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.