[Senate Report 105-119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 232
105th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 105-119
_______________________________________________________________________
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENT
_______
October 29, 1997.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 967]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 967) to amend the Alaska Claims
Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act to benefit Alaska natives and rural residents,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends 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:
SECTION 1. AUTOMATIC LAND BANK PROTECTION.
(a) Lands Received in Exchange From Certain Federal Agencies.--The
matter preceding clause (i) of section 907(d)(1)(A) of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (43 U.S.C. 1636(d)(1)(A)) is
amended by inserting ``or conveyed to a Native Corporation pursuant to
an exchange authorized by section 22(f) of Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act or section 1302(h) of this Act or other applicable law''
after ``Settlement Trust''.
(b) Lands Exchanged Among Native Corporations.--Section
907(d)(2)(B) of such Act (43 U.S.C. 1636(d)(2) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of
clause (iii) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) lands or interest in lands shall not be
considered developed or leased or sold to a third party
as a result of an exchange or conveyance of such land
or interest in land between or among Native
Corporations and trusts partnerships, corporations, or
joint ventures, whose beneficiaries, partners,
shareholders, or joint venturers are Native
Corporations.''.
(c) Actions by Trustee Serving Pursuant to Agreement of Native
Corporations.--Section 907(d)(3)(B) of such Act (43 U.S.C.
1636(d)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause(i),
by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``;
or'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) to actions by any trustee whose right,
title, or interest in land or interests in land arises
pursuant to an agreement between or among Native
Corporations and trusts, partnerships, or joint
venturers whose beneficiaries, partners, shareholders,
or joint ventures are Native Corporations.''.
SEC. 2. RETAINED MINERAL ESTATE.
Section 12(c)(4) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1611(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively, and by inserting after
subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) Where such public lands are surrounded by or
contiguous to subsurface lands obtained by a Regional
Corporation under subsections (a) or (b), the
Corporation may, upon request, have such public land
conveyed to it.
``(D)(i) A Regional Corporation which elects to
obtain public lands under subparagraph (C) shall be
limited to a total of not more than 12,000 acres.
Selection by a Regional Corporation of in lieu surface
acres under subparagraph (E) pursuant to an election
under subparagraph (C) shall not be made from any lands
within a conservation system unit (as that term is
defined by section 102(4) of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3102(4)).
``(ii) An election to obtain the public lands
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) shall
include all available parcels within the township in
which the public lands are located.
``(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph and
subparagraph (C), the term `Regional Corporation' shall
refer only to Doyon, Limited.''; and
``(2) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by striking
``(A) or (B)'' and inserting ``(A), (B), or (C)''.
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION ON TREATMENT OF BONDS FROM A NATIVE CORPORATION.
Section 29(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1626(c)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (3)(A), by inserting ``and on bonds
received from a Native Corporation'' after ``from a Native
Corporation''; and
(2) in subparagraph (3)(B), by inserting ``or bonds issued by
a Native Corporation which Bonds shall be subject to the
protection of section 7(h) until voluntarily and expressly sold
or pledged by the shareholder subsequent to the date of
distribution'' before the semicolon.
SEC. 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC LAW 102-415.
Section 20 of the Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 2129) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Establishment of the account under subsection (b) and
conveyance of land under subsection (c), if any, shall be treated as
though 3,520 acres of land had been conveyed to Gold Creek under
section 14(h)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for which
rights to in-lieu subsurface estate are hereby provided to CIRL. Within
1 year from the date of enactment of this subsection, CIRI shall select
3,520 acres of land from the area designated for in-lieu selection by
paragraph I.B.(2)(b) of the document identified in section 12(b) of the
Act of January 2, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1611 note).''.
SEC. 5. CALISTA CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE.
(a) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds and declares that--
(1) the land exchange authorized by section 8126 of Public
Law 102-172 should be implemented without further delay;
(2) the Calista Corporation, the Native Regional Corporation
organized under the authority of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) for the Yupik Eskimos of Southwestern
Alaska, which includes the entire Yukon Delta National Wildlife
Refuge--
(A) has responsibilities provided for by the
Settlement Act to help address social, cultural,
economic, health, subsistence, and related issues
within the Region and among its villages, including the
viability of the villages themselves, many of which are
remote and isolated; and
(B) has been unable to fully carry out such
responsibilities, and the implementation of this
exchange is essential to helping Calista utilize its
assets to carry out those responsibilities to realize
the benefits of ANCSA;
(3) the parties to the exchange have been unable to reach
agreement on the valuation of the lands and interests in lands
to be conveyed to the United States under section 8126 of
Public Law 102-171; and
(4) in light of the foregoing, it is appropriate and
necessary in this unique situation that Congress authorize and
direct the implementation of this exchange as set forth in this
section in furtherance of the purposes and underlying goals of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act.
(b) Land Exchange Implementation.--Section 8126(a) of Public Law
102-172 (105 Stat. 1206) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
(1) by striking ``October 1, 1996'' and inserting ``October
1, 2002'';
(3) by inserting after ``October 28, 1991'' the following:
``(hereinafter referred to as `CCRD') and in the document
entitled, `The Calista Conveyance and Relinquishment Document
Addendum', dated September 15, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
`CCRD Addendum')'';
(4) by striking ``The value'' and all that follows through
``Provided, That the'' and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
``(2) Unless prior to December 31, 1997, the parties mutually agree
on a value of the lands and interests in lands to be exchanged as
contained in the CCRD and the CCRD Addendum, the aggregate values of
such lands and interests in lands shall be established as of January 1,
1998, as provided in paragraph (6) of the CCRD Addendum. The'';
(5) in the last sentence, by inserting a period after
``1642'' and striking all that follows in that sentence; and
(6) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The amount credited to the property account is not subject to
adjustment for minor changes in acreage resulting from preparation or
correction of the land descriptions in the CCRD or CCRD Addendum or the
exclusion of any small tracts of lands as a result of hazardous
materials surveys.''.
(c) Extension of Restriction on Certain Property Transfers.--
Section 8126(b) of Public Law 102-172 (105 Stat. 1206) is amended by
striking ``October 1, 1996'' and inserting ``October 1, 2002''.
(d) Exchange Administration.--Section 8126(c) of Public Law 102-172
(105 Stat. 1207) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)'';
(2) by striking the sentence beginning ``On October 1,
1996,'' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``To the
extent such lands and interests have not been exchanged with
the United States, on January 1, 1998, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall establish a property account on behalf of
Calista Corporation. If the parties have mutually agreed to a
value as provided in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of the
Treasury shall credit the account accordingly. In the absence
of such an agreement the Secretary of the Treasury shall credit
the account with an amount equal to 66 percent of the total
amount determined by paragraph (6) of the CCRD Addendum. The
account shall be available for use as provided in subsection
(c)(3), as follows:
``(A) On January 1, 1998, an amount equal to one-half the
amount credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be available
for use as provided.
``(B) On October 1, 1998, the remaining one-half of the
amount credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be available
for use as provided.
``(2) On October 1, 2002, to the extent any portion of the lands
and interests in lands have not been exchanged pursuant to subsection
(a) or conveyed or relinquished to the United States pursuant to
paragraph (1), the account established by paragraph (1) shall be
credited with an amount equal to any remainder of the value pursuant to
paragraph (1).'';
(3) by inserting ``(3)'' before ``Subject to'';
(4) by striking ``on or after October 1, 1996,'' and by
inserting after ``subsection (a) of this section,'' the
following: ``upon conveyance or relinquishment of equivalent
portions of the lands referenced in the CCRD and the CCRD
Addendum,''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Calista
Corporation or the villagecorporations identified in the CCRD Addendum
may assign, without restriction, any or all of the account upon written
notification to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the
Interior.
``(5) Calista will provide to the Bureau of Land Management, Alaska
State Office, appropriate documentation, including maps of the parcels
to be exchanged to enable that office to perform the accounting
required by paragraph (1) and to forward such information, if requested
by Calista, to the Secretary of the Treasury as authorized by such
paragraph, Minor boundary adjustments shall be made between Calista and
the Department to reflect the acreage figures reflected in the CCRD and
the CCRD Addendum.
``(6) For the purpose of the determination of the applicability of
section 7(i) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1606(i)) to revenues generated pursuant to this section, such revenues
shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (4) of the CCRD
Addendum.''.
SEC. 6. MINING CLAIMS.
Paragraph (3) of section 22(c) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1621(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``regional corporation'' each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``Regional Corporation'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``The provisions of
this section shall apply to Haida Corporation and the Haida
Traditional Use Sites, which shall be treated as a Regional
Corporation for the purposes of this paragraph, except that any
revenues remitted to Haida Corporation under this section shall
not be subject to distribution pursuant to section 7(i) of this
Act.''.
SEC. 7. SALE, DISPOSITION, OR OTHER USE OF COMMON VARIETIES OF SAND,
GRAVEL, STONE, PUMICE, PEAT, CLAY, OR CINDER
RESOURCES.
Subsection (i) of section 7 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1606(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Seventy per centum'' and inserting ``(A)
Except as provided by subparagraph (B), seventy percent''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) In the case of the sale, disposition, or other use of common
varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, peat, clay, or cinder
resources made after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the
revenues received by a Regional Corporation shall not be subject to
division under subparagraph (A). Nothing in this subparagraph is
intended to or shall be construed to alter the ownership of such sand,
gravel, stone, pumice, peat, clay, or cinder resources.''.
SEC. 8. ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL NATIVE CORPORATIONS IN SOUTHEAST
ALASKA.
(a) Section 16 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as
amended (Pub. L. No. 92-293, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1601,
hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) The Native residents of each of the Native Villages of
Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell, Alaska, may organize as an
Urban Corporation.
``(2) The Native residents of the Native Village of Tenakee,
Alaska, may organize as a Group Corporation.
``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any existing
entitlement to land of any Native Corporation pursuant to this Act or
any other provision of law.''
(b) Section 8 of the Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Enrollment in the Additional Corporations in Southeast
Alaska.--
``(1) The Secretary shall enroll to each of the Urban
Corporations for Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, or Wrangell
those individual natives who enrolled under this Act to Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, or Wrangell, and shall enroll to the
Group Corporation for Tenakee those individual natives who
enrolled under this Act to Tenakee: Provided, That nothing in
this subsection shall affect existing entitlement to land of
any Regional Corporation pursuant to section 12(b) or section
14(h)(8) of this Act.
``(2) Those Natives who, pursuant to paragraph (1), are
enrolled to an Urban Corporation for Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, or Wrangell, or to a Group Corporation for Tenakee,
and who were enrolled as shareholders of the Regional
Corporation for southeast Alaska on or before March 30, 1973,
shall receive 100 shares of Settlement Common Stock in such
Urban or Group Corporation.
``(3) A Native who has received shares of stock in the
Regional Corporation for southeast Alaska through inheritance
from a decedent Native who originally enrolled to Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, or Wrangell, which decedent
Native was not a shareholder in a Village, Group or Urban
Corporation, shall receive the identical number of shares of
Settlement Common Stock in the Urban Corporation for Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, or Wrangell, or in the Group Corporation
for Tenakee, as the number of shares inherited by that Native
from the decedent Native who would have been eligible to be
enrolled to such Urban or Group Corporation.''
(c) Section 7 of the Act is amended as follows:
(1) by adding at the end of subsection 7(j) the following new
sentence: ``Native members of the communities of Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell who become
shareholders in an Urban or Group Corporation for such a
community shall continue to be eligible to receive
distributions under this subsection as at-large shareholders of
Sealaska Corporation.''
(2) by adding at the end of section 7 the following new
subsection:
``(r) No provision of Section 8 of the 1997 Act amending the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act to benefit Alaska natives and rural residents, and for
other purposes, shall affect the ratio for determination of
distribution of revenues among Native Corporations under this section
of the Act and the 1982 Section 7(i) Settlement Agreement among the
Regional Corporations or among Village Corporations under section 7(j)
of the Act.''.
(d) Not later than December 31, 1998, the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, and in
consultation with representatives of the Urban and Group Corporations
established pursuant to this section, as well as Sealaska Corporation,
shall submit to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
and the House Committee on Resources a report making recommendations to
the Congress regarding lands and other appropriate compensation to be
provided to the Urban and Group Corporations established pursuant to
this section, including:
(1) local areas of historical, cultural, and traditional
importance to Alaska Natives from the Villages of Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, or Wrangell, that should be
conveyed to such Urban or Group Corporation, together with any
recommended limitations or stipulations regarding the use of
such lands, including possible restrictions on the harvest of
timber from such lands; and
(2) such additional forms of compensation as the Secretary
may recommend.
(e) Planning Grants.--There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as are necessary toprovide the Native Corporations for the
communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell
with grants in the amount of $250,000 each, to be used for planning,
development and other purposes for which Native Corporations are
organized under this section.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of Pub. L. No. 92-203, as
amended, nothing in this section shall create any entitlement to
federal lands for an Urban or Group Corporation established pursuant to
this section without further Congressional action.
SEC. 9. ALASKA NATIVE ALLOTMENT APPLICATIONS.
Section 905(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (43 U.S.C. 1634(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and section (d) shall
apply, and paragraph (5) of this subsection shall cease to
apply, to an application--
``(A) that is open and pending on the date of
enactment of subsection (a)(7),
``(B) if the lands described in the application are
Federal ownership other than as a result of
reacquisition by the United States after January 3,
1959, and
``(C) if any protest which was filed by the State of
Alaska pursuant to subsection (5)(b) with respect to
the application is withdrawn or dismissed whether
before or after the date of enactment of subsection
(a)(7).
``(D) any allotment application which is open and
pending and which is legislatively approved by
enactment of subsection (a)(7) shall, when allotted, be
subject to any easement, trail or right-of-way in
existence on the date of the native allotment
applicant's actual commencement of use and occupancy.
The jurisdiction of the Department is hereby extended
to make the factual determination required by this
subsection.''
SEC. 10. VISITOR SERVICES.
Paragraph (1) of section 1307(b) of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3197(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Native Corporation'' and inserting ``Native
Corporations''; and
(2) by striking ``is most directly affected'' and inserting
``are most directly affected''.
SEC. 11. TRAINING OF FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487 94
Stat. 2371) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 101 is amended by the addition of a new
subsection (e) as follows:
``(e) In order to comply with this Act all federal public land
managers in Alaska, or a region that includes Alaska, shall participate
in all ANILCA and ANCSA training class to be completed within 120 days
after comment. All future appointed federal public land managers in
Alaska, or a region containing Alaska, are required to complete the
aforementioned training within 60 days of appointment.''.
SEC. 12. SUBSISTENCE USES IN GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487 94
Stat. 2371) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 202(1) is amended by adding the following at the
end thereof: ``Subsistence uses of fish by local residents
shall be permitted in the park where such uses are traditional
in accordance with the provisions of Title VIII.''.
SEC. 13. ACCESS RIGHTS.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487 94
Stat. 2371 is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1105 is amended by designating the existing
language as subsection (a) and inserting a new subsection (b)
as follows:
``(b) any alternative route that may be identified by the head of
the federal agency shall not be less economically feasible and prudent
than the route for the system being sought by the applicant.''.
(2) The second sentence in Section 1110(a) is amended by
striking ``area'' and inserting in lieu thereof: ``area:
Provided, That reasonable regulations shall not include any
requirements for the demonstration of pre-existing use and
Provided further, That the Secretary shall limit any
prohibitions to the smallest area practicable, to the smallest
period of time or both. No prohibition shall occur prior to
formal consultation with the State of Alaska.''.
(3) The last sentence of section 1110(b) is amended by
inserting ``may include easements, right-of-way, or other
interests in land or permits and'' immediately after ``such
rights''.
(4) The last sentence of section 1110(b), strike ``lands''
and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``lands: Provided,
That the Secretary shall not impose any unreasonable fees or
charges on those seeking to secure their rights under this
subsection. Individuals or entities possessing rights under
this subsection shall not be subject to the requirement of
sections 1104, 1105, 1106, and 1107 herein.''.
(5) Section 1315 is amended by adding a new subparagraph
``(g)'' as follows:
``(g) Within National Forest Wilderness Areas and National Forest
Monument areas as designated in this and subsequent Acts, the Secretary
of Agriculture may permit or otherwise regulate helicopter use and
landings, except that he shall allow for helicopter use and landings in
emergency situations where human life or health are in danger.''.
SEC. 14. USE OF CABINS AND ALLOWED USES.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487 94
Stat. 2371) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1303 (a)(1)(D) is amended by striking ``located''
and inserting in lieu thereof: the following: ``located,
Provided, That the applicant may not be required to waive,
forfeit, or relinquish its possessory or personalty interests
in a cabin or structure.''.
(2) Section 1303(a)(2)(D) is amended by striking ``located''
and inserting in lieu thereof: the following: ``located,
Provided, That the applicant may not be required to waive,
forfeit, or relinquish its possessory or personalty interest in
a cabin or structure.''.
(3) Section 1303(b)(3)(D) is amended by striking ``located''
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``located,
Provided, That the applicant may not be required to waive,
forfeit, or relinquish its possessory or personalty interests
in a cabin or structure.''.
(4) Section 1303 is amended by adding a new subsection (e) as
follows:
``(e) All permits, permit renewals, or renewal or continuation of
valid leases issued pursuant to this section shall provide for repair,
maintenance, and replacement activities and may authorize alterations
to cabins and similar structure that do not constitute a significant
impairment of unit purposes.''.
(5) Section 1316(a) is amended by striking ``permittee'' in
the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``permittee Provided, That structures and facilities may be
allowed to stand from season to season.''.
(6) Section 1316(a) is amended in the first sentence by
deleting ``equipment'' and inserting in lieu thereof:
``equipment, including motorized and mechanical equipment,''.
SEC. 15. REPORT.
Within nine months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress a report which
includes the following:
(1) Local hire.--(A) The report shall--
(i) indicate the actions taken in carrying out
subsection (b) of section 1308 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3198); and
(ii) also address the recruitment processes that may
restrict employees hired under subsection (a) of such
section from successfully obtaining positions in the
competitive service.
(B) The Secretary of Agriculture shall cooperate with the
Secretary of the Interior in carrying out this paragraph with
respect to the Forest Service.
(2) Local contracts.--The report shall describe the actions
of the Secretary of the Interior in contracting with Alaska
Native Corporations to provide services with respect to public
lands in Alaska.
Purpose of the Measure
S. 967 makes a number of technical changes to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Background and Need
ANCSA helped settle the aboriginal land claims of Alaska
Natives. The goals of ANCSA were twofold: (1) to establish
property rights of Native Alaskans in their aboriginal land,
and (2) to secure an economic base for their long-term survival
as a people. ANCSA created thirteen regional corporations, 200
village corporations and granted these entities 44 million
acres and $962.5 million to implement these goals. ANCSA has
been amended numerous times with technical and other changes in
order to make it a more effective piece of legislation.
In addition to changes to ANCSA, this legislation addresses
changes that need to be made to ANILCA to ensure that the
Federal agencies are implementing this legislation consistent
with statutory provisions and understandings reached by some
when the bill was enacted.
Seventeen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA. Despite
the opposition of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land
was set aside in a series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and
wilderness units. Much of the concern about the Act was the
impact of these Federal units, and related management
restrictions, on traditional activities and lifestyles.
To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and
lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected
to a ``permit lifestyle'', and that the agencies would be
required to recognize the crucial distinction between managing
small units surrounded by millions of people in the lower 48
and vast multi-million acre units encompassing a relative
handful of individuals and communities in Alaska. The sponsors
of ANILCA issued repeated assurances that the establishment of
these units would in fact protect traditional activities and
lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy.
Early implementation of the Act closely reflected these
promises. However, as the years have passed, there is a growing
feeling among many Alaskans that many of the Federal managers
seem to have lost sight of these important representations to
the people of Alaska and that agency personnel, trained
primarily in lower 48 circumstances, have brought the mentality
of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The critical
distinctions between management of parks, refuges and
wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have
blurred. The result is the spread of restriction and regulation
and the creation of the exact ``permit lifestyle'' which some
feel was not supposed to happen.
Legislative History
S. 967 was introduced June 26, 1997 by Senator Murkowski on
behalf of himself and Senator Stevens. A Full Committee hearing
was held on July 29, 1997. At the business meeting on September
24, 1997 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered
S. 967, as amended, favorably reported.
Committee Recommendations and Tabulation of Votes
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on September 24, 1997, by a majority vote of a
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 967, if
amended as described herein.
The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 12 yeas, 8
nays, as follows:
YEAS NAYS
Murkowski Bumpers
Domenici Ford
Nickles \1\ Bingaman \1\
Craig Dorgan
Campbell Graham \1\
Thomas \1\ Wyden \1\
Kyl Johnson
Grams Landrieu
Smith
Gorton
Burns \1\
Akaka
\1\ Voted by proxy.
Committee Amendments
During the consideration of S. 967, the Committee adopted
an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Senator
Murkowski. The amendment made three minor changes to the bill
as introduced. First, it mandates that training of federal
employees should include ANCSA training as well as ANILCA
training. Second, the substitute clarifies that Section 12 of
the legislation refers to subsistence uses ``of fish'' in
Glacier Bay, and not other uses such as game or timber
harvesting. Finally, the amendment makes technical changes to
Section 9, regarding Native Allotments, to reflect an agreement
between the Alaska Federation of natives, the State of Alaska,
and the Department of the Interior.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 would amend ANILCA to extend the automatic land
bank protections to land trades between village corporations,
intra-regional corporation land trades and Native Corporation
land trades with Federal or state governments.
Sec. 2. Retained mineral estimate.--Section 2 would allow a
Native Regional Corporation, Doyon Ltd., the option of
obtaining the retained mineral estate of the Native Allotments
that are totally surrounded by ANCSA 12(a) and 12(b) land
selections of the village corporations. If Doyon exercises its
rights gained through this amendment it must do so on a
township-by-township basis. The subsurface estate obtained by
Doyon under this authority will be charged against its total
12(c) entitlements.
Sec. 3. Clarification on treatment of bonds from a Native
corporation.--This section amends section 1626(c)(B) of ANCSA
to authorize Native Corporations to issue bonds or other debt
instruments as a dividend for distribution to its shareholders.
Such a bond would be a form of collateral (similar to U.S.
Treasury Bonds or corporate sales or distribution of bonds).
Sec. 4. Proposed amendment to Public Law 102-415.--This
section proposes to correct an oversight in Section 20(f) of
P.L. 102-415 regarding the subsurface estate entitlement due
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI). It directs that the subsurface
of the Gold Creek Native Groups (GCNG) 14(h)(2) entitlements be
fulfilled from the Talkeetna pool. This section clarifies that
CIRI's subsurface estate is 3,520 acres, equaling GCNG's
14(h)(2) surface entitlements.
Sec. 5. Calista Corporation land exchange.--This section
would direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement a land
exchange authorized by section 8126 of P.L. 102-172 between
Calista Corporation and a number of Village Corporations from
the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta without delay. This section also
directs the Federal Government to ensure the value of the lands
Calista is offering for exchange is determined in accordance to
the Congressionally mandated values stated in this legislation.
Sec. 6. Mining claims.--This section would amend section
22(c) of ANCSA to include the Haida Corporation in the transfer
of the administration of certain mining claims and clarifies
that the subsurface estate obtained by the Haida Corporation is
not subject to the 7(i) provisions of ANCSA.
Sec. 7. Sale, disposition, or other use of common varieties
of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, peat, clay or cinder
resources.--This section amends section 7(i) of ANCSA such that
revenues derived by the Regional Corporations from the sale,
disposition, or other use of common sand, gravel, stone,
pumice, peat, clay or cinder resources will not be subject to
the sharing provisions of section 7(i) of ANCSA. The ownership
of these resources shall not be affected by this legislation.
This provision codifies an agreement that was reached between
the ANCSA Regional Corporations in June of 1980 after years of
litigation.
Sec. 8. Establishment of additional Native corporations in
southeast Alaska.--This section amends section 16 of ANCSA by
authorizing the Native residents of the Native Villages of
Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell, Alaska to organize
as Urban ANCSA Corporations. Likewise, the Native residents of
the Native Village of Tenakee, Alaska are authorized to
organize as a Group ANCSA Corporation. By this action, Congress
recognizes the Native residents of these villages are eligible
to form ANCSA corporations. This section shall not affect the
land entitlements of the existing ANCSA Corporations. This
section further directs the Secretary of Agriculture, Sealaska
Corporation and the Urban and Group Corporations established
pursuant to this section, to report to Congress regarding lands
and other appropriate compensation to be provided to these
corporations. This section does not grant land entitlements to
the above mentioned corporations unless further authorized by
Congress. Additionally, this section will authorize planning
grants of $250,000 to each of the Native Corporations for the
communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and
Wrangell. This section will not impact the 7(i) entitlement of
the regional corporations.
Sec. 9. Alaska Native allotment applications.--This section
will amend section 905(a) of ANILCA such that the Native
allotments that were protested by the State of Alaska will be
considered legislatively approved pursuant to ANILCA in those
instances where the State lifted its protest of the same. The
intent of this section is to make sure that in those instances
where the State of Alaska protested certain Native allotments
but later lifted its protest, the affected Native allotments
will be considered legislatively approved pursuant to section
905 of ANILCA.
Sec. 10. Visitor services.--Section 10 would allow the
Secretary of the Interior the flexibility of working with
affected Native Corporations rather than just one Native
Corporation on the implementation of section 1307 of ANILCA for
the contracting for visitor services, except sport fishing and
hunting guiding activities, within any conservation unit.
Currently, section 1307(b)(1) requires the Secretary of the
Interior to give preference to the Native Corporation which the
Secretary determines is not directly affected by the
establishment or expansion of a conservation unit.
Sec. 11. Amends section 101--Purposes.--This section would
require that public land managers in Alaska or in a region
containingAlaska take a training course in implementation
prescriptions to ANCSA and ANILCA. Currently, public land managers in
Alaska are not required to receive any formal training/education in the
management prescriptions of ANILCA or ANCS upon being assigned to
manage lands under the jurisdiction of these Acts.
Sec. 12. Amends section 202--Subsistence fishing in Glacier
Bay.--This section amends ANILCA to allow subsistence uses of
fish by local residents in the park where such uses are
traditional in accordance with the provisions of Title VIII of
ANILCA.
Sec. 13(1). Amends section 1105--Access rights.--One of the
features of title XI and ANILCA was a provision that if a
transportation or utility system application was denied, the
Federal agency had to identify an economically feasible and
prudent alternative route. The original language was unclear
about the relative feasibility of the applied-for-route
compared to the identified alternative route. This amendment
changes section 1105 by adding a subsection (b) that specifies
that any alternative route identified by the Federal Government
must not be more costly than the initially proposed route. It
is not the intent of this section that economic feasibility be
the sole determining factor, however.
Sec. 13(2). Amends section 1110(A)--Protection of
traditional access.--This section changes the traditional
access provision which would require that any closures or
restrictions be limited to the smallest area practicable and to
the smallest period of time necessary to conserve unit
resources. This would ensure that the agencies can impose
closures that may be needed but cannot extend restrictions
beyond the areas affected by any imminent resource impact. In
addition, the amendment requires formal consultation with the
State of Alaska during the period when the Federal agency is
considering imposing and access closure or limitation.
Sec. 13(3). Amends section 1110(B)--Protection of inholder
access.--The second half of section 1110--subsection (b)--
assures guaranteed access to land inholdings within the
conservation system units. Congress made it clear that
inholders were to be able to obtain permanent access rights
that would include interests in land (see House Report No. 96-
97, Part I, pps. 239-240, April 18, 1997). However, as the
provision has been administered, the Federal agencies are
informing applicants that only limited term permits are
available. The first amendment to section 1110(b) expressly
provides that the ``rights'' which may be granted by this
provision include easements, rights-of-way, or other
appropriate interests in land.
Sec. 13(4). Amends section 1110B)--Protection of inholder
access.--The second addition to section 1110(b) relates to
application fees. Land management agencies could effectively
thwart the access grant to inholders by erecting insurmountable
fee barriers. Consequently, the language provides that the
agencies cannot impose unreasonable fees.
Sec. 13(5). Amends section 1315--Wilderness management--
helicopters.--This section will allow the Secretary of
Agriculture to permit helicopter use and landings in wilderness
units of the National Forest System and directs him to allow
such use and landings in emergency situations. Helicopter use
has long been used in these units as well as other conservation
units in Alaska, but recent attempts have been made to disallow
them as a mode of traditional access. This provision would add
that in some of the remote areas of Alaska use of helicopters
in protected as a traditional use under ANILCA. The Secretary
would retain authority to regulate their use under this
provision.
Sec. 14(1,2,3). Amends section 1303--Use of cabins.--In
1980, Congress crafted a comprehensive compromise regarding
cabins constructed on Federal lands. Simply stated, individuals
could continue to use and occupy traditional use cabins if they
were prepared to waive any and all claims to the underlying
Federal lands. Sections 14(1),(2), and (3) provide that an
applicant for a cabin permit may not be required to waive his
or her ownership interests in a cabin or its contents.
Sec. 14(4). Amends section 1303--Use of cabins.--A second
change to section 1303 specifies that cabin permits issued by
the Federal agencies must allow for repair, maintenance and
replacement activities as well as alterations. The only basis
for disallowing such activities is if they would significantly
impair the purposes, or the resources, of the affected
conservation unit.
Sec. 14(5,6). Amends section 1316--Allowed uses.--Section
1316 was added to ANILCA to ensure that traditional camps could
continue to be operated in the newly established parks,
preserves, refuges, wilderness areas, etc. The first change to
section 1316 would allow tent platforms to remain over the
winter months. The agencies have interpreted the word
``temporary'' in the present section to mean that campsites
must be dismantled every year. Many guides now are required to
construct their wooden tent platforms in the spring,
disassemble them in the fall, stack and store the lumber on
site, and repeat the cycle the next year. Considering that most
campsites are buried under substantial snow during the long
arctic winter, it makes sense to amend the law to allow the
platforms (which are generally one foot high) to remain in
place buried under the snow over the winter months.
A second amendment would permit the use of motorized and
mechanical equipment such as that needed to operate a battery-
operated water pump. This section is into intended to increase
the use of motorized vehicles in these units.
Sec. 15. Report.--Section 15 addresses section 1308 of
ANILCA, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interiorin
limited circumstances to hire local people who do not completely
qualify under certain job descriptions through appointments. A problem
has arisen under this authority, in that when these people appointed
through this process later acquire all the necessary skills, they are
unable to become permanent employees of the Department of the Interior,
with all the attendant benefits. This provision will direct the
Secretary of the Interior to complete a report within nine months of
enactment to address the recruitment process that may restrict
employees hired under ANILCA Section 1308 from successfully obtaining
positions in the competitive service.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested a
cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for S. 967.
This estimate had not been received at the time the report on
S. 967 was filed. When the estimate becomes available, the
Chairman will request that it be printed in the Congressional
Record for the advice of the Senate.
Regulatory Impact Evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 967. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 967, as ordered reported.
Executive Communications
The pertinent legislative report received by the Committee
from the Department of the Interior setting forth Executive
agency recommendations relating to S. 967 is set forth below.
Additionally, on, September 25, 1997, the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the
Department of Agriculture and the Office of Management and
Budget setting forth Executive agency recommendations on S.
967. These reports had not been received at the time the report
on S. 967 was filed. When the reports become available, the
Chairman will request that they be printed in the Congressional
Record for the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by
the Department of the Interior at the Committee hearing
follows:
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, September 23, 1997.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This follows up the July 29 testimony of
the Department to you concerning S. 967.
With respect to that testimony, there are three changes
necessary to the appendix to the testimony we submitted at the
hearing, based on discussions and agreements with interested
parties that have occurred since the hearing. These revisions
to our positions are recommended changes to the language of S.
967 and will also be included in the Department's position to
the House of Representatives on H.R. 2000. Because they are
based on agreements with interested parties, we believe they
will be agreeable to the Committee.
With respect to section 2, Retained Mineral Estate, we have
agreed with Doyon to further technical language changes
reflected in attachment 1 to this letter.
We have agreed to several changes with the Cook Inlet
Region concerning section 4, which deals with the CIRI/Gold
Creek Settlement. As indicated on attachment 2, our proposed
amendment to section 4 of the bill, the last three lines of our
original proposal are deleted, and new language has been
substituted.
In addition, we have reached a consensus with the AFN and
the State of Alaska on some changes to our proposed amendatory
language to section 9 of the bill, concerning section 905 of
ANILCA. These changes are indicated on attachment 3.
As you know, the House version of the bill, H.R. 2000, is
similar, indeed identical to yours in many respects, except
that it does not contain the four provisions (sections 8 and
12-14) of the Senate bill to which we so strongly object.
Without those provisions, we are very close to a bill that
represents a consensus of the interested parties, an approach
we have tried so hard to achieve in recent years with ANCSA
legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this letter from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Sylvia V. Baca,
Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Land and Minerals Management.
Enclosure.
Section 2. As this provision applies only to the Native
Regional Corporation Doyon, Limited (Doyon), the following
changes to the language, as agreed with Doyon, are recommended
as an amendment to the language in S. 967 (changes in bold):
``SEC. 2. RETAINED MINERAL ESTATE.
``Section 12(c)(4) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1611(c)(4) is amended--
``(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively, and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraphs:
`` `(C) Where such public lands [are] were withdrawn
pursuant to subsection 11(a)(1), and were not available
for selection according to paragraph (3) of this
subsection, but are [surrounded by or] contiguous to
subsurface lands obtained by Doyon, Limited, (Doyon)
from the United States, [under subsections (a) or (b),
the Corporation] Doyon may select, and upon request,
have such public land conveyed to it.
`` `(D)(i) [A Regional Corporation which] If Doyon
elects to obtain public lands under subparagraph (C) it
shall be limited to a combined total of not more than
12,000 acres under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).
Selection by [a Regional Corporation] Doyon of in-lieu
surface acres under subparagraph (E) pursuant to an
election under subparagraph (C) shall not be made from
any lands within a conservation system unit (as that
term is defined by section 102(4) of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.
3102(4)).
`` `(ii) An election by Doyon to obtain the public
lands described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) shall
include all available parcels within the township in
which the public lands are located and charged to its
12(c) entitlement, and
[`` `(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph and
subparagraph (C), the term `Regional Corporation' shall
refer only to Doyon, Limited.'; and]
``(2) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesigned), by
striking `(A) or (B)' and inserting `(A), (B), or
(C)'.''
Rationale:
(1) In paragraph (C), the additional language is consistent
with statutory amendments established by 1403 of ANILCA.
(2) It is clearer to substitute ``Doyon, Limited'' for
``regional corporation' rather than defining what that means.
(3) In paragraph, (C), we propose deletion of the terms
``surrounded by''. The proposal separates the terms
``surrounded by'' and ``contiguous to'' by the word ``or''.
These are disparate terms. The terms ``surrounded by'' is
ambiguous and would require difficult interpretation as to how
close or how far. The term contiguous is clear.
(4) Paragraph (D) mentions 12,000 acres. The new words are
added to clarify the intent of a combined total of 12,000
acres.
Section 4. CIRI and the Department have agreed to the
following proposed language changes as an amendment to the
language in S. 967 (changes in bold):
``(h) Establishment of the account under subsection (b) and
conveyance of land under subsection (c), if any, shall be
treated as though 3,520 acres of land had been conveyed to Gold
Creek under section 14(h)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act for which rights to [in-lieu] subsurface estate
are hereby provided to CIRI. Within one year from the date of
enactment of this subsection, CIRI shall select 3,520 acres of
land from the area designed for [in-lieu] selection by
paragraph I.B.(2)(b) (Talkeetna Mountains) of the document
identified in section 12(b) of the Act of January 2, 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1611 note).
``Not more than five selections shall be made under this
paragraph., and each tract shall be reasonably compact and in
whole sections except as separated by unavailable lands and
except where the remaining entitlement is less than a whole
section.''
Rationale:
(a) ``One'' is spelled out;
(b) The term Talkeenta Mountains clarifies what is
referenced in I.B.(2)(b) of the Terms and Conditions
document;
(c) The second paragraph is language consistent with
14(h)(9), added by 1406 of ANILCA;
(d) The term ``in-lieu'' is deleted because this is a
new entitlement, not in-lieu of a previous entitlement.
Section 9. The wording below, agreed to by the AFN and the
State, is offered as an amendment to the language in H.R. 2000.
The language offers an alternative that (1) allows for
legislative approval of Native allotment applications that were
protested by the State of Alaska and the protests were later
withdrawn, and (2) restores DOI jurisdiction, and thus
prospectively restores BLM's authority to protect pre-existing
access routes across applications that would be legislatively
approved pursuant to this amendment. (Changes in bold).
Proposed amendatory language:
Section 905(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (43 U.S.C. 1634(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(7) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and section
(d) shall apply, and paragraph (5) of this subsection
shall cease to apply, to an application--
``(A) that is open and pending on the date of
enactment of subsection (a)(7),
``(B) if the lands described in the
application are in Federal ownership other than
as a result of reacquisition by the United
States after January 3, 1959, and
``(C) if any protest which was filed by the
State of Alaska pursuant to subsection (5)(B)
with respect to the application is withdrawn or
dismissed either before or after the date of
enactment of subsection (a)(7).
``(C) Any allotment application which is open
and pending and which is legislatively approved
by enactment of subsection (a)(7) shall, when
allotted, be made subject to any easement,
trail, or right-of-way in existence on the date
of the Native allotment applicant's
commencement of use and occupancy. The
jurisdiction of the Department is hereby
extended to make the factual determination
required by this subsection.''
Note: the parties have agreed that the following sentence
should be entered into the record as legislative history to
reflect the intended meaning of the phrase ``open and
pending'': ``The phrase `open and pending' means that the
application has not been closed by a relinquishment, a final
decision of rejection, or a conveyance.''
------
Statement of Deborah L. Williams, Special Assistant to the Secretary
for Alaska, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on S. 967, which would amend the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
While there are a number of provisions in S. 967 with which
we agree, there are also several provisions which we strongly
oppose, and that would be grounds for the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to recommend a veto
if they remain in the bill. We could support a bill if certain
important deletions and modifications were made.
This Administration has worked closely with Congress over
the past four years to develop and support needed and
appropriate technical changes to ANCSA. A package of ANCSA
technical amendments (Public Law 104-42) was signed by the
President in 1995. Last year, H.R. 2505, which was supported in
its final form by the Administration, passed the House but
failed to pass the Senate. Many of the provisions of that bill
are included in S. 967. As you know, we spent hundreds of hours
during the last two years working with the AFN, the State and
other interested parties to achieve that consensus-based ANCSA
technical amendments package last year. If needed, we would
gladly participate in further discussions with the parties and
this Committee to achieve a consensus bill again.
However, a number of the additional sections in S. 967
propose amendments to ANILCA and ANCSA to which the
Administration strongly objected in the last Congress. For
instance, as you know, last year the Secretaries of Interior
and Agriculture threatened to recommend a veto of the
``landless Natives'' provisions proposed but not included in
H.R. 2505 and now included as section 8 of S. 967. The same
position and rationale applies this year.
Last year, both Secretaries also threatened to recommend a
veto of legislation (S. 1920), which would have upset ANILCA's
balances between conservation and development, resource
protection and resource use, and subsistence uses and
recreational activities. Some of those provisions are included
in S. 967. The Administration continues to believe that ANILCA
provides the tools necessary for successful implementation
without the proposed statutory changes. We believe we can
resolve issues administratively working together with our
Alaska land managers.
Sections 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15 are amendments to
ANCSA and ANILCA which have been developed with the
participation of the Department of the Interior, the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN), the State of Alaska, and others.
Most of these we support or do not oppose; we recommend some
further revision of sections 4 and 9 and need further
information on 5 before we can render a position. We strongly
oppose Section 8 amending ANCSA, and several sections (12-14)
amending ANILCA, which are unacceptable to the Administration.
To facilitate presentation of our views and to reduce the
length of my testimony we have provided you with a written
Appendix to this prepared testimony. The Appendix presents more
detailed section-by-section analysis and where appropriate,
suggestions for revisions.
The Administration supports Section 1 of S. 967, which
provides land bank protection for lands received from certain
Federal agencies, lands exchanged among Native Corporations,
and actions by a trustee serving pursuant to agreement of
Native Corporations.
The Administration does not oppose Section 2, which allows
Doyon, Limited (a Native Regional Corporation), to elect to
take reserved minerals under small parcels patented to
individuals under the public land laws, including the 1906
Native Allotment Act, within lands conveyed to Doyon villages.
The provision only affects Doyon. The Department of the
Interior and Doyon have worked closely since the last Congress
to achieve an acceptable revision to broader language in
earlier bills which we did not support.
Authority already exists for Doyon to elect conveyance of
certain reserved mineral estate from small parcels located
within lands conveyed to a Regional Corporation. This amendment
would appropriately cap Doyon's elections within 12(a) and
12(b) areas to 12,000 acres. There is not current acreage
limitation on the number of acres elected from areas
surrounding conveyances under Section 12(c). We concur in this
proposal since it is generally in the Department's interest not
to retain small isolated tracts of mineral estate.
The Administration supports Section 3, which excludes cash
dividends on bonds issued to shareholders by Native
Corporations, from resources used for determining eligibility
for entitlement programs such as food stamps or supplemental
security income (SSI) benefits.
The Administration does not oppose Section 4, which
provides 3,520 acres of subsurface estate in the Talkeetna
Mountains to meet selections of the Cook Inlet Region under
this amendment and the Gold Creek settlement set forth under
P.L. 102-415. However we have proposed some amendatory language
which we believe is more correct.
The Administration cannot take a position on Section 5 at
this time due to lack of necessary information. Section 5 deals
with the Calista Land Exchange established by P.L. 102-172 and
will provide funds for the Calista Corporation to further the
goals of the Corporation through the purchase of Native-owned
subsurface and surface lands within the Yukon Delta National
Wildlife Refuge boundaries in southwest Alaska. Additional
information is necessary, to include maps and legal
descriptions of lands or interests in lands being offered. We
are continuing towork closely with Calista and to obtain
additional information on this proposal as we speak, and we are hopeful
that the mutually agreeable solution is close at hand.
The Administration has no objection to Section 6, which
gives certain Regional Corporation-level provisions to the
Haida Village Corporation and the Haida Traditional Use Sites
lands. We have worked with Haida to obtain an acceptable
revision of language in earlier bills.
The Administration has no objection to Section 7, since the
issue of sharing revenue from the sale, disposition, or other
use of common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, peat,
clay, or cinder resources is internal to the Native
Corporations.
The Administration strongly opposes Section 8, which seeks
to establish additional Native Corporations in Southeast
Alaska. As we have firmly stated in the past, each of the five
communities in Southeast Alaska listed in this amendment have
been considered for village status during the formulation of
ANCSA and none met the general statutory criteria for
eligibility. Changing the criteria now will start a chain of
future exceptions and the potential unraveling of the long
settled Alaska Native claims. There are additional comments in
the Appendix to this testimony, and we are also providing to
the Committee copies of the joint letter of the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture in July of 1996 to the Congress on
this subject, threatening to recommend a veto of similar
legislation in the last Congress. Both the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture will continue to recommend veto of
such a provision this year.
The Administration supports the intent of Section 9, which
amends ANILCA Section 905 by legislatively approving about 200
native allotment applications (400 parcels) which had
previously been protested by the State of Alaska and for which
the State's protests were later withdrawn. We are offering some
revised wording which we believe will facilitate legislative
approval of allotment applications while appropriately
protecting the State's prior existing rights.
The Administration supports Section 10, which amends ANILCA
Section 1307 by providing wider latitude in determining
affected Native Corporations in the provision of visitor
services on Conservation System Units (CSU's). This section
sanctions regulatory changes made last fall by bureaus of the
Department to improve opportunities for Native participation in
providing concession services on CSUs.
The Administration is opposed to Section 11, which
legislates specific federal land manager training concerning
ANILCA. As indicated in the Appendix, we are currently
providing annual two-day training sessions on ANILCA, ANCSA,
and the Statehood Act. We believe that training should be an
administrative, not legislative, matter.
The Administration strongly opposes Sections 12 through 14
for the reasons known to this Committee and described in
further depth in the Appendix to this testimony. Our strong
opposition to these provisions was described in our testimony
last year on S. 1920, in which we announced we would recommend
a veto of such legislation if it passed the Congress. Sections
12-14 are unnecessary and would disrupt the extraordinary
balances achieved in ANILCA. ANILCA is an historic compromise,
a milestone in conservation legislation which delicately
balances competing interests such as conservation and
development, resource protection and resource use, and
subsistence uses and recreational activities.
ANILCA puts in trust for future generations extraordinary
features of America's last frontier, largely as additions to
our National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Wild
and Scenic Rivers, National Forest, and National Wilderness
Preservation systems. In the words of this Committee's 1979
report, the conservation system units in Alaska protect, among
other things, ``a full range of nature and history-- * * *,
mighty landforms and entire ecosystems of naturally occurring *
* * processes, intricate waterforms and spectacular shorelines,
majestic peaks and gentle valleys, diverse plant communities
and equally diverse fish and wildlife.''
Heeding the advice of the 96th Congress, this
Administration has continued to move forward with
implementation of the existing law. Where controversy or
conflict has arisen, we have tried to address the problems
rationally and fairly. The Administration is committed to using
the tools provided in ANILCA and working with all interested
parties to solve problems and make progress with ANILCA's
carefully structured balance.
Sections 12-14 would subvert important purposes of ANILCA
and would obstruct and further complicate viable management
options which already exist.
Section 12 provides for subsistence uses in the Glacier Bay
National Park; uses which have not been authorized since the
Park was established as a national monument more than 70 years
ago. In the development of ANILCA, Congress specifically
decided against allowing subsistence in the Glacier Bay
National Park and the other ``old'' national park areas (e.g.
Mt. McKinley and Katmai), while allowing subsistence in certain
new parks. Although the Administration opposes the
authorization of subsistence uses--including hunting, trapping,
and timber harvesting--in Glacier Bay National Park, the
Administration is working cooperatively with local residents to
recognize and protect cultural and educational traditions.
Section 13 amends a variety of access provisions in ANILCA
in developing ANILCA, Congress carefully crafted provisions to
govern the special circumstances of Alaska's large conservation
system units concerning matters of transportation routes and
methods, and access to inholdings. These provisions have
protected the values and purposes of these areas while
providing for appropriate access. Changes to these provisions
will damage important land use values and are unwarranted for
the many reasons further explained in the appendix.
Section 14 inappropriately extends additional possessory
interests to the owners of cabins or other structures in
trespass, removes the need to dismantle seasonal structures,
essentially making them permanent, and expands the use of
mechanized vehicles on conservation system units, much to the
detriment of the purposes of the units.
Again, the Administration is strongly opposed to sections
12-14. The Administration has no objection to the local hire
report required by Section 15, In light of limited resources,
18 months would be a more reasonable time to prepare such an
in-depth report.
Again, I thank the Committee for this opportunity to
testify on S. 967. There is a strong tradition of initiating
and passing consensus ANCSA technical amendment packages to
meet specific needs. This process has worked for may years.
This package contains a number of agreed provisions that will
advance the public interest and were scheduled for passage last
year. There are several other provisions on which we believe
consensus can be readily achieved. It is unwise to subvert this
consensus mechanism by burdening this legislation with
controversial and unacceptable amendments. Continued inclusion
of Sections 8, 12, 13 or 14 will cause the Secretaries of both
the Interior and Agriculture to recommend a Presidential veto.
Without them, we are very close to another consensus package.
We look forward to working with you to achieve a bill we can
all support.
Appendix to Statement of Deborah L. Williams, Special Assistant to the
Secretary of Alaska, U.S. Department of the Interior
section-by-section analysis
Section 1. Automatic land bank protection
(Amends ANILCA section 907--Alaska land bank)
The Administration supports this section, which provides
land bank protection for lands received from certain Federal
agencies, lands exchanged among Native Corporations, and
actions, by a trustee serving pursuant to agreement of Native
Corporations.
Section 2. Retained mineral estate [Doyon]
(Amends ANCSA section 12--Native land selections)
The Administration does not oppose Section 2 which allows
Doyon, Limited (a Native Regional Corporation) to elect to take
reserved minerals under small parcels patented to individuals
under the public land laws, including the 1906 Native Allotment
Act, within lands conveyed to Doyon villages. The provision
only affect Doyon. The Department of the Interior and Doyon
have worked closely since the last Congress to come up with an
acceptable revision to broader language in earlier bills which
we did not support.
Authority already exists for Doyon to elect conveyance of
certain reserved mineral estate from small parcels located
within lands conveyed to a Regional Corporation. This amendment
would appropriately cap Doyon's elections within 12(a) and
12(b) areas to 12,000 acres. There is no current acreage
limitation on the number of acres elected from areas
surrounding conveyances under Section 12(c). We concur in this
proposal since it is generally in the Department's interest not
to retain small isolated tracts of mineral estate.
Section 3. Clarification on treatment of bonds from a native
corporation
(Amends ANCSA section 29--Relation to other programs)
This section provides for the exclusion of the value of
bonds issued by Native Corporations to shareholders, or income
therefrom, in determining eligibility for food stamps or other
federal entitlement programs such as supplemental security
income. The Department supports this section.
Section 4. Amendment to Public Law 102-415
(Amends section 20 of the Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act
of 1992 [Gold Creek/CIRI])
The Administration does not oppose this section. The
language specifies that the Cook Inlet Region, Incorporation
(CIRI) Native Regional Corporation will receive subsurface in
the Talkeetna Mountains and not from the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge of the Gold Creek-Susitna, Inc. (Gold Creek )
settlement.
This amendment appropriately specifies that section
14(h)(2) entitlement will be charged. Consequently, there will
be less entitlement for the other 11 regions under section
14(h)(8) of ANCSA.
The BLM recently completed a land status review and
determined that adequate acreage in the Talkeetna Mountains is
available for this action. The following language is offered to
substitute for the language proposed in S. 967. The differences
are shown in italic face type. The reason for the differences
are:
(a) ``one'' spelled out is more correct
(b) the term Talkeetna Mountains clarifies what is
referenced in I.B.(2)(b) of the Terms and Conditions
document.
(c) the second paragraph is language consistent with
14(h)(9), added by 1406 of ANILCA.
Proposed Amendment:
``(h) Establishment of the account under subsection (b) and
conveyance of land under subsection (c), if any, shall be
treated as though 3,520 acres of land had been conveyed to Gold
Creek under section 14(h)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act for which rights to in-lieu subsurface estate
are hereby provided to CIRI. Within one year from the date of
enactment of this subsection, CIRI shall select 3,520 acres of
land from the area designated for in-lieu selection by
paragraph I.B.(2)(b) (Talkeetna Mountains) of the document
identified in section 12(b) of the Act of January 2, 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1611 note).'.
``Selections made under this paragraph shall be in a single
and reasonably compact tract except as separated by unavailable
lands and shall be in whole sections except where the remaining
entitlement is less than 640 acres.''
Section 5. Calista Corporation land exchange
(Amends section 8126 of Public Law 102-172)
The Administration has no position on this section at this
time. The amendment references the CCRD as the document
describing the lands Calista is offering. The Department wants
to clarify several matters; first, that the draft CCRD we now
have is the final version.
The Department needs additional information in order to
assess fully the lands package. For example the Department does
not have any language which describes the subsurface
conservation easements which Calista proposes to convey. These
new lands and interests were not included in the previously
conducted appraisals for the exchange. The removal by Calista
of the potentially gold bearing subsurface lands of the Tulusak
River Drainage and substitution of other lands apparently
decreases the value of the package to the United States. The
FWS has not seen the terms of the offered conservation easement
to know what resource protection interests are being offered in
the easement. Also, the Department needs confirmation from the
villages that they are in agreement with the CCRD Addendum.
The amount of money Congress would be providing Calista, if
based around the sum provided in paragraph 6 of the CCRD
addendum, would include recognition of significant cultural,
health and economic considerations set forth in the findings.
Final comments on this proposal can only be made after
verification of the information contained in this CCRD document
and a review of the maps, legal descriptions and other
information concerning the lands or interests in lands that are
being offered. We may have further amendatory language to
suggest to refine the proposal.
The Department suggests a reasonable increment of time from
filing of the final document i.e., ``6 months from the receipt
of the final document by the DOI'' be substituted for the
specific January 1, 1998 date. Likewise, other ``action'' dates
in this amendment should be shown as an appropriate number of
months after an action rather than specific calendar dates in
the event that passage of this amendment is delayed.
We are continuing to work closely with Calista on this
proposal and we are hopeful that the solution is close at hand.
Section 6. Mining claims [Haida]
(Amends ANCSA section 22--Miscellaneous)
The Administration has no objection to this proposed
section which gives certain Regional Corporation-level
provisions to Haida Corporation and the Haida Traditional Use
Sites lands. The Department has worked with Haida to develop an
acceptable revision to language in earlier bills which the
Department opposed. Haida acquired subsurface rights in the
lands at issue under earlier legislation; this is why Haida
needs the same protections concerning mining claims as those
provided to regional corporations under section 22(c) of ANCSA.
Section 7. Sale disposition, or other use of common varieties of sand,
gravel, stone, pumice, peat, clay, or cinder resources.
(Amends ANCSA section 7--Regional corporations)
The Administration has no objection to this section which
concerns not sharing revenue from certain Regional Corporation
resources. This issue is internal to the Native Corporations.
Section 8. Establishment of additional native corporations in southeast
Alaska
(Amends ANCSA section 7--Regional corporations; Section 8--Village
corporations; and Section 16--The Tlingit-Haida settlement)
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment. Each of
the Native Villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell,
and Tenakee was considered during the formulation of ANCSA and
found not eligible for village corporation status. These
determinations were reviewed in 1994 by a congressionally-
funded study, by the University of Alaska Anchorage-Institute
of Social and Economic Research (ISER).
The enactment of this amendment would constitute a
reopening of ANCSA by relaxing the well though-out eligibility
requirements to receive village benefits, not only in southeast
Alaska, but set a precedent for similar actions throughout the
state. There is no equitable or legal justification for
Congressional recognition of these communities in southeast
Alaska, or elsewhere, as new corporations under ANCSA for some
reasons such as the following:
There is no inequity in ANCSA to redress. Each of the five
communities was considered for village status during the
formulation of ANCSA and none met the requisite statutory
criteria for eligibility.
Natives in the 5 communities are enrolled as ``at-large''
shareholders in the Sealaska Corporation. They have received
fair and substantial financial benefits of the original ANCSA
settlement.
Recognition of the five communities in southeast Alaska
would itself effect an inequity among other similar communities
elsewhere in Alaska.
Recognition of the five communities could reopen the entire
settlement scheme of ANCSA and result in a never ending and
unattainable effort to reach total equality of treatment among
all Natives in all communities.
Not withstanding the above, it is obvious that recognition
would lead to increased national expense in the form of
additional land entitlement, loss of revenue from federal
property, or outright cash payments.
Section 9. Alaska Native allotment applications
(Amends ANILCA section 905--Alaska Native allotments)
The Administration supports this amendment with some minor
changes. The State of Alaska, since the last proposal (H.R.
2505 of the 104th Congress), has told BLM they were unaware
that when a parcel had been approved under the 1906 Native
Allotment Act rules (including reserving a granted right-of-
way), and was also deemed legislatively approved under Section
905 of ANILCA, that BLM could not make the allotment subject to
the granted right-of-way. Case law from the IBLA holds that BLM
loses jurisdiction to adjudicate the allotment (including
reserving ROWs) when legislative approval occurred.
The wording below is offered as an amendment to the
language introduced in S. 967. The language offers an
alternative that (1) allows for legislative approval of Native
allotment applications that were protested by the State of
Alaska later withdrawn, and (2) prospectively restores BLM's
authority to protect pre-existing access routes across
applications that would be legislatively approved pursuant to
this amendment. The differences from the language in the
current S. 967 are in italic-face type.
Proposed amendment language:
Section 905(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (43 U.S.C. 1634(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and section
(d) shall apply, and paragraph (5) of this subsection
shall cease to apply, to an application--
``(A) this is open and pending and not
previously approved, either legislatively or
administratively, on the date of enactment of
subsection (a)(7),
``(B) if the lands described in the
application are in Federal ownership other than
as a result of reacquisition by the United
States after January 3, 1959, and
``(C) if any protest which was filed by the
State of Alaska pursuant to subsection (5)(B)
with respect to the application is withdrawn or
dismissed either before or after the date of
enactment of subsection (a)(7).
``(D) Any allotment application which is open
and pending and not previously approved, either
legislatively or administratively, and which is
legislatively approved by enactment of
subsection (a)(7) shall, when allotted, be made
subject to any easement or right of way in
existence on the date of the Native allotment
applicant's commencement of use and occupancy.
The United States will not be required to
determine the validity of any right of way
claimed under Revised Statue 2477.''
Section 10. Visitor services
(Amends ANILCA section 1307--Revenue producing visitor services)
The Administration supports this proposed section which
provides wider latitude in determining affected Native
Corporations. Bureaus of the DOI issued regulations last fall
that provided for this important change, which will now be
legislatively sanctioned. The bureaus are actively seeking
Native Corporation participation in providing concession
services on Conservation System Units as opportunities arise.
This amendment will allow participation of a larger number of
corporations, leading to increased employment opportunities for
Alaska Natives and expansion of local economies.
Section 11. Training of Federal Managers
(Amends ANILCA section 101--Purposes)
The Administration opposes this amendment. While we agree
that managers should be well versed in ANILCA, we believe that
training should be an administrative, not a legislative,
matter. Legislation is an inflexible and inappropriate way to
outline the specifics of federal land mangers' training.
Moreover, this legislation is unnecessary. In the past 2
years, the Department has expanded its ANILCA training programs
as well as its commitment to providing appropriate training
early in an employee's Alaska experience. For example, two-day
ANILCA training sessions were presented in January and November
1996, and will continue to be offered annually. The Department
produced an 80-minute training videotape, and is now requiring
DOI managers, new to Alaska, to view this videotape shortly
after they arrive on duty. Informational videos and a video-
based study package are in production for utilization between
the more formally structured annual classes. Furthermore, the
Department presented in October 1996 a comprehensive two-day
training program on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) and the Alaska Statehood Act, which was taped and will
also be required for viewing by DOI managers and employees new
to Alaska. The next two-day ANILCA training is scheduled for
November 18-19, 1997; the next two-day ANCSA class with the
Alaska Statehood Act is scheduled for October 28-29, 1997.
Section 11 contains terms whose meaning is unclear,
including ``all Federal public land managers in Alaska.'' That
term would presumably include representatives of any Federal
agency in Alaska, such as Interior, Agriculture, Defense, FEMA,
FAA, Coast Guard, and others.
The Department is committed to providing excellent and
timely training on ANILCA, ANCSA, and the Statehood Act to its
managers in Alaska, and other agencies should be permitted to
assess their own needs for training. Legislation on this issue
is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Section 12. Subsistence uses in Glacier Bay National Park
(Amends ANILCA section 202--Additional to existing areas)
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment. As
written, the proposal would amend ANILCA Section 202(1) and
allow subsistence uses by local residents in Glacier Bay
National park pursuant to Title VIII of ANILCA. This would
potentially allow in the park: timber harvest, hunting and
trapping of wildlife, the collection of animal and vegetal
materials, the use of nets, fish wheels, and other means of
catching fish in both fresh and marine waters, and the
establishment of camps. With few exceptions (e.g., seal hunting
after World War II and the ample and diverse fishing
opportunities that continue today), such consumptive uses have
not been authorized in Glacier Bay National Park since
designation as a monument more than seventy years ago. While
specifically authorizing the opportunity for subsistence uses
by local residents in several park areas in ANILCA, Congress
decided against authorizing subsistence in Glacier Bay National
Park. Finally, this amendment is likely to be counterproductive
to the Department's current efforts to develop measures that
accommodate administratively--under existing Federal and State
law--the cultural concerns of local Native interests in Glacier
Bay national Park. This same amendment was opposed last year by
the Hoonah Indian Association because it was found to be overly
broad in scope and could be inclusive of people with no
traditional or cultural ties to the Park for use of natural
resources.
Section 13. Access rights
(Amends ANILCA sections 1105, 1110 and 1315)
Section 13(1) amends ANILCA Section 1105--Standards for
granting certain authorizations
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment which
would establish economics as the sole determinative factor to
be applied when ascertaining whether there is an ``economically
feasible and prudent alternative route'' to a transportation or
utility system (TUS) across a conservation system unit. This
amendment would require that a transportation or utility system
(e.g., highway, pipeline, railroad, airport) go through the
conservation system unit if the alternative outside route were
to any degree less economically feasible and prudent. Thus,
this amendment would essentially reverse ANILCA's current
preference for routing transportation and utility systems
outside conservation system units if possible, and if not, for
selecting an alternative route and method which would result in
fewer or less severe impacts. See ANILCA Sec. 1104(g)(2)(B).
Significantly, all the diverse parties involved in the
Title XI litigation (Trustees for Alaska v. Dept. of the
Interior, 9th Cir. 93-35493) have consented to a revision in
the Department's existing regulatory definition of the term
``economically and feasible alternative route'' that is
essentially at odds with this proposed section. (This proposed
revision is the only change of the 1986 Title XI regulations
that all the parties support.) The revision would more likely
facilitate decisions consistent with ANILCA's preference for
routing a transportation or utility system outside a
conservation system unit.
Section 13(2) amends ANILCA section 1110(a)--Special access
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment which
would impose several restrictions on the Secretary's ability to
protect the purposes and values of conservation system units in
Alaska.
ANILCA Sec. 1110(a) currently allows certain modes of
transportation, which Congress judged less environmentally
harmful than other modes, to be used in conservation system
units for traditional activities and travel to and from
homesites and villages. ANILCA Sec. 1110(a) also authorizes the
imposition of closures to such uses, following compliance with
procedures that assure notice and hearing in the affected area
and a determination that the transportation uses would be
detrimental to the conservation system unit's resource values.
Thus, ANILCA struck a careful balance that allows traditional
transportation uses, protects the conservation system units,
and assures local process for decision-making. In fact, the
land-managing agencies have used the Section 1110(a) closure
authority sparingly. Moreover, the recent comprehensive review
of the 1986 Title XI regulations, conducted in consultation
with a broad spectrum of interested Alaskan parties, resulted
in no revisions to the ANILCA Sec. 1110(a) provisions.
This amendment would further condition the reasons for,
scope of, and procedures prerequisite to a closure under ANILCA
Sec. 1110(a), interfering with sound resource management and
raising ambiguities and opportunities for litigation. The
proviso concerning ``preexisting use'' is unnecessary, since
the recently reaffirmed Title XI regulations do not require
such a demonstration. On the other hand, this proviso could
prove unduly restrictive, since some consideration of generally
occurring prior uses could be helpful in determining the
meaning of ``traditional activities'' under ANILCA
Sec. 1110(a). See Sen. Rept. No. 413, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at
248. The proviso concerning ``smallest area practicable'' and
``smallest period of time'' is unwarranted, lacking any
compelling need for these restrictions. In addition, it is our
opinion that these terms would invite costly litigation.
Finally, the requirement for prior consultation with the State
of Alaska is unnecessary, since the land-managing agencies--in
addition to carrying out the notice and hearing requirements
set forth in ANILCA Sec. 1110(a) and the Department's
implementing regulations--routinely consult with the State
before implementing access closures. Indeed, existing laws,
regulations, memoranda of agreement, and policies already
ensure coordination or consultation with the State prior to
implementing any closure of Federal public lands to the modes
of transportation covered by ANILCA Sec. 1110(a).
Section 13(3) amends ANILCA section 1110(b)--Access to
inholdings
The Department strongly opposes this amendment. Since the
Department already interprets ANILCA Sec. 1110(b) as
guaranteeing adequate and feasible access to inholdings for
economic and other purposes, it is unclear why this amendment
is necessary or even what it would do. The language gives rise
to more questions than answers. The ANILCA Sec. 1110(b)
provisions have been carefully reviewed over the last three
years, culminating in the reaffirmation of the 1986 regulations
interpreting and implementing this section, without objection
from any of the diverse parties who have been involved in the
major litigation concerning this and other provisions of Title
XI.
Section 13(4) further amends ANILCA section 1110(b)
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment which
prohibits the Secretary from imposing unreasonable fees or
charges, and exempts inholders under this section from the
requirements of Sections 1104, 1105, 1106 and 1107. The
direction to the Secretary that he cannot impose ``any
unreasonable fees or charges'' is unnecessary, since the
Secretary's action is subject to the rule of reason. This
amendment would serve only to encourage litigation concerning
the meaning of ``unreasonable.'' The Department must generally
charge for use of lands and recover the costs of processing
applications for rights of way. Charges are based on the fair
market value of specific uses granted to the applicant and the
cost to process applications.
With respect to the applicability of Sections 1104, 1105,
1106, and 1107, persons seeking access to their inholdings are
not subject to the transportation and utility system approval
standards set forth in these sections since adequate and
feasible access to inholdings is guaranteed under Section
1110(b).
Nevertheless, if a transportation or utility system is
required as part of the adequate and feasible access guaranteed
by Section 1110(b), certain information requirements and
analysis developed as part of Standard Form 299 for
transportation and utility systems under Section 1104 through
1107 may be necessary for reaching the required determinations
under Section 1110(b). These determinations include identifying
the method and route of access that constitutes adequate and
feasible access to inholdings, and specifying any reasonable
regulations necessary to protect the natural and other values
of the potentially affected conservation system units.
Section 13(5) amends ANILCA section 1315--Wilderness
management
The Administration strongly opposes this amendment, which
would create a new exception to wilderness management in Alaska
by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to generally permit
helicopter use and landings in Alaska units of the National
Wilderness Preservation System. In section 1110(a) of ANILCA,
Congress specifically allows ``airplanes,'' but not
helicopters, in Alaska wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act
generally prohibits aircraft use in wilderness areas but
contains certain specific, limited exceptions to the
prohibition on use of aircraft, including helicopters, in
appropriate circumstances. All of the land managing agencies in
Alaska have prohibited general helicopter use in wilderness
areas consistent with the ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.
We are very concerned about the adverse precedent this
amendment will set in the management of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. This amendment is contrary to the intent
of Congress in establishing wilderness areas, to be managed by
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior,
to maintain the natural and primeval character of wilderness,
as well as maintain opportunities for primitive recreation.
This amendment would jeopardize these goals.
Section 14. Use of cabins and allowed uses
(Amends ANILCA Section 1303--Use of cabins and other sites of occupancy
on conservation system units, and Section 1316--Allowed uses)
Sections 14 (1)-(4) amend ANILCA section 1303
The Administration strongly opposes these amendments to
ANILCA Sec. 1303, based on the considerations of fairness that
support Section 1303's existing provisions.
With respect to sections 14(1) and 14(2), in accordance
with ANILCA Sec. 1303, the builders of trespass cabins on
public land before 1973 have been given five-year renewable
permits to allow the continued use of these structures on
public land. The deal struck in ANILCA was to allow the
continued use of these cabins as part of the ``Alaska
lifestyle,'' but to terminate private, exclusive use when the
original family stopped using the cabin. Permits were non-
transferable for this very reason. ANILCA's fair compromise
contemplated the eventual conversion of appropriate trespass
cabins to public use. Accordingly, ANILCA provided that when
the cabins were vacated, ownership would remain with the
government. Consistent with existing law, all applicants agreed
to vacate the structure when the permit expired. This agreement
was required by Section 1303 and occurred when the application
for the permit was made. The application process concluded long
ago.
The proposed amendments could create expectations in permit
holders that they have a compensable and perpetual interest in
the trespass cabins. In addition, the proposed amendments could
delay conversion to public use facilities of those cabins
already abandoned by the original applicants, and could hinder
the land-managing agencies' ability to remove dilapidated
structures in the interest of public safety.
The portion of Section 14(4) that would authorize
alterations to cabins is unnecessary and potentially contrary
to the public interest. We support the continuation of the
``bush'' lifestyle, including minor alterations to trespass
cabins, but the eventual public conversion or removal of these
structures from public lands was an essential part of the deal
struck in ANILCA. This amendment could allow the ``bush cabin''
to be converted into a commercial lodge or other uses that have
no traditional or appropriate relationship to the conservation
unit. Evaluating whether an alteration to a cabin constitutes a
``significant impairment'' to the park's purpose would likely
be a costly and time-consuming effort.
Sections 14(5) and (6) amend ANILCA section 1316--Allowed
uses
The Administration strongly opposes these amendments. This
proposal would add the phrase ``including motorized and
mechanical equipment'' to describe the equipment allowed as
directly and necessarily related to the taking of fish and
wildlife. The proposed change is not needed; moreover, the
language could be misinterpreted to suggest that motorized and
mechanized equipment shall routinely be allowed in all
conservation system units. The existing language of ANILCA
Sec. 1316 already allows motorized and mechanized equipment in
some management categories of conservation system units. Use of
certain motorized and mechanical equipment, however, is
constrained with respect to national wilderness areas by the
Wilderness Act. The Department believes that it was Congress'
intent to limit the use of motorized and mechanical equipment
in designated wilderness areas, except to the extent that
ANILCA established special exemptions for Alaska. For example,
these carefully considered exemptions include an express
authorization for use of airplanes, snowmobiles, and motorboats
as set forth in ANICLA Sec. 1110(a). Indeed, this proposal
could be construed by some to authorize the use of motorized
vehicles other than airplanes, snowmobiles and motorboats, such
as all terrain vehicles, which have far greater potential for
permanent resource damage in Arctic and Subarctic regions. For
all these reasons, this proposal would upset ANILCA's wise
balance, to the significant detriment of wilderness values in
Alaska.
Currently the bureaus authorize the use of temporary
facilities through the commercial and recreation permitting
process. Use permits issued to guides and outfitters for
hunting or fishing camps, generally require the permittee to
dismantle the temporary facility at the end of the field
season, and either cache the materials (often on site) for use
next year, or remove the materials. The reasons for this
requirement include: (a) so bears or other animals do not
destroy the structures during the winter months; (b) to secure
the materials from vandals or theft; and (c) to prevent
permanent camps from being created at the discretion of the
permittee. In our experience, the permittees often remove their
materials from the site to secure them. In bush Alaska, where
milled lumber and other camping material are at a low premium
and expensive, many permittees choose to remove the material
from the site so they have them in the spring. The authorized
officer often permits structures to remain if there are no
other problems, but the discretion should remain with the land
manager, not with the permittee. The amendment could be
interpreted to limit that discretion.
Section 15. Report
(Amends ANILCA section 1308--Local hire)
The Department has no objection to the preparation of this
report concerning local hire, except that 18 months would be a
more reasonable time to prepare such an in-depth report. For
clarity of purpose, we suggest renaming the title of this
section to read ``LOCAL HIRE REPORT''.
------
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, July 24, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In testimony delivered at a hearing
before the House Resources Committee on June 11, 1996, on H.R.
2505, the Department of the Interior testified that the
Secretaries of both Agriculture and Interior would recommend a
Presidential veto of any legislation containing a ``Landless
Natives'' proposal such as that formerly contained in S. 2539
in the 103rd Congress. We reiterate this position with respect
to any so-called ``landless'' Natives legislation which would
either recognize additional Native corporations in Alaska or
provide a premise for the conveyance of additional Federal
lands or money in furtherance of such new corporations under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
We are concerned that such a proposal might be appended to
the so-called ``Presidio'' legislation, containing numerous
land use measures, or to other legislation, now being
considered by the Congress.
There is no equitable or legal justification for
Congressional recognition of ``landless'' Natives in southeast
Alaska or elsewhere as new corporations under ANCSA. We
conclude this because:
There is no inequity in ANCSA to redress. Each of the five
communities of Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell, Tenakee Springs
and Haines was considered for village status during the
formulation of ANCSA and none met the general statutory
criteria for eligibility.
Natives in the five ``landless'' communities are enrolled
as ``at-large'' shareholders in Sealaska Corporation, have
received fair and substantial equitable benefits of the
original ANCSA settlement, and the dividends received by these
at-large shareholders substantially exceed those paid by the
regional corporations to village shareholders.
There are no ``landless'' Natives in southeast Alaska since
all Natives have a beneficial interest in lands owned by
Sealaska, including surface and subsurface estates.
Recognition of the five ``landless'' communities in
southeast Alaska would itself effect an inequity among other
``landless'' communities elsewhere in Alaska.
Recognition of the five ``landless'' communities could
reopen the entire settlement scheme of ANCSA and result in a
never-ending, extremely costly, and unattainable effort to
effect total equality of treatment among all Natives in all
communities.
These conclusions are not ameliorated by legislative
proposals which would merely recognize the creation of the five
corporations without addressing their ultimate entitlement to
land. One proposal would amend section 14(h) of ANCSA by merely
allowing Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell to organize
as urban corporations and allowing Tenakee to organize as a
group corporation. Creation of such shell corporations with no
assets merely sets the stage for their potential insolvency and
later demands that the Federal Government provide them with a
land base and other assets.
In 1993, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study of the entitlements of Natives in southeast
Alaska with particular respect to Native populations in the
communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Wrangell and
Tenakee. The study subsequently prepared by the Institute of
Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska was
inconclusive on the issue of equitable treatment. While the
named five communities may not have received land, their
treatment was like that of many other communities elsewhere in
Alaska. Further, the study did not consider adequately the
actual distribution of regional stock dividends to ``landless''
Natives.
ANCSA effected a final settlement of the aboriginal claims
of Native Americans in Alaska through payment of over $900
million and conveyances of 40 million acres of Federal land.
Although it was impossible for Congress to have effected total
parity among all villages in the state, there was a distinction
made in ANCSA between the villages in the southeast and those
located elsewhere. All recognized southeast villages had the
opportunity to select timbered land, the value of which far
exceeded the foreseeable values in the surface estate available
to villages in the other eleven regions of Alaska. In addition,
Natives in the southeast had received payments from the United
States for the taking of their aboriginal lands. For these
reasons, ANCSA specifically named the ten villages that were to
be recognized in the southeast as opposed to subjecting the
villages to a determination by the Secretary of the Interior of
their eligibility prior to the receipt of any lands.
The proposed five ``landless'' communities meet none of the
criteria for corporate recognition, that is, having a majority
Native population, and not being modern or urban in character.
None of the five has a Native majority and four out of the five
are modern and urban in character. Tenakee has no actual Native
residents and the enrollees only represent seven percent of the
population of the community. Three of the communities appealed
their status through the administrative processes prescribed by
the Secretary of the Interior and were denied. Recognition of
any of these five communities would substantially lower the
standards set out in ANCSA for village recognition with
implications elsewhere.
There are many ``landless' villages in Alaska which do not
meet the Act's criteria for eligibility to select land. In
section 11(b)(1) of ANCSA, Congress listed more than two
hundred villages which were presumed to be eligible villages
unless the Secretary of the Interior determined otherwise under
criteria set out in section 11(b)(2). Under section 11(b)(3),
communities not named in section 11(b)(1) were provided with
the opportunity to petition for an eligibility determination,
but were presumed ineligible unless the Secretary found them
eligible. Twenty-three named villages were found ineligible,
and a number of unnamed villages could not prove their
eligibility.
Once recognition of heretofore ineligible communities in
the southeast is commenced, pressure will mount for similar
treatment by other communities. For example, Anchorage and
Fairbanks have larger Native enrollments than any of the
communities now seeking recognition. There is no land available
in either of those communities for granting a new corporation a
land base.
An ANCSA is currently structured, recognition of the five
communities as villages, urban or group corporations could also
have a substantial impact on section 14(h)(8) entitlements of
all twelve regional corporations. The land conveyed to urban
and group corporations must be subtracted from the amount of
land divided among the twelve regional corporations under
section 14(h)(8). Consequently, the amount of land held by the
regional corporations as a land-base for economic development
and benefit to all the stockholders of the regional corporation
will be reduced. Two of the regional corporations, Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. (CIRI) and Chugach Alaska Corporation, have
settled with the Department in agreements ratified by the
Congress for their section 14(h)(8) entitlements by receiving
specified quantities of land in particular places. Therefore,
the burden of the reduction will be borne by the remaining ten
regions.
Additionally, we have also seen proposals which would
recognize these communities as villages. If this approach is
taken, the amount of land available for distribution under
section 12(c) would be substantially reduced.
Some ``landless'' legislative proposals would exempt
existing entitlements of regional corporations under section
14(h)(8). The result of such an exemption would be to
substantially raise the cost of the overall ANCSA settlement
beyond the original settlement package of 40 million acres. We
oppose more public land being used to increase the size of the
original settlement.
It is unclear how various recognition proposals would be
affected by State selections. When ANCSA was originally passed,
the State of Alaska and Congress knew that many villages would
be without a land base unless lands selected by the State were
made available for selection by the new village corporations.
If landless Natives are provided land on a statewide bases,
this cooperation will again become necessary. However, because
the period of State selection is over, the State of Alaska may
be unable or unwilling to cooperate with a new round of
selections by newly created Native corporations.
Notwithstanding the ineligibility of some communities for
corporate status under ANCSA, all Natives receive benefits from
the ANCSA settlement. Natives enrolled in eligible village
communities received one hundred shares of regional corporation
stock, and one hundred shares in the village corporation
organized for their community. Natives not enrolled in a
village or a group are ``at-large'' stockholders in the
regional corporation.
The regional corporations were instructed on how to divide
any dividends they would declare. Natives who are members of
villages are sent regional dividends for fifty percent of the
per capita share of dividends to be divided. The other half of
the dividend is sent to the village corporation. The village
corporation subtracts part of the per capita dividend to be
used for running the village corporation, and then declares a
dividend on the remainder of the money received from the
region.
Individual Natives who are enrolled in communities that
were not eligible to the village corporations receive one
hundred percent of the per capita dividend declared by the
regional corporation. As a result, ``landless'' Natives receive
much larger dividends than Natives enrolled in villages. No
realistic assessment of true equity among affected Natives can
be made without consideration of the distribution of regional
dividends, a subject not adequately considered in the Landless
Native Study. The extra benefits received over the last twenty-
five years by at-large stockholders compared to those received
by village stockholders is a factor heretofore not considered
in this debate.
Were additional corporations recognized by Congress, equity
with other regional shareholders should require the potential
members of those corporations to turn back their ``at-large''
stock in exchange for stock in the new corporations. Since this
would have a substantial impact on the family economy of at-
large stockholders, we believe that these people should be
given time to consider these impacts before Congress considers
any action to recognize new corporations and before these
Natives are forced into a new corporate alliance.
Some current proposals which would allow the members of
newly created corporations to continue to receive distributions
as ``at-large'' shareholders create inequities among
shareholders. Members of the new communities would get all the
benefits of ``at-large'' membership, including receiving one
hundred percent of per capita dividends, in addition to the
potential benefits afforded as stockholders in land based
Native corporations, thus creating new inequities.
No additional corporate recognitions should occur because
of the substantial unknown land and fiscal liabilities which
would be created by this new round of corporate recognitions.
Every regional corporation has ``at-large'' stockholders who
are ``landless'' Natives, and even if Congress recognizes the
five communities in the southeast, Sealaska Corporation will
continue to have ``landless'' at-large stockholders. Therefore,
recognition of these five communities will become a precedent
for other unrecognized communities in all twelve regions all
demanding recognition along with more land and financial
resources.
The recognition of additional Native corporations under the
landless Natives rationale will also have substantial and
unacceptable fiscal impacts on the Federal budget. Unlike
village corporations, urban and group corporations are
subjected to additional financial stresses because those
corporations do not receive a share of regional dividends. All
stockholders of urban and group corporations retain their
status as at-large regional stockholders. It has been up to the
Congress to infuse these financially strapped corporations with
``start up'' money, but these infusions have been insufficient
to prevent the corporations from entering into hasty financial
arrangements.
A subject unrelated to ANCSA concerns legislative proposals
which would not only recognize Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
and Wrangell as urban corporations, and Tenakee as a group
corporation, but would also give these communities and Sealaska
the power to make recommendations for the Tongass Land
Management Plan. Under the National Forest Management Act,
affected state and local governments, Indian tribes and native
corporations, and the public are consulted in the preparation
of land and resource management plans for the National Forests.
All have a voice and an opinion which the Forest Service must
consider, but none have deference over others. In southeast
Alaska, the five communities and Sealaska already have a voice
in the land management planning process. The Secretary of
Agriculture advises that any legislation proposing to give
outside parties power independently to impose recommendations
on the Tongass Land Management Plan will subvert the land
management planning process, delay adoption of the plan, and
further unsettle the economy and stability of southeast Alaska.
In summary, efforts to reopen ANCSA settlements under the
guise of equity will be costly to the American public and
unsettling to public and private land allocations in Alaska.
The proposed recognition of landless Native corporations will
upset the entire settlement regime of ANCSA which has been so
carefully and laboriously implemented over the last two
decades. Recognition would not redress inequities but result in
new ones among Native shareholders and among groups, villages
and communities throughout Alaska.
The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture will
recommend that the President not approve any legislation
recognizing so-called landless Native corporations, or which
grant Native corporations authority to impose recommendations
on the Tongass Land Management Plan.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that the
presentation of this report is in accord with the
Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Sylvia V. Baca,
Acting Assistant Secretary,
Department of the
Interior.
James Lyon,
Under Secretary, Department
of Agriculture.
MINORITY VIEWS
I voted against reporting S. 967 because it contains
several provisions which are very controversial and, in my
view, not in the public interest. At the same time, there are
other parts of the bill that are not objectionable and should
be enacted. Many of the bill's provisions making changes to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act fall into this category. In
fact, during the Committee business meeting, I proposed that
these relatively non-controversial provisions be considered
separately and reported unanimously. Unfortunately, my proposal
was not agreed to and all these proposals remain linked
together.
I am particularly concerned about the following provisions.
landless natives
This provision would establish 5 new Native Corporations in
Southeast Alaska. The Native residents of Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg and Wrangell would be allowed to organize as Urban
Corporations while the village of Tenakee would be authorized
to organize as a Group corporation.
The bill is silent concerning what lands or other
compensation these village corporations would receive as a
result of their designation as Native corporations under ANSCA.
Instead, the bill sets up a process whereby, not later than
December 31, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior is to make
recommendations concerning what compensation he thinks is
appropriate. The bill also states that there is no entitlement
to any federal lands for these new corporations without further
congressional action. However, once these new corporations are
recognized under ANSCA, there is no question that they will
expect to be compensated in some fashion at some point in the
future.
The Administration and others strongly oppose this
provision. The Interior Department opposes it because of fears
that it will re-open the entire settlement scheme of ANSCA and
will be a precedent for other villages in southeast Alaska or
elsewhere to seek legislative recognition of new corporations
and the subsequent expectations of land or other compensation.
The Department also does not believe that there is any
inequity in ANSCA to redress. These villages were not included
in ANSCA in 1971 because they did not meet the requirements of
the Act, namely that the village not be of a modern and urban
character and that a majority of the residents be Natives.
Others oppose the provision because of fears that the Natives
will ultimately receive lands in the Tongass National Forest
and will harvest the timber to raise revenue for the corporate
shareholders. This is certainly what many other Native
corporations in southeast Alaska have done with the lands they
received under ANSCA.
The fact that the bill does not immediately convey lands
really begs the question. Once the corporations are recognized
under ANSCA they are entitled to compensation. It will be up to
another Congress to decide what that compensation will be, but
the enactment of this provision will all but guarantee that
compensation will be forthcoming.
amendments to anilca
In addition to the ANSCA amendments, S. 967 includes
several proposed changes to the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA). Passed in 1980, ANILCA set aside
over 100 million acres of parks wilderness areas, wildlife
refuges and other protected lands in Alaska. Because of the
sweeping scope of the bill and the grand scale of Alaska, the
bill also included numerous special management provisions
concerning access, the use of motorized equipment such as
airplanes and snowmobiles, the use of cabins and other allowed
uses.
The proponents of this legislation argue that the law is
not being interpreted correctly by the current Administration
and that some ``technical'' amendments are necessary. Several
of the amendments, such as the one requiring federal land
management personnel to undergo special training before working
in Alaska, are not necessary but, neither are they highly
objectionable. Other amendments, however, are not ``technical''
and would make many significant changes in the existing law.
For example, the language in section 13(1) would establish
economics as the sole determinative factor to be applied when
ascertaining whether there is an ``economically feasible and
prudent alternative route'' to a transportation or utility
system across a conservation system unit. This amendment would
require that a highway or pipeline, for example, go through a
conservation system unit if the alternative route outside the
unit were to any degree less economically feasible.
This amendment would essentially reverse ANILCA's current
preference for routing transportation and utility systems
outside conservation units if possible, and if not, for
selecting an alternative route and method which would result
fewer or less severe impacts.
Another proposed change would create a new exception to
wilderness management in Alaska (and perhaps prospectively to
other states as well) by authorizing the Secretary of
Agriculture to generally permit helicopter use and landings in
national forest wilderness areas and national forest monuments
designated in ANILCA and any subsequent Act. The Secretary is
required to allow such use and landings in ``emergency''
situations.
Giving the Secretary of Agriculture the discretion to
permit the use of helicopters in wilderness areas in some
situations, and requiring him to do so in others, is a major
policy issue * * * not a technical amendment to ANILCA.
Still another provision of S. 967 would significantly
expand the provisions in ANILCA relating to trespass cabins
located in units of the national park system in Alaska. The
bill would allow significant expansion of these cabins beyond
what was contemplated in the 1980 Act. It would also create the
expectation that the permit holders who occupy these cabins
have a compensable and perpetual interest in these trespass
cabins which is not the case.
Taken together, these and other provisions of S. 967 would
make significant substantive changes to the Alaska Lands Act
that would significantly weaken the protections for the federal
lands originally agreed to by Congress when the bill was
enacted.
Dale Bumpers.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill S. 967, as ordered, 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):
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
Public Law 92-203
(43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
Sec. 7. Regional Corporations
* * * * * * *
(i)(l) [Seventy per centum] (A) Except as provided by
subparagraph (B), seventy percent of all revenues received by
each Regional Corporation from the timber resources and
subsurface estate patented to it pursuant to this chapter shall
be divided annually by the Regional Corporation among all
twelve Regional Corporations organized pursuant to this section
according to the number of Natives enrolled in each region
pursuant to section 5. The provisions of this subsection shall
not apply to the thirteenth Regional Corporation it organized
pursuant to subsection (c) hereof.
(B) In the case of sale, disposition, or other use of
common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, peat, clay, or
cinder resources made after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph, the revenues received by a Regional Corporation
shall not be subject to division under subparagraph (A).
Nothing in this subparagraph is entended to or shall be
construed to alter the ownership of such sand, gravel, stone,
pumice, peat, clay, or cinder resources.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``revenues''
does not include any benefit received or realized for the use
of losses incurred or credits earned by a Regional Corporation.
(j) During the five years following December 18, 1971, not
less than 10% of all corporate funds received by each of the
twelve Regional Corporations under section 6 (Alaska Native
Fund), and under subsection (i) (revenues from the timber
resources and subsurface estate patented to it pursuant to this
chapter), and all other net income, shall be distributed among
the stockholders of the twelve Regional Corporations. Not less
than 45% of funds from such sources during the first five-year
period, and 50% thereafter, shall be distributed among the
Village Corporations in the region and the class of
stockholders who are not residents of those villages, as
provided in subsection to it. In the case of the thirteenth
Regional Corporation, if organized, not less than 50% of all
corporate funds received under section 6 shall be distributed
to the stockholders. Native members of the communities of
Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell who become
shareholders in an Urban or Group Corporation for such a
community shall continue to be eligible to receive
distributions under this subsection as at-large shareholders of
Sealaska Corporation.
* * * * * * *
(r) No provision of Section 8 of the 1997 Act amending the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act to benefit Alaska natives and
rural residents, and for other purposes, shall affect the ratio
for determination of distribution of revenues among Native
Corporations under this section of the Act and the 1982 Section
7(i) Settlement Agreement among the Regional Corporations or
among Village Corporations under section 7(j) of the Act.
Sec. 8. Village Corporations
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of subsections (g), (h) (other than
paragraph (4)), and (o) of section 5 shall apply in all
respects to Village Corporations, Urban Corporations, and Group
Corporations.
(d) Enrollment in the Additional Corporations in Southeast
Alaska.--
(1) The Secretary shall enroll to each of the Urban
Corporations for Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, or
Wrangell those individual Natives who enrolled under
this Act to Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, or Wrangell,
and shall enroll to the Group Corporation for Tenakee
those individual Natives who enrolled under this Act to
Tenakee: Provided, That nothing in this subsection
shall affect existing entitlement to land of any
Regional Corporation pursuant to section 12(b) or
section 14(h)(8) of this Act.
(2) Those Natives who, pursuant to paragraph (1), are
enrolled to an Urban Corporation for Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, or Wrangell, or to a Group Corporation for
Tenakee, and who were enrolled as shareholders of the
Regional Corporation for southeast Alaska on or before
March 30, 1973, shall receive 100 shares of Settlement
Common Stock in such Urban or Group Corporation.
(3) A Native who has received shares of stock in the
Regional Corporation for southeast Alaska through
inheritance from a decedent Native who originally
enrolled to Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, or
Wrangell, which decedent Native was not a shareholder
in a Village, Group or Urban Corporation, shall receive
the identical number of shares of Settlement Common
Stock in the Urban Corporation for Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, or Wrangell, or in the Group Corporation
for Tenakee, as the number of shares inherited by that
Native from the decedent Native who would have been
eligible to be enrolled to such Urban or Group
Corporation
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12. Native land selections
* * * * * * *
(c) The difference between thirty-eight million acres and
the 22 million acres selected by Village Corporations pursuant
to subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be allocated
among the eleven Regional Corporations (which excludes the
Regional Corporation for southeastern Alaska) as follows:
* * * * * * *
(4) Where the public lands consist only of the
mineral estate, or portion thereof, which is reserved
by the United States upon patent of the balance of the
estate under one of the public land laws, other than
this chapter, the Regional Corporations may select as
follows:
* * * * * * *
(C) Where such public lands are surrounded by
or contiguous to subsurface lands obtained by a
Regional Corporation under subsections (a) or
(b), the Corporation may, upon request, have
such public land conveyed to it.
(D)(i) A Regional Corporation which elects to
obtain public lands under subparagraph (C)
shall be limited to a total of not more than
12,000 acres. Selection by a Regional
Corporation of in lieu surface acres under
subparagraph (E) pursuant to an election under
subparagraph (C) shall not be made from any
lands within a conservation system unit (as
that term is defined by section 102(4) of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 3102(4)).
(ii) An election to obtain the public lands
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)
shall include all available parcels within the
township in which the public lands are located.
(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph and
subparagraph (C), the term `Regional
Corporation' shall refer only to Doyon,
Limited.
[(C)] (E) Where the Regional Corporation
elects to obtain such public lands under
subparagraph [(A) or (B)] (A), (B), or (C) of
this paragraph, it may select, within ninety
days of receipt of notice from the Secretary,
the surface estate in an equal acreage from
other public lands withdrawn by the Secretary
for that purpose. Such selections shall be in
units no small than a whole section, except
where the remaining entitlement is less than
six hundred and forty acres, or where an entire
section is not available. Where possible,
selections shall be of lands from which the
subsurface estate was selected by that Regional
Corporation pursuant to subsection (a)(1) of
this section 14(h)(9) of this title, and, where
possible, all selections made under this
section shall be contiguous to lands already
selected by the Regional Corporation or a
Village Corporation. The Secretary is
authorized, as necessary, to withdraw up to two
times the acreage entitlement of the in lieu
surface estate from vacant, unappropriated, and
unreserved public lands from which the Regional
Corporation may select such in lieu surface
estate except that the Secretary may withdraw
public lands which had been previously
withdrawn pursuant to subsection 17(d)(1).
[(D)] (F) No mineral estate or in lieu
surface estate shall be available for
selectionwithin the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska or within
Wildlife Refuges as the boundaries of those refuges exist on December
18, 1971.
Sec. 16. Withdrawal and selection of public lands; funds in lieu of
acreage
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) The Native residents of each of the Native villages
of Haines, Kechikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell, Alaska, may
organize as an Urban Corporation.
(2) The Native residents of the Native Village of Tenakee,
Alaska, may organize as a Group Corporation.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any existing
entitlement to land of any Native Corporation pursuant to this
Act or any other provision of law.
Sec. 22. Miscellaneous Provisions
* * * * * * *
(c)(3) this section shall apply to lands conveyed by
interim conveyance or patent to a [regional corporation]
Regional Corporation pursuant to this chapter which are made
subject to a mining claim or claims located under the general
mining laws, including lands conveyed prior to November 2,
1995. Effective November 2, 1995, the Secretary, acting through
the Bureau of Land Management and in a manner consistent with
section 14(g), shall transfer to the [regional corporation]
Regional Corporation administration of all mining claims
determined to be entirely within lands conveyed to that
corporation. Any person holding such mining claim or claims
shall meet such requirements of the general mining laws and
section 1744 of this title, except that any filings that would
have been made with the Bureau of Land Management if the lands
were within Federal ownership shall be timely made with the
appropriate [regional corporation] Regional Corporation. The
validity of any such mining claim or claims may be contested by
the [regional corporation] Regional Corporation, in place of
the United States. All contest proceedings and appeals by the
mining claimants of adverse decisions made by the [regional
corporation] Regional Corporation shall be brought in Federal
District Court for the District of Alaska. Neither the United
States nor any Federal agency or official shall be named or
joined as a party in such proceedings or appeals. All revenues
from such mining claims received after November 2, 1995 shall
be remitted to the [regional corporation] Regional Corporation
subject to distribution pursuant to section 7(i) of this Act,
except that in the event that the mining claim or claims are
not totally within the lands conveyed to the [regional
corporation] Regional Corporation. the [regional corporation]
Regional Corporation shall be entitled only to that proportion
of revenues, other than administrative fees, reasonably
allocated to the portion of the mining claim so conveyed. The
provisions of this section shall apply to Haida Corporation and
the Haida Traditional Use Sites, which shall be treated as a
Regional Corporation for the purposes of this paragraph, except
that any revenues remitted to Haida Corporation under this
section shall not be subject to distribution pursuant to
section 7(i) of this Act.
Sec. 29. Relation to other programs
* * * * * * *
(c) In determining the eleigiblity of a household, and
indivual Native, or a descendant of a Native (as defined in
section 3(r) of this title) to--
(1) participate in the Food Stamp Program,
(2) receive aid, assistance or benefits, based on
need, under the Social Security Act, or
(3) receive financial assistance or benefits, based
on need, under any other Federal program or federally-
assisted program,
none of the following received from a Native Corporation, shall
be considered or taken into account as an asset or resource:
(A) cash (including cash dividends on stock received
from a Native Corporation and on bonds received from a
Native Corpoartion) to the extent that it does not, in
the aggregate, exceed $2,000 per individual per annum;
(B) stock (including stock issued or distributed by a
Native Corporation as a dividend or distribution on
stock) or bonds issued by a Native Corporation which
Bonds shall be subject to the protection of section
7(h) until voluntarily and expressly sold or pledged by
the shareholder subsequent to the date of distribution;
(C) a partnership interest;
(D) land or an interest in land (including land or an
interest in land received from a Native Corporation as
a dividend or distribution on stock); and
(E) an interest in a settlement trust.
ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT
Public Law 96-487
Sec. 101. Congressional statement of purpose
* * * * * * *
(e) In order to comply with this Act all federal public
land managers in Alaska, or a region that includes Alaska,
shall participate in an ANILCA and ANCSA training class to be
completed within 120 days after enactment. All future appointed
federal public land managers in Alaska, or a region containing
Alaska, are required to complete the aforementioned training
within 60 days of appointment.
Sec. 202. Additions to existing areas
The following units of the National Park System are hereby
expanded:
(1) Glacier Bay National Monument, by addition of an
area containing approximately five hundred and twenty-
three thousand acres of Federal land. Approximately
fifty-seven thousand acres of additional public land is
hereby established as Glacier Bay National Preserve,
both as generally depicted on map numbered GLBA-90,004,
and dated October 1978; furthermore, the monument is
hereby redesignated as ``Glacier Bay National Park''.
The monument addition and preserve shall be managed for
the following purposes, among others; To protect a
segment of the Alsek River, fish and wildlife habitats
and migration routes, and a portion of the Fairweather
Range including the northwest slope of Mount
Fairweather. Lands, waters, and interests therein
within the boundary of the park and preserve which were
within the boundary of any national forest are hereby
excluded from such national forest and the boundary of
such national forest is hereby revised accordingly.
Subsistence uses of fish by local residents shall be
permitted in the park where such uses are traditional
in accordance with the provisions of Title VIII.
Sec. 905. Alaska Native allotments
* * * * * * *
(a)(7) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and section (d)
shall apply, and paragraph (5) of this subsection shall cease
to apply, to an application--
(A) that is open and pending on the date of enactment
of subsection (a)(7),
(B) if the lands described in the application are in
Federal ownership other than as a result of
reacquisition by the United States after January 3,
1959, and
(C) if any protest which was filed by the State of
Alaska pursuant to subsection (5)(b) with respect to
the application is withdrawn or dismissed whether
before or after the date of enactment of subsection
(a)(7).
(D) any allotment application which is open and
pending and which is legislatively approved by
enactment of subsection (a)(7) shall, when allotted, be
subject to any easement, trail or right-of-way in
existence on the date of the Native allotment
applicant's actual commencement of use and occupancy.
The jurisdiction of the Department is hereby extended
to make the factual determination required by this
subsection.
Sec. 907. Alaska Land Bank
* * * * * * *
(d)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
doctrine of equity, all land and interests in land in Alaska
conveyed by the Federal Government pursuant to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act to a Native individual or Native
Corporation or subsequently reconveyed by a Native Corporation
pursuant to section 39 of that Act to a Settlement Trust or
conveyed to a Native Corporation pursuant to an exchange
authorized by section 22(f) of Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act or section 1302(h) of this Act or other applicable law
shall be exempt, so long as such land and interest are not
developed or leased or sold to third parties from--
* * * * * * *
(B) Except as otherwise provide specifically provided, the
exemptions described in subparagraph (A) shall apply to any
claim or judgment existing on or arising after February 3,
1988.
(2) Definitions.--
* * * * * * *
(B) For purposes of this subsection--
(i) land shall not be considered developed solely as
a result of--
(I) the construction, installation, or
placement upon such land of any structure,
fixture, device, or other improvement intended
to enable, assist, or otherwise further
subsistence uses or other customary or
traditional uses of such land, or
(II) the receipt of fees related to hunting,
fishing, and guiding activities conducted on
such land;
(ii) land upon which timber resources are being
harvested shall be considered developed only during the
period of such harvest and only to the extent that such
land is integrally related to the timber harvesting
operation; [and]
(iii) land subdivided by a State or local platting
authority on the basis of a subdivision plat submitted
by the holder of the land or its agent, shall be
considered developed on the date an approved
subdivision plat is recorded by such holder or agent
unless the subdivided property is a remainder
parcel[.]; and
(iv) lands or interest in lands shall not be considered
developed or leased or sold to a third party as a
result of an exchange or conveyance of such land or
interest in land between or among Native Corporations
and trusts partnerships, corporations, or joint
ventures, whose beneficiaries, partners, shareholders,
or joint venturers are Native Corporations.
* * * * * * *
(3)(B) The prohibitions of subparagraph (A) shall not
apply--
(i) when the actions of such trustee, receiver, or
custodian are the purposes of exploration or pursuant
to a judgment in law or in equity (or arbitration
award) arising out of any claim made pursuant to
section 7(i) or section 14(c) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act; [or]
(ii) to any land, or interest in land, which has
been--
(I) developed or leased prior to the vesting
of the trustee, receiver, or custodian with the
right, title, or interest of the Native
Corporation; or
(II) expressly pledged as security for any
loan or expressly committed to any commercial
transaction in a valid agreement[.]; or
(iii) to actions by any trustee whose right, title,
or interest in land or interests in land arises
pursuant to an agreement between or among Native
Corporations and trusts, partnerships, or joint
ventures whose beneficiaries, partners, shareholders,
or joint venturers are Native Corporations.
Sec. 1105. Standards for granting certain authorizations
(a) In any case in which there is no applicable law with
respect to a transportation or utility system, the head of the
Federal agency concerned shall, within four months after the
date of filing of any final Environmental Impact Statement,
make recommendations, for purposes of section 1106(b) of this
title, to grant such authorizations as may be necessary to
establish such system, in whole or in part, within the
conservation system unit concerned if he determines that--
(1) such system would be compatible with the purposes
for which the unit was established; and
(2) there is no economically feasible and prudent
alternative route for the system.
(b) Any alternative route that may be identified by the
head of the Federal agency shall not be less economically
feasible and prudent than the route for the system being sought
by the applicant.
Sec. 1110. Special access and access to inholdings
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or
other law, the Secretary shall permit, on conservation system
units, national recreation areas, and national conservation
areas, and those public lands designated as wilderness study,
the use of snowmachines (during periods of adequate snow cover,
or frozen river conditions in the case of wild and scenic
rivers), motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface
transportation methods for traditional activities (where such
activities are permitted by this Act or other law) and for
travel to and from villages and homesites. Such use shall be
subject to reasonable regulations by the Secretary to protect
the natural and other values of the conservation system units,
national recreation areas, and national conservation areas, and
shall not be prohibited unless, after notice and hearing in the
vicinity of the affected unit or area the Secretary finds that
such use would be detrimental to the resource values of the
unit or [area] area: Provided, That reasonable regulations
shall not include any requirements for the demonstration of
pre-existing use and Provided further, that the Secretary shall
limit any prohibitions to be smallest area practicable, to the
smallest period of time or both. No prohibition shall occur
prior to formal consultation with the State of Alaska. Nothing
in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the use of
other methods of transportation for such travel and activities
on conservation system lands where such use is permitted by
this Act or other law.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act or
other law, in any case in which State owned or privately owned
land, including subsurface rights of such owners underlying
public lands, or a valid mining claim or other valid occupancy
is within or is effectively surrounded by one or more
conservation system units, national recreation areas, national
conservation areas, or those public lands designated as
wilderness study, the State or private owner or occupier shall
be given by the Secretary such rights as may be necessary to
assure adequate and feasible access for economic and other
purposes to the concerned land by such State or private owner
or occupier successors in interest. Such rights may include
easements, right-of-way, or other interests in land or permits
and shall be subject to reasonable regulations issued by the
Secretary to protect the natural and other values of such
[lands] lands: Provided, That the Secretary shall not impose
any unreasonable fees or charges on those seeking to secure
their rights under this subsection. Individuals or entities
possessing rights under this subsection shall not be subject to
the requirement of sections 1104, 1105, 1106 and 1107 herein.
Sec. 1303. Use of cabins and other sites of occupancy on conservation
system units
(a)(1) On public lands within the boundaries of any unit of
the National Park System created or enlarged by this Act,
cabins or other structures existing prior to December 18, 1973,
may be occupied and used by the claimant to these structures
pursuant to a renewable, nontransferable permit. Such use and
occupancy shall be for terms of five years each Provided, That
the claimant of the structure by application:
* * * * * * *
(D) Acknowledges in the permit that the applicant has
no interest in the real property on which the cabin or
structure is [located] located, Provided, That the
applicant may not be required to waive, forfeit, or
relinquish, its possessory or personalty interests in a
cabin or structure.
(2) On public lands within the boundaries of any unit of
the National Park System created or enlarged by this Act,
cabins or other structures, the occupancy or use of which
commenced between December 18, 1973, and December 1, 1978, may
be used and occupied by the claimant of such structure pursuant
to a nontransferable, nonrenewable permit. Such use and
occupancy shall be for a maximum term of one year Provided,
however, That the claimant, by application:
* * * * * * *
(D) Acknowledges in the permit that the applicant has
no legal interest in the real property on which the
cabin or structure is [located] located, Provided That
the applicant may not be required to waive, forfeit, or
relinquish its possessory or personalty interests in a
cabin or structure.
* * * * * * *
(b) The following conditions shall apply regarding the
construction, use and occupancy of cabins and related
structures on Federal lands within conservation system units or
areas not provided for in subsection (a) of this section:
* * * * * * *
(3) No special use permit shall be issued under
paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection unless the
permit applicant:
* * * * * * *
(D) Acknowledges in the permit application
that the applicant has no interest in a real
property on which the cabin or structure is
[located] located, Provided, That the applicant
may not be required to waive, forfeit, or
relinquish its possessory or personalty
interests in a cabin structure, or will be
constructed.
* * * * * * *
(e) All permits, permit renewals, or renewal or
continuation of valid leases issued pursuant to this section
shall provide for repair, maintenance, and replacement
activities and may authorize alterations to cabins and similar
structure that do not constitute a significant impairment of
unit purposes.
Sec. 1307. Revenue-producing visitor services
* * * * * * *
(b) Preference.--Notwithstanding provisions of law other
than those contained in subsection (a) of this section, in
selecting persons to provide (and in contracting for the
provisions of ) any type of visitor service for any
conservation system unit, except sport fishing and hunting
guiding activities, the Secretary--
(1) shall give preference to the [Native Corporation]
Native Corporations which the Secretary determines [is
most directly affected] are most directly affected by
the establishment or expansion of such unit by or under
the provisions of this Act;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1315. Wilderness management
* * * * * * *
(g) Within National Forest Wilderness Areas and National
Forest Monument areas as designated in this and subsequent
Acts, the Secretary of Agriculture may permit or otherwise
regulate helicopter use and landings, except that he shall
allow for helicopter use and landings in emergency situations
where human life or health are in danger.
Sec. 1316. Allowed uses
(a) On all public lands where the taking of fish and
wildlife is permitted in accordance with the provisions of this
Act or other applicable State and Federal law the Secretary
shall permit, subject to reasonable regulation to insure
compatibility, the continuance of existing uses, and the future
establishment, and use, of temporary campsites, tent platforms,
shelters, and other temporary facilities and [equipment]
equipment, including motorized and mechanical equipment,
directly and necessarily related to such activities. Such
facilities and equipment shall be constructed, used, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the protection of the
area in which they are located. All new facilities shall be
constructed of materials which blend with, and are compatible
with, the immediately surrounding landscape. Upon termination
of such activities and uses (but not upon regular or seasonal
cessation), such structures or facilities shall, upon written
request, be removed from the area by the [permittee.]
permittee: Provided structures and facilities may be allowed to
stand from season to season.
ALASKA LAND STATUS TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1992
Public Law 102-415
SEC. 20. GOLD CREEK SUSITNA ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED ACCOUNT
* * * * * * *
(g) Treatment of Amounts From Account.--(1) The Secretary
of the Treasury shall deem as cash receipts any amount tendered
from the account established pursuant to subsection (b) and
received by agencies as proceeds from a public sale of
property, and shall make any transfers necessary to allow an
agency to use the proceeds in the event an agency is authorized
by law to use the proceeds for a specific purpose.
(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of the
Treasury and the heads of agencies shall administer sales
pursuant to this section in the same manner as is provided for
any other Alaska Native corporation authorized by law as of the
date of enactment of this section (including the use of similar
accounts for bidding on and purchasing property sold for public
sale).
(B) Amounts in an account created for the benefit of a
specific Alaska Native corporation may not be used to satisfy
the property purchase obligations of any other Alaska Native
corporation.
(h) Establishment of the account under subsection (b) and
conveyance of land under subsection (c), if any, shall be
treated as though 3,520 acres of land had been conveyed to Gold
Creek under section 14(h)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act for which rights to in-lieu subsurface estate
are hereby provided to CIRI. Within 1 year from the date of
enactment of this subsection, CIRI shall select 3,520 acres of
land from the area designated for in-lieu selection by
paragraph I.B.(2)(b) of the document identified in section
12(b) of the Act of January 2, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1611 note).