HJR 21-OPPOSING FEDERAL WILD LAND DESIGNATION    2:20:35 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21, Urging the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to withdraw a secretarial order that creates a wild land classification and to administer federal lands in the state in accordance with existing statutes and agency guidelines; and urging the United States Congress to prohibit the use of appropriated funds by the United States Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management to implement, administer, or enforce the secretarial order. 2:20:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, speaking as one of the co-sponsors of HJR 21, began by relating his belief that Alaska is, again, under attack by federal bureaucrats. He then provided the committee with a map entitled "Who Owns/Manages Alaska?", which shows the percentage of ownership of the state between the U.S. government, State of Alaska, and private ownership. He reminded members of the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which was a compromise. 2:22:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER then directed attention to page 1, line 12 of HJR 21, which directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to inventory all managed land for wilderness characteristics. He told the committee that in a question and answer session with the BLM it charged that Alaska had not inventoried all of its lands. However, that was exactly the purpose of the ANILCA process. He then highlighted that the term "Wild Lands" is a new designation that's not well defined. Representative Keller opined that one of the most frustrating parts of Secretarial Order No. 3310 was that there was no consultation with the state. Although there were hints that this new designation would be forthcoming, ultimately the governor only had hours to respond. He then directed attention to page 2, lines 6-7 of HJR 21, which specifies that U.S. Secretary Salazar failed to recognize that only Congress can designate lands as wilderness. As page 2, lines 11-12, specify ANILCA has already formally designated 57 million acres of Alaska's land as wilderness. Furthermore, enactment of ANILCA clearly states that there were sufficient federal wilderness land holdings in Alaska, which is related on page 2, lines 13-17, of HJR 21. The language on page 2, lines 18-21, points out that after the passage of ANILCA Alaska's land was extensively inventoried, reviewed, and classified for its wilderness value, although perhaps not to the extent now desired by the federal government. He highlighted the language on page 2, lines 22-24, which specifies that Secretarial Order No. 3310 has reversed a 30-year policy of BLM to conduct no further wilderness reviews in the state. The language on page 2, lines 25-31, points out that the Secretarial Order 3310 charges BLM to inventory the lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), which he opined is in direct defiance of the U.S. code as is specified in the language on page 3, lines 1-5. If the NPR-A received a wilderness designation, it could lead to a shut down and restriction of access to that land. He then explained that the language on page 2, lines 13-17, creates a presumption. The remaining language on page 3, lines 18 through page 4, line 1, asks the U.S. Secretary of Interior to withdraw Secretarial Order 3310 and failing the aforementioned requests that Congress prohibit the funding for the order. The state has taken a strong stance [against] Secretarial Order 3310 as the governor has written a letter and Senator John Coghill has actually testified in Washington, D.C., [against this order]. 2:29:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER informed the committee that the state BLM director pointed out to the citizens' advisory commission on federal access that during this inventory he doesn't have any jurisdiction over lands suggested as having wilderness characteristics, rather any disputes over such a [designation] would be before U.S. Secretary Salazar. Therefore, it isolates the BLM director from any local pressure. Representative Keller opined that HJR 21 is an important resolution that clearly states on the record that Alaska is operating under the law that exists. He then told the committee that the citizens' advisory commission on federal access hears many concerns with regard to access, which seems to be an ongoing problem. 2:31:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled that in the early 2000s an out of court settlement resulted in the withdrawal of the wilderness policy. Therefore, there hasn't been a policy since 2003/2004. Representative Herron stated that he isn't opposed to HJR 21, although [the state] essentially hasn't had a wilderness policy the last six to seven years. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that he was referring to the federal law. He opined that the fact the BLM doesn't have a wilderness policy in place isn't relevant to HJR 21. 2:32:58 PM JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that 43 U.S.C. (a) 1782 still requires the Secretary of Interior to review certain things from time-to- time. However, the requirement that a wilderness designation can only be accomplished by Congress remains and Secretarial Order 3310 doesn't meet that requirement. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concurred. 2:33:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that during energy week in Washington, D.C., many Alaskan legislators met with the U.S. Department of Interior to explain that to Alaskans a wild land designation means that resources on that land can't be developed, although the department insists that isn't the case. However, [department staff] couldn't articulate any benefit to the state if this policy is passed. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER added that the justification presented by the BLM had nothing to do with the benefit to Alaskans, but rather was the need to preserve more lands to ensure people can experience isolation in the wilderness. 2:35:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if other states have been subjected to this review from BLM. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER recalled that Utah and Wyoming are upset by this policy as well. He offered that where ever there is a lot of BLM land it is an issue. 2:35:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he is going to support HJR 21, but pointed out that in [BLM] documents wild lands must contain management actions to achieve protection. Therefore, most likely the land would be closed [to any resource development]. Representative Herron then remarked that BLM would be hard pressed to have a permitting process for anything that would be of benefit to Alaska. In conclusion, he suggested that HJR 21 should include "WHEREAS" clauses that list other states with the same problem. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Herron and Co-Chair Feige, said that he didn't know which states to include in the resolution. However, he related his understanding that Wyoming and Utah would likely be listed. CO-CHAIR FEIGE said that he had been provided a resolution from the Nevada Association of Counties and the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, both of which expressed opposition to the wild lands policy of BLM. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he didn't have a problem including such language, but said he wasn't sure those are the only two entities [in opposition to the wild lands policy of BLM]. CO-CHAIR SEATON commented that he was unsure whether the resolution should address these other county associations in two different states. CO-CHAIR FEIGE opined that the resolution should speak for Alaska with a loud voice. 2:38:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report HJR 21 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 2:39:24 PM The committee took an at-ease from 2:39 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.