Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2001 03:50 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
February 26, 2001
3:50 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Chair
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chair
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Trails and Easements: Dept. of Fish and Game
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Tina Cunning
ANILCA/State-Federal Issues Program
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
Ms. Robin Willis
Habitat Division
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-16, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOHN TORGERSON called the Senate Resources Committee
meeting to order at 3:50 pm and announced a discussion of RS 2477s
and 17(b) easements.
MS. TINA CUNNING, DNR, said they were asked to bring the training
workshop that they use for their own staff on access to Alaska's
land and waters as it relates to hunting, fishing, viewing and
those kinds of interests. She included a power point presentation
with her discussion.
MS. CUNNING said that access is important to ADF&G because, "If you
can't get there, you can't hunt, fish, trap, or otherwise use and
enjoy our fish and wildlife and water resources."
She showed the committee a pie chart of what the land ownership
used to be in Alaska in 1997. Constitutional provisions under the
Public Trust Doctrine for access on waterways are very strong in
Alaska. Under state statute there is a clear definition of the
public's rights of access on waterways. The state has control of
those waterways. The ownership of the land adjacent to or
underneath the water does not grant exclusive rights of use to the
waterways.
MS. ROBIN WILLIS, DNR, said AS 38.05.127 deals with provisions for
easements along waterways. They look at them specifically during
conveyances from the state to private or municipal agencies.
MS. CUNNING added that they frequently deal with titles saying that
no one may obstruct or interfere with free passage on those
waterways. "Basically, if you can float a boat on it, you can use
it. If you're fishing in it, you can walk in it to fish. It does
not give you a right to do any alteration to the submerged lands."
MS. CUNNING said:
The ADF&G Nav Waters Program primarily serves the staff
and public who are interested in access for hunting,
fishing, trapping, and other uses and enjoyment of fish
and wildlife. It was set up as a result of a legislative
audit in 1995 originally conducted on Department of
Transportation, Natural Resources, Fish and Game, and Law
looking into how the state was implementing the Public
Trust Doctrine rights and asserting our ownership of
navigable waterways, 17(b) easement reviews and related
access issues.
One of the recommendations that came out of that
legislative audit is that Department of Law, Natural
Resources and Fish and Game coordinate on these issues to
be sure we're consistent and aggressive in asserting the
state's management.
We've done that. We now have a Nav Waters team, which
ends up dealing with access because of the relationships
of access conflicts to waters, 17(b) easements and RS
2477s.
MS. WILLIS added that ANSCA was passed in December 1971 creating a
Native trust and put aside lands for selection of which 45 million
acres were entitled to 12 regions. A 13th region got no land, but
was for those folks who lived outside of the state and it
recognized 220 villages who also received an entitlement of 22
million acres. The regions received the subsurface estate to the 22
million and an additional 18 million after that.
Those selections were done in three rounds, she said; the first was
for the village corporations in 1974. /the second round of village
selections and the first for regional corporations was done in
December 1975 and the regional corporations was extended until 1976
for the third round.
MS. WILLIS explained:
The land that was withdrawn for each village was
recognized in sort of a circular fashion for them. The
general selection requirements were that they be in whole
sections - the village takes jurisdiction and selects the
township in which it exited. They were supposed to be
contiguous and reasonably compact and they weren't to
create isolated tracts of land less than 1,280 acres (two
sections). There were no rules for how many acres could
be selected, resulting in a great number of over-selected
lands that are top filed between regions, villages and
the state. A great deal of confusion still exists as to
what will eventually become public property.
MS. WILLIS showed the committee an example of one of the areas they
were working on in Stevens Village. Regional corporations were
restricted to selecting lands in even townships with even ranges
and odd townships with odd ranges providing sort of a criss-cross
work.
She said the 17(b) easements started with the establishment of the
Federal State Land Use Planning Commission whose responsibility it
was to identify public easements across only village and regional
corporation lands. It didn't apply to Native allotments or any
other kind of private inholding. Their main interest was access for
recreation and hunting and required that, "They consult with
appropriate state and federal agencies."
MS. WILLIS explained that the Land Use Planning Commission existed
between 1971 and 1979 at which point the Department of Natural
Resources assumed the state's lead authority for identifying and
negotiating 17(b) easements. When their budgets and staffing were
reduced, they requested that other agencies and divisions take on
responsibility for working, identifying, and protecting access to
their lands of interest. In their case, they took on access to
federal lands as well as to state public lands for hunting and
fishing purposes. She said that the only thing that continues to
cause confusion is that BLM continues to defer to the Department of
Natural Resources as the primary state authority. This makes
coordination between agencies essential.
MS. WILLIS said the history of 17(b) easements started in 1975 when
BLM started conveying their properties. The first easement policy
came out from the Secretary of the Interior in 1976 and included 25
and 50 ft. wide trails, 60 ft. and 100 ft. wide roads, one-acre
site easements, and 25 ft. wide continuous streamside and shoreline
easements. This situation was not accepted by the new landowners.
So they litigated Chulista et al in 1976 trying to primarily get
rid of the 25 ft. wide continuous streamside and shoreline
easements. She explained:
In order not to prevent conveyance of lands during the
litigation, the federal agencies and the corporations
came to an agreement whereby they both agreed to allow
for conveyance, but the U.S would agree to terminate
anything the courts found to be unlawful and the Native
corporations would then donate replacement easements or
whatever was determined to be by the courts lawful. There
were about 110 conveyances issued during the time of the
court hearings.
In 1977 the court finally came out with their decision,
which required the termination of those continuous
streamside and shoreline easements and, again to expedite
the conveyance process, the federal government, with
state concurrence, decided to go ahead and conform the
easements in stages. They allowed the termination
initially of the unlawful easements - the continuous
shoreline ones and then they would wait until the lands
went to patent for the corporations and they would get
the donations at that point in time.
A little confusion was raised because determinations were
applied to all corporations and to all conveyances
whether they had the insert of the agreement associated
with it or not. Trying to get determinations and the
donations figured out has been a little bit of a problem.
In November 1978, BLM issued their new regulations, which
said that easements could only be reserved for access to
public lands and major waterways and there could be no
recreation on those easements. In other words, you
couldn't fish from them any more.
The general requirements that came out in regulation were
that easements had to be reasonably necessary to
guarantee access to publicly owned lands and waterways.
The primary standard for determining what was reasonably
necessary was present existing use and that was
established as of December 18, 1976. So the easement had
to have had use on or before 1976, which when we're doing
new conveyances now is hard to come by - trying to find
people who have used them during those times.
Absent present existing use, the only way you could get
an easement reserved was to find that it guaranteed
international treaty obligations or there was no other
reasonably alternate route or site that existed, or that
it was to provide access to isolated tracts of land that
were created during the conveyance process.
Two other important components of the regulations were
that the easements needed to be of a specific use,
location and size. The standard size and uses could only
be varied when justified by special circumstances. That's
being questioned at this point as people try to refine
the uses allowed on the easements that have been put into
existence.
There is also another provision that says public
easements shall be terminated if not used for the purpose
for which they were reserved by the date specified in the
conveyance or by December 18, 2001, which is quickly
approaching. Part of the confusion is that any easement
can be terminated at any time when its retention is no
longer needed for public use. So any of them that are no
longer accessing public property can under any authority
be terminated at any time.
The question as to the deadline of December 18 is causing
us some concern. An easement will not be terminated if it
provides access to isolated public lands solely absent
present use. That's being worked on at this point.
Important definitions that came out in ANCSA were major
waterways. You can only have access from a major waterway
to public land, but major waterway does not mean
necessarily a navigable waterway. It is any river, stream
or lake, which has a significant use in its liquid state
and present existing use was on or before December 1976.
MS. WILLIS provided them a comparison of how the easement
descriptions changed between the 1976 original easement guidelines
and the one they currently work with.
Number 900
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the coastline easement was the only one
that had been dropped off.
MS. WILLIS answered yes and a court case said it was no longer
legal. So the 1976 ability to reserve it isn't there any more. The
rest of the easements were just refined as to allowable uses or how
they defined their widths or how they could be established.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how a court at that time could get around the
public trust doctrine on coast access.
MS. WILLIS replied that she didn't think they referenced it. The
main part had to do with the continuous shoreline easements, which
were implied to be kind of a floating easement that keeps moving
and was never in a definitive location. The courts found that it
needed to be in one point so that you could access up and down a
coast or stream. You didn't have to have access for the public to
stand on a shoreline the whole distance. The public trust wasn't
mentioned.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that by elimination there were no easements on
that coastline.
MS. WILLIS answered that you can have them at periodic points to
allow access for the uplands in the form of a site easement at the
head of a trail or at periodic points so you can get up or down a
river. They are usually put at 10-mile points, depending on the
kind of waterway you're working with.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he thought she said that in conveyance of state
land through DNR, they insist upon preserving access easements
along waterways for the public trust, but with the conveyance to
private land, someone did not insist on it.
MS. WILLIS answered that was right and that was federal land to the
private inholdings and the state was not a party to it. The state
was on the side of reserving the coastline easements, but they
didn't win.
MS. CUNNING clarified that there were two tables; one was for site
easements and one was for trail easements. The site easements allow
ed one-acre between a transportation mode-change. For example, if
you're on a public waterway and need to get out, pack up your raft
or whatever you're using and then hike out to across the private
land to the isolated piece of public land, then the trail is
reserved from the site to the other body of public land or water.
So there's still the ability to get on and off the public trust
waters. There's just not the authorization to stand on the private
land to fish, for example, in the private waters or to walk up and
down the lakeshore. Then you can only do it below the ordinary high
water mark.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that Native corporations are not impacted in
any way by the very same laws that are impacting everyone else in
the state when it comes to the utilization of public trust rights.
MS. WILLIS agreed that there was a different standard between state
lands being conveyed to private entities versus federal land that
is conveyed to private entities. The definitions of the site
easements are the refinements. She continued:
There are only two opportunities for the state to provide
input on access; one is at the point of a notice of
proposed easements and recommendations that are sent out
to all interested parties and the other part is when they
actually send out their listing or their decision to
issue conveyance which will provide all of the easements
that they plan on reserving. That decision is appealable
by any one who has a title interest, like the Native
corporations, the state, or another private landowner.
That's their opportunity to appeal. If they don't appeal,
it goes to interim conveyance or patent and the land
becomes private.
MS. WILLIS used Seldovia as an example. She said:
When the state became a state, we were allowed to select
property. The state made their selections and received
tentative approval to the lands in these two townships
[she pointed to them on a map]. When ANCSA passed, the
Seldovia Native Association was given the ability to make
their selections. These are the rings they would have
been able to select from [She indicated them on a map].
The first round of selections were tentatively approved
by the state. The second round they were not. This one
[in Seldovia] was within the ability to select and they
talked about it for a while.
They did all of the easement work for this area in 1974
and 75. As a consequence, they rejected the state's
tentative approval in 1975 and 77 for these two
townships. The lands were then conveyed to Seldovia
Native Association [one in 75 and one in 78]. One,
because of the court decision, and this land was part of
the agreement for conformance, the easements in this
township needed to be conformed.
Over here to get a little further is Port Graham. This is
the state land here. There have been proposals to provide
access to the state land using these routes all the way
around. There is a route from Port Graham. The concern is
there are a lot of native allotments that have been
conveyed at the head of the bay and there is a concern as
to whether this will continue to be a valid easement to
these state lands. So the easements in question for
Seldovia are the Seldovia Valley, Seldovia Lake, and
access to the state lands around it; and questions as to
whether Seldovia Lake is a public water body that
requires access being provided to it. There's also been
research in the discussions about a CCC trail that was
created in the 1940s that presumably came down and across
and connected up to Port Graham. That's been researched,
but no one has authenticated it as an RS 2477 or an
historic route.
MS. WILLIS showed the committee a slide of the actual area where
the trail in Seldovia Lake is. She continued:
Because the state had tentative approval to the township,
they also had some inholdings on the Lake. In 1983, the
state exchanged those homestead sites with the
corporation near the park. In exchanging them, they
reserved the public access easements from the Lake to
public lands that adjoined them. In 1983, they had a
continuous shoreline easement along the bay and it was
removed. The lands were then surveyed and patented to
Seldovia Native Association, but the easements were not
conformed. So, they have not gone through that phase. In
1997, a number of individuals that lived in the community
tried to get assistance in getting the easements marked,
because there were trespass and location questions. BLM
sent staff members down there to attempt to get the
easement marked. Unfortunately, they ran into questions
about where exactly the easement was located and what
uses might be allowed on it and it came to a standstill.
Later on that year, the corporation requested that the
easements be terminated, because they no longer accessed
public lands. BLM disputed that and said no; there were
still sufficient numbers of state and public lands in the
area that they needed to reserve access, but they would
continue discussions and negotiations as to where they
were and for what uses they could be used.
Since 1998, BLM, the state, congressional delegations,
legislators and almost every one has been trying to help
resolve the questions that have been raised to find a
solution that's acceptable to everyone.
She pointed to a route in Seldovia that had been created as a
logging route with history showing that the previous president had
requested DOT to help them establish a road along the route so
there could be some logging in the vicinity. Since that time, the
corporation has wanted to go more into an ecotourism type of
environment. So the uses along there are more for motorized use
than they were originally. They are still working on an acceptable
settlement.
MS. WILLIS explained the easement that was actually reserved is
kind of ambiguous. There were questions of section lines existing
and those could be worked with. Is Seldovia Lake a public waterway?
It was surveyed out and is not part of the acreage entitlement that
the corporation received, so the question is what public water they
need to reserve public access to.
Regulations say they can only modify the uses allowed on an
easement for special circumstances and they need to know what they
are and if ecotourism would fit in.
MS. WILLIS said the question that is continually raised is who
should manage the easements since it's state land and there are
federal easements. The state has no real authority that can be
found to manage them, but it does access state lands. She
understands that the corporation would not be as happy to have the
state manage them as they would to have the federal agency continue
to manage them.
One proposal that Seldovia City came up with to provide alternate
access was to go up from the city into the state hills into the
city's designated watershed, but there's a question as to whether
you can take motorized use vehicles into that watershed. A small
piece of land belongs to the university and they have questioned if
there's access through their properties.
Number 1600
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked about the December 18 deadline as it
applies to Seldovia.
MS. WILLIS replied that it does apply to Seldovia and they would
have the opportunity to request terminations and the public process
would have to go forward and evaluate what easements are reserved
and where they are located. Seldovia recently appealed a decision
that was issued by BLM arguing that the easements that were
reserved in the original conveyance were under the 1976 easement
regulations. Those regulations did not discuss motorized vehicles
in the same way the current ones do and there was discussion as to
whether they could redefine those. How that appeal comes out will
affect the termination process and what they are allowed to do
there.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked her where the university has lands.
MS. WILLIS pointed them out to her in Seldovia Bay. She said the
major problems are the 2001 termination, over-selections and never
knowing whose going to have what land and what will be public at
the end, marking and management of the easements and whether the
state should be a participant in doing that and what are the
allowable uses going to be. It's some people's feeling that during
the 2001 termination project that corporations will come in and
request refinement on uses of the easements as they deem necessary.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it appears that they are going to end up with a
big piece of state land that is totally inaccessible.
MS. WILLIS agreed with him. She said they are opposed to it and are
trying to resolve it. The corporation is very sensitive about there
being non-motorized use out to that area and keeping the valley
very pristine. There is a group in the city government who want to
have full and free access using their motorized vehicles. They have
not been able to come to a resolution.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he could understand that, but he didn't
understand what the State of Alaska was going to do with the land
that is inaccessible.
MS. WILLIS replied that the commissioner of DNR and his staff have
been trying very hard to come to an understanding of what the
state's role should be and what should be reserved. She thought the
state was determined to retain access. It's just where and it what
form.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if Seldovia Lake is state public water and is
it navigable?
MS. WILLIS answered that it probably wouldn't be defined as
navigable in the typical sense of federal determinations. It would
probably be considered major water body according to BLM standard,
because that's a commuting use for reserving of easements. From
DNR's perspective, it would be large enough to be navigable and
usable by floatplanes and other things that they would probably
want to reserve access to. It is used for ice fishing, also.
SENATOR HALFORD asked who owns the land beneath it.
MS. WILLIS answered that it is undefined because it has meandered
out and has been given a title. "At one time the whole thing,
including the bed of the lake, was state property because it was
TA'd to the state. The TA was rejected, but they didn't convey the
submerged land under the lake to the corporation. It remains state
land. It is definitely not part of the entitlement of the
corporation."
SENATOR HALFORD asked if that land belonged to either the state or
the federal government.
MS. WILLIS said that was right.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if that wasn't the definition of public land.
MS. WILLIS replied that it is, "But there is another issue of
upland owner adjacent to a large water body that's not officially
state land controlling uses within…. Basically, in a lot of places
if you have a lake of a reasonable size then it's not an acreage
entitlement to the upland owner. But, if it's not navigable in a
sense of being reserved by the state, the upland owner can manage
or pretend that he owns and controls the lake bed."
SENATOR HALFORD asked if he could limit floatplane access.
MS. WILLIS frowned at him in reply.
SENATOR HALFORD said that didn't sound like where the Supreme Court
was on public trust uses. They have told private property owners
they didn't own their own tideland and that they could lease it out
from under them.
MS. WILLIS said that's one of the reasons it remains a question.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if she wanted to get an answer to that
question, how would she go about it?
MS. WILLIS said she would go back to the attorney's office.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if there was anything the state could do to
assert ownership.
MS. WILLIS answered that she didn't know. In a lot of lake systems
that are large enough for floatplane use and recreational use of
the lake, they have been sufficient enough in use to be able to be
determined major. But other systems are smaller. This one was
unique in that it was state land first and then went back to the
federal government.
Number 1900
MS. TINA CUNNING said she wanted to explain a little bit about
their interest in RS 2477 trails and section line easements.
The revised statute RS 2477 passed in 1866 and means that
an RS 2477 right-of-way (ROW) could be established only
over land owned by the federal government not otherwise
restricted or reserved. Reserved meant that it was set
aside as a national park, monument, forest, military
reservation or similar withdrawal. If the ROW grant
predated the reservation, it remains a valid property
right. RS 2477s are the responsibility of the respective
states to assert and manage. Examples of "reserved" are
entry dates for homesteads, headquarter sites, location
dates of mining claims, occupancy dates of Native
allotments, public land owners, orders for federal
withdrawals and reservation dates for national parks.
Some of the RS 2477s we've assisted DNR and DOT in
researching the past go clear back to the turn of the
previous century in trying to determine if we could
document that the use predates the federal withdrawal.
The width of the easements is in the regulations DNR has
proposed and, I believe, been accepted primarily the
acceptance of the ROW by the public authority as the
State of Alaska has done. The writs would vary depending
upon what years that ROW was established. If it was a
user-established trail, it's a minimum width [indisc.]
The legislature funded DOT and DNR and a major CIP in the
years 1993 - 1998 to document RS 2477s. There were over
2,000 trails initially researched. Six hundred and two
trails qualified as RS 2477s. Since then, 69 more have
been identified and DNR recommended 12 to be removed last
year.
In 1998, the State legislature passed a statute which
clearly states that the State of Alaska, through that
statute public use and expenditure of public funds for
construction and other means, claims numerous rights-of-
way across federal land under RS 2477 including section
line easements and rights-of-way. It went on to list
those RSTs, which they were accepting as of that time.
Under that legislation, DNR is required to annually
report its research findings to the legislature. They
report any trails for addition and any trails for
removal, because as further research comes along,
occasionally they discover that the use actually post-
dated when the land was reserved. A letter was written in
December of this year in which DNR identified three more.
MS. CUNNING said there are ongoing hurdles that affect the users of
fish and wildlife. The federal hurdles include that the agencies
frequently do not recognize the RS 2477 trails. There are instances
where the federal manager may acknowledge it, but wants to permit
the uses allowed on it.
Some of the state hurdles we deal with include the
recording requirement that is in what was in SB 180 in
which the agencies believe all of those lands are
encumbered with a right-of-way. A lot of the public gets
awfully anxious about that when they believe there might
be a right-of-way on their property when there's
alternate access. There's a number of management
questions which we raised and actually we were brought
down to explain some of those management questions
relating to permitting RS 2477s and the section line
easements. Those issues are going to be addressed by the
upcoming DNR regulations. I understand they are adopting
phase one regulations now to address some of that
permitting. The phase two regulations that affect
utilities and other activities will be forwarded sometime
this coming year.
Under our state statute, RS 2477 trails and section line
easements can be replaced by alternative public access
only in compliance with the statute. In other words, it
can't be vacated unless there's reasonably comparable
alternate equivalent access for now and into the future.
DNR's new regulations do make some changes in that the
old certification process is eliminated. There's an
administrative adjudication of assertions now. They are
clearly identifying in their regulations the use permits
and widths. I understand they may be coming to the
legislature requesting some changes to the legislation
including the standards for vacation.
Some of our current problems that we have as an agency in
dealing with RS 2477s are that there are 17(b) easements
and RS 2477s overlaps and the widths that are reserved
and the uses may be different. RS 2477s are broadly
considered highways used for ATVs and snow machines.
We have had difficulties at times getting recognition of
RS 2477 and section line easements on University lands,
mental health lands, and crossing a railroad rights-of-
way.
The whole issue of marking and managing section line
easements between DOT and DNR was a major issue that is
going to be covered by the phase 2 regulations. The role
of ADF&G is in question there. We feel very strongly
about monitoring section line easements because they are
very important for access for outdoorsmen - our
fishermen, our hunters, our trappers, etc.
Number 2200
MS. WILLIS said one problem is finding a valid survey method.
There are a number of people who believe that the on-the-
ground survey is the only option across private parcels and
there aren't enough surveyors in the state to do the job.
There are also questions as to whether GPS readings can be
used and to what extent, if they can be.
MS. CUNNING said the vacation issue is major and relates to the
municipal authorities issue. "Where people own property that is on
an RS 2477 and subdivisions have grown up around them and there are
subdivision roads that may or may not connect between the RS 2477s
or section line easements, there's a strong desire to vacate the
old trails that allowed snow machine or ATV access. Yet, the new
subdivision roads may be within a municipality or may be managed in
such a way that the historic uses of the RS 2477 are not allowed."
MS. CUNNING said they had been struggling with that one with DOT
and DNR. There is also an issue of allowable uses where the section
line easements come under DOT's permitting. There is an underlying
assumption of general public uses that still may occur on those
easements. That use is under normal state land management authority
and liability clauses, but the issue of who actually does the
permitting is not totally ironed out, yet.
Number 2300
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned a trail on the map that was a major
road. MS. WILLIS answered her questions.
TAPE 01-16, SIDE B
MS. CUNNING explained that one of the small areas, the Copper
River, has a problem with trespass during the bison hunt on Ahtna
land. Signs clearly say in multiple places to get permission from
the private landowner and respect the property. This area is very
valuable to the public, but the land status is very complex to
research.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if they had any recommendations for this
committee to help resolve any of the issues.
MS. WILLIS replied that if it weren't in the regulations and
statutes and could be waived by the Secretary of the Interior, it
would make sense to wait until the whole conveyance occurs before
doing a full overview of determinations. Any of the easements that
don't access public lands currently could be terminated at any
time. So they are not preventing any of the corporations from
getting rid of easements that are inappropriate.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how CIRI tied into the matrix of land status
around the Port Graham, Seldovia and English Bay areas. She asked
if the CIRI was a party to the easement.
MS. WILLIS explained that the pink area on the map was mostly
private. CIRI would have some surface rights underneath the land,
but the easement is on the land itself. Their patents and
conveyances usually aren't subject to easements.
MS. WILLIS discussed some of the areas with Senator Lincoln
regarding CIRI.
SENATAOR TAYLOR noted, "Hunting and fishing are not permitted from
or on a 17(b) easement." He thought that was the purpose of them.
MS. CUNNING explained that their purpose is to get you from one
body of public land or water to antoher body of public land or
water using private land minimally. "If you want to hunt and fish
on adjacent land, you get permission from the private land owner."
MS. WILLIS added, "It's just a right of passage."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked everyone for their participation and
adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|