[House Report 104-643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-643
_______________________________________________________________________
CONVEYANCES OF LANDS TO CERTAIN NATIVE VILLAGES UNDER THE ALASKA NATIVE
CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
_______
June 27, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2560]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2560) to provide for conveyances of certain lands in
Alaska to Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association, Inc.,
Ninilchik Native Association, Inc., Seldovia Native
Association, Inc., Tyonek Native Corporation, and Knikatnu,
Inc. under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
That section 4 of Public Law 94-456 (43 U.S.C. 1611 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``subsection (a)'' in subsection (c) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``subsections (a) and (d)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) In order to convey to the Village Corporations named in
this subsection certain lands the Villages have selected under section
12(a) of the Settlement Act, the Secretary shall convey all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the surface estate
of the lands described in paragraph (2) to the Village Corporations
within Cook Inlet Region named in paragraph (2) in partial satisfaction
of each Village Corporation's statutory entitlement under section 12(a)
of the Settlement Act. Conveyances shall be made pursuant to sections
12(a) and 14(f) of the Settlement Act. The conveyances described in
paragraph (2) shall be made within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection.
``(2) The lands described in this paragraph are to be conveyed to
Village Corporations as follows:
To Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 24, 25, and 36 (fractional).
To Knikatnu, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 1 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 3 (fractional);
Sections 4 and 9.
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 9 (fractional).
To Ninilchik Native Association, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 South, Range 19 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 29 and 32 (fractional).
Township 2 South, Range 19 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 6 and 18 (fractional).
Township 2 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 1 (fractional);
Sections 6 and 14;
Sections 23, 24, and 26 (fractional);
Sections 32 and 33;
Sections 34 and 35 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 10 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 21 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 13 and 19 through 24, inclusive;
Section 25 (fractional);
Sections 32 and 34 (fractional).
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 6 through 8 (fractional), inclusive;
Section 16;
Sections 22 and 23 (fractional);
Section 26.
Township 4 North, Range 19 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 20 and 36.
To Seldovia Native Association, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 2 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 13 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 7 and 8;
Section 16 (fractional);
Sections 17 and 18;
Sections 19 and 20 (fractional).
To Tyonek Native Corporation:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 2 (fractional);
Section 3.
Township 2 South, Range 21 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 36.
Township 2 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 12 (fractional);
Section 31.
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 15, 21, and 30 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 21 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 26;
Sections 27 and 28 (fractional);
Sections 29 through 31 (fractional), inclusive;
Sections 33, 35, and 36 (fractional).
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 15 (fractional);
Section 35.
Aggregating approximately 29,900 acres, more or less.
``(3) No later than 180 days following the completion of the
conveyances required by paragraph (1), Cook Inlet Region, Inc., shall
convey to each of the Village Corporations referred to in paragraph (2)
the surface estate in such lands described in Appendix A of that
certain Agreement dated August 31, 1976, known as the Deficiency
Agreement, as the Village Corporations have identified, and in the
order they identified in their priority selection rounds, to satisfy
each Village Corporation's section 12(a) entitlement under the
Settlement Act.
``(4) If the Secretary does not convey the lands in paragraph (2)
within 90 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection, then
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
surface estate of such lands shall nevertheless pass immediately to the
Village Corporations named in paragraph (2).
``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to increase or
decrease the entitlement under the Settlement Act of any of the Village
Corporations named in this subsection or of Cook Inlet Region, Inc.''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 2560 is to resolve longstanding land
allocation and conveyance issues affecting six Alaska Native
village corporations in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska. These
issues are resolved by amending the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) which requires the Department of the
Interior to complete land conveyances to the affected Alaska
Native village corporations within a specific time and based on
preexisting selections.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In 1971, ANCSA was enacted to resolve all outstanding land
claims by Alaska Natives. It was intended to settle existing
aboriginal land claims, provide a prompt and fair settlement
and avoid exhaustive litigation. Under a land conveyance
process established by the Department of the Interior, Native
villages selected and prioritized lands pursuant to provisions
of the Act.
From the onset of ANCSA's implementation, there were
extreme difficulties encountered in adequately fulfilling the
land entitlements of the Cook Inlet region and the villages
within the Cook Inlet Region. Under the Alaska Statehood Act,
the State had already obtained patents to much of the low-lying
lands in the region, except for lands within the Kenai National
Moose Range. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior, in
agreement with the State of Alaska in 1972, committed
additional lands to the State even though there had not yet
been withdrawn sufficient lands for Cook Inlet Region or for
the villages within the region. Village selections were further
limited by Federal withdrawals for public purposes such as the
Kenai National Moose Range, Chugach National Forest, Fort
Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base. Because customary and
traditional lands in and around the villages were not
available, the Secretary of the Interior was forced to
designate ``in-lieu'' withdrawal areas for Cook Inlet Native
selections. The subsequent efforts of the Secretary to fulfill
his statutory obligation to Cook Inlet Region yielded for the
region selections largely comprised of mountains and glaciers,
hardly the settlement contemplated by Congress.
In 1974, just prior to the selection deadline established
by ANCSA, the village corporations, with support and technical
assistance from the Bureau of Land Management, made their in-
lieu or deficiency selections outside the local selection area.
Deficiency selections were made by a series of rounds with each
of the six participating villages selecting approximately 800
acres in each round, until their entitlement acreage was met.
From initial selections in 1974 to the present date, the
village selection priorities have never been amended or changed
in any way. All six villages have steadfastly held to the
original priorities.
Prior to the village deficiency selections in 1974, in
early 1972 the Region and the villages began attempting to
resolve the difficulties encountered in fulfilling entitlement
by litigation, negotiation and finally legislation.
The Joint Federal/State Land Use Planning Commission for
Alaska, which was instrumental in settling land claims at the
time, recognized the significance of the issues at stake and
endorsed a three-way negotiated settlement struck among the
affected parties. In 1975, the State of Alaska, the Department
of the Interior and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) agreed upon
the largest land exchange in American history. The ``Terms and
Conditions for Land Consolidation and Management in the Cook
Inlet Area'' was enacted by Congress as Public Law 94-204, an
amendment to ANCSA, and approved by the Alaska Legislature in
1976.
From the Federal Government's perspective, a centerpiece of
the land exchange was the ``Lake Clark Tradeout'' under which
all Cook Inlet village selections were removed from the heart
of the proposed Lake Clark National Park, thus creating a
public land ownership pattern which made establishment of the
park a realistic possibility. To facilitate removal of village
selections from Lake Clark, CIRI and the State both gave up
claims to certain prime lands adjacent to the villages, in the
Matanuska and Susitna Valleys and on the Kenai Peninsula. In
addition, under the terms of the land exchange, the Region and
the State contractually bound themselves to support creation of
the Lake Clark National Park which was eventually established
by Congress in 1980.
The land exchange also allowed the possibility of an
exchange among certain villages within the region and the
Department of the Interior for lands selected by those villages
on the coast of Cook Inlet along the boundary of the proposed
park. All parties in 1976 anticipated that these lands would be
conveyed to the villages. A provision of the land exchange
specified that CIRI and the Secretary would seek legislation to
allow the United States to acquire lands selected by village
corporations within the boundaries of the park, but only with
the consent of the appropriate village corporations.
In negotiating the land exchange, all of the concerned
parties assumed that the specific selections made by the region
and the villages within the existing withdrawals for region and
village selections were correct. Indeed, several provisions of
the land exchange were based, in part, on the assumption that
the village selections, which had been made in 1974, were
valid. However, in May of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) issued several decisions rejecting portions of the
village selections on dubious technical grounds. BLMs decisions
were unexpected and were strongly criticized both inside and
outside the Department of the Interior. To correct the
injustice of the BLM decisions rejecting a portion of the
selections of the village corporations, the villages entered
into an agreement with CIRI and CIRI entered into a separate
agreement with the Department of the Interior. This separate
agreement (known as the 1976 Deficiency Agreement) was designed
to overcome technical objections which the BLM had raised and
to validate the original selections made by the village
corporations. Legislation authorizing this agreement between
CIRI and the Department of the Interior was enacted by Congress
in Public Law 94-456, an amendment to ANCSA.
Following passage of this legislation, the Native villages
of Tyonek, Knikatnu, Chickaloon-Moose Creek, Seldovia,
Salamatof and Ninilchik relinquished selections they previously
had made around Lake Clark as had been required by Congress in
Public Law 94-204 before the land exchanges could take effect.
The willingness of the villages to relinquish these selections
played a critical role in the establishment and development of
Lake Clark National Park. In relinquishing these selections,
the villages assumed that the Department of the Interior would
fulfill its part of the bargain and convey approximately 29,900
acres of high-priority lands that the villages had selected in
1974 along the west coast of Cook Inlet. It was these
selections as well as others that Public Law 94-456 authorized
to be conveyed. Although for many years the Department
proceeded in accordance with the understanding that these
29,900 acres would be conveyed to the village corporations, the
Secretary of the Interior, based on a new interpretation of the
agreement between CIRI and the Department that had been
authorized by Public Law 94-456, has recently questioned
whether the Department has the authority to convey these lands.
The purpose of this legislation is to make clear that the
Secretary does have such authority and to make explicit that
the 29,900 acres at issue should and must be conveyed to the
appropriate village corporations.
The issue that this bill proposes is one of equity. The
Native villages involved were acting as good citizens in
initially relinquishing Lake Clark selections to facilitate
establishment of the National Park. They did so under the
promise that they would be afforded the opportunity to obtain
the selections that they had made on the coast of Cook Inlet
long before the creation of the park. This bill assures that
the villages are treated fairly. The bill further assures that
the villages receive no more land than that to which they are
statutorily entitled under ANCSA, and that no over-conveyance
will occur.
Committee Action
H.R. 2560 was introduced on October 30, 1995, by
Congressman Don Young (R-AK). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources. On November 7, 1995, the Committee held
a hearing on H.R. 2560 that included witnesses from the U.S.
Department of the Interior and the affected Native villages. On
April 25, 1996, the Committee met to mark up H.R. 2560.
Congressman Young offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, which was adopted by voice vote. The bill as
amended was then ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives in the presence of a quorum by a rollcall vote
of 26 to 13 as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members Yeas Nays Present Members Yeas Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young (Chairman)........... X ........ ......... Mr. Miller....... ........ X .........
Mr. Tauzin..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Markey....... ........ X .........
Mr. Hansen..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Rahall....... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Saxton..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Vento........ ........ X .........
Mr. Gallegly................... X ........ ......... Mr. Kildee....... ........ X .........
Mr. Duncan..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Williams..... ........ X .........
Mr. Hefley..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Gejdenson.... ........ X .........
Mr. Doolittle.................. X ........ ......... Mr. Richardson... ........ X .........
Mr. Allard..................... X ........ ......... Mr. DeFazio...... ........ X .........
Mr. Gilchrest.................. X ........ ......... Mr. Faleomavaega. X ........ .........
Mr. Calvert.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Johnson...... ........ X .........
Mr. Pombo...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Abercrombie.. X ........ .........
Mr. Torkildsen................. X ........ ......... Mr. Studds....... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Hayworth................... X ........ ......... Mr. Ortiz........ X ........ .........
Mr. Cremeans................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Pickett...... X ........ .........
Mrs. Cubin..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Pallone...... ........ X .........
Mr. Cooley..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Dooley....... X ........ .........
Mrs. Chenoweth................. X ........ ......... Mr. Romero- X ........ .........
Burcelo.
Mrs. Smith..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Hinchey...... ........ X .........
Mr. Radanovich................. X ........ ......... Mr. Underwood.... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Jones...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Farr......... ........ X .........
Mr. Thornberry................. X ........ ......... Mr. Kennedy...... ........ X .........
Mr. Hastings................... X ........ .........
Mr. Metcalf.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Longley.................... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Shadegg.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Ensign..................... ........ ........ .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 4 of Public Law 94-456 (43 U.S.C. 1611 note) is
amended as follows:
New subsection (d)(1) directs the Secretary of the Interior
to convey all Federal right, title and interest to certain
surface estates to five Native village corporations in the Cook
Inlet Region of Alaska. The subsection also further directs the
conveyance to be made within 90 days of enactment of this
subsection.
This subsection confirms that lands to be conveyed by the
Secretary represent 20-year-old priority selections that are in
partial satisfaction of each village corporation's statutory
entitlement under section 12(a) of the Alaska Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA).
Finally, this subsection reinstates provisions in ANCSA
that mandate subsurface estates under section 12(a) conveyances
go to the appropriate regional corporation.
New subsection (d)(2) identifies the village corporations
receiving the conveyances and describes the geographic location
of each conveyance by township, range and section. The
subsection also provides an aggregate of the approximate acres
to be conveyed (29,900).
New subsection (d)(3) requires that Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., within 180 days after the conveyance by the Secretary of
the Interior, reconvey the remaining surface estate in Appendix
A of the 1976 Deficiency Agreement in the order the Native
villages identified in their priority selections.
New subsection (d)(4) directs that all right, title and
interest of the United States to the lands described
automatically transfer to the Native corporations if the
Secretary fails to convey within 90 days.
New subsection (d)(5) clarifies that the bill does not
affect the village corporations' or CIRI's statutory land
entitlement pursuant to ANCSA.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
Inflationary Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the
enactment of H.R. 2560 will have no significant inflationary
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national
economy.
Cost of the Legislation
Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 2560. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Compliance With House Rule XI
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R.
2560 does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 2560.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
2560 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 2560, a bill to provide for conveyances of
certain lands in Alaska to Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native
Association, Inc., Ninilchik Native Association, Inc., Seldovia
Native Association, Inc., Tyonek Native Corporation, and
Knikatnu, Inc. under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on
April 25, 1996. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would
cost the federal government less than $1 million, subject to
the availability of appropriated funds. H.R. 2560 would not
affect direct spending or receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply.
H.R. 2560 would address the legal dispute regarding
different interpretations of the 1976 Deficiency Conveyance
Agreement by the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), its Native
villages, and the Department of the Interior. It would direct
the Secretary of the Interior to convey all federal right,
title, and interest to certain surface estate to five Native
village corporations in the Cook Inlet Region of Alaska. If the
Secretary does not complete the conveyance within 90 days, the
land would automatically transfer to the Native corporations.
In addition, the bill would require that CIRI reconvey any
remaining surface estate established in the 1976 agreement,
authorized by Public Law 94-456, in the order that the Native
villages identified in their priority selections. Before the
conveyance could take place, the federal government would have
to survey the land, at a cost of about $500,000, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. CBO estimates that enacting
the bill would not cause any loss of receipts because all of
the land in question is in Lake Clark National Park, which is
remote and does not charge any types of fees to the public.
H.R. 2560 contains no new intergovernmental or private
sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose
no direct costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Robertson.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
H.R. 2560 contains no unfunded mandates.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
ACT OF OCTOBER 4, 1976
AN ACT To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for
the withdrawal of lands for the village of Klukwan, Alaska, and for
other purposes.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Conveyances made under the authority of [subsection (a)]
subsections (a) and (d) of this section shall be considered
conveyances under the Settlement Act and subject to the
provisions of that Act, except as provided by this Act.
(d)(1) In order to convey to the Village Corporations named
in this subsection certain lands the Villages have selected
under section 12(a) of the Settlement Act, the Secretary shall
convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in
and to the surface estate of the lands described in paragraph
(2) to the Village Corporations within Cook Inlet Region named
in paragraph (2) in partial satisfaction of each Village
Corporation's statutory entitlement under section 12(a) of the
Settlement Act. Conveyances shall be made pursuant to sections
12(a) and 14(f) of the Settlement Act. The conveyances
described in paragraph (2) shall be made within 90 days after
the date of enactment of this subsection.
(2) The lands described in this paragraph are to be conveyed
to Village Corporations as follows:
To Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native Association, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 24, 25, and 36 (fractional).
To Knikatnu, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 1 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 3 (fractional);
Sections 4 and 9.
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 9 (fractional).
To Ninilchik Native Association, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 South, Range 19 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 29 and 32 (fractional).
Township 2 South, Range 19 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 6 and 18 (fractional).
Township 2 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 1 (fractional);
Sections 6 and 14;
Sections 23, 24, and 26 (fractional);
Sections 32 and 33;
Sections 34 and 35 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 10 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 21 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 13 and 19 through 24, inclusive;
Section 25 (fractional);
Sections 32 and 34 (fractional).
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 6 through 8 (fractional), inclusive;
Section 16;
Sections 22 and 23 (fractional);
Section 26.
Township 4 North, Range 19 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 20 and 36.
To Seldovia Native Association, Inc.:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 2 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 13 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 7 and 8;
Section 16 (fractional);
Sections 17 and 18;
Sections 19 and 20 (fractional).
To Tyonek Native Corporation:
seward meridian, alaska
Township 1 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 2 (fractional);
Section 3.
Township 2 South, Range 21 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 36.
Township 2 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 12 (fractional);
Section 31.
Township 3 South, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Sections 15, 21, and 30 (fractional).
Township 3 South, Range 21 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 26;
Sections 27 and 28 (fractional);
Sections 29 through 31 (fractional),
inclusive;
Sections 33, 35, and 36 (fractional).
Township 1 North, Range 20 West (Unsurveyed)
Section 15 (fractional);
Section 35.
Aggregating approximately 29,900 acres, more or less.
(3) No later than 180 days following the completion of the
conveyances required by paragraph (1), Cook Inlet Region, Inc.,
shall convey to each of the Village Corporations referred to in
paragraph (2) the surface estate in such lands described in
Appendix A of that certain Agreement dated August 31, 1976,
known as the Deficiency Agreement, as the Village Corporations
have identified, and in the order they identified in their
priority selection rounds, to satisfy each Village
Corporation's section 12(a) entitlement under the Settlement
Act.
(4) If the Secretary does not convey the lands in paragraph
(2) within 90 days of the date of the enactment of this
subsection, then all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the surface estate of such lands shall
nevertheless pass immediately to the Village Corporations named
in paragraph (2).
(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to increase
or decrease the entitlement under the Settlement Act of any of
the Village Corporations named in this subsection or of Cook
Inlet Region, Inc.
DISSENTING VIEWS
The Committee on Resources has a long, bipartisan record of
legislation concerning Native Alaskans. Unfortunately, this
bill departs from that tradition, and the Majority would
dictate a gift of 29,900 of national park lands to private
corporations which is not justified on legal, equitable or
policy grounds.
This legislation was first introduced as H.R. 1342, to
provide for conveyance of lands within the boundaries of Lake
Clark National Park to Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), one of
the most financially successful Alaska Native regional
corporations. Apparently in order to present a more sympathetic
case to Members, the park land conveyance was reconfigured in
H.R. 2560 to give the surface directly to five village
corporations and the subsurface to CIRI.
The crux of the legal issue in this matter is the
interpretation of ``Appendix C'' of a 1976 Deficiency
Conveyance Agreement between CIRI and the Secretary of the
Interior. Although the Majority purports to be implementing the
1976 agreement to overcome a recalcitrant Department
bureaucracy, they are instead effectively rewriting the deal to
convey nearly 30,000 acres of national park lands from
``Appendix C'' even though the corporations' land entitlements
have already been satisfied by ``Appendix A'' conveyances to
CIRI which, pursuant to the agreement, should have been
reconveyed to the five village corporations.
As Interior Solicitor John Leshy testified before the
Committee on November 7, 1995 in opposition to H.R. 2560:
H.R. 2560 raises substantial issues of public policy
and fairness. It would strike down the carefully
crafted, mutually bargained for 1976 Agreement
(Agreement) between the Department and the Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. (CIRI) to resolve [Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA)] land issues. It would replace
the agreement with a new disposition of lands. It would
result in an overconveyance of lands to both the
villages and CIRI and is contrary to the terms of the
Agreement and ANCSA. By reordering ANCSA settlements,
it establishes a dangerous precedent that threatens to
undermine nearly a quarter century of ANCSA
implementation, including many conveyances and
agreements, in order to effectively increase ANCSA
entitlements and to relocate holdings to increase
value. As a result, it could bring serious consequences
for Native, public, and private land managers across
Alaska who have made decisions based on ANCSA and upon
agreed-upon settlements to disputes that have
occasionally arisen over its implementation.
Subsequent to the Committee's April 25 vote on H.R. 2560,
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has upheld Interior's legal
position. In Seldovia Native Association, Inc. v. The United
States (May 30, 1996, No. 92-130L) the court addressed this
precise issue of whether village corporations were entitled to
select lands from ``Appendix C'':
As for plaintiff's desire for selections in Appendix
C to the CIRI/Interior Deficiency Agreement, that
agreement states on its first page that CIRI shall be
allotted lands in Appendix C only ``[t]o the extent the
lands conveyed pursuant to paragraph [Appendix] A when
added to lands otherwise heretofore received or to be
received by such Village Corporations are insufficient
to satisfy their statutory entitlement.'' In this
manner plaintiff was on notice that it was not entitled
to select from Appendix C. [emphasis added]
Since there is no credible legal justification supporting
H.R. 2560, is there an equitable case for Congress to rewrite
the 1976 Agreement to transfer national park lands to these
Native corporations? Clearly, the answer is no.
CIRI and its villages have already received one of the most
generous settlements in American Indian history. In 1971, ANCSA
authorized transfer of 44 million acres and $1 billion to
corporations formed by villages and regions. Unlike other
Native corporations, CIRI received both land and a ``property
account'' with which they have purchased over $236 million
worth of surplus federal property. By 1994, according to CIRI's
annual report to its 6,700 shareholders, the corporation held
over one-half billion dollars in assets:
CIRI owns and manages 924,000 acres of surface estate
and 1.6 million acres of subsurface estate in Alaska.
The company holds various royalty and working interests
in several producing and prospective oil and gas
fields, as well as significant coal, timber, and
mineral properties in Alaska. The company also owns
more than two dozen real estate properties throughout
the United States.
As detailed in an audit submitted on April 25 to the
Committee by the Bureau of Land Management, the legislative and
administrative history of CIRI's entitlement is exceedingly
complex and raises a number of unresolved legal questions.
[See: Attachment A] Without doubt, CIRI has taken advantage of
their opportunities and managed the land and property received
under ANCSA (and its legislative progeny) to become one of the
most powerful and successful corporations in Alaska.
Especially considering the history of generous treatment of
CIRI by the Congress and the Department of the Interior, there
is no valid public policy rationale for an outright give-away
of 29,900 acres of national park lands. To the contrary,
transferring these public lands into private corporate hands
would be detrimental to the public interest in maintaining the
integrity of Lake Clark National Park. As explained by the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, this
legislation threatens the coastal environment of Lake Clark
National Park which provides vital habitat to a high density of
brown bear, salmon, bald eagles and a multitude of other
species:
[H.R. 2560] would leave only about 10 percent of the
original coastline in the park; the remaining few miles
of coast offer poor public access as they are either
steep cliffs or extensive mud flats. No longer would
the park represent and protect the sweep of resources
envisioned by Congress in 1980 [Alaska Lands Act] and
enjoyed by the public for 16 years. As understood and
agreed to before the park's establishment, about 40
percent of the park's original coastline was previously
transferred to Native corporations under Appendix A of
the 1976 Agreement. [See: Attachment B]
In summary, having failed to prevail with their legal case
before the Department or in the courts, CIRI has appealed to
Congress to rewrite the 1976 agreement and convey vital
national park lands into private hands. This park land grab
should be rejected by the House of Representatives.
George Miller.
Attachments.
Attachment A
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Solicitor,
Washington, DC, April 25, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In November 1995, you asked the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) to conduct an audit of the land
entitlements of the village corporations involved with H.R.
2560. The findings of that audit were reported to you by letter
dated December 13, 1995. For a number of reasons, including a
concern about how H.R. 2560 might impact the land entitlements
of the affected regional corporation, Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
(CIRI), BLM undertook a review of the land entitlements of
CIRI. The CIRI review focused on CIRI's land entitlements under
section 12(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1611(c), and the Terms and Conditions
for Land Consolidation and Management in the Cook Inlet Region
(T&C), as ratified by Public Laws 94-204 (89 Stat. 1145) and
94-456 (90 Stat. 1934).
The CIRI review brought to light some complex and difficult
legal and accounting issues that must be given further
consideration. While we cannot say at this time that CIRI has
received more land benefits than it is entitled to receive
under existing law, there is a possibility that the resolution
of the outstanding legal and accounting issues could result in
such a determination. The BLM plans to seek resolution of these
issues from my Office or the Comptroller General in the near
future. Summaries of certain of these issues, including
property account management, conveyance of oil and gas rights,
and implementation of Appendix A of the Deficiency Agreement
are included in the report that accompanies this letter.
If, wholly apart from H.R. 2560, CIRI has already received
more land than current law contemplates, litigation and perhaps
legislation may be necessary to correct the situation.
If, on the other hand, resolution of these issues means
that CIRI is entitled to additional land conveyances, existing
law provides adequate mechanisms for conveying sufficient
additional land to CIRI.
Thus, regardless of the outcome of the remaining issues in
the review, no further legislation is needed in order for BLM
to meet any remaining CIRI land entitlement.
If H.R. 2560 were enacted into law, it would make it far
more likely that CIRI will be overconveyed. Besides the loss of
public ownership on these overconveyed lands, this would result
in preferential treatment compared to other Alaska Native
corporations, which are receiving only the land entitlement
provided in ANCSA.
As stated in our letter of December 13, 1995, we continue
to have concerns about the possible impact of a lawsuit filed
by the village corporation for Seldovia, Alaska, Seldovia
Native Association v. United States, A91-076 Civ. (D. Alaska).
One of Seldovia's arguments in that case is that it should not
have to take its ANCSA section 12(b) land entitlements in the
areas designated by Appendices A and C of the Deficiency
Agreement of August 31, 1976, the lands involved in H.R. 2560.
If Seldovia should ultimately prevail in its litigation, the
65,908.60 acres it was to receive under the Deficiency
Agreement would be charged against CIRI's 12(c) land
entitlement. CIRI will already be charged for a minimum of
23,456.57 acres of Appendix A lands if Seldovia does not
prevail in its claim. The addition of 65,908.60 acres against
CIRI's entitlement would result in a considerable
overconveyance to CIRI.
Moreover, if H.R. 2560 were passed in its current form, it
would fundamentally alter the structure of the land transfer
process embodied in the Deficiency Agreement. As I stated in my
testimony before your Committee, we believe the Deficiency
Agreement plainly provided for conveyance of Appendix C lands
only if the land from Appendix A were insufficient to satisfy
village corporation entitlements. The attached documentation
shows that Appendix A lands already included a minimum of
23,456.57 acres (but more likely 31,380.9 acres once Chickaloon
has named its priorities) over what was needed for reconveyance
to the village corporations.
H.R. 2560 would provide for conveyance of Appendix C land
directly to the village corporations. This would
correspondingly increase the amount of Appendix A land CIRI
retains by 30,000 acres. Depending on the outcome of the
outstanding legal and accounting issues involved in the CIRI
review, the conveyance of any additional Appendix A lands to
CIRI could result in, or add to an existing, overconveyance.
Because of the legal and accounting issues brought to light
by the CIRI review, the issues raised in the Seldovia
litigation, and the other reasons we have described, we
recommend that the Committee not proceed with H.R. 2560 and
section 5 of H.R. 2505. BLM has initiated efforts to achieve
the necessary resolution and, as noted above, intends to submit
the outstanding issues to the Comptroller General or my Office
for review. In addition, we remain concerned about possible
impacts from the Seldovia litigation. For these reasons, as
well as those stated in my previous testimony before the
Committee, the Department continues to oppose H.R. 2560.
Sincerely,
John D. Leshy, Solicitor.
Attachment B
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, April 12, 1996.
Dear Mr. Miller: Thank you for your letter of April 2,
1996, asking for an analysis of the impacts of H.R. 2560 on
Lake Clark National Park in Alaska.
This legislation would convey 29,500 acres of land within
the exterior boundary of Lake Clark National Park to Native
corporations. It would represent a clear breach of the 20-year-
old agreement between the Department of the Interior and Cook
Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), and would significantly diminish a
vast and varied national park.
The 1976 agreement is a carefully negotiated land
conveyance document, and represents choices made by the
corporations and the Department. Its provisions are well-
described in previous Department of the Interior testimony and
communications with the committee. The Department of the
Interior opposes H.R. 2560 on many grounds, including the
following:
By re-ordering Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
decisions, the legislation would undermine a quarter-century of
orderly implementation action, including many conveyances and
agreements, for the benefit of particular corporations. It
would result in serious consequences for Native, public and
private land managers across Alaska who have made decisions
based on the previous agreements. Lake Clark National Park was
planned on the assumptions of the 1976 agreement.
The Bureau of Land Management has complied with the 1976
agreement. It has conveyed more than enough acreage to CIRI for
reconveyance to the villages to meet the villages' land
entitlement. CIRI has only conveyed about \1/3\ of these lands
to its member villages.
But the effects of H.R. 2560 extend far beyond the value of
honoring an agreement and living with choices; significant
public resources within Lake Clark National Park would be given
away to private ownership without recompense. Today, Lake Clark
National Park stretches from the Cook Inlet coast more than 100
miles to the north and west into the tundra hills on the
Bristol Bay drainage. The park is a multi-faceted jewel in the
crown, a unique composite of practically every ecosystem in
Alaska--the marshes, cliffs, and forests of coast; the towering
peaks, glaciers, lakes and alpine valleys of the park's high
mountain spine; the wetlands bordering major rivers; and the
dry tundra hills.
The legislation would leave only about 10 percent of the
original coastline in the park; the remaining few miles of
coast offer poor public access as they are either steep cliffs
or extensive mud flats. No longer would the park represent and
protect the sweep of resources envisioned by Congress in 1980
and enjoyed by the public for 16 years. As understood and
agreed to before the park's establishment, about 40 percent of
the park's original coastline was previously transferred to
Native corporations under Appendix A of the 1976 agreement. The
Service does not contest those transfers and understands the
corporations are free to develop those lands adjacent to the
park as they wish.
Fish and wildlife habitat
The legislation would erode a portion of the NPS mission in
the park's enabling legislation: ``* * * to protect habitat for
and populations of fish and wildlife including, but not limited
to * * * brown/grizzly bears, bald eagles and peregrine
falcons.'' Lower elevation lands, particularly those near
coastal salmon streams, are generally rich in wildlife and tend
to be richer in cultural resources than uplands. Public
ownership, enjoyment and protection of these resources would be
lost under this legislation.
The cost of Lake Clark National Park is rich in natural
resources. While the higher elevations hold the breathtaking
glaciers, jagged peaks and overwhelming vistas, it is the
park's coastal environmental that teems with life.
Preliminary surveys suggest that the national park
coastline in lower Cook Inlet supports the most concentrated
population of brown bears on the west side of the inlet. In
surveys of the salt marshes in Tuxedni Bay, an average of 68
brown bears were found; in similar habitat in Chinitna Bay, the
average was 42 bears. This incredible density (about 9 bears
per square mile) persists through June and early July. Later
these bears disperse in the surrounding lands--lands that would
largely go to corporate ownership under H.R. 2560. From August
through October, large numbers of brown bears are observed
feeding on salmon in most of the area streams.
Salmon spawn in eight streams in and near the land planned
for transfer. These fish are popular among sport fishermen, and
help form the mixed salmon stock for a large and profitable
Cook Inlet commercial fishery. Private management of the timber
and other resources along these fish streams could result in a
loss of salmon habitat.
The coast and neighboring uplands proposed for conveyance
provide nesting habitat for harlequin ducks, pigeon guillemots
and bald eagles--all species affected by the Exxon Valdez oil
spill--along with other gulls and peregrine falcons.
Upper Tuxedni Bay, near the land that would go to corporate
ownership, is the only major pupping area for harbor seals
along the west coast of lower Cook Inlet. The area also serves
as a significant haul out for sea lions. Tuxedni and Chinitna
bays are also home to about a third of the Beluga whales in
Cook Inlet which feed on salmon and other marine life.
Commercial development
The lands proposed for conveyance could be used
commercially by the new owners. The Service is not opposed to
the idea of commercial use: inholders within the park already
conduct commercial operations, as do holders of National Park
Service incidental business permits. Indeed, we believe
commercial operators, including Native corporations, should
continue to be the primary providers of visitor services in the
park. However, park values and habitat will be lost with large-
scale or otherwise incompatible commercial operations.
CIRI plans to operate a major gold mine and build a road to
tidewater within Lake Clark National Park on lands obtained
through other entitlements. CIRI's right to these lands is not
in dispute. The conveyances proposed in H.R. 2560 includes
subsurface rights that could be similarly exploited.
On Appendix A lands to the north of the proposed
conveyances, Native village corporations are preparing for
clear-cut logging in the broad valley containing Crescent
River, and development of a log transfer facility on the north
shore of Tuxedni Bay. The land included in H.R. 2560 would be
available for logging if the corporations desired to do so. The
corporate shareholders do not live near the affected lands.
Small-lot recreation subdivisions--with roads, airstrips
and other developments--would be possible under the proposed
private ownership. This has occurred on other Native
corporation land within Lake Clark National Park.
Public use and access
As existing wildlife viewing opportunities become crowded,
new destinations such as Lake Clark National Park will be used
by the visitor industry. (McNeil River is limited by the State
to 10 people per day; a lottery is used to fill the slots.
Brooks River at Katmai National Park is at or above capacity
for bear watching on most summer days.)
Silver Salmon Creek is used by large numbers of fishermen.
August days have found up to 80 people fishing the creek, many
of them having arrived via commercial air taxis or with fishing
guides. Free public access along the creek banks may disappear
with corporate ownership.
The national park coast offers long-term visitor use
potential. Fifteen years ago, few people visited the Kenai
Fjords National Park coast; today a fleet of private boats
carry more than 100,000 tourists and residents along the coast
to view marine mammals, glaciers, salmon and coastal wildlife.
The Katmai National Park coast has been only rarely used during
its 60 years in the National Park System. Boat and air tours
now take a growing number of people there to view coastal
bears, birds, marine mammals and other wildlife. The Lake Clark
coast is about as far from the Alaska road system as Kenai
Fjord; it is far easier to reach than Katmai. A tour boat
operated out of Kenai in 1995, bringing visitors along the
coast.
Fifty-two private businesses are licensed to operate in
Lake Clark National Park, and all can operate on the park
coast. Their existing business opportunities to bring clients
to the coast--for fishing, beach hiking, and wildlife viewing--
would end and would have to be renegotiated with corporate
owners if the land transfer goes through. All but two of the
NPS-licensed businesses are Alaska-based.
Flightseeing is increasingly popular along the national
park coast. If the resource conditions change under corporate
ownership--through timber harvest, mining, and oil and gas
exploration, or recreational subdivision--sightseeing
opportunities may decrease.
Additionally, we are concerned about the effects that H.R.
2560 will have on the broader relationships between the
National Park Service and Alaska Native corporations. In the
last 2 years, we have made great progress in making Native
corporations partners in the provision of visitor service
concessions, facility development and employment, pursuant to
the requirements of ANILCA. This progress is based both on law
and common trust. H.R. 2560 rewrites longstanding agreements
and diminishes the park values held dear by all Americans, in
turn changing the law and breaking the trust.
In summary, H.R. 2560 would hurt the resources and
integrity of Lake Clark National Park. The conveyance
obligations of the Department of the Interior in the 1976
agreement have been met. Significantly, the native corporations
have elected not to go to court to resolve their concerns over
the Department of the Interior's interpretation of the legal
agreement. Instead, they have asked Congress to enact
legislation that would overturn the agreement to the detriment
of the National Park system and the public that it serves.
We appreciate your continued interest, and remain available
to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.