[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.

                                
