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.