Notice of Decision, Release of State Interest, State Selection Files GS-5434 & GS-5439

STATE OF ALASKADEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESDivision of Mining, Land and WaterNOTICE OF DECISION RELEASE OF STATE INTERESTState Selection Files GS-5434 & GS-5439Partial Relinquishment of Certain State-Selected LandsAS 38.05.035{a)(11), AS 38.05.035(e), Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal year 2023 (Pub. L.117-328) and the University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation ActI. ActionProposed relinquishment of State of Alaska (State) land selections on certain lands. The purpose of relinquishment is to facilitate University of Alaska (UA) land selections under the University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act. The University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (CAA 2023).II. AuthorityThe Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) provides that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may convey up to 360,000 acres of land selected by the State of Alaska (State- selected) pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act (Pub. L. 85-508) to the University of Alaska. Additional information about the Fiscal Foundation Act can be found at: https://www.alaska.edu/ualand/about/land-grant/index.php.The ability to relinquish Statehood Act selections in favor of the University of Alaska is codified in Sec. 302(c) of the CAA 2023. The provisions of Alaska Statute (AS) 38.05.035(a)(11) allow the Director of the Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW) to manage Statehood Entitlement selections. AS 38.05.035(e) provides authority for disposals of lands, resources, property, or interests in them. Article XIII of the Alaska Constitution provides guiding principles for maximum use of state lands and resources and authority for disposals of interests in lands and resources.Ill. Background and ProcessThe CAA 2023 authorizes the BLM to directly convey up to 360,000 acres of land to the University of Alaska. The available lands must be federal lands selected by the State pursuant to section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act.The first step in the process if for the University of Alaska Land Management Office (UA LMO) to review available State land selections and identify possible lands for conveyance. UA LMO submits land selections to the Division of Mining, Land & Water (DMLW) Realty Services Section (Realty). Realty works with UA LMO to refine the selections and will complete state-wide agency review and public notice for the proposed relinquishment. Realty then drafts a decision regarding relinquishment following consideration of comments received during the agency review and public notice. The relinquishment decision will be forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner for review and approval and will be published on the State’s online public notice board. The State and UA LMO will jointly submit to BLM lists of lands to be conditionally relinquished and conveyed directly to the University. Final relinquishment of the State’s selection would be enacted upon conveyance of the lands to the University.IV. Administrative RecordThe selection files for state selections GS-5434 and GS-5439 constitute the administrative record for this action. V. LocationLands to be considered are located within DNR's Southeast Region, within two townships. See legal description. Please see Attachment A for a visual depiction of the area.USGS Map Coverage: Skagway C3Regional Corporation: Sealaska CorporationFederally Recognized Tribe: Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan) Village Corporation: Klukwan Inc.VI. Legal DescriptionTownship 25 South, Range 56 East, Copper River Meridian. All available lands, excluding the Chilkat River and lands reserved by Presidential Proclamation 810, within the following surveyed sections:Sec. 22, E1/2;Sec. 23, W1/2;Sec. 26, W1/2;Sec. 27, E1/2;Sec. 34, E1/2NE1/4, N1/2NE1/4SE1/4;Sec. 35, W1/2, W1/2NE1/2, SE1/4, excluding U.S. Survey 13752.Containing approximately 1,241 acres.Township 26 South, Range 56 East, Copper River Meridian. All available lands, excluding the Chilkat River, within the following surveyed sections:Sec. 1, W1/2W1/2;Sec. 2;Sec. 3, S1/2, NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4;Sec. 4, S1/2, excluding Dingell Act Native Allotment AA-97340; Sec. 9, N1/2, N1/2S1/2;Sec. 10, N1/2NW1/4, SW1/4NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4, NE1/4NE1/4; Sec. 11, NE1/4, N1/2NW1/4;Sec. 12, W1/2SW1/4NE1/4, SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, W1/2NE1/4NW1/4, SE1/4NE1/4NW1/4, W1/2NW1/4, SE1/4NW1/4, N1/2SW1/4, NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, NW1/4SE1/4SW1/4, W1/2NE1/4SE1/4, SE1/4NE1/4SE1/4, W1/2SE1/4, SE1/4SE1/4;Sec. 13, N1/2NE1/4.Containing approximately 3,165 acres. Aggregating approximately 4,406 acres.VII. Selection History• State records indicate lands in the townships were selected in 1992 under general grant land selections GS-5434 and GS-5439.• In a letter dated October 11, 2023, the University of Alaska proposed lands to be reviewed for conditional relinquishment.• The lands are currently ranked as priority 4 (low) for their importance as wildlife habitat and hunting grounds and potential mineral resources.VIII. DMLW and Agency ReviewInformation and comments received from State agencies have been considered and included in the preparation of this decision. The proposed relinquishment documents were distributed to State agencies for review from April 18, 2024, through May 2, 2024, and extended to May 16, 2024. The intent of an agency review is to request comments from agencies that may be affected by the selection relinquishment. Agencies are given the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the relinquishment to determine if it is in the State's best interest to release the land selection and if so, provide supporting reasons. Multiple agencies provided input for the Upper Chilkat selection. Consideration of these reviews provided valuable information. The following agencies or groups were included in the agency review:• DNR Division of Oil & Gas: The Div. of Oil and Gas (DOG) has no authorization or pending applications on the proposed relinquishment, and no objections to relinquishment of the surface. Furthermore, we do not request to reserve the subsurface estate.The DOG Resource Evaluation Section looked at energy potential in the parcel. She sent along the attached review with her finding: there is no potential for oil, gas, or geothermal resources in the area. University of Alaska Upper Chilkat Selection, GS-5434 and GS-5439. GS-5434 is T. 25 S., R. 56 E., C.R.M., portions of Secs. 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35. Containing approximately 1,241 acres. GS-5439 is T. 26 S., R. 56 E., C.R.M., portions of Secs. 1-4, and 9-13. Containing approximately 3,165 acres. Excluding United States Survey 13752, the Chilkat River, and lands reserved by Presidential Proclamation 810.The two parcels aggregate approximately 4,406 acres and are located approximately 17 miles northeast of Skagway. The parcels do not lie within a sedimentary basin (Kirshner, 1988). Two different types of bedrock exist at the surface: Tertiary porphyritic granodiorite and Tertiary to latest Cretaceous foliated tonalite sill (Wilson and others, 2015). The lands have an igneous and metamorphic thermal maturity (Johnsson and Howell, 1996). No geothermal resources are indicated (Motyka and others, 1983). There is no expression of faulting and folding in the surface. There are not any oil source rocks or coal mapped near the area.Finding: No potential for oil or gas. No potential for geothermal.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation: The Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (ADF&G) reviewed the proposal to relinquish 4,406 acres of state-selected lands to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in order for these lands to be available for selection by the University of Alaska (UA) per the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal Year 2023. The BLM policy typically requires a minimum of 5,760 acres to be conveyed at a time per township and the current UA selections are less than that amount. Should BLM decided not to waive the acreage requirement, the lands to be conveyed to the UA would increase by approximately 7,114 acres total. It is uncertain if agencies or the public would have an opportunity to review and provide information on those additional lands.ADF&G ConcernsThe uncertainty in the total amount of land being transferred challenges ADF&G staff’s ability to analyze potential impacts and make effective comments about lost hunting and fishing opportunities, habitat loss, and effects on fish and wildlife. In addition, uncertainty about how issues related to navigable waters will be resolved and the lack of any guarantee allowing hunter access on the parcels, or any commitment to easements further confounds our ability to make accurate comments. It is difficult to assess the potential effects on fish and wildlife without knowing how the land will be used. UA states in the Haines section of their website that they are committed to some timber management, and considering other options (e.g., carbon credits) to develop and monetize UA properties. Those land uses would have different effects ranging from conservation to major habitat loss. It is nearly impossible to provide effective comments given so much uncertainty, but we attempt to do so by providing comments on a variety of potential land uses (and land selection sizes) below.The selected sections adjacent to the Chilkat River are in an area that currently is inaccessible by jet boat because it is a fast flowing and rocky canyon which prevents safe passage; however, if UA decides to develop these parcels, they will likely need to add roads which could negatively impact fish and wildlife through habitat loss and disturbance. These factors could increase significantly if UA allows public recreational access, and conversely, the change in land ownership designation to private land could limit the hunter access to traditional hunting areas. Conveyance of the Upper Chilkat selections are likely to negatively impact wildlife in the area unless the habitat is kept intact. FisheriesDue to the inaccessibility of this area by boat, these lands are unlikely to impact access for any sport fishing angler. While there is little data on the presence of anadromous fish in the proposed area, it is likely to have suitable habitat for salmon and resident fish species. Additionally, the UA should be aware that any road construction required to access this land would impact important fish habitat in lower sections of the Chilkat River.WildlifeThe selected areas in the Upper Chilkat include important habitat for mountain goats, moose, and bears. ADF&G research biologists have modeled important kidding and winter habitat for mountain goats and note that both kidding and winter habitat occur in and adjacent to the Upper Chilkat selections (see attached maps). We also know from our observations of collared moose that moose use closed canopy forested areas in the Upper Chilkat River area during winter to avoid deep snow. Removal or damage of trees in the Upper Chilkat River area would remove winter moose habitat from a part of the valley where snow fall is typically deeper. Brown bears select habitat for winter denning in areas with specific combinations of slope, aspect, elevation, and terrain. ADF&G developed a predictive brown bear denning model for portions of the Haines area; however, the Upper Chilkat selected parcels fall outside of our brown bear den survey area though substantial habitat with prime denning features occur within the selected area and changes in land ownership designation may impact brown bear use of those habitats for denning. If these selections are conveyed and UA determines that industrial development (e.g., logging, mining) or tourism involving loud machinery (e.g., ATVs, snow machines, helicopters, etc.) are appropriate, then habitat loss and disturbance from these activities has the potential to negatively affect wildlife. There is use of the proposed lands for subsistence large land mammal hunting (mainly moose) by residents of Haines, and the surrounding lands by residents of Haines and Klukwan.In summary, ADF&G is concerned about the potential impacts this land selection may have on hunting, wildlife, fish, and their habitats. We request that DNR work with BLM to determine if the acreage requirements will be waived prior to relinquishing these selections. o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment and valuable information. BLM is believed to be open to waiving acreage requirements. If BLM refuses to waive the acreage requirements any additional lands would require agency review and public notice.• Department of Transportation and Public Facilities: The Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has no comment at this time.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, DMLW, Land Conveyance Section: Land Conveyance Section (LCS) doesn’t have an objection to the relinquishment.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, DMLW, Public Access, Assertion, and Defense Section: The Chilkat River is navigable in fact. It is a treaty river covered by the 1825 Treaty Between Great Britain and Russia Article VI; which states; “It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever, quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean, or from the interior of the continent, shall forever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the limit of coast described in Article III of the present Convention.” As a navigable river the Chilkat will require meandering when the BLM surveys the township.There are no documented RS 2477 trails or DOT&PF 1973 trails within the townships the University has selected.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, DMLW, Water Section: The Water Section does not have any specific concerns with the proposed relinquishment.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, Division of Forestry & Fire Protection: The Div. of Forestry (DOF) has reviewed the proposal for University of Alaska land selection in the Upper Chilkat Area as described in your review document and submits the following comments:Requested ActionThe DOF does not object to the proposed relinquishment of the State selection for conveyance to the University of Alaska. The area is remote and outside of the Legislative Designated Haines State Forest Resource Management Area (HSFRMA).Resource ManagementBased on my working experience in the area for DOF since 1995, topics of interest pertaining to resource management may be of value for consideration of this selection. The selection is not accessible by travel along the Chilkat River. River access terminates approximately 1 mile below the selection block at the mouth of a canyon that extends for .7 miles upstream, impassable to watercraft.Currently the nearest developed access is a Forest Road an estimated 10 miles from the western most parcel. Nearly all this distance covers land within the Haines State Forest Recreation Management Area (HSFRMA), including the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. A road constructed from the nearest Forest Road to access resources found in the selection block would require significant investment due to the number of water crossings and challenging topography along the route. Alternatives to connecting to AK Route 7 at its nearest point would include approximately 17 miles of new construction across land with similar challenges to development within the HSFRMA and private land owned by the Chilkat Indian Village at Klukwan.The area of the selection may contain significant cultural resources important to the local community of Klukwan. Historical communication of routes to the interior used by the Klukwan community illustrate travel through this selection block. Due to the difficult access to the selection block, the value of timber resources will be reduced and may prove uneconomical to extract.Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the agency review of this permit amendment request.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, DMLW, Resource Assessment and Development Section: Background & Discussion:The University of Alaska (UA) as authorized by the University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act, included in the Omnibus Appropriation Bill of Dec. 29, 2022 (Sec. 302) has selected lands located north of Haines adjacent to the Chilkat River near the U.S./Canada border. These lands are State of Alaska (SOA) priority 4 (Low) selections under applications GS5434, and GS5439 and described as:T. 25 S., R. 56 E., C.R.M., portions of Secs. 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, and 35. Containing approximately 1,241 acres. T. 26 S., R. 56 E., C.R.M., portions of Secs. 1-4, and 9-13. Containing approximately 3,165 acres. Excluding United States Survey 13752, the Chilkat River, and lands reserved by Presidential Proclamation 810. Aggregating approximately 4,406 acres.There are two Dingell Act allotment applications AA-97340 and AA-95920 within Secs. 4 and 9 of C026S056E, that could potentially reduce the total acreage of these selections by 160 acres each. The UA LMO has indicated they do not object to Dingell Allotments on lands they have selected. If the SOA agrees to relinquish its selection these lands would transfer directly from the federal government to UA.The Resource Assessment and Development Section (RADS) found the proposed area is within Unit H-03 of the Northern Southeast Area Plan (NSEAP) and is designated General Use (Gu) which converts to the classification of Resource Management Land. This classification is given to lands that contain one or more resource values, none of which is of sufficiently high value to merit designation as a primary use. Management Intent for the unit states if conveyed, this parcel is to be managed for multiple uses, particularly dispersed recreation. Although development is not expected during the planning period, development associated with mining could occur since the tract is situated within a principal mineralized area. There are no prospecting claims, leasehold location orders, or active state mining claims within this selection.There is also only one pending application (opened in 2021) request on file with BLM (AA- 095924) for a commercial Heli-Ski operation.Recommendation:RADS recommends approving the relinquishment of the sections described above. RADS also has no concerns that the remaining SOA selected sections within these two townships may be included in the relinquishment. RADS does recommend the following stipulations be verified prior to relinquishment approval:1. Verify how RS2477 trails will be handled.2. The Agency Review request states “It is currently unclear how issues involving navigable waters will be resolved”. It is imperative that this issue be resolved prior to relinquishment and that the ownership will remain with the SOA DNR.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys: Upper Chilkat UA Land Selection Geologic HazardsThe proposed parcels are located on the Chilkat River from the Canadian Border to about five miles southwest along the main river channel and along a southeast tributary. The Chilkat River is a braided glacial river that is not identified as prone to glacial outburst floods (Post and Mayo, 1971). The proposed parcel is underlain by unit TKfgd - Ferebee Plutonic Complex, described as a multi-phase complex of hornblende-biotite granodiorite with lesser tonalite, quartz diorite, and quartz monzodiorite and a generally weak to moderate foliation (Gilbert and others, 1990).Unconsolidated sediments are deposited in the river valleys (Wilson and others, 2015). Additional hazards in the area may be similar to those along the Taku River: significant liquefaction potential, seasonal flooding, mass movements, and snow avalanches (Stevens and others, 2003). Permafrost is absent from this area (Jorgenson and others, 2008).The parcel is located approximately 12 miles inboard of the mapped trace of the Dalton section of the Denali fault (active in the past 15,000 years), 85 miles inboard of the mapped trace of the Fairweather fault (active within the last 150 years), and 100 miles northeast of the mapped trace of the Yakutat fault (active within the last 150 years; Koehler, 2013). Recent noteworthy seismicity in the region includes the 5.5 M Skagway earthquake in 1907 and the 6.2 M Skagway/British Columbia earthquake in 2017 (National Centers for Environmental Information, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/hazards). Potential hazards associated with the Fairweather fault include local surface displacement, strong ground shaking, and earthquake-induced ground failure; ground failure is most likely to occur in water-saturated, fine-grained sediments and in unstable debris and sediments on steep slopes (Combellick and Long, 1983). The region’s overall seismic hazard potential is lower moderate (Shumway, 2019). Standard best building practices should be used to accommodate the regional seismic hazard.This area has been subject to ash fall from erupting Cook Inlet and Alaska Peninsula volcanoes. Past ash events include Spurr 1992, Novarupta (Katmai) 1912, and multiple older tephras (Mulliken and others, 2018; Worden and others, 2018).Radon, a naturally occurring cancer-causing radioactive gas, is modeled to be high in the vicinity of the parcel (https://maps.dggs.alaska.gov/radon/). Indoor radon tests around Skagway range from 1.1 to 39.9 pCi/L, with an average of 7.35 pCi/L. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Action Level for radon is 4 pCi/L; the EPA suggests homeowners consider radon mitigation for test results of 2–4 pCi/L. Any home, school, or building can have high levels of radon and should be tested.ReferencesCombellick, R.A., and Long, W.E., 1983, Geologic hazards in southeastern Alaska: an overview: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Report of Investigation 83-17, 17 p. https://doi.org/10.14509/2356Gilbert, W.G., Clough, A.H., Burns, L.E., Kline, J.T., Redman, E.C., and Fogels, E.J., 1990, Reconnaissance geology and geochemistry of the northeast Skagway Quadrangle, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Report of Investigation 90-5, 2 sheets, scale 1:125,000. https://doi.org/10.14509/2473Jorgenson, T., Yoshikawa, K., Kanevskiy, M., Shur, Y., Romanovsky, V., Marchenko, S., Grosse, G., Brown, J., and Jones, B., 2008, Permafrost characteristics of Alaska: Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, June 29-July 3, 2008, Fairbanks, Alaska. http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/AlaskaPermafrostMap_Front_Dec2008_Jorgens on_etal_2008.pdf; http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/AlaskaPermafrostMap_Back_Jun2008_Jorgenso n_etal_2008.pdfKoehler, R.D., 2013, Quaternary Faults and Folds (QFF): Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Digital Data Series 3, http://doi.org/10.14509/qff (interactive map); http://doi.org/10.14509/24956Mulliken, K.M., Schaefer, J.R., and Cameron, C.E., 2018, Geospatial distribution of tephra fall in Alaska: a geodatabase compilation of published tephra fall occurrences from the Pleistocene to the present: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Miscellaneous Publication 164, 46 p. http://doi.org/10.14509/29847 National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), continuously updated, Natural Hazards Viewer (interactive map): National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/hazardsPost, Austin, and Mayo, L.R., 1971, Glacier dammed lakes and outburst floods in Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 455, 10 p., 3 sheets, scale 1:1,000,000. https://dggs.alaska.gov/pubs/id/13642Shumway, A.M., 2019, Data Release for the 2007 Alaska Seismic Hazard Model: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P96AUPNOStevens, D.S.P., Cruse, G.R., Reger, R.D., and Smith, R.L., 2003, Survey of geology, geologic materials, and geologic hazards in proposed access corridors in the Taku River Quadrangle, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Miscellaneous Publication 112, 4 sheets, scale 1:250,000. https://doi.org/10.14509/3303Wilson, F.H., Hults, C.P., Mull, C.G., and Karl, S.M., 2015, Geologic map of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3340, 196 p., 2 sheets, scale 1:1,584,000, https://alaska.usgs.gov/science/geology/state_map/interactive_map/AKgeologic_map.html. Worden, A.K., Schaefer, J.R., and Mulliken, K.M., 2018, Tephra occurrence in Alaska: a map- based compilation of stratigraphic tephra data: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Miscellaneous Publication 165, 19 p. http://doi.org/10.14509/30059Hydrology and Surficial GeologyThe region's surficial deposits are not mapped in detail except at 1:63,360 in the Skagway C-2 Quadrangle to the east (March 1991). Below are a few general comments based on observation of imagery and a review of some literature.There is likely some potential for flooding along streams within the selected areas. There is likely potential for slope instability, especially along some steeper terrain. There is some potential for construction materials within the area. Still, the distance from infrastructure and accessibility would limit the practicality of using such materials at the current time without significant cost investment.ReferencesMarch, G.D., 1991, Surficial geology of the Skagway C-2 Quadrangle, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Report of Investigation 91-2, 1 sheet, scale 1:63,360. https://doi.org/10.14509/2476Gilbert, W.G., Clough, A.H., Burns, L.E., Kline, J.T., Redman, E.C., and Fogels, E.J., 1990, Reconnaissance geology and geochemistry of the northeast Skagway Quadrangle, Alaska: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Report of Investigation 90-5, 2 sheets, scale 1:125,000. https://doi.org/10.14509/2473Mineral ResourcesI have reviewed the Alaska Resource Data File, mining claim records on adjacent State patented land, the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB v4; https://doi.org/10.5066/P14THGQH), and the geologic map of Alaska (Geology of Alaska Map Viewer (usgs.gov)). My analysis of these datasets does not indicate any significant potential for metallic mineral resources, mining industry interest, economically interesting geochemical anomalies, or favorable geology. I have no concerns about this land selection from a mineral resource potential standpoint.Energy ResourcesFrom an energy resource perspective, there is nothing in the selected area that is a benefit to the State. The closest coal-bearing formation is about 12 miles to the west-southwest in the lower Kelsall River near its confluence with the Chilkat River (the Kootznahoo Formation). However, no coals are reported from that specific area and it is structurally complex. No known geothermal resources occur in the area, either https://dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/dggs/sr/text/sr066k.pdf, https://dggs.alaska.gov/webpubs/dggs/sr/oversized/sr066_sh002.pdf.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your detailed comment. Additional Upper Chilkat Agency CommentsComments from State Agencies were solicited during the Public Notice period and are listed below:• DNR, Division of Oil & Gas: The Division of Oil and Gas has no authorization or pending applications on the proposed relinquishment, and no objections to relinquishment of the surface. Furthermore, we do not request to reserve the subsurface estate. Laura Gregersen in the DOG Resource Evaluation Section looked at energy potential in the parcel when we were requested to comment April. She sent along the attached review with her finding there is no potential for oil, gas, or geothermal resources in the area.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities: The Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities has no comment at this time.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, DMLW, Southeast Regional Office: I have reviewed the attached notice on behalf of SERO, and we have no official comment on the proposed relinquishment.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.• DNR, DMLW, RADS: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Relinquishment of State Entitlement Lands to the University of Alaska in the Upper Chilkat Area. The Resource Assessment & Development Section (RADS) has reviewed the available geospatial data, land records, satellite imagery and the applicable regional land use plan – the Northern Southeast Area Plan (NSEAP) – and provides the following comments.Background & Discussion:The Realty Services Section has proposed the relinquishment of State entitlement lands in the Upper Chilkat Area to the University of Alaska to enable the University to obtain title in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal year 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) and the University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act, which provides that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may convey up to 360,000 acres of land to the University of Alaska. The lands selected aggregating approximately 4,406 acres are located in Townships 25 and 26 South, Range 56 East, Copper Meridian, excluding the selected lands United States Survey 13752, the Chilkat River, and lands reserved by Presidential Proclamation 810.The selected lands are within the Upland Unit Boundary of the Haines Area (H03) in the Northern Southeast Area Plan, under a ‘General Use’ designation which converts to a land classification of ‘Resource Management Land’. The lands are not currently in State ownership but if conveyed to the State, the management intent for the parcel is for multiple uses, particularly dispersed recreation. Elevation of selection priority is also recommended in the NSEAP from a Group IV to at least a Group II due to the high mineral potential of this parcel. Known concentrations of mountain goats and the summer concentration area of migratory moose at the confluence of the Chilkoot and the tributary from the Chilkat are to be protected.Recommendations:Based on RADS review of the land records and taking the above area plan recommendations into account, the Proposed Relinquishment of State Entitlement Lands to the University of Alaska in the Upper Chilkat Area is a viable application that should move forward. Thank you for the opportunity to review.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.IX. Public CommentPublic notice of the proposed relinquishment was conducted from May 31, 2024, through July 2, 2024. The notice was posted to the State of Alaska Online Public Notice System. Copies of the notice were sent to the University of Alaska, the US Post Masters of Haines and Skagway, Sealaska Corporation, Chilkat Indian Association, Klukwan Incorporated, Haines Borough, Skagway Village/Skagway Traditional Council, Haines and Skagway Public Libraries, Chilkoot Indian Association, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Municipality of Skagway Borough, Municipality of Skagway Borough Planning Commission, BLM Adjudication Services Section, U.S. Forest Service, Juneau Ranger District, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioners Office, Alaska State legislature, the Big Game Commercial Services Board, Board of Game, adjacent landowners, and interested private parties.Realty received one comment in response to the proposed relinquishment:• Comment: I am strongly opposed to the University of Alaska land selection in the Upper Chilkat River Corridor. The UA has very little public involvement in its development plans and I am very concerned that the headwaters of one of the most important and pristine watersheds in the State of Alaska would be severely degraded from their development, either logging, mining or other commercial use.This State selected BLM area should be a Federal designated Wilderness. It has all of the criteria for such a designation. The area should be returned to the Chilkat Indian Village for their ownership and management. It is their traditional land.o DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comments. Please note that the scope of this decision is limited to addressing the question of whether the State of Alaska should conditionally relinquish its selection to potentially allow the transfer of the lands to the University of Alaska. It is beyond the scope of this decision to consider other land transfers, designations, or restrictions.X. Discussion and AlternativesThe University has sought additional lands to complete its territorial land grant for several decades but has been thwarted by legal restrictions in the Statehood Act and the State Constitution. Previous attempts to rectify the land grant deficit were defeated in court and resulted in Congressional action within the CAA 2023. Congressional intent is for lands to be transferred to the University to complete the entitlement originally intended for conveyance under the Statehood Act and to provide economic opportunities for the University.DNR must consider and weigh its own and the public’s interests in retaining or relinquishing land selections while supporting the University’s interests in new land entitlement. Such interests include resource development, conservation, consideration of existing land uses, and public access consistent with the public interest. In general, there must be an overarching benefit to Alaskans to defeat the Congressional intent in the CAA 2023. Any decision DNR makes must balance these interests: providing valuable lands to the University without undue harm to the interests of Alaskans.The surrounding lands are a mixture of Federal public lands selected by the State but managed by the BLM, general State land, Legislatively Designated Areas within the Haines State Forest and Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, and lands within the Dominion of Canada. The State selected the lands at the end of the Statehood Entitlement selection period as possible acquisitions for forest resources and fish and game interests. The UA selections are currently ranked the lowest priority for acquisition by DNR.The lands are not crossed by any accepted and codified Revised Statute (RS) Trails. There are no trails permitted by the BLM, State, or known unauthorized trails crossing the lands. The University has excluded the bed of the Chilkat River from their selections, as the State asserts this is a navigable waterbody, and title was conveyed to the State at Statehood under the Submerged Lands Act and the Equal Footing Doctrine. Ownership of the lands below the ordinary high water mark of the Chilkat Riverbed will remain with DNR under the Public Trust Doctrine.AS 38.05.127 requires that before a disposal of an interest in state land, DNR determine if waterbodies within or adjacent to the proposed area for disposal are navigable or public water; and if they are to reserve access easements. However, statehood entitlement selections do not provide the State with management authority or title in land, but rather a valid prior existing right requiring BLM to convey to the state the selection when certain conditions are met. Given this, the state is unable to reserve access easements for relinquishments of entitlement selections. Additionally, pursuant to 11 AAC 51.045(a)(2), DNR finds that reserving an access easement is not necessary to ensure free access to navigable or public water. A statehood entitlement selection does not provide the public with rights of access different from the general right of the public to access navigable or public water bordered by non-State land: that is, the right to use and have access to water below the ordinary high water mark for recreational or other public purposes for which the water is used or capable of being used consistent with the public trust. Because access to navigable or public water will remain the same after the relinquishment of the entitlement selection as before, it is not necessary to reserve an access easement.Overland access to the lands will require special permission due to the nearby Legislatively Designated Areas; in addition, development of overall access would be extremely expensive. Due to the canyon downstream of the selection area, water access will require developing an overland portage within the Haines Forest and Bald Eagle Preserve. The presumption is that access will be via air and small unpaved airstrips.The land described in Sec. VI represents a moderately sized, compact, and contiguous block of land. Conveyance of medium to large sized blocks of land generally simplifies land and resource management. Large blocks help enable landscape level considerations when land use authorizations are proposed. It helps the public understand land boundaries and acquire any relevant permits prior to land use.Additionally, it may reduce the potential for user confusion and conflict across areas of mixed land ownership.The sole public comment was opposed to the transfer of the lands to the University. It noted the University’s lack of public consultation in land development plans and the potential for development of the lands. The commentor recommended that the lands should be designated as Federal wilderness or returned to the Chilkat Indian Village as part of their traditional lands. Unfortunately, these proposals are outside the scope of this decision; the decisions’ scope is whether it’s in the State’s and public’s best interests to relinquish the lands in favor of the University.Agency comments, with the notable exception of the Dept. of Fish & Game, reiterated the collective view of the lands being of lesser importance for State acquisition. ADF&G noted the habitat, hunting, fishing, cultural resources, and subsistence values of the selected lands. While the lands do have value as wildlife habitat it is not clear that these values are inherently threatened by transfer to the University or require State acquisition to preserve them. Balancing development, access, subsistence use, public recreation, and wildlife habitat are challenges that must be addressed when managing the Upper Chilkat lands, irrespective of ownership. This balance is achieved through the development of land management plans, clear land use guidelines and regulations, and a robust public notice process.Overall, the lands appear suitable for relinquishment in favor of the University, as most agency comments did not provide evidence of an overarching need for DNR ownership of the parcel. This is reflected in the priority ranking of 4 (low) for acquisition. The single public comment was opposed to the land transfer to the University. The difficult access to these lands, absence of known mineral resources, low development potential, or the need for access corridors through the LDA lands, argue against State acquisition of these lands being in the best interests of the State or public, and support conditional relinquishment.Relinquishment of the lands fulfills the purpose of the CAA 2023 in providing lands to the University, which may have alternative revenue streams available for the lands.The State considered the following alternatives in adjudicating the request for relinquishment: Alternative 1: Conditionally relinquish the State’s selection on lands described in Section VI. Alternative 2: Decline to conditionally relinquish the State’s selection on lands described in Section VI. XI. DecisionThis decision considers all public and agency review comments received. After considering the facts and input described above, the Department finds it is in the best interest of the State to choose Alternative 1, and to conditionally relinquish the lands described in Section VI. Recommended by: James Ellis 2/27/2025 8/4/2025 Date of SignatureNatural Resource Specialist 3 Realty Services SectionDivision of Mining, Land and Water Department of Natural ResourcesApproved by:Lacy Hamner 8/4/2025 Date of SignatureNatural Resource Manager 2 Realty Services SectionDivision of Mining, Land and Water Department of Natural ResourcesApproved by:Commissioner Boyle 8.5.2025 Date of SignatureCommissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural ResourcesReconsiderationAn eligible person affected by this decision, and who provided timely written comment or public hearing testimony to the department, may request reconsideration to the DNR Commissioner per AS 44.37.011 and 11 AAC 02. Any request for reconsideration must be received by the Commissioner's Office within twenty (20) calendar days after issuance of the decision under 11 AAC 02.040. The Commissioner may order or deny a request for reconsideration within thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the decision. If the Commissioner takes no action on a request for reconsideration within thirty (30) days after issuance of the decision, the request for reconsideration is considered denied. The Commissioner's decision on reconsideration, other than a remand decision, is a final administrative order and decision of the department. An eligible person must first request reconsideration to the Commissioner before seeking relief in superior court. The Alaska Court System establishes its own rules for timely appealing final administrative orders and decisions of the department.Reconsideration may be mailed or hand-delivered to the DNR Commissioner's Office,550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1400, Anchorage, Alaska, 99501; or faxed to (907)-269-8918 or sent by electronic mail to dnr.appeals@alaska.gov. Reconsideration must be accompanied by the fee established in 11 AAC 05.lG0(d)(l)(F), which has been set at $200 under the provisions of 11 AAC 05.lG0(a)-(b). A copy of 11 AAC 02 is available on the department's website at https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/pdf/DNR-11- AAC-02.pdf