Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
04/04/2012 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearings | |
| HB340 | |
| HCR25 | |
| HJR20 | |
| HJR32 | |
| HJR26 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 340 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 340-PETERSVILLE RECREATIONAL MINING AREA
3:39:16 PM
CO-CHAIR WAGONER announced HB 340 to be up for consideration.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN moved to bring HB 340 before the committee for
purposes of discussion.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER objected for discussion purposes.
REX SHATTUCK, staff to Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor of HB 340, put himself on the record.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 340, explained that he was approached by a constituent named
Michelle Stevens who had 550 acres of federal mining claims in
the Petersville Mountain area and the director of the Division
of Mining, Land and Water had approached her because the state
wanted to acquire that land from the federal government and then
give her 220 acres back; they were then going to convey the
mining rights back to her after the land was conveyed to the
state so she could do some recreation mining. Some complications
came up during that process and to resolve those issues they
have worked with the current director and Steve Borrel with the
Alaska Mining Association to remove the following previous
federal mining claims from recreational mining areas as
described on page 2, lines 2-6, in the bill.
3:41:55 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER opened the public hearing.
3:42:37 PM
MICHELE STEVENS, representing herself* Petersburg, AK* said she
had also submitted her testimony in writing and was available
for questions.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked her for a three-minute summary.
MS. STEVENS explained that in 1994 she wanted to have a
recreational mining area and to do that, she and Jules Tileston,
Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), decided that she would relinquish
approximately 500 acres of what were previously federal mining
claims with an express commitment from the division that once
the federal land was conveyed to the State of Alaska,
approximately 220 acres located in US Mineral Survey 2384 would
be leased back to her for the establishment of a commercial
recreational mining concession that would become known as the
South Petersville Recreational Mining Area. They agreed to use
the federal monuments named as reference points in a recent $1
million survey as boundaries for the proposed site. She said the
concession would include a museum and other amenities like
several historic buildings that she owned and a marine steam
shovel that helped build the Panama Canal and the Alaska
Railroad.
MS. STEVENS said the agreement she had with the division was
necessary, because there was no legal mechanism at the time for
the division to allow recreational mining on state mining claims
and for her, therefore, to have a recreational mining business.
To ensure that the area could be managed in accordance with
their agreement and that other parties could not stake the state
mining claims in the affected area, Mineral Closing Order 674
was issued on June 2, 1994. And in December, 1996, Mr. Tileston
drafted a letter to introduce the new regulations for the use of
the Petersville Recreational Area and she wrote to her senator
and representatives asking them to sign the regulations into
legislation.
3:47:46 PM
On May 8, 1997, HB 46 was signed into law establishing two
portions of recreational mining areas: the North Petersville
Recreation Area that is currently active and the South
Petersville Recreation Mining area, both totaling approximately
500 acres.
The intent of the DNR was that approximately 220 acres in the
southern recreation area would be leased back to her when the
state received conveyance from the BLM. Subsequent to the claims
being gifted to the state and issuance of the mineral closing
order, the DNR determined that it could not establish a non-
competitive commercial lease to fulfill the agreement with her
under existing state law. However, in 2006, DNR determined a
legal way to allow a commercial business to be operated in
portions of a state mining claim by establishing a miscellaneous
land use lease provided that the state mining claim holder
concurred.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER interrupted her and said they pretty well got
the gist of it and asked her to send her statement to his staff.
She said she would do it as soon as possible.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that a mistake was made and
everyone had agreed that this was the best way out.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether this legislation could have
impacts on others outside of this individual.
3:52:41 PM
ASHLEY BROWN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Oil,
Gas, and Mining Section, Department of Law (DOL) representing
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said that the bill
removes certain sections from the Petersville Recreational
Mining area.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if other miners could come in and
stake claims to this area.
MS. BROWN answered that currently a mineral closing order is
still covering that area, but once it is lifted it would be
possible for others to stake there.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI remarked if the deal is that she gets full
mineral rights to her claim, it will be a race.
MS. BROWN responded that he was correct in understanding that
there is a chance this area would not get staked by Michele
Stevens.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said it's not within the state's authority
to guarantee anything, but some people felt sorry for Ms.
Stevens and wanted to help her. So they are trying to work it
through the process the best and cleanest way they can.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was anything in writing
detailing the agreement that was reached.
MR. SHATTUCH answered there is anecdotal evidence in their
packets, but no contractual agreement. The department has
supported it noting that either nothing will happen or they will
move forward and remove the claims and work with Ms. Stevens.
3:56:38 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if there was a better way to correct this
problem, assuming a mistake was made more than a decade ago.
MS. BROWN replied that Ms. Stevens could go through litigation,
but she couldn't advise her on that and the DNR had determined
there was no way they could assist her.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said he understood that the state couldn't
guarantee her anything and asked if the state made a mistake
would it rather respond in money damages or correct the mistake.
MS. BROWN explained that this legislation removes land from the
Petersville Recreational Area and at some point Ms. Stevens had
staked "at risk claims" on this land, but there is a legal
question as to whether or not those claims would be valid; and
if they were determined to be not invalid, then that land area
would be open to staking by anybody.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if the state could declare its own
conduct null and void based upon a mistaken fact going back to
1996.
MS. BROWN replied that she didn't understand what conduct would
invalid - the decision to make the claims part of the
Petersville Recreational Area?
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said yes; that was done by the state - only
with a waiver of a mining interest. So, if you go back before
the declaration of the recreational mining area to the mining
claims that were in existence, wouldn't that get back to where
there was any harm done to anyone?
MS. BROWN said she didn't understand the question.
MR. SHATTUCK said one of the issues that would have to be
overcome in any court would probably be the fact that she
voluntarily relinquished her federal claims, and consequently
the standing would be difficult because she was party to that.
After the fact, she went back and staked claims on state-
selected land which the state can either allow or have a mineral
closure. There is no guarantee those claims will ever come to
fruition in terms of giving the right to the individual.
4:02:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said Ms. Stevens had the right to get an
attorney and file whatever lawsuit and go through whatever
judicial means she could, but she chose not to. But they as
lawmakers should analyze whether opening this area up for
recreational mining was good public policy, and he wanted to
hear from DNR about that.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said before they go there, he wanted to chip in
his two cents. It's up to her to reclaim the land the best way
she can if this bill passes, but the state is basically neutral.
His experience was that mining claims are not a lot of fun.
4:03:39 PM
KERWIN KRAUSE, Geologist, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage, AK, explained
that federal claims that existed (referenced in 1997
legislation) were actually closed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Because the state had a selection on that area
at the time, the former owner (before Ms. Stevens) had arranged
for state selected claims to be located there. Portions of those
state selected claims are the ones she relinquished. The only
reason the legislation referenced the federal claims is because
a mineral survey had been conducted and they were on the plat
records that the state and BLM had. Once the mineral closure is
lifted, she or anyone can stake claims on it, he said, and Ms.
Stevens could pursue litigation if she wanted to.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked if the department supported this bill.
MR. KRAUSE answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the rationale was for closing
this to mineral leases in the past.
MR. KRAUSE answered to eliminate the risk that someone could
inadvertently acquire exclusive rights to the minerals by
creating a recreational mining area there.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if anyone uses this land now for
anything.
MR. KRAUSE answered they do not use the southern area because
the BLM hadn't conveyed it to the state yet; therefore, it's
still federal land and they don't have any provision for
recreational mining on it. But the northern area has been open
for a number of years and it is used by recreational miners and
construction dredgers, panners and such.
SENATOR FRENCH joined the meeting.
4:07:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many people use that northern
area and if they would be precluded from using it in the future
by passing this.
MR. KRAUSE responded that all of the use has been in the
northern area since the recreational area was created and with
the price of gold going up in the last few years, usage has
increased. Because Peters Creek is a fish stream, dredging is
allowed only from mid-May to mid-July and on average, several
dozen dredgers are in there during that period.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this law passes, will it affect
their ability to continuing using it.
MR. KRAUSE answered no, because the northern area is not part of
the area that would be removed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it would have an impact on anyone.
MR. KRAUSE answered no.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked the sponsor how many hearings this had in
the other body and what their reaction was.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that the House had two hearings,
and members of both bodies contacted Mr. Tileston to ask him
what happened. He explained that Ms. Stevens wants to open up a
business operation up there - a museum - and allow people with
families to go up there and she would assist them with supplies
and equipment to do some recreational mining. But it can't move
forward until the state gets claim rights. Removing federal
claims allows the state to actually get lands and move forward
with the recreational mining areas.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked what the vote in the other body was.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied 39 to 1. Representative Tuck found
some information about some contaminated areas, but a memo from
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) stated there
was no contamination. A 55-gallon drum could have been
overfilled at one time, but the area had been cleaned up and
certified as such by the department.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked the pleasure of the committee.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN said he was trying to figure out a better
solution.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that everybody worked on this looking
for the best solution, but moving this forward was the "simple
solution" they came up with.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN moved to report HB 340 from committee to next
committee of referral with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CO-CHAIR WAGONER removed his objection.
SENATOR FRENCH apologized for being late and said he assumed the
committee went over the letter from Mr. Tileston and Marty
Rutherford, because they were his constituents and had a lot of
creditability. It looked like the committee was conforming with
their wishes in the letter.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER indicated that was the case and finding no
further objections, he announced that HB 340 moved from the
Senate Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1 HCR 25 Documents.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HCR 25 |
| 2 HCR 25 10yr Re Cap of Sales.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HCR 25 |
| 3 HCR 25 Sport Fish Strategic Plan 2010.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HCR 25 |
| 1 HJR 26 Documents.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| 2 HJR 26 MCDOWELL GROUP.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
| HJR 20 Documents.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 20 |
| HB 340 Documents.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HB 340 |
| 1 HJR 32 Documents.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 32 |
| 2 HJR032 Supporting Documents - Index.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 32 |
| 3 HJR032 Supporting Docs 1-9.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 32 |
| 4 HJR032 Supporting Documents - 10 Wood Bison News 6.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 32 |
| Fish Fund Adv & App Council.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
Fisherman's Fund Confirmation Hearing |
| 1 HB 118 Sp St, SA, FN & Bill.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| 2 HB118 DCCED-DOR Presentation 040412.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| 3 HB 118 Sponsor Docs.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |
| 4 HB 118 Letters of Support.pdf |
SRES 4/4/2012 3:30:00 PM |
HB 118 |