[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]