Brouhaha over BLM land issue has state, feds, clarifying conveyance

PALMER — Another viral Facebook post had commenters upset this week, this time over public use of the Knik River. Representatives from all three of the parties involved in the land dispute mentioned in the viral story say it contains inaccuracies. They suggested that a public spooked over the prospect of losing access to some of their favored rec spots might benefit from a dose of factual information.

First, the post.

The original Dec. 11 post by a member of the public got 183 initial shares, and was spread widely on group pages and blogs after. Addressed to “Knik River Public Use Area users,” the lengthy post states the Bureau of Land Management is “in the process of conveying ALL federal lands in the Knik valley to Eklutna Incorporated as their final land selection under ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.)”

It states that BLM is trying to reclassify the Knik River as non-navigable between approximately Friday and Metal creeks; that such a move “effectively gives Eklutna the river,” and “will stop all river access to the glacier.” It states access to the glacier will be on a single public easement access trail on the north side of the river, and that the State of Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources “is suing to stop this reclassification of the Knik River.” It adds that “If BLM is allowed to do this then it is very likely that they will do this to other rivers in Alaska. Presently, Eklutna allows access onto their land by permit only for only (sic) foot traffic. Hunting and fishing are prohibited.”

The post ends with a plea, “Please share this post with every one of your friends and state representatives, senators and congressman.”

Angry commenters to the various iterations of the post vowed to do something about it. Some slammed BLM or Eklutna or both. The original poster asserted in comments that “Alaska DNR has filed suit on this” but expressed doubts about Governor Walker’s support of the suit.

Which doesn’t exist.

The post is partially factual, however, and representatives from BLM, Alaska DNR and Eklutna, Inc. said they had already fielded calls about it.

Jim Walker, manager of the public access assertion and defense unit within the division of mining, land, and water within Alaska DNR, said he was surprised by the furor over a land transfer issue in which Eklutna, Inc. has been a good partner with the state.

“Those negotiations have been extraordinarily cooperative, and helpful to both sides,” Walker said.

But the state does have a dispute with BLM involving some of the land.

In 1971, the U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act. At the time, aboriginal land claims and land claims made by the State of Alaska in the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 were in conflict. Oil exploration meant that companies were eager to have these matters settled so that they could proceed with operations under a clear business environment as to who owned which lands, and put additional pressure on the U.S. government to resolve conflicting land claims quickly.

The purpose of ANCSA was to retain some aboriginal lands to Alaska Native people, while also providing monetary compensation and the creation of regional corporations, to pay for those lands which had legitimate aboriginal title but which would, in settlement, be lost to the state.

Forty-five years later, Eklutna, Inc., an Athabascan regional corporation, is getting the last of its lands. Maybe.

“We’re not letting ourselves celebrate that we’re getting the land back yet,” said Eklutna, Inc. CEO Curtis McQueen, “because in 45 years we still haven’t got it. It is in the process, and we’re hopeful that in 2017 part of the conveyance happens.”

In Sept. 2015, BLM issued a decision on its final land conveyance to Eklutna, identifying selections in three townships on the Knik River from most, but not all, of the federal land in those three townships.

Most of the federal land in the Knik River valley has already been conveyed to the State of Alaska, BLM Alaska chief of communications Lesli Ellis-Wouters said, and there is already a patchwork of private landowners along the Knik on both sides of the river. Land going to Eklutna, Inc. would be, similarly, private land.

The State of Alaska administers sport hunting on federal lands, while U.S. Fish and Wildlife administers subsistence hunting on federal lands, Ellis-Wouters said. As of press time, the Frontiersman had not yet gained clarification on whether any sport or subsistence hunting currently exists on federal lands affected. Ellis-Wouters reiterated that Eklutna is owed the land in an act ordered by the Congress, and that private landowners may do what they wish with their own lands.

After the Sept. 2015 decision, Alaska DNR filed an appeal within the 30-day appeal period. It took issue with the BLM’s administrative classification of part of the lands as non-navigable – something that would make them federal lands.

The state’s position has been: now hold on there, those are state lands.

“Our dispute,” Walker said, “is with BLM’s wrongful mischaracterization of the upper portion of the Knik River, from the glacier to the township line, as non-navigable, meaning we don’t own those submerged lands, which we believe we do.”

Reps from BLM and Alaska DNR did field surveys this past summer in an attempt to resolve the issue.

Erika Reed, deputy state director for land and cadastral survey, said the BLM is always open to reviewing evidence that it has made an error in its classifications, and that information from this past summer’s field work are in review with the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

Eklutna CEO McQueen said the corporation has no opinion on the state’s dispute with BLM one way or the other.

In the meantime, Alaska DNR and Eklutna have been talking easements – how can they get the public access through Eklutna land after the conveyances in a way that preserves access to state lands?

Of the three pieces of land involved in the conveyance, only one is involved in the river classification dispute. The portion of the land not affected by the classification issue is expected to be conveyed in 2017, after all parties, including Alaska DNR and Eklutna, have signed on to the agreements preserving public access that both have been working on.

As for river access to the glacier, BLM’s Erika Reed said there are already many places on the Knik in which the submerged land is owned by private landowners.

It doesn’t mean you can’t traverse the river itself in those areas, she said. No one can own the river itself. Stepping out of the boat on any of the private land that exists now along the Knik, or might be conveyed in the future to Eklutna, however, means users are on private land and private landowners’ wishes for the use are protected by law. Eklutna, Inc. currently gives permits for public uses of its lands.

Walker, with Alaska DNR, said there is currently no lawsuit that has been filed by the state or DNR in the dispute, but that if the appeal doesn’t go the state’s way, it reserves the right to sue for what it believes are its land rights in federal court.