Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/19/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB135 | |
HB161 | |
HJR26 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HJR 26 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 135-PETERSVILLE RECREATIONAL MINING AREA 1:32:46 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 135, "An Act relating to the reservation of certain mining claims from all uses incompatible with the purposes for establishing the Petersville Recreational Mining Area." 1:32:56 PM JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, on behalf of prime sponsor of HB 135, stated that HB 135 will allow the state to fulfill an agreement it made back in the 1990s with a potential business owner. This bill would allow the state to obtain about 200 acres of federal land it has previously selected and determine the land use as most likely recreational mining. He said this area [in the Petersville Recreational Mining Area] is currently being "somewhat" managed by the stakeholder who has long ago developed historic sites, buildings, and equipment from mining. This bill could help the [Petersville Recreational Mining Area] become the home of a mining museum and create opportunities for locals and tourists to try gold panning without worrying about being on someone else's claim. He asked members for their support for HB 135. 1:34:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that if HB 135 passes it would then be up to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to determine the allowable land uses. He asked for further clarification since he interprets the bill to mean it would reserve the land from all uses incompatible with the recreational mining district. BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that HB 135 would remove a parcel of land from the southern portion of the Petersville Recreational Mining Area. He explained that House Bill 46 passed the legislature in May 1997 and was signed into law creating a recreational mining area in Petersville in the upper Susitna Valley. He described the northern Petersville Recreational Mining Area, which consists of approximately 280 acres and is currently open and active under state ownership; however, the southern portion of the aforementioned mining area consists of approximately 220 acres of state-selected land that is still under federal ownership. This bill would seek to specifically remove the southern portion from the Petersville Recreational Mining Area. 1:36:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to [page 1, line 5, subsection (f),] which read, "The vacant and unappropriated state-owned land and water and the state land and water acquired in the future that lie within the following described mining claims described in United States Mineral Survey No. 2384 are reserved from all uses incompatible with the purposes of this section and are assigned to the department for control and management [as the Petersville Recreational Mining Area:....]" He said the title reads, "An Act relating to the reservation of certain mining claims from all uses incompatible with the purposes for establishing the Petersville Recreational Mining Area." He asked for further clarification on the bill. MR. GOODRUM responded that this language relates to the creation of the Petersville Recreational Mining Area but the aspect he will focus on would remove sections of land from the mining area that comprises the southern portion of the Petersville Recreational Mining Area. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he understood and thanked Mr. Goodrum for the clarification. 1:37:43 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted the committee is working on Version A [the original version] of HB 135. CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 135. 1:38:39 PM MICHELE STEVENS stated she was a lifelong Alaskan. She summarized her written testimony [in members' packets]. In the 1990s she gifted about 500 acres of state mining claims to the state with the hope that she would be able to operate a recreational mining operation on the site. At the time, it was illegal to conduct any recreational mining on mining claims. Although House Bill 46 was initiated and passed the legislature, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land and Water was not able to move forward with the agreement. Thus, HB 135 would remove the parcel in order to allow the mining claims to revert back to her in hopes that she will be able to proceed forward with a new mechanism - a mining lease from the State of Alaska that would allow her to [conduct recreational mining activities]. Same questions arose in 2012 on whether the land would revert back to her, which was remedied by placing amendments on the Peters Creek's claims. She related her understanding that if HB 135 passes the land will revert back to her and that she will be able to move forward with the aforementioned state's agreement in a different manner. 1:41:08 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER related his understanding that this bill would mean all parties could fulfill the intent of the previous agreement made [in the 1990s]. Thus, this bill would clear the path forward to reach the original intent, he said. MS. STEVENS answered yes. She said this bill would put her on a different path. She remarked that Steve Hirshbah has "blazed" some trails by working with the DNR on land leases. She anticipated that under the bill she would be able to move forward with the state [on the aforementioned agreement]. 1:42:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for further clarification on the zero fiscal note. She wondered whether the state would need to spend money or if Ms. Stevens is requesting any additional funding. MS. STEVENS answered that the State of Alaska would not be putting any money into the process. Instead, she thought that the state would likely gain revenue by allowing her to operate her business. 1:42:39 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked her to outline her hopes and intentions for recreational mining activity in the Petersville area. MS. STEVENS responded that her buildings were built in 1996. Additionally, she has obtained a Marion shovel that was used to build the Panama Canal and used on the Alaska Railroad as well as for mining in the Petersville area. She would like to consider opening a museum to showcase mining relics such as the shovel and to open the creek area for gold panning and picnics. 1:43:33 PM JULES TILESTON, speaking as a private citizen, noted that he previously served as the director of the Division of Mining and Water Management 21 years ago when this situation initially began. He stated he has submitted written testimony to the committee. He said he strongly supports the bill as written. 1:44:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised the proposed Petersville Recreational Mining Area operation would be similar to the operation at Crow Creek mine. MR. TILSTON confirmed this; however, she noted that the difference between Petersville area and Crow Creek is that the Crow Creek mine is on private land completely owned by the Crow Creek group as allowable under the federal mining laws whereas the Petersville mining claim would be managed under the final jurisdiction by the state's DNR. 1:44:48 PM CO-CHAIR SADDLER, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 135. 1:45:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether this area is accessible by road. MR. GOODRUM confirmed a road lies in close proximity to the southern portion of the Petersville Recreational Mining Area. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for a more definitive definition of "close proximity." MR. GOODRUM directed attention to a map in committee members' packets that shows a faint line for the road. He offered to provide more precise information on the road. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wondered what type of business opportunity and clientele would be served, for example, if the mining would be geared for tourists or if one person seeks to generate mining revenue. MR. GOODRUM replied that the division would work with the applicant on a business plan. Currently, the land is still considered federal land and the state needs to complete the conveyance process. He anticipated the division would then work on a business plan with the potential applicant to determine how the rules would be applied. He characterized this as being an important first step to "untangle" this complicated situation. He offered his belief that this information would be forthcoming. 1:47:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to a memo in members' packets from the [Division of Legal and Research Services], Legal Services [dated January 29, 2013] from Donald M. Bullock, Jr. who raised the question on the reason mining claims were excluded from this bill. MR. GOODRUM answered that the entire Petersville mining area was at one point state-selected land with previous federal mining claims located there. A mineral survey was conducted in 1984 that prevented the state from taking ownership of the selected land. The aforementioned federal mining claims were abandoned prior to the land being patented. Therefore the state's selection still "hovered" over the top and the state has the ability to bring the land into ownership. During the mineral survey that land was surveyed and the easiest way to reference back and identify this area is to reference the 1984 surveys. This is how the Petersville Recreational Mining Area was created, he said, since it leveraged existing surveys in place. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether any current federal claims exist on that land. MR. GOODRUM answered that to his knowledge there are not any active federal claims that in the [Petersville Recreational Mining Area]. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether recreational use is the best use of the lands or if other uses exist. MR. GOODRUM replied that the aforementioned land use question is several steps down the road. He said the state determines the best use of the land and the division will work with the potential applicant on the appropriate type of activities allowable on the land. He said, "I think that those decisions are still in front of us, but it's clearly paved the way for the state to follow through on what had been originally conceived as far as what could be done with this area." 1:49:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 135 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 135 was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 135 2010 DNR Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Legal question memo.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Michele Stevens Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Petersville Mine Map II.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Petersville Mine Map.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Sponsor.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Version A.PDF |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB135-DNR-MLW-2-14-14.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB161 Auction Proceeds.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Explanation of Changes U to Y.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Permit count.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 SCI Support.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Sponsor.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Support JHall.xps |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Support LOHCAC.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB161 Version Y.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HJR 26 BOEM Alaska OCS Lease Sales.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR 26 BPC Revenue Sharing 101.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR 26 OCS States Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR 26 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR 26 Version N.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR26-LEG-SESS-02-18-14.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HB161 SCI President Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 161 |
HB135 AMA Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HB 135 Tileston Letter.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
HJR 26 FAIR Act (S.1273).pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR 26 FAIR Act Summary.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |
HJR 26 Mayor Brower Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/19/2014 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/26/2014 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 26 |