    [Senate Hearing 114-490]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 114-490

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

      S. 414                               S. 1941/H.R. 2223

      S. 872                               S. 1942/H.R. 1554

      S. 1295/H.R. 1324                    S. 1955

      S. 1448                              S. 1971

      S. 1592                              S. 2069

                                   ----------

                                OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                   ----------

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-490

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

      S. 414                               S. 1941/H.R. 2223

      S. 872                               S. 1942/H.R. 1554

      S. 1295/H.R. 1324                    S. 1955

      S. 1448                              S. 1971

      S. 1592                              S. 2069

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                   __________

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     98-942                 WASHINGTON : 2018
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                            JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO                 RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       DEBBIE STABENOW
    MIKE LEE                             AL FRANKEN
    STEVE DAINES                         JOE MANCHIN III
    BILL CASSIDY                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN HOEVEN                          ELIZABETH WARREN
    JEFF FLAKE
    LAMAR ALEXANDER

                        Karen K. Billups, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Wyoming....     1
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Oregon...     2
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from California...........     3
    Flake, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from Arizona....................   215
    Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado.................   215
    Sullivan, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Senator from Alaska...................   216
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from Alaska.................   217

                                   WITNESSES

    Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
      U.S. Department of Agriculture.................................   219
    Ellis, Steven, Deputy Director, Operations, Bureau of Land
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................   225
    Barlow, Leo, Representative, Southeast Alaska Landless
      Corporation....................................................   244
    Lindekugel, Buck, Grassroots Attorney, Southeast Alaska
      Conservation Council...........................................   375
    Lovingood, Hon. Robert, First District Supervisor, San Bernardino
      County, California.............................................   381
    Haney, Frazier, Conservation Director, Mojave Desert Land Trust..   385

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    A'Bear, Luke:
        Letter for the Record........................................   409
    Advocates for Access to Public Lands:
        Letter for the Record........................................   161
    Alabama Hills Stewardship Group:
        Letter for the Record........................................   159
    Alaska Federation of Natives:
        Resolution 15-7 for the Record...............................   410
    Alaska Native Brotherhood & Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp:
        Resolution No. 14-08 for the Record..........................   412
    Alaska State Legislature, Juneau Delegation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   815
    Alaska Wilderness League, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   414
    Allen, Marian:
        Letter for the Record........................................   416
    AMA District 37:
        Letter for the Record........................................   172
    Amargosa Conservancy Members and Board of Directors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    97
    Amargosa Conservancy:
        Letter to Senator Feinstein for the Record...................    98
        Letter to Representative Cook for the Record.................    99
    American Motorcyclist Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   130
    American Rivers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   418
    American Sand Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   103
    Americans for Responsible Recreational Access, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   128
    Angerman, Aaron:
        Letter for the Record........................................   420
    Barlow, Leo:
        Opening Statement............................................   244
        Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) Report
          prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
          Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
          Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs dated February
          1994.......................................................   247
        Written Testimony............................................   371
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Bishop Area Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau:
        Letter to Senator Feinstein for the Record...................   154
        Letter to Representative Cook for the Record.................   155
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   404
    Bradley, Harry:
        Letter for the Record........................................   422
    Brainard, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   423
    California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs:
        Letter for the Record........................................   106
    California Motorized Recreation Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   105
    California Off-Road Vehicle Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   138
    California Wilderness Coalition:
        Letter for the Record........................................   142
        Statement for the Record from Monica Argandona...............   425
    Capps, Hon. Lois:
        Letter for the Record........................................   428
    Carrillo, Chris:
        Op-Ed in the San Bernardino County Sun dated 4/24/15.........    28
    Casamassa, Glenn:
        Opening Statement............................................   219
        Written Testimony............................................   222
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   399
    Cascadia Wildlands and Greenpeace:
        Letter for the Record........................................   430
    Castillo, Raymond--Imperial County Board of Supervisors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    34
    Central Council--Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska:
        Resolution TA/15-19 for the Record...........................   436
    Churchill, Sandra:
        Letter for the Record........................................   438
    City Council of the City of Bishop:
        Letter for the Record........................................   149
    City Council of the City of Calimesa:
        Resolution No. 2015-23 for the Record........................    48
    City Council of the City of Cathedral City:
        Resolution No. 2015-16 for the Record........................    40
    City Council of the City of Chino Hills:
        Resolution No. 2015R-33 for the Record.......................    57
    City Council of the City of Coachella:
        Resolution No. 2015-10 for the Record........................    44
    City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs:
        Resolution No. 2015-010 for the Record.......................    42
    City Council of the City of Indian Wells:
        Resolution No. 2015-31 for the Record........................    63
    City Council of the City of Palm Desert:
        Resolution No. 2015-50 for the Record........................    53
    City Council of the City of Palm Springs:
        Resolution No. 23851 for the Record..........................    38
    City of Banning:
        Letter for the Record........................................    65
    City of La Quinta:
        Letter for the Record........................................    60
    City of Rancho Cucamonga:
        Letter for the Record........................................    61
    City of Rancho Mirage:
        Letter for the Record........................................    51
    Coachella Valley Association of Governments:
        Letter for the Record........................................    70
    Coachella Valley Conservation Commission:
        Letter for the Record........................................    71
    Coachella Valley Economic Partnership:
        Letter for the Record........................................    76
    Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   136
    Comer, Diane:
        Letter for the Record........................................   439
    (The) Conservation Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   124
    (The) Conservation Alliance, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   169
    Conservation Lands Foundation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   119
    Cooper, Dr. David:
        Letter for the Record........................................   440
    Cotoni-Coast Dairies National Monument:
        Letter and Petition for the Record...........................   442
    Desert Stewardship Project:
        Letter for the Record........................................   102
    Drake, Matthew:
        Letter for the Record........................................   719
    Duran, Michael:
        Op-Ed in the Desert Sun dated 2/14/15........................    18
    Eastern Sierra 4x4 Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................   722
    EcoLogic Partners, Inc., et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   107
    Edison International and Southern California Edison:
        Letter for the Record........................................    93
    Ellis, Steven:
        Opening Statement............................................   225
        Written Testimony............................................   227
    Erickson, Barbara:
        Letter for the Record........................................   723
    Eshoo, Hon. Anna:
        Letter for the Record........................................   724
    Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Endorsements.................................................     5
        Photos for the Record........................................   177
    Fish, Steve:
        Letter for the Record........................................   726
    Flake, Hon. Jeff:
        Opening Statement............................................   215
    Fluetsch, Bradley:
        Letter for the Record........................................   727
    Freiberg, Joyce:
        Letter for the Record........................................   728
    Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve:
        Letter for the Record........................................   133
    Friends of the Desert Mountains:
        Letter for the Record........................................   111
    Friends of Dumont Dunes:
        Letter for the Record........................................   110
    Friends of El Mirage:
        Letter for the Record........................................   113
    Friends of the Elephant Seal:
        Letter for the Record........................................   729
    Friends of the Inyo:
        Letter dated 3/1/15 for the Record...........................   157
        Letter dated 3/9/15 for the Record...........................   158
    Friends of Jawbone:
        Letter for the Record........................................   112
    Friends of Joshua Tree:
        Letter for the Record........................................   731
    Friends of the River:
        Letter for the Record........................................   115
    Garcia, Jania:
        Letter for the Record........................................   732
    Gardner, Hon. Cory:
        Opening Statement............................................   215
    Glide Wildflower Show Council:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   733
    Good, Nancy:
        Op-Ed for The Inyo Register dated 2/28/15....................    26
    Granite Construction Company:
        Letter for the Record........................................   171
    Great Outdoors Palm Springs:
        Resolution for the Record....................................   127
    Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau:
        Resolution No. JPA 2015 006 for the Record...................    73
    Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................    82
    Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community:
        Letter for the Record........................................   735
    Haney, Frazier:
        Opening Statement............................................   385
        Written Testimony............................................   387
    Hood River County Board of Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................   739
    Hood River Valley Residents Committee:
        Letter for the Record........................................   741
    Inland Action:
        Letter for the Record........................................   121
    Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record dated 2/27/15.......................    12
        Editorial for the Record dated 9/24/15.......................    14
    Inyo County Board of Supervisors:
        Letter for the Record........................................   146
    Inyo County Film Commission:
        Letter for the Record........................................   156
    Inyo County Superintendent of Schools:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   147
        Letter to Senator Feinstein for the Record...................   148
    Jamieson, Christie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   757
    Johnson, Rose, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   758
    Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................    78
    Joshua Tree Gateway Association of Realtors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    91
    Kaelke, Mark, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   759
    Kemp, Molly:
        Letter for the Record........................................   760
    King, Charles:
        Letter for the Record........................................   763
    Kitka, Julie:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   764
    Knight, Rebecca:
        Letter for the Record........................................   769
    Latino Conservation Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   125
    League of Conservation Voters, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   774
    Leask, Lucinda:
        Letter for the Record........................................   777
    Lehmann, Judi:
        Letter for the Record........................................   778
    Leone, Bob:
        Op-Ed written in the Hi-Desert Star dated 2/10/15............    24
    Lewis, Stephen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   780
    Lichatowich, Jim:
        Letter for the Record........................................   783
    Lindekugel, Buck:
        Opening Statement............................................   375
        Written Testimony............................................   376
    Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................   153
    Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Reservation:
        Letter to Senator Feinstein for the Record...................   151
        Letter to Representative Cook for the Record.................   152
    Lovingood, Hon. Robert:
        Opening Statement............................................   381
        Written Testimony............................................   383
    MacAuley, Anita:
        Letter for the Record........................................   784
    Martin, Sr., John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   786
    McConnell, Dave:
        Op-Ed in the Hesperia Star dated 4/30/15.....................    30
    (The) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California:
        Letter for the Record........................................    95
    Moberly, Stan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   788
    Mojave Desert Land Trust:
        Resolution for the Record....................................   117
    Mojave National Preserve Conservancy Board of Directors:
        Letter for the Record........................................   790
    Monday Morning Group:
        Letter for the Record........................................   122
    Moore, Kathleen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   791
    Morongo Valley Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................    80
    Morongo Valley Community Services District and Fire Department:
        Letter for the Record........................................    72
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................   217
    National Congress of American Indians:
        Letter and Resolution #DEN-07-097 for the Record.............   793
    National Parks Conservation Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   144
        Statement for the Record from David Lamfrom..................   797
    Off Highway Vehicle Businesses and Community:
        Letter for the Record........................................   173
    Old Spanish Trail Association:
        Resolution for the Record....................................   123
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:
        Letter for the Record........................................   799
    Pacific Gas and Electric Company:
        Letter for the Record........................................    96
    Pacific Rivers and Wild Salmon Center:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   800
    Pearce, Barbara:
        Letter for the Record........................................   805
    (The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
        Letter for the Record........................................   118
        Statement for the Record.....................................   806
    Quinto, Ray and Taylor, William:
        Op-Ed for The Riverside Press-Enterprise dated 2/16/15.......    19
    Ramos, James:
        Op-Ed for the Hi-Desert Star dated 3/3/15....................    27
    Reeves, William:
        Op-Ed for the Desert Dispatch dated 7/10/15..................    32
    Rinehart, Jr., Richard:
        Letter re: response to the testimony from the Department of
          Interior & SEACC...........................................   810
        Letter re: S. 872............................................   814
        Ream, Joshua--The Shtax'heen Kwaan of the Tlingit in
          Southeast Alaska: A Literature Review dated Fall Semester,
          2010.......................................................   818
        Tashee Letter of Support re: S. 872..........................   907
    Rio Valley Homeowner's Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    92
    Riverside County Board of Supervisors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    33
    Robinson, Scott:
        Op-Ed for The Desert Sun dated 5/14/15.......................    31
    Ross, Mark and Gerkin, Paul:
        Op-Ed for the Hi-Desert Star dated 2/17/15...................    22
    San Diego Zoo Global:
        Letter for the Record........................................   134
    San Manuel Band of Mission Indians:
        Resolution No. 2014-017 for the Record.......................    66
    Saunders, Celia:
        Letter for the Record........................................   910
    Sealaska Corporation:
        Letter re: S. 872 (See page 247 for ISER attachment).........   911
        Letter re: S. 1955...........................................   914
    Sempervirens Fund:
        Letter for the Record........................................   916
    Sierra Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................   917
    Southern Inyo County (California) Business Owners:
        Letter for the Record........................................   100
    Steamboaters:
        Letter for the Record........................................   918
    Stedman, Hon. Bert:
        Letter for the Record........................................   816
    Stein, Alan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   920
    Sullivan, Hon. Dan:
        Opening Statement............................................   216
    (The) Summertree Institute:
        Letter for the Record........................................   145
    Temple, Herb:
        Op-Ed in the San Bernardino Sun on 2/13/15...................    16
    Timbisha Shoshone Tribe:
        Letter for the Record........................................    68
    Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley:
        Resolution for the Record....................................    35
    (The) Trust for Public Land:
        Letter for the Record........................................   116
    U.S. Armed Services Retired Flag Officers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   166
    U.S. Military Veterans and Families:
        Letter for the Record........................................   162
    Victorville Daily Press Editorial Board:
        Editorial for the Record.....................................    11
    Waldheim, Edward:
        Op-Ed in the Desert Dispatch dated 2/16/15...................    21
    Walters Camp Residents, Imperial County, California:
        Letter for the Record........................................    83
    Ward, Bruce, et al:
        Letter for the Record........................................   922
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record to Senator Feinstein...................   141
        Letter for the Record........................................   923
    (The) Wildlands Conservancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   143
    Wild Steelhead Coalition:
        Letter for the Record........................................   927
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     2

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=2DCB8874-5F31-44C7-
    84AF-E63691DD5231.

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2015

                                   U.S. Senate,
      Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC,
    Hon. John Barrasso, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
    purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on ten bills
    pending before the Committee.
        Five of these bills make small land adjustments but to make
    these adjustments it takes, literally, an Act of Congress. S.
    1295 and H.R. 1324 adjust the boundary of Arapaho National
    Forest to include some donated parcels of land. S. 1941 and
    H.R. 2223 effectuate a land exchange that would move a guest
    ranch into private ownership and move high quality lands into
    conservation. S. 1942 and H.R. 1554 facilitate a land
    conveyance that would correct a long standing discrepancy
    caused by conflicting surveys on property at Elkhorn Ranch.
        The remaining two land conveyance bills are in Arizona and
    Oregon. S. 1592 was introduced by Senator Flake. This bill
    clarifies a discrepancy that exists in legislation enacted ten
    years ago so the Forest Service can complete a land conveyance
    to a young life youth camp. Senator Wyden introduced S. 2069 to
    modify the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur land exchange that was
    initially authorized in 2009. Apparently in these two cases
    Congress needs to pass additional laws with further direction
    to the Forest Service so that we can actually get these land
    bills done.
        So today we also have a few complex bills on the agenda
    with long histories.
        S. 414, the California Desert Conservation Recreation Act
    of 2015, was introduced by Senator Feinstein. This bill places
    over 1.8 million acres in new land designations ranging from
    new national monuments and wilderness areas to off highway
    vehicle recreation areas. As I understand it, the provisions of
    S. 414 have been under consideration in one form or another for
    about six years.
        Another bill with a long history is Senator Murkowski's S.
    872. Her bill would recognize five communities in Southeast
    Alaska that were left out of the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act in 1971. There have been multiple iterations of
    this bill going back to the early 1990s.
        Both of these bills have witnesses that have traveled long
    distances to be with us today.
        We will also hear testimony on S. 1955, Senator Sullivan's
    bill, co-sponsored by Senator Murkowski, that would correct a
    problem with Native Vietnam Veterans allotments; S. 1442,
    Senator Wyden's bill to designate over 100,000 acres of Forest
    Service land as the Frank Moore Wild Steelhead Sanctuary; and
    S. 1971, Senator Boxer's bill to expand the California Coastal
    National Monument.
        With that I want to thank our witnesses for being here as
    well as Senator Feinstein and Senator Sullivan, who are here to
    talk about their bills.
        Let me turn first to Senator Wyden for his opening remarks.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your putting together this hearing.
        I also want to thank our two colleagues, my long, long time
    friend, Senator Feinstein. Senator Sullivan, great to see you.
    Please excuse my bad manners, I have to depart the instant I
    give this statement, but I very much appreciate your being
    here. I am anxious to work with both of you on this.
        The first bill that the Chairman has talked about, the
    Frank Moore Wild Steelhead Sanctuary designation is a tribute
    to one of America's great heroes and to a very special place in
    Oregon.
        Frank Moore is a native Oregonian, a World War II veteran,
    whose extraordinary service earned him several honors including
    the French Legion of Honor award. That is France's highest
    military honor, as well as a citation from the United States
    for ``extraordinary and exemplary performance of military duty
    while in combat.'' The war took Frank all over Europe but once
    it ended he came right back to Oregon and to his wonderful
    family and his beloved rivers.
        He is a legendary presence on the North Umpqua River where
    he can be found most days. In fact I recently visited with
    Frank and family just a few months ago on the banks of the
    North Umpqua. He knows every bend and rock of this river, the
    river he grew up near. During his 91 years he has contributed
    to a rich legacy of conservation and respect for nature that, I
    think, really sets the standard for future generations.
        He has worked tirelessly to conserve Oregon's fish habitats
    and rivers. He served on the State of Oregon's Fish and
    Wildlife Commission receiving both the National Wildlife
    Federation Conservationist of the Year award and the Wild
    Steelhead Coalition Conservation award.
        The Frank Moore Wild Steelhead Sanctuary designation is
    going to ensure that this area, the waterways and the forests,
    is managed in a way that protects delicate steelhead habitat
    and river ecosystems, and it serves as a tribute to Frank's
    many outstanding accomplishments both on and off the river.
        The other bill, the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange
    Clarification Act, is what I hope to be the final step in
    completing a land exchange that passed as part of the Omnibus
    Public Lands bill six years ago. I remember it like it was
    yesterday. I think Senator Feinstein remembers how we worked
    for years. Then President Obama, having been sworn in fairly
    shortly after that, signed the Public Lands bill. It was a
    historic occasion, and here we are six years later still trying
    to get a land exchange that passed as part of it.
        The Cooper Spur land exchange is one of three land
    exchanges included in the Mt. Hood Wilderness legislation which
    I sponsored here in the Senate, but it is the only one that has
    not been completed. This land exchange is now 62 months past
    due and progress has stalled.
        The delays have angered the public, endangered the
    environment, spurred a lawsuit against the Forest Service and I
    will just say to my colleagues as we go forward in this
    Committee as we always have on a bipartisan way, it is time to
    get this done. Sixty-two months to wait for something like this
    is, by any standards, just absurd. I am looking forward to
    working with my colleagues on this.
        The bill before the Subcommittee today would clarify
    provisions, original and exchanged, to ensure that the process
    can move forward in a timely fashion. It includes
    clarifications and concrete deadlines that will remove any
    uncertainty about the intent of the original bill.
        I will have a few questions to submit in writing for the
    Forest Service about how we can get their thoughts on how to
    move forward to finalize the land exchange, and I look forward
    to their testimony.
        Again, I want to apologize to my two colleagues. I know
    that Senator Feinstein has spent an enormous amount of time on
    the bill that she is going to be talking to and as usual she is
    somebody who really writes legislation in a thoughtful and
    fastidious way. So I will be following up. And I want to
    apologize to both my colleagues for having to leave.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
        At this time I would like to turn to the Chairman of the
    Committee, Senator Murkowski.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that
    Senator Feinstein has a Committee hearing that she would like
    to attend, so I will defer my comments until after she has had
    an opportunity to speak to her matter if it is timely.
        I know that this is her second appearance before the Energy
    and Natural Resources Committee today, so you are busy focusing
    on energy. We appreciate it.
        I will certainly defer to my colleague.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Feinstein.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Madam Chairman. I very much appreciate your
    attention this morning and your help in the past.
        Mr. Chairman, this California Desert Conservation and
    Recreation Act fulfills a commitment made two decades ago to
    preserve the magnificent desert landscapes of my home state. In
    1994 we passed the first California Desert Protection Act. It
    was the largest land conservation designation in the
    continental United States. It established the iconic Death
    Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave National
    Preserve. The bill you are considering today carries that
    historic tradition forward, and we have worked on it for six
    years.
        Mr. Chairman, I will only bother you to say that this bill
    has been so worked on that we have 140 endorsements. They
    include 20 different local government entities, Riverside and
    Imperial County Board of Supervisors, cities such as Palm
    Springs, Rancho Cucamonga, the Coachella Valley Association of
    Governments, the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, eight Chambers of
    Commerce which only shows the economic value that the desert
    has began to bring; 46 environmental and recreational
    organizations, these range from groups such as the Wildlands
    Conservancy, the Wilderness Society to the Recreational Off
    Highway Vehicle Association. It includes three public utility
    companies, several local media outlets and many private
    endorsements.
        I would like to submit the list of endorsements to the
    Committee, if I may.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Feinstein. I would also like to submit a set of
    photographs of what we are talking about because nothing
    matches looking at this.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Feinstein. What people do not understand is that
    the California desert is unique. It's got flora, it's got
    fauna, it's got bighorn sheep, it's got mule deer, it's got
    desert tortoises and it's an incredible landscape.
        What I have tried to do for the last 20 years, and candidly
    the first bill was a lot easier and faster than this bill, is
    to work with the communities and take only those lands which we
    really believe there is unity in terms of putting into this
    bill.
        We have found we have one million off roaders in
    California. If you do not give off roaders some land, what
    happens is they go all over the place and the indentations from
    the wheels of the off road vehicles stay there and so it ruins.
    If you have desert tortoise habitat, it tears it up.
        So in the first bill we did the Algodones Dunes, part of
    those dunes, as off road vehicles. We have worked with them. We
    have their support for this bill.
        I think you will find that in Southern California there is
    very broad support for the bill. So I do not want to take any
    more time. I think we have got everything we need for your
    record, and I just want to thank you for this testimony.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. We have other members of the Committee
    that have bills on the agenda.
        Senator Flake.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

        Senator Flake. Thank you. Thanks for holding this hearing.
    I just want to say, Senator Wyden was talking about the land
    exchange that had been authorized six years ago. I have got one
    that was ten years ago, and that is what this legislation is
    about.
        It was the Northern Arizona land exchange in the Verde
    River Basin Partnership Act. In 2005 it conveyed 237 acres of
    land in the Kaibab National Forest at fair market value for a
    group called, Young Life, to use as a youth camp. The problem
    is the conveyance said 237 acres. The map said 212, and the
    discrepancy there has caused the Forest Service to say that
    they cannot go forward with the transfer.
        I wish this bill was not necessary, but it was Congress'
    clear intent to convey 237 acres. Secretary Vilsack wrote me a
    letter the other day saying that they will work with us on
    this. This was simply a technical issue, and hopefully this
    bill will clear it up.
        So I appreciate the Chairman moving forward with this.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Flake.
        Senator Gardner.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    the opportunity for these bills to come before the Senate
    today.
        There are three Colorado bills before the Energy and
    Natural Resources Subcommittee this afternoon.
        Senate bill 1295 which deals with the Arapaho National
    Forest Boundary Adjustment; Senate bill 1941 dealing with what
    is known as the Crags Colorado Land Exchange Act; and finally
    Senate bill 1942 which is the Elkhorn Ranch and White River
    National Forest Conveyance Act. These all have broad, local
    support.
        I know Mr. Casamassa will be here today talking about these
    bills, and he is very familiar with particularly the Arapaho
    National Forest and some of the work that we have been doing on
    these.
        I certainly appreciate the opportunity and the broad
    bipartisan support that these bills have received. I appreciate
    the opportunity for them to be heard today.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Sullivan, welcome to the Committee.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair.
    It is always good to see both of you and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        Before I speak to my bill I would be remiss if I did not
    acknowledge Leo Barlow's presence to testify on Senator
    Murkowski's bill which is focused on Southeast Alaska's land,
    Landless Natives, and that is a bill that I have co-sponsored.
    I know he will do a great job.
        My bill that we are presenting today is S. 1955, the Alaska
    Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act, which is also co-
    sponsored by the Chairman of this Committee. It is simply
    about, as the title states, equity and fairness.
        Equity for the men and women who left their families and
    friends and their state and home to serve their nation during
    one of the most controversial conflicts our nation has known.
        You may have heard me state this before and it is something
    that all Alaskans are proud of, but Alaskan Natives serve in
    the U.S. military at higher rates than any other ethnic group
    in the country. So think about that, a service that when they
    have come home from wars and overseas they have not always,
    certainly, been treated well by their own Federal Government.
    Yet they serve at the highest rates, very much a special kind
    of patriotism that we have among our Alaska Native community.
        This bill aims to cure an injustice. Under the Alaska
    Native Allotment Act of 1906 Alaska Natives were entitled to up
    to 160 acres of land from the Federal Government. The Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) passed by Congress in 1971
    repealed this right and it became the deadline to apply for
    such an allotment in 1971. Many Alaska Natives missed this
    deadline and opportunity because they were out of state serving
    in the U.S. military. As a veteran who was deployed overseas I
    understand this dilemma.
        We, as a nation, should honor our prior promises,
    especially to those who wear the uniform. This bill does
    exactly that. It affords those who served in the U.S. military
    during the Vietnam era the opportunity, their opportunity, to
    do what other Alaska Natives were allowed to do, apply for a
    Native Allotment.
        Thus I find it a bit ironic that the Obama Administration
    has stated that they are committed to equitable treatment of
    Alaska Natives in their testimony, but they are opposed to this
    bill. Ironic when the very goal of this bill is equitable
    treatment. It is a parity for our Alaska Native Vietnam era
    veterans, and I think it should be rectified.
        I stand ready and willing to work with members of this
    Committee, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, to make sure that those
    who have served their country and were not afforded the
    opportunity for what other Alaskan Natives had can now have
    that opportunity.
        This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Vietnam War.
    Let's make this an anniversary that also focuses on those who
    served in that war and to treat them fairly.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Murkowski.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank my colleague for introducing this very
    important bill that, as he reminds us, brings about a level of
    equity to our Alaska Native veterans who have really been left
    out of this process. I thank not only him for bringing this
    forward, but for Congressman Young over in the House, who over
    the course of years the Alaska delegation has stood very firm
    and very consistently in trying to advance this measure and to
    address the inequity that we see. So thank you, Senator
    Sullivan.
        There are two Alaska-related bills that are before the
    Committee here today. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
    opportunity to have these bills heard before the Subcommittee.
        The measure that Senator Sullivan has spoken to, S. 1955,
    is one that I am proudly co-sponsoring. The other bill that I
    would like to speak to this afternoon is S. 872 which also
    addresses an inequity with our Alaska Natives and the inequity
    relates to our Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act where there
    were five communities, five Southeastern communities, that did
    not receive the same level of benefit that others did
    throughout the state. I would like to just give, very briefly,
    a little bit of the background because I think it puts in
    context what we are dealing with here.
        Back in 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act, and this was to settle the aboriginal land
    claims of our Alaska Natives. It pioneered, really, a new
    method of how the United States would provide for redress to
    compensate Native Americans. It cleared the way for Alaska
    Natives to receive 44 million acres and $962 million in
    compensation. The land and the money then came through 13
    different regional corporations as well as 220 village and
    urban corporations.
        The Act specifically established village corporations for
    any town that had 25 Native residents in 1970, and they had to
    meet other criteria as well. But for unexplained reasons, and
    believe me, we have gone back through all the legislative
    history out there, there were five towns in Southeastern
    Alaska, Ketchikan, where I was born, Wrangell, where I spent
    some growing up years, Petersburg, Tenakee and Haines. These
    five villages were not allowed to form village or urban
    corporations even though there were ten other villages plus
    Juneau, our capital, and Sitka, a former capital, that were
    allowed such corporations.
        So as I mentioned the history on this, I think, is somewhat
    complex. There is no debate as to whether or not these
    communities met the historic criteria as Native communities. It
    is pretty close to impossible to suggest that Ketchikan or
    Wrangell or Haines, for example, were somehow or other
    significantly different from Juneau or from Sitka in their
    Native traditions or their Native versus non-Native
    populations.
        There has been a review, a study by the University of
    Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research. It found
    that village corporation shareholders in Southeast Alaska
    gained about $2,900 more in dividends a year than the at-large,
    regional corporation shareholders and urban corporation
    shareholders gained about another $240 more per year.
        I think it is important because it has been argued that
    somehow or other the Landless Natives have not been placed at a
    disadvantage in terms of a financial equity because of their
    status at large. This is something I hope that we can get out
    on the record today that, in fact, there is a disparity. So it
    is time that we address the inequity for these roughly 3,500
    Alaska Natives who were not authorized to form village
    corporations and have been disadvantaged effectively for about
    40 years now.
        What we do in this legislation, and I am pleased that
    Senator Sullivan is co-sponsoring this with us, is to set a
    framework to begin the discussions on how to address this. I
    think Senator Sullivan has outlined very clearly the history of
    the legislation that he has introduced and the need, the
    imperative, to ensure that those veterans, who served us so
    honorably, are not further disadvantaged, and that they too
    will be able to receive their allotments and not be kept out.
    Right now about 400 of the 2,800 Natives who served during the
    war have been able to qualify for land. That is just not right.
        The legislation that he has introduced solves these
    inequities. It also protects the parks, the monuments and
    conservation units. We are not talking about taking land from
    the conservation units, taking lands from the parks to give to
    our Alaska Natives. It would allow Natives who served at any
    point during the war to gain their lands, acknowledging just
    how difficult it was for them to apply for and qualify for
    lands when they were serving in our military.
        So what we are doing today with these two measures is to
    bring about, again, a level of equity and fairness to Alaska's
    Native people.
        I have been working for a decade to try to finally bring
    about equity to our Sealaska shareholders, and we were able to
    complete that legislation last year. It is good to have that
    one done.
        But I made a commitment and a pledge that we would not
    forget our Landless Natives, and we will never forget our
    Native veterans that have served us so honorably.
        Mr. Chairman, there are two Alaska witnesses that I would
    like to just, very briefly, introduce and welcome to the
    Committee.
        Mr. Leo Barlow, who is from Wrangell, is here today on
    behalf of the Southeast Alaska Landless Native Corporation. He
    has come a long way to be here to speak to us today and has
    been engaged and a strong representative on this issue for a
    long, long time. I truly appreciate him joining us.
        He is also joined by another Alaskan, Mr. Buck Lindekugel.
    Buck has been before the Committee previously. He is an
    attorney with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. He
    too, has traveled a long way to be with us today.
        So I welcome them both.
        Senator Barrasso. Well thank you, Madam Chairman. I would
    ask those two as well as the other four witnesses to please
    come to the witness table so we can get on to the next portion
    of the hearing.
        At the end of the witness testimony we will begin a series
    of questions. Your full written testimony will be made part of
    the official hearing record. Please keep your statements to
    five minutes so that we may have time for questions. I look
    forward to hearing from each and every one of you.
        We want to start with Mr. Glenn Casamassa, who is the
    Associate Deputy Chief of the United States Forest Service.

    STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
             FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Senator
    Murkowski, members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me here
    today to testify on behalf of the United States Forest Service
    and from the Department of Agriculture.
        I'm Glenn Casamassa, the Associate Deputy Chief of the
    National Forest System and there are seven bills that I've been
    asked to address. So I will keep my comments short. And I've
    provided written testimony for the record.
        Senate bill 414, the California Desert Conservation and
    Recreation Act of 2015, would designate approximately 63,000
    acres of land in the San Bernardino National Forest along with
    approximately 73,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau
    of Land Management as the Sand and Snow National Monument. The
    monument would be managed jointly by both agencies.
        The Department supports the monument designation and
    welcomes the opportunity to work with the Secretary of the
    Interior in the co-managing of the proposed monument.
        The bill would designate approximately 7,200 acres of
    wilderness addition on the West and South ends of the existing
    96,000 acre San Gorgonio Wilderness and it includes 1,000 acres
    of private property owned by the Wildlands Conservancy.
        The Department supports this wilderness addition as it
    would improve management efficiencies within the area. The bill
    would transfer administrative jurisdiction over approximately
    40 acres of National Forest System land to the BLM for
    inclusion in the proposed Alabama Hills National Scenic area,
    and the Department supports the transfer of this parcel.
        Overall the Department supports the bill and as noted in my
    written testimony we look forward to working with the
    Subcommittee to address some technical concerns in the bill.
        S. 1295, the Arapaho National Forest Boundary Adjustment
    Act of 2015, would modify the boundary of the Arapaho National
    Forest in the State of Colorado to incorporate approximately
    92\1/2\ acres of land currently outside the National Forest
    boundary. All Federal land within the new boundary would be
    included in the Bowen Gulch protection area established under
    Section 6 of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. The
    Department supports the bill and would like to work with the
    Committee to clarify motorized use for administrative purposes
    would be allowed within the new boundary.
        Senate bill 1488 to designate the Frank Moore Wild
    Steelhead Sanctuary in the State of Oregon is within an area
    that's proposed for designation that represents the major
    spawning tributary for the Steelhead in the North Umpqua River
    and so is an important sanctuary for the conservation and long
    term persistence of this highly valued fishery. The Department
    supports the bill.
        Senate bill 1592, a bill to clarify the description of
    certain Federal land under the Northern Arizona land exchange
    and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 to include
    additional land in the Kaibab National Forest.
        This bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
    convey an additional 25 acres to the Young Life Lost Canyon
    Organization Camp. The legislation map referenced by the act
    showed an area only of approximately 212 acres to be conveyed,
    instead of the approximately 237\1/2\ acres stated in the act.
    The area shown in the legislative map excluded a particular 25
    acre parcel. And in order to ensure agreement between the
    acreage and the legal description the Forest Service would
    support and provide additional technical assistance to the
    Subcommittee. The Department supports the bill.
        Senate bill 1941, the Crags Colorado Land Exchange Act of
    2015, would require a land exchange between the United States
    and the Broadmoor Hotel Incorporated. The United States would
    convey an 83 acre track of National Forest System lands within
    the Pike National Forest and a non-exclusive perpetual easement
    for access and exchange for a 320 acre parcel and permanent
    trail easement for a section of the Bar Trail owned by the
    hotel. The Department supports the bill but would like to work
    with the Committee on a few concerns with the bill.
        Senate bill 1942, the Elkhorn Ranch and White River
    National Forest Conveyance Act of 2015, would direct the
    conveyance of a 148 acre parcel of National Forest System land
    to the Gordman-Leverich Partnership. The parcel is located
    within the White River National Forest. And while the
    Administration has some serious reservations about the use of
    Federal lands to compensate a private landowner, acknowledging
    the unusual circumstances in this specific case, the Department
    does not oppose the bill and the bill would resolve a long
    standing title issue associated with the property.
        Senate bill 2069, the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange
    Clarification Act, would amend the Omnibus Public Lands
    Management Act of 2009 to modify provisions relating to certain
    land exchange in the Mt. Hood National Forest in the State of
    Oregon. The Cooper Spur Land Exchange has been active since the
    creation of the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area through the 2009 Act
    and we look forward to working with the Committee and Senator
    Wyden's staff to resolve the existing issues that will assist
    our ability to complete the land exchange.
        Again, we look forward to working with the Committee and
    all of the bill's sponsors to resolve some minor issues with
    the bills that we've testified on today. And this concludes my
    remarks. And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Next we will hear from Mr. Steve Ellis, who is the Deputy
    Director of Policy at the Bureau of Land Management.
        Mr. Ellis.

    STATEMENT OF STEVEN ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS, BUREAU
          OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Ellis. Chairman Barrasso, Chairman Murkowski and
    Ranking Member Heinrich and members of the Subcommittee, I
    thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
        I'm Steve Ellis. I'm the Deputy Director of Operations for
    BLM, and I'm here to present the views of the Department of
    Interior on four bills that the Subcommittee is considering
    today. Many of these are complex bills. They affect multiple
    agencies than Interior. And I'll briefly summarize our written
    testimony on these four bills.
        The S. 414, the California Desert Conservation and
    Recreation Act would provide a comprehensive approach to the
    management of the California Desert Conservation Area. Senator
    Feinstein has worked with stakeholders in Southern California
    for two decades to develop this approach which addresses the
    conservation of iconic desert landscapes and the development of
    renewable energy resources and provides for recreational and
    public access.
        The bill would establish Mojave Trails and the Sand to Snow
    National Monuments. The Mojave Trails area provides habitat
    connectivity in the Mojave Desert. It also contains the best
    preserved section of historic Route 66.
        The sand to snow area contains a range of ecosystems
    stretching from the desert oasis in big Morongo Canyon to Mount
    Saint Gargano. The Alabama Hills Scenic Area would contain some
    of Southern California's most spectacular and iconic scenery.
    The bill also creates or expands six wilderness areas, it
    expands three units of the National Park System, establishes
    five off highway vehicle recreation areas and contains a number
    of other land provisions.
        We support the bill, and we'd like to work with the
    sponsors and the Committee on the issues that are detailed in
    my written statement.
        Senate 872 amends ANCSA, the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act, to authorize five Southeast Alaska Native
    Communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and
    Wrangell to organize as urban corporations, entitling each to
    receive one township of land or approximately 23,040 acres of
    local areas of historic, cultural, traditional and economic
    importance. The bill provides that the establishment of these
    new urban corporations does not affect any entitlement to land
    of any Native Corporation established before this act can be
    even proposed.
        Although the Department opposes Senate 872, we'd be glad to
    work with the sponsor and the Committee to address issues with
    proposed legislation as well as problems with eligible,
    existing ANCSA communities.
        Senate 1955 would make two amendments to ANCSA in an effort
    to provide access to lands for individual Alaska Natives who
    have not received lands from the Alaska Native Allotment Act,
    the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act or ANCSA.
        The Department shares Congress' commitment to fair and
    equitable treatment of Alaska Natives through the Alaska Land
    Conveyance program. While we oppose this version of the bill,
    we'd be willing to work with the sponsor and the Committee to
    address our shared priorities of quality and expeditiously
    completing the remaining entitlements under ANCSA and other
    applicable authorities.
        California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act, S.
    1971, would add six new areas to the California Coastal
    National Monument which stretches along the beautiful and
    scenic coastline of California. These six areas, Trinidad Head,
    Lighthouse Ranch, Lost Coast Headlands, the Coast Dairies
    Public Lands, Piedras Blancas Outstanding Natural Area and
    Orange County Rocks and Islands are all currently managed for
    recreation and conservation.
        The BLM supports the addition of these areas to the
    monument and would like to work with the sponsor and the
    Committee on some technical issues.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. We
    look forward to working with the Committee to address the
    issues discussed in our testimony, and I'd be glad to answer
    any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellis.
        Next we will hear from Mr. Leo Barlow, from the Southeast
    Alaska Landless Native Corporation. Thanks for traveling such a
    great distance to be with us, Mr. Barlow.

       STATEMENT OF LEO BARLOW, REPRESENTATIVE, SOUTHEAST ALASKA
                          LANDLESS CORPORATION

        Mr. Barlow. Thank you.
        Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden,
    Senator Murkowski and members of the Subcommittee. I've
    traveled here today from Alaska to provide testimony regarding
    Senate bill 872, a bill to provide for the recognition of five
    communities in Southeast Alaska in the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this important
    issue to several thousand Alaska Natives. And a special thank
    you to Chairwoman Murkowski and Senator Sullivan for
    introducing this much needed legislation and for taking on our
    cause.
        My name is Leo Barlow. I have the great honor and
    responsibility of serving as a representative for the community
    of Wrangell on the Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation Board
    of Directors which represents Alaska Natives in a role through
    ANCSA to the Native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
    Tenakee, and Wrangell. The people I represent today have
    suffered an injustice for more than 40 years, an injustice that
    led to the legislation currently before this Subcommittee to
    address.
        In 1971 Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the
    aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives through their traditional
    homelands. ANCSA provided for the establishment of Native
    Corporations to receive and manage funds and lands awarded in
    settlement to the claims of all Alaska Natives.
        While many villages throughout Alaska and Southeast Alaska
    were recognized and afforded the opportunity to establish
    village or urban corporations and secure Native land in
    settlement, our five communities were denied the benefits of
    ANCSA. We have been fighting this injustice since the passage
    of the Act in 1971.
        Under the Act, as Alaska Natives we enrolled through one of
    13 regional corporations and also to the villages where we
    lived or to which we had a historic, cultural or familial tie.
        For example, I enrolled through the region for Southeast
    Alaska and also to the Village of Wrangell, my hometown where
    my ancestors have lived for many generations. A total of 747
    Alaska Natives enrolled in the Native Village of Wrangell.
    Other members of our Landless Corporation enrolled through the
    four villages of Haines, Petersburg, Tenakee and Ketchikan.
        Those of us who enrolled in these five communities during
    the ANCSA process did so because these are the homelands and
    places of our origin. Our families and clans originated in
    these communities and we have lived on these lands for
    hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
        In Section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general
    process for determining the eligibility for each Native village
    in Alaska. The villages throughout the State of Alaska were
    listed in this section, and the Secretary of Interior was
    charged with making determinations as to whether the list of
    villages met the eligibility requirements. For a number of
    reasons, however, there was a different process created for
    determining eligibility of Southeast Alaska Native Villages in
    Section 16 of the Act.
        These reasons included the previous Tlingit and Haida
    Indian Claims cash settlement, the existence of the Tongass
    National Forest and the existence of large timber contracts
    secured by powerful pulp companies and also the significant
    non-Native populations of certain communities.
        I would note that at least one of our communities, Tenakee,
    was at one time excluded from the Tongass National Forest
    through an Executive Order by President Roosevelt for the
    purposes of an Indian settlement. Therefore the differing
    treatment due to the creation of the Tongass National Forest
    was not justified in all circumstances.
        Another significant difference between Southeast and non-
    Southeast Alaska communities under the Act was the fact that
    Section 11 of ANCSA provided for an appeal right for non-
    Southeast communities left off the list of eligible villages
    while Section 16 of ANCSA failed to provide the same appeal
    right to Southeast villages.
        Three of our coalition villages, Ketchikan, Haines and
    Tenakee, filed an appeal for this inequitable treatment to the
    Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board in the U.S. Department of the
    Interior through appeals in 1974 and 1997. The appeals were
    rejected because Section 16 made no provision for
    administrative reconsideration of the eligibility of villages
    in Southeast Alaska. Thus we must appeal directly to Congress
    for help. You are our only recourse.
        Southeast Alaska was the first area of Alaska with
    significant settlement by non-Natives because of the inviting
    climate and abundant resources in our homelands. Although we
    welcome non-Natives who have chosen to live in Southeast
    Alaska, their presence does not make our homes any less Native
    than the other villages in Southeast Alaska. Nonetheless this
    was a significant factor in the exclusion of our five
    communities from the list of eligible Southeast villages. This
    occurred despite the clear evidence that each of these
    communities had historical, cultural and traditional Alaska
    Native characteristics.
        The roughly 3,500 Natives who were originally enrolled in
    our Landless communities comprised over 20 percent of the
    shareholders of Sealaska in 1972. Over the years we've received
    revenue sharing distributions from Sealaska pursuant to Section
    7J of the Act but have not enjoyed the social, economic and
    cultural benefits of owning shares in a village, urban or group
    corporation. Many of the village or urban corporations in our
    region have brought significant economic benefits to their
    communities not only for Native shareholders, but for all
    residents of those communities.
        Additionally we have been deprived of the significant
    cultural benefit of owning an interest in lands located within
    and around our traditional homelands. Some opponents argue that
    we have already seen the benefits of the Act due to at large
    distribution through Section 7J and therefore have been treated
    fairly. These arguments clearly do not understand or comprehend
    the value of Native land ownership to Native people.
        The connection to our land is what defines us as Native
    people, not distributions. Establishment of these new ANCSA
    corporations and conveyance of Native lands will truly provide
    us with the benefits of the Act that we have been deprived of
    for so long.
        The history that I'm telling here today is not based only
    on opinions and conclusions made by Landless Natives. In 1993
    the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to prepare
    a report examining the reasons why the unrecognized communities
    have been denied eligibility to form Native corporations under
    the Act. This report, the study of five Southeast Alaska
    communities, otherwise known as the ISER report, strongly
    supports the conclusion that requirements for villages eligible
    to form Native corporations were omitted by the Native villages
    of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. The
    ISER report noted that with the exception of Tenakee our
    communities appeared on early versions of Native village lists
    and the subsequent omission was never clearly explained in any
    provision of the Act or in the accompanying conference report.
        The ISER report also indicated that the population and
    percentages of Natives in each of our communities as well as
    the historic use and occupation of the lands were comparable to
    the Southeast Alaska communities recognized under ANCSA.
        Prior to the passage of ANCSA each of the unrecognized
    communities have been involved in advocating for the settlement
    of the aboriginal claims of their communities. In short, the
    ISER report found no meaningful distinction between the five
    unrecognized villages and other communities listed in Section
    14 of ANCSA. And thus, no justification for omission from that
    list of communities eligible to form urban or group
    corporations under ANCSA. The ISER report is incorporated
    herein by reference.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Barlow. Based on the history set forth above, it is
    clear that those of us who enrolled to the five unrecognized
    communities and our heirs have been unjustly denied the
    financial and cultural benefits of enrollment in a village,
    urban or group corporation. The legislation before this
    Subcommittee today proposes simply to correct a 44 year wrong
    and grant rights that we, the Landless community, should have
    been given in 1971.
        In summary, we are Southeast Alaska Natives. These villages
    identified in Senate bill 872 are our traditional homelands.
    All we are asking is that the Congress recognize that fact and
    provide us with what we deserve under the law and equity, a
    chance to form ANCSA corporations for our people and for future
    generations with ties to our traditional communities.
        Sadly, many of the original shareholders who enrolled to
    these five communities have passed on and will never see this
    injustice resolved. I hope that you will help those of us
    original shareholders and our descendants finally secure
    recognition under ANCSA. It's long overdue.
        In closing Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden and
    members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Southeast Alaska
    villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and
    Wrangell, I want to once again express our extreme gratitude
    for your consideration of this important legislation. We urge
    you to support our efforts to be included in the benefits that
    ANCSA has brought to other Alaska Natives.
        I hope that this Subcommittee and the Senate will act
    quickly to ensure that we finally receive the recognition, long
    overdue, that we have deserved. And in our language,
    Gunalcheesh--Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barlow follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow.
        Next we will hear from Mr. Buck Lindekugel, who is the
    Grassroots Attorney for the Southeast Alaska Conservation
    Council. Thanks for joining us.

     STATEMENT OF BUCK LINDEKUGEL, GRASSROOTS ATTORNEY, SOUTHEAST
                      ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL

        Mr. Lindekugel. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair.
        Thank you for inviting the Southeast Alaska Conservation
    Council (SEACC) to testify at today's hearing. My name is Buck
    Lindekugel. I've been the SEACC's Grassroots Attorney since
    1990. Founded in 1970 SEACC is dedicated to preserving the
    integrity of Southeast Alaska's unsurpassed natural environment
    while providing for balanced sustainable use of our region's
    resources.
        We recognize the significant economic value that Tongass
    old growth has and the invaluable contribution it makes to the
    region's thriving fishing and tourism based economic sectors,
    as well as the customary traditional practices so important to
    local communities.
        SEACC appreciates the histories and traditions of the
    Native peoples of Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Tenakee and
    Haines. We also recognize the immense cultural benefit
    associated with maintaining customary and traditional use of
    the lands, waters, animals and plants of the region, uses that
    remain critical to maintaining the cherished way of life in
    this, the 21st century. Our highest goal remains to work with
    all our neighbors to protect the land, the waters, that support
    strong communities and vibrant cultures and to maintain
    resiliency and integrity of the Tongass.
        For these reasons we do not support reopening the Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act once again, this time to grant a
    chunk of the Tongass to five new, for profit, urban
    corporations.
        As our written testimony made clear we object to the behind
    closed doors process provided in the bill with the Secretary of
    Interior consulting with representatives of the five
    communities and Sealaska Corporation on possible selections. We
    are gravely concerned that, as drafted, the bill does not
    explicitly and plainly make off limits the special lands on the
    Tongass previously safeguarded by Congress in the 1980 Alaska
    Lands Act and 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act, lands as national
    monuments, wilderness, unlegislated, roadless wildlands.
        The Natives from these five communities are enrolled as at
    large shareholders of Sealaska Corporation, the largest private
    landowner in Southeast Alaska. And consequently they've already
    received fair and substantial benefits under the Native Claims
    Settlement Act.
        This bill as written causes more problems than it resolves.
    We urge the withdrawal of this bill and the start of dialogue
    in public beginning with hearings in the affected communities
    and their neighbors in Southeast Alaska next year.
        Our hope moving forward is to communicate honestly and
    openly and compassionately with the members of the five
    communities to find a solution that works for all Southeast
    Alaskans.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I'd be
    happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lindekugel follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Lovingood, who is the 1st
    District Supervisor, San Bernardino County, California.
        Mr. Lovingood.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT LOVINGOOD, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR,
                   SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Lovingood. Mr. Chair and Madam Chair, thank you both.
    I'd like to testify today on the California Conservation
    Recreation Act of 2015.
        The legislation proposed a variety of designations
    throughout the California desert. The majority of the affects
    in designation exist within San Bernardino County. I appear
    before you in my capacity of San Bernardino Supervisor in the
    First District and Vice Chair.
        San Bernardino County is geographically the largest county
    in the contiguous United States with more than 20,000 square
    miles. The First District, which I represent, is 15,100 square
    miles. I represent approximately 450,000 constituents.
        Public lands are a major asset in San Bernardino County
    providing a number of the economic and recreational
    opportunities. In San Bernardino County more than 80 percent of
    the land is under Federal estate and jurisdiction of the BLM,
    U.S. Forest Service, Department of Defense. We have three
    military bases and three national parks on our lands. The
    Federal Government actively manages and protects these lands
    for conservation values and other uses.
        Before I begin I'd like to acknowledge and thank Senator
    Feinstein for her inclusive approach in developing the current
    legislation proposal allowing the county to comment during the
    drafting of the proposal. The Senator and her staff consulted
    with a number of local government and interest groups. This
    type of shareholder input is imperative to ensure any proposed
    designation provides a positive benefit for the variety of
    interests in the use of the desert that's critical of multiple
    activities. While the final outcome may not garner full support
    by all, at least a variety of uses and values and concerns were
    considered.
        The centerpiece of the proposed legislation is the
    designation of two national monuments which would withdraw
    mining activities and other forms of mineral use from public
    lands. The proposed monuments are wholly or partially within
    San Bernardino County and spanned over one million acres.
        The mining concerns and economic development are paramount
    to us. When we look at this in San Bernardino County, one of
    our most significant economic drivers is the mineral industry.
    The county regulates over 100 mines which provide a variety of
    materials necessary for infrastructure, economic growth,
    national defense and countless consumer products.
        The proposed national monument status withdraws from public
    from mineral entry. This prevents the extraction of important
    minerals such as aggregates, basic commodities and rare Earths.
    The diminished access to the aggregates will increase the haul
    distance for road maintenance and material inhibiting disaster
    recovery, increasing the cost to taxpayer, fuel consumption,
    greenhouse gases, traffic congestion and accelerated wear and
    tear on infrastructure that's already aging and in dire need of
    repair.
        There's a number of active mines within the proposed
    boundary including Castle Mountain. This area was not included
    in the 1994 Desert Protection Act because it was an active gold
    mine. The Castle Mountain mine is still active and their
    permits allow them to continue mining through 2025.
        When Castle Mountain scales up in full production in the
    next phase the county anticipates the operation will become the
    second largest gold mine in California. It will provide over
    300 jobs and over $225 million of tax benefits to the county. I
    understand the discussions with Castle Mountain are ongoing and
    appreciate the Senator's interest in resolving.
        Senate bill 414 should include reasonable and practical
    assets to the actual areas being impacted. Currently within the
    Park Service there is no mechanism to guarantee access to
    landholders or mining activities within the proposed
    boundaries.
        Off road vehicle designations, while I have concerns with
    the bill, I appreciate the Senator's efforts to include
    designated off road recreational area provisions for the local
    revenue sharing, not only that, also with renewable energy. San
    Bernardino provides the largest thermal solar energy within the
    state and also it's PV production is growing daily. The
    designation at the renewables and the provisions included in
    the bill would ensure local governments receive compensation
    for utility scale renewable project on public land. This
    funding will allow the county to enhance public services to
    address impacts of these large projects in our regions.
        We also have to address the National Trails Route 66
    Highway. It's a highway that mirrors Interstate 40 and is used
    on a standard basis during emergency services. Any natural
    disaster that shuts down or impedes traffic on the 40 is
    rerouted to Highway 66. We have trestle bridges there that are
    over 80 years old. Anytime there has been impact with recent
    storms, travel is not permitted. We have to address those
    issues and the concerns of our communities. That will come at a
    major cost. We've also, over the years, lost PILT funding in
    the region with our lands which impacts us and doesn't allow us
    to address the needs for public safety within our communities.
        In closing I would like to thank the Committee for their
    attention and also request the consideration of provisions in
    the legislation recently introduced in the House which strikes
    a reasonable compromise among recreational activity,
    environmental and by establishing a special management area.
    The measure would allow us protection of existing mining and
    reasonable mining expansion. I believe this proposal is a
    balanced approach for protecting, managing and using our desert
    areas in San Bernardino County.
        I appreciate the Chairman, your leadership and this
    Committee for careful deliberation on extremely important issue
    to the 450,000 constituents we have. And if we look at this as
    an additional 15,000 square miles, the 1994 Act took over
    11,000 square miles. So to give you an idea of the first Act,
    three states here within and this is bigger than Rhode Island.
    So we just ask for your consideration and appreciate it today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lovingood follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Lovingood.
        Next we will hear from Mr. Frazier Haney, who is the
    Conservation Director of the Mojave Desert Land Trust. Thanks
    for joining us.

       STATEMENT OF FRAZIER HANEY, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, MOJAVE
                           DESERT LAND TRUST

        Mr. Haney. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name
    is Frazier Haney, and I'm the Conservation Director for the
    Mojave Desert Land Trust and a volunteer board member for the
    Wildlands Conservancy.
        The Mojave Desert Land Trust is my home or the Mojave
    Desert is my home. Like others who are fortunate enough to live
    there or visit there, we cherish the rugged public lands that
    surround our rural communities. That's why I'm pleased to be
    here today to express my strong support for S. 414, Senator
    Feinstein's California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act.
        This important legislation permanently protects
    California's beautiful desert landscapes, but it also ensures
    public lands are available to meet the needs of all those who
    live, work and recreate in the desert. The centerpiece of the
    bill is the creation of two national monuments, Mojave Trails
    and Sand to Snow.
        Mojave Trails includes broad sweeping valleys and majestic
    mountain views, the kind of landscape that defines the American
    West. Making the lands more valuable is the rich, cultural and
    historic resources found there.
        For example, the Creation Trail, sacred to the tribes along
    the Colorado River, connects the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, Crit,
    Quechan and other tribes to their ancestors. These lands also
    contain the second transcontinental railroad and the longest,
    intact stretch of Route 66 made famous through songs and
    stories like John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.
        The Mojave Trails also contain several camps and hundreds
    of square miles used by General Patton during World War II,
    known as the Desert Training Center, the remnants of which are
    still scattered across the landscape.
        Jeep trails off of Route 66 provide public access
    throughout the area for exploring, rock hounding and isolated
    camping, making Mojave Trails an outstanding recreation area.
        In 1999 the Catellus Development Corporation listed over
    600,000 acres of former railroad lands for sale in a
    checkerboard pattern spread out across hundreds of square miles
    of public lands. The Wildlands Conservancy answered the
    nation's call by raising $45 million in private funds, coupled
    with $18 million in Land and Water Conservation Funds, to
    acquire, restore and protect these lands.
        The establishment of the Mojave Trails National Monument
    would fulfill the Federal Government's commitment to protect
    these lands, honoring the spirit of the agreement that led
    Wildlands and its supporters to acquire and donate the land.
    This is roughly 20 percent of the proposed monument area. This
    would be for the permanent use and enjoyment by the American
    people.
        The proposed Sand to Snow National Monument would protect
    one of the most biologically diverse mountain ranges in the
    United States and benefit surrounding rural communities that
    have built a thriving tourism economy. Within its boundary is
    25 miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail as well as
    one of the premier locations in the United States for bird
    watching at Big Morongo Canyon Preserve. Because of the
    existing strong public/private partnerships in the monuments,
    thousands of volunteer hours and in-kind donations help
    agencies operate visitor facilities, run education programs and
    maintain trails.
        In addition to creating these three monuments, S. 414 would
    designate five wilderness study areas as permanent wilderness
    like the Avawatz and Soda Mountains, Buzzards Peak and the
    Great Falls Basin. These lands contain beautiful painted
    mountains and are important wildlife habitat.
        One hundred twenty-six thousand acres of wilderness study
    area in the California would be released under the S. 414.
    There are also national park additions like the Castle
    Mountains addition in Mojave National Preserve. And this
    remarkable landscape, steep rocky peaks, overlooks a high
    desert grassland where Golden Eagles forage and Pronghorn
    Antelope can soon be reintroduced.
        By enacting this legislation five existing off highway
    vehicle areas in San Bernardino County would be given permanent
    status covering approximately 135,000 acres. This designation
    will further secure these areas from loss of access by riders
    and protect the economic benefits they bring to local
    communities. Great care was taken to avoid conflict around
    conservation areas with off road vehicle interests. This bill
    ensures OHV enthusiasts that the places that they ride will
    remain available despite other potential uses for the public
    land.
        Because planning efforts like the Department of the
    Interior's Western solar plan and the Desert Renewable Energy
    Conservation plan, this legislation has no conflict with
    renewable energy.
        Additionally, the boundaries of the conservation areas were
    vetted, carefully drawn to exclude existing mining operations
    and to the greatest extent possible, current mineral claims are
    left intact. Casual surface use and rock hounding is still
    allowed.
        I applaud Senator Feinstein's unique and far ranging
    legislation. Rarely in the past would one find conservation and
    environmental groups joining arms with energy companies and off
    road recreation groups to advocate for the same legislation.
    But with its balanced approach to the use of public lands, this
    legislation has created a spirit of cooperation.
        It's an honor to testify in support of the hard work of so
    many individuals and organizations have done to craft this
    legislation in the California desert.
        This concludes my testimony, and I'd be happy to answer
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Haney follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Haney.
        We'll start with a round of questions.
        Senator Murkowski.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ellis, let me begin with you regarding S. 872. You have
    indicated that the Administration opposes this legislation but
    that you are willing to work with us, which I appreciate. I
    also appreciate the willingness to work with us on some of the
    existing eligible communities that do not have administrative
    remedy. So we have some work to do there.
        You do indicate in your written testimony that you seem to
    be concerned that given what we are doing with processing the
    conveyances owed to Alaska Natives and the State of Alaska
    under several Federal acts, that, we have a lot yet to do.
    Believe me, I know how much we have to do because it was my
    2004 legislation that tried to speed this up and we are not
    moving at a rate I would like. But I am concerned that you
    would think that with the limited conveyances that we are
    talking about here that somehow or other this derails your
    process. It would add to your workload, I do not disagree, but
    I cannot believe that it is going to considerably delay.
        The question that I want to ask you, specifically, is your
    concern that somehow allowing for the five Landless
    communities, risks creating a precedent? You use the words,
    ``it would create a continual land transfer cycle in Alaska.''
    I do not understand this because you acknowledge that it is
    only Southeast communities that were denied an appeals process
    to challenge corporation authorization decisions, and there are
    no other communities in Southeast in 1970 that were considered
    for inclusion in the claims settlement. So I just do not see,
    possibly, how passage of a bill like this could possibly set a
    precedent for other native towns to seek to reopen status
    determinations.
        How do you think that this somehow risks creating a
    precedent or that it is a continual land transfer cycle?
        Mr. Ellis. Madam Chair, thank you for the question.
        In the first part of your comment as far as the timeframe
    really for our BLM people in Alaska, these would be the same
    people that would be working on both sales.
        The Chairman. Right, I understand.
        Mr. Ellis. The more people select it would mean that they
    would have to focus time on this.
        And so, you know, this--
        The Chairman. But I will just say that the Landless in
    Southeast have been waiting some 44 years. So they would like
    to get in the queue.
        Mr. Ellis. We feel that the best way this ANCSA National
    Claims Settlement Act, as you're aware, it was all
    encompassing. It was all encompassing, and completing it is the
    best way to be fair.
        These five communities, it's my understanding, they did go
    through the--three of them, I guess, went through an appeal
    process that they were turned down that appeal. Congress did
    not originally include these five communities.
        My experience also, in my career has been, you know,
    they're always other people looking over the fence, right?
    They're always looking at what you're doing. And we are
    concerned about opening this issue back up without bringing
    this other piece to closure.
        The Chairman. Well, you have not answered the question
    about this being precedent setting and that you are now going
    to open this up so that you have more asks, if you will.
        Let me address a concern that Mr. Lindekugel raised and
    that is that this bill would result in our parks, our
    monuments, other Congressionally-protected lands being given to
    our Native peoples. What will happen here is the Secretary
    would ultimately make the decision as to what lands to offer
    these new Native corporations and not in a back room, in some
    kind of secret consultation.
        But I think it begs the question why the Secretary would
    pick parks or monuments or any kind of protected lands to
    convey to new corporations when there is more than ten million
    acres in the National Forest that lie outside of any
    conservation units. So it seems that the fear, and I think it
    is an unmerited, unjustified fear, that somehow or other if we
    allow these five communities, five communities that were left
    out, access to lands that it is going to come from protected
    areas and it will, again, open up this continuing ask for
    additional claims.
        It seems to me that the arguments that are being made are
    somewhat specious. I am trying to determine whether or not the
    Administration actually feels that the Secretary would make
    available lands that are in protected status when there is no
    reason to.
        Can you address that concern?
        Mr. Ellis. I would, Madam Chairman, prefer not to speculate
    on these areas on the Forest Service on the Tongass National
    Forest. I would defer to the Forest Service on that.
        The Chairman. But I think that we can agree that there is
    considerable land, considerable land, more than ten million
    acres, that lie outside of any conservation units. So for the
    suggestion to be made that somehow or other if you give this
    land to these five communities to allow for possible
    development, that somehow we are snatching it out of parks or
    conservation units, it just--I think it is wrong to suggest
    that.
        Mr. Barlow, I wanted to ask you about the issues as they
    relate to the benefits because it has been suggested here in
    testimony today that the Natives in the five communities have
    received their benefit because you are considered at large
    members of the Sealaska Regional Corporation. To use the words
    from Mr. Lindekugel, he says, ``You have already received
    adequate compensation.''
        Can you speak to that? You suggested that there is cultural
    benefit to owning your land, the value of Native land
    ownership.
        I mentioned in my remarks that there is also financial
    remuneration that leads to benefit differences. But can you
    just speak to whether or not, coming from the Wrangell
    community, whether there is a concern as to whether or not
    there has been a level of equity or fairness in terms of what
    the other communities have been able to receive and the
    Landless communities have not been beneficiary of?
        Mr. Barlow. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question.
        Certainly we have not been on par with those that did
    achieve a settlement and have been granted lands. Those
    corporations have been able to engage in business practices.
    They've developed an economic generator, in some cases, to
    produce significant economic benefits to their shareholders
    that we can't because we don't have a land base to work with.
        Some of the things they've done besides enter into everyday
    business operations are engage in things like cultural tourism,
    ecotourism. They've developed several benefit programs for
    their shareholders such as scholarships, in some cases, burial
    assistance and have been able to provide additional dividends
    from their village corporation that we don't derive. And those
    benefits are in addition to what Sealaska Corporation does
    provide them as Sealaska shareholders.
        So we have been handicapped and literally denied 44 years
    of opportunity that others have been able to take advantage of.
    So that's why we feel this is an inequity and it needs to be
    adjusted.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank you for that.
        Mr. Lindekugel, let me ask you. You stated very clearly
    that you recognize the cultural benefit and that you, and I do
    not want to put words in your mouth, I am looking at the notes
    that I wrote down as you were speaking. But that you recognize
    the benefit to the Native people of these five communities in
    trying to find some level of equity here.
        You have also suggested in your testimony that this bill
    would create land inequities where none currently exist. What I
    am trying to figure out is how a statement like that can be
    made when we have some 3,500 Natives within the Southeast
    region that did not gain any surface estate through the
    creation of an urban or a village corporation and the other
    Native villages, similarly situated in neighboring towns and
    villages, were able to receive this benefit. We have just heard
    Mr. Barlow say that there is a distinction.
        It seems to me that is where the inequity is. It is not in
    allowing for these five that were kept out of the original
    agreements. It seems that the only way to make it equitable is
    to allow for them to have that same access to benefit which is
    their land, as the other villages and towns were able to when
    the Act first came into being.
        I am trying to understand why you are saying that this bill
    would create inequities where none currently exist. It seems to
    me we definitely have an inequity here, and it is represented
    in these five communities, and we are trying to correct that.
        Can you clarify what you intended?
        Mr. Lindekugel. I'll try, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Mr. Lindekugel. That isn't based on my analysis. That was
    based on analysis from the Department of Interior in 1997 when
    they submitted information to your father, Senator Murkowski,
    relating to an earlier version of this bill. It was one of the
    concerns that they raised, and we think it needs to be
    addressed in this process as well. They are landowners.
        The Chairman. Who are?
        Mr. Lindekugel. The Landless do have a beneficial interest
    in Sealaska Corporation's lands. So----
        The Chairman. But there is a difference, we agree, between
    the surface and the subsurface, and this is where the Landless
    have not been able to access that benefit.
        Mr. Lindekugel. Well, Sealaska also has surface lands, as
    you know, from last year's bill.
        The Chairman. Certainly.
        Mr. Lindekugel. The contentious there but and this doesn't
    change the subsurface issue. Sealaska would get the subsurface
    for all the lands that these communities would ultimately get.
        So, you know, that doesn't, you know, our fundamental
    concern is maintaining the integrity of the Tongass. And I
    appreciate your intent not to include lands that are, been
    recognized and protected as in the national interest; however,
    deferring to a Secretary of Interior at some later point to
    make good decisions is a concern to us. We remember,
    conservation interest, remember Secretary James Watt and some
    of the proposals he made in the early 80s that were of great
    concern to conservation interests about protected lands and
    their continued protections.
        The Chairman. But----
        Mr. Lindekugel. So the idea that a Secretary of Interior
    would not take action that would be inconsistent with
    protecting these lands is----
        The Chairman. I guess the question that is bottom line for
    me is making sure that those who were effectively
    disenfranchised, these five communities, that there is some way
    that we can provide for equity to them. That is what I am
    seeking to do.
        So do you, recognizing that you are speaking for SEACC
    here, does SEACC oppose giving any land to capitalize these
    five communities?
        Mr. Lindekugel. We do not believe that giving lands to for
    profit corporations, whether they are Native or non-Native from
    the Tongass, is in the best interest of the region and the
    existing sectors of the economy that depend upon----
        The Chairman. So when----
        Mr. Lindekugel [continuing]. Those resources.
        The Chairman. When Juneau and Sitka were able to receive
    this benefit you did not think that they should receive it
    either?
        Mr. Lindekugel. We were not involved in that decision.
        The Chairman. Well, and this is where I am trying to get.
    You have a limited number of communities in Southeast, all
    there in the Tongass. For whatever reason you had five of them,
    five of them, that all with the exception of Tenakee met the
    criteria in terms of Native, non-Native, composition, the other
    criteria that were there, and they were excluded. Forty-four
    years later we are trying to figure out how we make sure that
    they are not left out. I think it is really difficult to argue
    that we cannot touch the Tongass. We have to keep the Tongass
    intact.
        These are the people who have been living in the Tongass,
    raising their families in the Tongass, educating their children
    in the Tongass, for time immemorial. So when I think about
    keeping the Tongass intact, I also remember the people of the
    Tongass and making sure that they have that access and that
    claim to their lands, their cultural heritage lands.
        I get a little passionate about this because I go to
    Wrangell and I see Lovey and Lovey tells me, ``Lisa, you better
    not forget the Landless.'' I go to Haines and hear it in
    Ketchikan and I hear it in Petersburg. Why were we left out?
        Then when I hear from organizations such as SEACC that
    says, by gosh, we've got to keep the Tongass intact, we cannot
    let the people have their land. That really disturbs me. We
    were not there early enough to object to it, and this was the
    same battle that we fought with the Sealaska Lands bill.
        Do you support the legislation that Senator Sullivan and I
    have introduced that would allow for our Native veterans to
    receive their allotments? Is that something that SEACC is
    supportive of?
        Mr. Lindekugel. Madam Chair, I'm not aware of the specifics
    of that legislation. I understood that that was addressed
    during the Clinton Administration back in 1998 with your father
    and Congressman Young, I'm not certain of the issues involved
    or the proposed solutions to those.
        So we haven't----
        The Chairman. Well it is an interesting issue because we
    have a situation, again, where the Southeast Alaska residents
    were treated differently than Natives in other parts of the
    state. I am going to be asking the Department for their
    suggestions as to how do we address that. But effectively it is
    going to be the same situation. What we are going to be seeking
    to do is to provide for a level of equity for our Native
    veterans, and that equity will be in the form of land.
        And so, if again, SEACC comes back and says, well we don't
    think our Alaska Native veterans should be able to receive from
    the Tongass because we want to keep the Tongass intact, we are
    just going round and round in circles here.
        We must be working together. You suggest that we need to
    engage in public dialogue and I would welcome that. I know that
    the people of these five communities have been engaged in very
    public, very open dialogue because I have been the beneficiary
    of much of that.
        So we need to find some resolution, and 40 years is a long
    time. We waited a long time with the Sealaska bill, and I want
    to make sure that other residents in Southeast whether they be
    veterans or individuals in our five Landless communities have
    the equity that they have been seeking for so long.
        Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have gone over my time, but
    you can tell these are issues that I care about a great deal. I
    thank those who have traveled a long way to be here today.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Ellis, you know, it has been reported the President has
    been asked to use the Antiquities Act to designate the Mojave
    Trails National Monument and the Sand to Snow National
    Monument, the two monuments that are included in the bill, S.
    414.
        A Presidential Proclamation would not address the other
    uses of the land that this legislation balances including off
    road vehicle recreation. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes
    the President to proclaim national monuments on Federal lands
    that contain, as it says, ``historic landmarks, historic and
    prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or
    scientific interest.''
        Are there objects that need to be protected here by the
    President that really cannot wait for the legislative process?
    And if so, what are they?
        Mr. Ellis. Mr. Chairman, you know, I'm not in a position to
    speculate on any decision that the President might make on this
    or really any other proposal. I do know that I can tell you
    that the Secretary has said, Secretary Jewell, said that she's
    open to working with anyone seeking balanced solutions to
    conservation issues in the West. This would be no exception to
    that, that spirit, you know, she has made it clear that she
    prefers legislative solution to these conservation challenges
    such as this. And the Administration supports this.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        Mr. Lovingood, the Administration officials are traveling
    to California next week to consider creating the Mojave Trails
    National Monument and the Sand to Snow National Monument. Do
    you support unilateral action by the President to create these
    national monuments which total over a million acres?
        Mr. Lovingood. Not in this current form. There needs, in my
    opinion, to go through the legislative process. That's the
    opportunity.
        The meetings next week will be well attended. And I think
    if we view those and see the outreach by the public, you know,
    this is the furthest Southeastern corner of the impacted area.
    When we look across the board there has been great inclusive
    rapport, I mean, in support of this. There's been great
    outreach.
        But if you look at the most impacted areas the constituents
    that are being impacted, you know, four out of the five cities
    have supported this. So, I mean, have not supported this. Only
    one city out of the five have. So you have a 20 percent direct
    support.
        The county has made clear its position with the standpoint
    of economic access to mineral resources. They're critical. We
    look at the loss of the revenue. We just need to have, within,
    there's not even clear language within the current bill to
    address the Park Service in providing the mechanism for access
    to restricted lands and these are critical issues for our
    community.
        Senator Barrasso. Because the Antiquities Act actually
    directs the President to reserve as it quoted, ``the smallest
    area compatible with the proper care and management of the
    objects to be protected,'' the smallest area.
        So what do you think the smallest area would be that would
    need to be reserved? Is this really a million plus acres or
    just you are thinking more specific?
        Mr. Lovingood. No, I think if we, and I say that's been a
    moving conversation that we have that it could be encompassing
    765,000 acres. There's certain areas--we certainly see value in
    the Snow to Sand and some of the corridors. But then we look,
    this is also fractioned, fractional in the standpoint that it
    takes areas that are isolated and it also takes areas that are
    active within their mining rights and then removes them. And we
    don't see that as being possible, amenable.
        Senator Barrasso. Because you did share a number of the
    concerns in your testimony regarding the impacts of these two
    monument designations on San Bernardino County.
        Could you just elaborate a little bit on the concerns with
    the Castle Mountain mine, in particular, and do you have
    suggestions to how we can address those concerns?
        Mr. Lovingood. Well I think the fact of going back to what
    was originally agreed upon with, I say that, to allow Castle
    Mountain to move forward. Their position has been at the
    completion or finishing their processes, their mine itself. At
    the end of its life it's going to be returned and then included
    and give them back. So that would be a starting point that I
    see.
        I think focusing, again, on the Snow to Sand would be--also
    some of the off road areas, I think, would need to be expanded,
    expanded from where there they are today. But those I could
    come back with direct comments as far as----
        Senator Barrasso. I would like to turn attention to Mr.
    Haney because you personally, your organization, has spent
    years working with other stakeholders in the development of
    this legislation. According to your testimony it is a balanced
    approach to the uses of our public lands with wide-ranging
    support.
        Can you tell us what is more important to you in your
    organization? Is it presidentially proclaimed monuments or the
    balanced approach and the uses that you talked about in your
    testimony that are only achievable through passage of this
    legislation?
        Mr. Haney. I think the legislative boundaries are very well
    vetted. The process has been inclusive of many interests, and
    the conservation communities interested in the permanent
    protection of both the natural resources, but also the
    archeological and cultural resources that are on the land and
    the ecosystem values that are there.
        Senator Barrasso. So if the President were to actually
    establish these monuments through Presidential Proclamation, in
    your opinion, would that unravel the rest of the bill that has
    been carefully crafted and compromised that you found?
        Mr. Haney. In my opinion I think that there's a great
    opportunity either way that the monuments would be enacted
    whether through legislation or through an Administrative action
    to follow through on the entire legislative package. That's the
    commitment that groups like mine have made that we want to see
    the entire bill passed.
        And it's the--it speaks to the dual track approach that
    Senator Feinstein is taking right now by asking the
    Administration to, at least, examine the two monument areas and
    at the same time work on continuing to push the legislation
    along.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Casamassa, in reading your written testimony on S. 414-
    48, the Wyden bill, I was surprised that you did not offer any
    real testimony about the management implications of the
    sanctuary and all the prescription in the bill about motorized
    vehicles, road management. In fact, the testimony does not even
    identify the number of Forest Service acres that the sanctuary
    would include. Instead, in your testimony you touched on
    fisheries resource and then moved on to Frank Moore's
    distinguished life and you offer commentary about Mr. Moore in
    a Ted talk last year.
        Do you agree that this bill does more than just name the
    area and now share with the Public Lands Subcommittee agency
    testimony addressing the management implications and the number
    of public acres impacted by the bill?
        Mr. Casamassa. Chairman Barrasso, thank you very much for
    the question.
        We certainly recognize that Steamboat Creek and the North
    Umpqua River area is a significant resource area, fisheries
    resource area, and it is managed as such within the context of
    the direction provided in the Umpqua Forest plan and amended by
    the Northwest Forest plan.
        Clearly when and if the legislation would be enacted then
    we would look at the, say a cross section of what is in our
    existing management framework and the way we would manage that
    and make adjustments accordingly in the event that the bill
    would be enacted.
        So overall, yes, the area is very special. It is a
    recognized, clearly, a recognized, significant fisheries area.
    And it is being managed as such right now under the guise of
    the Umpqua Forest plan.
        Senator Barrasso. My confusion, I think, had to do with the
    bill creating the sanctuary. It seems to create a new land
    designation, a sanctuary, and I could not really find a good
    definition for that.
        So could you talk a little bit about what the land
    designation means? Did you support adding yet another land
    designation to the mix of all the other land designations that
    are currently managed by the Forest Service?
        Mr. Casamassa. Well, Chairman Barrasso, that the special
    emphasis that would be placed on the term sanctuary or
    protection area or special emphasis area is such that it does
    warrant, perhaps, additional management that reflects the
    spirit and intent of what the intent of that naming is.
        And we believe that right now, as it relates to the Umpqua
    Forest plan as well as the Northwest Forest plan that there are
    ample protections there that do meet the spirit and intent of
    what the sanctuary would be as outlined in the bill. And we
    would continue to work towards, perhaps, modifying that in the
    event that the legislation would be enacted.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        Mr. Ellis, Title II of S. 414 would set up a revenue
    sharing regime for renewable energy development on all the
    lands administered by the BLM based in part on the premise that
    renewable energy needs to be mitigated.
        If solar and wind energies, is it so damaging to BLM lands
    that you need to simultaneously set up a fund to mitigate the
    impacts of solar and wind energy?
        Mr. Ellis. We, currently all the receipts that we have for
    solar energy go to the Treasury. We collect bonds on solar
    energy to recover the cost of Reclamation, if the person who
    has that, say they are unwilling or do not want to, you know,
    clean this area up.
        As far as damaging to the resources, we have not yet had
    any solar or wind energy developments on the BLM lands that I'm
    aware of, where we have had to go and do this.
        As you probably know we are doing some planning in the
    West. An example is the DRECP planning process. We're going
    through California. We're trying to identify those areas that
    are more suitable for wind and solar energy and those areas
    that may be more ripe for development from the standpoint of
    minimizing the resource impacts in those areas that they don't
    want to stay--that we want them to stay away from. And these,
    of course, are helping these companies in choosing these areas
    where they might make applications and to minimize those
    environmental impacts.
        Senator Barrasso. I mean, in a similar vein in terms of how
    this all works, there are several mines, including the Castle
    Mountain mine, within the proposed boundaries of the Sand to
    Snow National Monument and the Mojave Trails National Monument.
        What effect would the monument designation in S. 414 have
    on the expansion or the permitting or even the general
    operations of these mines?
        Mr. Ellis. Generally, when we have these designations we
    honor valid existing rights at the time that occurs.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay. So in terms of expansion, general
    operation and permitting there may be an issue with regard to
    expansion, but you just honor what is currently there?
        Mr. Ellis. What we do, Mr. Chairman, is when areas are
    designated we generally go through a planning process where we
    include our publics in that planning process for such special
    designations. And existing right-of-ways, we honor existing
    right-of-ways. And any actions that we take then are in
    compliance with existing laws and policies. And then the
    decision is on that land just planned that we go through.
        Senator Barrasso. I just wanted to finish up with the
    proposed wilderness designation in S. 414 because this area
    borders on some military installations. Areas proposed for the
    wilderness designation in Golden Valley and Grass Valley have
    also been proposed for conveyance to the naval air weapons
    station at China Lake in other bills.
        So has the BLM engaged the military in any way to ensure
    that there is no conflict between military operations and then
    those proposed by wilderness areas?
        Mr. Ellis. Well, Mr. Chairman, of course we work with the
    military all over the West in public lands. They have a lot of
    activities in the West. We have a lot of land in the West.
        In this particular area, it's my understanding, that there
    have--there will be discussions with DOD to look at the uses
    that DOD has in those areas. And then at the time, you know,
    there may be a time when they, DOD, no longer needs to use
    those areas for military purposes and look at it then.
        Senator Barrasso. Well that is the concern if there is an
    affect from designating these areas as wilderness if it had an
    impact on our military training areas.
        Well thank you. I appreciate all of you being here.
        Some of the members may want to submit to each of you
    written questions. We would ask that you try to respond to them
    quickly. The hearing record will be open for the next two
    weeks.
        Thanks so much for being here today.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]