SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE  February 18, 2000 3:08 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Rick Halford, Chairman Senator Pete Kelly Senator Jerry Mackie Senator Lyda Green Senator Sean Parnell Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chairman COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 194 "An Act relating to the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve." -MOVED CSSB 194(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE SENATE BILL NO. 255 "An Act regarding best interest findings and land use permits issued by the Department of Natural Resources; and providing for an effective date." -HEARD AND HELD SENATE BILL NO. 252 "An Act relating to certain state rights-of-way." -HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 194 - No previous action to consider. SB 255 - No previous action to consider. SB 252 - No previous action to consider. WITNESS REGISTER Mr. Bob Loeffler, Director Division of Mining and Water Management Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street Anchorage, AK 99503-5935 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 194. Ms. Mary Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law 604 Barnette St. Rm.247 Fairbanks, AK 99701-4573 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 255. Mr. Mike Kelly 1625 Wolverine Lane Fairbanks, AK POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 255. Ms. Irene Alexakos 1311 Tarn Court Juneau, AK 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 255. Ms. Nancy Welch Northern Region Office Department of Natural Resources 3700 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 252. Mr. Myles Conway, Assistant Attorney General Department of Law 1031 W 4th Ave., Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 252. ACTION NARRATIVE    TAPE 00-02, SIDE A Number 001 SB 194-CHILKAT BALD EAGLE PRESERVE    CHAIRMAN HALFORD called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. and announced SB 194 to be up for consideration. MR. BOB LOEFFLER, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated support for SB 194 but suggested the following change to make the bill better. Certain provisions within Title 38 require DNR to do things that the Legislature was trying to exempt it from doing. If SB 194 said "notwithstanding AS 38" and left out the "050.35(e)," it would expedite the process and be cheaper. He explained DNR would still reserve the mineral rights and an easement along the river and provide public notice. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what DNR wouldn't do. MR. LOEFFLER said DNR would not do a land exchange. The change would exempt DNR from "the kind of land exchange provisions that exchanging one parcel for another expects." DNR would do a best interest finding, but it wouldn't do the land exchange. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the bill would say "Notwithstanding all of Title 38." MR.LOEFFLER replied, "All of 38." SENATOR PARNELL noted the bill already has a zero fiscal note and questioned how the change would result in a savings. MR. LOEFFLER responded that DNR has a backlog of leases so he is assuming that if DNR fixes this one, it could go on to the next lease and make another Alaskan happy. SENATOR MACKIE moved to delete "AS 38.050.35(e)." There were no objections and it was so ordered. There being no further testimony or discussion, SENATOR MACKIE moved CSSB 194(RES) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SB 255-PUB.LAND PERMITS/HEALY-FAIRBANKS INTERTIE CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 255 to be up for consideration. SENATOR PETE KELLY, sponsor of SB 255, explained that a recent court decision puts in jeopardy the way DNR permits for certain land uses. This court decision will have an immediate impact on a power project in his area, which might result in higher rates and power outages in the near future. Beyond that, this court decision isn't just a regional issue; it will negatively impact DNR and may cause long delays in the permitting process. According to Division of Land officials, the delay could be as long as two years for some projects. The decision could also put past permits for oil and gas projects into jeopardy. Number 434 SENATOR KELLY explained that SB 255 will reverse the court decision and specify that the legislative intent is that best interest findings are not required for all permits. SENATOR MACKIE asked for an explanation of the problem regarding the best interest findings. SENATOR KELLY explained that the process used for this Intertie was the same process used for all other Interties. It has been a very, very public process. DNR concluded it was not necessary to do a best interest finding for the Intertie because it felt the statute was specific in that area. Since 1981, most everyone has agreed that the statute does not require a best interest finding. If DNR has to do a best interest finding, there will be other challenges and other delays - probably up to one year for this particular project. In that year's delay, the power company says it will have to do load shifting. One danger of load shifting is that the Fort Knox Mine is a low priority operation and residential and commercial projects must be first served, even though the Fort Knox Mine has undergone an exhaustive public process. SENATOR MACKIE asked if this process is adequate enough to take into consideration fish and game and other concerns. SENATOR KELLY answered that it is. He added that this bill doesn't mandate that anything be done differently, it merely clarifies the legislative intent to allow DNR to continue to do business as it has done in the past. He pointed out that DNR staff and people from the power company were available to answer questions about the specific problems via teleconference. SENATOR GREEN asked if Senator Kelly's main concern is the court decision. SENATOR KELLY said it is. He explained that the case was lost on appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who the parties were in that case. MS. MARY LUNDQUIST, Assistant Attorney General, informed committee members that the Supreme Court case involved the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, the Sierra Club, Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) and the Department of Natural Resources. She explained that the Northern Alaska Environmental Center and the Sierra Club appealed DNR's decision. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what other permits this bill would apply to and how the Supreme Court decision would be retroactively applied. MR. LOEFFLER, DNR, explained that AS 38.05.850 is the statutory section that DNR does most of its permitting under, whether the permits be for rights-of-way, sewage outfall, seismic exploration, or transfer storage. The court said that those things, which the court does not believe to be functionally revokable, even if they legally are, should be done with a best interest finding. DNR does not typically go through that process for projects it considers to be revokable or minor. As a result, the Court ruling would require DNR to increase the processes it uses in the future. Senator Kelly identified the second effect on GVEA. The third effect is that projects that DNR did in the past, which didn't undergo this procedure, would be open to challenge. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how the Supreme Court defined "functionally revokable." MS. LUNDQUIST explained that the court issued an opinion on remand so that it could expand upon that when the final opinion was issued. The court looked at the probability that DNR would revoke the Intertie in its entirety. It also cited the Wilderness Society v. Morgan case. That case looked at two tests to determine whether the project was revokable. She stated, "It could be that the court would apply one of those tests specifically when they dealt with the likelihood of whether it would be revokable, whether the project would be in perpetuity, what the application said, damage to the property, and whether the damage was permanent - and I mean the other test, the subsequent test - the Wilderness Society [indisc.] whether the permit was revokable by its terms and whether the structures were deemed capable of being moved and whether the land would be left in usable condition." CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if there has been a Supreme Court remand without a written ruling. MS. LUNDQUIST answered that the court's final ruling reversed DNR's decision and remanded it to the agency for best interest findings. It has not yet issued the formal opinion that will go into the official report. CHAIRMAN HALFORD commented that "reversed and remanded" is straightforward enough. He asked whether the court would include some discussion about the solutions. MS. LUNDQUIST said she thought the basis for the decision is in the opinion that has already been issued and she doesn't see how they could learn much more than they already have from the court's opinion on the Wilderness Society case. SENATOR MACKIE asked if it was remanded for a best interest finding. MR. LOEFFLER answered yes. SENATOR MACKIE wanted to know what a best interest finding consists of and who has to do one. MS. LUNDQUIST responded that a best interest finding is an official document by DNR that is issued under AS 38.05.035(e). It's required for disposals of interests in state lands. In that document DNR includes all data, salient facts and issues that have been raised during the public comment period. For oil and gas lease sale contracts there are specific requirements, but for this permitting issue there aren't any requirements regarding what must be in that document. SENATOR MACKIE asked how long the process takes. MS. NANCY WELCH, Northern Region Office, DNR, answered that they typically take from six months to a year and a half depending on how contentious they are with the public. Number 1200 SENATOR MACKIE asked if it is costly to DNR to have to assign people to do a best interest finding when DNR already has the end result. MS. WELCH said that the GVEA issue has taken one of her resource managers two months, including the time involved with Ms. Lundquist from the Attorney General's office. Staff will have to conduct public hearings. Additionally, DNR has already received more than 1,000 responses from the public, which will take at least six months to synthesize. SENATOR MACKIE asked if any new information will come out of the public hearings and whether DNR might come to a different conclusion. MR. LOEFFLER inserted that DNR cannot claim what the conclusion will be until all of the public comments have been read. SENATOR MACKIE asked if it is safe to assume that DNR wouldn't have issued the permit if it hadn't listened to the people in the beginning. MR. LOEFFLER responded that DNR went through a public process and thought it made the best decision at the time. DNR then rethought the decision and issued a preliminary best interest finding and still believes it made the best decision but it has not gone through all of the comments. SENATOR KELLY asked if DNR finds that it isn't in the best interest to grant the right-of-way, whether the finding can be challenged in court. MR. LOEFFLER answered it can. SENATOR KELLY asked if DNR will complete the best interest finding some time this summer and after that the court challenges will happen. MR. LOEFFLER agreed but said he hopes DNR can complete the best interest finding sooner than that. SENATOR MACKIE asked if this criteria is removed, as the bill proposes to do, whether the public will still have the opportunity to challenge the actual permit decision in court, but it will be dealt with more expeditiously. MS. WELCH answered that typically, if DNR believes the public would respond to a notice because a permit is not routine, DNR would go back out for public comment anyway. It's not that DNR is precluding public involvement in the process but it will give DNR the discretion to. Second, when DNR actually issues a permit, it contains a 30-day appeal clause. SENATOR MACKIE stated he just wanted to make sure this will not take away the public's ability to appeal the decision. MS. WELCH said it will not. Number 1360 SENATOR LINCOLN asked why SB 255 is retroactive to July 27, 1981. She stated that she understood the Supreme Court decision does not call the existing permits into question and that there was a 30 day appeal period. MR. LOEFFLER answered that prior to a court case in 1993, DNR did not put all of the appeals language in its decisions, which the court now requires DNR to do. The court has in the past held that, without that language, some of those cases can be appealed. Since the current Supreme Court decision sets new rules that DNR hasn't followed, the pre-1993 permits were "appealable." SB 255 prevents previously settled decisions from being appealed under the court decision. MS. WELCH added that this statute was amended in 1981 to exclude permits (under AS 38.05.850) from a written finding. SB 255 reiterates the legislative intent of that amendment. Number 1469 SENATOR LINCOLN asked why the director wouldn't want the consent of the commissioner for a best interest finding before issuing a permit that goes far beyond simple electric transmission rights- of-way. MS. WELCH answered that is how the existing statute reads. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if best interest findings can be done without the commissioner's consent. MR. LOEFFLER replied that some of the statutes refer to the commissioner and some refer to the director of the Division of Lands. Functionally, however, the commissioner delegates that responsibility to the director. The director delegates some jobs to staff because it's more efficient. When controversial issues arise, the commissioner is kept informed. For the most part, the process used by either is identical - no matter who the statute refers to. Number 1601 SENATOR PARNELL asked, regarding the public's right to appeal, what kind of public process would occur in the GVEA situation without the best interest finding. MR. MIKE KELLY said the GVEA project, which was approved by the legislature in 1993 (with a grant of just under $50 million), went through a full-blown environmental impact statement. DNR and BLM cooperated in the process. The agencies have material from about four-years' worth of hearings in Fairbanks, Anderson, Nenana, and Healy, massive written documents, scores of studies on the impacts, and a decision on the federal level to issue the portion of the right-of-way on federal land. The military has also given its permission for the permit. SB 255 addresses the state's portion. After the permit survived the normal AS 38.05.850 process, it was overturned by the court at the eleventh hour. SENATOR LINCOLN asked if Mr. Kelly is any relation to Senator Pete Kelly. MR. KELLY responded that Senator Kelly is his older brother. MS. IRENE ALEXAKOS said she was a member of both groups who were the plaintiffs in the appeal. She thought this bill was full of false tactics and suggests that best interest findings are needed for all right-of-way permits, which is not true. Under the Supreme Court decision, a best interest finding is needed only if the conveyance is non-revokable. MS. ALEXAKOS pointed out the northern Intertie right-of-way is the largest ever issued by DNR, which is why the court held that it was functionally non-revokable. Nearly 90 percent of all utility right-of-way permits issued by DNR are less than 1/100 the size of the northern Intertie and do not raise any questions at all about revocability. The huge majority of right-of-way permits do not require a best interest finding under the Supreme Court decision. The decision does not call into question existing permits because the 30-day appeal period for past permits has long-since passed. MS. ALEXAKOS stated SB 255 goes well beyond the narrow issue discussed in the Supreme Court decision. It creates an exemption not only for revokable permits, but for all permits issued under AS 38.05.850. In theory, under this bill, DNR could convey a single permanent non-revokable right-of-way permit across all 100 million acres of state land with no best interest findings - without even giving public notice. Without a best interest finding, there is no public notice requirement for permits issued under AS 38.05.850. She emphasized there's a difference between appealing something and having a public comment period. MS. ALEXAKOS said SB 255 is unconstitutional as applied to any right-of-way permits that, like the northern Undertoe, rise to a level of state land. Article 8, sec. 10 of the Constitution states that "No disposals or leases of state lands, or interests therein, shall be made without prior public notice and other safeguards of the public interest as may be prescribed by law." This bill repeals all requirements of public notice and other safeguards of the public interest with regard to permits under Section .850, which, in some cases, are disposals of state lands. She concluded that SB 255 is a broad-sweeping, nepotistic, unconstitutional, knee-jerk reaction to a reasonably narrowly defined Supreme Court decision. SENATOR MACKIE asked her to explain why SB 255 is unconstitutional if the legislature has the ability to write the law. MS. ALEXAKOS said SB 255 makes it so that there is no public comment period. One would be able to appeal a decision after the decision has been made, but not before. Number 1909 SENATOR MACKIE asked how that would make it unconstitutional when it says "the public process prescribed by law." MS. ALEXAKOS reiterated, "No disposals or leases of state land shall be made without prior public notice and other safeguards of public interest." CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted they are referring to two independent phrases that refer to public notice and then other state interests. SENATOR KELLY asked Ms. Lundquist and Mr. Loeffler to comment on that issue. SENATOR MACKIE asked that they specifically respond to the question about doing this without any public process or notice or anything else. He asked if Ms. Alexakos's statement is accurate. MR. LOEFFLER answered that, while AS 38.05.850 does not require it, DNR always gives public notice when it believes a disposal to be of interest to the public or controversial. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if DNR can dispose of anything, constitutionally, without public notice. MR. LOEFFLER answered that is correct. MS. LUNDQUIST added she believes that under art. 8, sec. 10, the legislature has the power to prescribe the extent to which public notice is required. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he agrees, but the statement had been made that no public notice is required. He asked if anything else in the law requires public notice or if Ms. Lundquist was going back to the constitutional provision, which is not self-enforcing. MS. LUNDQUIST said with respect to the application of AS 38.05.850, there is no requirement in the statutes for public notice. Public notice is given based on the importance of the project itself. The legislature has provided for public notice for disposals of state land in AS 38.05.945. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Constitution is more expansive than that because it refers to an interest in land without specifying any amount. He asked if the State ever lost a constitutional case, not a statutory case, regarding public notice for disposal of an interest. MS. LUNDQUIST and MR. LOEFFLER indicated they didn't know the answer. SENATOR MACKIE said he is confused because earlier he was assured of a public process and he is no longer convinced that Ms. Alexakos's concern was addressed. He stated he understands the rationale for not doing a best interest finding if a public process is available but to do a major project like the GVEA Undertoe with no public notice concerns him. He asked if something was overlooked and said he needs to be convinced that is not a problem. SENATOR GREEN responded that, to give an example, an offer to buy 5 or 10 acres of state land associated with the meat plant in Palmer was made during the summer. The Division is now going out for public comment; after that it will institute the bid process. When she asked why the long delay, the Division said it was taking the issue to the public and always does. She believes this particular asset would be good to privatize. SENATOR KELLY responded that DNR has a history of providing for a public process for land of a far lower level than the GVEA Undertoe. He asked what public process DNR would be forced to go through if SB 255 passes. MR. LOEFFLER answered that, as a matter of policy, DNR provides public notice anytime it believes a disposal of land to be significant or controversial to a group of citizens. SENATOR KELLY asked if anything in regulation forces DNR to do that. MR. LOEFFLER answered it is a requirement for disposals under AS 38.05.035(e). SENATOR KELLY asked if this falls under .035(e). MR. LOEFFLER answered that it does, but SB 255 would exempt it from the best interest finding requirement of .035(e). Even though he doesn't believe public notice would be required, he would do it anyway to avoid being stupid. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated "to avoid being unconstitutional." MR. LOEFFLER answered that is correct. MS. LUNDQUIST added for a permit under AS 38.05.850 there is no requirement under the Constitution or in statute for public notice. It's a discretionary function of DNR as to the amount and extent of public notice that is required for any permit issued under .850, which includes electric transmission lines, log storage areas, roads, trails, ditches, fields, gathering lines, and transmission and distribution lines. Article 8, sec. 10 refers only to disposals of interest in state lands. It says no disposals or leases of state land shall be made without prior public notice. This part of the Constitution applies only to disposals in .035. The legislature, under this provision, may prescribe the amount of notice that is required and it has done exactly that in AS 38.05.945. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the Supreme Court considers a permit to be functionally irrevocable, regardless of its size, it would be unconstitutional without public notice. MS. LUNDQUIST said that is correct and that under the court's recent decision, if the permit issued is not functionally revokable, it is a disposal subject to Section .035(e). Since it is subject to that, public notice would be required under Section .945. SENATOR LINCOLN asked, regarding a statement made earlier by Mr. Loeffler, how "significant" is determined by DNR.   TAPE 02, SIDE B Number 2350 MR. LOEFFLER stated that any disposal of land requires public notice. Permits for things other than the disposal of land, include cross country travel, overnight camps, scientific operations and other short-term uses of land, do not require public notice unless they could create a significant issue with the public. With disposal of land, public notice is always given and, if it is not, a disposal notice is given in case the public wants a chance to comment. SENATOR PARNELL asked if that policy is in regulation or at DNR's discretion. MR. LOEFFLER answered it is done at the discretion of the regional manager, director or commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked whether the term "functionally revocable" has a history or was created by the Supreme Court as a standard. Number 2319 MS. LUNDQUIST stated the language "functionally revocable" was adopted by the Supreme Court in the Wilderness Society case. In that case, the functionally revocable standard was determined by the extent a project impacts the land. It will be hard to distinguish what is functionally revocable and what is not based on reading the Wilderness Society case. If a right-of-way has a gravel pad attached to it, under the Wilderness case, removal of that pad will cause more damage than leaving it in place. On the other hand, an electric transmission line could have a minimal impact on state land but be considered functionally revocable by the Supreme Court. It is an arbitrary decision by the Supreme Court and DNR will have to guess what is disposable or not. CHAIRMAN HALFORD stated that the legislature should fix DNR's problem with a best interest finding, but it should also fix, on a policy basis, what functionally revocable means with regard to public notice. Otherwise, the Constitution will only be enforced by the courts and not backed up by statute. SENATOR MACKIE agreed this needs to be clarified. He said he thought he heard one of the Division people say that DNR is required by statute, maybe Title 39, as well as by policy and regulation to give public notice on any of these kinds of projects. MR. LOEFFLER interjected that, by statute, public notice is required for a disposal but if it is not a disposal, it is required by policy. Number 2187 CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Loeffler to draft a simple public requirement to fix this problem. MR. LOEFFLER stated he would be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Loeffler to give the draft to Senator Kelly by the middle of next week. MS. ALEXAKOS asked what the Chairman meant by the Golden Valley Electric "problem." CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he made that comment in regard to the sponsor's intention and that it was relative to the best interest finding. MS. ALEXAKOS stated, "One other point, too. When they say that it had to go through an EIS process, it was only because it also crosses federal land. If it didn't cross state land, it wouldn't have gone through that process." CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced that the committee would revisit the bill on Wednesday. SB 252-STATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 252 to be up for consideration. MR. LOEFFLER, DNR, explained that SB 252 does three things. First, it deals with a recording problem with the existing statute. In 1998, the statute directed DNR to record 602 trails. The exact location of many of those trails was unknown. As a result, DNR started to record the trails in locations where it thought the trails might be, but that was on a wide swath of land. When DNR notified the public it might record an encumbrance upon their property, DNR received many objections. SB 252 eliminates the requirement to record, except in two places: in areas where DNR has actually surveyed and knows where the trails are located, and on large parcels of 160 acres or more. This will prevent DNR from recording encumbrances in error, which occurs when DNR is not sure where a trail is. MR. LOEFFLER said the 1998 statute requires legislative action before DNR can assert new RS 2477 trails. SB 252 eliminates that requirement but instead requires DNR to report its findings of research to the legislature and to keep a report and database on what DNR believes to be RS 2477s. MR. LOEFFLER stated SB 252 also eliminates 12 trails from the original list. On the basis of new information, DNR can no longer conclude they are valid RS 2477 trails. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who listed and catalogued the trails in the 1998 statute. MS. WELCH said the 602 trails listed in the statute were catalogued by DNR as known RS 2477s at the time the law passed. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who decided to record encumbrances on any property within one mile of an RS 2477. MS. WELCH answered because of the way the survey is catalogued on the recording system, it effects title within any parcel that is in a section. On trails that are actually surveyed, DNR can tell exactly which lot is encumbered because of the survey location and the encumbrance is attached to those parcels. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if property was encumbered up to one mile away even thought the trails were evident on the ground and in use. MS. WELCH said that is correct. DNR did not have a survey and staff has not been to the area around most of the trails. At least 50 percent were historical trails without a trail bed and were overgrown. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said it was done around the overgrown trails, but it was also done around the obvious trails that are currently being used. MS. WELCH thought Chairman Halford was referring to letters that DNR sent to 8,000 residents in the Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star Boroughs in June of 1999. She explained that the Boroughs, using the trail information supplied by DNR, gave DNR a list of lot owners that might be affected. The Mat-Su Borough included lots that were outside of the trail. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked who created the RS 2477s as they apply to private property. MR. MYLES CONWAY, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, Natural Resources Section, stated that RS 2477s were created by the federal government in conjunction with the State's acceptance of the rights-of-way (at Statehood). CHAIRMAN HALFORD said many people think that by providing public notice, the State created encumbrances on their property when it was actually created by federal law. Whether or not the encumbrances exist is a matter of a determination; the legislature's action primarily provided notice. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if DNR is proposing to delete 11 routes because new research is showing they are not RS 2477s. MR. CONWAY said that 12 routes are listed in brackets within SB 252. He noted they are listed in a more intelligent way in the RS 2477 report to the legislature. CHAIRMAN HALFORD encouraged committee members to review the RS 2477s in their districts. He asked a DNR representative to address the proposed additions to that list. MS. WELCH asked if the Chairman was referring to the report. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he was. MS. WELCH explained that in 1999, DNR reported the RS 2477s that it identified during the calendar year of 1998. This year DNR is reporting those identified in calendar year 2000. DNR is currently amending its easement regulations. A public notice process is outlined in those regulations whereby DNR will identify trails that have been proposed by either the public or agencies, such as DNR or DOT. DNR will determine what trails qualify based on the information that is brought forward. MS. WELCH said that at the end of 1999, DNR provided public notice on the trails it identified in 1998 and 1999 and asked for additional factual information supporting or refuting those trails. DNR received no factual information from the public. Several comments were made by people who didn't like RS 2477s crossing their properties or the management of RS 2477s. She pointed out the report to the legislature is divided by geographical region to make it easier to identify the trails. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he has received correspondence about the proposed addition in Cantwell. Number 1599 MR. LOEFFLER interrupted to say that DNR is not proposing that the new trails be added to the bill, although DNR wouldn't oppose that. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked Mr. Loeffler how he is proposing the legislature deal with additions and deletions. MR. LOEFFLER replied DNR is proposing that it retain a list of valid RS 2477s, and that each year it report the cumulative list to the legislature. It is only proposing deletions so that incorrect information can be removed from the statute. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the effect will be the same thing. MR. LOEFFLER answered it will. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said that those with a conflict with an RS 2477, be it on the statutory list or on DNR's list, really have a conflict with potential users and that will be determined by the court system. MR. LOEFFLER agreed, and said to the extent that DNR could mediate that conflict, it would be happy to do so. SENATOR MACKIE asked what the Chairman intends to do with the bill. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he isn't going to pass it out today, but he wanted to get it on the table. SENATOR GREEN asked, after this bill gets through the process, whether DNR plans to send an additional letter to the people in the Mat-Su Borough or whether it will provide public notice to clarify the confusion from last summer. MS. WELCH responded that DNR sent a follow-up letter in August to the same mailing list stating it would not be recording those trails unless they were surveyed. SENATOR GREEN said she didn't think that letter brought the relief that was needed in that particular subdivision because those people were still waiting for the next step. Number 1345 MR. LOEFFLER explained that in many cases there are section lines that go through that area that were accepted as RS2477s under the law. He is not recommending that DNR record them but he noted the vacation process is not straightforward or easy for those property owners. The RS 2477s do exist in the situation Senator Green referred to whether or not DNR wants them to. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said people didn't understand that point from the start. DNR wasn't creating RS 2477s; it was notifying property owners of the existence or potential existence of RS 2477s that were probably created 40-60 years before these people ever owned the property. CHAIRMAN HALFORD suggested DNR streamline the vacation process with regard to small parcels and organized areas with multiple access points. He said in a case where there also may be a five- acre parcel that crosses the Iditarod Trail, the Iditarod Trail has an obvious prior existing right and no one has the right to close it. That's what RS 2477s are for. That's the clear intent. So, where there isn't alternative access, and a person owns a piece of property, that property owner has a legal right to the access provided by that RS 2477. When they go to court, they will win, regardless of whether the State records or doesn't. MR.LOEFFLER answered "Yes, Mr. Chairman." CHAIRMAN HALFORD said they would working on coming up with something with regard to small parcel owners in organized areas that relieves them of some of the worries. Everyone has to recognize that RS2477s are competing rights and can't be taken away without compensation, either. With no further business, he adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.