HB 135-PETERSVILLE RECREATIONAL MINING AREA  3:32:21 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced HB 135 to be up for consideration. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, sponsor of HB 135 said this bill was before them last session and didn't quite make it.{ He said that basically it allows the state to fulfill a good faith transaction between it and a potential business owner in the 90s; HB 135 is needed for the deal to come to fruition. The state cannot get title to 220 acres, because the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has it. That land is destined to become recreational mining land. So, it is supported by the Alaska Miners Association. 3:33:05 PM SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee 3:34:19 PM JIM POUND, staff to Representative Keller, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said they are mostly talking about the Petersville Road area near Trapper Creek where someone wants to make a mining museum out of the remaining buildings of a mining facility. It would be designed for people to do some gold panning without having to worry about stepping on someone else's claim. 3:35:39 PM BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Juneau, Alaska, said HB 135 is simple, but the issue is complex. He explained that a Ms. Stevens has a number of at-risk standing state mining claims on top of state selected federal lands. The lands are currently in a legislatively designated area - that being the Petersville Recreational Mining Area - as well as being subject to Mineral Closing Order 674. He explained that in May of 1997, HB 46 was signed into law establishing two areas for recreational mining in the Petersville area of the Upper Susitna Valley. The North Petersville Recreational Area, approximately 280 acres, is currently open and active. The southern portion of the Petersville Recreational Mining Area, approximately 220 acres, is not yet in state ownership. HB 135 is the first necessary step to begin to unravel a complexity of issues by simply removing the southern portion from legislative designation, which would move the area closer to potentially fulfilling what the state had originally envisioned with this land. 3:37:27 PM SENATOR BISHOP asked if this bill would allow the same type of use that occurs at the Pedro Monument in Fairbanks for recreational mining. MR. GOODRUM answered that it would be very similar to the activities at Crow Creek Mine near Girdwood, which is on private land, and El Dorado Gold Mine near Fairbanks. SENATOR BISHOP asked for a description of approved mining methods. MR. GOODRUM answered they hadn't developed an official management plan, but a recreational mining area would have some sort of lease or concession where gold panning opportunities would be made available to tourists. Traditionally, you don't have that type of activity on active commercial mining claims. People could learn about gold mining history and activities with the structure and the equipment that is already there. 3:39:21 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said they are talking about 200 acres of land and asked him to talk about the prohibition against local and special legislation in Article 2, section 19, of the Constitution and the ruling by Mr. Bullock. 3:40:17 PM ASHLEY BROWN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Oil, Gas and Mining Section, Department of Law (DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, responded that she had looked at Mr. Bullock's letter that concluded this legislation did not violate the constitutional provision. 3:41:09 PM MICHELE STEVENS, representing herself, Petersville, Alaska, supported HB 135. She said she is the property owner in question and this legislation removes several mining claims from the southern part of the recreational mining area. She explained that in 1994, she discussed the creation of a recreational mining area located at Petersville with the Division of Mining. At that time the director was Jules Tileston and the deputy commissioner was Marty Rutherford. The federal claims were already surveyed, so she and the division agreed to use the federal monuments and names as reference points and boundaries for the proposed site. She agreed to gift the federal portions of her state mining claims, which encompassed the federal claims, to the State of Alaska with an express commitment by the Division of Mining that once the federal land was conveyed to Alaska approximately 220 acres of that area would become known as the Petersville Recreational Mining Area and be leased to her for establishment of a commercial recreational mining concession. This would include a museum and other amenities. In December 1996, Jules Tileston introduced regulations for the use of Petersville Recreational Area and thus started working with her, the Alaska Miners Association (AMA), and the president of the Yetna Mining District to secure a place that provided the public a high quality chance to pan for gold and revenues to the state, that promoted local enterprise and provided an educational experience about gold mining. At this time having a recreational business on a mining claim was not allowed and the Division of Mining chose to go through legislation to get the recreational area designated. MS. STEVENS said the intent of the DNR was to lease back the southern recreational area to her when it received conveyance of the land from the BLM. HB 135 provided direction that the department should aggressively pursue the opportunity to have private enterprise develop and run a high quality public recreational experience centered on gold panning. Subsequent to the claims being gifted to her by the Division of Mining and issuance of the Mineral Closing Order, the DNR Division of Lands determined that it could not under existing state law establish a lease without it going out to competitive, commercial bid. Then in 2006 the Division of Lands found a legal way for a commercial business to be operated on a portion of state mining claim by establishing a miscellaneous land use lease provided there was concurrence with the mining claim holder. This approach cannot be used on lands designated by statute as a recreational mining area. She explained that the HB 135 contains two provisions: it would reinstate her full mineral rights to those portions of her mining claims in the southern recreational area and it would remove the statutory designation and allow the DNR to lift the Mineral Closing Order, which would give the state the authority to go forward and her claims would become whole. Then the DNR could fulfill its original agreement with her. Questions arose around a letter from Dick Mylius about whether or not the claim would revert back to her, but the state has now accepted her amendment to the claims and in the event HB 135 passes, the land will automatically revert back to her and make her whole. The DNR, the AMA, and the Yetna Mining District all concur that this is the best mechanism with which to proceed forward. 3:46:13 PM CHAIR GIESSEL, finding no further comments, closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY thanked them for their consideration adding that it had been going on a long time and had a lot of support. SENATOR DYSON moved to report HB 135, version 28-LS0190\A, from committee with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.