View

Notice

Tools

Share

Notice of Decision Denial of Release of State Interest, GS-5241

STATE OF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Mining, Land and Water


NOTICE OF ACTION 
DENIAL OF RELEASE OF STATE INTEREST
State Selection File GS-5241
 
Proposed Relinquishment of State Land Selection
AS 38.05.035(a)(11), AS 38.05.035(e), ANILCA Sec. 906(f)(2), ALTAA Sec. 404(a)(4)(B)


I. Action
Proposed relinquishment of State’s surface estate selection while retaining the State’s subsurface selection on all minerals excluding sand and gravel in favor of Dingell Act allotment application AA-97942.


II. Authority
The 2019 John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Dingell Act) (Pub. L. 116-9) provides that eligible Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans may request conveyance of Statehood Act land selections and that the State of Alaska (State) may voluntarily relinquish either fee title or surface estate interests to facilitate conveyance of the lands to the Native Veteran. 


Lands were selected by the State under Sec. 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act (Pub. L. 85-508). The ability to relinquish Statehood Act selections was codified in Sec. 906(f)(2) of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) (Pub. L. 96-487). Sec. 404(a)(4)(B) of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (ALTAA) (Pub. L. 108-452) provides that the State shall relinquish selections in excess of 125% of its remaining entitlement. The provisions of Alaska Statute (AS) 38.05.035(a)(11), allow the Director of the Division of Mining, Land and Water (DMLW), through the appropriate delegation of authority, to manage Statehood Entitlement selections. 


AS 38.05.035(e) provides authority for disposals of lands, resources, property, or interests in them. Article VIII 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.


III. Background
The Dingell Act allows eligible Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans (applicants) to select up to 160 acres of land as an allotment. Available lands are those managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), excluding lands withdrawn by Public Land Orders (PLOs), the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) inner corridor, military withdrawals, Conservation System Units (CSU’s) including the National Forests, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). Lands selected by the State or Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations are classified as available regardless of priority status.


The State and ANCSA Corporations have the option to relinquish or deny relinquishment of selections for any reason within 60 days of receiving BLM’s request. 


IV. Administrative Record
The selection file for State Selection GS-5241 constitutes the administrative record for this action. 


V. Location
The allotment selection is located within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Southcentral Region, located approximately 5 miles west of Denali Highway mile marker 76 and approximately 4 miles south-west of mile marker 80. 


USGS Map Coverage: Healy A-2
Platting Authority: Matanuska-Susitna Borough 
Regional Corporations: Ahtna Incorporated and Doyon Incorporated 
Federally Recognized Tribe: Native Village of Cantwell
Village Corporation: Native Village of Cantwell


Please see Attachment A for a visual depiction.


VI. Legal Description
Those lands, containing approximately 160 acres, within Section 30, Township 21 South, Range 1 East, Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska.  


VII. Selection History
• 11/10/1986 State Application Submitted
• 11/14/1986 BLM Receipt Issued for Application
• 11/06/1991 BLM Decision – State Selection Applications Rejected in Part
• 04/15/1993 Publication Directed
• 06/15/1993 Publication Directed Modified in Part
• 08/02/1993 Affidavit of Publication Received
• 12/20/1993 Topfiled
• 08/22/1994 BLM Decision – State’s Filing of No Effect 
• 09/30/1998 BLM Decision - Native Allotment Application F-14786, Parcels A and C 
o Conformed to Survey 
o State Selection Applications Rejected in Part
• 09/07/1999 Decision dated May 3, 1985 
o Vacated-in-part Decision dated September 30, 1998 
o Modified and Vacated in Part Native Allotment Application, Parcel A, Approved
• 12/03/2008 BLM Decision – Community Grant Selection AA-76566 rejected in part 
o University Grant Selection AA-77171 rejected in part 
o Lands found proper for selection 
o Approved for future conveyance
• 01/06/2009 Tentative Approval 2009-0021 Issued
• 09/06/2012 BLM Decision—Selection Application AA-76566 Rejected in Part
o Additional Lands Found Proper for Selection
o Approved for Future Conveyance
• 11/20/2012 Tentative Approval 2012-0006 Issued



VIII. DMLW and Agency Review
Information and comments received from multiple sections within DMLW prior to and during agency review have been considered and included in the preparation of this decision. The proposed relinquishment documents were distributed to State agencies for review from January 27, 2026, through February 27, 2026. 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. 


The following agencies or groups were included in the agency review; their comments have been summarized below followed by the Department’s analysis and response:


• Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF): The DOT&PF has no comment at this time.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G): The ADF&G reviewed the DNR’s request by the BLM to relinquish a state selection in Section 30, T. 21 S., R. 1 E., FM in favor of a Native Veteran allotment selection. This 160-acre parcel is located approximately 2.5 miles west of the Susitna River and 5 miles west of the Denali Highway. The parcel is in an area that is popular for hunting and is accessed from the trail shown on the project map. There is also an unnamed lake and stream nearby, which likely contain resident fish species. ADF&G has no objection to the relinquishment of this state selection, and we would like to pass along to the allottee that any projects that include withdrawing water, modifying banks, has in water work, or work at or below the ordinary high water line may require a fish habitat permit from the ADF&G Habitat Section. Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on this action. Please send us a copy of the preliminary and final decisions for this parcel.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• DNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR): DPOR has no issues.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• DNR Division of Oil & Gas (DOG): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed relinquishment. The DOG has no objection to the proposed relinquishment to BLM for them to act on the Native Allotment. The Division doesn’t have any third-party interests in the vicinity of the parcel. DOG’s interests are retained by the State.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• DNR Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS): DGGS has no specific objections to this relinquishment, the acreage was noted as high priority for the state due to its proximity to multiple mineral prospects and past mineral exploration.


Mineral Resources: This proposed allotment is on the DGGS's 2021 geologic map, RI 2020-7 - Bedrock geologic map of the eastern Denali Highway area, Mount Hayes, Healy, and Talkeetna Mountains quadrangles, Alaska. DGGS worked in the area in 2013 and 2015.


The proposed allotment lies 1.5 miles north of mafic-ultramafic rocks that are somewhat prospective for Ni-Cu-Co-PGE; mining company MMG drilled several holes in the general area ca. 2015. We don't know the results, but they've since abandoned their claims.
It is about 4 miles east of the Gold Hill prospect (porphyry gold-Mo-Cu) which was explored, including a significant amount of drilling, in the 1970s, 1990s, and 2000s; more than 50 holes were drilled. The property has been dormant recently. Some of the core has been donated to the GMC.


Nearby Butte Creek has mining claims on it, but it has not seen significant placer mining. The proposed allotment lies about 11 miles SW of the Valdez Creek lode gold prospects and placer mines. The bedrock geology is mapped as the same geologic unit as is found at Valdez Creek. However, the known mineralization seems to occur in a belt farther to the NW, often in association with intrusive rocks, which are not mapped in the immediate allotment vicinity.


Summary: This proposed allotment lies in a significantly mineralized area; for this reason, it is classified as "1000", high priority for conveyance to the State. Beyond that, I found no evidence for mineralization on the allotment itself.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• DNR DMLW Resource Assessment & Development (RADS): After reviewing the available data, satellite imagery, and the applicable land use plans, which include the 1985 Susitna Area Plan (SUAP), RADS has provided comments regarding the proposed relinquishment. During the decision-making process, please include and consider the management guidelines provided.


Background & Discussion: The BLM is requesting the relinquishment of Priority One state-selected land to accommodate a Dingell Act Native Veteran allotment. The request is for 160 acres in the northern portion of Township 21 South, Range 1 East, Section 30, Fairbanks Meridian. The state will retain selection of oil, gas and mineral estates, relinquishing surface interests for conveyance to the applicant.  


State land selection GS- 5241 is located within the Talkeetna Mts. Subregion of SUAP. Section 30 is within Unit 1, Denali Highway, Subunit 1c and if acquired by the State, the land will be classified as Public Recreation Land and Wildlife Habitat Land (pg. 426). Subunit 1c is federal and state selected lands that constitute the remainder of the area and should be managed for multiple use including habitat protection, mining and public recreation (pg. 382). The unit has surface designations of public recreation and wildlife habitat, with secondary designation of forestry for personal use. The Land Use Designation Summary lists remote cabins and grazing as prohibited surface uses (pg. 383).


Protecting and improving public access along the Denali Highway into adjacent back country hunting areas and protection of scenic quality along the highway are the two major objectives in the area. Referring to the Talkeetna Mts Subregion, the plan explains “any settlement in this subregion should be designated to maintain public access and protect fish and wildlife habitat and the area’s high scenic quality - particularly within the highway corridors” (pg. 378). Chapter 4 of SUAP states the block of federal land adjacent to the Denali Highway in the Northeast part of the planning area should remain in federal ownership and be managed for public recreation, protection and use of fish and wildlife, and exploration and development of mineral resources (pg. 422). 


Recommendation: Based on RADS’ review and consideration of the area plan, the proposed relinquishment conflicts with the management goals and intent outlined in that plan. Thank you for the opportunity to review.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• DNR DMLW Public Access, Assertion, and Defense Section (PAAD): There are no navigable or public waters within the allotment boundary, per AS 38.05.127. There is a 14-acre lake along the south boundary that is excluded from the allotment and is likely too small to access with a float plane. PAAD does not have any public access concerns regarding the unnamed lake. There are no known documented Revised Statute (RS) 2477 ROWs, and no 1973 DOT inventory trails within the allotment, although the Butte Creek trail parallels the east and south boundaries but does not enter the allotment. The Butte Creek trail is depicted in the BLM’s GTLF layer and is visible in the imagery. PAAD does not have public access concerns regarding trails crossing AA-97942. PAAD concurs with this voluntary relinquishment.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• DNR DMLW Mining Section: The Mining Section recommends against this relinquishment due to the active mining claims and mineral potential in the area. The State should avoid creating a split-estate which hinders mineral development.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


The following agencies or groups were included in the agency review, but no comment was received:
• DNR Division of Forestry
• DNR DMLW Land Sales Section
• DNR DMLW Water Section
• DNR DMLW Southcentral Regional Land Office


IX. Public Comment
Public notice of the proposed relinquishment was conducted from January 27, 2026, through February 27, 2026. The notice was posted to the State of Alaska Online Public Notice System. Copies of the notice were sent to: Southcentral Game Board, Native Village of Cantwell, Central Council of the Tlingit Cantwell Post, Gakona Post Office, Gakona Post office, Denali Park Post Office, BLM - Field Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regional Realty Office and Title Services Center, DNR Commissioners Office, Alaska State legislature, and adjacent landowners.


There were five comments received with four opposing the relinquishment, and one supporting the relinquishment. The full comments will be addressed individually below and discussed in Section X. 


• Commentor 1: I am completely and fully against this Entitlement Land Selection (GS-5241). For more than three decades, this area has been a central part of my family’s hunting, camping, and outdoor traditions, and I strongly oppose the proposed Dingell Act allotment application AA-97942 because it would directly and negatively affect long-standing public use. Since 1993, I have harvested 4 moose (1993–2019), 12 caribou (1993–2022), and 1 bear (1999) within or immediately adjacent to the proposed parcel. These harvests represent decades of responsible, consistent use of this landscape, not isolated events. My children grew up here learning to ride ATVs, hunt, camp, and safely handle firearms — foundational skills for Alaskan families that this area has uniquely supported. The parcel contains two established camp sites on the lake, both accessible from the main trail, and the entire area is close enough to the Denali Highway that anyone seeking adventure can reach it by a brisk walk, ATV, or snowmachine. This accessibility is exactly why so many Alaskans rely on this area for hunting, family recreation, and outdoor education. It is also important to note that this is not a traditional Native use area; it was not accessible until the Denali Highway was constructed in 1957, and meaningful access did not exist until ATVs became common in the early 1980s. Applying the Dingell Act to this specific parcel disregards the long, well-documented history of public use and the fact that this land has served generations of Alaskans from all backgrounds. Relinquishing this land to facilitate allotment application AA-97942 would remove an important recreational and subsistence area from public access, create conflicts, restrict movement, and disrupt established patterns of use that countless families — including mine — have relied on for decades. It would adversely affect hunters, campers, ATV riders, and anyone who enjoys the Denali Highway corridor, replacing a shared public resource with exclusive private ownership in a place where public access has been the norm for more than half a century. For these reasons, and out of respect for the many Alaskans who depend on this area, I do not support the relinquishment of this land selection and strongly urge the State to retain it for continued public use.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• Commentor 2: Please accept this letter as my public testimony on Native Allotment Application AA-97942. As a year-round resident of the area, living roughly 4 miles away, this is an area that we use for hunting, berry picking, hiking and dog mushing. It is one of our favorite travel routes for dog sledding in the winter through this proposed property. The proposed property is also located in an area that is heavily used in the fall for hunting purposes by many Alaskans. The trailhead at Butte Creek easily has 30 vehicles parked there each fall to travel into this area for hunting. I have seen remnants of at least 6 hunting camps in the exact area of this property. Hunting pressure here on public land is heavy and removing this property from public ownership will definitely upset many people who have been using it for a very long time. I do believe in the Dingell Act program, however, there are many lands around the state that are not as popular for public use as these lands around the Susitna River Bridge on the Denali Highway. I ask that these lands not be relinquished for the native allotment program, but rather stay in the public control for the continued use of all Alaskans.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• Commentor 3: 100% against this proposal, this area has a long history, heavily used by hunters and recreational users. 99.9% this is not an area traditionally used by the applicant. This area is some of the best recreational areas in Alaska. These lands should not be locked up by private owners!
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


• Commentor 4: I strongly oppose the proposed conveyance of Dingell Allotment AA-97942. This parcel is immediately adjacent to a heavily used public hunting trail and lies within prime moose and caribou habitat. Approving this allotment would conflict with the Alaska Constitution's mandate to manage lands for the maximum benefit of all Alaskans (Art. VIII, Sec. 2).


The trail next to AA-97942 is a critical access route for recreation and subsistence users alike, conveyance would likely lead to posted restrictions, trespass disputes, and firearm discharge limitations near private property directly reducing public use and safety. Every hunting season, at least three separate camps are observed along the edges of the lake that this allotment borders, demonstrating heavy public use. The proposed allotment includes a hill commonly used for glassing and evaluating game during hunting season, and this same hill hosts campers every holiday weekend, showing its recreational importance.


This area supports high-value wildlife populations. Development or fencing could destroy habitat and disrupt migration corridors, undermining state wildlife management objectives. Under AS 38.05.035(e), DNR must ensure that any land disposal serves the public interest. Given the parcel's proximity to a popular hunting trail, lake campsites, and a strategic glassing hill, relinquishment clearly fails this test.


Approving this allotment would set a harmful precedent for privatizing land adjacent to high-use public trails and camping areas. I urge DNR to reject or relocate AA-97942 in favor of protecting public access, safety, and wildlife resources. Thank you for considering these comments.
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment. The Constitutional mandate to manage lands for maximum benefit of all Alaskans only applies to land owned by the State. These lands are only selected by the State and are owned and managed by BLM. 


This parcel stops short of most of the ridgeline and only includes the northwestern sliver of the ridge. The majority of the ridge would still be available for glassing.  The trail that loops through the northeast corner of the parcel to access the ridge can be accessed further north of the parcel. ADFG responded to the agency review of the parcel and did not express concerns regarding migration corridors. 


• Commentor 5: We support this land allotment. While we disagree with giving land to people based on race, it was the deal that was made and should be honored.  
o DNR DMLW Realty response: Thank you for your comment.


X. Discussion and Alternatives
The State is supportive of the Dingell Act allotment program and has a policy of working towards relinquishing state selections while considering the State’s best interests. The state is currently over-selected, meaning there is a requirement to relinquish selections in excess of 125% of its remaining entitlement. The State does not have the option to select any new entitlement lands and must ensure the remaining entitlement lands provide the maximum benefit to future generations of Alaskans. To reduce over-selection, the State will consider relinquishing entitlement lands in support of the Dingell Act Vietnam Veteran Native Allotment Program. 


DNR must consider and weigh its own and the public’s interests in retaining or relinquishing land selections while supporting the intent of the Dingell Act allotment program. Any relinquishment decision DNR makes must balance the opportunity for Dingell Act allottees to acquire land without undue harm to the interests of Alaskans. DNR notes that the Dingell Act does not require the State to relinquish lands and is considering allottee selections in light of the balanced interests of the State. 


The parcel is not crossed by any accepted and codified RS 2477 Trails. Butte Creek trail parallels the east and south boundaries but does not enter the allotment. A review of federal records indicates that there are no current applications with BLM for a permit, easement, or right-of-way for trails or other access corridors on the selected lands. There are no trails, easements, or rights-of-way permitted by the State on the parcel. There is a section of an unpermitted trail that loops through the northeast corner of the allotment and extends to the ridge behind the allotment. This southwestern arm of the ridge access trail appears to be more heavily used than the northeastern arm and includes a clearing for parking located adjacent to the allotment parcel. There are no public or navigable waters within or adjacent to the allotment.


AS 38.05.127 requires that before the disposal of an interest in state land, the Department determines 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), the department 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.


The subject lands are priority one entitlement lands due to mineral estate potential, proximity to existing infrastructure, and fish and wildlife resources. The surrounding land is a mix of Federal land managed by the BLM with valid Ahtna and State selections, BLM managed land, Federal lands managed by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission in support of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, State owned land, and private land. The allotment lands are accessible via the Butte Creek trail that is accessed from the Denali Highway.


Most agency comments had no concern with the proposed relinquishment, with RADS and the Mining Section opposing due to concerns regarding the loss of public hunting, gathering, recreation, and the potential impact to mining due to future split-estate land ownership. 


ADF&G supported the relinquishment of the parcel and did not voice concerns regarding impacts to caribou migration patterns. PAAD determined the allotment did not contain navigable waters or trails. However, infrared imagery shows that there is a loop trail in the northeast corner of the property that is used to access the ridgeline to the north. 


RADS comment pointed out that the relinquishment would conflict with the management goals and intent outlined in the area plan. The management plan for these lands recommends the lands be managed in generally the same way as adjacent public lands, including protecting fish and wildlife habitat, and allowing these lands to be used by the general public for hunting, hiking, etc. This allotment does not significantly affect the intended management of this area beyond the parcel.


The Mining Section voiced concerns that creating split-estate ownership would hinder the development of mining in this area. DGGS’ review stated that the parcel does not have known mineral deposits and that the mining claims that are in close proximity are low producing placers deposit. The parcel is within a ¼ mile of State and State Selected mining claims and from Butte Creek where the main placer deposit is found. The Butte Creek Trail is in between the parcel and the state mining claims. If this parcel was relinquished the sand and gravel would be transferred with the surface estate to the applicant. This would not include the co-located minerals, which would stay with the subsurface rights (mineral estate). 


If the State acquired the mineral estate, any future mineral extraction would need to be under a mining lease, which would have stipulations regarding damage to the surface estate. The State could also block mining from occurring by placing a mineral closing order on the parcel which is common in other split estate locations. 


The public comments opposed to the relinquishment were concerns for the loss of hunting, gathering, and recreational access on the land. Commentors noted the ridge north of the lake is commonly used by hunters to glass for wildlife. The parcel does not include most of the ridge used for glassing but does contain a portion of the ridge in the northwestern corner of the allotment. Commentors noted that the lakeshore frequently hosts recreation and hunting camps. While the parcel does not include the lake itself, it is directly adjacent to approximately half of the lakeshore. 


Commentors had concerns that having a private parcel in this well known hunting area would be unsafe for the property owner and create user confusion. However, the Denali Highway area has several private inholdings, including other Native Allotments, that hunters and recreators must be aware of. If the land is conveyed to the applicant, they will be responsible for posting their land and working to reduce user conflicts. 


Commentors had concerns about private land ownership adversely impacting wildlife migration patterns. One commentor noted fencing could severely impact wildlife and the public. ADF&G did not voice concerns about impacts to wildlife migration patterns. If the land is conveyed to the applicant, they would be able to fence all or portions of the parcel. Doing so could have an adverse impact on caribou migration. If they removed the BIA restrictions on the allotment they may be able to subdivide or sell all or portions of the allotment. 


This parcel is in an area that likely sees significant public use, especially throughout the spring, summer, and fall due to its proximity to the Denali Highway. The parcel is adjacent to the Butte Creek Trail, which is used year-round. It is directly adjacent to a ridgeline that the public commonly uses, as evidenced by trails going to and along the length of the ridge. It is within ¼ mile of existing placer mining claims. There are no known placer deposits or minerals within the parcel, but if the area is found to be mineralized the fact that the sand and gravel are owned by the surface estate owner could create additional hurdles to mineral extraction. 


Lands along the Denali Highway, particularly near the Susitna River, are cris-crossed by trails created by the public without obtaining permits from BLM, who is responsible for managing Federal lands in this area. Because the trails are not permitted by the BLM, they are not considered prior valid rights. Trails depicted on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, on GPS systems, or posted on public websites or other resources that are do not have BLM permits, easements, or rights-of-way may also be considered as non-valid prior rights by BLM. 


When BLM conveys lands out of Federal ownership, it will make the land conveyance subject to prior valid rights. This means that the title is subservient to the prior valid rights and the new owner must allow the existing uses to continue without interference. The rules for Dingell Act allotment conveyances do not allow BLM to recognize unpermitted trails as prior valid rights, therefore BLM cannot make allottee’s title specifically subject to the trails. This could create issues between the landowner and the public should the owner fence their land, block, or gate the trail(s), which would be legal actions for the landowner to take. 


The northeast portion of the allotment is crossed by a trail created by the public to access the ridgeline north of and immediately next to the allotment parcel. This trail is not recognized by BLM as a valid entry on the public lands because it has not been permitted by the BLM Field Office and is not considered a valid RS 2477 trail. Consequently, any conveyance to the applicant would not make their title subject to (or subservient to) the public’s rights to use this trail. Any future owner could legally block the trail and deny the public’s continued use of it. 


Because of the issues surrounding unpermitted trails and BLM conveyances under the Dingell Act, DNR has previously determined it may not be in the State’s or public’s best interests to relinquish land selections that contain unpermitted trails. Doing so avoids impacts to current and future trail users, conflicts between the land owner and the public, and the potential for future litigation over access. The trail in the northeast portion of the allotment was initially not visible on aerial imagery when the applicant selected the lands. However, upon closer inspection of infrared imagery the trail became apparent. 


Relinquishment of the lands would support the success of the Dingell Act Allotment program and provide an opportunity for a Native Vietnam War veteran or their heirs to obtain an allotment that was denied due to circumstances related to their military service. However, relinquishment of land containing a trail that is not recognized as a prior valid right would likely create future conflict between the allottee and the public and would not be in the State’s or public’s best interests. 


The State considered the following alternatives in adjudicating the request for relinquishment:


Alternative 1: Relinquish the State’s land selection, including the subsurface estate.


Alternative 2: Decline to relinquish the State’s land selection. 


Alternative 3: Relinquish the State’s surface estate selection and maintain the State’s subsurface selection on all minerals excluding sand and gravel. 


XI. Decision
This decision considers all the 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 2 and maintain the State land selection on the lands described in Section VI. 

Signatures in attachment

Recommended by:




___________________________________     ______________________________
Aleria Knudson Date of Signature
Natural Resource Specialist 3
Realty Services Section 
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources




Approved by:


___________________________________     ______________________________
Lacy Hamner                                                 Date of Signature
Natural Resource Manager 2
Realty Services Section 
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources


Approved by:




___________________________________     ______________________________
Commissioner John Crowther                                              Date of Signature
Department of Natural Resources
 
Reconsideration 
An 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/appeal 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 05.160(d)(1)(F), which has been set at $200 under the provisions of 11 AAC 05.160(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.

Attachments, History, Details

Revision History

Created 9/23/2026 7:21:17 AM by ahknudson

Details

Department: Natural Resources
Category: Public Notices
Sub-Category:
Location(s): Statewide
Project/Regulation #:
 
Publish Date: 9/23/2026
Archive Date: 10/13/2026
 
Events/Deadlines: