03/19/2018 01:00 PM House RESOURCES

             HB 272-TANGLE LAKES STATE GAME REFUGE                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:46:07 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."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  drew attention  to [a map entitled,  "Ahtna,                                                              
Inc.  Oil and  Gas Interests  Southeast of  Proposed Tangle  Lakes                                                              
State  Game Refuge    March  2018"].   He said the  map shows  the                                                              
proposed state  game refuge area  as being bisected by  Doyon Ltd.                                                              
boundaries  and Ahtna,  Inc. boundaries.    Bringing attention  to                                                              
another map, he  said [the proposed refuge] includes  a portion of                                                              
the Matanuska-Susitna  Borough.   He inquired whether  the sponsor                                                              
has reached out to the borough.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  replied no,  but noted the borough's  lobbyist                                                              
is in  the committee room.   He pointed  out that this  portion of                                                              
the  Matanuska-Susitna  Borough is  already  in a  controlled  use                                                              
area, so is presently a regulated area.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON  asked whether this controlled  use area is                                                              
labeled  on  the  map as  "Wildlife  Habitat,  Public  Recreation,                                                              
Forestry".   She further  asked  how this controlled  use  area is                                                              
different from what is being talked about today.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  stated it is in the western  portion, although                                                              
he cannot  remember the name.   He noted the map  being referenced                                                              
is   entitled,  "Proposed   Tangle   Lakes   State  Game   Refuge,                                                              
Generalized   State   ownership,  [Leasehold]   Location   Orders,                                                              
Mineral  Orders (Closing),  and  Land Classifications".   The  map                                                              
generally  shows land  classifications  as derived  from two,  and                                                              
possibly  three, management  areas, he  added.   The area  just to                                                              
the east  of the Maclaren  River and inside the  Matanuska-Susitna                                                              
Borough is in a  controlled use area.  He asked  Mr. Meehan of the                                                              
Division of Wildlife if he is correct.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:49:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE  MEEHAN,  Special  Areas  Program   Coordinator,  Division  of                                                              
Wildlife  Conservation,   Alaska  Department  of  Fish   and  Game                                                              
(ADF&G), replied  yes, that area  is part of the  Clearwater Creek                                                              
Controlled Use Area.   It is an administrative  designation by the                                                              
Board  of  Game,  he  explained,  and  this  controlled  use  area                                                              
primarily  restricts the  use of off-road  vehicles while  engaged                                                              
in hunting activities.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  requested Mr. Meehan to confirm  that the off-                                                              
road preclusion  is  not created  by the proposed  refuge,  but is                                                              
something the Board of Game has already created.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. MEEHAN replied correct, the Board of Game created it.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:50:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  moved to  adopt  Amendment  1, labeled  30-                                                              
LS1167\U.[2], Bullard, 3/16/18, which read:                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, line 22:                                                                                                           
          Delete "2019"                                                                                                         
     Insert "2023"                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for purposes of discussion.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH explained  HB 272  withdraws mineral  entry,                                                              
meaning  no new  mining  claims  can be  staked,  and Amendment  1                                                              
would  extend  mineral  withdrawal  from  [January  1,]  2019,  to                                                              
[January  1,]  2023,  to  allow a  five-year  window  for  staking                                                              
claims.   This  extension  would permit  additional  time for  the                                                              
mining  industry  to  do  geological   evaluations  and  determine                                                              
mineral  potential  in the  area  and  stake  claims if  there  is                                                              
interest.   These  claims,  he continued,  would  then be  honored                                                              
under  the language  in the  bill on  page 7,  line 21,  regarding                                                              
existing valid  rights.  This is  a common mineral  withdrawal and                                                              
includes  those   in  the  Alaska  National  Interest   Lands  Act                                                              
(ANILCA).                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified Amendment 1 is labeled U.2.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
[CO-CHAIR TARR maintained her objection.]                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  stated that when first looking  at Amendment 1                                                              
he didn't reject  it outright.   He said he is unsure  whether its                                                              
impact  would  be to  drive  to  a  conclusion  the issue  of  the                                                              
[Department of  Natural Resources]  permitting mining  through the                                                              
permitting  process  or what  the  result  would  be.   While  the                                                              
amendment  has  some  merit, he  allowed,  he  doesn't  personally                                                              
agree with it and therefore opposes it.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH opined  that,  in total,  HB 272  is a  land                                                              
grab and  he is  opposed to the  bill.   Amendment 1 mitigates  to                                                              
some extent  the land  grab aspects  from the  standpoint  that if                                                              
there is  any mineral  potential it  allows a  few more  years for                                                              
exploration and  development.  Alaska  has a tremendous  record of                                                              
joint use and shared  use lands, he said, and the  mining industry                                                              
has a  sterling record  statewide of doing  good work  while there                                                              
is still hunting and fishing.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:54:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was taken.   Representatives  Birch,  Johnson,                                                              
Rauscher,   and  Talerico   voted   in  favor   of  Amendment   1.                                                              
Representatives  Lincoln, Drummond,  Parish,  Tarr, and  Josephson                                                              
voted against it.   Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by  a vote of 4-                                                              
5.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:55:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  moved to  adopt  Amendment  2, labeled  30-                                                              
LS1167\U.3, Bullard, 3/16/18, which read:                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 7, lines 21 - 24:                                                                                                     
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
     "(c)   The  commissioner  shall  permit entry  into  the                                                                   
     Tangle Lakes  State Game Refuge for purposes  of mineral                                                                   
     exploration,   development,   and  extraction   if   the                                                                   
     commissioner  finds that  the exploration,  development,                                                                   
     or   extraction   is  compatible   with   the   purposes                                                                   
     specified in  (b) of this section; however,  all mineral                                                                   
     leases  in effect  on  January 1,  2019, are  valid  and                                                                   
     continue  in  full force  and  effect according  to  the                                                                   
     terms of those leases."                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  explained  Amendment  2  would  remove  the                                                              
mineral withdrawal  language on page  7, lines 21-24,  and replace                                                              
it with  language that  allows for mineral  entry into  the Tangle                                                              
Lakes State Game  Refuge if the commissioner of  the Department of                                                              
Natural Resources  (DNR) determines exploration or  development is                                                              
compatible with the  purposes specified in (b).   As heard through                                                              
invited and  public testimony,  he continued,  the premise  that a                                                              
choice must be  made between renewable and  nonrenewable resources                                                              
is not true.   His father was  a mining engineer and  his mother a                                                              
geologist, he said,  and he grew up in mining camps  in Alaska and                                                              
personally felt  the positive impact that sustainable  development                                                              
has had  in Alaska.   To say that  mining will irreparably  damage                                                              
the ecosystem  and wildlife  in this area  is unacceptable  and is                                                              
not based  on facts, he opined.   Removing the  mineral withdrawal                                                              
language and  replacing it  with this  language would  ensure that                                                              
public  use and  habitat are  maintained while  also allowing  for                                                              
responsible development, which provides jobs and state revenue.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TALERICO expressed  his support  for Amendment  2.                                                              
He said he  received several public comments asking  whether there                                                              
would  be  a risk  to  the  Tangle  Lakes canoeing  area  and  the                                                              
ability to  portage between lakes.   He offered  his understanding                                                              
that  that area  has  already been  protected  and  set aside  for                                                              
quite a while as  a designated Wild and Scenic River.   He said he                                                              
agrees  with the sponsor  of Amendment  2 given  his own  personal                                                              
experience  of habitat  improvement  that was  done after  mining.                                                              
He allowed  it takes  responsible people  to do  that, as  well as                                                              
responsible regulations that he thinks Alaska has.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON  noted  the area  Representative  Talerico  is                                                              
referencing is  the recreational river  corridor that is  shown on                                                              
the previously identified map.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  stated he appreciates  that Amendment  2 would                                                              
allow some  discretion by  the commissioner  and the  commissioner                                                              
would have  to find  facts that  support that mineral  development                                                              
as being  consistent with the refuge.   However, he  continued, he                                                              
doesn't  support  the  amendment.     Noting  [his]  objection  is                                                              
maintained, he requested a roll call vote.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:01:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A  roll call  vote  was  taken.   Representatives  Parish,  Birch,                                                              
Johnson, Rauscher,  Talerico, Lincoln, and Tarr voted  in favor of                                                              
Amendment  2.    Representatives   Drummond  and  Josephson  voted                                                              
against it.   Therefore, Amendment 2  was adopted by a  vote of 7-                                                              
2.                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON invited discussion of HB 272 as amended.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER  asked  what restrictions  apply  to  the                                                              
state special use area within the proposed refuge boundary.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON  replied  that Alaskans  and  visitors  cannot                                                              
remove rocks from  the area because it is the  state [Tangle Lakes                                                              
Archeological District  Special Use Area].  He deferred  to DNR to                                                              
provide further response as to what the special use area does.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:03:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARTY  PARSONS,  Deputy  Director,  Central  Office,  Division  of                                                              
Mining, Land  and Water,  Department of  Natural Resources  (DNR),                                                              
explained  the primary  function  of the  special use  area is  to                                                              
limit the type  of motorized vehicles that can  operate within the                                                              
archeological area, and when they can operate.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER  requested someone  from DNR speak  to the                                                              
mineral order closing shown in the green area on the map.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  clarified Representative  Rauscher  is talking                                                              
about the  mineral order closings located  in the far east  of the                                                              
proposed refuge and also north of the proposed refuge.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PARSONS responded  it  is correct  that  there  is a  mineral                                                              
closing order in that area - Mineral Order 1118 and 483.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked what the order's impact is.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PARSONS  answered  it  closes  the area  to  any  staking  or                                                              
creation  of mineral  property  right  that didn't  pre-exist  the                                                              
closure order  that DNR put  into effect.   In essence,  he added,                                                              
it closes the area to staking or mineral location.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER inquired about  the meaning  of leasehold                                                              
location order.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  noted the leasehold  location order  is mostly                                                              
overlaid with the archeological district.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR.  PARSONS  replied  the  leasehold   location  order  means  an                                                              
individual  can stake  a claim  but cannot  mine without  entering                                                              
into a lease  with the state.   It adds a few more  protections to                                                              
the area in  that, in a lease, DNR  would be able to put  in a few                                                              
more stipulations  than  it might  otherwise be  able to do  under                                                              
regular operating plans.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER requested  further clarification  on what                                                              
can and cannot be done.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. PARSONS explained  that exploration is allowed  to take place.                                                              
The leasehold  location order only  requires that another  step be                                                              
taken to enter into  a lease agreement with the  state to actually                                                              
operate and mine - it does not prevent mining.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:07:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TALERICO drew  attention to  the map and  observed                                                              
that the upper  left corner within the proposed  refuge is labeled                                                              
Eastern  Tanana Area  Plan and  to  the right  within the  mineral                                                              
closure area  it is labeled  Tanana Basin  Area Plan.   He offered                                                              
his  understanding  that this  plan  was  split and  therefore  it                                                              
would seem  that the  area on the  east side of  the map  would be                                                              
the Eastern Tanana Basin Area Plan.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. PARSONS  explained that  this area is  subject to  four active                                                              
operating  plans.   The Tanana  Basin  Area Plan  was broken  into                                                              
multiple parts    the Susitna Area  Plan, the Eastern  Tanana Area                                                              
Plan, the  remnant Tanana  Basin Area  Plan that affects  portions                                                              
of this, and the  Copper Basin Area Plan.  The  map, he continued,                                                              
identifies  correctly  that there  is  the  remnant of  the  older                                                              
Tanana  Basin Area  Plan and  the  Eastern Tanana  Area Plan  only                                                              
modified a portion of it.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER  asked  whether  there  is  a  designated                                                              
State of Alaska definition of state game refuge.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON  deferred  to  Mr. Meehan  to  answer  whether                                                              
there is a specific statutory definition of state game refuge.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MEEHAN replied  there is  a statutory  purpose statement  for                                                              
refuges  in Title  16, AS  16.20.010 through  AS 16.20.080,  which                                                              
continues  the enabling  legislation for  refuge areas.   It  says                                                              
the purpose  is to  protect and preserve  the natural  habitat and                                                              
game populations in certain designated areas of the state.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:11:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR moved  to report  HB 272,  Version 30-LS1167\U  [as                                                              
amended],  out of  committee with  individual recommendations  and                                                              
the accompanying fiscal notes.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:12:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives Drummond,  Parish,                                                              
Lincoln,  Tarr,  and  Josephson  voted  in favor  of  HB  272,  as                                                              
amended.  Representatives  Birch, Johnson, Rauscher,  and Talerico                                                              
voted against  it.  Therefore, CSHB  272(RES) was reported  out of                                                              
the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 5-4.