the past and where areas of
interest have been but added that there hasn't been enough
interest to warrant pursuing these. She noted the deposits
include nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum, but as far as she
knows they are low grade and generate a lot of waste, which is
probably why the metals haven't been pursued.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated he has a better map provided by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He pointed out that the
Alpha Claims Block, depicted in purple, has a lot of interest,
but the proposed refuge is south of this block.
MS. DELANEY confirmed the majority of [mining] interest is north
of the proposed refuge boundary.
MS. DELANEY turned to slide 7 and reviewed the four special and
managed areas existing within the proposed refuge boundaries.
She said Game Management Unit (GMU) [13B] is popular for
subsistence hunting. Clearwater Creek Controlled Use Area is
currently closed to motorized vehicles, although the Board of
Game is revisiting that. Moose and caribou are abundant in this
area, she continued, and it is popular for the walk-in hunters.
The Delta National Wild and Scenic River corridor is managed by
the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is focused on bird
species. The Tangle Lakes Archaeological District Special Use
Area takes up a sizeable portion of the proposed refuge area,
with many valuable cultural resources having been found there.
These four areas will keep doing what they do with or without
the refuge designation, she explained, and refuge designation
will help to regulate more destructive development on otherwise
renewable hunting and fishing grounds.
2:56:08 PM
MS. DELANEY moved to the map on slide 8 depicting the locations
of Alaska's caribou herds. She said [the proposed Tangle Lakes
Refuge] is home to the Nelchina Caribou Herd, the sixth largest
herd in Alaska. She noted 5,000 caribou tags were issued in the
GMU 13 Nelchina herd subsistence hunt.
MS. DELANEY displayed slide 9 and reported the proposed refuge
designation has overwhelming support, including support from 713
individuals and 108 organizations that have signed a letter to
the legislature. She pointed out that this proposal has been an
ongoing process for over a decade.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that Robert Tobey,
a supporter listed on the slide, worked for who was then newly
elected Governor Murkowski, whose administration supported the
creation of a refuge. He further noted that Cliff Judkins,
another supporter listed on slide 9, was chairman of the Board
of Game in the Palin Administration and the Board of Game
recommended the same thing.
MS. DELANEY confirmed the aforementioned is correct.
2:57:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated he struggles with this as being
another land grab. As a mining person he is looking at this
with concerns about the initiative behind the proposal and the
timing. He urged there be opportunity for public engagement and
recognition that there can be shared use within the area. He
ascertained that committee members were familiar with the Denali
Highway and this area.
2:58:45 PM
MS. DELANEY provided a brief section-by-section analysis of the
bill. She said Section 1(a) [slide 11] describes the proposed
refuge boundaries which mostly follow the geography, but that
parcel boundaries are used in the legal description for purposes
of easy mapping. She noted Section 1(b) [slide 12] describes
the purpose of the refuge, which is to protect subsistence uses,
hunting, fishing, and recreational, scientific, aesthetic, and
educational purposes, all of which utilize the area's renewable
resources, ecology, and land upon which these resources depend.
The designation would benefit all Alaskans, she added. She said
Section 1 (c-f) [slide 13]: provides land use restrictions on
mining and potentially oil and gas development, unless the
commissioner deems it compatible with the refuge; addresses
access corridors to this land; gives DNR and Alaska Department
of Fish & Game (ADF&G) authority to enter into leases, provided
the leases/uses are compatible with the refuge; and prohibits
the sale of [state] land within the refuge boundary. Section 3
[slide 14], she stated, provides an effective date of 1/1/19.
3:00:32 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether Ms. Delaney has spoken with the
Division of Mining, Land and Water about currently active
interests in mining.
MS. DELANEY confirmed she spoke with the division and learned
there are no mining claims within the proposed refuge boundary
at this time.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON further asked whether claims are being
actively explored and pursued, or whether they are technically
claims but dormant.
MS. DELANEY offered her understanding that there are no claims
and currently nothing is being actively pursued in the area.
3:01:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern about [the large
amount of] public land in Alaska and prohibiting the sale of
these lands. She asked how much state land is in this area and
how much would potentially not be sold into private ownership.
She noted private landowners pay property taxes to boroughs and
said that as state revenues decline, private land ownership and
property taxes are important. She asked what the potential
revenue decrease would be if a refuge was designated. She noted
that at statehood the state land was intended to be transferred
into private ownership
MS. DELANEY replied she is unsure and will get that information
to the representative.
3:03:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER pointed out that the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough encompasses only a small part [of the proposed refuge]
and the rest is unorganized borough. He offered his belief that
there are nonoperational mining claims [in the proposed refuge
area] that have been returned to the state. But, he added, this
doesn't mean they cannot be sold again; it just means they are
presently not being mined and controlled by a lease agreement.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated that most of the claims are in the
southeast corner of the [proposed] area and are located close to
the Denali Highway. He requested Mr. Brent Goodrum of DNR to
address the status of these claims.
3:05:07 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), offered
his understanding that the last time the division checked there
weren't any active state mining claims within the proposed
refuge boundary. Previously there may have been claims that may
have been active that miners had let expire or essentially
abandoned the claims. However, he continued, the staking of
mining claims is such that a miner, upon discovery, can stake it
and record it and it is a self-actuating right. Thus, an
individual can stake claims and then the division may find out
after the fact that this has happened.
3:06:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the state could lease
previously active mining claims to someone else in the future.
MR. GOODRUM answered that an individual, party, or group could
come into acquiring rights to minerals in those areas through
staking or through some type of lease with the state. That
could happen in the future and is not prohibited at this time.
All Alaska state lands are open to mineral entry unless they are
otherwise closed, he continued. There has been exploration in
this area previously and so that could happen yet in the future
unless there were something else that prohibited it.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether HB 272 would stop that.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that HB 272 would prohibit future
mining claims. He asked Mr. Goodrum whether, under this bill,
someone could re-invigorate what had been a claim.
MR. GOODRUM answered that a miner could stake a mining claim and
then record that mining claim and at that time the miner would
secure rights to those minerals. Section 1(c) of the bill
states, "Except for valid rights and interests in mineral claims
existing on January 1, 2019," he noted. So, theoretically, if
the bill was signed into law and someone had staked a mining
claim prior to that date, they would acquire that right and be
able to utilize that right going into the future.
3:09:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON held over HB 272.