S. HRG. 114–509 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

S. 346 S. 3203 

S. 437 S. 3204 

S. 1416 S. 3254 

S. 2056 S. 3273 

S. 2380 S. 3312 

S. 2681 S. 3315 

S. 2991 S. 3316 

S. 3049 S. 3317 

S. 3102 H.R. 1838 

S. 3167 H.R. 2009 

S. 3192 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

PENDING LEGISLATION 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–000 2018

S. HRG. 114–509 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

S. 346 S. 3203 

S. 437 S. 3204 

S. 1416 S. 3254 

S. 2056 S. 3273 

S. 2380 S. 3312 

S. 2681 S. 3315 

S. 2991 S. 3316 

S. 3049 S. 3317 

S. 3102 H.R. 1838 

S. 3167 H.R. 2009 

S. 3192 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska ................... 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 134 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia ................................. 137 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia ........................ 144 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico ................................... 145 

Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado ............................................. 149 

Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana .............................................. 222 

WITNESSES 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................................................. 135 

Reid, Hon. Harry, Senate Minority Leader and a U.S. Senator from Nevada ... 141 

Kornze, Hon. Neil, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 153 

Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture .......................................................................... 206 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

2nd Indianhead Division Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 381 

23rd Navajo Nation Council: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 220 

Access Fund: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 382 

Affeldt, Corlyss: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 385 

Alaska Chapter Sierra Club: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 386 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 388 

Alaska Federation of Natives: 

Resolution 15–7 for the Record ....................................................................... 59 

Alaska Forest Association: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 16 

Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 391 

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 4 

Alaska Miners Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 393 

Alaska Native Brotherhood & Alaska Native Sisterhood: 

Resolution No. 14–08 for the Record ............................................................... 63 

Alaska State Chamber of Commerce: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 396 

Alaska State Legislature (Juneau Delegation): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 66 

Alaska Wilderness League, et al.: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 2012 ......................................................... 398 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203 ......................................................... 406 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 ......................................................... 411 

Page

IV 

Alaskans for Wildlife, et al.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 416 

Aleut Corporation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 419 

Allen, Marian: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 ......................................................... 78 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203 ......................................................... 80 

Alta Forest Products: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 29 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 420 

American Exploration and Mining Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 422 

American Fly Fishing Trade Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 229 

American Motorcyclist Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 424 

American Rivers: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 425 

American Whitewater: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 428 

Andras Outfitters and Rachel Andras: Professional Health and Wellness 

Coach: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 431 

Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc.: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 432 

Archery Trade Association, et al.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 325 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 433 

Argall, Phillip: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 94 

Arizona Association of Conservation Districts: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 318 

Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 355 

Arizona Chamber Foundation and Prosper Foundation: 

Policy Brief entitled ‘‘The Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National 

Monument: A Monumental Mistake?’’ ........................................................ 442 

Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 314 

Arizona Department of Transportation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 351 

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 356 

Arizona Game and Fish Department: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 1416 .................................................. 301 

Letter for the Record regarding Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument ........................................................................................... 303 

Letter for the Record regarding H.R. 3882 ..................................................... 306 

Resolution concerning the Loss of Multiple-Use Public Lands due to Special Land-Use Designations .......................................................................... 307 

Arizona Mining Association: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 320 

Arizona State Land Department: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3316 .................................................. 298 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 437 .................................................... 309 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 1416 .................................................. 312 

Arizona State Parks: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 273 

Arizona/Utah Local Economic Coalition: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 357 

Ark Land Company: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 455 

Associated School Boards of South Dakota: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 776 

Page

V 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers—Nevada Chapter: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 690 

Barlow, Leo: 

Written Testimony on 10/8/15 ......................................................................... 757 

Barton, Mike: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 457 

Bass, Cynthia: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 106 

Bedford, Hon. Olivia Cajero: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 279 

Benbow, David: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 458 

Bloom, Arthur: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 459 

Bronson, Sharon: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 280 

Brown, Brian: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 31 

Brunner, Hon. Ryan: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 778 

Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 328 

Bullock, Hon. Steve: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 228 

Campbell, Ray: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 460 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 134 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 144 

Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska: 

Resolution TA/15–19 for the Record ............................................................... 61 

Champney, Kim: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 461 

Chugach Alaska Corporation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 111 

City and Borough of Wrangell (Alaska): 

Resolution No. 04–16–1341 for the Record ..................................................... 48 

City of Sturgis (South Dakota): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 777 

City of Tenakee Springs and the Chichagof Conservation Council: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 75 

City of Whitefish (Montana): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 230 

Clover Nevada LLC: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 462 

Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 464 

Coeur Mining: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 466 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 248 

Community Connections: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 468 

(The) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 469 

Conitz, Jan: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3203 .................................................. 470 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3273 .................................................. 471 

Cook Inlet Region, Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 107 

Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 472 

Curry County (Oregon) Business Coalition: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 475 

Resolution R1516–16 for the Record ............................................................... 479 

Page

VI 

Dahlstrom Lumber Company: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 30 

Daines, Hon. Steve: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 222 

Photo: View from Alex Diekmann Peak into Madison River Valley ............ 223 

Photo: Proposed Diekmann Peak .................................................................... 225 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 227 

Demerjian, Bonnie and Haig: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 481 

Diekmann, Lisa: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 482 

Doig, Clare: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 39 

Donn Leson Saddles: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 484 

Doyon, Limited: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 109 

Ducey, Hon. Douglas: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 339 

Dunn, Hon. Aubrey: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 485 

Earthworks: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 487 

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 330 

Elı ́as, Richard: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 281 

Elko Mining Group: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 489 

EP Minerals, LLC: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 491 

Farr, Hon. Sam: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 493 

Fecko, Cheryl: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 497 

Forest Recreation Management, Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 498 

Frank, Sr., Carlos: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 90 

Freymueller, Dr. Jeffrey: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 500 

Friends of the Kalmiopsis: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 502 

Gallatin County Commission (Montana): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 231 

Gardner, Hon. Cory: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 149 

Newspaper Article by Gary Harmon entitled ‘‘Tipton wants to extend 

life of radioactive waste disposal site’’ dated 9/16/16 ................................. 251 

Newspaper Article by Gary Harmon entitled ‘‘County backs keeping 

tailings dump site open’’ dated 9/19/16 ....................................................... 252 

Garvey, Lydia: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 508 

Geos Institute: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 510 

Gold Acquisition Corporation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 520 

Gould, Dean: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 127 

Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 40 

Greenpeace: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 522 

Griffin, Hon. Gail: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 333 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 145 

Page

VII 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin—Continued 

Photo: Ah-shi-siei-pah ...................................................................................... 146 

Photo: Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, Las Cruces, 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 148 

Heller, Hon. Dean: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 561 

Huff, Patrick: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 92 

IBC Advanced Technologies: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 564 

Inslee, Hon. Jay: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 566 

Iron Range Delegation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 664 

Irwin, Hon. Patrick: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 568 

Jackson, Richard: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 570 

Jamieson, Christie: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 74 

Jobs for Minnesotans: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 666 

Johnson, Hon. Buster: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 353 

Johnson, Randy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 571 

Josephine County (Oregon) Business Coalition: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 573 

Kalmiopsis Audubon Society: 

Letter for the Record dated 9/19/16 regarding S. 346 ................................... 575 

Support for the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection 

Act for the Record: ........................................................................................ 577 

City of Gold Beach (Oregon)—Resolution R1516–16 .............................. 578 

City of Cave Junction (Oregon)—Letter .................................................. 580 

Smith River Watershed (California)—Resolution ................................... 581 

McGuire, Hon. Mike—Letter .................................................................... 583 

Elk Valley Rancheria (California)—Letter .............................................. 585 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians—Letter ....................................... 587 

County of Del Norte (California) Board of Supervisors—Letter ............ 589 

City of Gold Beach (Oregon)—Letter ....................................................... 591 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources—Letter ................................................... 593 

Curry County (Oregon) Board of Commissioners—Letter ..................... 595 

City of Cresent City (California)—Letter ................................................ 597 

Big Rock Community Services District (California)—Letter ................. 598 

Gasquet Community Services District (Oregon)—Letter ....................... 600 

Cresent City/Del Norte County (California) Visitor’s Bureau—Letter . 601 

Wild Rivers, Wild Brews Coalition—Letter ............................................ 602 

Kalmiopsis Rivers and Wild Rivers Coast—List of Supporters ............. 604 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough (Alaska): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 32 

Resolution No. 2667 for the Record ................................................................. 34 

Kinville, Michael: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 609 

Klawock Cooperative Association Tribal Council: 

Critique of Proposed ANCSA Amendments ................................................... 611 

Resolution No. 16–06 for the Record ............................................................... 620 

Knight, Rebecca: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 621 

Exhibit A: Article by Becky Knight entitled ‘‘My Turn: A better 

solution for the mental health lands debacle’’ dated 9/7/16 on the 

JuneauEmpire.com website .................................................................. 624 

Exhibit B: Petersburg Borough Assembly (Alaska) Letter .................... 625 

Exhibit C: Article by Nick Bowman entitled ‘‘Deer Mountain land 

buyout talk grows’’ dated 9/17/16 in the Ketchikan Daily News ....... 627 

Page

VIII 

Knight, Rebecca—Continued 

Letter for the Record—Continued 

Exhibit D: Article by Juneau Empire entitled ‘‘Forest Service purchases land in Cube Cove, returning it to Wilderness’’ dated 

9/19/16 on the JuneauEmpire.com website ......................................... 629 

Exhibit E: Article by Russ Webb entitled ‘‘Trust has duties to manage 

assets for beneficiaries’’ dated 9/1/16 in the Ketchikan Daily News . 630 

Kornze, Hon. Neil: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 153 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 155 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 366 

LaRoe, Jen: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 632 

Leahy, Mike: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 633 

Levy, Abe: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 636 

Lewis, Steve: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3004/S. 3273 ........................................... 637 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203 ......................................................... 639 

Littlefield-Hurricane Valley Natural Resource Conservation District: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 332 

Lord, William: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 88 

Lowe, Carol: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 93 

Lucy, Sam and Brooke: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 640 

Lyford, Gordon: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 643 

Mack, Hon. Stanley: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 120 

Madison County (Montana) Board of Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 232 

Madison River Foundation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 236 

Manchin III, Hon. Joe: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 137 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 139 

Mapes, Craig: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 644 

Maricopa County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 271 

McBeen, Joan: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 645 

McBeen, Samuel: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 646 

McCabe, Sheriff Jim: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 336 

Mesa County (Colorado) Board of County Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 249 

Methow Valley Citizens Council: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 654 

Methow Valley/Flagg Mountain Businesses: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 655 

Michael, Mary Jane: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 661 

MiningMinnesota: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 662 

Moberly, Stan: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 671 

Momentum River Expeditions: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 672 

Monetta, Robert and Delene: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 673 

Monroe, Nicholas: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 89 

Page

IX 

Montana Association of Land Trusts: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 237 

Montana Fish & Wildlife Commission: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 239 

(The) Mountaineers: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 675 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Letter to Secretary Thomas Vilsack (USDA) dated 7/25/13 .......................... 11 

Murray, Hon. Patty: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 677 

National Association of Counties: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 269 

National Association of County Park and Recreation Officials: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 274 

National Association of State Park Directors: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 270 

National Congress of American Indians: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 55 

Resolution #DEN–07–097 for the Record ....................................................... 57 

National Mining Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 679 

National Ocean Industries Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 681 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3167 .................................................. 682 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3315 .................................................. 684 

National Parks Conservation Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 132 

National Recreation and Park Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 276 

National Wildlife Federation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 634 

Native Fish Society: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 686 

Native Village of Shishmaref, City of Shishmaref and Shishmaref Native 

Corporation (Alaska): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 97 

(The) Navajo Nation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 219 

Neale, Graham: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 688 

Nevada Farm Bureau Federation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 691 

Nevada Mining Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 692 

Nicholls, Hon. Douglas: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 329 

Norene, Larry: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 694 

Norman, David: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 695 

Northwest Rafting Company: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 696 

Olmsted, Nicholas (and Molly Kemp): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 697 

Outdoor Alliance, et al.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 698 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 704 

Palmer, Tim: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 706 

Papillon Airways, Grand Canyon Airlines and Maverick Aviation Group: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 323 

Parlette, Hon. Linda Evans: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 708 

Page

X 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 282 

Perkison, Donald: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 709 

Pershing County (Nevada) Board of Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 710 

(The) Pew Charitable Trusts: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3102 and H.R. 5752 ............................... 711 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 346, S. 3049, S. 3102, S. 3203, 

S. 437. S. 1416, and S. 3317 ......................................................................... 713 

Pierce, Hon. Steve: 

Letter for the Record regarding the Grand Canyon Watershed National 

Monument ...................................................................................................... 334 

Letter for the Record regarding the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument ........................................................................................... 335 

Preston, Christopher: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 716 

Rafter S Cattle Company: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 717 

Range Association of Municipalities and Schools: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 667 

Resolution 03–2016 for the Record ................................................................. 669 

Reid, Hon. Harry: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 141 

Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc.: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203, S. 3204, S. 3273 ............................ 720 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203, Title V ........................................... 723 

Rhodes, Doug: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 725 

Rinehart, Jr., Richard: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 (Wrangell) ...................................... 47 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 (Letters and Resolutions) ............. 52 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 (Alaska Legislators) ...................... 65 

Rinehart, Richard ‘‘Tashee’’: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 69 

Risch, Hon. James E.: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 727 

Rye Patch Mining US Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 728 

San Juan County (New Mexico) Commission: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 218 

San Juan County (Utah): 

Resolution No. 2016–08 for the Record ........................................................... 263 

Sarkar Cove/Point Area Residents and Property Owners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 15 

Sealaska Corporation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 729 

Shee Atika ́, Inc.: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 100 

Joint Press Release 16–07 ............................................................................... 103 

Tongass National Forest Map ......................................................................... 105 

Shell Oil Company: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 738 

Sitka Conservation Society: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 739 

Sivertsen, Bob: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 38 

Solidus Resources, LLC: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 742 

Sorenson, Dru: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 744 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 745 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: 

Statement for the Record re: S. 3004 .............................................................. 82 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 746 

Page

XI 

Southeast Alaska Independent Living: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 752 

Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 753 

Written Testimony of Leo Barlow on 10/8/15 ................................................. 757 

Southeast Conference: 

Resolution 13–03 for the Record ..................................................................... 761 

Spearfish Canyon Foundation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 762 

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 763 

State of Utah: 

Concurrent Resolution Opposing Unilateral Use of the Antiquities Act ..... 255 

Stedman, Hon. Bert: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 67 

Stern, Wendy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 764 

Stewart, Sarah and Family: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203 ......................................................... 765 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 ......................................................... 766 

Suckling, Theodore: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 91 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 135 

Swift, William: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 37 

Tanana Chiefs Conference: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3273 ......................................................... 84 

Tanana Chiefs Conference, Chalkyitsik Village Council and Gwichyaa Zhee 

Gwich’in Tribal Government: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 3203 ......................................................... 767 

Tester, Hon. Jon: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 771 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 316 

Thorpe, Hon. Bob: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 342 

Thune, Hon. John: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 772 

Article entitled ‘‘Preserving Spearfish Canyon’’ from the Rapid City Journal dated 6/19/14 ........................................................................................... 775 

Town of Tusayan (Arizona): 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 337 

Townsend, Hon. Kelly: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 779 

Trout Unlimited: 

Letter for the Record regarding Methow River Headwaters ........................ 780 

Letters for the Record regarding various bills ............................................... 782 

Trumble, Della: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 124 

(The) Trust for Public Land and Northern Rockies Advisory Board: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 243 

Ucore Rare Metals, Inc. and the Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce 

(Alaska): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 43 

Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 95 

Supplemental Statement for the Record ........................................................ 792 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Secretary’s Memorandum 1044–009 addressing Sustainable Forestry in 

Southeast Alaska dated 7/2/13 ..................................................................... 7 

Joint Press Release 16–07 ............................................................................... 103 

U.S. Department of Energy: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3312 .................................................. 151 

Response to Question for the Record .............................................................. 377 

U.S. Magnetic Materials Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 45 

Page

XII 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 794 

Viking Lumber: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 25 

Vilsack, Hon. Thomas (USDA): 

Letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski dated 11/19/13 ........................................ 13 

Visit Spearfish, Inc.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 774 

Vollmer, Alex: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 795 

Waring, Margo: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 796 

Washington Outdoor Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 797 

Weldon, Leslie: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 206 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 208 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 374 

Western Landowners Alliance: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 241 

Western States Land Commissioners Association: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 800 

Whitesell, Edward: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 804 

Wild Rivers Wild Brews, Craft Brewers for Clean Water: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 805 

(The) Wilderness Society: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 807 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Throughput: Facts, Data, and their Implications ............................................................................................................ 826 

Whittington-Evans, Nicole: 

Written Testimony on 4/14/16 .................................................................. 827 

(The) Wilderness Society, et al.: 

Letter for the Record re: S. 347, S. 1416, and S. 3317 .................................. 129 

Woods, James: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 843 

Woolston, Kristina: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 844 

Wrangell (Alaska) Chamber of Commerce: 

Resolution of Support for the Landless Natives of Wrangell ........................ 50 

Wrangell Cooperative Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 53 

Young, Jack: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3273, Section 10 .............................. 72 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 3273, Section 11 .............................. 73 

Ziller, Bob and Gloria: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 845 

The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 

committee’s website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=ABDA167D-50B9-47E9-9912-AEB86FD53A35. 

(1) 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. 

The Committee will now come to order as we begin our legislative hearing this morning to consider 21 measures that are broadly 

focused on our nation’s public lands, natural hazards, conservations, monument designations and various other measures. 

I am the sponsor of six of the bills on the agenda this morning 

so I am going to just cut right to the chase, speak to them and try 

to move through our program this morning as expeditiously as we 

can. 

The first bill that I have on the agenda this morning is the Second Division Memorial Modification Act that will authorize three 

new benches for the memorial in President’s Park on the National 

Mall. Those benches will honor soldiers from the Army’s Second Infantry Division who were killed in the Cold War in Korea, the War 

in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan. Apparently it actually takes 

an act of Congress to do this modification. 

As we consider the bill I want to give a special shout out to a 

gentleman by the name of Aves Thompson and all those who are 

streaming this hearing from the Second Infantry Division’s reunion 

in Missouri this morning. Know that I am going to be working 

hard, before you all come to Washington, DC next September, to 

celebrate the Second Infantry Division’s 100th year of active service 

to our nation. I am going to be working hard to get this through. 

Next up on the agenda is the National Volcano Early Monitoring 

System Act. Few may realize this, Senator Cantwell certainly does 

coming from the Pacific Northwest, but the United States has 169 

active volcanoes, many in Alaska, some in Washington and along 

the Pacific Northwest. Establishing a national watch office will 

help us monitor, warn and protect millions of Americans from the 

dangers and impacts of their eruptions. 

The third measure is my Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act which includes a series of adjustments to help communities throughout Alaska. The original Alaska Native Claims 

2 

Settlements Act, or ANCSA, was always meant to be a living law. 

Forty-five years after its passage we have a range of issues that 

demand our attention, whether it be land conveyances that have 

still not yet been completed or land allotments for our Alaska Natives who are veterans of the Vietnam War, and this bill deserves 

the Senate’s timely approval. 

When we are talking about timely approval I cannot not mention 

the situation in King Cove and my request for the King Cove Road 

Land Exchange Act. This would provide a lifesaving road for this 

small, isolated community. The Interior Department had a chance 

to do the right thing, but back in December 2013 it refused. Since 

then, King Cove has seen 52 more Medivacs, including 17 that 

have been carried out by the Coast Guard. Members of this Committee have had an opportunity to hear about this situation over 

the months and over the years. 

Just last week on the Senate Floor I shared the story of a Native 

Elder in her 70s who came into the King Cove Clinic. She had a 

broken hip, but she had to wait 40 hours for the fog to lift before 

she could be Medivacked to Anchorage. 

I am seeking to avoid pain and suffering that could be avoided 

if we had a short, gravel, one-lane, non-commercial use road to connect it to Cold Bay. We have an opportunity to do the right thing 

by approving this lifesaving road. This measure is not included as 

part of my Alaska Economic Development and Access Act because 

it is not an economic development issue for me. It is a life safety 

issue. 

I do have a measure that we have entitled the Alaska Economic 

Development and Access to Resources Act. This is a measure that 

will help unlock Alaska’s federal areas, and allow responsible oil, 

gas, mineral and timber production to proceed. Right now, we are 

facing, pretty much, a brick wall of opposition in these areas. 

What this package will do will help facilitate production in the 

NPRA, the non-wilderness portion of ANWR and our offshore Arctic and that will work to refill our Trans-Alaska Pipeline, help to 

reduce our state’s budget crisis and fulfill the promises made to 

Alaska at statehood, just as it creates tens of thousands of new 

jobs, bolsters our competitiveness and protects our national security. At its core, my economic development package is a measure 

to ensure that Alaska is not just a resource rich state but also a 

resource producing state, especially when it comes to our federal 

lands and waters. 

I would just remind the Committee that was our deal in Alaska. 

When President Carter signed ANILCA into law in 1980, he promised and this was his words, ‘‘100 percent of the offshore areas and 

95 percent of the potentially productive oil and mineral areas will 

be available for exploration or for drilling in Alaska.’’ 

Today that promise has effectively been turned on its head. It 

seems like 100 percent of our offshore areas are effectively closed 

and only about five percent of our onshore areas are actually open. 

That cannot be allowed to stand, and my legislation is a way to 

change that course. 

The economic development package would also resolve a difficult 

situation that has emerged in Southeastern Alaska. The Alaska 

Mental Health Trust was constitutionally established with the reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 022000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A000.XXX A000
3 

sponsibility to use its lands to raise revenues to provide care for 

the most vulnerable across our state and that includes resources 

through timber. The Trust has announced that it will hold two timber sales on the lands that it holds near Ketchikan and Petersburg 

where logging is widely opposed, and the Trust basically says it 

does not have any other choice here. 

While the Trust might not have a choice, we do, in the form of 

language to expedite a land exchange that the Trust and the Forest 

Service have already agreed to in concept. There has been an 

agreement to initiate that was executed last year, and its assumption is in the proposed Tongass Land Management Plan. This is 

our chance to reach an agreement to help the Trust, help our small 

timber industries and address the concerns of the residents in 

these communities. If the Administration is serious about a successful transition to young growth, my bill will help ensure it. 

Finally one of the main topics of today’s hearing will be monument designations, an area where the Administration has repeatedly pushed its authority. It seems like we are reading about a new 

designation almost every week. That is probably an exaggeration, 

but it just seems like that. 

The Antiquities Act was a response to an existential threat that 

Congress could not respond to in a timely manner, the theft of and 

from archeological sites. That is why designations under it were 

supposed to cover the smallest area possible, not the largest. 

Now not all presidents have found it necessary to call upon this 

authority, although presidents from both parties have done so and 

some have used their authority to diminish the size of a previous 

designation. But in this Administration the Antiquities Act has 

been wielded as a tool to both sidestep and threaten Congress. 

What needs to be recognized is that monument designations have 

an impact on local communities. What needs to be recognized is 

that public comments cannot only come from supportive organizations. We need to rethink and reform how monument designations 

can be made and that is why I have introduced the legislation entitled the ‘‘Improve National Monument Designation Process Act’’ 

which requires both local consultation and congressional approval. 

While we may hear other perspectives here today, I am proud to 

speak on behalf of the vast majority of Alaskans when I say these 

bills are critical to our economy and to our future. They will protect 

us from natural hazards, open up new economic opportunities, restore balance between Congress and the Executive Branch and also 

honor our military heroes. 

I have already received about 70 statements for the record, and 

I would ask that they be included as part of the Committee hearing 

record today. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

4 


Insert offset folio 25 here 22000A.001

September 21,2016 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Testimony on S. 3203 

Honorable Committee Members through the Chair: 

26oo Cordova Streel, Suite roo 

Anchorage, AK 

Tel ()0"'-Zb().O't"O 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office (TLO) supports the Alaska Mental Health Exchange Act of 

20!6, introduced by Alaska Senator Murkowski whether it be in the format ofS.3006 or S. 3203. This 

bi I! will serve to better align land ownership patterns with the inherent missions of both the USDA Forest 

Service (USFS) and the Alaska Mental Health Trust (Trust). The proposed exchange (Trust Land 

Exchange) has identified about 17,341 acres of Trust lands and approximately 20,580 acres ofUSFS 

lands located within the Tongass National Forest. The exchange positively protects interests of value to 

the communities, supports the economy, and helps preserve Southeast timber industry during transition to 

young growth, while providing revenue for Alaskan Mental Health services in Alaska. 

During Alaska's transition to a state, Congress passed the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956. 

This act transferred the responsibility for providing mental health services from the federal government to 

the territory of Alaska and ultimately the state of Alaska, by creating the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

(Trust). The Trust is a state corporation that administers the Alaska Mental Health Trust, a perpetual trust 

managed for the benefit of people with mental illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism and 

other substance related disorders, Alzheimer's disease and related dementia, and traumatic brain injury. 

The Trust operates like a private foundation, using its resources to ensure that Alaska has a 

comprehensive integrated mental health program. The Trust annually budgets approximately $20 million 

to support services and programs for Trust beneficiaries. Tim her sales have accounted for about a third of 

the TLO's income since the reconstitution of the Trust in 1994. 

Alaska Mental Health Exchange Act of20l6 will accelerate the Trust Land Exchange at this critical 

juncture of time while transitioning from old growth to young growth harvest in Southeast Alaska. The 

parties developed an Agreement to Initiate (ATl) under the USFS requirements for a federal exchange. 

This exchange has been the culmination of years of collaborative work and input from a variety of 

stakeholders within the communities of Southeast Alaska, environmental organizations, and state and 

federal agencies. This equal value land exchange incorporates Trust lands surrounding six communities; 

Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Myers Chuck, and Ketchikan and designated timber lands in the 

Tongass National Forest. This will help preserve the current subsistence, watershed ecosystem services, 

old growth timber, recreational value, and visual integrity of lands surrounding the communities. This 

legislation will provide these described outcomes while providing essential revenue for Alaskan Mental 

Health services. 

On July 2, 2013, Secretary of Agriculture Vii sack issued Memo l 044-009; the memo outlined the strategy 

that the Tongass National Forest is to implement over the next 10 to 15 years. The TLO believes that the 

proposed Trust Land Exchange is an integral part of this transition plan. The TLO has collaboratively 

worked with the Forest Service, landowners and stakeholders in many venues over the past decade to 

reach the point where the USFS and the TLO signed a land exchange AT! on June 30,2015. These 

included the Tongass Futures Roundtable (TFR), the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC) and the 

Tongass Landowners group. All these groups recognize the importance of diversifYing timberland 

ownership which will reduce the reliance on federal timber supply. 
5 


Insert offset folio 26 here 22000A.002

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Testimony on S. 3203 

September 21, 2016 

Page 2 of 3 

The TFR was composed of a wide cross section of stakeholder groups concerned about future 

management of the Tongass National Forest. This working group recognized the need to maintain the 

current characteristics of land now in Trust ownership and the importance of the Trust to preserve its 

corpus and mission. The TLO, USFS, and the TFR participated in a process to identify federal and Trust 

lands to be included in this proposed exchange. The TAC primary objective was to reduce the amount of 

old growth timber harvest on the Tongass and accelerate the transition to young growth harvest as 

outlined in Secretary Vilsack's Memo. The AT! met these objectives of both of these groups. 

Since the A Tl signing, the TLO and the Forest Service have worked toward initiating the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl process over the past year with the TLO bearing all costs of the 

exchange. Although the NEPA process has not commenced, after the USFS provided its best estimate of 

the scope of work and time frames to complete the NEPA process, it was apparent to many that the 

projected 5+ year process to complete the exchange after beginning the NEPA process will not be in time 

to provide "bridge timber" to assist the existing timber industry in the proposed Tongass Transition plan. 

Secretary Vilsack's memo states: "The objective of this Secretarial Memorandum is to ensure that 

USDA, the Chief of the Forest Service, the Alaska Region of the Forest Service, and the Tongass 

National Forest work together to catalyze a transition from a timber sale program based on old growth 

lo one based on young growth." The memo also says, "USDA is equally committed to doing its part to 

ensure that the communities within and adjacent to the Tongass National Forest are economically 

vibrant. These two goals must go hand in hand ... Moreover, we must do this in a way that preserves a 

viable timber industry that provides jobs and opportunities for residents of Southeasl Alaska." 

The interrelations of the stated objectives of the Secretary's Memorandum and the proposed land 

exchange are evident. Secretary Vilsack recognized the potential benefit of the land exchange in a letter 

to The Honorable Secretary Murkowski dated November 19,2013. In this letter the Secretary stated: "I 

agree that the proposed land exchange could well serve the objectives outlined in my memorandum: 

1. To seek opportunities to supply sufficient old growth ''bridge timber" while the industry retools for processing young growth. The opportunity to use the exchanged lands could help in 

providing part of the bridge to second growth. " 

The following Action Objectives of the Secretary's Memo can be enhanced through the proposed 

exchange: 

a. Seek opportunities to supply sufficient old growth "bridge timber" while the industry re-tools 

for processing young growth. 

The TLO on behalf of the Alaska Mental Health Trust (AM! IT) is proposing to utilize the 

conveyed land to establish a timber base which will be part of the required fiber to the 

current industry in southeast Alaska. The Exchange will provide a long term supply of 

wood to the current operators. 

d. Develop by July 30, 2013, scenarios that effectuate a more rapid transition by prioritizing and 

developing additional young growth and restoration projects that could be completed over the 

next 5 years. 

The Exchange project should be included within the scenarios as a means to "retain the 

expertise and inji·astructure of the existing industry" while developing "opportunities for 

communities across the region in the recreation, tourism, fishing and renewable energy 

sectors." 

26oo Cordova Street, Suite roo I Anchorage, AK 99503 I Tel 907.269.8658 1 www.mhtrustland.org 
6 


Insert offset folio 27 here 22000A.003

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Testimony on S. 3203 

September 21, 20 16 

Page 3 of3 

h. Pursue par/nerships with foundations, non-prqfits. C011>orations, and others to advance a 

second growth indus{ly, u11dertake resturalion projects, and otherwise speed the transition. 

The AMHT is a state corporation that provides benefit services to Alaskans who are 

mental health benejiciarie.,. The 7/·ust Land Exchange creates the kind o.fpartner.,hip 

envisioned by the Secretary's transition plan because it will wark with current industry 

and communities to develop markets. products, and help divet:'i.fy the timber owner kmd 

base. 77lis parmership was recognized through the collaborative process of the Tongass 

Futures Roundtable, the USFS and the TLO, when they endorsed the proposed land 

exchange. Implementing the Trust Land F:xchange will protect the remaining old grow 

timber surrounding SE Communities, provide fiber to the existingfi>rest product 

operators, and provide long-term contracts to advance the second growth industry. 

Therefore, to benefit from the integration of the land exchange into the transition requires the exchange to 

happen quickly. The TLO supports implementing the exchange as rapidly as possible, which requires this 

legislation. Since the legislation has been introduced, the TLO has worked cooperatively with the USFS 

to modify the boundaries of the proposed land exchange to appropriately address key management, 

conservation, and environmental issues. We look forward to further close coordination with the USFS and 

this committee toward enactment of this exchange legislation. The TLO will put all available resources to 

working with the USFS, Bureau of Land Management, and Southeast Alaskan communities to provide a 

sustainable and healthy economy, as well as a healthy and social environment, while fulfilling its 

fiduciary responsibility to the Trust. 

Sincerely, 

:xecutive Director 

Trust Land Office 

cc: Governor Walker 

Senator Murkowski 

Senator Sullivan 

Representative Young 

Regional Forester Pendleton 

Tongass Forest Supervisor Stewart 

AK DNR Commissioner Andy Mack 

Attachments: Secretary Vii sack Memo I 044-009 

Senator Murkowski Letter to Secretary Vilsack 

Secretary Vilsack letter to Senator Murkowski 

z6oo Cordova Street, Suite roo I Anchorage, AK 99503 I Tel 907.269.8658 I wvow.mhtrustland.org 
7 


Insert offset folio 28 here 22000A.004

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 

July 2, 2013 

SECRETARY'S MEMORANDUM 1044-009 

Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska 

I. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND 

Alaska's Tongass National Forest is a national treasure. At 17 million acres, the Tongass 

includes vast old growth temperate rainforests that are increasingly rare globally. The 

Tongass is also a place that has sustained the people and communities of Southeast Alaska 

for generations. Whether through providing food and other subsistence uses to the rural 

communities in the region, supporting cultural practices and identity, drawing people to the 

region for world-class recreation and fishing, or supporting wood products and other forestbased industries, the Tongass is vital to the economic and cultural well-being of the region. 

The Forest is also important to the climate; while the Tongass comprises about 2 percent of 

the Nation's forests, according to one scientific study it contains the equivalent of 8 percent 

of the carbon sequestered in the forests of the conterminous United States. The Department 

of Agriculture is committed to maintaining Southeast Alaska's exceptional natural resources 

in perpetuity. USDA is equally committed to doing its part to ensure that the communities 

within and adjacent to the Tongass National Forest are economically vibrant. These two 

goals must go hand in hand. 

To conserve the Tongass National Forest under the principles of the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960, Tongass Timber Reform Act and other relevant statutes, we must speed 

the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a forest industry that 

utilizes second growth- or young growth- forests. Moreover, we must do this in a way that 

preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs and opportunities for residents of 

Southeast Alaska. 

This Memorandum affirms that this tmnsition to a more ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable forest management is a high priority for USDA, the Forest Service, 

and the Tongass National Forest. USDA's goaJ is to effectuate this tmnsition over the next 

I 0 to IS years, so that at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the 

Tongass will be young growth. This timeframe will conserve old growth forests while 

allowing the forest industry time to adapt. To achieve this goal, several steps must be taken 

as described in the Actions section of this Memorandum. 
8 


Insert offset folio 29 here 22000A.005

Over the past three years, USDA has increased investments in alternative economic 

development opportunities for communities across the region in the recreation, tourism, 

fishing and renewable energy sectors, while initiating a transition away from a historical 

reliance on old growth timber harvests. To accomplish the transition to a timber program 

based primarily on young growth, it is important to retain the expertise and infrastructure of 

the existing industry so businesses can quickly re-tool. These businesses are fundamental to 

both the young growth and restoration components of the future timber program, and to the 

economic vitality of the region. Such an approach requires a reliable supply of economically 

viable timber, with the old growth component decreasing over time while the young growth 

component increases. 

Updated forest inventories have improved our understanding of the age, location, and amount 

of young growth across the Tongass, and helped clarify the challenges in establishing an 

economically viable young growth program due to the relatively young age of the available 

stands, market conditions, and other factors. Additional research will be necessary to 

develop effective ways to meet these challenges. Achieving the transition in I 0 to 15 years 

also calls for enactment of a statutory provision, to exempt a limited amount of young growth 

on the Tongass from current requirements that generally restrict harvesting young growth 

timber until it reaches maximum growth rates. Administrative mechanisms to accomplish 

such an adjustment are time consuming and would divert scarce resources from achieving the 

goals of the transition. Compared to private lands, the Culmination of Mean Annual 

Increment (CMAI) requirements could delay development of an economically viable young 

growth program for decades. USDA will continue to work with Congress on such a 

provision. 

To ensure a smooth transition, the Forest Service will continue to offer a supply of old 

growth timber while increasing the supply of young growth to provide industry in Alaska the 

opportunity to develop new markets, learn new skills, and acquire new equipment. The 

continuation of limited sales of old growth timber is essential to maintain the existing 

industry until young growth can efficiently be processed. The Forest Service will also 

continue the Tongass National Forest's micro-sale program and the old growth small sale 

program that targets niche markets, while developing a new integrated program of work 

focused on young growth, ecological restoration, and forest stewardship that protects and 

restores the Forest's extraordinary fish and wildlife habitat. This strategy will maintain and 

restore the Forest's clean water, abundant fish, healthy populations of wildlife, and scenic 

beauty while sustaining deep-rooted community and cultural ties to the land and providing 

jobs in the woods. 

Through an all lands, all hands approach USDA will utilize all of its expertise, tools and 

resources such as economic assistance, workforce training, capacity building, and improved 
9 


Insert offset folio 30 here 22000A.006

delivery of services to help strengthen and diversify local economies. Working with Rural 

Development and the Farm Service Agency; other Federal agencies as appropriate; State, 

local, and Tribal entities; non-governmental organizations; and local communities will be 

essential to success. Collaborative development of a transition strategy increases collective 

ownership of the approach; collaborative implementation with our many partners offers 

opportunities to leverage funding available from the Forest Service. 

2. ACTIONS 

The objective of this Secretarial Memorandum is to ensure that USDA, the Chief of the 

Forest Service, the Alaska Region of the Forest Service, and the Tongass National Forest 

work together to catalyze a transition from a timber sale program based on old growth to one 

based on young growth. Pursuant to this Memorandum, the Secretary asks the Forest Service 

to: 

a. Seek opportunities to supply sufficient old growth "bridge timber" while the industry retools for processing young growth. The first step is the Big Thorne timber sale. This 

project along with other planned timber sales would supply timber to existing mills for 

several years and allow the Forest Service to reallocate staff to young growth projects. 

b. As soon as possible, allocate staff and financial resources to planning young growth 

projects, ramping down old growth sales and increasing investments in young growth. 

c. Continue to work with Congress to exempt a limited amount of young growth on the 

Tongass from current requirements that generally restrict harvesting young growth timber 

until it has reached maximum growth rates, or CMAI. Providing flexibility with regard 

to CMAI is essential to permit the development of economically viable young growth 

projects within the timeframe set as a goal for the transition. 

d. Develop by July 30,2013, scenarios that effectuate a more rapid transition by prioritizing 

and developing additional young growth and restoration projects that could be completed 

over the next 5 years. Examine scenarios that assume adoption of the statutory provision 

noted above that provides Forest Service greater flexibility in harvesting young growth 

timber. 

e. Strongly consider whether to pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an 

amendment would evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially 

young growth timber stands, which lands should be excluded, and additional 

opportunities to promote and speed transition to young growth management. A 

determination of whether to initiate an amendment should be completed by September 

30,2013. If an amendment in pursued, identify an efficient timeline for completion that 

supports the timeframe for transition outlined in this Memorandum. 

f. Continue support for research on how best to manage young growth, develop markets for 

it, and help industry re-tool to process it. As results become available, apply them as 
10 


Insert offset folio 31 here 22000A.007

needed to improve young growth management. 

g. Intensify work with Rural Development to pursue opportunities to facilitate investments 

in re-tooling. Develop by December 31,2013, in collaboration with Rural Development 

and other stakeholders, a plan for providing financial assistance to re-tool timber 

processing equipment in Southeast Alaska to assist the industry to efficiently handle 

young growth timber. 

h. Pursue partnerships with foundations, non-profits, corporations, and others to advance a 

second growth industry, undertake restoration projects, and otherwise speed the 

transition. 

I will remain engaged in this effort to ensure the Tongass National Forest transitions 

effectively to a timber program based primarily on young growth. It is vital that the Forest 

Service continue to seek input from and work with stakeholders in the region towards this 

transition. In this regard, 1 will approve establishment of an advisory committee under the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice to the Forest Service on how to expedite 

the transition to young growth management. 

3. MISCELLANEOUS 

a. Effective Date. July I, 2013 

b. This Memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural 

enforceable by law or equity. This Memorandum creates no private right of action. 
11 


Insert offset folio 34 here 22000A.010

USA MURKOWSKI 

COMMin!:tS 

Nl '!(,·{ 1\Nll 'JAlUIIIIl HfO,IHJllf'rS 

t!FIIl Tll, fOUCAilON, I AUUI<, 

AN() r1 NSH\N~> 

IDnited ~totes ~cnotc W/\SHINGTQN, DC 20510 ·0203 

UMJIL4 ti•i!ff> 

t2071 ??•1·'•.'(1: r~\x 

July25, 2013 

The Honorable Thomas Vilsack 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dcur Mr. Secretary: 

I am writing to sec if the Department could expedite a land exchange in Southeast Alaska 

that could significantly aid the Department's plans for a transition to harvesting of young-growth 

timber in the Tongass National Forest of Southeast Alaska. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust tor several years has proposed a land exchangelormally initiated on September 4, 2012 -- where the Trust would exchange some 18,000 acres of 

scenic old-growth timber ncar urban areas/ports in Alaska tor approximately 21,000 acres of 

predominately second-growth timber that could then be used to support a young-growth industry 

in the region- the total acreage being dependent on an equal value/appraisal process. This would 

appear to be exactly in keeping with your .luly 2 memorandum seeking to accelerate a transition 

to young-growth limbe•· harvesting in the Tongass. The lands that would be exchanged were 

selected alter years of negotiation and discussion among the forest Service, the Mental Health 

Trust, environmental, conservation, lishery groups and local governments and arc currently 

believed to be nearly totally acceptable to most all parties- a truly amazing feat for any land 

exchange in the nation's largest national forest. 

The exchange, however, appem·s to be high centered because the exchange has reached 

the stage where the Forest Service needs to complete an Agreement to Initiate (ATI) the 

exchange, a requirement of the Forest Service guidelines tor a federal land exchange. While the 

Mental Health Trust has committed to ti.mding the Forest Service's costs of completing the 

exchange through a cost-share agreement, the Forest Service under its rules apparently can't 

complete a cost-share agreement to cover the administrative costs of processing land exchanges 

until an AT! is actually executed. This governmental "catch 22,"givcn your Department's tight 

budget for FY 13 and lack offunding tor staffing to handle the preparation of the ATI, is 

preventing work fl·om even advancing on the exchange that is important to both the region's 

tourism and timber industries, 

Given that it takes on average three years alter an AT! is executed to complete the more 

than a dozen environmental studies and reports needed to allow for an actual land conveyance to 

be approved, l am asking to see if you could add the exchange as an clement of your recently 

announced transition plan/memorandum tor the Tongass National Forest and then use transition 

funds tor the agency stafting necessary to complete the A Tl. That is then money that then could 

110M< PAGE AND WEB MAIL MURKOWSKISfN/\Tf GOV 
12 


Insert offset folio 35 here 22000A.011

be repaid by the Trust to the Forest Service as part of its financial commitment to completing the 

components of the feasibility analysis for the land exchange. 

Even if a pending Sealuska land conveyance bill is approved by Congress permitting the 

harvest of young-growth trees within the tirst decade without regard to Cumulative Mean Annual 

Incremental (CMAI) harvest growth standards, a developing second-growth industry is going to 

need more young-growth timber to be available to fund the mill conversion costs of such a new 

transition. Getting the lands proposed in this swap into the state-sponsored Trust and out from 

under federal control could be a key !actor in a financially viable young-growth timber transition 

taking place in the •·egion and tor the preservation of old-growth sawmills currently operating in 

the region. 

l hope you will authorize the resources that the Forest Service will need to permit the 

Agreement to Initiate the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange to be finalized quickly, so 

that the formal public review process required before such an exchange, can start on an expedited 

basis. Without the exchange, which will prevent old-growth timber overlooking major cruiseship 

attractions at Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg and Wrangell from being harvested, the region could 

face negative impacts to its tourism economy, while the Forest Service's own young-growth 

transition plan could be negatively impacted. And the land exchange will generate vital income 

to the Trust, which is a perpetual trust managed for the bene tit of Alaskans with mental illness, 

developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism and other substance-related disorders, 

Alzheimer's disease and related dementia, and traumatic brain injury- a Trust established by the 

tcderal government as part of the Alaska Statehood Act in 1959. 

I thank you lor your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

~~ United States Senator 

CC: Thomas Tidwell, Chief U.S. Forest Service 

Forrest Coles, U.S. Forest Service Region 10 

Beth Pendleton, U.S. Forest Service Region l 0 
13 


Insert offset folio 32 here 22000A.008

Nov. 20. 2013 12:59PM 

NOV J 9 2013 

The Honorable Usa Murkowtki 

United Stat• Senate 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Wuhlnaton, D.C. 20S10 

Dear Senator Mwkowskl: 

Untied"""' Otpillmtnl oiAgrltullv,. 

o-ol Ute 8Hra1t,y 

WIIHn;lon. QC.f4PO 

No. 3544 P. 2 

Thank you for your Jetter or July 2S, 201!, rcprdiqlhe propoBCd land exchange between tho 

Alaska Montal Health Ttuat Land Office (frost) and tha T011gaaa National Foreat. I apologize 

for the dolayed response. · 

1 appteciate your auageation,. As stated In my July 2, 2013, Memorandum 1044-009, 

Atldmsing Smtatnabla Forestry In SoutMast Alml«l, the11'811Sitlon of the Tonpss timber 

program will be done in a way that preaerves a viable timber imlll8try ao busin8Sifls can re-tool to 

prooess young growth timber efllclently. 

Th~ proposed Tr1111 Land &changt. wblcll wit developed In collaboration with a variety of 

stalcebolders and supported by the Tonpaa Pul\lrea Roundtable, would convey to the Deparlment 

of Agriculture's Forost Servlc• approximately 18,000 acres ofTrust IIQd acijacont to tho 

«ll11lmllllllea ot Juneau, Peterabura, Wrangell, Sllb, and Ketchlken, Aluka. Due 10 their 

proximity to the communltlea, It would be dlflloult for inoat of these lands to be dlveloped by 1he 

Trust In keeplq with the Trust's mission. The 21,000 acrea of National Foreat Syatom lands that 

would be conveyed to the Trust under lbc propoeed exclldnae include approximately two•thirds 

old growth and one•thltd )'011118 growth timber, and are In areaa more suiJablc for development. 

1 agree lbct the proposed land exchange could well aerve the objectives outlined In my 

Memo1111dum: 

I. To seek opportunities to supply sufttlllont old arowlh "bridge timber" while tho inauatry 

re-tools tor procomng young growth. The opportunity to uae the exchanged lands could 

help in provldlns patt or the bridge to second growth. 

2, Scenarloslbet effectuate a mcro repid transition by prlotllizlng and developing eddilional 

young srowth end RBtorallon project& that c:ould be completed over the ncxt5 years. 

11/20/2013 1:06PM (GMT-05:00) 
14 


Insert offset folio 33 here 22000A.009

Nov. 20. 2013 1:OOPM 

The Hono111ble Lisa Murkowaki 

Page2 

No. 3544 P. 3 

3. To Intensify work. with Rural Development to pursue opportunities to faolliwto 

investments in ce-toollng, and to develop by December 31,2013, in collaborntion with 

Rural Development and other altlteholdertl, a plan for provldlna flnallclal aallstance to 

re-tool limber procesaltlg equipment In Southeast Alaska to aasillllhe industry to 

efYiclontly handle young growth timber. 

4. To purauo partllerships with foundations, non-profits, corpo111tiont, and others to advance a second growth Industry, undettako restoration projeciS, and otherwise apeed the 

transition. This will include developins naw markett for produc:f4 dcvoloped by Industry. 

Again, thank you tbr wrltlng. An equal value land exchange between tho Trust and the 

Porcst Service will be properly and promptly conaldeted. It will also help to strengthen and divcn~lf! local economics throughout Southeast Alaaka, 

Slnce.ely, 

~~ .. ~4 .. ThomuvO' 

B~ary 

11/20/2013 1;06PM (GMT-05:00> 
15 


Insert offset folio 36 here 22000A.012

September 16, 2016 

RE: S 3006 and S 3203 AMHT land swap-Sarkar CovejSarkar Lake 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The purpose of this statement is to inform you that the residents and property 

owners of the Sarkar Cove/Point area strongly support and endorse the proposed 

changes to S 3006 and S 3203, removing approximately 752 acres from the 

previously proposed areas surrounding Sarkar Cove/Point and Sarkar Lake, and 

moving that acreage to an area currently designated "2016 Naukati Addition." 

While this change involves a relatively small amount of land to be exchanged, it will 

go a long way to preserve the integrity of the Sarkar Cove and Sarkar Lake ar0;1~ 

Not only does Sarkar Cove/River/Lake support an important salmon run, the 

residents of this area rely, to a significant degree, on ground water from the 

surrounding area for daily water usage. Preserving the surrounding forest will help 

maintain the quality of our household water. Finally, but no less important, a 

significant number of people from across the country, and even the world, visit our 

special area each year involving themselves in activities that include fishing. 

sightseeing. bird watching. kayaking. canoeing. hiking and camping. El Capitan 

Lodge is located in Sarkar Cove/Point and not only hosts hundreds of people each 

summer, it also employs many seasonal workers. The Sarkar Lake region provides 

several miles of boardwalk and canoe portage trails for people to enjoy this 

spectacular land. Additionally, Sarkar Cove is part of the "Outside Passage" and 

many pleasure boats moor in its protected waters each summer as they make their 

way up and down the Alaska coastline. The provisions in these bills. swapping the 

AMHT acreage from the Sarkar region to a more interior east area, will ensure the 

continued use and enjoyment of this special land not only by the "locals," but also by 

people from around the globe. This "swap" also supports and protects the 

significant amount of public funds that were spent enhancing the Sarkar Lake 

system for several outdoor uses that would surely suffer if allowed to proceed i.lti 

originally proposed. 

Sincerely, 

fi.:t~ tjz,t<:..;;~" ·~ 

Kelly P. Yousem 

Sarkar Cove resident and 

President of the Sarkar Road 

and Utilities Association. 

kyous~JTl@me.com 

(303) 668-8877 
16 


Insert offset folio 37 here 22000A.013

Alaska Forest Association 0 

------1 ·-

Testimony of 

Owen Graham 

Executive Director, Alaska Forest Association 

Testifying Before 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Regarding 

S. 3203 The Alaska Economic Development Act 

September 19, 2016 

Ill Stedman Street 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Phone: 907-225-6114 

Fax: 907-225-5920 

Good Morning Senator and Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members 

of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today at this 

hearing. My name is Owen Graham. I am Executive Director of the Alaska Forest 

Association (AFA). AFA is the statewide organization which represents the Forest 

industry and advocates for balanced and sound timber harvest/production in the State 

of Alaska. AFA has members from all over the State including Southeast Alaska, South 

Central Alaska, and the Interior. 

The Association is one of the oldest in the State of Alaska and provides members the 

opportunity to participate in programs such as Tongass Timber Trust (group health), 

Alaska Loggers Retirement (pension plan) and a public information program which 

promotes the facts concerning the forest products industry. 
17 


Insert offset folio 38 here 22000A.014

AFA strongly supports rapid passage of S. 2302. Alaska needs economic development 

and this bill will provide a needed boost to our statewide economy and economic 

development for oil and gas, mining, and AFA's particular interest, forestry. 

Each of the sections in the Forestry title are absolutely critical to economic development 

in the timber industry in Alaska. AFA supports each of these sections and will present 

testimony on each separately 

Section 501-Roadless SEC. 501. ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE 

EXEMPTION. 

"The Roadless Area Conservation Rule established under part 294 of title 36, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), shall not apply with respect to any 

National Forest System land in the State of Alaska."- Bill language 

This simple provision is profoundly important to the economic future of Southeast 

Alaska. As the Chairman knows, the Tongass National Forest is the largest forest in the 

nation at 16.8 million acres. Prior to the administrative roadless rule, about 40% of that 

Forest had already been congressionally designated as wilderness, monument, LUD II 

(another form of legislative/wilderness) or other legislative designation which prevents 

any reasonable possibility for road construction or economic development. 

There is simply no need for additional administrative "Roadless" designations in a 

national forest which is already fully congressionally "protected" by many other laws 

including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act. 
18 


Insert offset folio 39 here 22000A.015

For example, in ANILCA, this Congressional recognition of sufficient protection was 

stated in Section 101(d): 

"This Act provides sufficient protection for the national interest in the scenic, 

natural, cultural and environmental values on the public lands in Alaska, and at 

the same time provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic 

and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people; accordingly, the 

designation and disposition of the public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are 

found to represent a proper balance between the reservation of national 

conservation system units and those public lands necessary and appropriate for 

more intensive use and disposition." 

Despite this clear statement by Congress, the Forest Service withdrew millions of 

additional acres as so-called "Roadless" areas for "protection" of these acres in the 

Tongass. Since 90% of the entire Forest is and remains "road less" this violated Section 

101(d) of ANILCA and other laws. As a result of this action, the State of Alaska and 

many others including cities and business groups sued to overturn this improper Forest 

Service administrative withdrawal. That case was brought under the administration of 

Governor Frank Murkowski, also a former Senator and Chairman of this Committee. 

An out of court settlement was reached which exempted Alaska from the devastating 

impacts the roadless rule would have on Alaska compared to the rest of the country. 

Unfortunately, a federal district Court overturned this out of Court Settlement a few 

years ago and the current Administration has refused to honor and defend the out of 

court settlement. Luckily, the State of Alaska and other allies have defended this out of 
19 


Insert offset folio 40 here 22000A.016

court settlement before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. That Court has 

recently questioned the status of the case and asked for additional briefing from the 

parties. There the case sits. 

It is high time for the Congress to step in and make clear that its policy and legislative 

actions prohibit and prevent the Road less Rule from applying to the 

Tongass. 

Passage of Section 501 would do just that AFA urges this Committee to pass this 

provision as rapidly as possible. 

Section 502- Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

The Alaska Forest Association strongly supports rapid passage of Section 502, the 

Alaska Mental Health Land Exchange. The passage of this section is absolutely critical 

for the continued success and viability of the Viking Mill and for Viking's sister 

company's (Dahlstrom Lumber Company) with operations in Washington State at 

Hoquiam. Viking and Dahlstrom Lumber Company operate in an integrated process 

and wood which Viking is able to harvest in Southeast Alaska plays a key part in the 

integrated operations by which the Hoquiam Mill supplies its customers. About seventy 

per cent of Viking's customers are domestic purchasers. 

AFA and its members believe that it is absolutely critical that Viking have a steady 

supply of timber for the Alaska operation which will also affect the Hoquiam Washington 

facility. Viking sends much of its lumber to Hoquiam for remanufacture and to be kiln 

dried, packaged and distributed. This integrated work in Hoquiam helps support the 38 

jobs in Washington State and over 150 in Southeast Alaska. 
20 


Insert offset folio 41 here 22000A.017

Viking is a key economic engine in Southeast Alaska as it provides jobs for its own mill 

workers, as well as related employment for timber fallers, truck drivers, equipment 

owners, and operators as well as stevedores many of whom are also members of AFA. 

Viking and AFA's members need the AMHT land exchange to provide additional timber 

supply to help broaden, diversify and stabilize the industry's timber supply in Southeast 

Alaska. 

Because of ongoing failure by the Forest Service to supply timber, it is critical for the 

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange to pass immediately. This timber, if it 

becomes available to Viking, could provide up to ten years of supplemental supply to 

the Viking Mill at Klawock and be very helpful to its integrated operations in Hoquiam. 

The current scarcity of timber supply in the Southeast Alaska region is why passage of 

the AMHT land exchange is time critical. 

As of September 15, 2016, Viking had approximately 4.5 MMBF of logs in inventory at 

its mill and another roughly 28 MMBF of timber under contract. This is sufficient timber 

for a single-shift operation of the mill for just over a year and it is unlikely that sufficient 

other sources of timber will become available before this supply runs out. Further, the 

high quality spruce timber, which is the most important component of Viking's product 

line, will run out in just a few months at which point Viking's operations will immediately 

become much less economical than they would be if logs from the AMHT land 

exchange were available. 
21 


Insert offset folio 42 here 22000A.018

Viking is currently one of the largest year-round employers on Prince of Wales Island. 

Most of its annual $22 million in revenue remains on the Island and has contributed 

significantly to the Island's economy over the years. 

Keeping Viking's mill supplied with the reliable source of timber contained in the Alaska 

Mental Health land exchange is essential to the continued employment of more than 

150 people, including not only of Viking's employees but employees of our 

subcontractors as welL 

Please pass Section 502 as rapidly as possible. 

Section 503-Tongass State Forest Facilitation 

The AFA strongly supports the establishment of a 2 million acre State Forest in 

Southeast Alaska. This has been a goal of the AFA for many years because the US 

Forest Service either cannot or will not provide the supply of timber which it is required 

to provide under federal forest laws. The Forest Service has either abandoned its duty 

to provide this timber supply or is no longer competent to do so. In either case this 

Committee and Congress must act if the Alaska timber industry is to survive and 

rebuild. In fact, the Forest Service is currently embarked on a ridiculous, premature 

"transition" to young growth timber harvesting which cannot work until the young trees 

mature in about another 30-50 years. The AFA has been explaining to the Forest 

Service and the Department of Agriculture that this premature transition will not work, 

but the Forest Service persists in attempting to administratively lock-in the transition 

decision before the end of the current Administration. This young growth transition 

decision which was unilaterally directed by the Secretary of Agriculture violates federal 

law. But that does not seem to matter to the Department of Agriculture which intends go 
22 


Insert offset folio 43 here 22000A.019

foiWard despite the dire consequences to the Alaska timber industry and the 

communities in Southeast Alaska. 

Just this last month, the Forest Service hosted a large group of Congressional staff and 

other carefully selected individuals on a 3-day field trip on Prince of Wales and other 

southeast Alaska islands. That field trip included professional foresters from the Forest 

Service who acknowledged that this transition cannot work. AFA salutes these 

professionals for telling the truth about this politically motivated attack on our already 

meager timber supply in Southeast Alaska. 

So it is even more critical that this Committee pass legislation to facilitate the creation of 

a state forest. If a state forest were established, the Forest Service could still 

experiment with its "young growth" obsession without actually harming the rest of the 

economy of Southeast Alaska. As it stands now, the Forest Service planned, premature 

young growth transition will destroy the remaining timber manufacturing industry since 

there is no economically viable way for any of this immature young growth to be 

processed in Southeast Alaska and shipped to customers some 800 miles away in the 

Pacific Northwest. At best. all the immature trees that are cut will be exported to China 

as unprocessed logs. 

However, if Congress will allow the State to establish a State Forest in areas which the 

State has selected on the State Forest map which is attached to this testimony, there is 

hope. There is also consensus: All three members of the Alaska Congressional 

Delegation support the establishment of this State Forest as does the Governor of 

Alaska. The AFA has determined that under management by the State of Alaska the 
23 


Insert offset folio 44 here 22000A.020

management of a portion of the forest can be self-funded by stumpage receipts which 

will greatly exceed the current moribund receipts which the Forest Service timber sales 

produce. An example of the failed Forest Service management is the most recent Kuiu 

Timber Sale which was so poorly designed and offered that there were no bids on the 

sale at all, despite the current desperate timber supply plight in the region. 

In summary, the AFA urges this Committee and Congress to pass Section 503 

and allow the establishment of a State owned and managed forest from 2 million 

Acres of the 16.8 million acre Tongass Forest.;-::!••••••••••••• 

..... The proposed State Forest is limited to land which is currently not set aside 

by Congress for any Wilderness, Monument, LUD II or other such protective category. 

This will leave nearly 15 million acres of land (still the largest land base of any national 

forest in the country) which is more than enough for the Forest Service to "manage". 

Finally, AFA wishes to thank the Alaska Delegation and particularly Senator Murkowski 

for their long term commitment to help timber industry and Southeast Alaska to achieve 

this solution and restore the Alaska Timber industry to a positon where it can contribute 

to a diversified economy in Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

Owen Graham 

Executive Director 

Alaska Forest Association 

111 Stedman Suite 200 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

Phone 907-225-6114 

Email ojgraham@aol.com 
24 


Insert offset folio 0001 here 22000A.021
25 


Insert offset folio 46 here 22000A.022

Testimony of Kirk Dahlstrom 

Secretary 

Viking Lumber 

TestifYing Before 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Regarding 

S. 3203 The Alaska Economic Development Act 

September 19, 2016 

Good Morning Senator and Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony 

today at this hearing. My name is Kirk Dahlstrom. I am Secretary and operator of 

Viking Lumber Mill located in Klawock, Alaska. Viking is the sole remaining 

mid-sized sawmill in southeast Alaska and a family-owned and operated business, 

incorporated in the State of Alaska. I have been the general manager of operations 

at Viking's facilities located between Craig and Klawock on Prince of Wales 

Island, Alaska since 1994. I am responsible for all of Viking's operations. The 

mill is this point is almost totally dependent on timber which is sold from the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Viking strongly supports rapid passage of Section 502, the Alaska Mental Health 

Land Exchange. The passage of this section is absolutely critical for the continued 

success and viability of the Viking Mill and for Viking's sister company's 

(Dahlstrom Lumber Company) operations in Washington State at Hoquiam. 

Viking and Dahlstrom Lumber Company operate in an integrated process and 

wood which Viking is able to harvest in Southeast Alaska plays a key part in the 

integrated operations by which the Hoquiam Mill supplies our customers. Seventy 

per cent of our customers are domestic purchasers, including Wayne Dalton 

Corporation, Centralia, Washington; Sierra Lumber, San Jose, California; and 

Jameson Fence Supply, Dallas, Texas. 

It is absolutely critical that Viking has a steady supply for the Alaska operation 

which will also affect the Hoquiam Washington facility. Viking sends much of its 

timber to Hoquiam for remanufacture and to be dressed, dried, packages, wrapped 

and distributed. This integrated work in Hoquiam helps support the 38 jobs in 

1 
26 


Insert offset folio 47 here 22000A.023

Washington State. I am also submitting two letters of support from the Alta Forest 

Products, Chehalis, Washington and Dahlstrom Lumber facility in Hoquiam each 

of which supports the passage of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

as important to their operations. Please accept and add these letters to the hearing 

record. 

Viking is a key economic engine in Southeast Alaska as it provides jobs for its own 

mill workers, as well as related employment for timber fallers, truck drivers, 

equipment owners, and operators as well as stevedores many of whom are also 

members of AF A. I was also President of AF A for four years and remain on 

AFA's Board of Directors. I make this testimony to provide the committed facts 

regarding the devastating harm that could befall the families, related businesses, 

and communities of Southeast Alaska if the Alaska Mental Health Exchange does 

not pass and quickly. 

Viking manufactures raw logs into lumber products. With no timberland holdings 

of its own, Viking is entirely dependent on a steady supply of public timber sales, 

the majority of which are offered by the Forest Service on the Tongass National 

Forest. Timber from the Tongass has always been and continues to be a critical 

source of supply for Viking's operations. Since 1994, we have purchased and 

successfully operated over 30 Forest Service timber sales. But now, the Forest 

Service timber sales are lagging and are not providing my mill with a steady 

supply of timber. Viking needs the AMHT land exchange to provide some other 

source of timber supply to help broaden and diversify its timber supply base. 

We have operated our mill continuously for 15 years, except for maintenance 

shutdowns, until we had to shut down our mill for the first time on December 17, 

2009, because we lacked the necessary volume of Hemlock and Spruce logs to 

continue mill operations. As a result, we had to lay off 15 employees. 

Fortunately, the Forest Service awarded the Diesel timber contract to Viking on 

December 23, 2009. Because of our critical need for the logs from Diesel, we 

moved forward to promptly complete the necessary paperwork and planned to 

restart the mill on February 8, 2010, at which time we also planned to re-hire all of 

our laid off personnel, and keep the mill running continuously that year. 

2 
27 


Insert offset folio 48 here 22000A.024

However, on January 11, 2010, environmental groups filed a lawsuit seeking, 

among other things, to enjoin the Diesel timber sale claiming to protect the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf and the Sitka black-tailed deer, which is one source of 

food for the wolf. Tongass Conservation Soc'y v. Forest Service, 10-cv-00006 

TMB. In 2010, the 9th Circuit Court denied plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief 

in a ruling that was affirmed on appeal. On remand, this Court granted the Forest 

Service's Motion for Summary Judgment in a ruling that was also affirmed on 

appeal. See Tongass Conservation Soc'y v. Forest Service, No. 10-35904, Slip 

Op., Oct. 24, 2011 (Doc. No. 208). Even though the lawsuit against the Diesel 

timber sale was found to be without merit in four legal opinions, the litigation 

delayed operations on the sale, consumed Viking's financial resources, and made 

planning mill operations and the general conduct of business very difficult. 

That is why the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange is so critical to future 

operations of Viking. If the Trust Land Exchange is approved, I am working with 

AMHT to provide harvest and production of the timber which AMHT will receive 

in the exchange on Prince of Wales Island. This timber if it becomes available to 

Viking could provide up to ten years of supply to the Viking Mill at Klawock and 

be very helpful to our integrated operations in Hoquim. So passage of the AMHT 

land exchange is time critical. 

As of September 15, 2016, Viking had approximately 4.5 MMBF oflogs in 

inventory at its mill and another roughly 28 MMBF of timber under contract on the 

state sale. However, the high quality spruce, which is the most important source of 

raw material for Viking's product line, will run out in just a few months at which 

point Viking's operations will immediately become much less economical than 

they would be iflogs from the AMHT land exchange were available. 

Of course, logs ready for processing do not instantaneously appear at the mill. 

Instead, the timber must be accessed, harvested, loaded and then transported from 

the timber sale to the mill site. That takes time and makes the Congressional 

approval of the AMHT exchange so time critical. 

3 
28 


Insert offset folio 49 here 22000A.025

Viking is currently one of the largest year-round employers on Prince of Wales 

Island. Most of our annual $22 million in revenue remains on the Island and has 

contributed significantly to the Island's economy over the years. 

Keeping Viking's mill supplied with the reliable source of timber contained in the 

Alaska Mental Health land exchange is essential to the continued employment of 

more than 150 people, including not only of Viking's employees but employees of 

our subcontractors as well. 

Finally, I want to thank the Alaska Delegation and particularly Senator Murkowski 

for her commitment, common sense, and passion to help us achieve this solution. 

On behalf of Viking and its Alaska and affiliated Washington State employees, 

Viking asks this Committee and Congress to pass the Alaska Mental Health Land 

Exchange Act as quickly as possible and authorize the land exchange so this timber 

can be made available to Viking. 

Thank you. 

Attachments: 

1. Alta Forest Products Letter in support of the AMIH Exchange 

2. Dahlstrom Lumber Letter in support of the AMHT Exchange 

4 
29 


Insert offset folio 51 here 22000A.027

Alta Forest Products 

810 NW Alta Way 

Chehalis, WA 98532 

Dear Senator Cantwell, 

In regards to Senate Bill- S.3006 

Regarded as "Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 2016" 

Alta Forest Products operates three Western Red Cedar (WRC} fence manufacturing facilities in 

Washington State (Morton, Shelton, and Amanda Park) employing over 300 dedicated milling 

professionals with family wage jobs. We work hand in hand with TERO and employ an 

exemplary crew of minority workers at our Amanda Park mill which is located on the Quinault 

Reservation 

Alta's fencing products are produced from renewable Western Red Cedar trees. The logs are 

sourced exclusively from well managed timberlands in regions where the species grow, 

including Washington, Oregon, Idaho & Alaska 

Alta prides itself by leading the industry in technology and green manufacturing which results in 

100% of the log fiber being recovered and utilized. 

In recent years West coast WRC manufactures have been extremely challenged to source 

enough raw materials to keep their mills running and our industry has seen the closure of 

multiple mills. Most recently was early 2016 when Mary's River Lumber that employed some 

250 workers in Washington and Oregon was forced to close and publicly cited the lack of raw 

materials as the main contributing factor to the company's closure 

The passage of S.3006 will give an opportunity for WRC logs that do not fit the grade of 

products manufactured in the state of Alaska to be processed by mills in Washington State. 

At the same time that our industry suffers from lack of raw materials due largely to timber 

harvest restrictions, consumer demand for our products is high. We urge you to keep inferior 

foreign products from being imported into our markets and putting our Washington jobs at risk. 

Please pass bill S.3006 which makes sense for state of Alaska and Washington. 

Sincerely, 

Todd Shipp 

Vice President of Procurement 

Alta Forest Products 
30 


Insert offset folio 50 here 22000A.026

Dear Sir or Madam: 

100 Airport Way • P.O. Box 386 • Hoquiam, WA 98550 

Telephone (360) 533-0448, 533·0521 • FAX (360) 533-3619 

We are writing in an effort to express the impact that the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange will have 

on several communities throughout SouthEast Alaska and Washington State especially. The land exchange is 

vital in providing continued economic security within these communities. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange will not only generate income for the Trust for many Alaskans 

with mental illness, brain injuries, developmental disabilities and Alzheimer's disease , to name a few, but has 

also tar reaching affects to many small communities that are dependent on jobs provided by the timber supply 

generated by the harvest and management of the forest 

Directly, Viking Lumber, the only old-growth sawmill still in operation in Southeast Alaska currently employs 43 

employees within a small community in Klawock Alaska. This sawmill, though seemingly small, is mighty in the 

far reaching impact its vital operation has on the continued employment of jobs throughout Alaska and 

Washington and Oregon. The continued supply of wood brought to the mill will sustain the viability of the mill 

and allow it to continue to operate profitably. It is essential that this mill not be allowed to close as it is the 

keystone in production that will make it possible for many other companies to also continue business in several 

economically sensitive communities. 

Companies that employ many with jobs that are essential for struggling families in communities that are not 

rich with opportunity are keen to see the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange proceed. These 

companies, Papac Alaska, Columbia Helicopters, Boyer Tug and Barge, Alcan Timber, just to name a few are 

associated with the business provided through the harvest of timber that the land exchange will ensure, 

In Washington state, several businesses are also directly impacted by the production of the Viking Lumber mill. 

Little River and Afab and Dahlstrom Lumber are companies that employ 38 direct jobs in the Grays Harbor 

county and depend on the production generated by the mill in Alaska. Not only do these companies provide 

many stable jobs for its employees but indirectly bring business to other companies within the Grays Harbor 

area. These companies, along with Viking Lumber in Klawock Alaska, will likely not survive without the Alaska 

Mental Health Trust Exchange. 

The Alaskan Mental Health Trust land exchange, after years of conscientrous planning with local governments 

and environmental and conservation groups, has come up with an acceptable policy for continued stewardship 

of land that not only just makes sense environmentally for the community but also economically. With the land 

exchange the Trust will continue to be able to provide much needed services to those in need. Countless jobs 

generated in small communities of Alaska and Washington where small businesses are dependent on the 

timber supply directly and indirectly are hanging in the balance. 

Please consider the impact the Alaskan Mental Health Trust land exchange will have on so many families. Your 

position and voice are much needed in bringing light to the importance of this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis 

.~~ Reynvaan 
31 


Insert offset folio 52 here 22000A.028

September 20, 2016 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

Please accept these comments for the committee regarding the Alaska Mental Health Trust land 

Exchange. 

As you know and understand, the Timber Industry in Alaska is on life support and may soon disappear 

completely. This would be a hard blow to the region's fragile economy. In many of our communities 

there are very few opportunities to work year round in a position that provides enough income and 

stability to raise a family and otherwise thrive. Without timber harvest, many more young people will 

leave, and more communities will be hollowed out. 

The US Forest Service has not been able to provide adequate timber to keep any stability for the 

industry in Southeast Alaska. The exchange of the 17,341 acres of Trust lands for up to 20,580 acres of 

US Forest Service lands of equal value would avoid the potential adverse impacts on tourism, recreation, 

wildlife management, and watershed protection while sustaining what remains of the timber industry in 

Southeast Alaska by providing more timber lands that could be managed on a sustained yield basis. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust land Exchange bill is critical to maintain the current timber industry in 

SE Alaska by providing the Trust the ability to offer sufficient timber supply until other lands owners can 

place enough timber on the market during the transition to young growth harvest. Trust timber sales 

will provide required timber for the last medium size sawmill on Prince of Wales which supplies 

employment for 150 people. The timber industry provides many other jobs in SE communities. 

I strongly urge you to pass the Alaska Mental Health Trust land Exchange bill to support theSE 

economy, communities, timber industry, and the Trust in providing mental health services in SE Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

Brian Brown 

PO Box 23105 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 
32 


Insert offset folio 53 here 22000A.029

Kleeschulte, Chuck {Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Follow Up Flag: 

Flag Status: 

Senator Murkowski: 

Dan Bockhorst <danb@kgbak.us> 

Monday, September 19, 2016 3:04 PM 

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough Support for S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development 

and Access to Resources Act 

Resolution_2667.pdf 

Follow up 

Flagged 

1 am aware that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has scheduled a hearing for this Thursday, 

September 22. Among the bills being heard is S. 3203, the "Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources 

Act." 

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Mayor and Assembly have a long history of strongly supporting responsible economic 

development and access to Alaska's abundant resources. S. 3203 is clearly consistent with that position. 

There are three parts of S. 3203 that are of particular importance to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Those are 

Sections 401, 502, and 503, which are addressed below. 

Section 401. 

Section 401 of the bill provides for Department of Energy grants for the development of more environmentally 

acceptable and less expensive ways to separate and process rare earth elements, which would increase the likelihood of 

economic production of rare earth elements at the Bokan Mountain mining project near Ketchikan. 

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough has long supported efforts to encourage production of rare earth elements through 

development of the Bokan-Dotson Ridge Rare Earth Element Project. 

Section 502. 

Section 502 of the bill contains provisions to carry out the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange with the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

For years, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly has strongly encouraged the Alaska Mental Health Trust land 

exchange. The latest expression of such support is reflected in Resolution No. 2667, adopted by the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borough Assembly on August 15, 2016. A copy of Resolution No. 2667 is attached. 

Section 503. 

Section 503 of S. 3203 provides for a conveyance, subject to valid existing rights, of not more than 2,000,000 acres of 

federal land for use by the State as a State forest. The Borough has previously expressed its support for this measure. 

By emphasizing the three sections above, there is no lack of support on the part of the Borough for the other 18 

substantive sections of S. 3203. As stressed above, The Mayor and Members of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway 
33 


Insert offset folio 54 here 22000A.030

Borough have consistently supported responsible economic development and access to Alaska's abundant natural 

resources. 

Sincerely, 

Dan Bockhorst 

Borough Manager 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

1900 First Avenue, Suite 210 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 

Telephone: (907) 228-6625 
34 


Insert offset folio 55 here 22000A.031

KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH 

RESOLUTION NO. 2667 

A Resolution of the Assembly of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Strongly 

Supporting and Urging Passage of S. 3006, the Alaska Mental Health Land 

Exchange Act of 2016 

RECITALS 

A. WHEREAS, in 1956, Congress passed the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, 

granting an entitlement of one million acres of federal land to the Territory of 

Alaska to generate revenues for the benefit of Alaskans with mental illness, 

developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism, Alzheimer's disease, and 

dementia; and 

B. WHEREAS, the Alaska Mental Health Trust Board has a fiduciary responsibility 

to: (1) maximize long-term revenue from Trust Land; (2) encourage a diversity of 

revenue-producing uses of Trust Land; (3) manage Trust Land prudently, 

efficiently and with accountability to the Trust and its beneficiaries; and (4) 

protect and enhance the long-term productivity of Trust Land; and 

C. WHEREAS, for nearly a decade, the Alaska Mental Health Trust has been 

seeking to exchange with the US Forest Service 18,066 acres of forested Trust 

lands near downtown Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, Sitka, and Myers 

Chuck, in exchange for US Forest Service timber lands of equal value in the 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough and on Prince of Wales Island; and 

D. WHEREAS, from the perspective of Trust beneficiaries, the highest and best use 

of the 18,066 acres of Trust lands may be to harvest high-value timber lands 

and develop other lands for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes; and 

E. WHEREAS, harvesting and development of the 18,066 acres could have wide 

ranging adverse impacts on tourism, recreation, wildlife management, and 

watershed protection; and 

F. WHEREAS, the exchange of the 18,066 acres of Trust lands for US Forest Service 

lands of equal value of lands would avoid the potential adverse impacts on 

tourism, recreation, wildlife management, and watershed protection; and would 

also help sustain what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by 

providing more timber lands that could be managed on a sustained yield basis; 

and 

G. WHEREAS, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly has consistently and 

repeatedly endorsed the proposed land exchange (e.g., Resolution No. 2293 
35 


Insert offset folio 56 here 22000A.032

Resolution No. 2667 Page2 

adopted January 17, 2011; Resolution No. 2409 adopted June 4, 2012; 

Resolution No. 2471-A adopted June 17, 2013; Resolution No. 2513 adopted 

October 21, 2013); and 

H. WHEREAS, on June 30, 2015 the US Forest Service and the Trust completed an 

"Agreement To Initiate" an administrative land exchange which involves 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement that could take years to 

complete; and 

I. WHEREAS, delays in the US Forest Service timber sale planning efforts have 

caused serious concerns that there will not be enough timber available to 

support what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska to allow it to 

transition to young-growth timber unless the State of Alaska and Mental Health 

Trust can provide bridge timber sales in the interim; and 

J. WHEREAS, S. 3006, the Alaska Mental Health Trust land Exchange Act of 2016, 

sponsored by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and co-sponsored by U.S. Senator 

Dan Sullivan, would provide Congressional authorization and direction for the 

exchange, which should expedite completion of the transfer so that timber 

lands could be transferred to the Trust within 12 months; and 

K. WHEREAS, the Alaska Mental Health Trust land Exchange Act of 2016 is fair and 

responsible; notably, it requires: (1) the land exchange to be of equal value, 

based on appraisal; (2) environmental reviews to protect all species, cultural and 

historic resources, wetlands, and floodplains; (3) that tribal consultations be 

conducted; and (4) that the trust cover all expenses incurred by the US Forest 

Service in completing the exchange; and 

L. WHEREAS, the Trust has previously worked with the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borough and other affected municipal governments, affected communities, the 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the Tongass Futures Roundtable, the 

Mitkof Homeowners Association of Petersburg, The Nature Conservancy and 

Trout Unlimited to select lands with the least environmental impacts and to 

fashion the exchange terms to benefit wildlife. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS RESOLVED 

BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH as follows: 

Section 1. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough strongly supports and urges passage of 

5.3006, the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange of 2016, which reflects the 

proposed land exchange between the US Forest Service and the Alaska Mental Health 

Trust as presented in the Agreement to Initiate dated June 30, 2015. 

Section 2. The Borough Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this resolution to: 
36 


Insert offset folio 57 here 22000A.033

Resolution No. 2667 

(1) The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator for Alaska; 

(2) The Honorable Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator for Alaska; 

(3) The Honorable Don Young, U.S Congressman for Alaska; 

(4) The Honorable Bill Walker, Governor of Alaska; 

(5) Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture; 

(6) M. Earl Stewart, Tongass Forest Supervisor; 

Page 3 

(7) Jeff Jessee, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority; 

(8) John Morrison, Executive Director, Alaska Mental Health Lands Trust Office 

Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately. 

ADOPTED this lS'h day of August, 2016. 

David u(ndls:Borough Mayor 

Kacie Paxton, Borough Clerk 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

JittJ~tL Scott A. Brandt-Erichsen, Borough Attorney 
37 


Insert offset folio 58 here 22000A.034

September 20, 2016 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

Congress passed the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, granting an entitlement of one million acres of 

federal land to the Territory of Alaska in 1956. The purpose was to generate revenues for the benefit of 

Alaskans with mental illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism, Alzheimer's disease, and 

dementia. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Board has a fiduciary responsibility to: (1) maximize long-term revenue 

from Trust Land; (2) encourage a diversity of revenue-producing uses of Trust Land; (3) manage Trust 

Land prudently, efficiently, and with accountability to the Trust and its beneficiaries; and (4) protect and 

enhance the long-term productivity of Trust Land. 

In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 grants to organizations in SE, totaling over $3 million. 

Another 323 Trust beneficiaries in SE have been awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over 

$482,000. The Trust needs to create revenues from its land and resources in order to continue provide 

these types of services. 

For nearly a decade the Alaska Mental Health Trust has been seeking to exchange forested Trust lands 

near downtown Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, Sitka, and Myers Chuck, in exchange for US 

Forest Service timber lands of equal value in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and on Prince of Wales 

Island. 

The exchange of the 17,341 acres of Trust lands for up to 20,580 acres of US Forest Service lands of 

equal value would avoid the potential adverse impacts on tourism, recreation, wildlife management, 

and watershed protection while sustaining what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by 

providing more timber lands that could be managed on a sustained yield basis. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange bill is critical to maintain the current timber industry in 

SE Alaska by providing the Trust the ability to offer sufficient timber supply until other lands owners can 

place enough timber on the market during the transition to young growth harvest. Trust timber sales 

will provide required timber for the last medium size sawmill on Prince of Wales which supplies 

employment for 150 people. The timber industry provides many other jobs in SE communities. 

I strongly urge you to pass the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange bill to support theSE 

economy, communities, timber industry, and the Trust in providing mental health services in SE Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

William Swift, Executive Director, Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce 

2417 Tongass Ave, Suite 223 A 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 
38 


Insert offset folio 59 here 22000A.035

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

9/22/2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

Robert Sivertsen <rwsivertsen@gmail.com> 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 1:10 AM 

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

Congress passed the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, granting an entitlement of one million acres of federal land to 

the Territory of Alaska in 1956. The purpose was to generate revenues for the benefit of Alaskans with mental illness, 

developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Board has a fiduciary responsibility to: (1) maximize long-term revenue from Trust land; 

(2) encourage a diversity of revenue-producing uses ofTrust Land; (3) manage Trust Land prudently, efficiently, and with 

accountability to the Trust and its beneficiaries; and (4) protect and enhance the long-term productivity ofTrust Land. 

In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 grants to organizations in SE, totaling over $3 million. Another 323 

Trust beneficiaries in SE have been awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over $482,000. The Trust needs to create 

revenues from its !and and resources in order to continue provide these types of services. 

For nearly a decade the Alaska Mental Health Trust has been seeking to exchange forested Trust lands near downtown 

Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, Sitka, and Myers Chuck, in exchange for US Forest Service timber lands of 

equal value in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and on Prince of Wales Island. 

The exchange of the 17,341 acres ofT rust lands for up to 20,580 acres of US Forest Service lands of equal value would 

avoid the potentia! adverse impacts on tourism, recreation, wildlife management, and watershed protection while 

sustaining what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by providing more timber lands that could be 

managed on a sustained yield basis. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange bill is critical to maintain the current timber industry in SE Alaska by 

providing the Trust the ability to offer sufficient timber supply until other lands owners can place enough timber on the 

market during the transition to young growth harvest. Trust timber sales will provide required timber for the last 

medium size sawmill on Prince of Wales which supplies employment for 150 people. The timber industry provides many 

other jobs in SE communities. 

I strongly urge you to pass the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange bill to support theSE economy, communities, 

timber industry, and the Trust in providing mental health services in SE Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Sivertsen 

3817 Alaska Avenue 

Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 
39 


Insert offset folio 60 here 22000A.036

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Clare Doig <cdoig@forestandlandmanagement.com> 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:39 AM 

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

Subject: Fwd: Support of S.3006 

Sent from my iPad 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: Clare Doig <cdoig@forestandlandmanagement.com> 

Date: September 19, 2016 at 10:00:38 PM AKDT 

To: Chuck Kleeshulte@energy.senate.gov 

Subject: Support of S.3006 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

I am writing in support of S. 3006, the exchange of lands between the Alaska Mental Health Trust and 

the U.S. Forest Service. 

This exchange will benefit the communities which value the Trust's current lands as the scenic 

background that enhances their tourism dependent enterprises. It will benefit the Mental Health Trust 

by allowing it to manage the forest lands it receives as investment properties to generate revenues to 

support the programs needed by the Trusts beneficiaries; Alaskans with mental health problems and 

related disabilities. The exchange will benefit the residents of southeast Alaska by supporting the 

continued operation of the only large sawmill and the major employer in Klawock and Prince of Wales 

Island. 

This exchange will also benefit the US Forest Service, as it will provide a little more time for it to work 

through the the various issues preventing it from fulfilling it's mandate to provide sufficient volumes of 

economically operable timber to support the southeast Alaska timber industry. 

I am writing this as a professional forester, born and raised in Sitka, Alaska, and having worked the 

majority of my professional career in Alaska. It is my personal and professional opinion that this 

exchange is in the best interest of all of the principal stakeholders. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Clare E.Doig, ACF,CF 

P.O. Box 110149 

Anchorage, Alaska 99511 
40 


Insert offset folio 61 here 22000A.037

Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Communit:3 

The Honorable Lisa A. Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, 

DC 20510-0203 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, 

DC 2051 0-4 705 

Subj: Introduced bills concerning the Tongass National Forest 

15 September2016 

Dear Senators, 

The Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community (GSACC) is a grassroots regional 

environmental (501 c.3) nonprofit formed in 201!. GSACC's mission is, "To defend and promote 

the biological integrity of Southeast Alaska s terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems for 

the benefit of current and future generations. "Our volunteer board is composed of career 

professionals in resource management and biological research as well as commercial fishermen 

representing several gear groups focusing on a variety of target species. 

On behalf of the Board of Directors and membership of GSACC, we urge Senator Murkowski to 

withdraw the full suite of bills. Individually as well as collectively, the bills are an assault on the 

already tenuous state of ecological integrity in our region, through transfers ofland ownership 

and the resulting substantial deregulation of forest management. The unprecedented scale and 

sweeping changes imposed by any of these bills (S.3203, S. 3204; & S.3273) is a breathtaking 

demonstration of opportunism at the expense of present and future generations of Alaskans and 

all American citizens as owners of our public lands. 

S.3006 (imbedded in S.3206) deserves special mention because of its intense press coverage. As 

the communities of Petersburg and Ketchikan face the Alaska Mental Health Trust's (AMHT's) 

daunting ultimatum to log its landslide-prone mountain slopes in those towns unless S. 3006 

passes, much of Southeast's residents cannot help but feel being played as hostages and political 

pawns in this legislation. Senator Murkowski, you said in 2010 in Petersburg that you truly 

"regret the anxiety & tension that the Sealaska bill had created in our small towns and that you 

recognize," ... has pitted neighbor against neighbor" and that the "resentment is not good for 

communities." 
41 


Insert offset folio 62 here 22000A.038

Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Communit_y 

Indeed Senator, such is the pernicious effect your lands legislation has already had on our 

communities and continues to this day. 

S. 3006 short-circuits the existing Agreement to Initiate a land exchange with AMHT and the 

USFS. It also short-circuits the necessary public involvement associated with that procedural 

protocol by employing the industry's perennial narrative of imminent collapse in order to justify 

congressional intervention. 

Instead of the terms ofS. 3006, we ask that you introduce a bill for a simple Federal legislative 

buy-out of the AMHT lands in question- to provide an equivalent monetary endowment for 

AMHT instead of a land-based one. In the words of GSACC board member Becky Knight, 

published in the Juneau Empire recently: 

"The best alternative would be for the federal government to trade an ample monetary 

endowment to AMHT in exchange for the land holdings (it) has been trying to unload. The' 

endowment should be based on an appraisal of the profit that the Trust could be expected to net 

over two cutting cycles (i.e. the net value to the Trust of the present timber, plus something for the 

land.) 

As Ms. Knight points out this approach, modeled after the Shec Atika buy-out, would allow 

AMHT to focus on its primary mission, one normally expected of Mental Health service 

providers in government, instead of serving as a heavy-handed corporate proxy of the Southeast 

Alaska timber industry. 

Your stated regret for pitting neighbor against neighbor, misses an essential fact. Your zeal for 

privatization and deregulation is also pitting the unsustainable sector of old growth clearcutting 

against our two world class, sustainable economic sectors. Even the Editor of the Ketchikan 

Daily News recently acknowledged the impacts to Ketchikan's tourism economy, should Deer 

Mountain get logged. 

Southeast's billion dollars-apiece, commercial fishing and tourism industries are each dependent 

upon intact, old growth forests and the resilient, productive watersheds they provide. The timber 

industry is targeting those same old growth forests, which require centuries for the original 

structure and function to return. Whole watersheds comprised of centuries-old forest can be 

eliminated in a single cutting season, while timber represents all of 1% of the regional economy. 
42 


Insert offset folio 63 here 22000A.039

Alaska Conservation Communit~ 

ln closing, please find evidential photographic documentation taken by one ofGSACC's 

members, who as a commercial salmon troller is depending upon resilient, productive 

watersheds. The images represent State activities of the Sealaska Timber 

Corporation on the Cleveland Peninsula just a few miles north of Ketchikan. Please consider the 

effects of your privatization and deregulation legislation upon the changing vistas and natural 

wealth of our world famous Scenic By-Ways of the Inside Passage. 

Sincerely, 

David Beebe 

GSACC president 

Scal.aska Clcarcut, and cruise ship, Clarence Strait, June 2014 photos by Joseph Sebastian, 

skipper, FV Alta E 
43 


Insert offset folio 64 here 22000A.040

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chainnan 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

\Vashington, DC 20510 

September 19,2016 

Ucore Rare Metals, 1ne. and the Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce support Senator 

Murkowski's recently introduced bill, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to 

Resources Act S. 3203 contains a host that will benefit the Alaskan economy and 

Alaskan industry and has further support from the Alaska Miners Association 

the City of Craig. · provisions within the bill promote the creation of green 

technology and U.S. national security by encouraging the development of new 

technologies to meet nation's demand t{Jr critical and strategic materials. 

Advancements in technology over the past have driven the demand for rare earth 

elements. from smartphones to electric to advanced defense ap·pwca<wrrs 

Fighter in some capacity on the properties of rare earths and 

useless them. Cum:ntly, the of these clements rs 

dominated China which controls <he majority of the world's mining of rare earth 

ore and subsequent stage in the separation chain. Chinese production of rare 

relies upon two separation techniques, ion <md solvent extraction. While the ion 

exchange process can produce small amounts purity rare earths, solvent extraction 

enables large scale However, solvent extraction techniques have a very lowselectivity for rare earths and uecessitate the usc of many separation stages using 

cmTosivc chemicals leading to the generation of vast amounts of highly toxic, organic waste. 

One need not look further than the artificial lake created in China's rare earth-producing Inner 

Mongolia region to the environmental degradation being caused as a result solvent 

extraction separation. 

the world's tech lust." BBC~ 2 April2015. 
44 


Insert offset folio 65 here 22000A.041

Section 401 of S.3203 provides for the creation of a grants program to develop "more 

environmentally acceptable and less expensive ways to separate and process rare earth clements, 

which would increase the likelihood of economic production of rare earth elements in North 

America." Not only would this language promote the development of an alternative to foreign 

sources of rare earths, improving U.S. national security, but section 401 would foster American 

development of clean technology. "Environmentally benign technologies," as referred to by the 

bill, offer the ability to meet 21 '' century demand for rare earths while simultaneously promoting 

metal sustainability and the elimination of pollutants from the rare earth separation supply chain. 

Despite increased demand for rare earths over the past half-century, low-cost, environmentallyfriendly alternatives to traditional separation processes have yet to be proven. Instead, companies 

have relied primarily on the expensive and polluting solvent extraction method of separation. 

The pilot plant to be constructed under Section 401 would not only help alleviate U.S. 

dependence on foreign sources of rare earths, but also drive innovation toward the next 

generation of separation technologies such as Molecular Recognition Technology. 

With no domestic rare earth mine or separation facility currently in operation, the U.S. exposes 

itself to dangerous supply interruptions. Thus far, the sole mitigation strategy employed by the 

Department of Defense consists of stockpiling small reserves of certain rare earths, a rather 

sanguine approach considering the host of defense-related applications that would be rendered 

ineffective if U.S. access to rare earths was restricted. Section 401, in placing an emphasis on 

closed loop systems with the capability to recover heavy rare earths such as dysprosium, terbium, 

and europium, enables to U.S. to obviate its dependence on foreign sources of critical materials. 

Ucore supports the language included in Section 401 of S.3203 and believes the bill effectively 

promotes the development of domestic alternatives to foreign sources of critical materials. 

Regards, 

acGillivray, VP Project Development 

Ucore Rare Metals, Inc. 

William Swift, Executive Director 

Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce 

/) 

Jason Custer, President 

Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce 
45 


Insert offset folio 66 here 22000A.042

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

MAGNETIC 

MATEH.IALS 

ASSOCIATION 

September 19, 2016 

The U.S. Magnet Material Association (USMMA) wishes to express support for Senate bill 3203, the 

Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. Included in 5.3203 are a series of provisions 

that will support the U.S. domestic industrial base and promote the security of the nation's supply 

chains for critical and strategic materials, including those for rare earths. 

At present China controls the majority of the world's mining and production of rare earth elements, 

including nearly complete control over the production of rare earth metals from oxides. Such rare earth 

elements are of critical and strategic importance to the United States, specifically to the Department of 

Defense as these materials are used in a host of applications ranging from the F-35 to the Small 

Diameter Bomb. Despite the critical nature of these elements, the United States is exposing itself to 

undue risk by relying on Chinese-produced material. Just six years ago, in the wake of increased tensions 

between China and Japan, China cut its export quota for rare earths by 40 percent from 2009 levels 

severely restricting the supply of rare earths and dramatically increasing their prices.' 

From the 1980s until the early 2000s, then from 2011-2015, the United States was able to largely rely on 

a mine in Mountain Pass, California as an alternative to certain Chinese-produced light rare earths, 

albeit, the U.S. still operated without a domestic rare earth metals production capability. The mine was 

most recently operated by Molycorp, Inc. However, after rare earth prices collapsed from 2012 to 2016, 

primarily as a result of China abolishing its rare earth quotas and increasing production, Molycorp's 

business case rapidly evaporated. Molycorp subsequently filed for bankruptcy in June of 2015, resulting 

in the existing process facility being dismantled and sold, leaving the U.S. with no production capability 

for rare earths. Thus, once again, the U.S. military is solely reliant on foreign sourced material to 

1 Bradsher, Keith. "Amid Tension, China Blocks Vital Exports to Japan." The New York Times. September 22, 2010. 

Accessed April 4, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/business/global/23rare.html? _r=O. 
46 


Insert offset folio 67 here 22000A.043

support the production of countless defense systems, including direct reliance on Chinese production of 

rare earth metals. 

Congress has repeatedly issued warnings to the Department of Defense that it lacks a secure domestic 

supply chain for the production of rare earths.'·' While the Department of Defense has noted the 

reliance on foreign sources of rare earth elements and the lack of "capability along several nodes of the 

value chain, particularly in rare earth-based metals," thus far the Department's only mitigation strategy 

has been to stockpile yttrium and dysprosium and monitor the market4 •

5 

Language included in Section 401 of S.3203 would encourage the domestic development of separation 

and processing capabilities for rare earth elements. One of the primary reasons for the failure of 

Molycorp was the inability of the U.S. company to produce material at a lower cost than traditional 

Chinese suppliers. Thus, to establish true independence, a technological breakthrough, with an 

accompanying breakthrough in cost of production, must be achieved to allow the United States to once 

again assert independence in the rare earth market. The Department of Energy grants program to be 

established under the section would help alleviate a critical supply chain risk factor in the production of 

rare earth elements including dysprosium (magnets), terbium (actuators and sonar), and europium 

(fluorescents) by introducing a disruptive technology with significant cost and environmental advantages 

over traditional Chinese production. In a heightened security environment, it is critical that the United 

States develop alternatives to foreign sources of rare earth material which should include the 

development of new technologies designed to separate and process rare earths. Section 401 of 5.3203 is 

welcome progress in this direction and is wholly supported by the U.S. Magnet Material Association. 

Regards, 

Ed Richardson 

President 

USMMA 

2 

U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations. Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2015(H. Rept. 113-473). 

Washington: Government Publishing Officer, 2014. 

'U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations. Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2012 (H. Rept. 112-110). 

~ashington: Government Publishing Office, 2011. 

Department of Defense. Strategic and Critical Moteriols 2015 Report on Stockpile Requirements. 2015. 5 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Yeor 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66. 
47 


Insert offset folio 68 here 22000A.044

Subject: 

Attachments: 

FW: Alaska hearing statement Support for S. 3273 - City of Wrangell and Wrangell 

Chamber Support the Landless 

City of WRG Res No. 04-16-1341.pdf; WRG Chamber Landless Resolution. pdf 

From: Richard Rinehart [mailto:richardjrinehart@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 8:41 PM 

To: Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

Subject: Support for S. 3273 - City of Wrangell and Wrangell Chamber Support the Landless 

September 19, 2016 

Charles Klceschulte 

Republican Professional Staff 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

united States Senate 

312 Dirksen Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for S. 3273, section 10-The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act 

Dear Ms. Kleeschulte: 

City of Wrangell and Wrangell Chamber Support the Landless Native Communities in SE Alaska!!! 

I see there is a hearing being held on Thursday for the Senate Committee on F..nergy and Natural Resources. 

want to send you this information for the record and so you may pass it along to senators and staff on the 

committee. 

I wish to make it clear to the committee members that we have local community support for the Unrecognized 

Southeast 1\laska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act (see also S. 3004 and S. 872). 

Please see the attached resolutions from the City of Wrangell and Wrangell Chamber of Commerce. 

Richard J. Rinehart, Jr. 

Ph. (907) 209-9094 

richardjrinehart@yahoo.com 
48 


Insert offset folio 69 here 22000A.045

CITY AND BOROUGH OF WRANGELL 

RESOLUTION No. 04-16-1341 

A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY AND 

BOROUGH OF WRANGELL, ALASKA, SUPPORTING THE 

LANDLESS NATIVES OF WRANGELL 

WHEREAS, in 1971 Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to 

recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their homelands, and provided for the 

establishment ofNative Corporations to receive and manage funds and lands awarded in settlement 

of claims of all Alaska Natives, and 

WHEREAS, in Southeast Alaska five traditional Native communities were left out of the 

Claims Settlement Act, including our Community of Wrangell, one of the oldest Native Communities 

in Southeast Alaska for reasons unknown, and 

WHEREAS, in 1971 a total of747 Alaska Natives enrolled to the Native Village of 

Wrangell, and today a much larger number are enrolled to our Community through inheritance and 

gifting of shares, and 

WHEREAS, because of the exclusion of our Native Village we and our heirs have been 

denied the cultural, economic and social benefits that other Southeast Communities have enjoyed that 

benefit not only Native residents but all others as well, and 

WHEREAS, in 1993, Congress directed the Secretary of the Department oflnterior to 

prepare a report examining the reasons why the Unrecognized Communities, including Wrangell, had 

been denied eligibility to form Native Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 

this report is known as the ISER (University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic 

Research )report, and 

WHEREAS, the report noted that our Community appeared on early versions of the 

legislation enacting the Claims Settlement Act, that inclusion and subsequent omission was never 

clearly explained in any provision of the Act or in the accompanying conference report, and 

WHEREAS, Alaska's Congressional Delegation has now introduced legislation in the US 

House of Representatives by Congressman Don Young, in a Bill titled H.R. 2386 "The Unrecognized 

Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act", and in the US Senate in 

a Bill Titled S.872 with the same name by Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Dan Sullivan, and 

WHEREAS, ISER report referenced above fuund no meaningful distinction between the 

Native Village of Wrangell, and other communities in sections 14 and 16 of the Act and therefore no 

justification for omission from the list of communities eligible to form urban or group Corporations 

under ANCSA, and further, testimony has been given in the US Congress supporting our Claims to 

our customary and traditional homelands. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF 

WRANGELL, ALASKA supports the passage of said legislation to bring about a fair and just settlement 

for the benefit of the Natives of Wrangell and for the good of the entire Community. 
49 


Insert offset folio 70 here 22000A.046

ADOPTED: ...,A.,.pn._.·l.._.l..,2,___ __ _,, 2016 

David L. Jack, Mayor 
50 


Insert offset folio 71 here 22000A.047

RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE LANDLESS NATIVES OF WRANGELL 

WHEREAS, in 1971 Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to 

recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their homelands, and provided 

for the establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage funds and lands awarded 

in settlement of claims of all Alaska Natives, and 

WHEREAS, in Southeast Alaska five traditional Native communities were left out of the 

Claims Settlement Act, including our Community of Wrangell, one of the oldest Native 

Communities in Southeast Alaska for reasons unknown, and 

WHEREAS, in 1971 a total of 747 Alaska Natives enrolled to the Native Village of 

Wrangell, and today a much larger number are enrolled to our Community through inheritance 

and gifting of shares, and 

WHEREAS, because of the exclusion of our Native Village we and our heirs have been 

denied the cultural, economic and social benefits that other Southeast Communities have 

enjoyed that benefit not only Native residents but all others as well, and 

WHEREAS, in 1993, Congress directed the Secretary of the Department of Interior to 

prepare a report examining the reasons why the Unrecognized Communities, including 

Wrangell, had been denied eligibility to form Native Corporations under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act, this report is known as the ISER (University of Alaska Institute of Social 

and Economic Research)report, and 

WHEREAS, the report noted that our Community appeared on early versions of the 

legislation enacting the Claims Settlement Act, that inclusion and subsequent omission was 

never clearly explained in any provision of the Act or in the accompanying conference report, 

and 

WHEREAS, Alaska's Congressional Delegation has now introduced legislation in the 

US House of Representatives by Congressman Don Young, in a Bill titled H.R. 2386 "The 

Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act", and 

in the US Senate in a Bill Titled S.872 with the same name by Senator Lisa Murkowski and 

Senator Dan Sullivan, and 

WHEREAS, ISER report referenced above found no meaningful distinction between the 

Native Village of Wrangell, and other communities in sections 14 and 16 of the Act and 

therefore no justification for omission from the list of communities eligible to form urban or 

group Corporations under ANCSA, and further, testimony has been given in the US Congress 

supporting our Claims to our customary and traditional homelands, 
51 


Insert offset folio 72 here 22000A.048

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Wrangell Chamber of 

Commerce supports the passage of said legislation to bring about a fair and just 

settlement for the benefit of the Natives of Wrangell and for the good of the 

entire Community. 

DATED: Apri16, 2016 

SIGNED: _:{!Ju::::.__~_,_..;.::· ""-. .....1-J'-··-~-~--- __ _ 

Christie l. Jamieson 

BY IT'S: President, Wrangell Chamber of Commerce 
52 


Insert offset folio 73 here 22000A.049

September 19, 2016 

Charles Kleeschulte 

Republican Professional Staff 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

312 Dirksen Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for S. 3273, section 10-The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act 

Dear Ms. Kleeschulte: 

All Native Organizations support the Landless Native Communities in SE Alaska!!! 

I see there is a hearing being held on Thursday for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources. I want to send you this information for the record and so you may pass it along to 

senators and staff on the committee. 

I wish to make it clear to the committee members that we have full support of the Native community 

for the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation "\ct 

(sec also S. 3004 and S. 872). 

I have attached copies of letters of support and resolutions from the Alaska Native Brotherhood, 

Alaska Federation of Native, the National Congress of American Indians, the Central Council'l1ingit 

Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, and the Wrangell Cooperative Association. Every native organization 

we have asked has provided their full support for our Landless bill. 

Some conservationist groups that oppose the Landless are trying to make this about cutting trees -

it is not! \Ve don ~t oppose their mission and goals, we care for fish, trees and our habitat too we 

live here. These opponents to our bill arc misguided. This bill is about recognition, equitable 

treatment and correcting a legislative injustice that has gone on for over forty years. 

Please support senators Murkowski and Sullivan and pass S. 3273. 

Thank for your consideration and support. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Rinehart Jr. 

Landless Shareholder 

W ran gel!, Alaska 
53 


Insert offset folio 74 here 22000A.050

September 30, 2015 

Wrangell Cooperative Association 

POBox:w:n 

Wrangell, AK 99929 

9()7.l:J74-4304 

wt"..atribe~\gm.ail.com 

I he Honorable Congressman Don Young 

Chairman of Suboommiltee on Nalural Resources 

132-4 Longworth House Ottioe Bldg 

Washington. OC. 20515 

The Honorable Raul RuiZ, RaWng Member 

Chairman d Subcommittee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg 

Washington. DC. 20515 

Dear Cllawman Young and Ranking Member RuiL, 

I am wnbng tills letter in support d S 872. UnlffCogrwLed SoutiH)ast Alaska Nativlt C..ommunities 

Recognition and Compllllflsabon Act, on behalf of the Wrangell Coope1'11t1Ye Association (WCA} 

The WCA is a federaly recognilftd tribe located in the City ol Wrangell. one of the five 

"tan<Jess· communities, aloog With Ke!Ch*an. Halfles. Petersburg and Tenakee. 

Despite the fact !hat our five communities made up nearly a quarter of all Sealaska 

sharellolders. we were nol included 1n the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA} 

and an explanatiOn for our exdu5101l was never g1ven Congr'es.'>JOnal reports OO!lduded 

decades tatM ronduded that Wrangell. and the other landless oommuJltleS. were ANCSA 

eligible and thetr exdusion was nol Justified. 
54 


Insert offset folio 75 here 22000A.051

For more than forty yeal'!i. Wrangell hi'!'> been tightlflQ the biltlle to be recugmzed. Our 

COITlfllunlty has not setlf1 the additiOnal benefits thai other ANCSA rommunities have seen. and 

conhnue to see. after being granted 23 000 acres and afforded the opportUfllly lo lorn\ VIllage 

oorpomlions Many WCA tnbal elders have passed WW'd)'. spending years suppotting the 

.andtt>ss effort. never lmagtning !hal their blood sweat and tears W(li.Jid ever lead to resolUtiOn 

We hope that S 872 can b'IOQ some Closure to lhtS 1ssuc. and SOITM'! comto<1 to the five 

communities that cn.Jid use the recognition 

TI'MJ Tof19."1S~ N:~non.'l' rori'!SII!: thr.l:lo/-SI nanonat torost 1n the US at aoout t 71'Tl111JOn acres. 

t' ANCSA were to some W11tl the five tnbcs the amount of land diStributed would be a drop ., 

thP hur.kPt compared to the vast sve of thP I ongass WmngP.II ISland. the Sllkinc River 

w<Jtersllud and ,urruull<.liii\J d'ca:. have l>ut.'fl man~ itnd proledlld by our people for 

thousands of ye-ars WCA'<o m1ssion os to pmt!'!Ct the cultural C'f!f'P.momal and suhsistP.nce 

life-style for all Alaskans. and to P'Omotc the safe use and avadabohty of a healthy enwonmenl 

'or present and 'uture generatK><ts. w .. woll contomJe to slewa'tllhe Tongass for thousands of 

yuar!i> to come 

Thank you for your hme 

Aaru11 All~crmdn 

Tonal Admorustralor 

Wrangc; COQP()rat•vc AssoCiatiOn 
55 


Insert offset folio 76 here 22000A.052

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

PRESIDENT 

Brian Cl;utoosby 

SwmOtmshTI'Ibe 

FIRST VICE·PRESIDENT 

RandyNoka 

NarragaflS<l!ITnbe 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Aaron Payment 

Sault Ste Mane TnOO of Chippewa 

lnd!ansofMW!IIgan 

TREASURER 

ArlanMelendez 

Reno Sparks Indian Colony 

REGIONAL VICE~ 

PRESIDENTS 

AlASKA 

Jerry isaac 

NatweVII/ageofTan;wross 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

S. Joe Crtttenden 

Cherokee NatiOn 

GREAT PLAINS 

Leander McDonald 

SpintLai<eNatlon 

MIDWEST 

RoptRader 

Pokagon Band of Polawatomt 

NORTHEAST 

t.aneeGumbs 

ShmnewcklndJanNaf!On 

NORTHWEST 

Fawn Sharp 

Qumau!tlnd!anNatron 

PACIFIC 

Rosemary Morillo 

Scooba Band of Lui$eno fndrans 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

Ivan Posey 

ShoshoneTnbe 

SOUTHEAST 

RonRh::hard•on 

Hal!wa-5aponi /nd;an Tribe 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

Stephen Smith 

K/Ow.J Tnbe 

SOUTriWEST 

Manuel Heart 

UteMounramUteTnbe 

WESTERN 

Artan Melendez 

RenoSparkslndiBnColony 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Jacqueline Johnson Pata 

"""' 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 P Street, N.W 

Washington, DC 20005 

202A66.n67 

202-466.7797 fax www neat org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

October 13, 2015 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Cbairman 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, 

and }.fining 

US Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ron Wyden, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and 

JV!ining 

C.S. Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: NCAI Support for S. 872- The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Wyden: 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest, largest, 

and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the 

broad interests of tribal governments and communities, I would like to thank the 

Subcommittee for holding a legislative hearing on S. 872 The Unrecognized Southeast 

Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. NCAI strongly 

supports the legislation and urges swift passage. 

In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to settle 

aboriginal land claims of Alaska Natives and create Alaska Native Corporations to 

provide a means to pursue economic development for the benefit. However, five 

traditional Native villages were excluded from ANCSA: Haines, Petersburg, Wrangell, 

Ketchikan, and Tenakee. To the best of our knowledge, no reasonable explanation has 

ever been offered for this exclusion. 

\X'hile members of these five traditional Native villages have received revenue sharing 

under Section 7(j) of ANCSA as Urban shareholders of the Sealaska Corporation, they 

have not enjoyed the social, economic, and cultural benefits of owning shares in a 

Village, Urban, or Group Corporation. Additionally, these members have been deprived 

of the significant cultural benefit of owning an interest in lands located within and 

around our traditional homelands. 

Nearly forty-four years after ANCSA, it is time to finally complete its recognition of 

Native villages and land entitlement conveyance. S. 872 will recognize the five 

traditional Native communities in Southeast Alaska under the ANCSA, and authorize 

each to form an 'Crban Corporation. Further, it authorizes each of the newly formed 

Urban Corporations to receive certain settlement land pursuant to ANCSA. 

Passing this legislation ensures the continued economic and cultural benefits to the 

members of the five traditional Native Villages and secures ~ative ownership of many 

sacred and cultural sites in the Southeast Alaska region; preserving and protecting 

Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian cultural properties for current and future generations. 

Enclosed: NC:\I Resolution #DEN-07-97 
56 


Insert offset folio 77 here 22000A.053

NCAI Letter Support for S. 872 Page I 2 

I would like to thank you again for vour support of S. 872. If you have any additional questions, please 

contact NCAI Staff ,\ttorncv & Legislative Counsel Colbv Duren, cdurcn@ncai.org or (202) 466-7767. 

Sincerely, 

Jacqueline Pata 

Executive Director 
57 


Insert offset folio 78 here 22000A.054

EXfCUT!Vf (OMM!TTH 

REGIONAl VICf·PRfSUHNTS 

£ASTERN OKlAHOMA 

~Graywn,Jr. 

Cl~reNaMn 

GRtAT PlAINS 

RonHbHorselsThunder 

StartdmgRock.\<eu>;T"~ 

MIDWEST 

ll.ober!Chkks 

Siod<lmdge-Mlln<IX' 

NORTHEAST 

RandyNoka 

N.>rragan>eu 

NORTH\VfST 

frnieSte:nsgar 

Coeurd'Aitmefn~ 

ROCKY MOUMAI'-

Wil!ieSharp,)r. 

8/ackff't>j ff>i>P 

50GTH!ASI 

Archie lynch 

H.t!rwa·.'iapon' 

EXlCl,TIVE DHUC!OR 

jacque!ineJohnron 

1/mglt 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Sui1t>200 

Washington, DC 10036 

202.466.7767 

202 466.7797 fax 

www.rn:a1 org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of American Indians 

Resolution #DEN-07-097 

TITLE: Urging Congress to Recognize Landless Southeast Native Communities 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent 

sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and 

agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are 

entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, 

and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby 

establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, the Southeast Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Tenakee Springs, and Wrangell were not provided the authority under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to form Native Corporations; and 

WHEREAS, these communities comprise greater than 20% of the 

shareholders of the Sealaska Corporation; and 

WHEREAS, the five landless communities have, for more than three decades, 

sought congressional provision for their full eligibility for ANCSA benefits; and 

WHEREAS, Congress in 1993 commissioned a formal study to examine the 

reasons why the five communities were denied ANCSA eligibility; and 

WHEREAS, no reasonable explanation has ever been provided for not 

including Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee Springs, and Wrangell as 

communities which should be participating in the ANCSA settlement in the same 

manner as are the other Native communities of Alaska; and 

WHEREAS, the Native members of the landless communities continue to 

seek redress which would provide for the formation of ANCSA corporations, land 

entitlement, and recovery of lost economic benefits; and 

WHEREAS, recognition of the five (5) communities is long overdue. 
58 


Insert offset folio 79 here 22000A.055

NCAI 2007 Annual Session Resolution DEN-07-097 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NCAI does hereby urge the United 

States Congress to recognize the Sealaska shareholders registered in the communities of Haines, 

Ketchikan. Petersburg, Tenakee Springs, and Wrangell as Native communities with the same 

status as Native communities recognized in Section l4(h) and Section 16 of ANCSA and provide 

authorization for those Native communities to form ANCSA corporations and select land and 

provide compensation for the economic opportunities lost due to the delayed recognition of their 

rights to share in the land entitlement in the same manner as those Native communities 

recognized for such participation in I 97 I under ANCSA; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy ofNCAI until it 

is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was referred by the General Assembly at the 2007 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians to the Executive Committee, and adopted on December 5, 

2007 by the Executive Committee. with a quorum present. 

ATTEST: p~ 

Record in~ 

Page 2 of2 
59 


Insert offset folio 80 here 22000A.056

TITLE: 

Alaska Federation of Natives 

2015 Legislative & Litigation Committee 

Resolution 15-7 

SUPPORT OF THE UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES 

SEEKING LEGISLATION TO ALLOW THEM TO FORM ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS 

SETTLEMENT ACT (ANCSA) CORPORATIONS AND RECEIVE ANCSA BENEFITS 

WHEREAS: The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) is the largest statewide Native 

organization in Alaska having upwards of 300 members, including 165 federally 

recognized tribes, 146 village for-profit corporations, 12 regional for-profit 

corporations, and 12 regional not-for-profit and tribal consortiums that contract 

and compact to run federal and state programs; and 

WHEREAS: The mission of AFN is to enhance and promote the cultural, economic, and 

political platform of the entire Alaska Native community through staunch 

advocacy before the United States Congress and other federal, state, and local 

forums; and 

WHEREAS: In 1971, the United States Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the 

aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their traditional homeland by authorizing 

the establishment of Alaska Native corporations to receive and manage lands 

and funds awarded in the settlement of ANCSA; and 

WHEREAS: ANCSA was passed to provide for a fair and just settlement of all claims by 

Natives and Native groups of Alaska and was to be accomplished rapidly, with 

certainty, in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Alaska 

Natives; and 

WHEREAS: The Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and 

Wrangell (known as the "landless" communities of Southeast Alaska) were not 

listed as communities eligible to form Native village or urban corporations under 

ANCSA, despite the fact these communities comprised greater than 20% of the 

shareholders of Sea Iaska; and 

WHEREAS: The reason for this exclusion is not explained in the statutory or report language 

of ANCSA, and an appeal of this exclusion was not authorized in ANCSA; and 

WHEREAS: A Congressional report commissioned in 1993 to examine the reasons why the 

five communities were denied ANCSA eligibility indicates the communities do 

not differ significantly from the southeast communities that were allowed 

ANCSA eligibility; and 
60 


Insert offset folio 81 here 22000A.057

WHEREAS: These five landless communities have sought full eligibility for ANCSA benefits 

for four decades. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Alaska Federation of Natives requests the United States 

Congress to recognize the eligibility of the southeast landless communities to 

form Alaska Native Corporations, receive land selection rights, and 

compensation under ANCSA. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall be the policy of AFN until it is withdrawn or 

modified by subsequent resolution. 

Passed on July 21, 201S 

Julie Kitka 

President 
61 


Insert offset folio 82 here 22000A.058

I I 

CENTRAL COUNCIL 

'THn:Jif and 'Jiaicla ?nrlian 'Trihes of :Afask..a 

9097 Glacier llighway • Juneau. Alaska 99801 

CENTRAL COUNCIL OF TL!NGIT AND HAIDA INDIAN TRIBES OF ALASKA 

Eightieth Annual Tribal Assembly 

ApriiiS-17.2015 

Juneau. Alaska 

Resolution T A/ 15-19 

Title: Support of the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Seeking Legislation 

to Allow Them to Form Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations and 

Receive ANCSA Benefits 

By: Seattle Tlingit and Haida Community Council 

WHEREAS. Central Council ofTlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (Central 

Council) is a federally recognized tribe with nearly 30.000 tribal citizens: and 

WHEREAS. Central Council exercises its power to address land and resource allocation 

issues and uses in the Tongass National Forest: and 

WHEREAS. in 1971, the United States Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) to recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their 

traditional homelands by authorizing the establishment of Alaska Native Corporations to receive 

and manage lands and funds awarded in settlement of the claims of Alaska Natives: and 

WHEREAS. ANCSA was passed to provide for a fair and just settlement of all claims by 

Natives and Native groups of Alaska and was to be accomplished rapidly. with certainty. in 

conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives: and 

WHEREAS. the Alaska Native communities of Haines. Ketchikan. Petersburg. Tenakee 

and Wrangell (known as ··Landless" communities ofSouthcast Alaska) were not listed as 

communities eligible to form Native village or urban corporations under ANCSA. despite the 

fact that these communities comprised greater than 20% of the shareholders of Sealaska; and 

WHEREAS. the reason for this exclusion is not explained in the statutory or report 

language of ANCSA. and an appeal of this exclusion was not authorized in ANCSA: and 

WHEREAS. a Congressional report commissioned in 1993 to examine the reasons why 

the five communities were denied ANCSA eligibility indicates that the communities do not 

differ significantly from the southeast communities that were allowed ANCSA eligibility; and 
62 


Insert offset folio 83 here 22000A.059

Page 2 of2 

WHEREAS. these live Landless communities have sought full eligibility for ANCSA 

benefits for four decades. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. thatthl! Eightieth Tribal Assembly of Central 

Council ofTiingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska convened in Juneau. Alaska on April 15-

17. 2015. hereby agrees that the Landless communities should be eligible to form Alaska Native 

Corporations and to receive land selection rights and compensation under ANCSA. 

ADOPTED this 16'h day of April 2015. by the Eightieth Tribal Assembly of Central 

Council ofTiingit and !!aida Indian Tribes of Alaska. 

CERTIFY 

ATTEST 
63 


Insert offset folio 84 here 22000A.060

Aluka Native Brotherhood & Aluka Native 

Sisterhood 

Grand Camp 

RESOLUTION No. 14-08 

Title: Support all Southeast Alaska Native Communities and their 

Descendants from the failures of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) to include Land Selection Rights and Compensation. 

WHEREAS, in 1971 the United States Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) to recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska 

Natives to their traditional homelands by authorizing the establishment of Alaska 

Native Corporations to receive and manage lands and funds awarded in settlement 

of the claims of Alaska Natives; and 

WHEREAS, the purpose of ANCSA was to settle the land claims of the Alaska Natives 

and to provide them with the means to pursue economic development for the 

benefit of Alaska's Native people; and 

WHEREAS, the Alaska Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee and Wrangell and possibly others were not listed as communities eligible 

to form Native village or urban corporations under ANCSA, despite the fact that 

these communities comprised greater than 20% of the Shareholders of Sealaska; 

and 

WHEREAS, a significant number of these individuals have passed since the passage 

of ANCSA without receiving their inherent land right; and 

WHEREAS, a Congressional report commissioned in 1993 to examine the reasons 

five of these communities were denied ANCSA eligibility indicates that the 

communities do not differ significantly from the Southeast communities that were 

allowed ANCSA eligibility; and 

WHEREAS, these communities and their descendants are seeking an act of Congress 

or the courts to seek relief in the form of land selection rights and appropriate 

compensation; 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska 

Native Sisterhood assembled in Petersburg, Alaska on October 8 through 11, 2014, 

whose theme was Haa Aani, Haa Shuka- Our Land, Our Future urge Congressional 

action to bring relief to these communities and their descendants and to take all 
64 


Insert offset folio 85 here 22000A.061

necessary action to prevent damage to or further takings of Native lands available 

for settlement purposes (e.g. 17 acres at boat harbor by City of Tenakee Springs, 

gravesites, home sites and allotments in the communities of Haines, Douglas, etc.). 

William E. Martin 

ANB Grand President 

Freda M. Westman 

ANS Grand President 

ATTEST: I certify that this resolution was adopted by the ANB/ANS Grand Camp in 

convention at Petersburg, Alaska, during the week of October 8 through October 11,2014. 

Colette Buchanan 

ANB Grand Secretary 

PAGE 2 

-------- Resolution 14-08 Complete Land Settlement --------
65 


Insert offset folio 86 here 22000A.062

September 19, 2016 

Mr. Charles Kleeschulte 

Republican Professional Staff 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

312 Dirksen Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for S. 3273, section 10- The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act 

Dear Ms. Kleeschulte: 

DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS all support the Landless Native Communities in SE 

Alaska!!! 

I see there is a hearing being held on ·rnursday for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources. I want to send you this information for the record and so you may pass it along to senators 

and staff on the committee. 

I wish to make it clear to the committee members that we have broad local support for the 

Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act (see also S. 

3004 and S. 872). 

I have attached copies of letters of support from our local state senators and representatives in Alaska. 

All our senators and our local representatives support our bill. Republicans and Democrats alike all 

support this bill that was introduced by Senators Murkowski and Sullivan. 

I know if you are not from Alaska it is hard to know who to believe and which side to support. Please 

join our local delegation in support for the five Landless Native communities to finally receive a just and 

equitable settlement. 

Thank for your consideration and support. 

Sincerely, 

Richard Rinehart Jr. 

Landless Shareholder 

Wrangell, Alaska 
66 


Insert offset folio 87 here 22000A.063

Alaska State Legislature 

Juneau Delegation 

Senator Dennis Egan 

Representative Cathy Mufioz 

Representative Sam Kito Ill 

September 30, 2015 

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mu.rkowski, 

Alaska State Capitol 

Juneau, Alaska 

99801 

This letter is to express our support of S. 872, "The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act." 

When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was adopted, the commurtities of Haines, 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell were not included, even though the population of 

those villages comprises greater than 20 percent of the shareholders of the Regional Corporation for 

Southeast Alaska. Additionally, these commurtiries were not given the opporturtity to appeal the 

decision; a right Congress granted every other Alaska Native group under A!\!CSA. 

Senate Bill 872 would resolve a nearly 50 year old discrepancy in the law. This legislation will 

establish urban corporations and will provide a process to receive similar land allocations, 

approximately 23,000 acres, as other recognized Native villages under Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act. 

We strongly urge the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to pass S. 872 and hope 

each member supports this legislation. 
67 


Insert offset folio 88 here 22000A.064

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE 

=mJj 

State Capitol, Rm30 

Juneau~ Alaska 99801-1182 

(907) 465-3873 Phone 

(907) 465-1922 Fax 

(877) 463-3873 Toll Free 

Sen Bert Stedman(tl_akleg gO'. ~~: SENATOR BERT K. STEDMAN 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman 

July 24, 2015 

Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Raul Ruiz 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1329 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Young and Ranking Member Ruiz: 

U''!It:cRJJl l9QO 1st Ave, Suite 310 

Ketchikan. AK 99901~6442 

Phone (907) 225-8088 

Fax {907) 225-0713 

20! Kathan SL, Suite 103 

Sttka. AK 99835-7561 

Phone (907) 747-2952 

Fax (907} 747-5807 

I am writing in support of H.R. 2386, "The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 

Recognition and Compensation Act. " The bill would finally bring justice to Alaska Natives and 

Tribal members in five different community areas: Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and 

Wrangell. Alaska Natives ("Landless") from these community areas were inexplicably left out 

of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, even though their aboriginal land 

rights based on generations of occupancy and use were supposedly extinguished by Congress in 

ANCSA. 

In fact, not only were they left out, they were not even given the opportunity to appeal the 

decision. A right Congress granted to every other Alaska Native group under ANCSA. H.R. 

2386 would right a nearly 50 year old wrong by recognizing the value of their claims. establish 

urban corporations for these Alaska Natives and provide a process for them to receive the same 

amount ofland (23,000 acres) other Native villages received under ANCSA in exchange for their 

land claims. 

Congress has already investigated the issue. In 1994, a congressionally directed study was 

performed by Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska. 

District R 

Angoon • Cottman Col'e • Craig • Edna Bay • Elfin Cove • Hollis • Hoonah • Hydabury; • Hyder • Kake • Kasaan 

Ketchikan • Klawock • Kluhmn • Kupreanoj• Metlal.atla• Meyers C'!wd.. • Nau!..ati • Pelican• Petersburg 

Point Baker • Port Alexander • Po1·1 Protection • Saxman • Sitka •1e1wl..ee Springs • 7710111<' BaJ • Wlwfe Pass • Wrangell 
68 


Insert offset folio 89 here 22000A.065

After an exhaustive review, the ISER study concluded the eligibility requirements set by 

Congress through ANCSA would have been met by each one of the Landless communities. 

I would also note that there is plenty of land in the Tongass National Forest (Tongass) to grant to 

the Landless communities. The Tongass is 17 million acres. 21 times the size of the Joshua Tree 

National Park in California in the Ranking Member's district. The land to be granted to the 

Landless is barely a spot on the map at l/1471

hthe entire size of the Tongass, most of which has 

been permanently set aside. I strongly urge your support to pass H.R. 2386. 

Sincerely, 

Senator Bert Stedman 
69 


Insert offset folio 90 here 22000A.066

September 19, 2016 

Charles Kleeschulte 

Republican Professional Staff 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

312 Dirksen Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for S. 3273, section 10- The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act 

Dear Ms. Kleeschulte: 

1 see there is a hearing being held on Thursday for the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources. I want to send you this information for the record and so you may 

pass it along to senators and staff on the committee. 

A Tlingit Native Perspective 

My Tlingit name is Tashee, I am the recognized clan leader or hit s'aati for the Kiks.adi of 

the Shx'at Kwaan (Stikine River Area). On behalf of my people I am writing to you about 

the important piece of legislation, referred to above, pending before the Subcommittee on 

Public Lands, Forests and Mining of which you are a member. We urge your support. 

You have heard that this injustice has been going on for over 40 years. It has actually 

been going on for over 100 years. For nearly 150 years (1867-2015) the communities of 

Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Haines and Tenakee Springs have been without our 

village lands. It took over 100 years and several generations before ANCSA became 

reality. 

a) We, the Shx'at Kwaan, first began to petition Washington D.C. 126 years ago when we 

sent attorney Willoughby Clark in 1890 to lobby the president and congress for lands 

improperly taken. 

b) In 1915, (one hundred and one years ago) the Alaska Native Sisterhood Society Camp 

1 was formed in Wrangell. 

c) In 1934 (eighty-two years ago) the first meeting of the Tlingit & Haida Central Council 

was held in Wrangell. 

d) In 1954 (sixty-two years ago) William L. Paul, Sr. brought suit against the government 

in Tee-Hit-Ton vs. the United States a US Supreme Court case. The Teeyhittaan are 

one of the nine clans from the Shx'at Kwaan (Stikine River Area) and are still Landless 

today. 
70 


Insert offset folio 91 here 22000A.067

e) Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg and Haines were always involved and part of the 

Alaska Native Land Claim efforts, however, for reasons unknown they were left out of 

the village land selections. See ISER report entered into the record for S. 872. 

It is hard for most people to think in Tlingit terms. You must have a very long term 

perspective. Old growth forests are beautiful indeed and five hundred year old 

trees are impressive, and we have much respect and reverence for them too. But 

please keep in mind our people have been on our lands way before the oldest 

trees in the oldest forests. We were literally here when the mountain tops and 

valley floors were being formed. 

We have been on this land since Time Immemorial. We were here before the ice 

age and again when the ice first receded; we have songs and stories of our 

people going under and over the glacier to get to what is currently our homeland. 

We were here before the great flood and have stories of our people climbing 

mountains to escape the flood waters -we have place names for those 

mountains. Those stories are thousands of years old, but we don't just have 

ancient songs and stories we have scientific proof that our people have been here 

for at least 10,000 years. That is older than Western civilization as we know it. 

We have several other stories about specific places that belonged to specific 

clans. Many of these stories are hundreds of years old, which is older than the 

United States of America. We also have written history since first contact with 

western civilization documented in the ShtaX'heen Kwaan of the Tlingit of 

Southeast Alaska. 1 

To understand the Tlingit and their connection with their land you must understand 

how they viewed things. Everything had a spirit: the mountain tops in our stories 

had spirits that protected our people in our time of need. The sea and the forest 

provided our food on which we subsist on to this day. Our clans owned those 

lands and the waters that sustain us. In Tlingit this is known as at.oow or 

something owned by the clan. 

At.oow are the most prized possessions of a clan. At.oow is literally translated as "an owned 

or purchased object" and can refer to land or sacred sites, celestial bodies such as the moon 

and sun, names, stories, songs, spirits and crests. The rights to these objects or a clan's 

at.oow were acquired through an ancestor. On occasion, the payment involved the death of 

an ancestor. The event in which this occurred may be recorded as a crest or spirit design on 

a physical object or through names, songs and stories. Clan crests and spirit designs are 

socially and spiritually important to the Tlingit.' 

When you take away our land you have taken away our at.oow, a vital connection 

we have with our spiritual environment. You have cut us off from this spiritual 

relationship with our land and made us spiritually destitute.3 

1 the ShtaX'heen Kwaan of the Tlingit of Southeast Alaska: A Literature Review presented to Richard Dauenhauer Phd 

by Joshua T. Ream Fall 2010. Copy attached. 2 Rosita Worl, Introduction to the Tlingit Culture and Repatriation. 

http:f/www.pbs.org/harriman/explog/lectures/worl.html: 

3 Frank Hopper, Indian Country Today, What It Means to be Landless. 
71 


Insert offset folio 92 here 22000A.068

You have letters in opposition from conservation groups that will tell you this is 

about timber and logging- it is not. To our people this is about healing a deep 

cultural and social wound that was started when the U.S. government troops 

bombed our villages, and enforced laws (such as the Organic Act of 1884) that 

were designed to remove us from our lands. 

The assault on our people started when the United States government claimed 

possession of our lands. It was perpetuated over the years in the name of 

resources development starting with the fur trade, then gold miners, then 

salmon canneries, finally timber in Southeast and Oil to the North. Our people 

have been on record standing up against and fighting this exploitation of our 

homeland. 

We find it ironic that we were left out of the full benefits intended in the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 due to lobbying efforts from the timber 

industry seeking to protect their long term leases to harvest timber in the 

Tongass National Forest. And in recent history we continue to be denied our 

rightful ownership due to lobbying efforts from conservation groups, both within 

and from outside Alaska, that are worried that we may harvest timber from our 

lands (something the US Forest Service continues to do on a much larger 

scale). No one knows for sure why this ironic circumstance was created, see the 

ISER report, but we do know that only Congress can fix the situation and right 

this long overdue injustice. We ask for your support for S. 3273 and a positive 

recommendation to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and then 

on to the full Senate. 

Thank you for hearing our story. I know you will do what is right. Gunalcheesh! 

Richard 'Tashee' Rinehart 

Hit s'aatf 

Shx'at Kwaan Kiks.adi 
72 


Insert offset folio 93 here 22000A.069

Statement 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearings 

S.3273 Proposed Bill. Section 10: 

Inclusion of the 5 remaining Native Communities into ASCSA: 

To the Honorable Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: 

As an Alaskan Native, I have waited 45 years for our Haines Native Community to finally 

be recognized and included within the 1971 ANCSAAct. Haines is one of five 

communities that were excluded and therefore denied all claims to our ancestral lands, our 

fishing and hunting grounds, even a physical place to have a cultural center. We have been 

denied our right to form Urban Corporations and to use our lands as we see fit. 

I believe that it is time for us to be a part of this reconveyance of our aboriginal lands and 

compensation, as were all other Alaska Native Communities that were originally included 

within ANCSA. It is also time that we finally receive Federal recognition - we are 

intricately connected and inherently part of what makes up the entirety of Alaskan Natives -

and always were. 

I am asking for your consideration in voting for this Senate Bill. It's been almost a half 

century since 1971. All this time I have been waiting for my Haines Native Community to 

finally be given what was always ours. 

Thank you for your time. 

Jack Young 

Tlingit Elder (Klinkit) 

Haines Alaska 

PO Box 1332 

Haines AK 99827 

(907) 766-3731 
73 


Insert offset folio 001 here 22000A.999

Statement 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearings 

5.3273 Proposed Bill. Section 11: 

Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans· Land Allotment Amendments: 

To the Honorable Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: 

I am an Alaska Native Vietnam Veteran, who served during the Vietnam conflict. I am 

asking that you consider these amendments to ANCSA within this Improvement Act of 

2016 (section 11, 8.3273), specifically extending the timeline for qualifying Native Vets, 

and allowing heirs of deceased veterans to receive the allotment as well. Even the 

Department of Defense officially recognizes the time line for the Vietnam War as August 5, 

1964 to May 7, 1975. I served my country honorably during the Vietnam Conflict and 

should not be denied this opportunity. 

I believe that all Alaska Native Veterans should have the right to receive their 160-acre 

allotments. The ANCSAAct, which also excluded Haines from being Federally recognized 

and having an organized entity locally (Landless, Section 10), also prevented us from 

knowing about this and applying. 

Again, it has been almost 50 years. So many of us have passed on. It is time for us to be 

recognized as Native Veterans who served their country and that we finally be given our 

due right to apply and receive our land. 

Thank you for your time. 

Jack Young 

Tlingit Elder (Klinkit) 

Haines Alaska 

PO Box.l332 

Haines AK 99827 

(907) 766-3731 
74 


Insert offset folio 96 here 22000A.072

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Importance: 

Christie Jamieson <bcjamieson@gci.net> 

Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:17 PM 

Kleeschulte, Chuck {Energy) 

S. 3273 

High 

Good morning Mr. Kleeschulte: 

I strongly support the passage of S. 3273, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act legislation and revisions 

proposed. The passage ofS. 3273 will bring forth a fair and just settlement for the benefit of the Natives of 

Wrangell, Alaska. 

Sincerely yours, Christie L. Jamieson 

Wrangell, Alaska 
75 


Insert offset folio 97 here 22000A.073

Sep 1'61610:06a Snyder Mercantile 19077362206 p.2 

CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS 

John Wisenbaugh 

MAYOR 

citytke@gmail.C<lm 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Phone: (202)-224-6665 

Fax: (202)·224-530 I 

September 15, 2016 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

P.O. Box 52 

Tenakee Springs, Alaska 99841 

Phone 907-736-2207 

Fax 91}7-736-2249 

The City of Tenakee Springs and the Chichagof Conservation Council are jointly writing to convey our shared 

concerns over certain provisions in your bill, "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of2016," 

S.B. 3004 or S. 3273. Our concern is primarily with Section 10 which is titled "Unrecognized Southeast Alaska 

Native Communities Recognition and Compensation. ·• While we acknowledge with respect the connection of 

Alaska Native people with their Southeast Alaska home, it is not appropriate or desirable to establish a new 

corporation in Tenakee Springs or to withdraw substantial Tenakee Inlet acreage from rhe Tongass National 

Forest, whereupon much of it would be clearcut hy the proposed new corporation. We have submitted let1ers, 

resolutions and hearing testimony on these and related matters in the past. While we remain opposed to 

establishment of a new corporation in Tenakee, and will continue to oppose strongly any attempt to privatize 

land currently part of the Tongass, we are interested in alternative ways to address the longstanding connections 

between Alaska Native people and specific places in Tenakee Inlet. 

The City of Tenakee Springs, the Tenakee-based Chichagof Conservation Council, and many Tenakee residents 

have shared a consistent call to protect Tenakee's salmon-rich watersheds, and have worked to protect Tenakee 

fnlet for more than 40 years. 

Our community's stability and health depends on the salmon that spa"n and rear in Tongass watersheds. 

Tenakee Inlet is exceptionally well-endowed with intact and richly productive streams. Our freezers and 

cauningjars are full, thanks to the coho that are just now entering the streams of upper Tenakee Inlet to spawn. 

Many of the young people living here are trollers whose cash income is supported by those same streams. 

Tourists and sport fishermen are drawn here by the abundant fishing, viewing and htmting opportunities. 

The Toogass Timber Reform Act mandates minimum 1 00-foot no-cut buffers along all salmon streams and their 

large tributaries. The current Tongass Land Management Plan also requires careful management and 

development of forest lands in streamside, riparian zones that are important to salmon but lie beyond the one 

hundred foot minimums. We want to keep these salmon watershed protection and conservation measures in 

place. We will continue to oppose legislation that exposes the in-eplaceable remaining intact watersheds of 

Tenakee Inlet to large scale, industrial-strength clearcut1ing by the Forest Service, private corporations, or any 

other entity. Those watersheds-· and the salmon they provide·· are the core of this community, of who we are 

and how we live. 

-t09/16/2016 3:04PM (GMT-04:00) 
76 


Insert offset folio 98 here 22000A.074

Sep 1616 10:06a Snyder Mercantile 19077362206 p.3 

CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS Two watersheds in Tenakee Inlet, Kadashan and Trap Bay, were protected as Legislated LUD II areas by 

Congress in the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. Alaska's entire Congressional delegation agreed to the 

final bill and President George H. W. Bush signed the bill into law. We want to go on record supporting the 

continuing protection of these areas including strengthening of their legal conservation standing. 

In addition, we would like to see long-term protection, by law, for the Tenakee Inlet watersheds identified by 

Trout Unlimited as most important to the Southeast Alaska's $1 billion regional salmon fishery. The proposal, 

supported by many commercial and recreational salmon fishermen and organizations, includes the following 

Tenakee Inlet Watersheds: Crab Bay, Saltery Bay, Seal Bay, Long Bay, Goose Flats, Little Goose Flats, and 

Upper Tenakee Inlet We hope that you will help us to ensure that all of these important watersheds remain 

intact, healthy and productive. 

We have also long supported small-scale, locally based, value added use of forest products from the remnants of 

the many areas that were clear cut in the pulp mill days, for example on the scale of the current "Tenakee 

Logging Company" (TLC) operation in Corner Bay. TLC saws a wide variety of wood products for local 

residents and property owners including framing lumber, trim lumber, poles and pilings. They work with Sitka 

spmce, western hemlock and Alaska yellow cedar. Their footprint on the land is very modest. 1l1at kind of 

small, local timber business constitutes the limit of what the land can bear here in Tenakee Inlet. Such 

businesses also provide local jobs and materials that are important to our comnnmi1y. 

We are grateful that, despite the impact of misguided land management practices of past decades, Tenakee Inlet 

remains largely intact, and we are committed to keeping it that way 

This position does not in any way diminish our respect and admiration for traditional Native culture and values. 

We recognize that the resolution ofNative claims through ANSCA did not address all the wounds of the past, 

and welcome with open arms efforts to reestablish a Native presence in Tenakee. 

One suggested alternative is beginning to restore balance by offering the large and well-appointed USFS facility 

at Corner Bay to establish a Tlingit cultural center in Tenakee Inlet. There are also historical, cultural sites in 

Freshwater Bay and Tenakee Inlet that could benefit from collaborative research and stewardship. Adding 

T!ingit place names to the map of Tenakee Inlet might also be a worthy project. Such efforts would benefit 

from your support. 

With regard to S.3004, we would be remiss without pointing out other troubling aspects of the bill, in addition 

to the fundamental problem with establishing a corporation in Tenakee Inlet. For example: 

Tenakee Springs is a rural community and is classified as "rural" for subsistence purposes. However, 

S.3004 proposes to establish an "urban" corporation. Tenakee cannot be rural and urban at the same 

time and we cannot support anything that might cloud or diminish our subsistence standing. 

There are no maps showing the lands potentially of interest. 

There is no specification of the group of people who would become shareholders of a new urban 

corporation. Avalfable historic documentation indicates that Tenakee Inlet did not have a permanent 

village prior to the cannery era. Since very few Alaska Native people live in Tenakee now, presumably 

there is a group of people residing elsewhere who intend to become shareholders; who are they? 

The legislation does not allow for any public process in land selection. Rather, it puts forth a process 

that would involve only the Interior Secretary and the particular urban corporation that might be 

established, with no public review of or engagement in the land selection, thereby blocking Tenakee 

or other communities out of the process altogether. 

-2-

09/16/2016 3:04PM (GMT-04:00) 
77 


Insert offset folio 99 here 22000A.075

Sop i61610:07a Snyder Mercantile 19077362206 pA 

CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS The legislation does not acknowledge or protect the salmon watersheds and local wood products 

economy, as mentioned above. 

The legislation does not explicitly exclude legislated LUD II lands protected by Congress in the Tongass 

Timber Reform Act of 1990, especially Kadashan and Trap Bay in Tenakee Inlet. 

Senator, thank you very much for considering the interests and concerns that are so important to our community 

of Tenakee Springs. We would like to be included in your deliberations on S.3004 and certainly hope we can 

contribute to a constructive resolution. 

Sincerely: 

Jo~~~ 

Mol!~~fConservation Council 

09/16/2016 3:04PM (GMT-04:00) 
78 


Insert offset folio 100 here 22000A.076

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr. Kleeschulte: 

Marian Allen <marianlallen@hotmail.com> 

Tuesday, September 20, 201611:13 PM 

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

s 3273 

I wish to submit this testimony on $3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act (and revised). 

Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: 

Respectfully, I wish to comment on S3273. 

First of all, the Sealaska Bill passed in the last session of Congress, according to Senator Murkowski, was the 

"finalizing" of all outstanding selections under the ANCSA legislation in 1971, which itself was the "final" 

solution efland settlement with Alaska Natives. When do we see the final, final solution? 

This bill creates more for-profit village corporations, specifically ones in Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, 

Tenakee and Haines. Certainly Ketchikan and Wrangell should have been included in the original settlement 

because they have always been the home of tribes. I do not know about Haines, but both Petersburg and 

Tenakee have not been the homes of tribes. Tenakee has no permanent residents who are Native and the Natives 

in Petersburg have come to live in that originally Norwegian immigrant town from neighboring tribes. Certainly 

all SE Alaska Natives should have had the opportunity to join a village corporation in the original legislation, 

and all are members of Sealaska, the regional corporation, so they have not been entirely cut out of the 

economic development. In fact, they receive higher dividends than those who belong to village corporations. 

However, they need to be treated fairly. 

The question is then, how do we provide a just solution to this situation? There are several options that don't 

include further resource extraction from the Tongass National Forest. The obvious one for some is that those 

people who are in the non-Native communities join the village corporation of their ancestors, but that is only a 

small number of the people affected. Other options are to give them a cash settlement, or create some kind of 

non-profit organization that does not further deplete the carbon sequestration that the Tongass provides. Yet 

another idea is to create a permanent fund type of solution. Creative thinking can provide other ideas that do not 

include boom and bust economics. 
79 


Insert offset folio 101 here 22000A.077

The Tongass National Forest sequesters about 7% of the carbon in the US in the Old Growth/climax forests and 

therefore is an important piece in mitigating global warming. The Native corporations engage in clear cutting 

primarily Old Growth trees and exporting them in the round. These irreplaceable trees play an important role in 

the main economic drivers ofSE Alaska: fishing and tourism. Salmon have disappeared from most areas of the 

world and SE Alaska is one of the very last places that has healthy salmon runs. We call the Tongass the salmon 

forest because salmon provide nutrients to it and it provides habitat for spawning and young salmon. The forest 

and salmon are mutually dependent on each other. It is those Old Growth forests that are critical to their habitat 

as well as all the other life that dwells here, and it is the grand beauty of this last largest temperate rainforest and 

its ecosystem that draws tourists. These sectors of our economy bring in most of our revenue. There are under 

200 timber jobs now in SE. Another element of our economy is living off the land. The National Forest 

provides access to all to hunt, fish and gather for their personal, traditional and spiritual needs. Native 

Corporations are very poor stewards of the land, having more lax timber harvest standards than the US Forest 

Service. 

This bill also is unjust because it allows She Attika to divest itself at the expense of the American tax payer of 

land it has clear cut that will see no further profit for hundreds of years. Sealaska then would trade the 

subsurface rights it holds to that land for surface rights where they can make a profit. These two measures set a 

bad precedent. It opens the door for other corporations to exchange land that they have extracted profit from in a 

boom and bust approach to management that is without monetary value for centuries. 

Any more removal oflands from the Tongass NATIONAL Forest hurts everyone. The Forest Service manages 

the forest better than other agencies or corporations. It is open to all and to many uses. As a grandmother I am 

extremely concerned about global warming and feel compelled to work to do what l can to slow that process for 

my grandsons and the millions of other young people who were no part of creating this situation. It is the 

biggest problem the world faces. The Tongass National Forest has a positive role to play in slowing that 

process. Please do not pass this bill. Send it back for much more work to make it a bill that will not harm my 

grandchildren. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Marian Allen 

829 Pherson Street 

Sitka, AK 99835 
80 


Insert offset folio 0003 here 22000A.811

Fleurant, Susan (Enerpy) 

Subject FW: Comments on 53203 Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

From: Marian Allen !mai!to:marianlallen@hotmail.com] 

sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 1:37 PM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <fortherecord @energy.senate.gov> 

Subject: Comments on 53203 Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

Comments on S.3203 the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

Global warming is real and is a crisis situation. (Here is a link to a NASA website with some interesting and 

disturbing Information if you haven't seen any of this yet.: 

htlp:llearthobservatorv.nasa.govlbloas/§arthma!lersl2016109112/heres-ho 

w-the-warmest-august-in-136-years-looks-in-chart-forml) The Tongass National Forest sequesters about 7% of the 

carbon in the US. We cannot afford to take any action that adds to the global warming problem, especially 

when SE Alaska already has two sustainable economic drivers: tourism and fishing. Section 503 of this bill 

actually would hurt those industries because an intact forest is important for tourism and critical for fish 

habitat. Salmon need the Old Growth forests to feed and create the architecture in the streams where they 

spawn and rear as fry, and tourists do not want to look at or, certainly, hike In clear cuts. 

The Tongass is a national forest and the Forest Service manages it for multiple uses. Those uses include 

working to maintain good habitat for salmon, managing for tourism and subsistence, cultural and spiritual 

activities, as well as timber cutting. Many, many SE Alaska residents depend upon the whole ecosystem here, 

forest, shore and sea, for food. Clear cutting diminishes our ability to harvest those resources. The State of 

Alaska's fish and wildlife standards are less protective than federal standards and so a major step backwards. 

As a national forest the Tongass is open to all. 

An additional reason this Act is not economically healthy is that once the trees are cut in this region of the 

world, it takes several human generations before they have any economic worth, and many hundreds of years 

before they return to their climax state. In the meantime the industries that currently sustain themselves on 

the Tongass suffer. 

Let's get on with the show and stop trying to exempt the Tongass from the Roadless Rule. Roads cost money, 

impact ecosystems in negative ways and work against mitigation for global warming, and they are built to 

access projects that speed up global warming. Instead let's support building sustainable industries in Alaska. 

Section 502 doesn't even belong in a federal act as it can be resolved within the state. It proposes a very 

dangerous action: clear cutting on very steep hillsides. In a rainforest with shallow root systems, landslides are 

a real potential. 

Section 402 prioritizes management ofthe Tongass for activities that add to the global warming problem and, 

again, takes the boom and bust economic model as the healthy way to proceed. It prioritizes a heavy 

ecological impact industry over all other users. 

As a grandmother, a longtime resident of SE Alaska who depends upon the Tongass for a healthy diet, this Act 

would personally hurt me. More important than my own welfare, however, is the welfare of my grandchildren 
81 


Insert offset folio 0004 here 22000A.812

and future generations of humans. These young people and those not yet born have no responsibility for the 

mess we have made of Earth. It is our responsibility to do everything in our power to mitigate the effects of 

global warming for them. This Act is shortsighted and just wrong. 

Sincerely, 

Marian Allen 

829 Pherson St. 

Sitka AK 99835 
82 


Insert offset folio 102 here 22000A.078

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement hnprovement Act (S.3004) creates more problems than it solves. 

Specifically, Section 10 would grant more than 115,000 acres of public Tongass National Forest lands 

to new, for-profit Native Corporations. The legislation: 

• Allows Alaska Native residents from Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to 

establish new for-profit Native Corporations. 

• Offers each of these 5 "urban" Native corporations 23,040 acres of high value, "local," public 

lands from anywhere on the Tongass. As drafted, the bill: 

o Directs the Secretary oflnterior to offer "local areas of historical, cultural, traditional, 

and economic importance to Alaska Natives" from the five communities and "give 

preference to land with commercial purposes" 

o Mandates economic development of lands no matter their importance for customary and 

traditional or historical uses; 

o Fails to expressly safeguard Tongass lands previously protected by Congress in 

perpetuity as Legislated LUD !Is ("roadless wildlands") in the 1990 Tongass Timber 

Reform Act and 2014 Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs 

Protection Act. 

• Creates more problems than it solves because history has shown: 

o Land conveyed does not belong to Alaska Natives but to corporations; 

o Existing ANCSA corporations have not historically balanced the need to produce 

revenue for shareholders with the desire to maintain long established, place-based, 

traditions and cultures; 

o Split ownership of surface and subsurface estates means local Natives lose control over 

subsurface mining, drilling, and other subsurface development. 

• Reopens the thorough settlement of all Alaskan Native claims by Congress in the 1971 Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 

When Congress passed the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection 

Act in 2014, Senator Murkowski explained: 

"It has taken seven years, but I'm proud to say that we finally completed the land conveyance 

for Southeast Alaska's nearly 20,000 Native shareholders, and at the same time ensured that the 

region's remaining timber mills have timber." 

When Congressman Young introduced a modified Sealaska bill in February 2013, he stated: 

"Four decades after the passage of ANCSA, it is well past time for Sealaska to receive their full 

land entitlement, which will enable the Federal Government to complete its statutory obligation 

under ANCSA to the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people of Southeast Alaska." 

If a fair examination of this Native claims shows that redress is needed, it should be done in public, 

with a solution that involves the American public, all the people of Southeast Alaska, and respects all 

users of the forest. 

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 2016, www.seacc.or:g, (907) 586-6942 
83 


Insert offset folio 103 here 22000A.079
84 


Insert offset folio 105 here 22000A.081

SUBREGIONS 

UI'PER 

KUSKOKWIM 

McGrath 

~ 

Nli<olol 

Takotna 

Telldo 

LOWERI'UICON 

Anvik 

Grayllng 

HolyOOSS 

Sl1ageluk 

UPPER TANANA 

Dot Lake 

Eagle 

HeoiVLoke 

NO<thway 

Tonocross 

Tetln 

Tole 

YUKON FIATS 

Arctic Vllloge 

-

Birch Creek Canyon Vllloge 

Choll<yl1sik 

CirCle 

Fort Yukon 

Venelle 

YUKON 

KOYUKUK 

Galena 

Huslia 

Kolfog 

KQVUkuk 

Nulato 

Ruby 

YUKON TANANA 

Alalno 

Allakoi<et 

EvoNVIIIe 

Fallbanks 

Hughes 

Loi<e 

Mnchumlno 

Manley Hot 

Springs 

~ 

Nenono 

Rompart 

S!evens \1Uoge 

Tanana 

September 19,2016 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Chief Peter Johll T rihal Build.ias 

122 FII'StAvenue, Suite 600 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4897 

(907) 452-8251 Fax: (907) 459-3850 

The Honorable Senator Usa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC20510 

Dear Senator M'urkowski: 

My name is Victor Joseph, and I am the President of Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) 

in Fairbanks, Alaska. I thank you very much for allowing me to submit a statement to 

you on S. 3273. TCC supports the passage of amendments to the Alaska Native 

Veterans Allotment Act in S. 3273. I ask that this written statement regarding the 

veterans allotments be incorporated into the record for S. 3273. 

As you already know, many Natives in Alaska wants the Veterans Allotment Act 

amended so more Alaska Native veterans get allotments. It is my belief that S. 3273 

does exactly that; it will help more Alaska Native veterans get allotments. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs opposed a similar bill in the past but that was not with the 

consent of any Tribes in Alaska. In addition to being President of TCC, I am also the 

co-President of the Alaska Native Tribal Working Group. This Group represents about 

190 Tribes in Alaska. This Group was established about 13 years ago in an effort to get 

the Veterans Allotment Act amended. Thus, the Tribes in Alaska support S. 3273. 

Also, in the past there was some opposition from environmental groups in Alaska. But, 

veteran allotments have a beneficial environmental effect. Native veterans want 

allotments so they can practice subsistence, not develop the land commercially. 

Subsistence values include a strong duty to protect the land and resources. 

The goal of amending the Veterans Allotment law is to help make it possible for all 

Alaska Natives who honorably served in the military during the Vietnam War to receive 

allotments of land in Alaska. The numerous restrictions in the current Act have 

defeated many of the applications filed and even discouraged many from applying. As 

of December I, 2003, BLM had rejected about 47 percent of the applications filed under 

the Veterans Allotment Act. Originally, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Allotment 

Act in 1906 so that Alaska Natives would obtain title to land and resources that had fed, 

clothed and sheltered them for thousands of years. Many Alaska Natives still wait for 

that promised title. I urge this Committee to pass S. 3273. 

Tanana Chiers Conference is a unif~ voice advancing Tribal government$, e('onomic and social development, promoting physical 

and mental wellness, educational opportunities and protecting language. traditional and c:ultural values. 
85 


Insert offset folio 106 here 22000A.082

There are four reasons why the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act needs 

amending. 

A. The Type Of Land Available For Allotments Under Existing Law Is 

Practically Non-Existent 

The first reason the existing law needs to be amended is the lack of federal land 

that is available for veteran allotments. There is so little land that very few veterans got 

or will get allotments. The problem is that the existing law severely limits what type of 

land is available for allotments. In fact there is hardly any land left in Alaska that meets 

the Act's many restrictions. 

In order for land to now be available for veteran allotments, the land must be: 

• non-mineral, without gas, coal, or oil, 

• not valuable for minerals, sand or gravel, 

• without campsites, 

• not selected by the State of Alaska or a Native Corporation, 

• not designated as wilderness, 

• not acquired federal lands, 

• not contain a building or structure, 

• not withdrawn or reserved for national defense, 

• not a National Forest, 

• not BLM land with conservation system unit sites, (unless the manager 

consents), 

• not land claimed for mining, 

• not homesites, or trade and manufacturing sites or headquaters site, 

• not a reindeer site, and 

• not a cemetery site. 

These restrictions make it almost impossible for veterans to find any land that is 

available. The land restrictions make it especially difficult for veterans in southeast 

Alaska. This is true because land in a national forest is not available but most of 

southeast Alaska is within the Tongass National Forest. This restriction prevents most 

if not all deserving veterans in southeast Alaska from obtaining allotments. The 

solution is found in 8.3273, which makes available for veteran allotments all federal 

land that is vacant, except land in National Parks, Preserves or Monuments. 

B. The Current Use And Occupancy Requirements Make It Virtually 

Impossible For Most Veterans To Get Allotments 

The second and equally important reason existing law needs to be amended is to 

eliminate the current use and occupancy requirements. To be qualified for an allotment 

a veteran must meet the extensive use and occupancy requirements of the Alaska Native 

Allotment Act of 1906, as amended. This means that Veteran applicants must prove 

substantially continuous use and occupancy of the land for a period of five years that is 

potentially exclusive of others. 
86 


Insert offset folio 107 here 22000A.083

The major problem with this restriction is that the applicant's use and occupancy 

must have started before the land was withdrawn, reserved or selected. However, vast 

areas of land in Alaska was withdrawn, reserved or selected before the veterans were 

even born or before they were old enough to begin using the land in the way that is 

required to initiate an allotment claim. The type of federal land that is available under 

the current Jaw is extremely scarce. The current veterans allotment Jaw excludes vast 

areas of land including land selected by the State or Native Corporations and all land 

within the boundaries of a national forest. Most of southeast Alaska is within a national 

forest. ln other areas of Alaska, the majority of federal land is not available because it 

was withdrawn before Vietnam veterans were even born. For example, the initial 

withdrawal for Glacier Bay National Park, which covers thousands of acres, was in 

1923. All ofNunivak Island was withdrawn in 1929. Additionally, most of the land in 

southeast Alaska was withdrawn in the early 1900's. The state of Alaska selected land 

throughout the state beginning in the early 1960's. Most of the land on Nunivak Island 

was withdrawn in 1929. This problem is solved by the provision in S. 3273 that 

replaces use and occupancy requirements with legislative approval of allotments. This 

provision also provides due process protections of all valid existing interests in the land 

that is claimed for a veteran allotment. This provision is similar to the legislative 

approval provision Congress made available to applicants of allotments who applied 

under the Alaska Native Allotment Act. Legislative approval will also save time and 

money because it will eliminate administrative adjudication of the applicant's use and 

occupancy. 

C. The Current Military Service Dates Unfairly Excludes Many Who 

Served During The Vietnam Era 

The third reason the law needs to be changed is that current law is unfair to 

many deserving veterans who do not qualify even though they honorably served their 

country during the Vietnam era. Many Alaska Native veterans who served during the 

Vietnam era do not qualify for an allotment under the military service time restrictions 

in the current law. 

This is true because only veterans who served from January 1, 1969 to 

December 31, 1971 are now eligible to apply for an allotment. However, the Vietnam 

era covered a much longer time span. The "Vietnam era" is legally defined as 

beginning August 5, 1964 and ending May 7, 1975. Veterans who served during the 

"Vietnam era" from August 5, 1964 to December 31, 1968, and from January 1, 1972 to 

May 7, 1975 are excluded from getting an allotment under current law. 

It is unfair to treat some Alaska Native veterans who honorably served their 

country during the Vietnam era differently than other Native veterans who also served 

during that same Vietnam era. All served our country at the time they were most 

needed. They should all get the opportunity to apply for an allotment 

This problem is solved by the provision in S. 3273 which expands the eligible 

military service dates to include the dates of the entire Vietnam era. 
87 


Insert offset folio 108 here 22000A.084

D. The Current Law Unfairly Excludes Veterans Who Are Now Deceased 

The fourth reason that the Jaw needs to be changed is that the existing veterans 

allotment law allows the heirs of a deceased veteran the opportunity to apply for an 

allotment but that opportunity is severely restricted. The veteran must have died in the 

Vietnam War or from war related injuries. The problem with this requirement is that 

veterans died after the war and thus, their heirs are not able to apply for an allotment. In 

addition, many veterans who died after the war, died from causes that are most certainly 

related to their service in Vietnam such as suicide, alcoholism and accidental deaths 

related to alcohol. However, these causes are not defined as a war related injury. 

Under S. 3273, heirs of all deceased Vietnam era veterans who are otherwise eligible 

will be able to get an allotment. 

CLOSING 

The opportunity to submit this letter is an honor for me and I thank you on 

behalf of all Alaska Natives who served our country during the Vietnam War. 

I would also like to thank you for your leadership in the Senate when it comes to 

educating your colleagues about the federal trust relationship that exists between the 

U.S. Congress and Native American and Alaska Natives people which allows Congress 

to pass legislation specifically for Alaska Natives. As you know, this political 

relationship, based in the US Constitution, provides Congress with the authority to 

address Alaska Natives specifically in this proposed legislation. TCC and the other 

Alaska Native tribal organizations will continue to work with you to educate members 

of Congress on this sacred relationship in order to see this important bill pass into Jaw. 

Sincerely, 

TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE 

Victor 

~~ Joseph, President 
88 


Insert offset folio 109 here 22000A.085

June 11, 2016 

TO: The Honorable Senator lisa Murkowski 

RE: Support of Amendment to Native Allotment 

1 have written previously to explain my particular circumstances and to ask for 

support in amendments that would allow the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment 

Act of 1988 be introduced and I or amended. 

I am an Alaskan Native, born in Fort Yukon as were all my family members. I spent 

many of my formidable years in Nenana. I was taught how to live a subsistence 

lifestyle and taught to respect and honor the land that gives everything to us in 

return. I am no longer a young man but I still relish my heritage and relationship 

with the land. I was in the Navy- having served in Vietnam five years- when the 

original Native Allotment was open I was deployed and did not have an 

opportunity to file on a parcel of land at that time. I did file at a later time, but 

there was no land around Nenana to file on, so I DID FILE, however my claim was 

rejected. 

It is with high hopes now that I seek your support that would allow me to once 

again be able to take advantage of an opportunity to file on a parcel of land- a 

piece of my heritage- a place to pass on our culture and a piece of land on which 

they can pass on our way of life to future generations. 

If you need any additional information or if you need my support in any way, 

please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed below. Once again, knowing 

that I am a Vietnam Vet gives you some idea that I am not a young man, and I 

want to spend my remaining years practicing the lifestyle that I was taught, 

teaching it to others who share the same heritage and passing on our culture. 

Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to hearing from you 

in the near future. 

Signed, 

William 

~~ Lord 

P 0 Box 26 

Nenana, Alaska 99760 

(907) 322-5220 
89 


Insert offset folio 110 here 22000A.086

June 11, 2016 

TO: The Honorable United States Senator lisa Murkowski 

RE: Support of Amendment to Native Allotment 

1 have written previously to explain my particular circumstances and to ask for 

support in amendments that would allow the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment 

Act of 1988 be introduced and I or amended. 

I am an Alaskan Native, born and raised in Nenana, as were both my Parents and 

Grandmother. I was taught how to live a subsistence lifestyle and hot to respect 

and honor the land that gives everything to us in return. I am no longer a young 

Man and I have three children to whom I wish to pass on their heritage and 

relationship with the land. I was in the Navy- having served in Vietnam four years 

-when the original Native Allotment was open I was deployed and did not have 

an opportunity to file on a parcel of land at that time. I did file at a later time, but 

there was no land around Nenana to file on, so I DID FILE, however my claim was 

rejected. 

It is with high hopes now that I seek your support that would allow me to once 

again be able to take advantage of an opportunity to file on a parcel of !and- a 

piece of my heritage- a place to pass on our culture and a piece of land on which 

they can pass on our way of life to future generations. 

If you need any additional information or if you need my support in any way, 

please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed below. Once again, knowing 

that I am a Vietnam Vet gives you some idea that I am not a young man, and I 

want to do alii can- with your support- to leave my children what is rightfully 

theirs. Thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to hearing 

from you in the near future. 

~tlt1/~ Nicholas Monroe 

P 0 Box 385 

Nenana, Alaska 99760 

(907) 832-5858 

Cell (907) 715-6586 
90 


Insert offset folio 111 here 22000A.087

June 10, 2016 

Dear Senators Lisa Murkowski & Dan Sullivan: 

This letter is to thank you very much for introducing S.3004! I appreciate the continued 

support for our Alaska Native Veteran's. 

The land that I applied for meant a lot to me because it was land that I used for subsistence 

purposes my whole young life. It was land that I used for trapping, hunting, and camping. 

Without land it is impossible to do these things! 

My original application was rejected because my dates of service didn't fall within the 

guidelines for the Act that was passed and also because the land had been given to my 

village corporation and my regional corporation. 

Once again, thank you for your support and for introducing S.3004. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

~~ 

Carlos Frank 5t d I '' 455 3' Ave., Apt. 529 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 
91 


Insert offset folio 112 here 22000A.088

June 13,2016 

Dear Senators Lisa Murkowski & Dan Sullivan: 

I'm writing this letter to thank you for introducing Senate bill 3004 and to thank you for 

your continued support of the Alaska Native Veterans. 

The land that I had applied for my veteran allotment was rejected because it was in 

Mount McKinley National Park. Although S 3004 does not give me the opportunity to 

apply for the same land, I can apply for vacant federal land which I will certainly do. 

I joined the Air Force in April of 1969 and served until April of 1973, being honorably 

discharged. It was very important to me to serve our country. When I got out of the 

service I made my living off the land hunting, fishing, and trapping. 

I would be very happy to have the chance to apply again and this time I think I can have a 

veteran allotment. 

Thank you again for your support. 

Sincerely, 

Theodore 

~~~ 

D. Suckling 

P.O. Box 55 

Nenana, Alaska 99760 
92 


Insert offset folio 113 here 22000A.089

13/06/2016 

To Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Dan Sullivan; 

I would like to thank you for introducing Senate bill 3004 and to also thank you for your 

continued support of the Alaska Native Veteran's. 

My Brother Richard Gooden was a good man and gave much for his country. I believe the 

criteria for the Alaskan Native Vietnam Veteran's Allotment Act should be changed to 

include my brother and his decedents because of his missed opportunity to participate in the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I'm asking for this to honor his sacrifice and his 

memory, because the time he would have spent exercising his rights under ANCSA and 

perpetuating his heritage for his descendants by surveying an allotment for himself, he 

instead was serving his country in Vietnam. I am very proud of Richard as he was very 

proud of his service to his Country. He was bom in the Kobuk Valley. 

My brother Richard Gooden served in the Navy from 1969 to 1973. being honorably 

discharged. Before the war I was told that he was a happy go lucky guy, but after he returned 

his demeanor had changed. He was moody and stressed and could quickly lose his temper. I 

mostly remember how be was after the war. I've seen pictures of his Vietnam experience and 

several of them were of him in fatigues with an m-16 and I was told he was in several 

battles. He didn't talk about his Vietnam experience. His DD214 shows he served on 

Submarines. both the USS Sailfish and the USS Puffer. He earned several Medals; National 

Defense Service Medal, Navy Expeditionary Medal, Vietnam Service Medal w/1 Bronze 

Star, Vietnam Service Medal w/2 Bronze Star. 

Since I was very young, 3 to 7 years old, I didn't understand what was happening but for the 

time I knew him, I remember he was a very reliable, hardworking man who took care of his 

Parents, Brothers and Sisters. He died when I was 14, in the spring of 1981. 

S.3004 would finally allow his heirs to apply for an allotment on his behalf. 

Once again, thank you for your support and ask that you move S.3004 to finalization. 

T~,//J 

~ckHuff ~~ 
93 


Insert offset folio 114 here 22000A.090

June 22, 2016 

To Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Dan Sullivan: 

I would like to thank you for introducing Senate bill 3004 and to also thank you for your 

continued support of the Alaska Native Veterans. 

On behalf of my late brother, James Demoski, I applied for an allotment under the Vietnam 

Veteran's Allotment Act. The application was rejected because my brother did not die as a 

direct result of the war and I was told that I was not eligible to apply for him. Senate bill 

3004 would allow me to do that now. 

James joined the Navy and served from 1966 to 1974. being honorably discharged. It was 

very important to him to serve our country. 

When James got out of the service he went to his land mostly to find sol imde and someplace 

that was his own. 

I would be very happy to have the chance to re-apply for an allotment on my brother's behalf 

because there are good memories of him there. 

Once again, thank you for your support and ask that you move S.3004 to finalization. 

Thank You, 

Carol Lowe 

P.O. Box 32 

Galena, AK 99741 
94 


Insert offset folio 115 here 22000A.091

14/06/2016 

To Senator Lisa Murkowski and Senator Dan Sullivan: 

I would like to thank you for introducing Senate bill 3004 and to also thank you for your 

continued support of the Alaska Native Veterans. 

I did not apply under the 1906 Allotment Act because I was told that I wasn't old enough, 

that I had to be 18 years old. By the time I was old enough I was away serving our country 

and when the Vietnam Veteran's Allotment Act was passed, I did not feel that I qualified for 

that either because the land that I wanted wasn't available. There was not very much land to 

apply for to begin with. 

I joined the Navy in November of 1967 and served until August of 1973, being honorably 

discharged. It was very important to me to serve our country. 

When I got out of the service I made my living off the land hunting and trapping and fishing. 

I would be very happy to have the chance to apply for an allotment because there would be 

more land to choose from and it's hard to do any subsistence activities without land. 

Once again, thank you for your support and ask that you move S.3004 to finalization. 

Thank You, 

_ ~--·->:_' .. _ 1 c?.-· ~-:It r 

Phillip D. Argall 

P.O. Box 286 

Nenana, AK 99760 
95 


Insert offset folio 116 here 22000A.092

Ukpeagvik lnupiat Corporation 

Testimony in Support of Section 3 of S. 3273 

~ UKPEAGVIK 

INUPIAT CORPORATION 

Subsurface Sand & Gravel Amendment to the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act 

September 22, 2016 

Introduction. My name is Anthony Edwardsen, President of the Ukpeagvik lnupiat Corporation 

(UIC). UIC is the village corporation of the lnupiat community of Barrow, Alaska, organized 

pursuant to the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

UIC strongly supports early enactment of Section 3 of S. 3273. Section 3 would provide a technical 

correction to clarify the location of sand and gravel deposits under UIC's land, resolving a 

longstanding and inequitable miscalculation that has stymied infrastructure development in 

Barrow. 

Background on the Allocation of Subsurface Rights Under UIC's Land. As a result of the 

ANCSA settlement, UIC owns the surface estate to approximately 220,000 acres in and around 

Barrow. Lying under about one-half of the UIC's surface estate is what has become called the 

Barrow Gas Fields. The subsurface rights to extract gas from the Barrow Gas Fields lying under 

UIC's surface estate are held by the North Slope Borough (NSB), conveyed to it by the Barrow 

Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984. This Act vests all other rights to that subsurface estate in the 

United States, except that the Act specifically directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to UIC 

the sand and gravel underlying the surface estate owned by UIC. That conveyance was conditioned 

on UIC providing NSB with an easement over UIC's surface estate surrounding the Barrow Gas 

Fields for all purposes associated with NSB's operation, maintenance, development, production, 

generation or transportation of energy from the Barrow Gas Fields. UIC and NSB met that 

condition when they concluded the necessary easement agreement on August 26, 1986. As a result, 

the Act and accompanying agreement essentially split the subsurface estate within the Barrow Gas 

Fields between the NSB (for gas extraction) and UIC (sand/gravel excavation). 

Section 3 of S. 3273 More Accurately Locates UIC's Sand and Gravel. UIC has not obtained 

the full value of the sand and gravel resources the United States promised UIC for the valuable 

P 0 Box 890, 1250 Agvik Street I Barrow, AK 997231 (907) 852-44601 Fax (907) 852-4459 
96 


Insert offset folio 117 here 22000A.093

easement UlC gave NSB in 1986. Today's technology permits far greater precision in locating 

subsurface sand and gravel resources than was available in 1986. Recent geo-technical surveys 

conducted by the Alaska Department of Transportation and others have discovered that much of 

the sand and gravel under UIC's surface estate, which sand and gravel Congress intended in 1984 

to convey to UlC, is located just outside the boundary of the Barrow Gas Fields defined in the 1984 

Act. Section 3 of S. 3273 would correct this location error. 

Access to Local Sand and Gravel is Essential for Construction in the Arctic. Barrow is located 

at the edge of the Arctic Ocean, built upon and surrounded by tundra and permafrost wetlands. All 

construction in Barrow-- roads, building pads, runways, infrastructure, and anything else that needs 

a stable foundation -- requires the placement of gravel fill which provides an insulating barrier 

between the infrastructure and the fragile tundra permafrost. Without a thick gravel base, 

constructed facilities will thaw the permafrost and sink until they collapse. Early on in Barrow's 

development, gravel was often taken directly from Barrow's Arctic Ocean beachfront where it was 

easy to obtain. But this practice accelerated coastline erosion and the risk of flooding in Barrow. 

UIC has worked with the Alaska Department of Transportation to identify gravel sources a few 

miles inland that can be used to shore up the eroding coastline and to provide the necessary 

foundation for essential construction activities. It is critical to Barrow's future that UlC be able to 

develop a stable, affordable source of sand and gravel under UIC lands in order to permit further 

development in Barrow, protect its coastline, and preserve its way of life. 

Section 3 of S. 3273 Fulfills the 1984 Act. To complete the federal obligation with which 

Congress intended in the 1984 Act to benefit UfC, and which UfC in good faith bargained for in its 

1986 easement agreement, Congress should enact Section 3 of S. 3273, a technical amendment to 

the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984, which will fulfill the commitment of the United States 

to provide UfC with rights to the sand and gravel resources lying wholly under UfC's surface estate 

in and surrounding the Barrow Gas Fields. UIC respectfully requests that Section 3 of S. 3273 be 

enacted as soon as possible, and is grateful to Chairwoman Murkowski and the Alaska 

congressional delegation for their support of this provision. Thank you. 

P.O. Box 890, 1250 Agvik Street I Barrow, AK 99723 1 (907) 852-44601 Fax (907) 852-4459 
97 


Insert offset folio 118 here 22000A.094

Native Village of Shishmaref 

Shishmaref I.R.A. Council 

P.O. Box 72110 

Shishmaref, AK 99772 

November 12, 2015 

City of Shishmaref 

P.O. Box 72083 

Shishmaref, AK 99772 

Shishmaref Native Corporation 

P.O. Box 720151 

Shishmaref, AK 99772 

The Honorable Senator Murkowski, Senator Sullivan and Congressman Young, 

The Native Village of Shishmaref (Tribe), the City of Shishmaref and the Shishmaref 

Native Corporation request your assistance in creating a transportation corridor through 

the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve from Shishmaref Native Corporation lands to 

Ear Mountain as allowed under ANILCA to develop a rock quarry at Ear Mountain and 

construct a transportation corridor for safety for the community of Shishmaref. 

The community of Shishmaref is working on community sustainability and resilience to 

the impacts of natural hazards in cooperation with the State of Alaska's Department of 

Commerce, Community and Economic Development, the State of Alaska's Department 

of Transportation and Public Facilities, and Kawerak's Transportation Program. This 

transportation corridor is identified in Shishmarefs strategic plan and their Long Range 

Transportation Plan. · 

Similar requests for landholder access and transportation and utility system corridors 

have been made and authorized in the past. Consistent with that precedent, because 

the village of Shishmaref is surrounded by the 2.6 million-acre Bering Land Bridge 

National Reserve, this request should also be authorized. 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Guarantees a 

Right of Access to Landowners Surrounded by National Conservation Areas 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (Pub. L. No. 96-

487 (1980) [codified at 16 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq.] established seven wilderness areas in 

Alaska, including the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. The purpose of ANILCA 

was to preserve certain lands and waters in the State of Alaska that contain nationally 

significant natural scenic, historic, archeological, geological, scientific, wilderness, 

cultural, recreational and wildlife values, for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration 

of present and future generations. ANILCA also provided for use of motorized vehicles 
98 


Insert offset folio 119 here 22000A.095

and construction of cabins, fisheries and aquaculture facilities, and other structures in 

these wilderness areas, in recognition of the unique conditions in Alaska. 

Congress enacted provisions protecting the access rights for those land-holders 

whose lands are located within or are effectively surrounded by any of the conservation 

areas established by ANILCA. See 16 U.S. C.§ 3170(b), which provides as follows: 

"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 and their successors in interest. 

Such rights shall be subject to reasonable regulations issued by the 

Secretary to protect the natural and other values of such lands." 

Regulations such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review must be 

applied to appropriately balance access rights and other values of these lands with their 

environmental value under ANILCA. See, e.g., Hale v. Norton, 476 F.3d 694, 700 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (noting that even "if the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action 

are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from 

deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.''); See also National Park 

Service Special Considerations for NPS Units in Alaska (Section 16 of Director's Order 

and Reference Manual 53). 

ANILCA Procedures Allow for the Development of Transportation and 

Utility Networks through Alaska Wilderness Areas and Congress has Enacted 

Legislation Authorizing Specific Access Roads through Wilderness Areas 

Even if Shishmaref were not an inholder under 16 U.S.C. § 3170(b), other 

ANILCA provisions in Title XI which establish procedures that allow for the development 

of transportation and utility networks through Alaska wilderness areas would be 

applicable. See 16 U.S.C. § 3164-3166. These ANILCA provisions establish an 

alternative basis and procedure for approval of the proposed transportation corridor 

proposed by for Shishmaref IRA, which would be eligible for construction despite the 

wilderness status of the surrounding lands. 

The standards and procedures set forth in 16 U.S.C. § 3164-3166 are triggered 

only where there is an absence of other applicable law "with respect to a transportation 
99 


Insert offset folio 120 here 22000A.096

basis for the construction of the proposed Shishmaref to Ear Mountain transportation 

corridor. 

The Native Village of Shishmaref is in Kawerak's Tribal Transportation 

Consortium. The proposed transportation corridor through the Bering Land Bridge 

National Preserve is an approved route on the tribal inventory. Kawerak will be 

amending the tribal transportation improvement plan (TIP) to include this project so the 

planning process may begin with the community and all property owners on the 

proposed transportation corridor to Ear Mountain. 

Ear Mountain is the closest rock quarry source to Shishmaref. The State of 

Alaska's Department of Transportation and Public Facilities have completed work under 

the Shishmaref Relocation Road Reconnaissance Study to evaluate road access and 

will provide the documents for public comment later this spring that will define the 

proposed route to Ear Mountain. 

We are available to work with you to obtain a transportation corridor for the 

community of Shishmaref, Alaska. Fred D. Eningowuk is the contact person for the 

Strategic Management Plan update and our contact for this project. You can contact 

him at shhgrant@yahoo.com or call him at (907) 649-6792. 

We look forward to working with our congressional delegation and the 

administration on this project. 

Sincerely, 

Mayor 

City of Shishmaref 

President 

Native Village of Shishmaref ~fl'"iJ 7 

President ~ 

Shishmaref Native Corporation ;./~7 ~ "!......, _ _, 

cc: Denise Michels, Transportation Director 

Jeanette Koelsch, Superintendent, Bering Land Bridge 

Larry Pederson, Land Manager, Bering Strait Native Corporation 

Sally Cox, State DCCED 

File 
100 


Insert offset folio 121 here 22000A.097

SHEEATIKA 

~ 

~ 

315 Lincoln Strt'et, Suite 300 

Sitka, Alaska 99835 

lmorporated 

HEARING BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

Tel (907) 747-3534 

Fax (907) 747-5727 

\V\\'\\·,sheeatika.com 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON VARIOUS BILLS 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

OF 

DR. KENNETH CAMERON 

PRESIDENT/CEO AND CHAIRMAN 

SHEE ATIKA, INC. 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Kenneth Cameron and I am the President/CEO and Chairman of Shee Atika, Inc. 

("Shee Atika"). Shee Atika is the Native Corporation organized under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act ("ANCSA") for the Alaska Natives historically residing in the vicinity of Sitka, 

Alaska. Shee Atika presently has almost 3,300 Alaska Native shareholders. It is my privilege to 

submit this written testimony in support of Section 5 of S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims 

Settle-ment lmprovement Act of20l6 (the "ANCSA lmprovement Act"). Shee Atika greatly 

appreciates the introduction of this important legislation and the opportunity to submit this 

written statement in its support. 

Section 5 of the ANCSA Improvement Act addresses the treatment of the United States Forest 

Service's (the "Forest Service's") reacquisition of over 22,000 acres of land in Cube Cove on Admiralty Island in order to return the land back into Wilderness within the Admiralty Island National Monument. The timing of this hearing is opportune, as last week the Forest Service and 

Shee Atika completed the purchase by the Forest Service of the first two segments of the multisegment acquisition of Cube Cove. A copy of the joint press release issued by the Forest Service 

and Shee Atika concerning the Cube Cove purchase and the completion of the purchase of the 

first two segments is attached to my written testimony and I respectfully request that it be included in the hearing record. 

As the press release notes, this is a "landmark" transaction that, when completed, will be the 

"largest transfer of lands from a private inholding back into Forest-Service-managed Wilderness 

in the history of the agency." The transaction is the result of a multi-year team effort by the Forest Service, Shee Atika and the Alaska Congressional delegation. In particular, Shee Atika 

would like to express its gratitude to Chairman Murkowski, Senator Sullivan and Representative 

Young for their support and guidance in connection with this transaction. 

2200&09 I 
101 


Insert offset folio 122 here 22000A.098

This transaction is very important to both parties. The transaction allows Shee Atika to finally 

realize the complete value of the settlement of their shareholders' aboriginal land rights as promised by ANCSA when it was enacted in 1971. Shee Atika was unable to originally select land 

within the immediate vicinity of Sitka due to the long-term timber contracts the United States 

had entered to supply the Sitka and Ketchikan pulp mills. This forced Shee Atika to select land 

on Admiralty Island, an area of intense environmental interest, with the result that Shee Atika 

had to pursue a multi-year legal battle to obtain just the right to log its land because this land was 

an inholding to the Admiralty Island National Monument/Kootznoowoo Wilderness ("Monument/Wilderness"). While Shee Atika prevailed, the legal battle left Shee Atika nearly bankrupt. 

Moreover, the specter of protracted and expensive environmental litigation remains concerning 

the future use ofShee Atika's lands because these lands continue to be an inholding to the Monument/Wilderness. Returning Shee Atika's lands to federal ownership in return for the payment 

of the appraised fair market value allows Shee Atika and its shareholders to receive the value of 

what was promised them in ANCSA and allows them to redeploy the consideration to achieve the 

economic viability promised in ANCSA. 

From the Government's perspective, the reacquisition ofShee Atika's lands has been a high priority goal for many years and will result in the incorporation of these lands into the Monu-ment/ 

Wilderness. Elimination of Shee Atika's 23,000 acre inholding will also allow for more efficient 

management by the Forest Service of the Monument/Wilderness and will eliminate many miles 

of boundary with non-federal interests. 

In this regard, Section 5 of the ANCSA Improvement Act will facilitate the transaction in anumber of respects to ensure that it is implemented in a fair, equitable and efficient manner for both 

the Forest Service and Shee Atika. In particular, Section 5 provides for appropriate treatment of 

the consideration received by Shee Atikii that matches the treatment that Shee Atika would have 

received under the original ANCSA. Section 5 also provides Shee Atika with the option toreceive such consideration in the form of either cash or as so-called "bid credits" that may be used 

to acquire surplus property being sold by federal agencies. Section 5 does not itself, however, 

grant Shee Atika any new right to receive any federal lands, only to use the consideration from 

the Cube Cove transaction to acquire surplus federal assets (including lands) otherwise offered 

for public disposal. 

Shee Atika recognizes the limited time and resources that the Committee has at its disposal and, 

therefore, greatly appreciates the holding of this hearing to consider this important legislation. In 

light of the fact that the first two segments of the acquisition have been completed and both parties have expressed an interest in completing the acquisition as soon as possible, we would respectfully request that the Committee and the full Senate consider the bill as soon as practically 

possible. 

We would also note that companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Young as H.R. 5909, the Shee Atikli Land Entitlement Act, That legislation is largely identical to Section 5 of the ANCSA Improvement Act, with the exception that the 

House bill includes an additional provision to protect Shee Atika's rights with respect to any 

land it retains if the transaction is terminated prior to a complete acquisition by the Forest 

Service. 

2 22008091 
102 


Insert offset folio 123 here 22000A.099

We respectfully request that the Committee and the full Senate consider inclusion of this important provision as the Senate and House bills move through the legislative process towards enactment. 

In addition to Section 5 of the ANCSA Improvement Act, Shee Atika also supports S. 2056, the 

National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act. The bill establishes a National 

Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, which includes the Alaska Volcano Observatory ("AVO"), to monitor, warn, and protect citizens from undue and avoidable harm from volcanic activity. The bill would unify the monitoring systems of volcano observatories into a single connected system, as well as create a National Volcano Watch Office operational24-hours a 

day, seven days a week. The AVO monitors volcanoes and volcano fields in Alaska, including 

the Mount Edgecombe volcano and field which is located very close to Sitka. As a result, volcanic unrest, seismic activity and eruption at Mount Edgecumbe would impose significant hazards to human life and property, as well as to wildlife and natural resources, in the Sitka area, including respiratory hazards and damage to commercial and recreational airspace. Shee Atika, 

therefore, supports S. 2056 as a means to provide greater safety through early warning and monitoring to the citizens of Sitka and other communities located near volcanoes and volcano fields. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written statement. We look forward to continuing to 

work with the Committee on this important legislation to our Alaska Native shareholders. 

3 22008091 
103 


Insert offset folio 124 here 22000A.100

USDA 

~ 

Forest Service 

Alaska Region 

P. 0. Box 21628 

Juneau, Alaska 99802 

,JOINT PRESS RELEASE 16-07 

For Immediate Release 

September 16, 2016 

Forest Service Twitter: @AKForestService 

Forest Service Web: http://www.fs.usda.gov/r I 0 

Sbee Atika Web: http://www.sheeatika.com 

Contact: James King, Forest Service, Director, Recreation, Lands, and Minerals 

Phone: 907-586-8877 Email: jamesgking(alfs.fed.us 

Kenneth Cameron, Shee Atika, Inc., President/CEO and Chairman 

Phone: 907-747-3534 Email: info@sheeatika.com 

Forest Service purchases land in Cnbe Cove returning it to Wilderness 

JUNEAU, Alaska-September 16, 2016. Today marks the completion of the purchase of the first 

two segments of a multi-segment land acquisition in Cube Cove on Admiralty Island. Funds for 

this purchase come from the congressionally-designated Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF). 

In July, a landmark purchase agreement between the Forest Service and Shee Atika Corporation 

that will return over 22,000 acres of land back into Wilderness within the million-acre Admiralty 

Island National Monument was signed. Due to the size of the property, the purchase agreement 

established a method to acquire the property in segments through the L WCF. Today's purchase of 

4,463.45 acres represents approximately 20% of the total purchase. 

When this purchase is completed it will be the largest transfer of lands from a private inholding 

back into Forest Service-managed Wilderness in the history of the agency. Admiralty Island is 

located within the Tongass National Forest, which is the largest intact temperate rainforest in the 

world, home to large populations of brown bears and other wildlife and also critical watersheds for 

salmon and fish stocks. 

Cube Cove is located 30 miles south of Juneau, Alaska, and 20 miles north of Angoon, Alaska, and 

is an inholding within the boundaries of the Admiralty Island National Monument and within the 

Kotznoowoo Wilderness area. 

The land owner, Shee Atika Corporation, is a Sitka-based urban Native corporation organized 

under terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The Cube Cove lands were 

conveyed to Shee Atika in the early 1980s as part of ANCSA, and the federal government has long 

been interested in reacquiring the inholding. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 
104 


Insert offset folio 125 here 22000A.101

'Tm pleased to finalize the purchase of Cube Cove and see these lands become a part of the 

Admiralty Island National Monument and Kootznoowoo Wilderness," said Alaska's Regional 

Forester, Beth Pendleton. 

"The return of the Cube Cove land to the Monument has been a team effort by the U.S. Forest Service, 

Shee Atika and the Alaska Congressional delegation," said Kenneth Cameron, President/CEO and 

Chairman of Shee Atika, Incorporated. 

Extensive logging took place on the property from 1984 to 2002. The phased purchase is of the 

surface estate, with its former logging infrastructure now removed, and will be allowed to return to 

a more natural state over time. Purchase of Wilderness inholdings is a high priority for land 

acquisition in the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

The Alaska Region of the Forest Service manages almost 22 million acres ofland within the Chugach 

and Tongass National Forests to meet society's needs for a variety of goods, services, and amenities 

while enhancing the Forests' health and productivity, and to foster similar outcomes for State and 

private forestland across Alaska. The U.S. Forest service is an agency of the United States Department 

of Agriculture. 

### 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender, 

2 
105 


Insert offset folio 126 here 22000A.102

Legend 

f::SS.'I Segment 1 

1222 Segment 2 

Wilderness 

Non-Federal Ownership 

National System Lands 
106 


Insert offset folio 127 here 22000A.103

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

cindya_h@yahoo.com 

Wednesday, September 21, 2016 1:06AM 

Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

Senate Bill 3273 

I am a Shee Atika shareholder and would like to have my comments included in Senate Bill 3273. 

I am adamantly opposed to the sale of Cube Cove. The sale of Cube Cove is being done without the approval of the 

shareholders and Not in the shareholder's best interests. 

Please do NOT allow this sale of OUR lands to go through. This land is for our descendants. Please help us protect OUR 

land for our future generations. 

Our current president and ceo of Shee Atika has NOT been acting in our best interest. Please keep OUR land safe. 

Thank you for your time. 

Cynthia Bass 

7022 Pepper Crest Lane 

Spring, Tx 77379 

936-498-5128 

Shee Atika Shareholder 
107 


Insert offset folio 128 here 22000A.104

$CIRI 

September 21, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairwoman 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

On behalf of the more than 8, 700 shareholders of Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI), I wanted 

to commend you for holding a hearing on S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Improvement Act of 2016 and a number of other bills to address critical issues of importance 

to Alaska Native communities. 

In particular, we applaud and endorse Section 7 of S. 3273 that would allow CIRI to select 

appropriate lands to satisfy the current outstanding under-conveyance of entitlement lands 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). After over 40 years of trying to 

resolve this issue in good faith through the normal processes, both administrative and legal, 

we are resigned to the unfortunate reality that the only possibility of remedying the underconveyance that both CIRI and the U.S. Department of the Interior acknowledge in a 

reasonable timeframe is through the legislative process. For background, CIRI concluded 

the land selection process with its village corporations several years ago, and as a 

consequence and consistent with what we previously informed the Department of the 

Interior, CIRI was approximately two townships short of lands it is entitled to under ANCSA. 

As Alaskans, we were delighted to see the village selection process finally completed as 

were the village corporations, and the certainty the selection process provides to all parties 

is essential for the villages' future decisions. Accordingly, CIRI believed it should also be 

accorded that same certainty and we know you share our commitment to identify all lands 

in Alaska suitable and eligible for selection under ANCSA so that this overdue land 

entitlement can be satisfied to the benefit of CIRI's shareholders. 

When the village land selection process was finalized, we requested expedited attention and 

assistance from the Department of the Interior to remedy the deficiency in CIRI's land 

holdings. With your help, we requested from the Department of the Interior an inventory of 

lands in Alaska available for selection by Alaskan Native Corporations {ANCs) with an eye 

towards working in cooperation with CIRI's fellow ANCs to both satisfy CIRI's entitlement 

and further the mutual interests of CIRI and other ANCs. That list was never provided and 

almost three years after the completion of CIRI's conveyances to its village corporations, 

P.O. Box 93330, Anchorage, AK 99509-3330 • P: 907-274-8638 • F: 907-279-8836 • www.ciri.com 
108 


Insert offset folio 129 here 22000A.105

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

S. 3273 - The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

September 21, 2016 

Page 2 of 2 

CIRI became aware of a Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion that the Department 

of the Interior would not be able to make any lands outside of the CIRI region available to 

CIRI for selection. Accordingly, your legislation which provides the direction, authority and 

protections to allow CIRI's under-conveyance to be remedied in full cooperation with other 

ANCs from suitable public lands in Alaska is timely, reasonable and necessary to resolve 

CIRI's entitlement under-conveyance. 

And, unfortunately, CIRI's situation is not unique. Although ANCSA was passed 45 years 

ago, some Alaska Native Corporations still have not received the entirety of the settlement 

they are due under that legislation. Your bill, S. 3273, in addition to clarifying CIRI's 

entitlement selection authority, addresses a number of other outstanding issues and would 

further the underlying promise and goal of ANCSA to help Alaska Natives advance 

economically through the appropriate utilization and development of their assets and 

entitlement lands. Among other initiatives, your bill helps Alaskan Natives and Native 

communities across and throughout the state. In addition it provides urban corporations for 

over 3,400 shareholders who were overlooked in the original ANSCA bill. 

S. 3273 underscores that ANSCA is a living document that needs to be amended periodically 

to ensure the original intent and to remedy inequities or gaps in the original legislation. We 

commend your vision and initiative in pursuing S. 3273 and the other bills on the hearing 

agenda this week. We stand ready to help as you shepherd them through the legislative 

process. 

Sincerely, 

Cook Inlet Region, Inc. 

~JLd-v Sophie Minich, President and Chief Executive Officer 
109 


Insert offset folio 130 here 22000A.106

LEADER in All We Do 

Written Testimony before U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

July 5, 2016 

Testimony on behalf of Doyon, limited 

Submitted by Aaron M. Schutt, President and CEO 

On behalf of the Doyon, Limited Board ofDirectors, our 19,300 shareholders, and employees, 

this is a written statement of support for the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 

2016. 

Doyon is one of the thirteen Native regional corporations established by Congress under the 

terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Doyon's mission is to promote 

the economic and social well-being of our present and future shareholders, to strengthen their Native 

way of life, and to protect and enhance our land and resources. 

Doyon is the regional corporation for Interior Alaska, and is the largest private landowner in 

Alaska, with a land entitlement under ANCSA of more than 12.5 million acres. Our lands extend from 

the Brooks Range on the north to the Alaska Range on the south. The Alaska-Canada border forms 

the eastern border and the western portion almost reaches the Norton Sound. Our lands also include 

the area covering the original Canyon Village land selections, and as such, Doyon, Limited is a strong 

supporter of the introduction and passage of legislation authorizing the conveyance of these lands to 

the Native people of Canyon Village. 

Members of Canyon Village continue to hold their traditional site at Canyon Village of 

historical and cultural importance- and have long advocated for their land selections authorized by 

ANCSA. In meetings between Doyon and shareholders who represent Canyon Village and Kian Tr'ee 

Village Corporation over the last forty years, we note the consistency in their position despite the 

decades of frustration. 

Recognized by Congress as a Native village subject to ANCSA. Canyon Village was originally 

established in 1962 on vacant and unappropriated federal land located on the Porcupine River in 

northeast Alaska. by Alaska Natives from Fort Yukon who wished to live an independent subsistence 

lifestyle. The Bureau of Indian Affairs subsequently certified Kian Tr'ee Corporation as the Native 

group corporation for Canyon Village, and in june 1976, Kian Tr'ee Corporation filed its land selection 

with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) pursuant to section 14(h)(2) of ANCSA for conveyance 

to the Native group. 

Regrettably, due to a series of events outside of their control, for 40 years now the Athabascan 

people of Canyon Village have been denied the benefit of the settlement of aboriginal land claims 
110 


Insert offset folio 131 here 22000A.107

provided for by ANCSA First, in 1965, BLM withdrew the aboriginal lands in and around Canyon 

Village as part of a powersite classification for the then-proposed Rampart Dam project on the Yukon 

River. Then in 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) expanded the 

boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to include the land surrounding Canyon 

Village. Although the dam project was abandoned well before 1980, the federal government's delay 

in formally revoking the withdrawal for that project (which did not happen until 1990) prevented 

the completion of conveyance in the intervening years before the lands were included in ANWR. 

Furthermore, the unauthorized and mistaken relinquishment in 1977 by the Canyon Village 

Townsite Trustee of a nearly 300-acre tract included in Canyon Village's approved townsite petition, 

resulted in the relinquishment of all but 30 acres of the original application. The erroneous 

relinquishment on behalf of the agency representative was made in the mistaken belief that those 

lands would be made part of the Canyon Village ANCSA entitlement. The relinquishment of the 

townsite petition only adds to the unfortunate circumstances that the Alaska Native founders of 

Canyon Village and their descendants have suffered in their efforts to obtain ownership of their 

Native lands. 

As a result of these actions and inactions, Kian Tr'ee is today one of only two certified Native 

group corporations in Alaska that has neither a conveyance nor a pending conveyance arranged by 

special legislation or negotiation. The particular lands selected by the group in 1976 remain of 

significant cultural and historic relevance and importance to the remaining founders (very few, 

unfortunately, who may live to see their aboriginal lands returned to their people} and their 

descendants. As a result of the unique circumstances that have stood in the way of conveyance, 

legislation is necessary for these lands to be conveyed. 

In closing, Doyon strongly supports and urges Congress to pass legislation to finally complete 

the long overdue conveyance of the aboriginal lands that were selected by the Native people of 

Canyon Village now 40 years ago. 

1 Doyon Place, Suite 300 I Fairbanks, Alaska 99701·29411 (907) 459·2000 WWW.DOYON.COM 
111 


Insert offset folio 132 here 22000A.108

Ch.ugacl1 ~ ALASKA CORPORATION 

HEARING BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

NATURAl RESOURCES 

HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON VARIOUS 

BILLS 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

OF 

Sheri Buretta, Chairman of the Board 

Chugach Alaska Corporation 

Chugach Alaska Corporation • 3800Centerpoint Dr., Suite 1200, Anchorage, AK 99503 • T: 907.563.8866 • F: 907.563.8402 
112 


Insert offset folio 133 here 22000A.109

C1iugach ~ 

ALASKA CORPORATION 

Sheri Buretta 

Chairman of the Board 

Chugach Alaska Corporation 

3800 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 1200 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

Committee of Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20S10·6150 

Chairman Murkowskl, Ranking Member cantwell and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Sheri Buretta and I am Chairman of the Board of Chugach Alaska Corporation 

(Chugach). Chugach is the Regional Native Corporation organized under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) for Alaska Natives historically residing in the Chugach Region as 

more fully described In my statement attached. Chugach currently has approximately 2600 

Alaska Native shareholders. 

It is my privilege to submit this written testimony in support of Section 13 of S. 3273, the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 (ANCSA Improvement Act). Chugach greatly 

appreciates the introduction of this important legislation and the opportunity to submit this 

written statement In support of its enactment. 

Sincerely, 

Sheri Buretta, 

Board Chair 

Chugach Alaska Corporation 

Chugach Alaska Corporation • 3800 Centerpoint Dr., Suite 1200, Anchorage, AK 99503 • T: 907.563.8866 • f: 907.563.8402 
113 


Insert offset folio 134 here 22000A.110

The Chugach region extends from southern tip of the Kenai Peninsula to the 141" meridian near 

Malaspina Glacier between Icy Bay and Yakutat and covers 5,000 miles of coastline. It includes 

the communities of Cordova, Valdez, Whittier and Seward and the villages of Eyak, Chenega, 

Tatitlek, Nanwalek and Port Graham. 

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)Improvement Act, as introduced by Senator 

Usa Murkowski (R·AK), includes a provision, Section 13, requiring a study to be conducted 

within one year of the date of enactment of the bill to identify the impacts on the value of 

Chugach Alaska Corporation (Chugach) land that resulted from changes in Federal law, or from 

Federal or State land acquisitions after December 1, 1980, and to identify recommendations and 

elements of a land exchange for current lands that were conveyed to Chugach Natives, Inc. 

"Chugach" as a result of ANCSA and the settlement of land claims thereafter. 

The following provides for justification related to the request for a study and recommendations 

for a !and exchange or other appropriate compensation to provide for a fair and just settlement 

of outstanding inequities related to the settlement of land claims rights of Alaska Natives in the 

Chugach region. 

ANCSA was passed into law in December 1971. Under the language of the Act, Chugach is 

entitled to 928,000 acres, including 550,000 acres of subsurface and 378,000 acres of full fee 

estate in lands to be selected by Chugach and agreed to by the United States of America, by and 

through James G. Watt, Secretary of the Interior, and John R. Block, Secretary of Agriculture and 

the State of Alaska, by and through Esther C Wunnicke, Commissioner of the Department of 

Natural Resources, in settlement of its aboriginal land claims. 

The vast majority of lands in the Chugach region, approximately 70%, was unavailable for 

selection due to the existence of the Chugach National Forest and State of Alaska land holdings 

and interests. This made the selection of lands particularly difficult for Chugach. As of 1981, ten 

years after passage of the Settlement Act (ANCSA), an agreement had still not been reached 

regarding Chugach land selections. This prompted Congress to direct a study of lands in the 

Chugach region under Section 1430 of the Alaska National Interest lands Conservation Act of 

1980, Subsection A, Public law 96·487, with the end goal for the parties (USFS, State of Alaska, 

Chugach and other concerned parties including the communities within the region) to come to 

agreement on land selections. However, at the end of the study the parties were not able to 

Chugach 
114 


Insert offset folio 135 here 22000A.111

reach an agreement. This eventually led to Congress making a final determination on the land 

selections, which was not in alignment with the interests of Chugach. Ultimately, Chugach 

received lands that were primarily comprised of "mountain tops and glaciers," not ideal 

locations for potential development to meet the goals and promises of ANCSA: Economic selfsufficiency and self-determination for the Alaska Native people. In those years, Chugach 

primarily focused on developing resources related to fish processing and timber harvesting as 

the best way to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, a downturn in both the timber 

industry and seafood processing sector following the Exxon Valdez oil spill led Chugach to file for 

bankruptcy in 1991. 

In 1969, prior to the passage of ANCSA, Alaska was in the midst of realizing a tremendous 

economic boom with the discovery of significant oil resources at Prudhoe Bay in the Alaska 

North Slope. Engineers had determined the best route to move oil from Prudhoe Bay to market 

would be a pipeline that stretched 800 miles to Valdez, which boasted a natural deep water port. 

A terminal would be built in Valdez to receive, process and load the oil onto tankers bound for 

market. Major producers including BP, Exxon and Atlantic Richfield (now Conoco-Phillips) would 

share the ownership of the pipeline, dubbed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). However, 

to build the pipeline, several Alaska Native groups with interests in the area who were 

protesting land rights would have to abandon their protest in order for the State and the oil 

producers to move forward with building the pipeline, 

Chugach was one of the Alaska Native groups in protest. The terminal was slated to be built on 

traditional Chugach land. After a series of meetings and under immense pressure from the State 

and the producers, Chugach eventually agreed to give up their claim to these lands, and the 

release of Valdez as a Native Village, in return for and a promise of contracts and jobs for 

Chugach and our shareholders. In a statement submitted by the then President of Chugach 

Native Association George Olson, he said, "I want to emphasize and re-emphasize that the 

Native people do not wish in any way to impede the progress of the State, But it must be 

recognized that the contest is between the Native people of Alaska and the federal government. 

We seek compensation for the lands that have been taken from us." In 1970, Alyeska Pipeline 

Service Company (Aiyeska), owned by the oil producers, was formed as the entity to design, 

build, maintain and operate TAPS. While Chugach over time was able to secure certain contracts 

with Alyeska, other contractors including Alaska Nataive Corporations (ANCs) with no land rights 

in the region secured much more significant contracts. While contracts for Chugach subsidiaries 

did occur, the relative volume was inadequate relative to the promise of jobs and contracts. 

By the end of 1975 the bulk of the serious contracting had ceased. This resulted in Cecil Barnes, 

then President of Chugach, to write Alyeska with a proposal involving camp maintenance -

which was ultimately denied by Alyeska. This resulted in only one proposal available for Chugach 

at the time, characterized by Barnes as "our first large venture." 

Valdez is in the Chugach region, and today we do contract with TAPS operator Alyeska, providing 

administrative and technical services through our subsidiary Chugach Alaska Services LLC, in 

Chugach Alaska Corporation • Suite 1200, 
115 


Insert offset folio 136 here 22000A.112

addition to oil spill response in a partnership between Chugach and the villages of Tatitlek and 

Chenega (TCC), both of which have been very instrumental in meeting Alaska Native hire 

provisions required by Section 29 of the TAPS agreement. However, inequity still exists as the 

promises made in return for giving up rights to the Valdez terminal property were never fully 

fulfilled. 

In 1989 the largest oil spill in U.S. history to date occurred when the Exxon Valdez tanker ran 

aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound (PWS) 30 miles from the Valdez TerminaL 11 

million gallons (~250,000 barrels) of crude oil was released into the waters of Prince William 

Sound. This event would forever change the face of petroleum transportation on navigable 

waters in the United States. Crude oil from the spill-soiled waters and washed up on the 

shoreline of PWS, encompassing 1,300 miles. Populations of fish, marine mammals, sea birds 

and shell fish are still recovering due to lack of preparation and inadequate cleanup operations. 

These impacts were felt especially by the PWS communities that are part of the Chugach Region. 

Subsistence activities, primarily hunting and fishing, were severely negatively impacted. 

Communities were overwhelmed with outside workers who quickly moved in and virtually 

overwhelmed our small communities with contractors, spill response workers and equipment. 

While some Chugach shareholders were able to obtain jobs or benefit from the cleanup 

response, all of our shareholders were negatively impacted as the devastating effects of the spill 

on subsistence hunting and fishing were suffered over many years. Subsequently, a long drawn 

out settlement of claims against Exxon further eroded relationships and trust with respect to oil 

producers and shippers in PWS. 

As a result of the spill, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Settlement Fund was established. The 

board of EVOS set about to purchase surface estate from Native Village corporations in the 

Chugach region. The village corporations, seeing an opportunity for economic recovery from the 

damage caused by the spill, via the sale of their surface rights on these lands, negotiated for the 

sale of 249,000 acres of their lands (surface estate) to EVOS. EVOS in turn assigned {donated) 

the lands to various federal and state agencies, with the intention that the lands would be held 

for conservation. However, Chugach held the subsurface rights to all of the lands. For Chugach, 

it now meant having to work with federal/state agencies in order to pursue development of 

their subsurface rights to these lands. 

An additional negative impact of the Exxon Valdez spill and the EVOS settlement was the effect 

on public sentiment related to lands in Prince William Sound. Many environmental groups, 

conservation organizations, federal agencies, individuals and other special interest groups rallied 

behind an anti-development agenda for resources in PWS. While Chugach may have struggled in 

the past with development of its lands due to the difficulty of physical access to its lands, 

Chugach now also had to face a major conservation force that opposed any development on 

Chugach lands lands that were specifically intended via the Settlement Act to provide for 

economic development for the Chugach Native People. 

• 3800 Centerpoint DL, Suite 
116 


Insert offset folio 137 here 22000A.113

Despite Chugach holding the dominant subsurface estate, a direct conflict exists between 

Chugach's responsibility to its Native shareholders for economic development and selfsufficiency of ANCSA land, and the EVOS agenda of conservation. 

After Chugach's bankruptcy, the Chugach Board of Directors adopted a very conservative 

approach to development of their lands. Instead of land development, the advent of 

government contracting opportunities for disadvantaged businesses through the 8a program 

gave Chugach the impetus to focus on government contracting. For years, this became the 

overwhelming share of Chugach revenues. As Chugach focused on government contracting, land 

development projects were not pursued due to the challenges noted above. As a result, our 

villages also did not have opportunities for economic development or shareholder jobs related 

to land projects. In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill with the EVOS settlement trust 

(funded largely by fines/fees on Exxon) looking to buy surface rights, our villages sold their 

surface estate interests as their only option for economic gain. While the cash infusion proved 

helpful for some, this one-time benefit resulted in a loss of their land rights, and for Chugach it 

meant a much more difficult road to any kind of economic benefit from the development and 

use of these lands. 

Chugach owns or has valid selection rights to over 625,000 acres of surface, subsurface and oil 

and gas rights within the boundaries of the Chugach National Forest (CNF), resulting in Chugach 

being the largest private landowner within CNF boundaries. CNF contains 5.5 million acres of 

land, 98.9% of which Is inventoried as "Roadless." The majority of Chugach's economically viable 

lands are adjacent to or surrounded by the national forest lands, resulting in no practical means 

of access to Chugach's inholdings except across federal lands. When applied to Roadless areas 

within the CNF, the potential for the Forest Service's existing Road less rule to frustrate or impair 

Chugach's valid existing statutory and common law rights of access to its land is abundantly 

clear. 

Chugach has expressed on multiple occasions our concerns and issues with the Roadless Area 

Conservation act. A letter submitted on August 8, 2003 by Rick Rogers, Chugach's V.P. of Lands, 

Resources, and Tourism to the USFS was in support of the Proposed Alaskan exemption of two 

national forests. The Proposed Alaskan exemption, if adopted, would exempt both the Tongass 

and Chugach national forest from the Roadless Rule ("the existing Roadless rule") promulgated 

during the Clinton Administration. Mr. Rogers states in the letter, "The Process used to create 

the existing Roadless rule was deeply flawed, forged by politics rather than professional 

reasoning, and in direct conflict with several federal laws. A single, one-size-fits-all rule that 

affects Roadless areas across the entire National Forest System cannot possibly address 

conditions unique to each Roadless area within each forest." Ultimately the exemption did not 

pass through the courts, resulting in potentially limited access to Chugach's 625,000 acres of 

economically viable land. 

Chugach 1200, Anchorage, AK 
117 


Insert offset folio 138 here 22000A.114

Chugach does have certain rights of access to its lands through the Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

and inventoried Roadless areas as a result of provisions in ANCSA and ANilCA; however the 

artificial encumbrances of the Roadless policy led to more rigorous, time-consuming and 

expensive scrutiny. In some instances where an Environmental Assessment would have been 

required, a full Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Public perception and 

potential damage to the Corporation's reputation is at stake as well. 

Chugach's final conveyances, after 45 years, are still pending. Much of the Chugach Region 

either experienced "uplift" or "subsidence" during the 1964 Alaska Earthquake. The quake was 

centered in the Chugach Region in Unakwik Inlet, between the communities of Whittier and 

Valdez, Some areas rose as much as 16 feet, exposing hundreds to thousands of feet of land that 

was submerged prior to the quake. The State of Alaska claims title to the avulsed lands under 

the Equal Footing Doctrine. The USFS also has claimed title under their impression that when 

the Chugach National Forest was created in 1907, the waters and submerged lands were part of 

that inclusion. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the agencies in 1992 for joint 

management of those lands until a settlement was reached. If the State prevails, Chugach's 

coastline properties would be limited to where the mean high tide line was at the date of 

statehood. In some cases this could leave Chugach's coastline properties buffered by a great 

distance of state land and the water. Determining exactly where mean high tide line was in 

January of 1959 is a very complex and expensive endeavor that will further delay Chugach's 

remaining conveyances. 

A number of the tracts of Chugach land that the Company would consider for an exchange 

include those of interest to federal agencies. Below is a summary of issues we feel would be of 

interest to these agencies. 

• The vast majority of Chugach landholdings on EVOS purchased surface lands are of high 

mineral potential including gold, silver, copper, zinc, manganese and other metallic 

minerals, along with huge resources of granite, armor rock, gravel and other industrial 

materials. 

• On lands that the agencies received in fee, they are charged with enforcing restrictive 

covenants in perpetuity to protect and restore resources affected by the oil spill. Those 

covenants include: 

1). No alteration of topography, 

2). No alteration or modification of stream flows 

3). No operation of motorized vehicles, 3), No removal of vegetation, 

4), No removal of timber (standing or dead and down), and 

5), No construction of buildings or improved camping facilities. 

Clearly, it was the intent of the EVOS Trustee Council to protect these lands in 

perpetuity for the benefit of the public and the resources. The agencies, without 

acquiring the subsurface estate under those lands where they own the surface estate, 

cannot with any certainty maintain covenants it is charged with enforcing. 

Chugach Alaska Corporation • 
118 


Insert offset folio 139 here 22000A.115

• On a portion of the conservation easements, there is a provision that allows for public 

access on protected lands. Any activities related to mineral/gravel extraction will 

presumably be viewed as a detriment to the public. Therefore it may be in the public's 

best interest that the agencies acquire those lands underlying conservation easements 

as well as those lands underlying surface fee estate. 

According to the EVOS Trustee Council website "By purchasing land throughout the spill 

region, the EVOS Trustee Council ensured that key habitats for injured species would 

not be further damaged by extensive development or logging, serious threats at the 

time ofthe spill. The Trustee Council felt that in an already spill-impacted environment, 

purchasing land could go a long way toward allowing the ecosystem to 

recover." Further, "The Trustee Council has dedicated nearly 60 percent of available 

settlement funds -over $400 million-for habitat protection in the spill region." 

• As written in the Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan Record of Decision 

dated May 31, 2002 on p. 8~9, Regional Forester Dennis E. Bschor states, "My overall 

goal is to manage the affected lands within Prince William Sound to maintain their wild 

character and provide unique dispersed recreation opportunities, and to provide for the 

continued recovery protection, and enhancement of wildlife, fish, and other injured 

resources." Further, "EVOS Trustee Council Acquired Lands Management Areas will 

provide outstanding opportunities for solitude, isolation and quiet when traveling cross· 

country." CLMP Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Social Systems Desired 

Condition p. 4-41. 

• The subsurface is the dominant estate and the owner has the right to access and 

develop its interest. Disturbance of the surface estate that these agencies are 

responsible for protecting is inevitable (if the subsurface is developed) and fails the 

mission and purpose of the hundreds of millions of public funds spent to conserve 

them. 

• An exchange with Chugach (subsurface owner) would provide the public with a 

significant conservation benefit while providing Chugach the meaningful economic 

benefits It was promised under the Settlement Act. 

• Regarding the USFS, National Policy includes: 

1) Consolidation of lands, 

2} Eliminate need for right of ways through National Forest system lands, 

3) Protection of key resources (i.e., Wilderness, endangered species, unique portions of 

the forest), 

4) Clear direction to dispose of lands not suitable for the Forest Service, 

5) Cannot acquire lands which have outstanding rights, 

6) Must {should) support the CNF land and resource management plan, and 

7) NEPA requires that outright purchase be considered as an alternative to exchange. 

Chugach Suite 1200, 
119 


Insert offset folio 140 here 22000A.116

Chugach may be willing to entertain offers for its lands within Wilderness and 

Wilderness Study Area units, which would help keep those system units intact. In 

previous discussions, these lands were of great interest to the agencies. 

The goal, promises, and spirit of ANCSA were not met with the Chugach people as a result of the 

factors highlighted in this statement. Chugach's interest in opening up evaluation and discussion 

related to a fair land exchange is justified by the history presented. 

Chugach has on many occasions attempted to enter into discussions with the USFS to resolve 

these land claim issues. In a letter from the then USFS Forest Supervisor Joe Meade, on June 27, 

2003, Mr. Meade stated dearly that the USFS was not Interested In pursuing any further 

discussion with Chugach related to land exchanges and that they did not feel such was in the 

best interest of the public. Federal and state agencies, for many of the purposes stated above, 

have taken the position that no development will take place on these lands. However, this 

entirely ignores the position of the Chugach Native People and is a particular denial of the intent 

set forth by ANCSA. In addition, conservation efforts and federal designations of park lands, 

forest lands, wilderness study areas and Roadless rules have created a significant devaluation of 

Chugach lands. While exchange language refers to "equal value," the fact remains that our lands 

have lost significant value as a result of the action of federal and state regulatory agencies that 

was beyond our control. 

As identified, there are many potential benefits to the agencies in pursuing a land exchange on a 

number of Chugach properties, which could create a beneficial outcome for all parties. We are 

asking for the ability under Section 13 of the ANCSA Improvement Act to have our land 

selections reviewed in order to enter into meaningful discussion surrounding opportunities for a 

fair and equitable land exchange or other concessions in order for Chugach to benefit as 

intended under ANCSA from utilization and development of our lands. 
120 


Insert offset folio 141 here 22000A.117

Testimony of Stanley Mack 

Mayor of the Aleutians East Borough 

Before 

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Regarding 

S. 3204 - The Need for Reliable Emergency Medical Transportation for the 

Isolated Community of King Cove, Alaska 

Sept. 21,2016 

Good morning, Senator and Committee Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member 

Cantwell and Members of the Committee. My name is Stanley Mack, and I am the 

Mayor of the Aleutians East Borough. I am an Aleut and was born and raised in 

King Cove, a community of mostly indigenous Aleut people with ancestral roots 

stretching back thousands of years. 

I am honored to be able to present you with information on behalf of all King Cove 

and Aleutians East Borough residents regarding a dire need we have in this 

community of 965 residents. I would also like to commend Senator Murkowski 

who has been an extraordinary champion for this cause. We are so grateful for her 

unwavering support. She has proven time and time again, that she will not back 

down until King Cove has a life-saving road to emergency medical access. 

For us, it's a matter of life and death. Our weather in King Cove is fierce, including 

gale-force winds, snow squalls and dense fog. As a result, flights to and from our 

airstrip, located between two volcanic peaks, are canceled or delayed about 100 

days a year. When the weather is good, it's accessible only during daylight hours. 

When our extreme weather prevents travel by air, that often means travel by boat is 

also dangerous, with 12 to 15-foot seas. Our local clinic simply cannot handle 

critical medical emergencies, such as traumatic injuries, heart or respiratory 

illnesses or complications from childbirth. In these cases, we have no choice but to 

medevac our loved ones to the nearest hospital, which is located in Anchorage, 625 

miles away. 
121 


Insert offset folio 142 here 22000A.118

You have probably heard that other remote communities in Alaska face similar 

difficulties in accessing emergency medical care in Anchorage. We cannot argue 

with that. However, what makes our situation unique is our solution is just 30 

surface miles away in Cold Bay where the weather is far tamer than that of King 

Cove. That's where an all-weather airport with a 10,000' paved main runway and a 

6,500' crosswind runway is located. It was built by the U.S. military in 1942 as 

part of the Aleutian campaign during World War II. It's open nearly 365 days a 

year. The only reliable and feasible solution to get there is a small, one-lane noncommercial gravel road connection that would link King Cove's existing road 

system to the Cold Bay Airport. That is our lifeline to the outside world. 

Our critics will tell you that other marine vessels and infrastructure can address our 

transportation access problem. These alternatives have been analyzed in previous 

studies and dismissed as unworkable in this severe Aleutian environment. 

Imagine if you had a loved one in distress as you consider the following medevacs: 

An infant boy struggling to breathe who was medevaced and later diagnosed with 

RSV. 

A young woman in her 20s with a severely obstructed airway was medevaced 7 Y:z 

hours later because foul weather prevented travel by air. 

A fisherman who dislocated both hips and fractured his pelvis after a 600-pound 

cod pot fell on him. 

An elderly man in his 80s suffering from sepsis. 

These medevacs are just a few out of 52 total medevacs since U.S. Secretary of the 

Interior Sally Jewell callously rejected the road in December of 2013. When she 

visited King Cove in August 2013, she informed us she was there to "speak on 

behalf of the Izembek birds and animals, which have no voice." The federal 

government has demonstrated that the "voice" of the indigenous Aleut people 

matters little if at all. Where is the government's trust responsibility to the Aleut 

people? Where is the concern for the lives of human beings? 

2 
122 


Insert offset folio 143 here 22000A.119

Ironically, the same Interior Department/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that cites 

concerns for the birds and wildlife, actively promotes the area's world-class 

hunting opportunities, particularly for brown bear and waterfowl. The refuge has 

some of the highest daily sport hunting bag limits anywhere for bird hunting. Yet, 

Interior Secretary Jewell says she's concerned that a small road will disturb the 

birds. 

The Izembek Refuge, including federally designated wilderness, contains nearly 70 

miles of roads built by the U.S. military during World War II. Nearly 50 miles 

continue to be maintained and used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some of 

those roads are used by hunters from around the world who access them from Cold 

Bay. Hunters drive their trucks and launch their skiffs right into Izembek Lagoon, 

causing far more damage to the eelgrass than a few cars driving on a gravel road 

one-quarter of a mile away ever could. Yet, the Aleut people are not allowed to 

drive through the Izembek wilderness to access the Cold Bay airport from King 

Cove during harsh weather. I don't understand why the indigenous people aren't 

afforded the same rights and privileges. 

We've heard our opponents say, why don't you just move? This statement is 

patronizing in the extreme. Please understand that King Cove is our home. It is 

where our families, relatives, friends and neighbors live. This is where we make 

our living, fishing from the abundant waters that not only feed our region but also 

provide seafood for the rest of the nation. It is also the home of our ancestors who 

were conscientious stewards of the land - land which was later designated as 

wilderness without informing or consulting the Aleut people who have lived here 

for more than 4,000 years. 

Even though our community is remote, we are still part of the United States. We 

are just asking to have what most Americans take for granted: reliable, affordable 

and safe access to emergency medical care. We aren't asking for a handout from 

the federal government. We are just requesting permission from Congress to build 

a tiny gravel road which would connect to the Cold Bay Airport, and allow us to 

3 
123 


Insert offset folio 144 here 22000A.120

access the outside world. This is unfortunately necessary because the Secretary of 

the Interior ignored our needs by her heartless decision on December 23, 2013 to 

deny the land exchange and road which Congress had already pre-approved. 

In conclusion, I would once again like to thank Senator Murkowski who has 

refused to give up on our cause. She believes that King Cove lives matter. We 

respectfully ask all committee members to support Senator Murkowski's efforts to 

authorize this (206-acre land) road corridor along with an equal-value land 

exchange. This legislation would make a huge difference in our lives, and the lives 

of our loved ones. Please pass S. 3204 as soon as possible. 

Thank you. 

4 
124 


Insert offset folio 145 here 22000A.121

Testimony of Della Trumble 

Lifelong Aleut Resident of King Cove & Community Spokesperson 

TestifYing Before 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Regarding 

S. 3204 -The Need for Reliable Emergency Medical Transportation for the 

Isolated Community of King Cove, Alaska 

Sept. 21,2016 

Good Morning Senator and Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 

Members of the Committee. My name is Della Trumble. I am an Aleut. I was 

born and raised and continue to live in King Cove, Alaska. The residents of King 

Cove love our community, and we have a special place in our hearts for you, 

Senator Murkowski. We thank you for your strong and continued support on this 

long-standing issue that means so much to the people of King Cove. 

Today, I am speaking on behalf of all the shareholders of the King Cove 

Corporation, as a member of the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove and for all other 

residents of King Cove. I am also speaking as a mother, an Alaskan and as a 

citizen of the United States. 

I am deeply connected to the land that you know as the Izembek Refuge through 

my ancestors, who lived and subsisted on this wilderness for 4,000 years. Our 

culture and respect for our natural environment will never allow us to damage the 

refuge. We were taught to only take what you need and to always maintain a 

renewable resource. 

I have lived this road issue now for over 35 years of my life, as have many other 

people in this community. I have made 25 trips to Washington to testify, lobby, 

and advocate for this road to allow for a safe, dependable and affordable 

transportation access from King Cove to the all-weather Cold Bay Airport. Our 

need for this very modest road connection to the Cold Bay Airport is essential for 

our medical and health needs and for our sustainable future. Who would have 

believed that this battle for safe access would have taken decades, a right that so 

many people in the United States enjoy daily? 
125 


Insert offset folio 146 here 22000A.122

We sincerely thought the passage of the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Act was the 

final decision needed to authorize the road. The community remains stunned by 

Secretary Jewell's insensitive decision to deny us the road. However, her decision 

did not totally surprise us. When she visited King Cove in August of 2013, she 

informed us she was there to "speak on behalf of the Izembek birds and animals 

which have no voice." These are the very birds that are being hunted by sport 

hunters at this moment -- birds that are being sent to King Cove because hunters 

are only utilizing the bird for the sport and not for food. 

In response to Secretary Jewell's comment, our Police Chief and life-long 

resident, Robert Gould, politely told the Secretary it was his responsibility to 

"speak on behalf of all King Cove residents who have lost loved ones or must 

continue to endure medical and health challenges because of the community's 

transportation access problem." 

How much more do we need to endure, particularly when there is such a 

reasonable, dependable and affordable solution to our transportation access 

problem to the Cold Bay Airport? We desperately need the 10-mile, one-lane 

gravel road connecting King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. This road connection 

will drastically improve our ability for emergency and routine medical and health 

care and significantly upgrade our overall quality-of-life. Why is this simple 

concept so difficult for some people to accept? 

Since December 23, 2013, when Secretary Jewell said NO to our road, we have 

had 52 medevacs out of King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. Thank God, for the 

brave men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard who were available to help out 

with 17 of those medevacs when no other option could work. However, we never 

take the assistance and availability of the Coast Guard for granted because we 

know it is not their mission or responsibility to risk their lives to make these heroic 

rescues. 

When a medevac occurs, it isn't just the patient that suffers. Family members and 

friends agonize over their loved one's condition and safety in an environment with 

severe, fluctuating weather. Many people in King Cove experience fear and 

anxiety over traveling because of past experiences. I know first-hand how heartwrenching it can be when a loved one gets on a plane and things end up going 

2 
126 


Insert offset folio 147 here 22000A.123

terribly wrong. No mother should ever have to witness their own precious daughter 

crash-land at the King Cove Airstrip due to our highly unpredictable turbulence 

and downdrafts from the volcanic mountainous terrain surrounding the narrow 

valley where our 3,000' gravel runway is located. It was the scariest few minutes 

of my life as I sat there watching the plane be pushed downward by the wind and 

crash-landing on the runway without its landing gear down. It was undoubtedly a 

very frightening moment in my life. Similar experiences, from both flying and 

traveling on the water have been encountered by way too many King Cove Aleuts. 

It must stop. We know we are continuing to live on borrowed time with our 

transportation access problem. 

Please know we will never quit fighting until we are successful in our quest to 

achieve a safe, dependable and affordable transportation solution for our residents. 

We know the only logical solution is a modest, non-evasive, one-lane gravel road. 

Finally, we are so fortunate to have Senator Murkowski's commitment, common 

sense, and passion to help us achieve this solution. On behalf of all King Cove 

Aleuts and all other community residents, we respectfully ask Congress and the 

President to authorize the road and do so without the involvement of the 

Department of the Interior. Please make this right. We have fought long enough. It 

is time. 

Thank you. 

3 
127 


Insert offset folio 148 here 22000A.124

Testimony of Dean Gould 

President of the King Cove Corporation & Lifelong Aleut King Cove Resident 

TestifYing Before 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Regarding 

S. 3204- The Need for Reliable Emergency Medical Transportation for the 

Isolated Community of King Cove, Alaska 

Sept. 21,2016 

Good morning, Senator and Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and 

Members of the Committee. My name is Dean Gould. I am an Aleut, a lifelong 

King Cove resident and president of the King Cove Corporation. I am testifying on 

behalf of the shareholders of the King Cove Corporation, a village corporation that 

represents a total of 420 shareholders and as well as the people who live in King 

Cove, all of whom support a road between the communities of King Cove and 

Cold Bay. It has been well-documented during the past four decades that the King 

Cove Corporation supports this road and will continue to do so until we receive a 

positive resolution to the ongoing issue of safe transportation between these 

communities. On a number of occasions, we have proposed land trades. In one 

case, we offered a massive land swap, which equated to more than 300 times the 

amount of our lands awarded us under ANLICA in exchange for access to a small 

(206-acre) single-lane gravel road to the Cold Bay airport. 

Senator Murkowski, we appreciate your continued efforts on our behalf. You 

understand that this issue is real and necessary in order to avoid endangering more 

lives in the future. We are also grateful for the support of Senator Dan Sullivan, 

Congressman Don Young, Alaska Governor Walker, the Alaska Legislature, the 

Alaska Federation of Natives and the Aleut Corporation, all of whom have been 

staunch supporters of this road and land exchange. 

Since U.S. Secretary ofinterior Sally Jewell denied us road access in December of 

2013, there have been 52 medevacs. Seventeen were conducted by the U.S. Coast 

Guard. Recently one of our elderly shareholders spent 40 hours with a broken hip 
128 


Insert offset folio 149 here 22000A.125

in the clinic waiting for a medevac plane to transport her to the proper medical care 

in Anchorage. This is an elder who is so afraid of flying that she prefers to come 

home to King Cove on the ferry Tustumena from Homer every year and returns by 

ferry. We have had elders who were stuffed into a king crab pot and hoisted from a 

boat 20-feet up to the dock in Cold Bay to get to medical help. Too many of our 

shareholders and the people of King Cove have had to endure unnecessary 

apprehension and pain trying to get between these communities during medical 

emergencies. 

As I write this, today is a good example. It is gusting 50 miles per hour and 

increasing to 60 miles per hour. We hope and pray when we have weather like this 

that there will be no need for a medevac. If there was a road, this would be a nonissue. We know how to drive in the wind, and we could get to Cold Bay safely. 

On behalf of our shareholders and the people of King Cove, we ask that Congress 

please pass S. 3204. Please allow us to have safe, reliable transportation access 

between our communities. We have fought long and hard for this issue, and it is 

time to make it right. 

Thank you. 
129 


Insert offset folio 150 here 22000A.126

RE: Opposition to bills that would undermine the Antiquities Act and block new parks- S. 437, S. 1416 

and S. 3317. 

September 21, 2016 

Dear Senator, 

On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of members across the country, we are 

writing to express our opposition to the "blocking new parks" bills (S. 437, S.1416, and S. 3317) being 

heard before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday September 22"d. It is 

disappointing to see three separate bills to undermine the Antiquities Act- the law which is responsible 

for originally protecting nearly half of our national parks- being advanced less than a month after our 

country celebrated the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. 

Since it was signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, the Antiquities Act has been used on a 

bipartisan basis by 16 Presidents (8 Republicans and 8 Democrats) to protect America's most iconic 

natural, cultural, and historic places including the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Fort Monroe, the 

Pacific Remote Islands, and Acadia, Zion and Olympic National Parks. The sheer diversity of historic, 

cultural, and natural treasures that have been protected by the Antiquities Act is the reason why groups 

representing sportsmen, cultural heritage organizations, evangelicals, conservation, recreation 

businesses, historic preservation, and many others all oppose efforts to undermine this vital law. 

Not only do national monuments protect our irreplaceable natural, historic, and cultural resources for 

future generations, they benefit local economies today. A recent report released by Small Business 

Majority finds that the 10 natural and cultural monuments protected by President Obama are 

responsible for $156.4 million in annual economic benefits for local communities and that visitation to 

these areas drastically increases following designation. 

Senate bills S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317 are an attempt to block the designation of, and weaken 

protections for, new national monuments. These attempts to block new parks on land and in our 

oceans are something that is wildly out of step with the American public's interest in protecting our 

special places- especially apparent during the celebration of the National Park Service's centennial year. 

According to Colorado College's 2016 Conservation in the West Poll, 80% of western voters support 

"future presidents continuing to protect existing public lands as national monuments." This poll 

reinforces other surveys that document widespread opposition to congressional attacks on new parks. 

The changes proposed in these bills- S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317- are entirely contrary to the intent 

and purpose of this celebrated and effective conservation tool. The Antiquities Act was created by 

Congress specifically to allow the President to act swiftly to protect irreplaceable national treasures at 

times when Congress is unwilling or unable to do so. It is nearly impossible to imagine the United States 

without being able to visit and celebrate our uniquely American places- from Glacier Bay to Dry 

Tortugas- but if the proposed bills had been included in the original Act, it is entirely possible these 

treasures could have been irreparably damaged. 

Furthermore, national monuments designated under the Antiquities Act protect public lands and waters 

-and the historical, cultural and natural resources within them- owned jointly by all Americans. 

Granting a state legislature or Governor the ability to veto a designation, as S. 437 proposes, is entirely 
130 


Insert offset folio 151 here 22000A.127

different than encouraging local input and antithetical to the American system of public management of 

our shared lands and waters. Similarly, exempting federal public lands within a single state from one of 

our nation's most important federal lands conservation statutes, asS. 3317 proposes, is troubling and 

inappropriate. S. 1416 would also force the federal government to partially relinquish management of 

the federal public estate, by prohibiting reservations of water rights. While uncommon, in certain cases 

these reservations can be critical to protecting the objects for which the monuments were designated in 

the first place. Our federal lands and waters are shared equally by all Americans and should managed 

for the public good, and not subject to exemptions and vetoes by those that do not act on behalf of the 

American public at large. 

These bills are a clear effort to block new parks and not to protect local input. Recently successful 

community-led efforts to protect treasured public lands like Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National 

Monument show that local collaboration and community input remain at the forefront throughout the 

monument-designation process, with robust public meetings prior to designations, thousands of public 

comments, and close contact with stakeholders to help guide management plans for newly protected 

sites and make recommendations for recreation and other uses. 

For these reasons and many others, we write to share our opposition to these "blocking new parks" bills 

S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317. We appreciate the committee's consideration of our position when 

examining these bills. 

Sincerely, 

The Wilderness Society 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

National Parks Conservation Association 

League of Conservation Voters 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

American Rivers 

Soda Mountain Wilderness Council 

los Padres ForestWatch 

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance 

Oregon Natural Desert Association 

Crow Canyon Archaeological Center 

Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship 

The Conservation Alliance 

Friends of Organ Mountains- Desert Peaks 

Montana Wilderness Association 

Friends of Cedar Mesa 

Coalition to Protect America's National Parks 

Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce 

New Mexico Voices for Children 

Conservation Law Foundation 

Marine Conservation Institute 

Surfrider Foundation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Vet Voice Foundation 

Utah Dine Bikeyah 

Partnership for the National Trails System 

Mystic Aquarium 

The Ocean Project 

Rivers & Birds 

Oceana 

Green peace 

Sierra Club 

National Geographic Pristine Seas 

Klamath Forest Alliance 

Epic-Environmental Protection Information 

Center 

Conservation lands Foundation 

Center for Biological Diversity 

The Trust for Public land 

Greenlatinos 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

Defenders of Wildlife 

National Audubon Society 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

Colorado Outdoor Business Alliance 

Colorado Canyons Association 
131 


Insert offset folio 152 here 22000A.128

Bonsai Designs 

American Alpine Club 

Verde Brand Communications 

Mountain Khakis 

Sea to Summit 

Bergans of Norway 

Point6 

Exxel Outdoors, Kelty, Sierra Designs, Ultimate 

Direction 

Hala Gear 

Osprey Packs, Inc 

Hispanic Federation 

Mission Blue 

Angler's Covey 

Pikes Peak Outfitter 

Colorado Tackle Pro 

Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance 

Friends of Ironwood Forest 

Islanders for the San Juan Islands National 

Monument 

Alaska Wilderness League 

California Wilderness Coalition 

Tuleyome 

Scenic America 

Friends of Arizona Rivers 

Earth justice 

Wildlands Network 

Ocean Conservancy 

Friends of the Desert Mountains 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Mojave Desert Land Trust 

Partnership for Responsible Business 
132 


Insert offset folio 153 here 22000A.129

• • . 

• 

NPCA's Positions on Legislation at September 22nd Hearing 

September 21, 2016 

Dear Senator, 

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the leading 

voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park System. On 

behalf of our more than one million members and supporters nationwide, I write to urge 

you to consider our positions on the following bills when they come before the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, September 22"d. 

NPCA opposes S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317 that would limit the president's authority 

under the Antiquities Act to designate new national monuments and/or would place 

unnecessary roadblocks to the protection of important and sensitive places for the 

enjoyment of present and future generations. The Antiquities Act was created by 

Congress to allow the president to permanently protect irreplaceable national treasures 

at times when Congress is unwilling or unable to act swiftly. The Antiquities Act has 

;dthstood the test of time and has been available as a conservation tool for presidents of 

both parties; eight Republicans and eight Democrats have designated 151 national 

monuments under this authority. Important and nationally significant cultural, 

historical, and natural sites have been protected through the Antiquities Act including 

Grand Canyon and Acadia National Parks, Statue of Liberty and Muir Woods National 

Monuments, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park. Altering the 

authority, or exempting certain states from the critical federal lands conservation statute, 

would not setve the American people and the public lands that they continue to enjoy 

year after year. 

NPCA supports S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act that would withdraw 

lands in the Upper Methow Valley in the North Cascades from mineral entry and 

exploration. This wild and beautiful region, a component of the ecosystem surrounding 

North Cascades National Park, is rare and special for its recreational, scenic and wildlife 

values, and should be protected for generations to come. Mineral exploration and 

potential subsequent mining would bring noise, air pollution, water degradation and 

disruption to this natural setting which is enjoyed by visitors and residents, and is 

critical to the survival of protected wildlife including grizzly bears, wolves and 

wolverines. These threatened features are drivers of an economic engine for local 

tourism and recreation businesses, estimated at $150 million annually for Okanogan 

County. 

NPCA opposes S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources 

Act, due to significant concerns about Sections 101 and 403. These sections would likely 

impair national park resources and the management and protection of treasured Alaska 

lands owned by all Americans. For example, Section 101 increases Alaska state 

entitlements to federal land if the federal government does not develop a plan to produce 

more oil on federal land. This transfer could have significant impacts on the 

771 6th Street. NW, Sutte 700 Wash1ngton. DC 20001~3723 l P 202.223.6722 F 202.872.0960 I npca org 
133 


Insert offset folio 154 here 22000A.130

management of lands adjacent to national parks, preserves, and monuments, leading to 

potentially significant resource impacts. In addition, Section 403 regarding the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) suggests potentially broad changes 

to the management and protection of public lands. This section is written such that it 

could undo any federal regulation applied to lands managed by the National Park Service 

under ANILCA, and thereby may significantly limit the Park Service's ability to protect 

invaluable historic, cultural, or natural park resources. 

Thank you for considering our views. Please contact Ani Kame'enui at 

akameeuni@npca.org or 202-454-3391 with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Kristen Brengel 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

777 6th Street, NW. Su;te 700 l Washington, DC 20001-3723 ! p 202.223.6722 1 F 202.872.0960 ! npca org 
134 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I will turn to Ranking Member Cantwell for your comments and then we will turn to our colleagues. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I know we have a lengthy agenda today including several proposals that have been the subject of intense debate for many years, 

but we also have 21 bills on the agenda that are much less controversial. I hope we will be able to work with our colleagues to try 

to find ways to move forward on these proposals. 

So I would like to discuss a few of these bills. 

First of all, thank you for including S. 2991, a bill Senator Murray and I introduced, which would protect the headwaters of the 

Methow River in the North Cascades region of our state withdrawing national forest lands from mining. 

I am proud to have worked with Senator Murray to protect the 

headwaters of the Methow Valley. Governor Inslee, tribes, local 

elected officials, business owners and residents are all on the same 

page in wanting to protect this area. Our bill would withdraw from 

future mining, subject to valid existing rights, 340,000 acres of National Forest lands that are prime habitat for salmon, spotted owl, 

lynx and grizzly bear. 

This bill is about two things: clean water and keeping an amazing place the way it is. Federal, state, local and private investments have funded $100 

million of salmon recovery and other fish and wildlife restoration 

in the Methow Valley. So no one wants to put that investment at 

risk. A copper mine that has been proposed near the town of 

Mazama would jeopardize that. 

More than a million tourists come to the Valley every year and contribute $150 million to the local economy. That, by a mine, 

would also be jeopardized. So, it would threaten the identity of the 

Valley. 

This area has had lots of discussion over the last 40 years about 

its future. It turned down the idea of being a destination ski resort 

just so the rural nature of the area could continue. 

Since then the Valley has been working on being just a mecca 

for outdoor recreation, including Nordic skiing, climbing, hunting, 

backpacking. This is not a place to develop a copper mine, and yet 

it is also a stark reminder that the Mining Law of 1872 is widely 

outdated. 

While this bill would permanently withdraw the Methow headwaters from mining, the Forest Service and Department of Interior 

have administrative authority to temporarily withdraw this land 

while the bill is being considered. I strongly urge the agencies to 

use their authority to protect these headwaters and this particular 

area. 

A handful of the bills on the agenda today are controversial. For 

the record, I strongly oppose anything that would prohibit or restrict the President’s ability to designate national monuments 

using the Antiquities Act. Similarly, I have fought for many years 

to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Tongass NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 022000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A000.XXX A000
135 

tional Forest, and other important conservation lands in Alaska 

which are important to all Americans. 

I would like to focus on a couple areas of bipartisan support. I 

strongly support a bill that I have co-sponsored and the Chair mentioned, the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, to help warn the public against avoidable harm from volcanic 

activity. 

I know some of our colleagues, Madam Chair, might think that 

this is something just distant and far away, but I guarantee you, 

since these volcanoes are all up and down the West Coast of the 

Pacific Northwest, it so impacts us. Not having information that 

detects whether they are causing or could cause immediate impact—we need the science to help guide us here. Having the information is so critical. This is a very important part for Alaska and 

Washington. We look forward to working together. 

Many of our colleagues have bills on the agenda that reflect important priorities for their state, so I look forward to working with 

you and our colleagues to find areas of agreement on these important legislative bills. 

Since we have so many of them on the agenda, I am going to end 

my remarks there and thank you again for the hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

We have two Senate colleagues that will constitute the first 

panel. The Minority Leader, Senator Reid, will be here to testify 

and speak to one of the matters that is on the docket today. We 

also have my friend and colleague, the Senator from Alaska. Senator Sullivan, if you would like to proceed with your comments and 

then when Senator Reid comes in we will hear from him. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Good morning everybody. Ranking Member Cantwell, my colleagues and friends on the Committee, thank you for allowing me 

the opportunity to discuss several bills which are critically important to Alaska’s future. 

I want to begin, as Madam Chair, you did, by underscoring the 

bravery of the members of the Second Infantry Division and urge 

support of its Memorial Modification Act. 

The Alaska-specific bills on today’s agenda, the Alaska Economic 

Development and Access to Resources Act or the King Cove Land 

Exchange Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act all hold monumental importance to Alaska’s communities 

and the future of our great state. 

Madam Chair, I am going to re-emphasize a number of the 

points you made in your opening statement. I also want to acknowledge your leadership on so many of these issues for our state 

and our country. It has been so important having you in the Chair. 

I want to start by talking about the King Cove Road, as you did. 

As you know, Congress, and specifically this Committee, previously 

passed legislation authorizing a lifesaving, emergency access road 

for the people of King Cove, Alaska. Yet, due to a callous decision 

made on Christmas Eve by the Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, 

these Americans have been denied reliable, lifesaving access to 

136 

medical care, something that most other Americans take for granted. 

Since Secretary Jewell’s decision in 2013, as you mentioned 

Madam Chair, there have been 52 life flight evacuations, most recently last week when an expectant mother experienced complications. Of these, 17 have been conducted by the brave men and 

women of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

This road has been needed for decades. It was needed in 2009 

when Congress first provided authorization, it was needed in 2013 

when Secretary Jewell turned her back on the people of King Cove, 

and it is needed today. I strongly urge the Committee to act on 

this. 

As this Committee knows, Alaska is a very resource-rich state. 

Indeed if it were its own country, we would rank in the top ten of 

many of the most important minerals in the world. We have a 

proud tradition of responsible resource development while upholding the most rigorous environmental standards. 

Unfortunately, some areas of my state also have some of the 

highest costs of energy and some of the highest rates of poverty in 

the country. Among the promises of Alaska statehood was the 

agreement that Alaska could support itself through responsible resource development while also helping meet the country’s energy 

needs. Today the Federal Government’s restrictive land use policies 

and layer upon layer of burdensome regulations have broken this 

promise. These bills today start to turn this around. 

The Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

would jump start Alaska’s economy and touch every corner of the 

state by increasing opportunities for responsible resource development of our abundant resources. 

Over the August work period, like many of you, like all of you, 

I traveled back home and I was in Southeast Alaska and saw firsthand the importance of one provision of this bill that you already 

spoke to, Madam Chair. That is the land exchange for the Mental 

Health Trust Authority. 

Now it is important to recognize the Mental Health Trust, which 

was established in our constitution, serves a population of Alaska’s 

most vulnerable citizens, those with disabilities, and the land exchange in this bill is critical towards achieving the responsibilities 

towards these citizens in the most environmentally sensitive way. 

This bill would help the country and it would also help some of 

Alaska’s most remarkable and courageous citizens. 

Since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) passage in 1971, it has been amended many times. In this legislation, 

S. 3273, is a combination of many small efforts that aim to resolve 

many local issues, some of which have been around since the passage of ANCSA. This collection of provisions does not represent 

monumental issues for Congress but are life changing for the citizens and many small Alaskan Native communities that are affected by this bill. 

Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to just mention one other 

provision that is very important in this bill, which I care deeply 

about and I know members of this Committee do as well. This is 

a resolution for Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans who missed 

the opportunity to apply for a Native allotment. Now, the Alaska 

137 

Allotment Act of 1906 enabled every Alaska Native to apply for an 

allotment, 160 acres. ANCSA extinguished that opportunity in 

1971. But many of these Alaska Natives were serving in the military in 1971, some in Vietnam, some in other places and they 

missed the deadline. 

So all this bill is trying to do is to give people who were serving 

their country at a time when, let’s face it, a lot of Americans were 

avoiding serving their country, the opportunity to finally apply for 

the Native allotment that was rightfully theirs. I believe that just 

in terms of pure fairness, taking care of our veterans, that this is 

a critical, critical provision that, hopefully, every member of this 

Committee and every member of Congress can agree on. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to these important 

bills. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. We appreciate your 

support and your leadership in these areas for our state. 

I know that members of the Committee also have bills on the calendar today that you would like to speak briefly to. As we await 

Senator Reid I am happy to give you a moment to speak to them, 

if you would so desire. 

Senator Manchin, you indicated a desire to speak? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. Yes, I do and I am happy to have my colleague also with me, Senator Capito, because we are both very 

much concerned about our national heritage area, which is the Appalachian Forest. 

My statement is in support of Senate bill 3167 which is on the 

agenda. I appreciate, Madam Chairman, your putting that on there 

and making it part of the agenda. I want to thank you for holding 

the hearing and including Senate bill 3167, the Appalachian Forest 

National Heritage Area Act of 2016. 

I would also like to thank the distinguished witnesses for joining 

us today. We appreciate their expertise and perspective on these 

issues. 

I am here to discuss Senate bill 3167, which is the Appalachian 

Forest National Heritage Act of 2016, which I was pleased to introduce with my good friends, Senators Capito, Mikulski, Cardin and 

our Chairman. This bipartisan legislation designates 18 counties in 

the Central Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia and Maryland 

as a national heritage area, which, taken as a whole, possess cultural, natural and historical resources that form a cohesive and nationally distinctive landscape. 

In an effort to conserve the distinctive cultural, natural and historical features of this area, the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Act will designate a new national heritage area which will 

provide a cooperative framework to increase collaboration between 

the Federal Government, states and the local governments of these 

18 counties. The national heritage area will ensure the area is protected for the enjoyment of future generations, promote the area for 

tourism and highlight its historical value. 

The historical value of this area reflects the contributions of 

West Virginia and Maryland’s timber harvesting industry which 

138 

helped fuel industrial growth in the late 19th and 20th century. 

The area also includes numerous historical and cultural sites such 

as the Cass Scenic Railroad State Park, five national historical 

landmarks, segments of four national scenic byways and one all 

American road as well as a nationally significant natural, physical 

resources. This designation will also provide positive economic development in the area. 

There are currently 49 national heritage areas, two of which are 

located in West Virginia—the Coal Heritage Area and the Wheeling Heritage Area. An example of the positive economic impacts 

that a national heritage area designation can bring, the Wheeling 

National Heritage Area generates an annual $56.7 million in economic impacts, supports 784 jobs and generates $3.8 million in annual taxes. 

I would like to submit the rest of my remarks for the record, 

Madam Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

139 


Insert offset folio 168 here 22000A.131

Statement for the Record in Support of S.3167- Appalachian Forest National Heritage 

Area Act of2016 

Senator Joe Manchin 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

September 21't, 2016 

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for including my bill, S. 3167, the 

Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area Act of2016.I would also like to thank the 

distinguished witnesses for joining us today. I appreciate their expertise and perspective on these 

issues. 

I am here to discuss S. 3167, the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area Act of2016, which 

I was pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Capito, Senator Mikulski and Senator 

Cardin. This bipartisan legislation designates eighteen counties in the Central Appalachian 

Mountains of West Virginia and Maryland as a national heritage area, which taken as a whole, 

possess cultural, natural and historical resources that form a cohesive and nationally distinctive 

landscape. In an effort to conserve the distinctive, cultural, natural and historical features of this 

area, the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area Act will designate a new national heritage 

area which will provide a cooperative framework to increase collaboration between the federal 

government, states, and the local governments of these 18 counties. 

The National Heritage Area will ensure the area is protected, for the enjoyment of future 

generations, promote the area for tourism, and highlight its historical value. The historical value 

of this area reflects the contributions of West Virginia and Maryland's timber harvesting industry 

which helped fuel industrial growth in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Area also 

includes numerous historical and cultural sites such as the Cass Scenic Railroad State Park; 5 

national historic landmarks; segments of 4 National Scenic Byways and 1 All-American Road, as 

well as nationally significant natural and physical resources such as the remnants of old growth 

forests and 14 national natural landmarks. 

This designation will also provide positive economic development in the area. National heritage 

areas leverage federal funds to create jobs, generate revenue for local governments, and sustain 

local communities. There are currently 49 national heritage areas, two of which are located in 

West Virginia- the Coal Heritage Area and the Wheeling Heritage Area. An example of the 

positive economic impacts that a national heritage area designation can bring, the Wheeling 

National Heritage Area generates an annual $56.7 million in economic impacts, supports 784 

jobs, and generates $3.8 million in annual tax revenue. Other benefits include, improvements to 

water and air through restoration projects, improved quality of life through new or improved 

amenities, education and volunteer opportunities, and community engagement. 

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area Inc., which my bill designates as the local coordinating 

entity, has kept alive the rich heritage of these counties for the past 13 years. Operating out of 
140 


Insert offset folio 169 here 22000A.132

Elkins, West Virginia, this organization has been patiently waiting to receive designation as a 

national heritage area for several years. Despite not having designation, they have been active 

and successful in their efforts to promote and conserve the heritage of the Central Appalachian 

Mountains. For example, last program year, 38 Appalachian Forest Heritage Area AmeriCorps 

members served over 65,000 hours of time benefiting the local communities and improving more 

than 1700 acres of public land. It's time they receive their official designation. 

The national heritage area program is a cost-effective program. National heritage areas are 

required to match every dollar of federal funding, and national heritage areas are currently 

matching an average of$5.50 from other sources of funding to one dollar of federal funds. 

Economic impact studies have indicated that the small federal investments required for the 

national heritage area programs pale in comparison to the $12.9 billion dollars which national 

heritage areas contribute annually to the economy. I would also like to mention that this bill 

does not result in additional land management programs, regulations or management controls. 

The national heritage areas program is a land grants and outreach program. 

The forests of the Central Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia and Maryland are cherished 

by proud and resilient people who wish to preserve and pass along their cultural traditions to 

future generations. We welcome visitors, and we wish to continue to share the natural beauty 

with the millions of visitors from around the world who visit this region every year. By 

designating the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area, future generations will be able to 

enjoy benefits of the great outdoors, and the pleasure of connecting with nature in the great states 

of West Virginia and Maryland. I look forward to continuing to work on this bill. 

I would also like to briefly mention my support for S. 3204, the King Cove Road Land Exchange 

Act. Since 1980, there have been 19 deaths attributed to a lack of a safe, reliable method of 

transportation from King Cove. That's unacceptable. This proposed road is the safest and most 

efficient way to ensure the good people of King Cove are able to receive proper medical care 

while continuing to live in an area that has been inhabited by their ancestors for 4,000 years. I 

would like to commend my friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for her zeal in continuing 

her efforts to get this road built. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman. 
141 

Senator MANCHIN. But this is very, very, very important for our 

two states of West Virginia and Maryland. All of our delegation is 

in support and it is a tremendous economic opportunity. This is one 

time when we have everybody from our environmentalists, to our 

naturalists, to our basically, hunters and fishermen, all of our 

sporting clubs, in agreement this is something that would be well 

worth it and much needed. 

So, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Manchin, we appreciate the 

coalition building that goes on ahead of time. 

Let’s turn to Senator Capito, then we will go to Senator Heinrich 

and Senator Daines. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, thank you and I don’t want to keep our 

witness waiting so I will be very, very—should we go first? 

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry. I failed to see. [Laughter.] 

Senator Reid has arrived. 

Senator Reid, welcome to the Committee. [Laughter.] 

We are honored to have you before the Committee this morning 

and would welcome your statement on the bill before the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator REID. I appreciate very much your arranging for and allowing me to speak. I am sorry I am late, but I had a little work 

to do on the Floor when we opened the Senate. 

I appreciate all the work that the two of you do to lead this Committee. It is an extremely important Committee. 

Nevada is different than most people think. Nevada is more than 

the bright lights of Las Vegas. It is a stunningly beautiful state 

and, except for Alaska, one of the most mountainous states in the 

Union. People don’t realize that. 

We have 314 separate mountain ranges. We have 32 mountains 

over 11,000 feet high. We have one mountain that is 14,000 feet 

high. We have about four million acres of wilderness. So it is really 

a beautiful state, and the legislation that Senator Heller and I 

have worked on in this regard is also as part of the beauty of Nevada. 

In the large state of Nevada, we have very few counties. You 

know, it is hard to believe that I hear, I don’t know, for example, 

West Virginia has how many counties do you have, Joe? 

Senator MANCHIN. 55. 

Senator REID. How many? 

Senator MANCHIN. 55. [Laughter.] 

Senator REID. We have just a handful of counties. We have one 

county that is quite large in area that has less than a thousand 

people in it. 

So anyway, Nevada is a unique place and it is an extremely 

beautiful place. 

Pershing County is 6,000 square miles. We have one person living in that area per square mile. It is a sparsely populated county 

but it is rich with all kinds of beautiful things, a lot of minerals. 

Mining has taken place there for well more than a century. 

142 

We have historic wonders, snowcapped mountains. Mount Limbo 

Wilderness Area overlooks the dry lake bed of Lake Winnemucca 

which was, at one time, a desert terminus lake, and it has dried 

up mainly because of what we have done, the Bureau of Reclamation, over the years. That is all history behind us, but that’s the 

reason Lake Winnemucca is dry. 

The areas that we are talking about here today are the home of 

some of the oldest petroglyphs found in all of North America, dating back 10,000 years. It is just a stunningly beautiful place, and 

I want everyone to know how important it is for Nevada. 

I can remember, I will be real quick here, I know you have a lot 

to do. But I went from being the most popular person in the world 

in Nevada, I am from rural Nevada, to the most unpopular. It did 

not take long. I supported wilderness. Now that I have gotten most 

of that done, wilderness has now become a big selling point in Nevada. So people who are afraid of wilderness should not be. 

In Elko County I created a lot of wilderness. I helped create it, 

I should say. And oh, we got so much opposition. Now they advertise because of the wilderness. We have a Heli-skier there. And 

they come, people come from all over the world to ski in Elko County. Why? Because they are advertising skiing through wilderness 

that I helped create. 

So, wilderness is important for the economy of any state, and 

with a sparsely populated area like Pershing County, it is also popular. And it doesn’t affect hunting. It doesn’t affect fishing. It just 

is a wonderful thing to preserve that land for my children, my children’s children and for generations to come. Preserve it in its pristine state. 

In Nevada we still have many areas that are pristine. They are 

untouched. And that is what this is all about. So I appreciate it 

very much. 

Just one quick thing because Neil Kornze, he used to work for 

me, is now head of the BLM. He said, would you please mention 

if you ever appear before the Committee, H.R. 3844, which is the 

BLM Foundation Act. So whenever this comes up I know you will 

schedule it here at some point in time. Consider this my testimony 

for that bill, okay? [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator REID. So if you will leave me alone with no difficult cross 

examination, I will take leave. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for coming before the Committee. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I just would be remiss if I did not use 

this opportunity to thank you, Senator Reid, for your Annual Energy Conference that you hold in Nevada every year. I know that 

conference is a place where many people come to discuss the future 

of energy policy, and Nevada has definitely been at the forefront 

of some of these policies. So thank you for your leadership in having those discussions. 

Senator REID. Senator Cantwell, thank you. 

You know, as a result of those hearings that started a long time 

ago, we now have, in Nevada, you can’t believe how much solar energy. At one place driving from Railroad Pass to my property on 

143 

Searchlight, you can drive for three and a half miles and all you 

see are solar panels. 

It looks like a big lake, but it’s not. They are solar panels. Millions and millions of them are there. So thank you very much. 

The one thing I didn’t mention and I should. We just completed, 

just less than a month ago, my 20th annual Summit on Lake 

Tahoe. It is because of the work done, principally by this Committee and others, but this Committee, we have brought to Lake 

Tahoe which we share with the State of California and the beautiful, beautiful, unique lake. There is only one other lake like it in 

the world and that is in Siberia, Lake Baikal. Lake Tahoe is so 

beautiful, and we have been able to bring more than $2 billion to 

that basin during the last 20 years to preserve that lake. 

The last event we had, Dianne Feinstein said, why are you doing 

this? I said, ‘‘Listen Dianne, it is my last summit and I am going 

to do it my way.’’ So what we did, we did the usual. People testified 

a little bit and we had 8,000 people there, 8,000 people. Why? Because I brought on The Killers, Nevada’s rock group, and we educated those people who had never heard of Lake Tahoe and certainly not all the issues dealing with the environment. They were 

forced to come because we did the program before The Killers came 

on. 

So anyway, we had a great time. President Obama was there. I 

just didn’t want to leave here without mentioning what a treasure 

we share with California, Lake Tahoe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Reid, we appreciate you 

being before the Committee. 

Senator MANCHIN. If I may ask the Senator one question? 

Senator, this legislation has no opposition. I don’t see anybody 

opposing it whatsoever. I don’t know why we haven’t—— 

Senator REID. So get to work on it. 

Senator MANCHIN. What? 

Senator REID. Get to work on it. Report it out. [Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. But have you had any opposition back home 

on it? 

Senator REID. No, no. 

Senator MANCHIN. All you are doing is exchanging, aren’t you? 

Senator REID. Joe, wilderness now, I am sorry, I’ll be more formal, Senator Manchin. [Laughter.] 

Opposition now to wilderness in Nevada just is almost nonexistent. There are some people who oppose President Obama 

doing things under the Antiquities Act, but he has only done one 

thing there. I hope he is going to do one other. But other than that, 

wilderness is something—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I am saying your outdoorsmen seem to be 

working with you on that because they are, still have habitat. They 

are still able to use the land, hunt and fish, everything. 

Senator REID. You bet. You indicated really how it is. Everyone 

has come to accept that we need to preserve these properties. It’s 

just wonderful. 

Now, also, Joe, Senator Manchin, we have this going for us. 

Eighty-six percent of the State of Nevada is owned by the Federal 

Government. There is no other state like it. New Mexico has quite 

a bit. You don’t match us. 

144 

Arizona has quite a bit, but, you know, no one comes close to 86 

percent of the state is Federal Government. We have given plenty 

to the Federal Government. More than 40 percent of the State of 

Nevada is restricted airspace. You cannot fly over in a civilian airplane. It is all military. 

Then, you know, we have had the above ground nuclear test, underground nuclear test. We have two of the finest, wait, not two of 

the finest, we have the finest training facilities for fighter trainers 

for the Air Force and the Navy in Nevada. One is in Las Vegas, 

well, outside of Las Vegas. The other is near Fallon, Nevada, where 

Senator Heinrich was born. If you want to land on a carrier air 

craft anymore in the United States Navy, you learn to do it in 

Fallon. 

Senator MANCHIN. I’ll be darned. 

Senator REID. There is not, there isn’t a puddle of water there 

in many, many months. [Laughter.] 

Okay. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Senator HEINRICH. There are a couple of irrigation ditches. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator REID. Yeah, but they are little puddles. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Reid. We will make sure 

that all this is part of the record because this is certainly going to 

enhance the tourism opportunities in your fine state. 

So—— 

Senator REID. Thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. We are happy to have you here. 

With that, let’s turn to Senator Capito for your comments and 

then Senator Heinrich and then we will move to our second panel 

with our Administration witnesses. 

Senator Capito. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 

Ranking Member too for bringing forth these bills. 

I just briefly wanted to comment and join my fellow Senator, 

Senator Manchin, to talk about the importance to us to have the 

Appalachian Forest National Heritage Act of 2016. 

I have enjoyed the Committee, but what I really enjoy about the 

Committee is that we all get to talk about the relative beauty and 

great things about all of our individual states and particularly 

when we look at the more wilder and more beautiful parts of our 

state, like Senator Reid was talking about his state. 

So I am really pleased that this is coming forward on the first 

day of Fall, I believe, because in this region, the Appalachian Forest National Heritage region, you will see some of the most beautiful leaves as we move through the Fall. It is quite a tourism 

event for our state. 

We have a vast and unique landscape. We get tens of thousands 

of visitors, many from the Washington, DC area. And we have just 

moved in a little bit further so we are making it easier for you to 

really see our beautiful state and do our skiing. But this heritage 

145 

area really gives us a chance to highlight the many years, decades, 

of both Appalachian heritage and in the timbering industry. 

We know that West Virginia has been under immense strain. I 

have talked about that in this Committee and other Committees. 

I think things like this, like this Act, will help us enhance and multiply the dollars for our tourism and help us transition into other 

areas of economic development which I have really spent the several years I have been in the Senate trying to do. 

So, we have got hard work at the Appalachian Forest Heritage, 

the folks who are there now. We have had 35 AmeriCorps members 

that have logged 65,000 hours in their local communities. And it 

has proved already over 1,700 acres of public land. 

Senator Manchin mentioned that this spans mostly in West Virginia but does go into Maryland, and the two Maryland Senators 

are very much in favor of this. 

So again, I would like to commend Senator Manchin for offering 

this and thank the Chair for bringing this forward and invite everybody who is listening and who is watching on this first day of 

Fall, to come into that Appalachian Heritage and see the beautiful 

parts of West Virginia. You won’t regret it. 

Thank you. 

Senator Manchin: There might be some leaf peepers around here, 

huh? 

Senator CAPITO. Yeah, leaf peepers. [Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. That is what we call them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Additionally, I would like to say to the Chairman, please. The King Cove Land Exchange Act, I am so for it, I 

know more about it than some of the things in my state. [Laughter.] 

So, I hope today brings good news for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you for listening and for your 

support. 

Senator Heinrich, it is now your turn to extol the virtues of New 

Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator HEINRICH. I will be happy to do that. 

I want to thank the Committee for considering several bills of interest to my constituents in New Mexico today on the agenda. 

First I want to talk a little bit, maybe we can swap this out real 

quick with the other photo, but I want to talk a little bit about the 

San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

146 


Insert offset folio 185 here 22000A.133
147 

Senator HEINRICH. This bill would finally resolve a number of, 

literally decades long, public land and resource issues in Northwestern New Mexico; it would bring to a close decades of litigation 

over mineral leases; it would allow the Navajo Nation to receive its 

final settlement acts pursuant to a legal settlement dating back to 

1974; and, it would permanently protect unique geologic, paleontological and cultural resources in the Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah area managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

I also want to speak momentarily about another bill, the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act, that would complete 

the community proposal for the region included in the 2014 designation of the Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

148 


Insert offset folio 187 here 22000A.134
149 

Senator HEINRICH. This monument has been an incredible economic and community success for Don ̃ a Ana County in the two 

years since its designation but only Congress can complete the 

original community vision for this area by improving operational 

flexibility for Customs and Border Patrol by protecting the important missions at nearby Fort Bliss from encroachment by incompatible development and by designating wilderness in the monument’s 

back country. 

Lastly, I want to mention that Senator Flake and I recently introduced legislation to improve the process for land exchanges between state trust lands in western states and federal public land 

management agencies. Our bill would address the checkerboard 

land ownership pattern that is all too common all across the intermountain west by exchanging state land inholdings within federal 

conservation areas, parks, and wilderness areas for lands of equal 

value that are more likely to produce revenue for the schools and 

hospitals that benefit from development of state trust lands. 

All three of these measures would improve public land management in New Mexico, and I thank the Committee for their consideration. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

I know Senator Daines was interested in speaking, but we are 

it for right now. So let’s move to our second panel so we have an 

opportunity to hear from our agency witnesses. 

Senator Gardner, we had just given members an opportunity to 

make comments about any of the bills that they have introduced. 

Since you are here and we have not yet seated the second panel, 

I will extend the same courtesy to you if you would like or if you 

want to include that as part of your questioning. It is your preference. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Well, I will just be quick in terms of the hearing. Thank you, Chairman, for having this hearing today and including 3312, the Disposal Reauthorization Act, which is a riveting 

title for a very important issue in Colorado. 

Grand Junction, Colorado, of course, the Western Slope, has a 

long history of uranium and at one point even paved the streets of 

Grand Junction with uranium mine tailings because they were 

proud of the work of being the atomic city. Of course, over the 

years, we have learned that that probably was not the best thing 

to do and as a result have had decades worth of clean ups and programs to make sure that we are restoring the work that they did 

from decades ago. So, undoing the restoration of that work. 

So, thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing and including this bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you. 

Gentlemen, if you would like to join the Committee. We appreciate you being here and your patience this morning, gentlemen, 

gentleman and lady. 

We are pleased this morning to have Mr. Neil Kornze, who is the 

Director of the Bureau of Land Management. We are also joined by 

150 

Ms. Leslie Weldon, who is the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest 

Service. 

Normally, we would invite additional stakeholders to testify but 

there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not we were even 

going to be able to have this hearing this week, whether we were 

going to be in session. Recognizing that we were looking to bring, 

perhaps, witnesses from as far away as King Cove or from Juneau, 

it did not seem fair or right to ask them to come and then not be 

able to have some certainty with the timing of the hearing. 

So we have our witnesses here from the BLM and from the Forest Service. The Department of Energy will also be submitting a 

written statement about the bill within its jurisdiction which is S. 

3312. So, that will also be part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

151 


Insert offset folio 192 here 22000A.135

Statement from The Department of Energy 

for 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

S. 3312- The Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2016 

September 22,2016 

The Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) has no issues with the 

intent of the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of2016 to extend the operating life of the 

Grand Junction Disposal Site from the year 2023 to 2048. The disposal site is located about 18 

miles southeast of the City of Grand Junction and was built as part of the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act of 1978. The disposal site is the only active site available for receiving 

uranium mill tailings managed by DO E-LM. The Department works closely with local, state, and 

federal officials to ensure protection of public health, safety, and the environment by moving 

contaminated materials away from public places. 

To date, the Grand Junction Disposal Site contains about 4.5 million cubic yards of low-level 

radioactive waste and receives approximately 2, 700 cubic yards of waste per year. The disposal 

site has sufficient space to receive an additional estimated 235,000 cubic yards indicating the site 

could operate for 87 more years at current rates. New waste materials are derived from numerous 

locations- the City of Grand Junction continues to excavate waste tailings previously used in 

roads, sidewalks, and homes. DO E-LM operates groundwater treatment systems at several 

UMTRCA Title I and Title II sites that will periodically continue to generate residual materials 

1 
152 


Insert offset folio 193 here 22000A.136

eligible for disposal in the Grand Junction Disposal Cell and that valuable capacity should 

continue to be utilized. 

2 
153 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, if you would like to proceed, Mr. 

Kornze, we will hear your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NEIL KORNZE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. KORNZE. Wonderful. 

Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, rest of the Committee. It’s a pleasure to be with you. 

I’ll begin briefly by summarizing the written statements concerning the 13 bills on today’s agenda that relate to the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). 

S. 346, the Oregon Withdrawal, withdraws 101,000 acres of federal land in Southwest Oregon from public land mining and mineral leasing laws. The Department supports S. 346 which will protect important habitat and resources unique to this region. 

S. 2681, San Juan County, and S. 3049, Oregon Mountains, the 

Department appreciates the hard work of the Senators from New 

Mexico on both of these bills. S. 2681 allows for the exchange of 

certain federal coal leases, authorizes the substitution of Navajo 

Nation land selections and designates two wilderness areas in 

Northern New Mexico. S. 3049 designates eight wilderness areas 

within the Oregon Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument 

and includes direction for future management of additional public 

land in Don ̃ a Ana County. The Department supports the goals of 

both of these bills and would like to work with the sponsors on 

some modifications. 

S. 3102, Pershing County, Nevada, proposes an innovative way 

to consolidate checkerboard lands and designates 136,000 acres of 

wilderness in Pershing County which we heard a lot about this 

morning. We largely support the goals of S. 3102 and welcome the 

opportunity to work on some modifications to the bill. 

S. 2380, the Recreation Public Purposes Act Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Bill. This bill would amend what we call 

the RMPP Act to allow the commercial uses on lands that are 

leased or acquired through the RMPP law. The Department strongly opposes this bill because it undermines the public purpose mandate of the original RMPP Act and conflicts directly with the BLM’s 

responsibility to obtain fair market value for the use of public 

lands. 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development Access to Resources 

Act, would increase federal oil and gas production requirements in 

the State of Alaska. It would lift the prohibition of oil and gas leasing and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 

and includes numerous other provisions related to the Department 

of the Interior and some to agriculture, I believe. The Department 

opposes S. 3203. 

S. 3273, the ANCSA Improvement Act, amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and other laws concerning numerous 

Alaska Native Corporations and issues. The bill affects resources 

managed by several Interior and Ag agencies. We appreciate the efforts of the sponsors in developing this legislation. Many of the 

matters are very complex, and we look forward to working with 

them on addressing the issues outlined in our written testimony. 

154 

H.R. 1838, Clear Creek, establishes the Clear Creek National 

Recreation Area in San Benito and Fresno Counties, California. 

The Department does not support this designation as currently 

written due to serious public health concerns. The Department, 

however, supports the bill’s separate designation of the Joaquin 

Rocks Wilderness. 

S. 3316, the ACE Act, provides a new approach for consolidating 

state lands that are scattered across 13 Western states. The Act allows states to relinquish inholdings within federally-designated 

conservation units and in return acquire other BLM-managed properties. The Department endorses this concept and would like to 

work with the sponsors on some important amendments. 

H.R. 2009, Pascua Yaqui, involves three small parcels of public 

land in Tucson, Arizona. The Department supports this bill. 

The Antiquities Act bills, there are three of them. They each 

amend the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Administration strongly opposes these three bills because they would severely limit the President’s authority to protect the nation’s resources for the American 

public. 

The Antiquities Act has been used by presidents of both parties 

for over 100 years to preserve critical natural, historic and scientific treasures on public lands. Moreover, nearly half of the nation’s national parks, including the Grand Canyon, Zion Arches and 

Olympic National Park were initially protected as national monuments. 

In addition to these BLM-related bills, the Department of the Interior also has submitted statements for the record on four bills 

that fall under the jurisdiction of other departmental bureaus. I 

will quickly go through those. 

The Department strongly opposes the King Cove Land Exchange 

Act. It does not support S. 3315, the Second Division Memorial Act. 

The Department does support S. 2056, the National Volcano Early 

Warning and Monitoring System Act, and S. 3167, which establishes the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area. 

We appreciate the inclusion of all of the DOI statements in the 

hearing record. 

Finally, Chairman, I would like to note that in early July the 

House passed H.R. 3844, the BLM Foundation Act. The establishment of the BLM Foundation is an important Administration initiative and will help us facilitate critical work from the clean-up of 

legacy wells in places like Alaska to the management of wild 

horses and burros which span many of the states represented by 

members here. 

We hope that the BLM Foundation will be among the priorities 

that this Committee moves forward in the weeks ahead. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I will be happy to 

answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kornze follows:] 

155 


Insert offset folio 200 here 22000A.137

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 346, Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and 

Salmon Protection Act. This bill would withdraw 5,215 acres of public land managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 95,806 acres ofNational Forest System lands managed 

by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), from operation of the public land, mining, and 

mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

The lands to be withdrawn include the Hunter Creek and North Fork Pistol River headwaters and 

the Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek watersheds. The lands also border or are near 

the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The Department understands that the purpose of the withdrawal is to 

protect important habitat of threatened and endangered aquatic and botanical resources. The 

Department supports S. 346. 

Background 

In southwestern Oregon, the BLM manages approximately 1.2 million acres of public lands 

through the Coos Bay and Medford District Offices. The BLM works closely with the State of 

Oregon, tribal governments, counties and cities, as well as local communities to ensure the 

sustainable management of these lands and their multiple uses. The lands provide a wide variety 

of uses, ranging from timber production and mineral exploration to recreational opportunities 

and critical wildlife habitat. A high number of threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic and 

botanical species are known to occur throughout the area. Mining has been identified as a 

primary threat to a number of these botanical species and could pose harm to the threatened 

salmon species within these waters. 

Withdrawal Area 

The lands proposed for withdrawal under S. 346 are generally known as the Klamath Mountains, 

and their defining characteristic is the North Fork of the Smith River, which originates in the 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness and drains most of the area under consideration for withdrawal. Once it 

crosses the Oregon-California state line, the Smith River is the largest free-flowing river system 

in California. Creeks that feed into the North Fork and other rivers that flow to the Oregon Coast 

offer unique ecological features stemming from the confluence of the Coast Range, Cascades, 

and Siskiyou Mountains. A high concentration of rare plants, forested trails, and scenic views are 

all emblematic of these drainages. Rough and Ready Creek and Bald face Creek are listed as 

eligible for National Wild and Scenic River designation by the U.S. Forest Service. 

Administrative Segregation 
156 


Insert offset folio 201 here 22000A.138

On June 29,2015, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management 

published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Notification of Public 

Meetings (Notice) for the lands identified inS. 346. This Notice temporarily segregated the lands 

for two years from operation of the public land, mining, and mineral and geothermal leasing 

laws. The segregation is in effect until June 29, 2017. The segregation is intended to maintain 

current conditions while Congress considers the legislation for a permanent withdrawal. 

The current segregation protects all valid existing rights, including those under the mining and 

mineral leasing laws. Existing mining claims may be developed if a minerals validity 

examination shows that a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit existed at the time of the 

segregation. Currently, there are 279 existing claims in the withdrawal areas, of which 234 are 

lode claims and 45 are placer claims. To date, no existing claims have been proven valid under 

the validity examination process. 

S.346 

S. 346 would permanently withdraw 5,215 acres of BLM-managed public lands in the Coos Bay 

and Medford Districts and 95,806 acres of Forest Service lands in the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest from operation of the public land, mining, and mineral and geothermal leasing 

laws. The proposed withdrawal encompasses two areas near or bordering the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness. These include the Hunter Creek and North Fork Pistol River headwaters and the 

Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek watersheds. 

The Department supports S. 346. which will ensure the protection of both the lands and 

resources it covers. The necessity of this protection is exemplified by the fact that within the 

lands proposed for withdrawal by S. 346, the BLM's 2016 Northwestern and Coastal Resource 

Management Plan and Southwestern Oregon Resource Management Plan identified five Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) Hunter Creek Bog, North Fork Hunter Creek, West 

Fork Illinois River. Rough and Ready. and Woodcock Bog. The two Resource Management 

Plans also recommended the withdrawal of these five ACECs. 

Additionally, included within the boundary of the withdrawal are approximately 1,680 acres of 

non-Federal land that are not currently affected by segregation or withdrawal. If these nonFederal acres enter into Federal ownership in the future, they would become subject to the terms 

and conditions of the withdrawal. 

Finally, like the current temporary segregation the permanent withdrawal proposed under S. 346 

would not prohibit mining operations under existing notices or plans. Any preexisting 

exploration or mining operations would continue, but new mining claims would be prohibited. S. 

346 also would not restrict existing recreational uses or forest management activities. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 346, which would serve to protect 

pristine and unique natural areas in southwest Oregon. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

2 
157 


Insert offset folio 202 here 22000A.139

Statement for the Record 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Concerning Three Bills to Amend the Act Popularly Known as the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 

September 22,2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Administration on three bills-S. 437, 

S. 1416, and S. 3317-to amend the Act popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906 

("Antiquities Act"). 

The Administration strongly opposes these three bills. The Antiquities Act has been used by 

U.S. Presidents of both major parties for more than 100 years as an instrument to preserve and 

protect critical natural, historical, and scientific resources on Federal lands for future generations. 

The authority has contributed significantly to the strength of the National Park System and the 

protection of special qualities of other Federal lands-resources that constitute some of the most 

important elements of our nation's heritage. These three bills, which would limit the President's 

authority in various ways, would undermine this vital authority. 

S. 437 would require the President to consider proposals for national monument designations 

subject to the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

and obtain approval from Congress and the state legislature in which the proposed national 

monument is located prior to designating a national monument. For any new marine national 

monument located in an exclusive economic zone, additional requirements would have to be 

met, including submitting a proposal to the governor of each state or territory located within I 00 

nautical miles of the proposed national monument. The bill would also prohibit any restrictions 

on public use of marine national monuments in the exclusive economic zone until after a public 

review period and approval by Congress. 

S. 1416 would prohibit the President from reserving any implied or expressed water rights 

associated with a national monument; water rights associated with a national monument could 

only be acquired in accordance with the laws of the state in which a monument is located. 

S. 3317 would bar the use of the Antiquities Act to extend or establish new national monuments 

in Utah unless authorized by Congress. 

The authority granted to the President by Congress through the Antiquities Act is one of the most 

important tools a president has to protect and conserve historic and natural resources. It is a tool 

that this President has not used lightly or invoked without serious consideration of the impacts on 

current and future generations. The Administration has consistently invited public comment 

from national, state, local and Tribal stakeholders at meetings in local communities. However, 

by requiring the formal approval of Governors and legislatures prior to a designation, S. 437 

would limit the flexibility of the President to respond to impending threats to resources, and the 

ability of the President to recognize, protect and preserve areas of incredible importance to the 

Nation's heritage. Furthermore, while land management agencies typically use the NEPA 

process in their development of management plans for new national monuments, NEPA does not 
158 


Insert offset folio 203 here 22000A.140

apply to decisions by the President, as provided inS. 437, because the President is not a Federal 

agency. This would be unprecedented. And S. 3317 would eliminate a critical tool available to 

protect natural or cultural resources on Federal land in the State of Utah, if those resources were 

threatened. 

With respect to S. 1416, we note that currently the designation of a national monument by 

presidential proclamation does not alter or affect the valid existing water rights of any party, 

including any previously reserved rights of the United States. While there are often no federally 

reserved water rights associated with monument designations, through the establishment of a 

national monument, the Federal government may reserve unappropriated waters appurtenant to 

the land to the extent necessary for the requirements and purposes of the monument. Water 

appropriated through state law that has an earlier priority date to the national monument would 

retain that priority. By prohibiting a president from reserving water rights associated with a 

national monument, S. 1416 would limit the ability of a Federal land management agency to 

maintain the water necessary to protect a monument's resources and meet the needs of visitors. 

The Antiquities Act was the first U.S. law to provide general legal protection of cultural and 

natural resources of historic or scientific interest on Federal lands. After a generation-long 

effort, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act on June 8, 1906. The 

Antiquities Act set an important precedent by asserting a broad public interest in the preservation 

of these resources on Federal lands. Designations under the Act apply only to Federal lands; 

they place no restrictions on private property and have not affected valid existing rights. 

After signing the Antiquities Act into law, President Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act eighteen 

times to establish national monuments. Those first monuments included what are now known as 

Grand Canyon National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, Chaco Culture National Historical 

Park, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Tumacacori National Historical Park, and Olympic 

National Park. 

Since enactment, sixteen U.S. Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have used the Act 

more than 150 times to establish or expand national monuments. The National Park Service 

currently manages 55 national monuments established by presidential proclamation, including 

some of our most iconic national monuments such as Devils Tower, Muir Woods, and the Statue 

of Liberty. The Bureau of Land Management also administers 23 national monuments 

designated by presidential proclamation (one of which is co-managed with the National Park 

Service), including Agua Fria (AZ) and Canyons of the Ancients (CO) that preserve significant 

archeological sites. The Fish and Wildlife Service administers eight presidentially proclaimed 

national monuments (two of which are co-managed with the National Park Service). 

Like his predecessors, President Obama's designations have provided permanent protections for 

unique historic and cultural sites, incredible natural resources and wildlife habitat. These 

include, among others, Waco Mammoth National Monument in Texas, Stonewall National 

Monument in New York, San Juan Islands National Monument in Washington, and Rio Grande 

del Norte National Monument in New Mexico. President Obama's use of the Antiquities Act has 

been supported by a wide range of stakeholders, including state and local governments, tribes, 

2 
159 


Insert offset folio 204 here 22000A.141

business groups, elected officials, community leaders, regional utilities, as well as faith leaders, 

sportsmen, historians, conservationists, recreation enthusiasts, and others. 

Without the President's authority under the Antiquities Act, it is unlikely that many of these 

special places would have been protected and preserved as quickly and as fully as they were. As 

Congress intended when it enacted the Antiquities Act, the statute provides the necessary 

flexibility to respond to impending threats to resources, while striking an appropriate balance 

between legislative and executive decision making. 

These bills, S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3315, would severely limit the historically-affirmed 

presidential authority to protect the Nation's resources for the American public and their 

children, and such a weakening of the President's authority would be contrary to the Antiquities 

Act's spirit and protective purposes. 

The Antiquities Act has a proven track record of protecting significant Federal lands and waters 

and the unique cultural and natural resources they possess. These monuments have become 

universally revered symbols of America's beauty and legacy. Though some national monuments 

have been established amidst controversy, who among us today would dam the Grand Canyon, 

tum Muir Woods over to development, or deny the historic significance of Harriet Tubman's 

struggle against slavery? These sites are much cherished landscapes which help to define the 

American spirit. They speak eloquently to the wisdom of retaining the Antiquities Act is its 

current form. 

3 
160 


Insert offset folio 205 here 22000A.142

Statement for the Record 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

S. 2056, the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act 

September 22,2016 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior with the opportunity to present 

this Statement for the Record on S.2056, the National Volcano Early Warning and 

Monitoring System Act. The Department strongly supports S. 2056 and shares its goal of 

improving public and aviation safety through comprehensive monitoring of the most 

threatening volcanoes in the United States and its Territories. 

The National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) is the U.S. Geological Survey's 

(USGS) approach to upgrading and modernizing its monitoring networks to ensure that 

all active volcanoes in the United States and its Territories are monitored at levels 

commensurate with their threat. NVEWS priorities are based on a 2005 national 

assessment of volcano threat levels, which the USGS is in the process of revising to 

incorporate new knowledge. While several network upgrades were made possible 

through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) stimulus of2009-2011, 

the USGS has since been making opportunistic NVEWS upgrades funded out of existing 

base resources. The USGS has achieved 30% completion of network upgrades to 

NVEWS standards with some Very-High-Threat and High-Threat volcanoes lacking 

basic monitoring networks. As with existing efforts, any work conducted to fulfill the 

objectives of the bill would need to compete for funding with other Administration 

priorities. 

This legislation would enable the building out of the NVEWS network and will improve 

the USGS' capabilities to detect eruption precursors at the earliest possible stages 

(usually weeks to months before an eruption) and to deliver probabilistic eruption 

forecasts and warnings to the public, land managers, emergency responders and the 

aviation sector. The success of volcanic hazard mitigation efforts is highly dependent 

upon the quality and comprehensiveness of the in-ground monitoring networks deployed 

on and around the Nation's active volcanoes, the scientific expertise in our volcano 

observatories, and the preparedness of communities through well developed and regularly 

exercised volcano emergency response plans. 

The USGS is fully prepared to deliver an updated implementation plan for completion of 

the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System for the Nation's Very-HighThreat and High-Threat volcanoes in response to the legislation. The volcano research 

grants program that would be authorized under bill S. 2056 would allow the USGS to 

engage more of the Nation's major universities in this basic and applied research and lead 

to advancement of the field of volcanology. The USGS has a successful track record of 

effective leveraging of resources with other federal agencies, state geological surveys and 

universities. An authorized grants program under bill S.2056 would enable continued 

collaboration and design and development of promising and cost-effective volcano 

monitoring technologies of the future. 
161 


Insert offset folio 206 here 22000A.143

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

S. 2380, RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for inviting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to testify on S. 2380, the RPPA 

Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act. S. 2380 would amend the Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) to require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

establish a commercial concessions pilot program for lands transferred or leased under the R&PP 

Act (R&PP Act lands, covered lands). The BLM understands that allowing third party 

commercial concessions on R&PP Act lands could possibly enhance the public's use and 

enjoyment of those lands. However, allowing unlimited profit-generating activities on covered 

lands would severely undermine the core principle of the R&PP Act and ignore BLM's statutory 

responsibility to obtain a fair return for the use and disposal of valuable public resources that 

belong to all Americans. As a result, the BLM strongly opposes S. 2380 in its current form. 

Background 

The BLM frequently exercises authority under the R&PP Act to help states, local communities, 

and nonprofit groups obtain lands at no or low cost for important, specified public purposes. 

Examples of public purposes allowed under the Act include establishment of parks, schools, 

hospitals and other health facilities, fire and law enforcement facilities, courthouses, social 

services facilities, and public works. Since the R&PP Act's passage in 1954, the BLM has 

transferred approximately 410,000 acres of public lands to qualifying entities in the form of over 

1,600 R&PP Act patents. The Bureau also currently manages over 630 R&PP Act leases totaling 

approximately 76,000 acres. 

Because the R&PP Act allows for the transfer and lease of public lands at prices far below fair 

market value, the state, local, and nonprofit entities that receive the lands must agree to always 

use them for bona fide public purposes. This compromise is the foundation of the R&PP Act, 

and it is the basis for a limitation imposed on for-profit activities on covered lands. Under 

longstanding BLM policy, any revenue collected on lands leased or transferred under the R&PP 

Act must be used on those lands. This restriction prevents public lands obtained at little or no 

cost from being used for large-scale revenue generation at the expense of the American public. 

The BLM includes reversionary clauses in the transactions to enforce the terms of the original 

agreements that state and local governments and nonprofit organizations enter into upon 

applying for and receiving R&PP Act transfers and leases. These provisions help ensure R&PP 

Act lands will either be used for public purposes in perpetuity or revert to Federal management. 

Over the years, the BLM has addressed many requests to eliminate the Federal reversionary 

interests in covered lands. In the leasing context, this generally can be accomplished by 

replacing an existing R&PP Act lease with a commercial lease at fair market value. In the case 

of an existing R&PP Act transfer, the state, local, or nonprofit entity generally can purchase the 

Federal reversionary interest at fair market value. 
162 


Insert offset folio 207 here 22000A.144

S.2380 

S. 2380 would amend the R&PP Act to require the Secretary to establish a commercial 

concessions pilot program to cover R&PP Act lands. Under the pilot program, the Secretary 

would enter into agreements with one to I 0 parties to whom R&PP Act lands have been patented 

or leased for the establishment of commercial concessions on the covered lands. The agreements 

between the Secretary and these parties could last up to 20 years based on specific financing 

criteria, and they could be extended once for no longer than their original terms. 

In addition, S. 2380 would allow R&PP Act land holders who have such agreements with the 

Secretary to enter into subsequent agreements with third parties for the establishment of 

commercial concessions pursuant to the initial secretarial agreements. The bill also includes 

troubling language that would effectively subvert the public purpose mandate of the R&PP Act 

by opening covered lands to virtually any residential, agricultural, industrial, or commercial use 

without being considered a change in use under the Act. Finally, S. 2380 would allow any 

revenue collected by the R&PP Act land holders pursuant to the commercial concessions to be 

spent without restriction. 

Taken together, these provisions would permit public lands obtained for very little or no cost to 

be used for potentially limitless profit at the expense of the American taxpayer. While the title of 

the bill purports to provide only for recreation concessions, the legislative text also would open 

covered R&PP Act lands to all uses allowable under BLM regulations for leases, permits, and 

easements including revenue-generating uses for which the BLM collects fair market value. 

This outcome would be contrary to the spirit of the R&PP Act, in direct conflict with the mission 

and purposes for which the BLM manages the public's lands under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, and would prevent the BLM from ensuring a fair return to the American 

people for valuable public resources. Therefore, the BLM strongly opposes S. 2380 as currently 

written. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

2 
163 


Insert offset folio 208 here 22000A.145

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 2681, San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act 

September 22,2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on S. 2681, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to retire 

a certain type of Federal coal lease rights- "preference right lease applications" or PRLAs- in 

exchange for coal bidding rights elsewhere on F ederallands; substitute certain land selections of 

the Navajo Nation, and designate two wilderness areas in northern New Mexico. 

The Department appreciates the work of Senator Heinrich (D-NM) and Senator Udall (D-NM), 

and generally supports the goal of seeking resolution to long-standing unresolved mineral 

development and tribal land selection issues. The Department also supports the designation of 

the Ah-Shi-Sie-Pah Wilderness and the expansion of the existing Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness. 

We would like to continue discussions with the sponsors and the Committee on how best to 

achieve the intent of this bill while minimizing the cost to taxpayers of such a resolution and 

ensuring continued protection of environmental and cultural resources. 

Background 

Exchange of Coal Preference Right Lease Applications 

Prior to 1976, the Secretary was authorized by the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) to issue permits 

to prospect for coal on public lands in areas where no known coal deposits existed. If coal was 

discovered, the prospector could file a preference right lease application (PRLA). If commercial 

quantities of coal were demonstrated, the prospector was entitled to a "preference right lease," 

a noncompetitive, exclusive right to mine coal on these public lands for an initial 20-year term. 

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 repealed the Secretary's authority to issue 

prospecting permits and terminated the preference right leasing program, subject to valid existing 

rights. However, prospecting permittees who have filed a PRLA prior to 1976 continue to be 

recognized as having valid existing rights that require adjudication by the BLM. In 1987, the 

BLM promulgated regulations exclusively for processing these pre-1976 PRLAs. 

To date, all coal PRLAs have been processed, except for eleven held by the Ark Land Company 

(Ark Land), covering approximately 21,000 acres in northern New Mexico. These PRLAs are 

within three miles of Chaco Culture National Historical Park and in the Ah-shi-sle-pah 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA), Fossil Forest Research Natural Area, and North Road and Ashshi-sle-pah Road Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). These areas have cultural 

archaeological, paleontological, primitive recreational, and environmental significance, and are 

not an ideal site for commercial development of the coal. In the interest of protecting the 

important cultural and environmental resources in the area, in 2012, after extensive investigation, 

litigation and negotiation, the BLM and Ark Land signed a settlement agreement that would seek 
164 


Insert offset folio 209 here 22000A.146

to exchange the eleven PRLAs for an equal value in Federal bidding rights for Federal coal 

within the border of the State of Wyoming. While this exchange can currently be completed 

through existing regulations (43 CFR Subpart 3435), further authority is needed to ensure that 

use of the Federal bidding rights will not require taxpayers to pay the share of sums that would 

have otherwise been paid from bonus bid receipts to the State of Wyoming or any other party 

under the bid-sharing formula in the Mineral Leasing Act. 

Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act 

As part of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act (P.L. 93-531), the Navajo Nation selected 

approximately 12,000 acres of lands which overlap the PRLAs and are within protected areas 

such as the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA and south of the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness and the Ah-shisle-pah Road ACEC. These selections have not yet been completed due to the encumbrance of 

the PRLAs. The Navajo Nation has sought to "deselect" these lands and select others, but is 

unable to complete the action without further legislation. With new legislative authority 

allowing the Navajo Nation to rcselect lands. these sensitive lands currently under discussion 

would receive protection. 

Ah-Shi-Sie-Pah WSA & Bisti/ De-Na-Zin Wilderness 

The approximately 6,563-acre Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah WSA, located about 40 miles south of 

Farmington, New Mexico, features a unique badlands landscape of sandstone cap rocks and 

rolling, water-carved clay hills. This special place is rich in petrified wood, fossils, and exposed 

geologic formations and contains soft colors rarely seen elsewhere. On the valley floor, petrified 

stumps can be found standing up out of the ground. The area is popular for day hikers and 

photographers who enjoy its unique geologic history. 

The approximately 41, 170-acre Bisti/ De-Na-Zin Wilderness, which is about 28 miles south of 

Farmington, offers some of the most unusual scenery found in the Four Corners Region. Time 

and the elements have etched an almost fantasy world of strange rock formations made of 

interbedded sandstone. shale, mudstone, coal, and silt throughout this remarkable area. Natural 

sandstone weathering has created hoodoos tall, thin spires of rock rising up out of the groundpinnacles, cap rocks, and other unusual formations. This area recently received national 

attention following the discovery of two fossilized Pcntaceratops dinosaur skeletons. 

Coal Preference Right Lease Applications (Section 2) 

S. 2681 would authorize the Secretary to retire coal PRLAs by issuing bidding rights in exchange 

for relinquishment of the PRLAs. The bill would define a "bidding right" as an appropriate legal 

instrument that may be used in lieu of a monetary payment for a bonus bid in a coal sale under 

the MLA, or as monetary credit against a rental or royalty payment due under a Federal coal 

lease. Thus, a bidding right could be used in lieu of cash for part or all of a winning bonus bid in 

a subsequent coal lease sale, or for rental or royalty owed under a Federal coal lease. S. 2681 

further provides for payment of 50% of the amount of the bidding right used to the state in which 

2 
165 


Insert offset folio 210 here 22000A.147

the newly-issued coal lease- or in which the lease under which a royalty payment is made is 

located. The payments to the state would be made from revenues received under the MLA that 

otherwise would be deposited as miscellaneous receipts. Under S. 2681, bidding rights would be 

fully transferrable to any other person and the bidding rights holder would have to notify the 

Secretary of the transfer. The bidding rights would terminate after 5 years, unless the rights 

could not be exercised within the 5-year period under certain conditions outlined in the bill. 

The Department generally supports the goal of S. 2681 to provide legislative authority for a 

solution to the long-standing coal PRLA issue in northern New Mexico. However, the 

Administration is concerned about the likely costs associated with this legislation as drafted. 

Based on the terms of the legislation, and in the context of the Ark Land settlement agreement, it 

appears these costs could be substantial, which raises significant challenges for identifying 

suitable offsets. We are aware that the New Mexico delegation has been working on alternative 

language to minimize these costs. We appreciate these efforts and would like to work with the 

sponsor to incorporate such provisions in the bill as it moves forward. 

Finally, the BLM would also like to work with the sponsors and the Committee on language 

regarding the timing of the valuation of the coal within the PRLAs, and to ensure the 

Department's Office of Valuation Services will determine the fair market value of the resources 

consistent with standard valuation practices. 

Navajo Nation Land Selection (Section 3) 

Section 3 ofS. 2681 would cancel certain land selections made by the Navajo Nation pursuant to 

the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974, and would authorize the Navajo Nation to make 

new selections of equal value to replace those canceled. The bill excludes certain lands eligible 

for selection, including land within BLM's National Conservation Lands and certain ACECs. 

The Department supports the bill's provisions to allow for new land selections while also 

protecting many areas with significant natural and cultural resources, and supports the bill's 

provisions for the deselection of these lands. We would like to work with the sponsors and 

Committee on the bill's exclusion areas to ensure all of the Special Management Areas and 

ACECs within the area continue to be managed by the BLM to ensure their protection. We 

would also like to work with the sponsors and Committee on language to ensure consistency 

with the original intent of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. 

Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah Designation & Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness Expansion (Sections 4 & 5) 

Section 4 ofS. 2681 would designate approximately 7,242 acres ofBLM-managed lands in 

northwestern New Mexico, as the Ah-shi-sle-pah Wilderness, including the entire existing WSA. 

Section 5 of the bill would enlarge the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness by adding approximately 

2,250 acres ofBLM-managed lands directly south of the area. The BLM supports both of these 

designations. These wild and rugged areas are rich with paleontological resources and provide 

an opportunity for those wishing to explore and enjoy rare, prehistoric treasures and experience 

the outstanding backcountry. 

Conclusion 

3 
166 


Insert offset folio 211 here 22000A.148

Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on S. 2681. The Department thanks the 

sponsors and the Comittcc for their dedication to this issue. We look forward to continuing to 

work with the sponsors to achieve these goals. 

4 
167 


Insert offset folio 212 here 22000A.149

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 3049, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act 

September 22,2016 

Thank you for inviting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to testifY on S. 3049, the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act. The BLM supports S. 3049, which designates eight 

new wilderness areas and includes direction for future management on additional public lands in 

Dona Ana County, New Mexico. We would like the opportunity to work further with the 

sponsors and Subcommittee on certain aspects of the bill that we believe would facilitate 

implementation and improve the manageability of the areas that would be designated by S. 3049. 

Background 

Dona Ana County is many things - the county with the second highest population in New 

Mexico; home to Las Cruces, one of the fastest growing cities in the country; and a land of 

amazing beauty. Towering mountain ranges, dramatic deserts, and fertile valleys characterize 

this comer of the Land of Enchantment. The Organ Mountains, east of the city of Las Cruces, 

dominate the landscape. Characterized by steep, angular, barren rock outcroppings, the Organ 

Mountains rise to nearly 9,000 feet in elevation and extend for 20 miles, running generally north 

and south. This high-desert landscape within the Chihuahua Desert contains a multitude of 

biological zones mixed desert shrubs and grasslands in the lowlands ascending to pinon and 

juniper woodlands, and finally to ponderosa pines at the highest elevations. Consequently, the 

area is home to a high diversity of animal life, including peregrine falcons and other raptors, as 

well as mountain lions and other mammals. Abundant prehistoric cultural sites, dating back 

8,000 years, dot the landscape. The Organ Mountains are a popular recreation area, with 

multiple hiking trails, a popular campground, and opportunities for hunting, mountain biking, 

and other dispersed recreation. 

On the west side of Las Cruces are the mountain ranges and peaks of the Robledo Mountains and 

Sierra de las Uvas, which make up the Desert Peaks area. These desert landscapes are 

characterized by numerous mesas and buttes interspersed with deep canyons and arroyos. Mule 

deer, mountain lions, and golden eagles and other raptors are attracted to this varied landscape. 

Prehistoric cultural sites of the classic Mimbres and El Paso phases are sprinkled throughout this 

region along with historic sites associated with more recent settlements. This area is also home 

to the unusual Night-blooming Cereus seeing the one-night-a-year bloom in its natural 

surroundings is a rare delight. Finally, the area provides varied dispersed recreational 

opportunities. 

To the southwest of Las Cruces, near the Mexican border, is the Potrillo Mountains Complex. 

The geologic genesis of these mountains is different from that of the Organ Mountains and 

Desert Peaks area. Cinder cones, volcanic craters, basalt lava flows, and talus slopes 

characterize this comer of Dona Ana County. These lands are famous for their abundant wildlife 

and contain significant fossil resources. A well-preserved giant ground sloth skeleton, now 
168 


Insert offset folio 213 here 22000A.150

housed at Yale University, was discovered in this area. The sheer breadth of these lands and 

their open, expansive vistas offer remarkable opportunities for solitude. 

The Department applauds the efforts of Senators Udall and Heinrich, former Senator Bingaman, 

and a wide range of local governments. communities, user groups, conservationists, and Federal 

agencies to develop this consensus proposal to protect all of these special areas. 

S.3049 

S. 3049 designates eight wilderness areas in Doiia Ana County, New Mexico, which would be 

included in BLM's National Conservation Lands. The legislation also releases nearly 31,000 

acres from wilderness study area (WSA) status, provides for the management and future transfer 

of land from the Department of the Defense (DOD) to the BLM, withdraws certain additional 

lands from disposal, mining, and mineral leasing, and includes provisions related to border 

security, the management plan for the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument 

(Monument), and acquisition of specified State trust land adjacent to the Desert Peaks area of the 

Monument. 

Wildemess 

Section 3 of S. 3049 designates eight wilderness areas totaling approximately 241,000 acres. 

The BLM supports the proposed wilderness designations inS. 3049. We would like the 

opportunity to work with the sponsors on minor and technical amendments to this section, 

including boundary modifications for enhanced manageability, to include certain adjacent lands 

with significant wilderness characteristics, and to provide access to public trails and private 

inholdings. The BLM is also aware that dispersed and occasional paragliding currently occurs 

within one of the proposed wildernesses. As a result, we would like to work with the sponsors 

and Subcommittee on amendments to the paragliding management language that aid 

implementation and ensure consistency with the Wilderness Act. 

The new wilderness designations are in three distinct areas of the Monument. First, within the 

Organ Mountains area in eastern Doiia Ana County, approximately 19,200 acres would be 

designated as the Organ Mountains Wilderness. The bill requires that the boundary for this 

wilderness be 400 feet from the centerline of Dripping Springs Road. 

Within the Desert Peaks area in northwestern Doiia Ana County, the bill would designate the 

approximately 13,900-acre Broad Canyon Wilderness, the approximately 16,800-acre Robledo 

Mountains Wilderness, and the approximately 11,1 00-acre Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness. 

Within the proposed Robledo Mountains Wilderness, a small corridor of approximately 100 

acres has been designated as "potential wilderness" by section 3(1) ofS. 3049. The lands 

included in this potential wilderness contain a communications right-of-way, and it is our 

understanding that it is the intention of the sponsors to allow the continued use of this site by the 

current lessees. However, in the event that the communications right-of-way is relinquished, 

these lands would be reclaimed and become part of the wilderness area. We support this 

provision. 

Finally, within the Potrillo Mountains area in the southwest corner of Doiia Ana County, the bill 

would designate the approximately 28,000-acre Aden Lava Flow Wilderness, the approximately 

2 
169 


Insert offset folio 214 here 22000A.151

17,000-acre Cinder Cone Wilderness, the approximately 126,000-acre Potrillo Mountains 

Wilderness, and the approximately 9,600-acre Whitethorn Wilderness. Both the Potrillo 

Mountains Wilderness and Whitethorn Wilderness extend into adjacent Luna County. 

Much of the lands proposed for wilderness designation have been historically grazed by 

domestic livestock, and grazing continues today. Many of BLM's existing wilderness areas 

throughout the West are host to livestock grazing, which is compatible with these designations. 

This use will continue within the wildernesses designated by S. 3049. 

Fillmore Canyon 

Section 3(k)(4) of the bill authorizes hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, camping, and other 

outdoor recreational activities on approximately 2,050 acres of land, which is currently part of 

the Army's Fort Bliss and includes the dramatic and scenic Fillmore Canyon as well as the 

western slopes of Organ Peak and Ice Canyon. This section requires the DOD to develop an 

outdoor recreation plan for the area that is consistent with its primary military mission and 

permits the DOD to close all or a portion of the area to protect public or military member safety. 

In the event that the DOD determines that military training capabilities, personal safety, and 

installation security would not be hindered, the agency shall transfer administrative jurisdiction 

of the area to the BLM. After such a transfer, the bill withdraws the area from the public land, 

mining, and mineral leasing laws. At the DOD's request, the BLM would be required to enter 

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing for the conduct of military training 

within the area and, to the maximum extent practicable, for the protection of natural, historic, 

and cultural resources. We would welcome these lands into BLM's National System of Public 

Lands and would like to work with the sponsors and the Department of the Army on language 

enhancing implementation of this section and ensuring that any lands transferred to the BLM are 

incorporated into the Monument. 

Additional Withdrawals 

Section 3(k) of the legislation provides for the withdrawal of two parcels ofBLM-managed lands 

from the public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws. The parcel designated as "Parcel C" is 

approximately I ,300 acres of BLM-managed lands on the eastern outskirts of Las Cruces. This 

parcel is a popular hiking and mountain biking site and provides easy access to the peak of the 

Tortugas Mountains. From here, visitors can take in spectacular views of Las Cruces and the Rio 

Grande Valley. We understand that the sponsors' goal is to ensure that these lands are preserved 

tor continued recreational use by Las Cruces residents. The legislation provides for a possible 

lease of these lands to a governmental or nonprofit agency under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act. The larger, 6,500-acre parcel, designated as "Parcel B," lies on the southern end 

of the Organ Mountains area of the Monument. It is our understanding that the sponsors 

considered adding this parcel to the Monument because of important resource values. However, 

a multitude of current uses make inclusion of this parcel in the Monument inconsistent with the 

purposes established for the Monument. Therefore, the limited withdrawal of the parcel will 

better serve to protect the resources within this area without negatively affecting the current uses 

of the area. The BLM supports the withdrawal of both of these parcels, but would like to work 

with the sponsors on language accommodating potential maintenance of and improvements to 

State Route 404. 

3 
170 


Insert offset folio 215 here 22000A.152

Border Security 

In order to provide the greatest flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security and other law 

enforcement agencies, the bill includes a number of provisions to facilitate and improve border 

security, First, the legislation releases over 28,000 acres from WSA status along the southern 

boundary of the proposed Potrillo Mountains Wilderness. Within an approximately 16,500-acre 

area along that southern border, designated as "Parcel A", the bill charges the Secretary with 

protecting the wilderness character. to the extent practicable, while at the same time allowing for 

the installation of communications and surveillance facilities that may be necessary for law 

enforcement and border security purposes. Finally, in order to provide additional flexibility to 

law enforcement personnel, the bill keeps open for administrative and law enforcement uses only 

an east-west route bisecting the Potrillo Mountains Wilderness. The BLM would like to work 

with the sponsors on language ensuring that a small portion of the existing West Potrillo 

Mountains WSA extending into Luna County that is not otherwise designated by this bill is also 

released from WSA status. We also recommend that management for wilderness characteristics 

in this area be accomplished through the land use planning process. 

Monument Management Plan and Land Exchange 

Section 5(a) of the bill requires that the Monument management plan include a watershed health 

assessment to identify opportunities for watershed restoration. The BLM, along with many 

partners, has undertaken restoration efforts on nearly two million acres in New Mexico, with the 

goal of restoring grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas to their original healthy conditions. 

The BLM will continue to implement appropriate land restoration activities that will benefit 

watershed and wildlife health. 

Section 5(c) ofS. 3049 requires the Secretary, within 18 months, to "attempt to enter into an 

agreement" with the Commissioner of Public Lands of New Mexico to exchange approximately 

II ,000 acres of State trust land adjacent to the Desert Peaks area of the Monument to the BLM 

and an unspecified acreage ofBLM-managed public lands to the State. The BLM-managed 

lands to be exchanged to the State would be jointly identified by the Secretary and 

Commissioner of Public Lands of New Mexico. While the BLM appreciates that the land 

exchange includes public interest determinations, complete environmental and cultural review, 

standard appraisals, and equalization of values. we believe this language could inadvertently 

affect land exchanges elsewhere in New Mexico where significant biological, cultural, and 

recreational values are present. The BLM would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors 

and Subcommittee on time frames and language ensuring that the BLM retains the flexibility to 

accomplish other important land exchanges. 

Conclusion 

The BLM appreciates the sponsors' years of extensive public outreach and hard work on S. 3049 

and supports the bill. We have a number of substantive as well as minor and technical 

modifications to recommend, and we look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors and 

the Committee to address those issues as this bill moves through the legislative process. 

4 
171 


Insert offset folio 216 here 22000A.153

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 3102, Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for inviting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to testifY on S. 3102, the 

Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act. This bill authorizes public land 

sales, exchanges, and conveyances in Pershing County, Nevada; designates approximately 

136,000 acres ofBLM-managed public lands as seven wilderness areas; and releases 

approximately 48,600 acres of BLM-managed public lands from Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

status. The BLM largely supports the conveyance and conservation goals of S. 3102 and would 

welcome the opportunity to work with Senators Heller and Reid and the Committee on important 

modifications to the bill. 

Background 

Pershing County, located in northwestern Nevada, is home to nearly 7,000 people. The county 

holds spectacular value for recreation because of its close proximity to the Black Rock Desert, 

Selenite Mountains, and Augusta Mountains. It also boasts significant historic, cultural, and 

paleontological treasures. The BLM manages approximately 2. 9 million acres of public lands 

within Pershing County for a wide range of uses, including mineral development, recreation, 

livestock grazing, and conservation. 

Public Land Sales & Exchanges 

In 1976, with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Congress 

directed the BLM to retain management of most public lands, thereby reducing the acreage that 

had been available for disposal in earlier years. Under FLPMA, the BLM's mission is to sustain 

the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. FLPMA also provides the BLM with a clear multiple-use and sustained 

yield mandate that the agency implements through its land use planning process. 

Nevertheless, public land sales remain a component of the BLM's land management strategy 

when these sales are in the public interest and consistent with publicly-approved land use plans. 

The primary land sale authority ofthc BLM is found in Section 203 ofFLPMA. Land sales 

conducted under FLPMA occur at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and 

are made at fair market value in accordance with Federal law. Current policy is to generally 

conduct sales under competitive bidding procedures to ensure a fair return. In such cases, sales 

are widely advertised through public notices, media announcements, and on appropriate BLM 

websites. 

Similarly, the BLM uses land exchanges to ensure effective land management. Among other 

purposes, land exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally sensitive lands while 

transferring public lands into non-Federal ownership for local needs and the consolidation of 

scattered tracts. The BLM conducts land exchanges pursuant to Section 206 ofFLPMA, which 
172 


Insert offset folio 217 here 22000A.154

provides the agency with the authority to undertake such exchanges, or when given specific 

direction by Congress. To be eligible for exchange under Section 206 of FLPMA, BLMmanaged lands must have been identified as potentially available for disposal through the land 

use planning process. Extensive public involvement is critically important for such exchanges to 

be successful. 

The Administration notes that the process of identifying lands as potentially available for 

disposal through sale or exchange does not include the clearance of impediments to disposal or 

exchange, such as the presence of threatened and endangered species, cultural or historic 

resources, mining claims, oil and gas leases, rights-of-way, and grazing permits. Under FLPMA, 

these clearances must occur before a disposal action can be completed. 

Public Purpose Conveyances 

The BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to local governments and nonprofit entities for a 

variety of public purposes. These leases and conveyances are typically accomplished under the 

provisions ofthc Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) or through direction supplied 

by specific Acts of Congress. Such direction allows the BLM to help states, local communities, 

and nonprofit organizations obtain lands at nominal cost for important public purposes. The 

BLM generally supports appropriate legislative conveyances at nominal cost if the lands are to 

be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, if the lands are appropriate for disposal, and 

if the conveyances have reversionary clauses to enforce this requirement. 

S.3102 

S. 3102 directs Federal land sales, exchanges, and conveyances in Pershing County, Nevada. 

The legislation also designates approximately 136,000 acres of public lands as seven wilderness 

areas and releases approximately 48,600 acres ofBLM-managed WSAs from further study. 

Checkerboard Land Resolution (Title I) 

Section 103 of S. 3102 directs the sale or exchange of up to approximately 334,000 acres of 

BLM-managed public lands located within the area identified as the "Checkerboard Lands 

Resolution Area" and that have been or will be identified as potentially suitable for disposal in 

the Winnemucca Resource Management Plan, or in any subsequent land use plan amendment or 

revision for the planning area. This acreage total also includes approximately 15.000 additional 

acres ofBLM-managed public lands specifically identified on the legislative map. 

In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to identify, no later than one 

year after enactment, Management Priority Areas (MPAs) within the "Checkerboard Lands 

Resolution Area" that are considered by the Secretary to be Greater Sage-Grouse habitat; part of 

an identified wildlife corridor or designated critical habitat; of value for outdoor recreation or 

public access for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes; of significant cultural, 

historical, ecological, or scenic value; or of value for improving Federal land management. Once 

the initial identification of the MPAs is completed, the Secretary may identify additional MPAs 

at anytime. 

Under the bill, land sales must be conducted through a competitive bidding process and cannot 

exceed 150,000 acres in total. However, exchanges would be exempted from the acreage cap. 

2 
173 


Insert offset folio 218 here 22000A.155

The bill requires that all lands authorized for sale or exchange be appraised en masse within one 

year of enactment and every five years thereafter. Any lands with a value of less than $500 per 

acre, under this Act, may be exchanged on an acre-for-acre basis with private land within a 

MPA; no other lands would be eligible for exchange. The first land sale must be completed 

within one year of enactment, with at least one sale conducted every year thereafter, until the 

acreage limit for sales has been reached, or the end of a sale postponement period requested by 

the county. 

The bill also requires that five percent of the proceeds from the sales of land would be disbursed 

to the State for general education programs. Ten percent would be disbursed to the county for 

use as determined through normal county budgeting procedures. The remaining 85 percent 

would be deposited into a special U.S. Treasury account, which would be available to the 

Secretary of the Interior to: I) reimburse costs of the BLM incurred in preparation of land sales 

or exchange (e.g., the costs of surveys and appraisals and the costs of compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

[FLPMA)); 2) conduct projects in the county to address wildlife habitat conservation and 

restoration; address drought conditions; secure public access to Federal land for hunting, fishing, 

and other recreational purposes; 3) acquire environmentally sensitive land in the county; and 4) 

conduct surveys related to the wilderness areas designated by this Act. 

While the BLM generally supports the consolidation of land patterns to provide for more orderly 

land management and the conservation of natural and cultural resources, the BLM has some 

concerns with the land sales and exchanges directed in section I 03. We would like to work with 

the sponsors and Committee to address them as this legislation moves forward. Equal value land 

transfers must be the cornerstone of any proposal. The Administration is committed to 

continuing its adherence to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and 

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. While it may be appropriate to consider 

alternative methods for low-value parcels as envisioned by this legislation, we believe in general 

that adhering to existing FLPMA processes as much as possible is important. In addition, the 

President's FY 2017 Budget included a proposal to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction 

Facilitation Act (FL TF A), which provided the BLM with an important tool to facilitate land 

tenure adjustments. FLTFA expired in 2011. Reauthorization would allow the BLM to sell 

lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans, and then to use the proceeds 

from those sales to acquire environmentally sensitive lands, including State trust land inholdings. 

We recommend that Congress move to reauthorize FL TF A. 

Furthermore, the personnel the BLM would need to process these land transfers are the same 

personnel currently employed in a wide variety of other vital land management issues, including 

processing renewable energy and transmission rights-of-way applications and land use 

authorizations for community needs to name just two. Therefore, the bill's time frames will 

necessarily have consequences for a wide variety of other users of the public lands. 

As we have previously testified, the BLM believes that Federal land should not be used to pay 

for activities that would normally be funded through annual appropriations or the administrative 

costs of land sales and exchanges. We would like to work with Congress to determine how best 

to implement the proposed sales and exchanges while also achieving the important conservation 

3 
174 


Insert offset folio 219 here 22000A.156

and resource protection objectives outlined in this title. Finally, the BLM notes that some of the 

lands proposed for sale or exchange appear to conflict with at least two Section 368 energy 

corridors. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the Committee on 

language or boundary adjustments addressing impacts to these corridors. 

Land Conveyances & Transfers (Title II) 

Section 20 I of S. 3102 provides for directed sales of up to approximately I 02,000 acres of ELMmanaged public lands identified as "covered land" on the legislative map to a "qualified entity," 

which is defined in the bill as the owner (or authorized leaseholder acting with the consent of the 

owner) of the mining claims, mill sites, or tunnel sites currently existing on any portion of the 

covered land. All sales would be for fair market value, subject to uniform appraisal standards 

and practices, and must be completed within one year. The qualified entity would assume all 

costs of the sales, including survey and administrative costs. Proceeds from these sales would be 

disbursed in the manner outlined for the sales and exchanges required by section I 03. 

The BLM opposes this section as currently written because the lands proposed for sale include 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, numerous sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, 

and a portion of the California National Historic Trail and viewshed. We would like to work 

with the sponsors and Committee on technical amendments to this section, including boundary 

adjustments to protect natural and cultural resources in this area, the use of standard appraisal 

language, and ensuring that the lands to be conveyed are appropriate for disposal. 

Section 202 of the bill directs the Secretary to convey, at no cost, approximately 10 acres to 

Pershing County for usc as a public cemetery. We note that BLM is currently working to 

transfer this cemetery to the county under the R&PP Act. While the BLM supports this 

conveyance, we would like to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee on language for 

consistency with the R&PP Act, including a standard reversionary clause to ensure that the land 

continues to be used for this important public purpose. 

Wilderness (Title Ill) 

Section 301 of S. 3102 designates the approximately 12,300-acre Cain Mountain Wilderness, the 

approximately 25,000-acre Bluewing Wilderness, the approximately 23,000-acre Selenite Peak 

Wilderness, the approximately 12,000-acre Mount Limbo Wilderness, the approximately 14,000-

acre North Sahwave Wilderness, the approximately 35,300-acre Tobin Crest Wilderness, and the 

approximately 15,000-acre Fencemaker Wilderness. The BLM supports each of these 

designations. 

These proposed additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System will protect fragile 

desert ecosystems and provide important habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, pronghorn antelope. 

mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and many other species of wildlife and plants. The proposed 

Mount Limbo Wilderness, for example, features a spectacular landscape of granite outcrops, 

basaltic flows, and alluvial fans that is perfect for backcountry exploration. These proposed 

wildernesses provide excellent opportunities for hiking, hunting, rock climbing, camping, and 

horse-packing for those who wish to experience the solitude of rugged canyons and dramatic 

desert vistas. The BLM recommends the use of standard language for the designation of 

wilderness areas. We would also like to work with the sponsors and Committee on boundary 

4 
175 


Insert offset folio 220 here 22000A.157

adjustments for manageability and consistency with the Wilderness Act and on clarifying 

language related to technical issues, temporary telecommunications devices, and noxious weed 

treatments. 

Finally, section 304 of the bill releases approximately 48,600 acres of five BLM-managed 

wilderness study areas (WSAs) from further study, allowing these areas to be managed according 

to the existing BLM land use plans. 

Conclusion 

The BLM recognizes the sponsors' extensive public outreach and hard work on S. 3102, and we 

largely support the bill's conveyance and conservation goals. We have a number of substantive 

as well as minor and technical modifications to recommend, and we look forward to working 

with the sponsors and the Committee to address these issues as the bill moves through the 

legislative process. 
176 


Insert offset folio 221 here 22000A.158

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 3203, Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. 

Among its measures, S. 3203 would increase Federal oil and gas production requirements in the 

State of Alaska; mandate additional offshore lease sales within the Alaska portion of the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS); and lift the prohibition of oil and gas leasing and production in the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The bill also would potentially exclude any mining claims that 

predate a withdrawal from any law, regulation, or Federal action, and revoke the designation of 

all Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the State. The Department strongly opposes 

S. 3203 for the reasons outlined below. 

Background 

The DOl manages 500 million acres oflands, primarily located in the Western states, and 1.7 

billion offshore acres on the OCS. The DOl's broad mission responsibilities include the 

management of these diverse Federal lands, waters, wildlife, and fishery resources. The 

resources administered by each of the DOl's agencies are managed for many purposes, primarily 

related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources, yet each of these 

agencies has distinct responsibilities. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

The BLM is responsible for managing more than 10 percent of the Nation's surface and nearly a 

third of its minerals. The BLM manages this large portfolio on behalf of the American people 

under the dual framework of multiple usc and sustained yield. The BLM administers public 

lands for a broad range of uses, including renewable and conventional energy development, 

livestock grazing, timber production, hunting, fishing, recreation, and conservation. 

With respect to conventional energy development, the BLM takes seriously its responsibility to 

manage the Federal government's onshore oil and gas resources in an environmentally sound and 

responsible manner. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended, directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to lease Federal oil and gas resources, and to regulate oil and gas operations on 

those leases. The BLM has used this authority to develop regulations governing all aspects of oil 

and gas operations, including requirements related to pre-leasing, surface-disturbing activities, 

1 
177 


Insert offset folio 222 here 22000A.159

well construction, and production measurement. The Indian Mineral Leasing Act extends this 

regulatory authority and the resultant rules to Indian oil and gas leases on trust lands (except 

those lands specifically excluded by statute). Finally, the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the BLM to manage the public lands using the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield and to take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation. In fulfilling these objectives, FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public 

lands in a manner that protects the quality of their resources, including ecological, 

environmental, and water resources. Cumulatively, this statutory regime requires the BLM to 

balance responsible development with protection of the environment and public safety. The 

BLM works hard to ensure the appropriate balance is maintained and that the applicable 

regulation and requirements are applied and enforced fairly and consistently across all the lands 

where the BLM has oversight responsibilities. 

Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing in Alaska 

Oil and gas leasing on Alaska's Federal lands onshore is concentrated in two regions: the Cook 

Inlet Region and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). Exploration and 

production in the Cook Inlet Region began in the 1950s and continues to contribute to Alaska's 

economy and energy needs. The NPR-A is a 22.8-million-acre area on Alaska's North Slope. In 

1923, President Harding set aside this area as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy. In 

1976, in accordance with the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, the administration of 

the reserve was transferred to the Department of the Interior, more specifically the BLM. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

BOEM manages the development of the OCS energy and mineral resources, including 

approximately 1.7 billion acres containing 3,800 active leases. The Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act (OCSLA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant mineral leases and to 

prescribe regulations governing oil and natural gas activities on OCS lands, while protecting the 

human, marine, and coastal environments through advanced science and technology research. 

Among its duties, BOEM oversees assessments of the oil, gas, and other mineral resource 

potential of the OCS; inventories oil and gas reserves; develops production projections; and 

conducts economic evaluations that ensure the receipt of fair market value by U.S. taxpayers for 

OCS leases. 

Offshore Oil & Gas Leasing in Alaska 

BOEM's Alaska OCS Region oversees more than one billion acres on the OCS located offshore 

more than 6,000 miles of coastline. As part of this management, BOEM's Alaska OCS Region 

implements the Department's 2012-2017 and forthcoming 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf 

Oil and Gas Leasing Five-Year Programs within the bounds of the Alaska OCS Region. The 

2 
178 


Insert offset folio 223 here 22000A.160

Alaska OCS encompasses the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Bering Sea, Cook Inlet, and the 

Gulf of Alaska. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

The mission of the FWS is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

and plant and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Among the many 

statutes and programs administered by the FWS is the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, which codified a mission for the National Wildlife Refuge System. That 

mission is to administer a network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the 

benefit of present and future generations. The FWS administers 89.1 million acres ofFederal 

land in the Nation, of which 76.7 million acres are in Alaska. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System includes more than 565 refuges, 38 wetland management districts, 5 marine national 

monuments and other protected areas encompassing approximately 836 million acres of land and 

water across the United States that are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. With 

respect to Alaska, the FWS manages 16 refuges, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) in northeastern Alaska. 

ArcticNWR 

In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

ANILCA designated most of the original Arctic National Wildlife Range as Wilderness except 

for approximately 1.5 million acres on the Refuge's coastal plain. Section 1002 of ANILCA 

required that studies be performed to provide to Congress a comprehensive inventory and 

assessment of fish and wildlife resources, an analysis of potential impacts of oil and gas 

exploration and development on those resources, and a delineation of the extent and amount of 

potential petroleum resources. Information gathered from the biological, seismic, and geological 

studies was used to complete the 1987 Coastal Plain Resource Assessment and Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement. Referring to this area of the coastal plain, Congress declared 

in Section I 003 of ANILCA that the "production of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas 

from the [Refuge] shall be undertaken until authorized by an act of Congress." 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

S. 3203 concerns lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior and lands in the National 

Forest System administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Department 

defers to the U.S. Forest Service on provisions affecting National Forest System lands, which 

includes Title V- Forestry. Additionally, the Department defers to the Department of Energy on 

Title IV- Mining, Sec. 401, which concerns programs administered by that Department. 

3 
179 


Insert offset folio 224 here 22000A.161

Title 1- Fill "TAPS" 

Title 1 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan within one year of the bill's 

enactment to increase oil production on Federal land in Alaska by 500,000 barrels per day by 

2026. If the plan is not developed within the one-year timeframe, the Secretary is required to 

increase by 1.0 million acres the amount of acreage to which the State of Alaska is entitled under 

the Alaska Statehood Act and other applicable Federal law. For each additional year the 

deadline is not met, Title I directs the Secretary to increase the acreage entitlement by an 

additional 1.0 million acres. 

Analysis 

The Department's primary role in establishing oil and gas production on Federal land is to 

provide access to private entities that wish to develop the oil and gas resources owned by the 

public. On BLM-managed lands, consideration of the eligibility of a particular parcel for oil and 

gas leasing begins well before the lease sale. The BLM's Resource Management Plans (RMPs) 

establish the foundation for its land management decisions, containing general resource 

allocations and other decisions that reflect the BLM's effort to balance the many competing uses 

within a planning area and fulfill the agency's mandate of multiple use and sustained yield. 

Through the RMPs, major resource conflicts are considered such as balancing important wildlife 

habitat needs with energy development. For purposes of oil and gas leasing, lands within a 

planning area are identified as fitting in one of three categories: lands open under standard lease 

terms, lands open with restrictions, and lands closed to leasing. Many of the lands closed to 

leasing consist of areas with special designations and other unique and environmentally-sensitive 

areas such as habitat for special status species. 

While the Department determines which lands arc open to leasing, it does not play a role in the 

actual exploration, drilling, and development of oil and gas resources, nor does it dictate 

production quotas. Market forces drive industry investment and resulting oil and gas production. 

For example, economic factors such as the price of oil and the capital cost of rigs and other 

infrastructure may dictate that developing oil in Alaska is uneconomic, or at least less favorable, 

relative to developing other oil field prospects outside of the state. 

The Department docs not have, and does not desire to have, the authority to direct private entities 

to develop oil and gas resources on public lands. 

For these reasons, the Department strongly opposes the Title 1 requirement to convey 1 million 

acres of public lands to the State of Alaska for every year that the 500,000 barrel-per-day 

production plan is not developed. 

4 
180 


Insert offset folio 225 here 22000A.162

Title II - Outer Continental Shelf 

Section 201 amends OCSLA to require that BOEM provide lessees acquiring or holding Alaska 

OCS oil and gas leases with an eight-month suspension of the primary lease term for each year 

of the lease. Since Alaska OCS lease terms are for ten years, the mandate could significantly 

extend those lease terms with no requirement for a lessee to explore or produce from a lease. 

This is a significant departure from longstanding leasing requirements for all OCS oil and gas 

leases and is counterproductive to BOEM's efforts to promote diligence in the development and 

production of offshore oil and gas leases. BOEM recognizes that the Arctic environment 

presents unique development challenges, which is why the I 0-year primary lease term is longer 

than that offered in the more established Gulf of Mexico region, with the exception of deepwater 

leases. In addition, BOEM already provides a process for companies to apply for a suspension of 

their lease terms if a lessee affirmatively demonstrates that it is moving forward with developing 

the lease. 

Section 20 I also allows current lessees to opt into the yearly lease term suspension. This would 

be a substantial departure from the terms on which the leases were offered in a competitive 

process, and on which basis the lessees entered signed lease agreements. Under the existing 

terms, current leases will expire if not timely developed within the original term, and the lease 

areas will be available to all potential bidders in a sale in which all lease terms-including lease 

duration-are publicly disclosed. 

BOEM opposes the requirements of Section 201, but would be willing to work with the 

Committee to review lease terms in relation to the challenges facing developers on the Arctic 

OCS. 

Section 202 amends OCSLA to mandate additional lease sales in the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, 

and Cook Inlet planning areas in specific years. OCSLA provides for a well-understood process 

for the Secretary to establish a lease sale schedule in consultation with affected states, while 

ensuring appropriate environmental reviews. The proposed 2017 2022 Five Year Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program provides for potential lease sales in the Beaufort Sea in 2020, Cook Inlet in 

2021, and the Chukchi Sea in 2022. The placement of the sales later in the program allows for 

thorough consultation with stakeholders and extensive environmental review. Inclusion of 

additional sales in earlier years of the next program would not allow for this critical collaboration 

and the corresponding analyses. Moreover, BOEM's current Five Year Program already calls 

for a lease sale in Cook Inlet in 2017. Scheduled sales in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea 

planning areas, scheduled for 2017 and 2016 respectively, were cancelled due to a lack of 

industry interest and market conditions. BOEM's current and proposed Five Year Programs 

provide for a leasing schedule that balances the needs of all stakeholders on the Alaska OCS. 

The BOEM does not support the requirements of Section 202 because it does not provide this 

balance and would not provide the time needed to complete appropriate environmental and 

socioeconomic impact reviews for the additional mandated sales. 

5 
181 


Insert offset folio 226 here 22000A.163

Title III -Federal Onshore 

Subtitle A- Authorizing Alaska Production 

Sections 301 through 306 of the bill repeal Section 1003 of the ANILCA, thereby, lifting the 

prohibition on leasing, production, or other developments leading to production from the Arctic 

NWR. Under the bill, the Secretary is directed to establish a leasing and development program 

specific to a 375,000-acre area in the coastal plain of the Arctic NWR. The bill defines this area 

as the "Undeformed Area of the Coastal Plain," and authorizes it as being open to oil and gas 

exploration, leasing, development, production, and transportation. S. 3203 implements a 

competitive lease sale process in the coastal plain of Arctic NWR, as well as, directives for and 

constraints on environmental analyses, consultation requirements, and environmental protection 

and remediation standards. 

Sections 307 through 310 of the bill permit the establishment of rights-of-way and easements in 

connection with the development within the Arctic NWR, clarify Arctic NWR boundaries, and 

establish the "Undcformed Area of the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance 

Fund." 

Analysis 

Sections I 002 and I 003 of ANILCA prohibit leasing, development and production of oil and gas 

within the Arctic NWR unless specifically authorized by an Act of Congress. Section 304(g) of 

ANILCA directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare, and from time to time, revise a 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for each refuge in Alaska. The CCP is based on 

guidance found in ANILCA; the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 

as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended; other Federal laws, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service Planning Policy (602 FW 1-3). Consistent with this direction, the FWS 

completed the Revised CCP and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Arctic NWR in 

2015. 

The 2015 CCP is the culmination of a multi-year planning and public involvement process, 

during which more than 800,000 public comments were received. It describes how Arctic NWR 

will achieve the purposes for which it was established, which include the following: To conserve 

fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity; to fulfill the international treaty 

obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; to provide for 

continued subsistence use by local residents; and to ensure water quality and necessary water 

quantity within the refuge. 

6 
182 


Insert offset folio 227 here 22000A.164

The CCP recommends approximately 12.28 million acres within Arctic NWR (including the 

approximately 1.5 million acre coastal plain that would be impacted by Title III of the proposed 

legislation S. 3202) for Wilderness designation by Congress. 

After careful review and consideration of the best available information, relevant issues, 

concerns, and public input received throughout the planning process, and other factors including 

relevant laws, regulations and policies, the FWS determined that Wilderness designation would 

best accomplish the Arctic NWR purposes and best achieve the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Wilderness designation ensures long-term protection of fish and wildlife habitat 

and provides subsistence, recreational and other opportunities in a natural environment while 

minimizing human caused change. 

The FWS manages recommended wilderness in a way that protects the Wilderness character of 

the area. In the case of Arctic NWR, areas recommended for wilderness designation will 

continue to be managed under the Minimal Management zoning category, as defined in the 

revised CCP and final EIS. Refuge uses and on-the-ground management would not incur 

substantial changes. The legal requirements of the Wilderness Act do not apply unless Congress 

makes a formal designation. 

Arctic NWR exemplifies the wilderness idea and millions find satisfaction, inspiration and even 

hope in just knowing it exists. The Arctic NWR represents the hope that one of the finest 

remnants of our national inheritance will be passed on, undiminished for future generations, 

including for traditional subsistence uses. 

The Administration strongly opposes Title III of S. 3203, which would require an oil and gas 

leasing program for the exploration, development, and production within the Coastal Plain of the 

Arctic NWR. This area has been recommended by the President to be protected in perpetuity 

under the Wilderness Act. Title Ill of S. 3203 would instead damage this nearly pristine, intact 

ecosystem at the top of the continent- one of the crown jewels of the public's National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Subtitle B -National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

Subtitle B directs the Secretary to offer one or more area-wide oil and gas lease sales in areas 

within the NPR-A identified as available for oil and gas leasing in the BLM's 1998 Northeast 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, Integrated Activity Plan (NPR-A IAP)/Environmental 

Impact Statement Record of Decision. 

The bill also directs the Secretary to develop a plan, within 180 days of the bill's enactment, for 

exploration and evaluation in the NPR-A of gravel sources suitable for the construction of roads 

and pads necessary for oil and gas development activities. Not later than one year after the date 

7 
183 


Insert offset folio 228 here 22000A.165

of enactment, the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, must implement the 

plan and submit the associated results to Congress. 

Analysis 

The Department currently offers annual lease sales within the NPR-A in accordance with a 2011 

directive from President Obama. The BLM has held 12 oil and gas lease sales within the NPR-A 

since 1999, with an upcoming sale scheduled for December 2016. This lease sale will include 

145 tracts covering approximately 1.4 million acres. There are currently 134 authorized leases in 

the NPR-A spanning over 895,000 acres. Of the 134 current leases, none is currently in 

production. However, in October 2015, the BLM approved a drilling permit and offered a rightof-way grant for the Greater Mooses Tooth One project, which is expected to come online in late 

2018 with approximately 30,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production. The BLM has also 

begun analysis of the nearby Greater Mooses Tooth Two project, which if approved, would 

eventually contain up to 48 individual wells. 

The Department does not support Subtitle B as it would reverse BLM oil and gas leasing 

decisions made in 2013 when the Department approved a new Integrated Activity Plan (lAP) for 

the entire NPR-A. The 2013 lAP replaced the oil and gas leasing decisions made in the 

referenced I 998 lAP. The 20 I 3 lAP makes I I .8 million acres available for oil and gas leasing in 

the NPR-A and identifies lease stipulations and Best Management Practices to be followed by 

authorized users. By utilizing the map specified in the I 998 lAP, the bill makes an additional 

1.28 million acres of land and water available for oil and gas leasing within the Teshekpuk Lake 

Special Area (TLSA). The 2013 lAP specifically identified these areas as being unavailable for 

leasing in the TLSA. Based on the National Environmental Policy Act analysis, these areas 

protect caribou calving grounds and insect-relief areas for caribou herds, as well as waterbird and 

shorebird breeding, molting, staging, and migration habitats. 

While the Department does not oppose Subtitle B's provision requiring development of a plan 

for exploration and evaluation of gravel resources in the NPR-A that are suitable for oil and gas 

development, we note that additional time would be needed to implement the plan given the 

short field season within the NPR-A. Providing for exploration and evaluation of gravel sources 

would be beneficial for future planning and development of the NPR-A. It should be noted that 

under current mineral material regulations, the cost of this type of work is covered by private 

companies that are seeking gravel and related materials to support private development of 

publicly held natural resources. 

Title IV - Mining 

Section 401 of Title IV provides Department of Energy grants for extraction and purification of 

rare earth elements. The Department of the Interior defers to the Department of Energy on this 

provision. 

8 
184 


Insert offset folio 229 here 22000A.166

Section 402 exempts from the relevant withdrawal or land management action any existing 

unpatented lode mining claim, placer claim, mill site, or tunnel site claim that was located prior 

to a withdrawal, Federal management regulatory action, or other action that withholds an area of 

Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the general land laws 

for the purpose of affecting mining or mineral activity in order to maintain other public values in 

the area. The bill provides that such a claim would be considered to be valid for the purposes of 

mining or mineral activity until such time as the Secretary successfully contests the validity of 

the claim. Furthermore, any burden of proof or costs would be the responsibility of the 

Secretary. 

Section 403 amends Section 1326 of ANILCA by restricting the Department from making, on 

any public lands larger than 5,000 acres, as of the date of enactment of S. 3203, a designation 

that "limits, or has the effect of limiting or impeding, activities and uses allowed on public 

lands." The bill provides examples of the application of this provision, including the designation 

and management of public lands as wilderness study areas, components of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System, critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Under the bill, such a designation may be made only 

after providing notice of the designation in the Federal Register and to Congress, along with a 

joint resolution of approval by Congress. Section 403 also revokes all ACECs that are in 

existence at the time of enactment. 

Analysis 

Section 402 appears to exclude any mining claims that predate a withdrawal from any law, 

regulation, or Federal action applicable to that withdrawal. The Department cannot support this 

section as it could be read to revise Federal minerals management across all public lands, and to 

remove pre-existing mineral claims, including areas within designated Wild and Scenic River 

corridors and rivers under study, from all Federal management. 

While the Department does not support the specific proposed revisions to the Mining Law, it is 

worth noting that the President's budget includes a legislative proposal for major revisions to the 

1872 Mining Law. We are encouraged by the Sponsor's interest in this issue area and would 

welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on updates to this law, 

which has not been substantially revised in nearly 150 years. 

The Department also strongly opposes the legislative changes proposed in Section 403 of Title 

IV. This section revokes all ACECs, which would be detrimental to the BLM's land use 

planning activities, undoing decades of effort and undermining a congressional mandate and 

public participation that has been honored since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act forty years ago. 

9 
185 


Insert offset folio 230 here 22000A.167

The addition of such requirements for designations that otherwise limit activities and uses on 

more than 5,000 acre areas would undermine the BLM's federally mandated responsibility 

(FLPMA Section 202(b)) to develop land use plans, including to: give priority to the designation 

and protection of ACECs; consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the 

availability of alternative means and sites for realization of those values; and weigh long-term 

benefits to the public against short-term benefits. Further, the BLM already notices special 

designations in the Federal Register, as they are identified in land use plans, which are published 

in the Federal Register. ANILCA already requires that withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more be 

noticed in the Federal Register, reported to Congress, and terminated within one year of notice 

without a joint resolution of approval of the withdrawal by Congress. S 3203 would similarly 

undermine the Forest Service's federally mandated responsibility (NFMA Section 6) to develop 

land use plans and the agency's associated collaborative and public participation processes. 

This section would also limit management of Wild and Scenic Rivers under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act and of wilderness study areas, many of which are managed for wilderness values in 

fulfillment of the conservation system unit's enabling legislation. 

While the examples given in this section are large in scope, Section 403 may also restrict shortterm, temporary, and emergency closures, such as trail or backcountry unit closures because of 

bear activity, closures related to law enforcement investigations, closures due to wildland fire 

fighting, and related actions. On many occasions, these closures could exceed 5,000 acres. 

Additionally, within the National Park System, the language may prohibit "activity and use 

restrictions" developed as part of a concession contract offered after the date of enactment 

(absent Congressional approval) if those activities were conducted on an area greater than 5,000 

acres. 

Title V- Forestry 

Title V concerns National Forest System lands. The Department defers to the U.S. Forest 

Service for analysis on this provision. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

10 
186 


Insert offset folio 231 here 22000A.168

Statement for the Record 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

S. 3204, King Cove Land Exchange Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (Department) with the opportunity to 

present this Statement for the Record on S. 3204, the King Cove Land Exchange Act. The 

Department strongly opposes S. 3204, which would irreversibly damage a critically important 

and intact, internationally significant wetland area in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge 

(Refuge) that is part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The Refuge, established in the 1960s, encompasses lands designated as Wilderness by Congress 

in the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In the Omnibus Public 

Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11, Title VI, Subtitle E) (Act), Congress 

authorized the Secretary of the Interior to exchange lands within the Refuge for lands owned by 

the State of Alaska and the King Cove Corporation for the purpose of constructing a single lane 

gravel road between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay, Alaska, if it is in the public 

interest. As directed by Congress in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of2009, 

Secretary Jewell conducted an analysis of the proposed land exchange that took almost four 

years to complete. 

The nearly four-year analysis on the effects of the proposed land exchange, including the impact 

a road would have on the Refuge's vital ecology and Congressionally-designated wilderness, 

culminated in a 2013 environmental impact statement (EIS) that helped inform the Secretary's 

decision. To complete the EIS, the Service conducted a public process that included over 

130 meetings with stakeholders, government-to-government consultations, and numerous trips to 

King Cove by Service and Department officials. The decision made based on the 2013 EIS does 

not preclude the State of Alaska, the Aleutians East Borough, or the communities of King Cove 

and Cold Bay from implementing marine or air alternatives for transportation improvements to 

improve medical access outside of the Refuge. 

The Department recognizes the concerns of King Cove residents about access to health 

care. Congress recognized these same concerns in fiscal year 1999 when they appropriated 

funds ($37 million) to improve King Cove's medical clinic and airport, and to purchase a 

hovercraft to provide transportation between King Cove and Cold Bay. The $6.0 million 

hovercraft was in operation from 2007 to 20 I 0 and it successfully completed every requested 

medical evacuation. The Committee language directs an all-weather year-round transportation 

route for the residents of King Cove, but the proposed road would not provide consistent access 

due to blowing and drifting snow, and avalanche risk. 

Given the concerns raised by King Cove residents, the Department remains committed to 

assisting in identifying and evaluating options to improve access to affordable transportation and 

health care for the citizens of this remote Alaska community. 
187 


Insert offset folio 232 here 22000A.169

Izembek Refuge is a globally significant area, designated as a Globally Important Bird Area by 

the American Bird Conservancy and designated a Wetland of International importance under the 

RAMSAR convention, one of only 19 such sites in the United States. The Refuge serves as vital 

habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl- including 98 percent of the world's population of Pacific 

black brant -as well as brown bear, caribou, and salmon. These species are important 

subsistence resources for Native Alaskans. A road would permanently bisect the isthmus, where 

most of the Refuge's 300,000 acres of Congressionally-designated wilderness are located. By 

designating this area as Wilderness in 1980, the most protective category of public lands, 

Congress recognized the need to protect the Refuge as a place where natural processes prevail 

with few signs of human presence. 

At the core of the areas protected are internationally significant eelgrass beds in Izembek and 

Kinzaroflagoons, as well as adjacent wetlands and uplands of the narrow isthmus. In addition to 

the brant, other species that depend on these wetlands and eelgrass beds include emperor geese, 

Steller's eiders, and hundreds of thousands of other federally-protected waterfowl and 

shorebirds. 

The effect of the bill would be to require the Department to enter into an equal-value (monetary) 

exchange oflands that would not provide the lands originally offered by King Cove and the State 

of Alaska. The lzembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange/Road Corridor Final 

Environmental Impact Statement evaluated a proposed land exchange that would have brought 

many more acres of land into the Refuge System (roughly 300 times more), yet the Department's 

analysis indicated the larger acreage could not adequately compensate or mitigate for the impact 

to unique values of existing refuge lands, nor the anticipated effects that the proposed road would 

have on wildlife, habitat, subsistence resources, and wilderness values of the Refuge that would 

have resulted had that exchange gone forward. Moreover, the proposed route for this new road 

would extend the Northeast Terminal Road that connects King Cove to the new hovercraft pad 

location into the Wilderness area of the refuge. The Northeast Terminal Road currently ends 

near the Wilderness boundary. The Service has observed all-terrain vehicle (ATV) tracks off the 

road to the Northeast Terminal onto undeveloped private land since it was built, and a 

corresponding increase in habitat degradation and wildlife disturbance. The Department is 

concerned that extending this road through the Wilderness area will lead to similar ATV traffic 

into Refuge land and the associated habitat damage and wildlife disturbance. 

The lzembek Refuge and its Wilderness were established to protect some of the most unique and 

important wetlands in the world, and running a road through those sensitive areas will have 

lasting consequences for Alaska's wildlife. We will continue to work with the State of Alaska 

and local communities to support viable alternatives to ensure the continued health and safety of 

King Cove residents. 

2 
188 


Insert offset folio 233 here 22000A.170

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 3273, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement (ANCSA) Improvement Act. 

Among its measures, S. 3273 amends ANCSA and other laws concerning Alaska Native issues 

and Alaska Native communities, including: Ukpeagvik lnupiat Corporation; Shishmaref; CIRI 

(Cook Inlet Region, Inc.); Canyon Village, Kaktovik, and Nagamut; Alaska Native Corporation 

Authorizations; a l3'h Regional Corporation; and Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC). In 

addition, S. 3273 includes two provisions concerning ''Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation" and "Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment 

Equity". After the brief introduction, below, a summary analysis of each of these individual 

sections follows. 

Background 

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 extinguished aboriginal land 

claims; entitled Alaska Native communities to select and receive title to 46 million acres; and 

established a corporate structure for Native land ownership in Alaska under which Alaska 

Natives would become shareholders in one of I 2 private, for-pro tit, land-owning Regional 

Corporations. Each Regional Corporation encompassed a specific geographic area, and was 

associated with Alaska Natives who had traditionally lived in the area, and each Regional 

Corporation received an acreage entitlement through which it could select and receive ownership 

of Federal lands. For landless Alaska Natives living outside the state, ANCSA authorized a 13'h 

Regional Corporation. In addition, ANCSA created more than 200 Alaska Native Village 

Corporations. 

As the Secretary of the Interior's designated survey and land transfer agent, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is the Federal agency working to survey and convey to Alaska Native 

Corporations title to the 46 million acres selected. The BLM's Alaska Land Transfer program 

administers transfer of lands to individual Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Allotment Act 

( 1906 Act); manages the 46 million-acre transfer to Alaska Native communities under ANCSA; 

and is also responsible for implementing the 104.5 million-acre conveyance to the State of 

Alaska of lands it selected under the Alaska Statehood Act. When the survey and conveyance 

work under the Native Allotment Act, the Alaska Statehood Act, and ANCSA is completed, over 

150 million acres, approximately 42% ofthe land area in Alaska, will have been transferred from 

Federal to state and private ownership. 
189 


Insert offset folio 234 here 22000A.171

The following sections of S. 3273 concern lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) through the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Section 3, Ukpeagvik lnupiat Corporation Sand 

and Gravel Resources (FWS); Section 4, Shishmaref Easement (NPS); Section 7, CIRI (Cook 

Inlet Region, Inc.) Land Entitlement (BLM); Section 8, Canyon Village, Kaktovik, and Nagamut 

(BLM); Section 9, Alaska Native Corporation Authorizations (NPS/BLM/BIA); Section 10, 

Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation (BLM); 

Section II, Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity (BLM); Section 12, J3'h Regional 

Corporation (BLM); and Section 13. Chugach Alaska Corporation Lands Study (NPS/FWS). 

Section 5, Shee Atika Incorporated, and Section 6. Admiralty Island National Monument Land 

Exchange, concern National Forest System lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The 

Department defers to the U.S. Forest Service on these sections. 

Section 3. Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC) Sand and Gravel Resources 

Section 3 ofS. 3273 would transfer all right title, and interest in sand and gravel deposits 

underlying the surface estate of land owned by the Ukpeagvik lnupiat Corporation and require 

mitigating measures by UIC to protect Steller's eider, a species of waterfowl protected under the 

Endangered Species Act as a threatened species, if development of those resources takes place. 

As written, the bill states: that (I) U!C shall continue to mitigate negative impacts on the nesting 

sites of the Steller's eider and (2) UIC shall not blast or use explosives during the active nesting 

season of the Steller's eider. 

The Department, through the FWS, is concerned that mitigation prescribed by the bill is 

insufficient to minimize the potential impacts to the Steller's eider. Specific approaches and 

plans for mitigation are not outlined or adequately addressed. No details of mitigation measures 

referred to in (I), above, are provided. so it is unclear how this would avoid, minimize, or 

otherwise mitigate impacts. Avoiding blasting in summer would reduce some impacts associated 

with road construction; but extraction and hauling gravel in or near habitat used for nesting or 

brood-rearing could result in the destruction of nests or disturbance to nests or broods. 

Not all impacts to Steller's eiders can be avoided and, therefore, the Department suggests that 

impacts can be mitigated, and future conflicts between development and conservation can be 

reduced, through the development and implementation of a conservation plan that conserves and 

protects adequate high quality nesting and brood-rearing habitat. The Department suggests the 

following language in the alternative: UIC shall mitigate the negative impacts on Steller's eider 

consistent with a conservation plan developed and permitted in accordance with section 

IO(a)(I)(B) of the Endangered Species Act. With these concerns in mind, FWS welcomes the 

opportunity to work with the Committee on the mitigation provisions to minimize potential 

impacts of the transfer on the Steller's cider. 

2 
190 


Insert offset folio 235 here 22000A.172

Section 4. Shishmaref Easement 

Section 4 directs the Secretary of the Interior to grant the Shishmaref Native Corporation a 300-

foot easement crossing the Bering Land Bridge National Monument, a unit of the National Park 

System, to permit a surface transportation route between the Village of Shishmaref and Ear 

Mountain, Alaska. The easement is to be jointly proposed by the ShishmarefNative 

Corporation, the City of Shishmaref, and the Native Village of Shishmaref. The bill deems the 

easement to meet all applicable requirements of Title II of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

The purpose of this action is to help facilitate the relocation of the Village ofShishmarefto a 

new location that is less subject to erosion than the present village site. The road from 

Shishmaref Lagoon to Ear Mountain would provide access to rock that would be needed if the 

Village is relocated to somewhere on the shore of Shishmaref Lagoon. 

As co-chair of the Coastal Erosion Working Group of the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, 

the Department is well aware of challenges created by coastal erosion in the Arctic and the need 

to improve the federal response to this and other climate-related hazards impacting Alaskan 

Arctic coastal communities. In addition, the Department in its fiscal year 2017 budget proposal 

included a $15 million increase across eight BIA trust natural resource programs to support 

preparation for and response to the impacts of climate change, including a funding set-aside for 

Alaska Native villages in the Arctic and other critically vulnerable communities in evaluating 

options for long-term resilience. 

Understanding that the community has voted to move the village, the Department also 

understands that no village site has yet been selected, the significant funding for relocation has 

not been identified or secured, and alternative and potentially more economical sources of rock 

have not been fully investigated. Construction of a road to Ear Mountain would be a significant 

project, costing $50 million to $90 million, according to the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, 2016. In addition, such a road would require an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any wetlands permit as well as for a right-of-way across the 

Preserve. 

At this point, the Department believes it is premature to grant an easement or right-of-way before 

it is known whether such an easement or right-of-way is needed. Moreover, existing law and 

regulation provide an orderly process for applying tor, processing, and granting access. At such 

time that it may be determined that surface transportation to Ear Mountain is needed, the Village 

can apply for a right-of-way across Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. If it is found to be 

necessary to develop access from Shishmaref Lagoon to obtain rock from Ear Mountain, rather 

than from other sources, a right-of-way could be granted under the authority of section Ill O(b) 

of ANILCA. 

Section 7- CIRI (Cook Inlet Region, Inc.) Land Entitlement 

Section 7 authorizes Cook Inlet Region to fulfill its Section 12(c) land entitlement under ANCSA 

of 43,000 acres by selecting from among several types of Federal land, including land located: 

outside the boundaries of Cook Inlet Region; within the boundaries of the National Petroleum 

3 
191 


Insert offset folio 236 here 22000A.173

Reserve-Alaska; within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska but not inside 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and outside ofthe boundaries of any national monument or 

unit of the National Park System. In addition, Section 7 authorizes CIRI to select land located 

within Cook Inlet Region that has been identified by the Federal government as excess to its 

needs, except lands addressed in 1425(b) of ANILCA, concerning the North Anchorage Land 

Agreement. 

Fulfillment of the land entitlement of the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) under Section 12(c) of 

ANCSA and subsequent legislation raises complex issues which the parties are diligently 

working to resolve. The CIRlland selections and entitlements have been the subject of specific 

legislation, a 1986 Memorandum of Understanding, as well as specific selection and conveyance 

procedures. Over the years, the Department and the BLM have worked with CIRI to interpret 

and implement ANCSA and to fulfill CIRI's land entitlement. Although there are sometimes 

differences among the parties, we have maintained a collaborative and productive working 

relationship. The BLM remains committed to continuing that strong working relationship. In 

2013, CIRI made re-conveyances to Cook Inlet Region villages, which provided an important 

measure of certainty with respect to CIRI's entitlement. This action did not all resolve issues 

relating to CIRI's entitlement. and BLM and CIRI are continuing to work together to resolve the 

remaining issues. 

The Department does not support Section 7 of the bill as we find it to be unnecessary. We are 

fully committed to seeking the conveyance ofCIRI's full entitlement in the most expeditious 

manner, and will continue working closely with the sponsor ofS. 3273, CIRI, and other 

members of the delegation. 

Section 8. Canyon Village, Kaktovik, and Nagamut 

Section 8 amends Section 14(h) of ANCSA to require the Secretary of the Interior to make 

specific conveyances to Canyon Village, Kaktovik, and Nagamut, and states that these three 

conveyances fulfill ANCSA entitlements. 

• Canyon Village. Directs the Secretary to convey 6,400 acres of surface to the Kian Tr'ee 

Corporation for the Native Village of Canyon Village, with the subsurface estate 

conveyed to Doyon Limited. 

• Kaktovik. Provides that notwithstanding Sec. 1302(h)(2) of ANILCA, the Secretary is 

directed to withdraw lands chosen by Kaktovik from within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS) and to convey the lands to Kaktovik. This provision addresses Arctic 

Slope's right to in-lieu subsurface estate. 

• Nagamut. Directs the Secretary to convey to Nagamut lands chosen by Nagamut that are 

within the NWRS that cover their original township(s) or land that is as close as 

"practicable" to the original township(s). 

The FWS has not had sufficient time to fully review this provision and assess its potential etTects 

to the Department's trust responsibilities. The FWS will complete its review and assessment as 

soon as practicable and will be happy to provide its views to the committee in person or in 

response to a question on the record. 

4 
192 


Insert offset folio 237 here 22000A.174

Section 9. Alaska Native Corporation Authorizations 

Section 9 amends the National Historic Preservation Act, Tribal Forest Protection Act, and 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to make tribal lands and private Alaska 

Native corporate lands equivalent for purposes of the three laws. The Department has significant 

concerns with this legislated equivalency. ANCSA corporate lands are privately-owned, and 

held in fee. Tribal land is held in trust. Expanding the scope of the Secretary's trust 

responsibility from tribal lands to corporate fee-owned lands is a fundamental shift that the 

Department has not had the opportunity to fully analyze and may have implications with the 

historical definition of "tribal land". 

The United States has a different relationship with tribes and with native corporations resulting 

in the development of separate policies. Executive Order 13175 requires consultation with tribes 

on a government-to-government basis due to the tribes' status as domestic, dependent nations. 

The resulting DOl Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes reflects this government-togovernment relationship. DOl Policy on Consultation with ANCSA Corporations defines a 

government-to-corporation relationship limited to consultation concerning federal actions or 

activities that "may have a substantial direct effect on an ANCSA Corporation." 

In addition to the Department's over-arching concern of expanding the scope of the Secretary's 

trust responsibility, this change is concerning due to the differing and sometimes conflicting 

purposes or priorities of tribes and corporations. For these reasons, the Department opposes 

Section 9 of the bill. 

Section 10. Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and 

Compensation 

Section I 0 would amend ANCSA to authorize the five Southeast Alaska Native communities of 

Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as urban corporations, 

entitling each, upon incorporation, to receive one township of land (23,040 acres) in southeastern 

Alaska from local areas of historical, cultural, traditional and economic importance. 

Congress specifically named the villages in the southeast that were to be recognized in ANCSA; 

these five communities were not among those named. The five communities applied to receive 

benefits under ANCSA and were determined to be ineligible. Three of the five appealed their 

status and were denied. 

Members of these five communities are at-large shareholders in Sealaska Regional Corporation. 

The enrolled members of the five communities comprise more than 20 percent of the enrolled 

membership of the Sealaska Corporation, and as such, have received benefits from the original 

ANCSA settlement. 

Recognition of these five communities as provided in the bill, despite the history and 

requirements of ANCSA, risks setting a precedent for other similar communities to seek to 

overturn administrative finality and re-open their status determinations. Establishing this de facto 

new process could create a continual land transfer cycle in Alaska. Although the Administration 

does not support Section 10 ofS. 3273 as written, we would be glad to work with the Committee 

5 
193 


Insert offset folio 238 here 22000A.175

to address these issues. The Administration believes that the completion of the remaining 

entitlements under ANCSA and the Statehood Act is necessary to equitably resolve the 

remaining claims and fulfill an existing Congressional mandate. 

Section 11. Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity 

Section II would amend two distinct sections of ANCSA, in an effort to provide access to lands 

tor individual Alaska Natives who do not meet criteria to receive lands under the Alaska Native 

Allotment Act, the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act, or ANCSA. 

Only Subsection (b) applies to veterans and their heirs. 

The 1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to convey up to 

160 acres of non-mineral land to individual Alaska Natives who could prove personal use and 

occupancy of these lands prior to the withdrawals for the national forests. Over 10,000 Alaska 

Natives filed allotment applications. To date, certificates of allotments have been issued to 

approximately 98 percent (over 13,100 parcels) of individual Native allotments. There remain 

pending approximately 280 applications under the 1906 Act, most of which will require the State 

of Alaska to voluntarily reconvey title to the United States government before a conveyance can 

be made to the individual allotment claimant. 

The 1906 Act was repealed with ANCSA 's enactment on Dec. 18, 1971, but ANCSA contained 

a savings provision for individual allotment claims then pending before the Department. The 

vast majority of the still-pending applications were legislatively approved by Section 905 of 

ANILCA following its enactment in \980. 

Section ll(a), "Clarification Regarding Occupancy ofNative Allotments in National Forests'', 

does not concern veterans. It amends ANCSA Sec. IS( a) and addresses claims to Federal lands 

that were withdrawn pre-Alaska Statehood for the creation of the Tongass and Chugach National 

Forests (1907). Sec. II (a) does not protect valid existing rights and conveyances. 

Section ll(a) ofS. 3273 affects a group of Alaska Natives whose applications: I) were pending 

at the Department on the date of repeal for the 1906 Act; 2) were for allotments in the Tongass or 

Chugach National Forests; and 3) which claimed ancestral rather than personal use and 

occupancy prior to the 1907 and 1910 withdrawals establishing the National Forests. Section 

11 (a) would override the 1983 Ninth Circuit decision in Shields v. United States. The bill would 

reopen and legislatively approve any application for a Native allotment in lands withdrawn for 

the Tongass and Chugach National Forests that was pending at the Department on December 18, 

1971, the date on which ANCSA repealed the 1906 Act. 

The BLM expects that enactment of Section II (a) would require reopening and approval of over 

I ,000 scattered inholdings within the two National Forests. Implications of Section II (a) for 

lands already conveyed to Native Corporations under ANCSA are uncertain. 

Section ll(b), "Open Season for Certain Alaska Native Veterans for Allotments'', amends 

ANCSA Section 41 to allow any Alaska Native Vietnam-era veteran who has not yet received a 

Native allotment to select up to 2 parcels of Federal land, totaling no more than 160 acres, and an 

6 
194 


Insert offset folio 239 here 22000A.176

heir to apply for an allotment on behalf of the estate of the deceased veteran. Sec. ll(b) does not 

protect valid existing rights and conveyances. 

Certain Alaska Native veterans of the Vietnam War may have missed an opportunity to apply for 

an allotment because they were serving in the U.S. armed forces immediately prior to the 1971 

repeal of the Allotment Act. The 1998 Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act (P.L. 

105-276) was enacted to redress any unfairness that may have resulted because of such military 

service. The 1998 Act authorized the Department to reopen Native allotment applications for an 

18-month period ending in January 2002, for certain Alaska Native Vietnam War-era veterans 

who may have been prevented from filing timely applications in 1971 because they were on 

active military duty at the time. 

Congress tightly restricted the time period for which applications were reopened in order to 

minimize effects on other pending applications, private property interests, and other government 

programs. During this time period, the BLM received applications from 740 individuals 

claiming a total of 1,070 parcels. Of these, about 70 percent did not meet the terms of the Act 

and were rejected. Certificates for 245 allotments have been issued, and just seven applications 

remain pending. The Vietnam-era Veterans transfer program is nearly completed. 

S. 3273 would allow Alaska Native veterans to select any vacant Federal land in the state of 

Alaska that is located outside of the TransAlaska Pipeline right-of-way, a unit of the National 

Park System, a National Preserve, or a National Monument. Thus, under S. 3273, available 

lands would include wildlife refuges, national forests, wilderness areas, acquired lands, national 

defense withdrawn lands, and lands selected by, or conveyed to, the State of Alaska or an Alaska 

Native Corporation. The bill would authorize compensatory replacement selections from 

appropriate Federal land, as determined by the Secretary, as a replacement for land Native 

Corporations may voluntarily reconvey for Native veteran allotments. 

S. 3273 would disrupt precedent under existing law and complicate settled land use arrangements 

under ANCSA and ANILCA, undermining the goals of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration 

Act to finalize land entitlements under ANCSA, the Statehood Act, and existing applications for 

individual Alaska Natives and Native veterans. In this particular case, the bill would also create 

inequities between Alaska Native Vietnam veterans and Alaska Natives and award land to those 

who did not serve in the military prior to the repeal of the Allotment Act. 

While the Department opposes Section 11 as written, we would be glad to work with the 

Committee on this issue to address our shared priority of equitable treatment of Alaska Natives 

through the Alaska Land Conveyance program. 

Section 12. 13'h Regional Corporation 

Section 12(b) authorizes the establishment of a new 13'h Regional Corporation under ANCSA for 

non-resident Alaska Natives. Previously, a 13th Regional Corporation was created under Alaska 

law as a private, for-profit corporation on December 31, 1975. That corporation no longer exists. 

The State of Alaska issued a Certificate of Dissolution on January 1, 2014. The Department does 

not object to this section. 

7 
195 


Insert offset folio 240 here 22000A.177

Section 13. Chugach Alaska Corporation {CAC) Land Exchange Pool Study 

Section 13 would require a study of the impacts on the value of Chugach Alaska Corporation 

(CAC) lands caused by changes in Federal law or Federal or State land acquisitions since 

December l, 1980, or just prior to the passage of the ANILCA. This section would also require 

examination of alternative forms of compensation that could be offered to CAC for conveying its 

existing property rights. 

As currently written, the study of the impacts on the value ofCAC lands would need to address 

any number of Federal laws that may have positive or negative effects on land values, including 

laws pertaining to wetlands or endangered species. In addition, there is likely little, if any, 

market data that would be relevant to demonstrating the impacts of Federal laws or of State or 

Federal government land acquisitions. Therefore, the study's results would be inconclusive and 

provide no reliable estimate of the impacts on land values. Such a study would have little, if any, 

value. 

A study of alternative methods of compensation for the conveyance of CAC subsurface lands to 

the United State or the State of Alaska could be completed. lfCAC is willing to convey its 

subsurface estate lands that lie beneath surface estate lands previously acquired by the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS), NPS, or FWS under the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill restoration program, the 

conveyance would provide permanent protection of those lands and be of mutual benefit to CAC 

and the United States. A study of alternative methods of compensation may assist in furthering 

that end. It should be noted that identification of alternative methods of compensation will not 

eliminate the need of appraising and estimating the market value of subsurface lands. 

The NPS has acquired approximately 30,000 acres of surface estate lands within Kenai Fjords 

National Park from the English Bay Corporation (an ANCSA Native corporation), and the FWS 

has acquired from the English Bay Corporation approximately 2,000 acres that are within the 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent to Kenai Fjords National Park. These 

lands overlay subsurface estate owned by CAC. At the time of purchase the NPS and FWS 

approached CAC about selling their subsurface estate, but CAC was not interested in selling. 

The USFS has acquired significantly more surface estate lands from ANCSA village 

corporations than has the NPS or FWS. Such surface estate lands, located within Chugach 

National Forest, also overlay CAC subsurface estate lands. For this reason, if a study is to be 

conducted, it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of Agriculture to take the lead in 

conducting the study. 

The Department would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee on clarifying Sec. 13. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill. The Department appreciates the efforts of 

the sponsors in undertaking a comprehensive bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act. We look forward to working with the sponsors to address the concerns outlined above. 

8 
196 


Insert offset folio 241 here 22000A.178

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

S. 3316, Advancing Conservation and Education Act 

September 22,2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3316, the Advancing Conservation and Education 

Act. This bill is a serious and thoughtful effort to resolve a long-standing problem facing 

Federal and state land managers throughout the West: the often conflicting needs of Federal 

agencies charged with managing lands designated for conservation purposes and of State 

agencies charged with meeting differing management mandates. Today's hearing is the 

continuation of a process to find common ground toward resolving these challenges. Senators 

Heinrich and Flake have demonstrated their commitment to finding a bipartisan and workable 

solution; the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) pledge to 

cooperate in reaching that goal. 

Background 

The lengthy history of America's westward expansion is complex. Much has been written about 

the story of the General Land Office and its successor the BLM, and the disposal of hundreds of 

millions of acres of public land through homesteading and other means. Ultimately, the passage 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) set a new policy to retain the 

Federal lands and guides the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mandate. This testimony 

focuses on the situation we find ourselves in today with respect to state trust lands, the 

challenges that it presents, and the opportunities we may find to resolve those issues. 

The admission of Ohio into the Union in 1803 marked the beginning of Congressional action to 

provide land to the individual states through their Enabling Acts. Beginning in 1848, new states 

tended to receive two sections of land in each township1

, generally sections 16 and 36. That 

increased to four sections with the admission of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico who generally 

received sections 2, 16, 32, and 36. When Alaska entered the Union in 1959 rather than being 

assigned specific sections, the provisions of the Alaska Statehood Act entitled the state to select 

over I 03 million acres of Federal land. 

Each of the thirteen states covered by S. 3316- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming 

has state laws governing the management of these lands. On the whole they are dedicated to 

providing revenue to benefit education and other state purposes. While the somewhat random 

disbursement of sections may have seemed logical in the 191

h and 20th centuries, today it has 

given us an ownership pattern of lands that makes management difficult and challenging for both 

1 The rectangular survey system was established by the Land Ordinance of 1785. It established a 

system of townships made up of 36 individual sections measuring one square mile. Each section 

is made up of 640 acres. 
197 


Insert offset folio 242 here 22000A.179

the states and the Federal government. These ownership patterns can also prove confusing for 

the many users of the public lands. 

Today, many of these state sections- nearly 3 million acres with over half of those acres in 

Alaska- lie within conservation units established by Congress and the President. Among these 

are state lands within national parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments, National 

Conservation Areas, and designated wilderness areas. While these conservation designations 

only apply to Federal lands within those designated areas, the ability of states to fully access or 

develop the resources of these inholdings may be limited. 

The BLM has the authority under section 206 of FLPMA to exchange public land with states or 

other entities if the Secretary of the Interior "determines that the public interest will be well 

served by making that exchange.'' Furthermore, FLPMA requires that all exchanges be of 

equally valued lands as determined by appraisals conducted according to the Federal Uniform 

Appraisal Standards. 

S. 3316, Advancing Conservation and Education Act 

S. 3316, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act, addresses the scattered nature of state 

land parcels in 13 western states by establishing a new mechanism for the states to relinquish 

state inholdings within Federally-designated conservation units and then allowing the states to 

subsequently select other BLM-administered lands within the states for acquisition. The 

Department of the Interior endorses the concept and would like to work with Senators Heinrich 

and Flake and other members of the Committee to reach this goal consistent with FLPMA, the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other important resource management laws. 

We believe that conversation must include not only the Congress, the states, and the BLM, but 

also tribal and local governments, user groups, and the public at large. While there are still a 

number of significant issues that will need to be explored, clarified, and resolved in order to 

reach consensus on a way forward, the Department generally appreciates several major 

improvements Senators Heinrich and Flake have incorporated inS. 3316 from a prior version of 

the legislation. For example, we note the addition of provisions regarding the protection of 

Indian rights and interests. Following are some major concerns, with the understanding that the 

Administration is continuing its review of this significant piece oflegislation. 

Valuation & Cost 

Equal value land transfers must be the cornerstone of any proposal. The Administration is 

committed to continuing its adherence to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 

Acquisition and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. While it may be 

appropriate to consider alternative methods for low-value parcels as envisioned by the 

legislation, we believe in general that adhering to existing FLPMA processes as much as possible 

is important. The provision in S. 3316 establishing ledger accounts is an interesting one that 

merits further exploration. 

The Administration appreciates that the costs of conveyances under the bill would be split 

equally between the state and Federal government. 

2 
198 


Insert offset folio 243 here 22000A.180

Lands Available for Exchange 

FLPMA establishes clear national policy that public lands should generally be retained in public 

ownership. However, section 203 ofFLPMA allows the BLM to identify lands as potentially 

available for disposal that meet specific criteria through its land use planning process. Such 

determinations are made after full public participation and are consistent with all applicable laws. 

Under FLPMA, disposal of the lands is discretionary and BLM must first consider local 

conditions and needs. 

S. 3316 specifies and prioritizes which lands the states may relinquish and which lands they may 

select. The bill defines "eligible areas" as Congressionally-designated wilderness; NPS units; 

units of the National Wildlife Refuge System; lands within the BLM's National Landscape 

Conservation System, including national monuments, National Conservation Areas, and 

Wilderness Study Areas; conservation units within the National Forest System; and areas 

identified in BLM Resource Management Plans as having wilderness characteristics. States may 

relinquish inholdings within these units and select public land in other areas to receive in 

exchange. The BLM and other land managing agencies- the NPS, Fish & Wildlife Service, and 

Forest Service welcome the opportunity to consolidate holdings in these special places. We 

appreciate that the "priority areas" for relinquishments under this version of the bill are more 

inclusive than an earlier version on which the BLM testified during the 1131

h Congress, and we 

would like to discuss the possibility of adding additional categories of priority areas with the 

Sponsor and the Committee. 

Likewise, we support flexibility on the selecting side within certain parameters. Focusing on 

lands already identified for disposal through the BLM's land use planning process should be a 

priority. Additionally, we believe a priority should be placed on exchanging out to the state 

unencumbered mineral estate where the Federal government is not the surface landowner, as well 

as areas in a checkerboard land ownership pattern and Federal lands interspersed with other 

lands. 

While the legislation places certain public lands off-limits for selection, such as lands within 

conservation designations and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, we would like to 

discuss other lands that we should consider limiting access to for selection. For example, the 

BLM has numerous developed recreation sites outside of conservation units, including 

campgrounds, trailheads, and designated off highway vehicle play areas. Taxpayer funds and 

user fees have been used to develop such sites which often receive high visitation and are 

popular with the public. 

The legislation also makes available for potential selection by the states lands with high mineral 

and energy development and transmission potential. This could include lands currently leased 

for oil and gas development, lands under consideration for future leasing, lands within 

designated Solar Energy Zones, and lands with existing mining claims. The appropriateness, 

cost -effectiveness, and viability of transferring each of these types of lands need to be considered 

carefully. For example, the wholesale conversion of existing mining claims to state mining 

leases raises any number of issues. Transferring lands with associated or developed oil and gas 

mineral estate raises issues of both valuation and protection of valid existing rights. It also raises 

concerns about potential cost and scoring implications of this legislation, given that these lands3 
199 


Insert offset folio 244 here 22000A.181

and particularly those with existing leases generate revenue to the Federal government that is 

typically assumed in the Budget baseline. 

Furthermore, these and many other issues deserve a careful public review. It is important to note 

that public lands selected by the states may already be in use for a wide variety of purposes, 

including grazing, hunting, fishing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Transfer to the states could 

have consequences for these users and uses. Incorporating the state selection process into the 

BLM's on-going land use planning process could help to avoid at least some of these conflicts. 

The President's FY 2017 Budget included a proposal to reauthorize the Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) which provided the BLM with an important tool to 

facilitate land tenure adjustments. FL TF A expired in 2011. Reauthorization would allow the 

BLM to sell lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use plans, and then to use the 

proceeds from those sales to acquire environmentally sensitive lands, including state trust land 

inholdings. We recommend that Congress move to reauthorize FLTFA. 

Timeframes 

The Administration appreciates that the timeframes included in S. 3316 have been extended from 

those of an earlier version of this legislation. It is important to both the states and the Federal 

government that any land transfers under the bill be undertaken with full public participation and 

thoughtful consideration. However, the personnel the BLM would need to process these land 

transfers are the same personnel currently employed in a wide variety of other vital land 

management issues, including oil and gas leasing and monitoring, as well as processing 

renewable energy and transmission rights-of-way applications, and land use authorizations for 

community needs to name just a few. Therefore, the bill's timeframes will necessarily have 

consequences for a wide variety of other users of the public lands. 

State Variations 

Not surprisingly there are issues to be considered inS. 3316 that affect individual states 

differently. For example, Arizona's state constitution requires that state lands may only be 

disposed of through auction to the highest bidder or by exchange with other governmental 

entities. This bill technically does not provide for exchanges, but rather relinquishment and 

selection. In Alaska. the BLM is continuing to fulfill its obligations to transfer millions of acres 

of mandated entitlements under the Native Allotment Act of 1906, the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971, and the Alaska Statehood Act. If passed as currently drafted, S. 3316 

could have the effect of dramatically slowing the pace of completion of these important 

entitlements. 

Conclusion 

The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture commend Senators Heinrich and Flake for the 

conscientious effort put into this proposal to date. We recommend continuing a dialogue to 

develop a solution that protects the interests of all the American people and the individual states. 

We hope that today's hearing is another step of that process and there will be opportunities for 

future conversation and hearings. 

4 
200 


Insert offset folio 245 here 22000A.182

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

H.R. 1838, Clear Creek National Recreation Area and Conservation Act 

September 22, 2016 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY on H.R. 1838, which would establish the Clear Creek 

National Recreation Area and designate the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness on public lands in San 

Benito and Fresno Counties in California. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the 

designation of the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness. By establishing a National Recreation Area, the 

bill seeks to expand recreational opportunities in the BLM's existing Clear Creek Management 

Area (CCMA), including in an area that has been identified by the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) as containing naturally occurring asbestos, a well-known carcinogen. This action 

has the potential to expose the public to increased cancer risks and is unsafe. As a result, the 

BLM cannot support the National Recreation Area provisions as currently written because they 

would prevent us from managing these lands to adequately protect public health and safety. 

Background 

The BLM manages approximately 63,000 acres of public lands in the 75,000-acre CCMA in 

southern San Benito and western Fresno Counties, California. The CCMA offers a variety of 

settings and landforms that host many diverse natural and cultural resources, and offers 

recreation and other multiple-use opportunities, including grazing. The CCMA also contains a 

30,000-acre area of serpentine rock containing naturally occurring asbestos. Until 1979, asbestos 

was mined in parts of the CCMA at the Atlas Asbestos Mine and mill, which is now a Superfund 

site. 

Since the 1970s, Federal and state health agencies have expressed concerns about how 

recreational use in the CCMA by hikers, campers, hunters, botanists, rock collectors, and OHV 

users disturbs soils containing asbestos and creates the potential for exposure to and inhalation of 

airborne asbestos-laced dust, increasing the risk to human health. As a result of this concern, as 

well as the presence ofthe San Benito evening primrose (a special status plant species), the BLM 

has designated this 30,000-acre area within the CCMA as the Serpentine Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (Serpentine ACEC). ACEC designations highlight areas where special 

management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historical, cultural, and scenic values, fish, or wildlife resources or other natural systems or 

processes; or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards. 

Based on the concerns for the health of recreational visitors, the EPA initiated a risk assessment 

study in 2004 in connection with the clean-up of the Atlas Asbestos Mine Superfund Site to 

evaluate visitors' exposure to airborne asbestos fibers in the CCMA. The EPA's Clear Creek 

Management Area Asbestos Exposure and Human Health Risk Assessment (completed in May 

2008) concluded that asbestos exposure for many recreational activities in the ACEC may result 

in excess lifetime cancer risks. The study noted that children are at greater risk than adults 
201 


Insert offset folio 246 here 22000A.183

because they are exposed to these high levels of asbestos at an earlier age. The study also 

showed that visiting the CCMA for a period of more than one day per year can put adults and 

children above the EPA's acceptable risk range for exposure to carcinogens and increase excess 

lifetime cancer risk from many typical CCMA recreational activities, including OHV use and 

hiking. 

As a result of the EPA study, the BLM implemented a temporary closure of the Serpentine 

ACEC in May 2008 to all forms of entry and public use in order to protect public health and 

safety. The BLM collaborated with the EPA, stakeholders, and the public to incorporate the 

EPA's health risk information into land-usc decisions for the CCMA. Through an extensive 

planning process, with full opportunity for public comment, the BLM determined that limiting an 

individual's time spent in the Serpentine ACEC is the most effective way to mitigate the health 

risks from asbestos exposure. Thus, the BLM limits high-risk activities within the Serpentine 

ACEC through its Clear Creek Resource Management Plan (RMP), which was finalized in 

February 12,2014. Under the management plan, the BLM allows for a range of recreational 

uses and other activities in portions of the CCMA. It also limits the types of uses and places time 

restrictions during which an activity can take place within the Serpentine ACEC to minimize 

asbestos-related risk to public health and safety. Specifically, the RMP strictly limits vehicular 

and pedestrian access to the Serpentine ACEC. The BLM will reassess recreation opportunities 

and travel management decisions if significant new information becomes available concerning 

human health risks from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers in the CCMA. 

H.R.1838 

As noted earlier, H.R. 1838 would establish the Clear Creek National Recreation Area and 

designate the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness on public lands in San Benito and Fresno Counties in 

California. 

Clear Creek National Recreation Area 

Section 3 of H.R. 1838 establishes the Clear Creek National Recreation Area, to be managed by 

the Secretary of the Interior. to promote motorized and non-motorized recreation, including OHV 

use, scenic touring, hunting, and gem collecting. Under the bill, the Secretary would open the 

CCMA to a variety of uses. including motorized recreation, mountain biking, hiking, hunting, 

and camping. The bill provides direction for developing a comprehensive management plan that 

would provide for these activities. 

While we appreciate the sponsor's work on new language from previous versions of this 

legislation clarifying that the Secretary may still close any area, trail, or route from use for the 

purposes of public safety or resource protection under a future permanent management plan, we 

are still concerned that the bill's provisions for interim management leave the agency's ability to 

close areas for the protection of public health and safety in doubt. As mentioned above, certain 

activities in these areas are currently limited for health and safety reasons due to the risks from 

the carcinogen asbestos in the area. Public and employee health and safety has guided the 

BLM's approach in managing the area, and the agency would like to work with the sponsor to 

ensure the bill provides adequate authority for the BLM to manage the recreation area, including 

tor the risk of exposure to asbestos, and on language addressing the significant potential risks to 

the public and employees. 

2 
202 


Insert offset folio 247 here 22000A.184

Even though section 4 of H.R. 1838 provides the BLM an exemption from responsibility for the 

public's exposure to asbestos while recreating at the CCMA pursuant to section I 05 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) 

(42 U.S.C. 9605), the bill does not reduce risk to the public; it only attempts to reduce liability to 

the BLM. As determined by the EPA, the potential public health risks are high in the Serpentine 

ACEC of the CCMA, especially with respect to young children. In addition, the BLM is 

required to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for employees 

working in a designated hazardous asbestos area within the Serpentine ACEC, as well as meet 

Federal, State, and local air and water quality regulations designed to protect public health and 

safety from uncontrolled releases of hazardous airborne pollutants. 

Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA), and the BLM's implementing regulations and land use planning guidance already 

provide for collaborative processes designed to involve Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

government agencies, as well as the public and local stakeholders, in the planning process. The 

BLM would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor on technical modifications to the bill 

to ensure consistency with these existing land use planning authorities. 

Joaquin Rocks Wilderness Area 

Section 5 of H.R. 1838 proposes to designate 20,500 acres of public land in Fresno and San 

Benito Counties as the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness. The core of this area- more than 7,000 acres 

-has already been designated for special protection by the BLM as an ACEC. The centerpiece 

of the proposed wilderness area is the three large sandstone monoliths, known locally as Las Tres 

Piedras, which tower 4,000 feet above the southern San Joaquin Valley. The rocks are home to a 

number ofraptors, including the prairie falcon and the majestic California condor. Vernal Pools 

at the top of the rocks provide important seasonal habitat, and are also an important water source 

for wildlife in this arid region. Rock art sites throughout the proposed wilderness attest to earlier 

occupation and may even include ancient astronomical references. The BLM supports the 

wilderness designation in H.R. 1838, and would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor on 

minor boundary modifications and mapping issues and on minor modifications to management 

language to be consistent with usual wilderness management language. 

Release of San Benito Mountain Wilderness Study Area 

Section 7 ofH.R. 1838 proposes to release nearly 1,500 acres ofBLM-managed land in the San 

Benito Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA) from WSA status. This small area does not 

contain lands that meet the basic requirements for wilderness. If the San Benito Mountain WSA 

is released from WSA status by Congress, it would be managed consistent with the goals and 

objectives and resource management actions for the Serpentine ACEC and the San Benito 

Mountain Research Natural Area, as described in the Record of Decision and Approved RMP for 

CCMA. The BLM supports this provision. 

Conclusion 

The BLM appreciates the work by Congressman Farr on H.R. 1838. Lands in the CCMA 

present complex resource management and public health and safety issues. While we support 

the proposed designation of the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness, we cannot support provisions in the 

3 
203 


Insert offset folio 248 here 22000A.185

bill that could increase the exposure of public land users and employees to naturally occurring 

asbestos. We would like to continue working with Congressman Farrand this Committee to 

address future uses at the CCMA, including the growing and popular activity of responsible 

OHV use in California and across the West. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be 

glad to answer any questions. 

4 
204 


Insert offset folio 249 here 22000A.186

Statement of 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

H.R. 2009, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance Act 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance Act. H.R. 2009 provides 

that 40 acres of land in the Tucson, Arizona, area are declared to be held in trust by the United 

States for the benefit of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Tribe); 13 acres are to be sold to the Tucson 

Unified School District (District); and the District is authorized to acquire the Federal 

reversionary interest on 27 acres patented under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. 

We appreciate the sponsor's amendment to H.R 2009, which addresses the concerns raised in our 

testimony ofNov. 4, 2015, on the bill as introduced. The Department supports H.R. 2009 as 

referred to the Senate. 

Background 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe's lands are located in Pima County, near Tucson, Arizona, and are a 

combination oflands held in trust by the United States and lands purchased and held in fee by 

the Tribe. The District has historically operated the Hohokam School on lands nearby and 

adjacent to the tribal lands. The District currently holds two parcels of land under separate 

R&PP patents totaling approximately 67 acres, in which the United States holds reversionary 

interests enforceable under the R&PP Act. This land consists of a tract of approximately 27 acres 

on which the Hohokam School currently sits and another tract of approximately 40 acres that is 

currently undeveloped. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) also manages an 

unencumbered tract of approximately 13 acres located between the two parcels patented to the 

District which have been identified as potentially suitable for disposal in the current Resource 

Management Plan. 

H.R. 2009 

H.R. 2009 declares that approximately 40 acres of land, designated in the bill as "Parcel A", are 

held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe on the day after the District 

relinquishes all of its right, title, and interest to the 40 acres. In addition, the bill authorizes the 

Secretary to convey to the District a parcel of 13 acres of currently unencumbered public lands, 

designated in the bill as "Parcel B", subject to valid existing rights and payment of fair market 

value. Also, the bill authorizes the Secretary to convey to the District the Federal reversionary 

interest in 27.5 acres of land, designated in the bill as ''Parcel C", previously patented to the 

District under the R&PP Act upon the District's payment of the appraised value to the 

Department. 
205 


Insert offset folio 250 here 22000A.187

Conclusion 

H.R. 2009 represents an opportunity to improve land use for both the Tribe and the District on 

these three tracts of land. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer any 

questions. 
206 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kornze. 

Next, we will turn to Ms. Weldon. Thank you for joining us this 

morning. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members 

of the Committee, for the opportunity to discuss six bills that are 

before the Committee that relate to the Forest Service. In my opening statement today I’d like to briefly address each of the six bills, 

and my written testimony contains more extensive comments and 

background information. 

Beginning with S. 364, the Southwest Oregon Watershed and 

Salmon Protection Act. This bill would permanently withdraw 

95,000 acres in the Smith River, Illinois River and Rogue River watersheds within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest from 

new mining claims, mineral leasing and geothermal leasing. These 

lands have exceptionally high conservation values and the Department supports this bill and the Forest Service has been working 

with the BLM on administrative withdrawal in aid of the legislation. 

With S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act, this bill 

proposes to withdraw over 340,000 acres of the OkanoganWenatchee National Forest from all forms of mineral development. 

The Department supports S. 2291 and believes mineral withdrawal 

is the best path forward towards upholding the tribal, traditional, 

spiritual and recreational values as well as the significant economic 

benefits of the Methow Valley to surrounding communities. 

With S. 3192, the Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act, this bill 

would name a currently unnamed mountain for conservationist 

Alex Diekmann in the Beaverhead National Forest. The Department supports this bill and this recognition acknowledgement. 

I’d like now to discuss the two Alaska-related bills, S. 3203, the 

Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act, and S. 

3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act. 

Both bills involve the Department of Interior so you’ve heard the 

comments related to those issues. I’d like to specifically address 

Title V, including sections exempting Alaska from the roadless rule 

and proposed land exchanges between the Tongass National Forest 

and the Mental Health Trust and directing the Forest Service to 

convey up to two million acres of Alaska State land for the use as 

a state forest. 

The Administration opposes the exemption of Alaska from the 

roadless rule. Application of the rule as ruled to national forests 

has not hindered approval of appropriate access and the forests in 

Alaska have requested and received approval for approximately 46 

projects within the inventoried roadless area since 2011, including 

hydroelectric projects. 

Section 502 directs the Forest Service to conduct a land exchange 

with the Alaska Mental Health Trust. The Department supports 

the goal of this legislation and has worked diligently and very effectively with the executives of the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

Authority to refine technical details of the exchange, and we hope 

207 

that this work will be considered as the legislation continues to develop. 

Section 503 directs the Forest Service to convey up to two million 

acres of the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska for use 

as a state forest. The Department opposes this section of the bill 

because conversion of these lands to state forest jeopardizes the 

values and benefits provided to Alaska by the multiple use mandate of the Forest Service. The Tongass National Forest is a major 

economic driver and contributes to a robust diversity of opportunities and jobs including 4,000 jobs resulting from the fisheries industry in 2014 as well as supports and enhances an over $1 billion 

in visitor spending to Alaska’s tourism industry. 

To briefly discuss two sections of 3273. Section V addresses consideration received by Shee Atika Incorporated for the purchase of 

Cube Cove land by the Forest Service. The Department does not 

have concerns with this section of the bill. Section VI directs the 

exchange of subsurface estate owned by Sealaska Corporation at 

Cube Cove on Admiralty Island for a mixture of subsurface and 

surface acres, surface estate, within the Tongass Forest. Although 

the Department agrees with the goals of this legislation, we believe 

this exchange should be completed using an equal value exchange 

following existing regulations and policies. The Department does— 

would like to continue to pursue resolution of the split estate land 

interest with Sealaska Corporation using our administrative processes. 

Lastly, on 3254, the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land 

Exchange Act, this bill proposes to exchange national forest system 

land for land owned by the State of South Dakota. The Department 

opposes this bill as it contains provisions that raise concerns and 

existing authority already exist for the Forest Service to exchange 

lands within the state. 

Thank you for the opportunity and would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:] 

208 


Insert offset folio 257 here 22000A.188

Statement of 

Leslie Weldon 

Deputy Chief, National Forest System 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

September 22, 2016 

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 

views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S. 346, S. 2991, S. 3192, S. 

3203, S. 3254, and S. 3273. 

S. 346, "Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of2015" 

The Department of Agriculture supports the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon 

Protection Act of2015. This bill would permanently withdraw 101,022 areas of federal lands 

with exceptionally high conservation values from new mining claims, mineral leasing, and 

geothermal leasing. A total of95,806 of the affected acres are located within the National Forest 

System on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRS). The remaining 5,216 acres are 

located on Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land on the Medford 

and Coos Bay Districts. The parcel proposed for withdrawal includes the watersheds of the 

North Fork Smith River, which is designated as a Wild and Scenic River, and Rough and Ready 

Creek, which is eligible for designation as a Wild and Scenic River and is a tributary to the 

Illinois and Rogue Rivers, which arc designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

In light of this pending legislation, and acting on the direct written request of the bill's sponsors, 

the Forest Service submitted a request to the BLM for execution of a five-year administrative 

withdrawal in aid oflegislation. This application was completed on March 13, 2015, and, on 

June 29, 2015, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management 

published a Federal Register Notice proposing a five-year withdrawal (80 Fed. Reg. No. 124, p. 

37,015). Publication of this notice initiated a two-year "segregation period" closing the land to 
209 


Insert offset folio 258 here 22000A.189

mining and mineral activities. The segregation and proposed withdrawal are both subject to 

valid existing rights and would not affect the approximately 1,680 acres of private inholdings 

that are located within this bill's footprint. 

The segregation period allows time for processing of the withdrawal application and completion 

of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. The Environmental Analysis (EA) 

considered several alternatives including a five-year withdrawal term and the EA was subject to 

a public comment period. The comments that were submitted indicated overwhelming public 

support for the withdrawal. 

More recently, the Forest Service has filed an application recommending an extended 20-year 

withdrawal term instead of the five-year term that was initially considered and modifying its 

purpose. Should the Secretary of the Interior approve this application, a new Federal Register 

Notice will be published and a new 90-day public comment period will commence. 

S. 346 also includes technical corrections to prior legislation that protected 17 miles of the 

Chetco River, which is a designated Wild and Scenic River. This river is knov-ln for its wild 

salmon and steelhead populations and is a vital economic, recreation, and ecological resource. 

The Department of Agriculture supports these provisions of the bill. 

S. 2991, "The Methow Headwaters Protection Act of2016" 

S. 2991 proposes to withdraw approximately 340.079 acres ofFederalland and interests in the 

land located in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest from all forms of mineral 

development. The Methow region is one of several areas on National Forest System lands across 

the country where the USDA Forest Service is analyzing complex and often controversial 

potential mineral activities. The agency anticipated completing the NEPA environmental 

assessment and making a decision during the summer of 2016 regarding a proposed permit for 

mineral exploration. However, through the public engagement process and subsequent analysis. 

several new considerations have surfaced, including tribal concerns regarding the impacts of 
210 


Insert offset folio 259 here 22000A.190

mining activity in the area proposed for exploration. The Department of Agriculture supports S. 

2291 and believes a mineral withdrawal is the best path toward mitigating any impacts to the 

ecological, cultural and economic significance of the Methow Valley to the surrounding 

community. 

8.3192, "The Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act of2016" 

This bill would name a currently uunamed mountain for renowned conservationist Alex 

Diekmann. The 9,765-foot peak is located 2.2 miles west-northwest of Finger Mountain on the 

western boundary of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, on the Beaverhead National Forest in 

Montana. 

The Department of Agriculture supports this bill. 

S. 3203, "The Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act" 

The USDA Forest Service will address Title V of S. 3203 in this testimony. The other titles of 

the bill are addressed in the Department of the Interior's testimony. 

Section 501 

The Department of Agriculture opposes Section 501, which exempts National Forest System 

lands in the State of Alaska from the application of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

(the "Roadless Rule"). 

The Roadless Rule protects and conserves inventoried roadless areas of national forests by 

prohibiting road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest in inventoried roadless areas. 

These activities have a high likelihood of altering and fragmenting landscapes, resulting in 

immediate, long-term loss ofroadless area values and characteristics. Notwithstanding the 

Rule's prohibitions, a road may be constructed or reconstructed, and timber may be cut, sold, or 

removed, in an inventoried roadless area under certain circumstances. Application of the 

Roadless Rule to national forests in Alaska has not hindered approval of appropriate access or 

removal of timber in accordance with the Rule. 
211 


Insert offset folio 260 here 22000A.191

The Chief of the Forest Service reviews activities planned in inventoried road less areas to ensure 

that the agency is applying a nationally consistent approach to implementing the Roadless Rule 

and that the agency is complying with its mandate to protect roadlcss area characteristics. The 

national forests in Alaska have requested and received approval for approximately 46 projects 

within inventoried roadless areas since 20 II, including, among other things, several 

hydroelectric and mineral exploration projects and an intertie project. These projects have been 

cleared by the Chief in a timely manner. Consequently, exempting the national forests in Alaska 

from the Roadless Rule is unwarranted. 

Section 502 

This section directs the USDA Forest Service to conduct a land exchange with the Alaska Mental 

Health Trust. The Department supports the goal of this legislation to preserve significant natural, 

scenic, and recreational values in southeastern Alaska communities through a land exchange 

with the Alaska Mental Health Trust. Since introduction of the bill, the USDA Forest Service 

and executives of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority have worked diligently to refine the 

technical details of the land exchange. However, the Department cannot support the bill as 

currently written. We would appreciate an opportunity to work with the Committee to make 

technical changes in the language to meet the objectives of the bill. 

Section 503 

This section directs the USDA Forest Service to convey up to 2,000,000 acres of the Tongass 

National Forest to the State of Alaska for use as state forest land. Alaska would pay market 

value for these lands, or convert lands selected by the State under section 6 of the Alaska 

Statehood Act, Pub. L. 85-508, as a credit towards conveyance of National Forest System land. 

The Department opposes this section of the bill. Conversion of these lands to state forest land 

jeopardizes the values and benefits provided to Alaska by the multiple-use mandate of the USDA 

Forest Service to sustain the health, resilience and productivity of the national forests for current 
212 


Insert offset folio 261 here 22000A.192

and future generations. It would also alter the balance struck in the Alaska Statehood Act, which 

limited the State's entitlement to lands within national forests in Alaska to 400,000 acres, which 

have already been selected by the State. The Tongass National Forest is a major economic driver 

in southeast Alaska. Its 17,000 miles ofundammed creeks, rivers and lakes provide optimal 

habitat for five species of salmon, which are critical to a seafood industry that in 2014 provided 

4,372 jobs with $259 million in earnings. The Tongass National Forest also is the largest intact 

temperate rainforest on Earth, containing a diversity oflandscapes, more than 70 species of 

mammals, 275 species of birds, and unmatched recreation opportunities. Visitors from around 

the world come to sightsee, flsh, hike, hunt, camp, view wildlife, and enjoy all that the Tongass 

National Forest offers, contributing over a billion dollars in visitor spending to Alaska's tourism 

industry and generating 6,923 jobs that provide $189 million in earnings. 

We have invested in collaborative approaches to better manage the forest, develop stronger 

projects, build public support for forest management and restoration, and reduce the risk of 

litigation. We continue to work collaboratively with communities, industry, environmental 

groups and others to supply wood to local mills, conserve watersheds, accomplish forest 

restoration, and provide employment and opportunities along with a range of other benefits. 

There are several collaborative groups currently engaged in large-scale landscape planning to 

develop an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest management strategy with 

an emphasis on young growth management, while providing the necessary "bridge" timber for 

the existing infrastructure on the Tongass National Forest. It is the Department's goal to 

continue these collaborative efforts towards sustaining a robust timber economy, while also 

leveraging the multiple other uses of this national forest. 

S. 3254, "Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange Act" 

The Department opposes the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange Act, which 

proposes to exchange National Forest System land for land owned by the State of South Dakota, 

because the bill is unnecessary and contains provisions that raise concerns. Existing authority 
213 


Insert offset folio 262 here 22000A.193

already allows the Forest Service to exchange land with the State. The land conveyed to the 

State would be used for public recreation and conservation, while the land conveyed to the 

United States would be administered as National Forest System land subject to existing grazing 

agreements. In this bill, the Pennington and Lyman County lands conveyed by the State are 

located within the Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands, however the Nebraska National 

Forests and Grasslands are not referenced in the bill. Also, the recreation goals expressed in the 

bill are already met through services that the agency provides on the Black Hills National Forest. 

In particular, the bill also would direct the Secretary to continue to allow grazing on the nonFederal land that is transferred subject to terms and conditions existing before the conveyance, 

including any existing leases, permits, or contracts for grazing; stocking rates; grazing fee levels; 

access rights; and ownership and usc of improvements. These requirements to manage lands 

subject to existing state practices would interfere with the Secretary's ability to manage these 

lands in accordance with other Federal law and policy and would lead to fractured management 

across the landscape. Finally, the bill would require that the value of the land to be exchanged be 

based on "agricultural value;' which is not recognized or defined as a method of land appraisal 

in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices nor in the Uniform Appraisal 

Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions with is the standard for land exchanges. 

S. 3273, "The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of2016" 

The USDA Forest Service will address Sections 5 and 6 of S. 3273 in this testimony and will 

work with the Department oflnterior to the extent that the Forest Service is affected by Section 

10 of bill. The other sections of the bill are addressed in the Department of the Interior's 

testimony. 

The Department of Agriculture generally does not have concerns with Section 5 of the bill, 

however we have a technical issue with the assignment of responsibilities that we would like to 

discuss with the sponsor. This section permits consideration received by Shee Atika Incorporated 

for the purchase of Cube Cove land by the United States to be treated as the receipt of land or 

interest in land within the meaning of section 2l(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
214 


Insert offset folio 263 here 22000A.194

(ANCSA) (43 U.S.C. 1620(c)) or as cash in order to equalize the values of properties exchanged 

under section 22(f) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 162l(f)). 

The Cube Cove land purchase is in alignment with the current administrative process where the 

Forest Service and Shee Atika Incorporated have entered into an Option Contract allowing for 

the United States to purchase approximately 23,000 acres of surface estate in Cube Cove from 

Shee Atika Incorporated. The contract identifies 13 segments that can be purchased over five 

years. The first two segments have already been purchased by the United States through the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is anticipated that the next 11 segments will be purchased 

over the next five years, provided the terms and conditions in the contract are met. 

This section directs the exchange of approximately 23,000 acres of subsurface estate owned by 

Sealaska Corporation at Cube Cove on Admiralty Island for approximately 8,872.5 acres of 

surface and subsurface estate and 5,145 acres of surface estate only within the Tongass National 

Forest. The Forest Service is pursuing this exchange under existing authorities to resolve the 

split estate issue where the Forest Service owns surface estate and Sealaska owns the subsurface 

estate. Although the Department agrees with the goals of this legislation, we believe this 

exchange should be completed using an equal value exchange following existing regulations and 

policies, including appraisal in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal 

Land Acquisitions. The Forest Service does not support this bill, and will continue to pursue 

resolution of the split estate and land interests with Sealaska Corporation using our 

administrative processes. 
215 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Weldon. 

We will now begin with questions for our second panel. 

Ms. Weldon, let me begin with you and this relates to the provision within the Alaska Economic Development Access to Resources 

Act relating to the Alaska Mental Health Trust Exchange with Forest Service. 

You have indicated that you support the goal of the legislation 

which we appreciate. You will recall that I sent a letter to Secretary Vilsack back in November of 2013, some time ago. At that 

time there was discussion about how we can move forward with an 

exchange and it involved various stakeholders supported by the 

Tongass Futures Roundtable. In his response back to me, the Secretary said that this was something we need to properly and 

promptly consider. 

This was something that was proposed back in 2007. It is now 

2016. We have got the agreement initiated, as I have noted. That 

is one step. You have indicated that you are supportive of the goal, 

and we need to work through some technical difficulties. 

What I need to know, what the people of Alaska, and specifically 

the people in Southeast and in Wrangell and Petersburg and Juneau want to know, is whether or not we can complete this exchange in a timely manner because Mental Health Trust is prepared to begin harvesting in areas that the communities are clearly 

concerned about. Mental Health Trust has said they have no option 

right now, and they have, kind of, put some fire under moving this 

legislation now. 

If they don’t see that it is going to move, they are going to move 

forward with the harvest. They have an obligation, a trust obligation, to the most vulnerable of our population under establishment 

of the Mental Health Trust. They feel like they have got their 

hands tied. 

I understand your words and I appreciate that, but I need some 

commitment from you that you will not only work with us in a collaborative manner, and I appreciate that, but work with us to get 

it done this year because otherwise I am afraid they, the Mental 

Health Trust, will move forward. They will harvest in these areas 

and the conveyance that we have been working on for so many 

years goes nowhere. Can you give me that commitment? 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you for your question. 

And yes, the commitment is clearly there and we’ve really appreciated the work that we’ve been able to do with the executive group 

with the Mental Health Authority as far as getting clarity around 

which lands as well as talking a little bit more about what is entailed with, for example, many of the parcels that may be more isolated and what’s required for analysis. 

So our goal is to work very closely and, to the extent that we can, 

expedite our ability to get the land exchange done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am concerned when we use the words like 

analysis and reviews because we know around here that stuff like 

that takes a long time. 

Again, there is a very specific timeline that the Mental Health 

Trust has given us with this. My concern is if we need to look at 

some practical steps that we need to address, whether it is changes 

in the scope of land surveying, ways to accelerate the environVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 022000 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A000.XXX A000
216 

mental reviews, ways to prioritize the tracks that can be conveyed, 

whatever it is its going to take to get this commitment moving. 

That is what I need to hear from you today, from the Department, 

that we are going to be able to resolve this so that, again, the people who are writing and calling me from Juneau and Petersburg 

and Wrangell, have some assurance. 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, and we will do our best to be as strategic and 

as efficient in moving through the process as possible. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, well, we are going to work aggressively 

with you. 

I will comment on a statement that you just made in your statement. In your testimony when you were talking about the Administration’s opposition to the Tongass Roadless Rule exemption, you 

say application of the Roadless Rule to national forest in Alaska 

has not hindered approval or appropriate access or removal of timber in accordance with the rule. You said that in your written testimony and then you just repeated that here. I just do not think that 

that is plausible. I do not think that is accurate, even with these 

five words as a qualifier. 

We had Alaska Electric Light and Power in Juneau several years 

ago. They waited months and, you know, we have got a very short 

summer season. They needed to get equipment off loaded to reduce 

trees that were growing within in their power lines because they 

needed to cross 100 yards of inventoried roadless to unload these 

brush cutters from a barge, and it took months to get that. 

Just this year Forest Service required helicopter installation of 

a power line between Petersburg and Kake because they would not 

allow for a road installation that would have reduced the cost of 

the project significantly because of the roadless. 

So, your statement, I think, really misses the point here. The 

Roadless Rule in Alaska has devastated our state’s timber industry. The rule currently prevents most activities on 9.2 million acres 

out of a 16.7-million-acre forest, 57 percent of the forest. By your 

most recent record of decision, it takes 2.56 million acres of commercial timber from the timber base. 

I find it difficult to even imagine that you can make the statement that it has no impact, that it has not hindered or delayed in 

any way activities. Believe you me, the people on the ground are 

saying that it does because they see it almost on a daily basis. 

Senator Cantwell had to take a conference call, so I will go to 

you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Director Kornze, as you know, the issues that would be resolved 

by the San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act have been 

around for a little while. If you look back at the mineral issues in 

the bill, they date back to 1964. The Navajo Nation is still waiting 

for land that they were promised in 1974. 

Can you talk a little bit about why the BLM sees this legislation 

as a better option than continuing to pursue legislation? 

I would also mention that we look forward to working with you 

on the pay-for issues. I think we have a path forward there. But 

if we don’t resolve these issues legislatively, what are the chances 

of a quick resolution through the courts? 

217 

Mr. KORNZE. Well I think Senator Murkowski just highlighted 

that things can take all too long. And if we don’t have a legislative 

solution for this particular place and the complicated issues around 

it related to preference right leasing, related to Navajo selection, I 

couldn’t even put a number on how many years it would take to 

unwind this ball of yarn. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Mr. KORNZE. And so, we are excited to see this resolved and also, 

we do understand that there are, there’s a solution in hand or 

nearby for dealing with the pay issues which has been the stumbling block for many years. And so, we’re pleased to see that come 

together. 

Senator HEINRICH. Well, we are excited about that as well. 

Madam Chair, I will just mention we have some letters that I 

will be seeking later to introduce into the record regarding this legislation from San Juan County, New Mexico, from the Navajo Nation President’s Office, as well as from the Navajo Nation Speaker’s 

Office. 

[The information referred to follows.] 

218 


Insert offset folio 271 here 22000A.195

August 16, 201!! 

The Ht:morable Martin Heinrkh 

United States Senate 

303 Hart Senate Office !lulldlng 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Heinrich: 

l 00 South Oliver Drive New Mexico 87410-2432 

Phooe: 334-948! Fu: 334-3! 6!1 

We write ln support of S. 2681, the San Juan Settlement implementation Act. We understand this bill 

would address a nvmber of natura! ~<!source issues San Juan County, New Mexko that have been pending for 

decades. S. 2681 would settle coal preference right lease applications that date back to 1964, provide a process 

for completing land <::onveyances to the Navajo Nation under the Navajo-Hop! land Settlement Act of 1974, and 

permanently protect the Ah·shi-sle-pah Wilderness Study Area, We also understand that these issues have 

remained unsettled for detad<Js and cannot be resolved without congressional action. Although we 

fun® mentally do not agree with designating Wilderness land that could impact the development of oil and gas 

producti!lll, we understand the dynamic of this unsettled Act. We also acknowledge that if this issue 

were to go to court, that the law as most likely be upheld. 

l!lre many western CGI.m!les, the l'ayment In lieu of Taxes {PlLT} program is of ctiticallmpoltance to our County's 

fiscal health. In San Juan Coumy there are currently 11,438 acres of public land ttlat are pending transfer to the 

Navajo Nation under the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1914, whkh will make those acres ineligible under 

the l'!LT program. the !!ill would keep 4,220 of those acres public ownership and establish a process for the 

Nation to sub;l:ltute other lands land settlement Because some of those substitute lands 

be lo pther counties, will keep more acres in San Juan 

However, notice of the importance that 

the United with abundant amounts of Federal land. 

be fully restored to counties. 

Additionally, we strongly support the provision of the legislation that makes any publlc land that is subject to a 

mineral lease or contract ineligible for selection by the Navajo Nation. 011, gas, and coal production are the life 

blood of ovr COUnty's and even State's ewnomy and this provision will ensure that production on existing leases 

will continue. 

San Juan County Commission 
219 


Insert offset folio 272 here 22000A.196

RUSSELL BEGAYE 

THE NAVAJO NATION JONATHAN NEZ 

The Honorabl<l Martin HtJnrlch 

United Sillies S<lnate 

303 Hart Office Building 

Washington, OC 20510 

S<lnator Heinrich: 

March 10, 2016 

1 appreciate your continued effon to resolve the sllltus of the Preference Right Lease Applications 

{"PRLAs") that have encumbered Navajo Nation selected lands within the Bisti Region in New Mexico, 

for over thirty years. This legislation will bring limlil)' to the Navajo Nation's New Mexico land 

scleetions thai were made pursuant to the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 (~Act"). It also 

elarifuls that the communities of Ramah, T ohajiillee and Alamo are part of the "boundary" of the Navajo 

Nation. 

The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation and Navajo Nadon selected lands in New 

Mexico andcr the Aet that overla!lj:led Preference Right Lease Applications held by Ark Land Company. 

The existence of the PRLAs prevented the conveyance of the surface and subsurface interests in the 

scdeered lands to the Nation, thereby severely limiting any realistic utili!)' of the lands. A 2001 Interior 

Bmlfd of Land Appeals decision subsequently precluded the Nation from deselecting lands. 

Your le11lslation will now authorize the ®selection ofcerlllinlands. We will work with your staf!' 

to ensure the bill includes a legal dcseription of the 4,ll0 acn,'S to be dcselecled m avoid any potential 

mlsinterprellllioo, In addition, the Nation is looking into areas !Or pn!ential re-selectlon and we may need 

m further address. Also, we are in the process of reviewing the maps and if we have concerns with the 

maps. we appreciate the npportunil)' to address any issues in markup, I would also like to ensure that the 

Nation be compensated at an equal value to the slllte with respect to payments in lieu of any monetary 

payment of a bonm in a Cm!llease sale or of rental or royalty. We would like to address this issue after 

introduction in bill markup. 

Thank you for helping tn end this long standing issue. I support your efforts and this legislation 

with the changes we would like to see in bill markup. We look forward to advancing and addressing any 

outs!llnding issues to help the people of the Navajo Nation and the State of New Mexico. 

Respectfully, 

~ Russell Begaye, President 

POST OFFlCE BOX 7440 I WINDOW ROCK, AZ 86515/ PH: (928) 871-7000 I FAX: (\128) 87141)25 
220 


Insert offset folio 273 here 22000A.197

23Ro NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL 

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER 

HONORABLE LORENZO C. BATES 

SPEAKER, 23'"' NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL 

November 2, 2015 

The Honorable Martin HeiQrich 

United States Senate ' 

303 Hart Office ~lJ,pding 

Washington, J:)C 2l!S:~O · 

Dear Senator H~lnrich/ 

I would li~~~o ~ll'P~~ss my gratitude for your contlnued support to bri~tQ il close the long 

runniJ;l~dispu~e~lioncer!,ling Preference Right Lease Application lands in New Mexicn. The 

legislati~n devel<:tpedl:.y you and your staff will allow the Navajo Nation to dose the land 

select~oJ;l pro~~s~ in,New Mexico resulting from the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 

1974 .. ,, ,,•' ' 

., 

The ~~~~~o~f{q~i L~nd SettfementAct.allo':Ve~~he Na\r'!I)~Nati1iln to select llutds ip}\l.ew 

Mexit~(~ P~tij~l fulfillmentofmaking the Nat)on whole frQm lands ceded (ottl;!e Hopi 

Tribe. N~'vajo Nation ~elected lands in New Mexico which'were encumbered• by 

Pre ease ARplications (hereinafter "PRLAs"). These PRLAsmeant tl;!at while 

the lan<ls ~ould be COI)Vej(~d to the Natl~n,the subsurface rights were 

s. -:,(-', \,·::F\,~, 

Your legl~l~'t~ Will~l1)'Y the l(a'!iWo Nation to finfl~l>;g~nf~ll title tq these lantt~. However, s!:l'l~e ~~;>re't;)l~n 30 yearsjtave pass~d sit!~ their selection t}ie le,gislation allows 

the Nation sel~other parcel~~hat may betferfit with the pytJutul'e ecw10mic 

development needS;fin?li}'Y~(l?il',legislationclears llpane~sential)itumbling block the 

Navajo Nation has hadyvith the Dt:Paltn'lelit of.Int~ri(jl' cqncerningthe baseline boundary 

of the Nation which deternt~nes what lands can be selected. The baseline boundary will 

begin from the Navajo trust lanl:[!i that comprise the satellite communities of Ramah, 

Alamo, and To'hajiilee. · · 

Thank you for your efforts to finally bring this long standing issue to a close. The Navajo 

Nation supports your efforts and this legislation. 

Respectfully, 

Sen~~ The Navajo Nation Council 

Post Office Box 3390 I Window Rock, Arizona86515 (928) 871-7160 f: (928) 871-7255 
221 

Senator HEINRICH. On a little bit of an item that is not related 

directly to the legislation in front of us today, I was wondering if 

you could quickly provide an update on the Sabinoso Wilderness 

issue in Northeastern New Mexico. The work that the BLM has 

been doing, and I commend you for it, in working with private 

partners to finally open this area to public access. 

As you know, this is literally the only wilderness area in the 

country that lacks legal public access today. I know there are many 

New Mexicans, especially from the Northeastern part of the state, 

that are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to go visit and hopefully 

see it open for things like hiking and hunting and camping next 

year. 

Mr. KORNZE. So we are excited to see this happen also, opened 

up to the public. As you noted, it is the only wilderness area that 

we’re aware of that does not have public access. A generous foundation and land trust have been working together to acquire an adjacent parcel, and I believe that has been executed. So we are looking 

at early, very early, in the new year to have our process completed 

to open up that public access. 

Senator HEINRICH. That is great news. 

Has the Department of the Interior had any discussions with or 

communication with Customs and Border Patrol regarding border 

security to the south of the OMDP area and what feedback have 

you received about the impact of this bill on their operations? 

Mr. KORNZE. So related to the Don ̃ a Ana bill, Border Patrol has 

weighed in and noted that it would give them significant additional 

flexibility so they seem to be very pleased with the legislation. 

Senator HEINRICH. One last question while I have got a little bit 

of time left. 

Since the establishment of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks 

National Monument it has certainly been a tremendous asset for 

the local community and small businesses. In particular, we have 

been, sort of, astounded at how quickly it was embraced by the 

small business community. A recent survey of local businesses in 

tourism-related industries showed that 20 percent of businesses 

had introduced new products or new services related directly to the 

monument and that 32 percent of them used the monument in 

their promotional and marketing materials. 

I am curious from the management perspective of the Bureau, 

what have you seen as far as changes in either visitorship or interest from the public in experience in the places that were included 

in the monument designation? 

Mr. KORNZE. So we have seen a lot of excitement in the community. As you noted, there’s a lot of businesses that have attached 

themselves to it in a positive way. We’ve seen about a ten percent 

increase in visitorship. We’ve got new signage out there. We’re 

completing a public process then we’ll have a plan for management 

in place. So, we’re pretty excited. 

The Green Chamber of Commerce has been very, very active in 

bringing additional attention, and I believe I saw numbers that 

they think nearly 100 jobs have been added in the community as 

a result of the designation. 

Senator HEINRICH. That is fantastic. 

222 

I know in September there is apparently ‘‘Monuments to Main 

Street,’’ a whole series of activities around the monument, getting 

people out into the monument for both educational and economic 

reasons. We certainly appreciate BLM’s work with the local chamber and economic leadership. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Daines. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Chair Murkowski and Ranking 

Member Cantwell, for holding a hearing on my bill, Senate bill 

3192, the Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act. 

This bill, that I introduced with my colleague, Senator Tester, as 

well as Representative Zinke, who introduced the House version, 

will name a peak in the Beaverhead Deer Lodge National Forest 

after Alex Diekmann. Alex was a resident of my hometown of Bozeman. Alex passed away earlier this year from cancer after spending 

his life work fostering meaningful conservation work, taking landowners, federal and state agencies across Montana as well as 

neighboring states and bringing them together. 

My condolences to his wife, Lisa, and his two sons, Logan and 

Liam. Logan is a graduate of Bozeman High School. Liam attends 

Bozeman High. That is also the high school that I attended. 

Thank you, Ms. Weldon, for the Forest Service support for this 

legislation as well. I appreciate that today. 

We know that in the West the land projects are not easy tasks. 

It takes special people to really balance the needs of landowners, 

of ranchers, of foresters, of local cities, of towns, county commissioners, federal and state interests, as well as allowing all these 

stakeholders to come together to benefit each other and to benefit 

our community, as well as our iconic wildlife in Montana. 

What will become Alex Diekmann Peak is pictured behind me. I 

am getting homesick as I look behind me. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

223 


Insert offset folio 0005 here 22000A.198
224 

Senator DAINES. One is a view looking into the Madison Valley. 

That is from the top of the peak. You can see the Madison Valley, 

in fact, the Madison River in the distance, a river I fly fished on 

in August and caught some great trout. It looks over a private 

ranch with a conservation easement that was facilitated by Alex 

Diekmann. 

The peak abuts the national forest, federal land. It also neighbors state property. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

225 


Insert offset folio 0006 here 22000A.199
226 

Senator DAINES. It is a convergence of an ownership pattern that 

Alex was intimately familiar with and synchronized in such an 

amazing way. 

The lines there show, you can actually see Alex Diekmann Peak. 

You can see state lands, private lands and national forest. In so 

many ways, this peak then really captures what Alex Diekmann 

was all about. 

That is why this bill is supported from Montanans from all walks 

of life. Our Gallatin and Madison County Commissioners, the State 

of Montana, the Montana Association of Land Trust, Sportsmens 

groups, many more ranchers, foresters, who knew and truly loved 

Alex Diekmann. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit my longer written statement 

in the record as well as letters and resolutions in support of this 

peak designation from our state, Madison County, where the peak 

is located, Gallatin County, Alex’s home area, and several others 

from mayors, sportsmen groups and others. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included as part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

227 


Insert offset folio 283 here 22000A.200

Statement for the Record from Senator Daines 

September 22,2016 

Thank you Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for holding a hearing on my 

bill, S. 3192, the Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act. This bill, that I introduced with my 

colleague Senator Jon Tester and Representative Ryan Zinke who introduced the House version, 

will name a peak in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest after Alex Diekmann-a resident 

of my hometown of Bozeman, Montana-who recently passed away from cancer after spending 

his life's work fostering meaningful conservation work with landowners, federal and state 

agencies across Montana and neighboring states. Thank you, Ms. Weldon, for the Forest 

Service's support for this legislation as well. 

We know in the West that land projects are not easy tasks-it takes special people to really 

balance the needs oflocallandowners-ranchers and foresters-local cities and towns--county 

commissioners, federal and state interests, as well as allowing all these stakeholders to come 

together to benefit each other, the community, and our iconic wildlife in Montana. Alex 

Diekmann had that talent-that's why this bill is supported from Montanans from all walks of 

life-Gallatin and Madison County Commissioners, the state of Montana, Montana Association 

of Land Trusts, the Madison River Foundation, other sportsmen groups and many more ranchers, 

foresters who knew and loved Alex. 

One of the areas where Alex spent a lot of his time-and fostered a lot of good work-is in the 

Madison River Valley-home to some of the best trout fishing in North America, access to some 

of Montana's iconic Wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and horseback riding, and also home 

to many multi-generation farming and ranching families-like Granger Ranch near Ennis, 

Montana-where the O'Dell Creek, restored to productive wetlands from arid farmland drained 

in the 1950s, which helps spawn the Madison River's trout, feeds into the Madison, and where, 

in recent years, state fish and wildlife agencies release Trumpeter Swans into their natural 

habitat. 

Then there's the Sun Ranch, which you can see in the photo behind me-taken looking into the 

Madison River Valley from what will now be Alex Diekmann Peak. This peak happens to be a 

point where federal land, state land, and private land with a conservation easement converge-a 

perfect place to recognize the complex land negotiations which Alex was so good at seeing 

through. 

Other projects include some in the Haskill Basin-outside of Whitefish, Montana-which helps 

sustain a log supply to one of Montana's oldest family-owned mills, Stoltze lumber, while also 

protecting watersheds that supply the city of Whitefish with its water supply. There are many 

more projects that Alex worked on in Montana and neighboring states. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit letters and resolutions of support ofthis peak designation 

from Governor Bullock of Montana, Madison County where the peak is located, Gallatin 

County, Alex's home area, and several others from mayors, sportsmen groups, and others. 

I thank you for considering this bill, thank you for the Forest Service for your support, and I hope 

we can pass this bill this Congress. 
228 


Insert offset folio 284 here 22000A.201

STEVE BUU.OCK 

GOVERNOR 

July22,2016 

Senator Jon Tester 

311 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator Steve Daines 

320 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

MIKE COONEY 

LT. GOVERNOR 

Congressman Ryan Zinke 

113 Cannon House Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Senator Tester, Senator Daines, and Congressman Zinke: 

Thank you for introducing legislation to support recognizing and remembering Alex Diekmann 

by designating Peak 9,765 south of Ennis, Montana, the "Alex Diekmann Peak" I urge 

Montana's delegation to bring Congress together in support of this proposed legislation. 

Alex's long career in conservation in Montana is remarkable. His efforts were central to 

conserving some of Montana's greatest natural habitats and our most beautiful scenery. In fact, 

Alex was responsible for the conservation of more than 50 distinct areas in Montana, Wyoming, 

and Idaho. These efforts ensured that over I 00,000 acres in the Northwest would be preserved 

for years to come. We can all be grateful for and proud of his many efforts to keep the Big Sky 

State untouched. 

Alex's conservation efforts are broad grasping areas such as Devil's Canyon in Wyoming and 

Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains. Not only these, but he had a significant impact on the protection of 

lands all across the Treasure State. He contributed to critical river access in Glacier National 

Park and he pioneered recreational trails and clean drinking water supply for the city of 

Whitefish. 

The life of Alex Diekmann leaves a lasting legacy for our state aud country, and will benefit all 

Americans for generations to come. It is my great pleasure to support recognizing Alex and his 

legacy by dedicating Peak 9,765 south of Ennis, Montana as "Alex Diekmann Peak." I 

appreciate your efforts to provide this recognition and my office is available should it be needed. 

Sincerely, ~ 

~;BULLOCK Governor 

STATE CAPITOL • P.O. Box 200801 • HELENA, MONTANA 59620-0801 

'ft.i;LEPHONE: 406~444-3111 • FAX: 406-444-5529 • WEBSITE: W\\'W.MT.GOV 
229 


Insert offset folio 285 here 22000A.202

affta 

AMERICAN FLY FISHING TRADE ASSOCIATION 

June 22, 2016 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

U.S. Senate 

320 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Daines, 

This past February, the conservation world lost a true champion to a long and heroic 

battle with cancer. Alex Diekmann's life was unfortunately shortened by cancer, but 

his legacy of protecting and preserving some of Montana's iconic and pristine 

landscapes will go-on, forever. Alex worked tirelessly to guarantee permanent 

conservation and public access to an array of landscapes across the west. but 

Montana was his home and without a doubt some of his most successful efforts 

were realized in the Madison Valley. As such, it would only be fitting that an 

unnamed peak in the Madison Range be designated as Alex Diekmann Peak. Alex's 

conservation and public-benefit achievements are directly tied to the currently 

unnamed peak, which shadows the Sun Ranch and the Madison River. I stongly urge 

you to support any efforts to honor Alex with the naming of Alex Diekmann Peak. 

Sincerely, 

Benjamin 

~~ Bulis 

AFFTA President and CEO 
230 


Insert offset folio 286 here 22000A.203

P.O. Box 158 , Whitefish, MT 59!!37 , {406) 863·2400 , Fax: (406) 863·2419 

June 14, 2016 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

U.S. Senate 

320 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Subject: Designation of Alex Dit·kmann Peak in Montana 

Letter of Support from the City of Whitefish, Montana 

Dear Honorable Steve Daines: 

It iR with great enthusiasm that I write to ask for your support in designating Peak 9, 765, located 

south of Ennis, Montana, as ".A.lex Diekmann Peak~~. Prior to his passing on February 1, 2016, I 

had the pleasure of working closely with Alex on a 3,020 ane conservation easement located ncar 

the Ciry of Whitefish, Montana. This landmark project, which Alex orchestrated, permanently 

protected the City's water supply while maintnining public access to rccreationa11<lnds. Alex's 

tenacity, leadership, and vision are the reasons why this important project came to fruition for our 

community, and I cannot think of a more appropriate way to honor Alex than to advance 

legislation to recognize his legacy through the naming of Akx Diekmann Peak. 

Over the course of Alex'l:' renowned public~intercst cnrcer, and before losing a heroic battle with 

cancer, he was responsible for the conservation of more than SO distinct areas in Montana, 

Wyoming, and Idaho, and securing for the future over 100,000 acres of iconic mountains and 

valleys, river, ranches, and farms, and historic sites and open spaces. 

Alex was a dear friend, t.:olleague, and mentor. He b llcscrving of thh~ recognition, and I urge 

Congress to recognize his ahiding impact on our western hmdscapcs in a formal and lasting way. 

Sincerely, 
231 


Insert offset folio 287 here 22000A.204

June 21,2016 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

U.S. Senate 

320 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

GALLATIN COUNTY 

311 West Main, Rm. 306 • Bozeman, MT 59715 

commission@ gallatin.mt.gov 

R£: Naming of Peak in Madison Range 

Dear Senator Daines; 

County Commission 

Joe P. Skinner 

Steve White 

Donald F. Seifert 

Phone (406) 582-3000 

FAX (406) 582-3003 

Please accept this letter of recommendation for the naming of a peak in the Madison Range south of Ennis, Montana, 

currently known by its elevation of S, 765 feet, Alex Diekmann Peak. The peak is approximately 7 miles from the Madison 

River, and straddles private land on the west side and public land on the east side. 

Alex Diekmann worked tirelessly in Gallatin County and other areas across the States of Montana, Wyoming and Idabo to 

conserve over 100,000 acres of land in an effort to preserve our fish and wildlife resources, outdoor recreation lands and 

the beautiful landscapes we all enjoy. This significant impact in the area of conservation is one worthy of this recognition 

in a formal and lasting way. 

Alex was truly gifted in this area. His community spirit, skills and commitment to conservation was unmatched. His desire 

to secure the future of the mountains, valleys, rivers, creeks, ranches, fanns, historic sites and open spaces resulted in 

repeated success despite many odds along the way. Alex was instrumental in the passage of two ten-million-dollar Open 

Space honds passing in Gallatin County which aliowed for significant conservation efforts in our valiey. 

In addition to the conservation of thousands of acres within the Gallatin Valley, Alex also alded in the conservation of the 

spectacular Devil's Canyon in Wyoming's Craig Thomas Special Management Area, crucial fish and wildlife habitat and 

recreation access lands in Idaho's Sawtooth Mountalns, along the Sabnon River, and the Canadian Border; and vitally 

important and diverse lands across the Crown of the Continent in Montana, including key areas like Taylor Fork within the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; critical river access and history at Glacier National Park; essential wildlife corridors in the 

Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem; recreational tralis and critical drinking water supply for the City of Whitefish; and beyond. 

Alex Diekmann's life and work leaves a lasting legacy that honors the traditions and the future of our state and will benefit 

all Americans for the zenerations to come. We urge you to work diligently to advance legislation to recognize that legacy 

through the naming of Alex Diekmann Peak. 

Thank you for your positive consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 
232 


Insert offset folio 288 here 22000A.205

Commissioners 

MADISON COUNTY' BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

P.O.BOX!?6 

David Schulz 

Ronald E. Nye James P. Hart 

V'IR6INIA CJ.Ti, .M.T 59'755 

April25, 2016 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

U.S. Senate 

320 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Daines: 

e-mail: madco@madjsgn.mt.gov 

www.madjspn.mt.gov 

Phone: ( 406)843-4277 

Fax: (406) 843-5517 

Recently, the Madison County Commission was made aware of a request to give name to a peak in 

the Madison Range south of Ennis, Montana. The proposed Alex Diekmann Peak (currently known 

only by its elevation of 9,765 feet) is about 7 miles from the Madison River, straddling private land 

on the west side and public land on the east side. The peak's western face sits within the Sun 

Ranch, and the top of the peak and eastern face are within the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Area. The 

creek cut valley to the north is known as Wolf Creek, and winds around the back of the proposed 

Alex Diekmann Peak. Once likely a great U-shaped valley it is now transformed into a streameroded v-cut. The relatively low-lying and undulating mounds are terminal moraines from the 

latest glacial activity tens of thousands of years ago. The view from the top of the peak extends 

through the Madison Valley to Ennis, the Tobacco Roots further north, plus the Centennial 

Mountain Range to the south. 

Various reasons make this request one of value. 

• Along with other Montanans who care deeply about our state's incomparable natural 

resource areas, we want to note our profound gratitude to Alex Diekmann - whose 

remarkable efforts were central to conserving some of the most significant and spectacular 

scenery, outdoor recreation lands, and fish and wildlife resources in Montana and 

throughout the Northern Rockies - and to urge Congress to recognize his abiding impact 

on our landscape in a formal and lasting way. 

• Over the course of his renowned public-interest career, before losing a heroic battle with 

cancer earlier this year, Alex Diekmann was responsible for the conservation of more than 

50 distinct areas in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, securing for the future over 100,000 

acres of iconic mountains and valleys, rivers and creeks, ranches and farms, and historic 

sites and open spaces. Alex possessed a truly unique set of gifts, and without his 

community spirit, tremendous skills, and conservation commitment, many of these places 

surely would have been lost. 
233 


Insert offset folio 289 here 22000A.206

Among the dazzling array of special landscapes that will endure thanks to Alex's efforts are 

the spectacular Devil's Canyon in Wyoming's Craig Thomas Special Management Area; 

crucial fish and wildlife habitat and recreation access lands in Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, 

along the Salmon River, and near the Canadian border; and particularly extensive, diverse, 

and vitally important lands all across the Crown ofthe Continent in Montana, including key 

areas like Taylor Fork within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; critical river access and 

history at Glacier National Park; essential wildlife corridors in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem; 

recreational trails and critical drinking water supply for the City of Whitefish; and well 

beyond. [NOTE: supporters should recognize Alex's broad array of conservation success but 

should focus especially on his impact on their own geography and/or resources.] 

Given the permanent, positive mark Alex Diekmann made all across the map, and especially 

given his extensive, successful efforts to guarantee permanent conservation of and public 

access to the natural wonders in and near the Madison Valley and the Madison Range, we 

strongly support the proposal to dedicate a currently unnamed mountain (known as Peak 

9,765) south of Ennis as Alex Diekmann Peak. Alex's public-benefit achievements were 

directly tied to this landscape, so enacting legislation to name this particular geographic 

feature would be an extremely fitting tribute to his memory and the contributions he made 

to us all. 

Alex Diekmann's life and work leaves a lasting legacy that honors the traditions and the 

future of our state and will benefit all Americans for the generations to come. We hope you 

will do what you can to advance legislation to recognize that legacy through the naming of 

Alex Diekmann Peak. 

During our regular meeting of April 25, 2016, the Commission made and passed a motion to 

support this request. Your consideration and approval of the request is greatly appreciated by the 

Madison County Board of Commissioners and many others in the Madison Valley and Madison 

County who feel this to be an appropriate way to honor the life of Alex Deikmann. 

Sincerely, 

h 'sU: ~l David Schulz, Chairman 

Board of Commissioners 

Madison County 
234 


Insert offset folio 0007 here 22000A.207
235 


Insert offset folio 0008 here 22000A.208
236 


Insert offset folio 292 here 22000A.209

MADISON RIVER 

-FOUNDATIONPO BOX 1527 ENNlS. 682 3148 

April 26, 2016 m din fo~a 3rl vt;r),, net \VV,'\'<\ mad is on rivc-1 ft)UI1--i<ltion 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

U.S. Senate 

320 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Daines, 

The Madison River Foundation strongly supports the proposal to dedicate a currently unnamed 

mountain, Peak 9765 in the Madison Range, as Alex Diekmann Peak. The Madison Valley will remain 

an important wildlife corridor and the Madison River is ensured clean, cool water due to Alex's 

conservation efforts. 

The impact of Alex's work here in the Madison Valley Is immeasurable. He worked to ensure four 

miles of public access at the Madison River's Three Dollar Bridge. His easement on O'Dell Creek 

helped to transform a degraded landscape into a jewel of Madison County. This wetland restoration 

continues to serve as a model today. Alex's work has resulted in protections on 6 ranches in 

Madison County comprising 23,000 acres. All of this work provides open lands for wildlife, water 

resources, and ourselves. 

There are countless other accomplishments that Alex Diekmann is directly responsible for in other 

areas- Devil's Canyon in Wyoming, Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem and Glacier National Park. Over 100,000 acres of the Northern Rockies is secure for the 

future because of Alex's tireless efforts. 

Alex Diekmann's life and work leaves a lasting legacy that will benefit all Montanans for generations 

to come. His community spirit allowed him to secure partnerships which funded essential 

conservation easements. These easements guarantee our spectacular scenery and wildlife resources 

will remain untouched for generations to come. Alex did this for the greater good, not for selfpromotion. 

The Madison River Foundation will honor Alex Diekmann posthumously with our 'Friend of the 

Madison' award this summer. Naming a peak in the Madison Range as Alex Diekmann Peak will 

honor Alex's legacy forever. The permanence of naming a mountain in Alex's name will be an 

extremely fitting tribute to a man who has made such an Impact on our landscape. 

Sincerely yours, 

Executive Director 
237 


Insert offset folio 293 here 22000A.210

llilt-rRoot, 

Lal!d:TI:UIII. 

HamiltOn 

Kanlkim 

lant!Trillll; 

Sand PW~t, 10 

Til<! CofulerV;Itlcin 

l'~nlf; 

M1$$oull! 

I'IVeV~I~ 

l<~ndTMt 

MISsqulll,, 

Flai~<Oifl, 

!-andTI\!111. l(a!ISpiiQ . 

MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF LAND TRUSTS 

June 6, 2016 

P.O. Box 892, H<!lena MT 59624 

Glenn Marx, Executive Director 490·1659 

Email: montanamalt@q.com 

WebSite: montanalandtrusts.org 

The membership of the Montana Association of Land Trusts is united and unanimous in ~s full 

support of a proposal to name an unnamed mountain peak in the Madison Range after Alex 

Diekmann, a revered and respected member of our private land conservation family, 

Alex passed away on Feb. 1, 2016, but his legacy will endure forever. His dedication to Montana 

conservation, his genius for complex conservation transactions, and his sheer determination to 

successfully complete those transactions enabled him to accomplish legendary conservation that will 

benefit Montanans for generations. 

Conservation of wildlife habitat and expansion of recreational access at Taylor Fork in the Galla lin 

Valley. protection of a municipal water supply and support of forest heallh at Haskill Basin in the 

Flathead Valley, and restoration and enhancement of O'Dell Creek in the Madison Valley represent 

the best of Montana collaborative and community conservation. Alex Diekmann's polse, 

professionalism and passion were essential in each one, 

Alex was a transactional genius. He was masterful at merging complex programs, funding sources, 

partnerships and projects into a seamless package that accomplished nothing short of miraculous 

results. He could have put that genius to work for a financial institution or business clients. Instead 

he put that genius to work for Montana and Montanans, for our landscape and our Montana 

mystique, and to inspire his contemporary peers and future conservationists to care for this special 

place called Montana. 

The entire membership of the Montana Association of Land Trusts fully endorses- and lends its full 

support to- the proposal to give one of the Madison Mountain Range's majestic peaks the 

honorable name of Alex Diekmann Peak. It is wholly appropriate that Montana salutes the incredible 

work of Alex Diekmann by naming a peak in his honor that can be viewed - with awe - from the 

restored banks of O'Dell Creek. 

Alex was not only a special member of the land trust family, he was a treasured resource for all 

Montanans, and he richly deserves the incredible and respectful honor of Alex Diekmann Peak. 

We, the Montana Association of Land Trusts, stand ready to assist any and all efforts in support of 

the congressional tegis!atkm to create Alex Diekmann Peak, We also stand ready to assist any and 

all Montana collaborative efforts to generate awareness for and support of this proposal. 

Thank you for supporting this proposed legislation and joining the broad coalition in recognizing the 

accomplishments of a man who literally changed the Montana map in compelling and wonderful 

ways that will benefit Montana as long as Montanans revere the beauty of Alex Diekmann Peak. 

Bitter Root Land Trust 

Montana Association of Land Trusts Board President 
238 


Insert offset folio 294 here 22000A.211

The Conservation Fund 

Montana Association of Land Trusts Board Member 

Penelope Pierce, 

Gallatin Valley Land Trust 

Montana Association of Land Trusts Board Member 

Dick Dolan, 

The Trust tor PubliC Land 

The Nature Conservancy 

Flathead land Trust 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation_ 

Mary 

Prickly Pear 

Montana Association of Land Trusts Board 

Member 

Kaniksu Land Trust 
239 


Insert offset folio 295 here 22000A.212

Montana 

Fi1h & WDdllfe Commi11ion 

The Honorable Jon Tester 

311 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

320 Hart Senate Building 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

113 Cannon House Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

June 9. 2016 

RE: Letter of Support oflhe Naming of Alex Diekman Peak in Montana's 

Madison Valley. 

Dear Senator Tester, Senator Daines and Congressman Zinke: 

We are writing as Montana's Fish and Wildlife Commission to support the 

Montana based effort to name an unnamed peak in Montana's Madison Range 

after the late Montana conservationist, Alex Diekman. Alex passed away this past 

February after a courageous battle with cancer, throughout which he continued to 

build broad-based coalitions to help conserve some of the most special Montana 

landscapes for future generations of Montanans and Americans. 

Alex Diekman was endowed with special qualities of personal character and 

natural leadership, and was a long-standing member of the conservation 

community with a kind heart and sound judgment that caused his tellow 

Montanans to seek him out as a leader of their choice for their conservation 

advocacy. As an employee of the Trust for Public Lands, Alex Diekman 

accomplished conservation successes in Montana such as the Three Dollar Bridge 

project in the Madison Valley, the O'dell Spring Creek restoration project in the 

Madison Valley, and 53 other conservation projects across Montana and the West 

that protected over 150.000 acres private and public lands for future generations. 

In his llnal project, Alex Diekman, despite his courageous and painful battle with 

cancer, continued to work to complete the protection of 23,000 acres of !brest 

land surrounding Whitefish, Montana. This project safeguards the drinking water 

for the residents of White!ish. Montana, supports sustainable timber management 

for the region, and provides public recreational access to the visitors of the 

Whitefish community. 
240 


Insert offset folio 296 here 22000A.213

Alex Diekman cared deeply about the public good, effective in his efforts to build consensus, committed in 

his service, thoughtful in his approach, and committed to insuring a future for Montana's fish, wildlife, and 

landscapes. One of Alex Diekman's highest priorities was to build the coalitions of diverse stakeholders to 

support conservation of Montana's wild places and to insure that conservation efforts worked for all 

members of the Montana community. 

Given the permanent. positive mark Alex Diekman made all across the map, and especially given his 

extensive, successful efforts to guarantee permanent conservation of and public access to the natural wonders 

in and ncar the Madison Valley and the Madison Range, we strongly support the proposal to dedicate a 

currently unnamed mountain (known as Peak 9,765) south of Ennis as Alex Diekman Peak. Alex's publicbenefit achievements were directly tied to this landscape, so enacting legislation to name this particular 

ge<Jgr·aphic feature would be an extremely fitting tribute to his memory and the contributions he made to us 

Alex Diekman's life and work leaves a lasting legacy that honors the traditions and the future of our state 

and will benefit all Americans for the generations to come. We hope you will do what you can to advance 

legislation to recognize that legacy through the naming of Alex Dickman Peak. 
241 


Insert offset folio 297 here 22000A.214

September 20, 2016 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

320 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Sent via email to: meglEUL111~J".i!19@ld_;J.in_es.s_e.na_te.gov 

Dear Senator Daines, 

As Chairman of The Western Landowners Alliance (WLA) I am writing to thank you for 

your efforts regarding the naming of Alex Diekmann Peak in Montana's Madison Valley 

and also to offer WLA's voice and support to accomplishing this worthy task through 

enactment of the Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act (S. 3192 and H.R. 5778). 

WLA represents landowners, ranchers and managers from across the western United 

States and is dedicated to sustaining working lands, open space, rural communities, 

and ecologically sound landscapes that maintain important habitats and species. 

Alex Diekmann's life and career stand as a testament to what can be accomplished 

when we work together, find common ground and dedicate ourselves to the 

conservation of lands and resources important to us all. Working as a Senior Project 

Manager for the Trust for Public Land, Alex was responsible for the protection of 50 

distinct areas in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, conserving for the public 100,000 acres 

of iconic mountains, river valleys, wetlands and creeks, ranches, farms and historic 

sites. These include Wyoming's Devil's Canyon, crucial fish and wildlife habitat in 

Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains and vitally important lands across the Crown of the 

Continent in Montana where Alex's legacy includes important conservation efforts 

from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to Glacier National Park. The special 

character and public recreation opportunities these protected places offer will remain 

intact, today and for generations to come, thanks to Alex Diekmann's unique talents, 

spirit, and committed efforts in the public interest. 

It would be a fitting tribute for Alex Diekmann Peak to loom over The Madison Valley 

where Alex had such a significant impact. There he helped to protect 30,000 acres of 

working ranchland and all the vital habitat and water resources they encompass. Alex's 

role in the remarkable protection of the Madison River's Three Dollar Bridge Fishing 

Area and its connection to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness via an easement through private 

land was immeasurable. Even in failing health, Alex remained dedicated to and 

engaged in The Madison Valley as an integral part of the team restoring O'Dell Spring 

505 466 1495 PO Box 6278, Santa re, NM 87502 lnfo@westernlandownersalliance.org 
242 


Insert offset folio 298 here 22000A.215

Creek and its associated wetlands. This project continues to this day and is seen as a 

national model for conservation via public private partnerships. 

Alex inspired everyone fortunate enough to know and work with him with his skill, 

passion, kind nature and dedication. The Western Landowners Alliance views Alex's 

legacy as a path that should be followed, and believes that recognizing his life and 

accomplishments by naming a mountain peak in his honor would be a long lasting 

reminder of both his accomplishments and the importance of collaboration to preserve 

the treasures entrusted to us for future generations. Accordingly, WLA enthusiastically 

supports swift passage of this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

/ / (_ 

/ 

~y{l--c::; ~ 

jeffrey A. Laszlo 

Chairman 

505 466 1495 PO Box 6278. Santa Fe, NM 87502 mfo@westernlandownersalliance.org 
243 


Insert offset folio 299 here 22000A.216

June 13, 2016 

The Honorable Jon Tester 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Senator Tester, Senator Daines and Congressman Zinke: 

On behalf of the Northern Rockies Advisory Board and Staff of The 

Trust for Public Land, we write to urge your strong support and 

leadership in the effort to re-name Madison Valley Peak 9,765 in 

honor of our dear friend and colleague, Alex Diekmann. 

Alex was dedicated, inspired, and determined in his protection of 

Montana's quintessential landscapes. This particular peak, 

overlooking the Sun Ranch- which Alex helped to protect-- and 

his beloved Madison River, is a fitting tribute to Alex's 

conservation legacy. Over almost two decades, Alex's project 

portfolio grew to include over 100,000 acres of our mountains, river 

valleys, ranches, and open spaces protected forever. He was a deal 

genius, creating win-wins for landowners, community parh1ers, 

and irreplaceable landscapes. 

We stand ready to work with you to advance legislation to name 

the Alex Diekmann Peak, so that present and future generations of 

Montanans can honor and be inspired by works. 

Dick Dolan, Director 

Northern Rockies Office 
244 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to commend Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member 

Cantwell for considering a series of bills here today dealing with 

the Antiquities Act. 

Director Kornze, many Montanans will be concerned about any 

national monument unilaterally created by the Obama Administration in my home state without input from local community and our 

state. 

Before my time here in Congress, President Obama and the Department of the Interior proposed designating the Northern Prairies as a national monument, which is land across what we Montanan’s call our high line. This would have been a unilateral decision done without Congressional approval and most importantly, 

done without including our farmers, our ranchers, our county commissioners, our local sportsmen, the Montanans who are most affected by this decision as part of that process. 

Any bill which has a potential to impact land management must 

be locally driven and not just spearheaded here in Washington. I 

can tell you that is how we do business in Montana, and that is 

how we bring people together versus polarizing them. 

Director Kornze, what is the Administration’s process for getting 

local land users and local governments on board with Antiquities 

Act designations? 

Mr. KORNZE. Well the Administration, you know, listens to communities. We listen to many stakeholders, you know, all Americans 

own our public lands. It’s one of the great virtues of this country. 

And so, we take feedback from people all the time on all sorts 

of different ideas. And so, we take that outreach. We visit with people. We go to the ground. We’ve been to many places around the 

country where people have asked us to visit, to hear first-hand and 

to see resources. 

Senator DAINES. Regarding that input, is that a statutory authority to get the input from local governments and land—— 

Mr. KORNZE. Statutory authority? 

I’m not sure, I mean, the President has the power to use the Antiquities Act. It is his alone. 

Senator DAINES. It is. But is there any statutory authority that 

would say we probably ought to have the county commissioners, 

local sportsmen groups, conservation groups, be a part of that process? 

Mr. KORNZE. I’m not aware of a structure similar to that. 

Senator DAINES. My point here, if the Administration is already 

consulting with local governments and states, would you support 

legislation to require state or government approval? 

Mr. KORNZE. I’m not in a position to suggest any limitations on 

the President’s powers. 

Senator DAINES. Well, you are representing the Department of 

the Interior here today and the Park Service is in charge of managing most national monuments. Why wouldn’t you want to see the 

local governments and the local groups there be a part of that approval process, particularly the state and local government? 

Mr. KORNZE. I think we have had very successful engagement 

with communities. I think things have been done well with some 

of the monuments that have been created during this AdministraVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:59 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 022000 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A000.XXX A000
245 

tion. And we have, you have seen a commitment from Secretary 

Jewell, from Secretary Vilsack, to have real public engagement. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. 

Mr. KORNZE. So. 

Senator DAINES. I would just respectfully disagree. I would be 

happy to bring you back to Montana. You might hear a little different view of your assessments being done well and opportunities 

to improve that process. 

Mr. KORNZE. So, is there a designation in Montana that you’re 

talking about? 

Senator DAINES. There is this, this goes back to that high line 

designation that I referred to that stirred up a lot of concern and 

consternation and they felt like—— 

Mr. KORNZE. I’ve not heard of that one before. 

Senator DAINES. Okay, I would be happy to chat more with you 

about that, but I know I am out of time. 

This is just a concern, and I will just say Alex Diekmann was 

one who brought people together. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yes. 

Senator DAINES. As we say in Montana, we are a blend of Merle 

Haggard and John Denver, and we would like to bring those two 

melodies together—— 

Mr. KORNZE. Do they really say that? 

Senator DAINES. Come back and I will show you that. 

Mr. KORNZE. That would be great. 

Senator DAINES. Montana. 

But anyway, I am out of time, and thanks for your time here, 

Director Kornze. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator Daines is a good friend. I am not going to try singing to 

try the fact that he has made a very good analogy. [Laughter.] 

Madam Chair, my thanks to you and to Senator Cantwell for including our bill, the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act, this morning. 

Mr. Kornze, Ms. Weldon, it is great to see you both here. We 

have worked often with you and know of your good work. 

I want to talk briefly about the Southwest Oregon Watershed 

and Salmon Protection Act. The land surrounding Rough and 

Ready Baldface Creeks have some of the most exceptional, ecological values in Oregon. The streams are not only vitally important, 

the salmon runs, but they provide the drinking water supply for 

several nearby communities. Keeping the area free from new mining is essential to ensuring clean water, healthy habitats and ecosystems and the protection of valued recreation areas. 

What we are talking about, Mr. Kornze and I have had lots of 

conversations on this topic over the years because there is always 

confusion. We are talking about limits on new mining. We are not 

talking about affecting existing, valid rights. 

I know that when you get into these kinds of issues in our part 

of the world, as we have seen so often, stuff sort of gets lost in the 

translation. But we are talking about nothing that would affect existing, valid rights. 

246 

We have been working on this legislation, practically since the 

days when I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. I mean, 

we have been trying to protect this landscape from mining since 

the 1990s. 

Over the years public opposition to this kind of strip mining has 

really grown tremendously and the withdrawal now has the overwhelming support from the local communities interested in protecting the lands and the rivers they love. 

To their credit, the Administration has recognized the significance of the area. We are pleased that the Bureau of Land Management is moving forward with an administrative withdrawal of 

this exceptional area. 

I would just make one request. Ms. Weldon, I guess I am going 

to spare you this morning. You and I have had lots of questions 

over the years here in this room. 

Just one point for you to take away, Director Kornze. I know the 

agency, the BLM, and the Forest Service have been working together on that five-year administrative mineral withdrawal. I will 

tell you that 600 plus comments that we heard at our public hearings, at your public hearings, virtually everyone asked for a twenty-year or a permanent withdrawal. 

So my request is, and as I say, I appreciate the Chair’s courtesy 

here, I hope that you all will consider what the folks said, overwhelmingly, at these community meetings. If you want to you can 

just respond in writing and give us a sense of process. 

[The information referred to was not received as of the time of 

printing.] 

Senator WYDEN. But Director Kornze, we have worked closely 

with you for many years. We appreciate your professionalism. 

Ms. Weldon, you as well, and thank you for the good work you 

are doing. 

As my Western colleagues know, we have got only Westerners in 

the room. How fitting. Public lands issues in the West are not for 

the faint-hearted. These are issues that generate a great deal of 

passion, and we appreciate your professionalism and look forward 

to working with you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Director Kornze and Deputy Chief Weldon, for being 

here this morning. 

Again, thank you Chairman, for putting S. 3312 on the agenda 

this morning, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act. I do 

have several letters of support that I would ask unanimous consent 

be put into the record. 

One is from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment supporting the extension of the reauthorization of this 

uranium mill tailings disposal site. This is a site that is responsible 

for taking care of mill tailings that were used in road construction 

projects during the height of the Cold War from Colorado as well 

as from Utah and Arizona. I believe, Senator Lee, it is Monticello, 

not Montichello, Utah that receives some of these tailings from and 

this would extend it to 2048. 

247 

The second letter would be from the Mesa County Commissioners 

and thank you for that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

248 


Insert offset folio 309 here 22000A.217

COLORADO 

Dedicated to protecting and 1mproving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

September 20, 2016 

Re: Support for the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2016 (extending the authorization of the 

Grand Junction disposal ceH (also known as the Cheney disposal cell) in Mesa County, Colorado) 

Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell: 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment supports the Responsible Disposal 

Reauthorization Act of 2016, which extends the authorization of the Cheney disposal ceH outside of Grand 

Junction, in Mesa County, Colorado until September 30, 2048. 

The disposal cell currently receives uranium milt tailings waste from mHl sites and vicinity properties 

located in Colorado. Each year approximately 2700 cubic yards of uranium mill tailings are deposited in 

the disposal celL Given that this is the only Department of Energy uranium milt tailings disposal site left 

in the country, it is critical that this facility remains open to receive and dispose of the uranium mill 

tailings that are discovered in our communities. This action will ensure the continued protection of 

human health and the environment. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment and voice our support for this important legislation. 

~cerety,~ 

~p: 

Executive Director and Chief Medica! Officer 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246 

4300 Cherry Creek DriveS., Denver, CO 80246·1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Larry Walk, MD, MSPH, Executive D1rector and Ch1ef MedJCal Officer 
249 


Insert offset folio 310 here 22000A.218

MESA 

COUNTY 

COLORADO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 

District 1 -John Justman 970-244-1605 

District2- Scott Mcinnis 970-244-1604 

District3- Rose Pugliese 970-244-1606 

P.O. Box 20,000 544 Rood Avenue Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5010 mcbocc@mesacounty.us Fax (970) 244-1639 

September 19, 2016 

Senator Cory Gardner 

United States Senate 

400 Rood Ave., Federal 

Building Ste. 220 

Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 

Re: Extending the authorization of the Mesa County Uranium Mill Tailings disposal site (Cheney 

Repository) in Mesa County 

Dear Senator Gardner: 

The Mesa County Board of Commissioners ("BOCC") supports the proposal to extend the authorization 

of the Mesa County Uranium Mill Tailings disposal site until September 30, 2048. 

The site provides a place to properly control and dispose of residual radioactive material from inactive 

uranium processing sites so as to protect the public health, safety and welfare from the potential 

harmful effects of such materials. The continued operation of this site is important as we continue to 

have a need to dispose of these materials as they are identffied in the community as part of building 

activities. 

The BOCC has a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Energy that 

formalizes the protocol for the Department of Energy to provide meaningful consultation with and 

participation of the County in the Department's utilization of the Cheney Repository. 

We thank you for this opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Rose Pugliese, Chair ~ John Justman 

Board of County Commissioners Commissioner 

75 

Scott Mcinnis 

Commissioner 
250 

Senator GARDNER. I would also ask for permission to insert two 

newspaper articles to the record as well. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

251 


Insert offset folio 0009 here 22000A.219

Tipton wants to extend life of radioactive waste 

disposal site 

By Gary Hannon 

Frida}. Scptemher 16.2016 

The U.S. Department of Energy's Grand Junction Disposal Cell near Whitewater would continue accepting low-level radioactive waste 

until 2048, under legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo 

The Mesa County Commission on Monday is scheduled to consider a resolution of support for Tipton's measure. 

The site is scheduled to close in 2023, but public health officials sought help to keep it open to accept uranium mill tailings from other 

Colorado sites in which uranium mills operated during the Cold War. 

The Grand Junction site "is the only cell still open and receiving waste from the ongoing cleanup of uranium mill tailings," said April Gil. 

a manager at the Grand Junction office of the Energy Department, adding that legislation "is important to ensure the continued safe 

disposal of the waste." 

Most of those sites have already been cleaned up, "but from time to time mm tailings will be uncovered during road construction and 

redevelopment programs," Tipton said in a statement. "The repository in Grand Junction is the only DOE facility authorized to accept 

these mill tailings once they are discovered." 

The Energy Department completed what was known as the vicinity-property cleanup of structures contaminated with tailings in 1998, 

but the agency kept the disposal site open for materia! from other sites. 

The Grand Junction cell receives approximately 2,700 cubic yards of waste annually from Grand Junction and Durango, as well as 

Monticello, Utah, and Tuba City, Arizona 

The cell was constructed in 1990 and now contains nearly 4.5 minion cubic yards of the tailings, a low-level radioactive material that 

had been used in the construction of buildings, sidewalks, pipes and several other structures, including children's play areas. 

The cell has room for 235,000 cubic yards of waste. 

The material was a fine sand left over from the process of milling uranium into yellowcake. 

The disposal cell was bul!t on an areas known as Cheney Reservoir, named for a Whitewater-area rancher and not for Richard B. 

Cheney, who was elected vice president in 2000. 

There is no public access to the site about 18 m!les southeast of Grand Junction. 
252 


Insert offset folio 00010 here 22000A.220

County backs keeping tailings dump site open 

By Gary Harmon 

Monday. September !9, 2016 

Identical measures to extend the life of the Grand Junction Disposal Cell for tow-level radioactive wastes are now before Congress, 

both with the support of the Mesa County Commission. 

The commission on Monday approved !etters of support for a measure carried by U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton and a companion bill by U.S. 

Sen. Cory Gardner, both Colorado Republicans. 

The measures would extend until 2048 the ability of the U.S. Department of Energy to operate the cell, which was constructed in 1990 

to contain the material collected during a cleanup of homes, businesses and other buildings constructed with mil! tailings. 

Tailings, as the material was known, was the fine, sandy remains of rock crushed in the process of milling uranium. 

The cell, located about 18 miles southeast of Grand Junction, now contains nearly 4.5 million cubic yards of contaminated materiaL The 

cell has room for another 235,000 cubic yards of waste. 

State officials now respond to some 200 inquiries per year about tailings that still remain in the Grand Valley, said Pete Baier, deputy 

administrator for operations. Three Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment employees deal with tailings·related 

inquiries, he said. 

If the cell were to be closed, the nearest disposal facility would be in Clive, Utah, and transferring contaminated material there would be 

prohibitively expensive, especially for homeowners or private businesses, Commissioner Scott Mcinnis said. 

The federal government covers cleanup costs for local governments and other organizations and it should do the same for individuals, 

resident Janet Johnson said. 

The commission should condition its support for the legislation with requests for such support, Johnson said. 

Contaminated material should not be brought in from other areas of the country to the Grand Junction cell, she said. 

"It's good to keep it open, but it's good to keep it restricted to our region," she said. 
253 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, Director Kornze, I think conversations we have had on 

this dais about the Antiquities Act continue to be a question that 

I receive back home meeting with county commissioners in Southwestern Colorado and other places. 

Secretary Jewell was here before the Committee earlier this year 

talking about national park issues, Department of the Interior 

issues. One of the questions that I asked her was whether or not 

she was aware of any more Colorado designations from the President this year under the Antiquities Act. At the time she said she 

was not aware of any but those decisions reside with the President 

as you said. 

She also said and committed to me that she would get back to 

me if she heard of any designations in Colorado. I would ask you 

the same thing. Are you aware of any considerations being made 

in Colorado using the Antiquities Act that are being considered 

right now? 

Mr. KORNZE. I will give you the same caveats that, you know, 

these decisions lie with the President. And so, I can’t know what 

decision, you know, what the President plans to do, but I will tell 

you I’m not aware of any conversations in terms of proposals for 

anything in Colorado. Maybe you’re hearing things in your office. 

I’m not having people visit in my office to talk about possible 

monuments in Colorado. 

Senator GARDNER. Thanks, Director. 

I would just ask you the same commitment just to make sure 

that if you do hear this, if you could relay that to my office because 

I get asked that whether anything is cooking in Washington by 

county commissioners on a regular basis. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you Madam Chair, and thanks for holding 

this hearing. We thank our witnesses as well. 

This past Monday marked an anniversary, a significant anniversary, for people in my state, the State of Utah. It marked the 20th 

anniversary of the date that President Bill Clinton utilized the Antiquities Act to designate as a national monument more than 1.5 

million acres of land in Southern Utah. This is the area that became known as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. 

After the designation occurred, Utah’s Congressional Delegation, 

Utah’s state and county leaders and local residents in Utah, especially residents living closest to the area designated as a monument, all warned that a national monument designation would dramatically disrupt their way of life in Southern Utah and make it 

harder for hard working Utahans to earn a living. 

You know, discussing these concerns, the Administration officials 

and monument advocates insisted that an Antiquities Act designation, that the creation of this particular national monument, would 

actually enhance the local economy. It would boost it. 

Twenty years later the verdict is out. The people of Utah were 

right. The Grand Staircase has been devastating for the people of 

254 

Utah’s Garfield and Kane Counties. It has depressed economic development and recreation on nearly two million acres of land and 

undermined economic stability in the region. 

Land use restrictions that accompanied the monument have 

wiped out many of the stable jobs that once existed in this area of 

South Central Utah where the monument was designated. Those 

were jobs that previously formed the backbone, the core, of the 

local economy. These jobs included jobs in areas such as ranching 

and mining and timber harvesting, all of which were affected to a 

significant and in many ways devastating degree by the designation of this monument. 

Utah is, once again, 20 years later facing the threat of a national 

monument designation under the Antiquities Act. At the behest of 

a clamorous group of environmental activists, and I want to make 

clear here, mostly out-of-state environmental activists, people who 

mostly do not live in Utah. President Obama is currently considering designating under the Antiquities Act what would be called 

the Bears Ears National Monument in Southeastern Utah. 

Just like the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, the 

proposed Bears Ears Monument would deprive these vulnerable 

communities and especially vulnerable populations within these already vulnerable communities of vital economic, recreational and 

cultural resources. 

Yesterday a group of Native Americans from Utah delivered to 

the Secretary of the Interior a series of letters, petitions and resolutions opposing the proposed Bears Ears National Monument. I 

would like to enter those documents into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Those will be included. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

255 


Insert offset folio 322 here 22000A.221

LEGISLATIVE GENERAL COUNSEL 

¢" Approved for Filing: R. Frost <L 

<L 05-17-165:42PM <L 

H.C.R. 201 

2 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OPPOSING UNILATERAL USE 

OF THE ANTIQUITIES ACT 

4 

5 

6 

LONG TITLE 

9 General Description: 

2016 SECOND SPECIAL SESSION 

STATE OF UTAH 

Chief Sponsor: Keven J. Stratton 

Senate Sponsor: David P. Hinkins 

10 This concurrent resolution of the Legislature and the Governor expresses strong 

II opposition to the designation of a new national monument in the state without local 

12 input and state legislative approval. 

13 Highlighted Provisions: 

14 This resolution: 

15 expresses strong opposition to the use of the Antiquities Act by the President of the 

16 United States to establish a new national monument in the state without local input 

17 and state legislative approval. 

I 8 Special Clauses: 

19 None 

20 

21 Be it resolved by the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein: 

22 WHEREAS, the members of the Utah Legislature and the Governor are honored to 

23 have all taken an oath to uphold the divinely inspired Constitution and the laws of the state and 

24 the United States; 

25 WHEREAS, the framers of our constitution, as evidenced by their inspired and 

26 carefully crafted constitutional balance of power and responsibilities between branches of 

27 government and between the national and state governments, did not intend to grant the 

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 
256 


Insert offset folio 323 here 22000A.222

H.C.R. 201 05-17-16 5:42PM 

28 executive branch unilateral authority to set aside vast swaths of land within the borders of a 

29 state without input from Congress H-+ 1.,.1 and +-H state officials; 

30 WHEREAS, egregious federal overreach is among the greatest threats to: 

31 the current strength and vitality of the state; 

32 the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens; 

33 the pursuit by its citizens of life, liberty, and happiness; 

34 the long-term economic prosperity of the state; and 

35 the equitable per pupil funding of education for Utah's children: 

36 WHEREAS, the Utah Legislature and the Governor oppose the actions of those who 

37 would seek to resolve conflicts with the federal government by methods outside the bounds of 

38 the law; 

39 WHEREAS, it is in this spirit of lawful resolution of conflicts that the Utah Legislature 

40 and the Governor submit the matters herein set f{>rth; 

41 WHEREAS, the state of Utah is a public lands state, committed to preserving certain of 

42 these lands in their natural condition. allowing continued recreational access for hunters, 

43 anglers. campers, and other recreators on other land, as well allowing some public lands to be 

44 utilized for additional benefits, including agriculture, timber production, and ener!,'Y and natural 

45 resource development; 

46 WHEREAS, a high and critical priority for the Legislature and the Governor is the 

47 health. protection, preservation, and productivity oC and access to the public lands within the 

48 state-lands that are ),'Teater in size than the total land mass within the borders of 19 of the 

49 other 49 states; 

50 WHEREAS, roughly 66% of the land within the sovereign state of Utah is presently 

51 owned and administered by the federal government. unlike 38 states in the Union that govern 

52 almost all the land within their borders, and members of the Legislature and the Governor are 

53 concerned by federal policies and management that threaten the health, protection. and 

54 productivity oC and access to these public lands: 

55 WHEREAS, Utah is 50th in the nation in per pupil spending due to the large portion of 

56 the state that is held as federal land and not subject to property tax; 

57 WHEREAS, the officials of the stale have a legitimate basis to believe that President 

58 Barack Obama is considering issuing a proclamation under the Antiquities Act designating one 

-2- House Floor Amendments 5-18-2016 ty•f 
257 


Insert offset folio 324 here 22000A.223

05-17-16 5:42PM H.C.R. 201 

59 or more national monuments within the borders of the state of Utah before the end of his term 

60 in office; 

61 WHEREAS, one of the national monuments being considered~Bears Ears National 

62 Monument~may be nearly 1, 9 million acres in size and cover roughly 40% of San Juan 

63 County; 

64 WHEREAS, the Antiquities Act limits a presidential monument designation to the 

65 "smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected"; 

66 WHEREAS, the state of Utah is already home to the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

67 National Monument designated by President Bill Clinton, which placed 1,880,461 acres, or 

68 2,938 square miles, of land within the borders of Utah under protected status, greatly restricting 

69 its use by local individuals, all without consulting the Governor, the Legislature, or the 

70 congressional delegation of the state of Utah; 

71 WHEREAS, an additional national monument designation within the borders of the 

72 state without the consent of the Governor, Legislature, or Utah's congressional delegation will 

73 have the effect of further restricting the public's access to and enjoyment of public lands in 

74 Utah; 

75 WHEREAS, the creation of another national monument in Utah~already home to five 

76 national parks and seven national monuments~would only add to the burden placed on the 

77 funding of Utah schools; 

78 WHEREAS, during her confinnation hearing on March 7, 2013, Secretary of the 

79 Interior Sally Jewell committed to Senator Mike Lee that gaining local support for a national 

80 monument should be a prerequisite for national monument designations under the Antiquities 

81 Act; 

82 WHEREAS, over the past three years, Secretary Jewell has repeatedly made reference 

83 to the importance of local buy-in through local meetings. input, and public hearings before a 

84 national monument is designated; 

85 WHEREAS, on Wednesday, February 24,2016, in a House Natural Resources 

86 Committee discussion with Secretary Jewell, Chairman Rob Bishop noted that during each of 

87 President Obama's previous monument declarations, at least one member of that state's 

88 congressional delegation supported a monument declaration; 

89 WHEREAS, Chairn1an Bishop went on to note that not one single member of Utah's 

- 3-
258 


Insert offset folio 325 here 22000A.224

H.C.R. 201 05-17-16 5:42PM 

90 congressional delegation supports another national monument declaration in Utah under the 

91 Antiquities Act; 

92 WHEREAS, on February 23, 2016, in her response to Senator Lee during a hearing 

93 before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Secretary Jewell became 

94 noncommittal regarding working with Utah's Governor, federal delegation, and local elected 

95 officials, and stated in reference to concerns about a potential new monument designation in 

96 southeastern Utah: "Well, to be clear, I can't commit to anything with regard to the Antiquities 

97 Act because that is a tool of the President of the United States. 1 will commit that we will go 

98 out and spend time within the community and take input from the community. That is 

99 something that we have done every time and we will continue to do that."; 

100 WHEREAS, as of May 2016, that process of taking input from local communities has 

101 not occurred in Utah; 

102 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the state of Utah hereby goes on record as not only 

103 withholding its consent to the establishment of any proposed new national monuments without 

104 state legislative input and approval, but emphatically objecting to the establishment of the 

105 same: 

106 WHEREAS, Governor Gary R. Herbert has written to the President of the United States 

107 twice--once in August 2015 and once in February 2016--~urging him not to use the Antiquities 

108 Act to designate another national monument in Utah: 

109 WHEREAS, Governor Herbert noted that another monument designation in Utah 

110 would "inflame passion, spur divisiveness, and ensure perpetual opposition"; 

lll WHEREAS, while some tribes with historic ties to Bears Ears support the proposed 

112 monument, most members of the Navajo Nation who live in San Juan County do not support 

113 the monument designation; 

114 WHEREAS, Navajos in San Juan County experience some of the highest rates of 

115 unemployment in the state; 

116 WHEREAS, San Juan County commissioner Rebecca Bennally, whose constituency 

117 includes members of the Navajo Nation who live in San Juan County. indicated on April 20, 

118 2016, that Navajos in that region would prefer sacred sites be protected through application of 

119 a conservation area dcsi!,mation, with some areas left available for development and job 

120 creation for locals; 

4 
259 


Insert offset folio 326 here 22000A.225

05-17-16 5:42 PM H.C.R. 201 

121 WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Governor believe that democratic process matters, 

122 and that consideration of whether to set aside Bears Ears for preservation should involve all 

123 interested stakeholders, in a manner that protects Bears Ears while still allowing local concerns 

124 to be heard and recognized; 

124a H-+ .WHEREAS, local Native American tribal members in San Juan Connty who were the 

124b first known inhabitants of the Bears Ears area are stronglv opposed to the designation of a 

124c national monument and should be afforded additional time to present their concerns and 

124d interests in how the area would be managed in the future; +-H 

125 WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Governor invite the President and the Secretary of 

126 the Interior to join Utah's congressional delegation, the Governor, state legislative leadership 

127 from both parties. locally elected officials, and interested stakeholders to engage in such a 

128 constitutional process; 

128a H-+ WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Governor urge federal, state, and local 

128b cooperation to ensure that multiple use and sustained yield are maintained on public lands 

1 28c while protecting ancient Native American artifacts under existing laws like the Archeological 

128d Resource Protection Act (ARPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); +-H 

129 WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Governor are opposed to a unilateral use of the 

130 Antiquities Act to create a Bears Ears National Monument without a more in-depth process that 

131 draws all stakeholders together; 

132 WHEREAS, while some resident and non-resident individuals and f.'l'Oups support the 

133 designation of the monument, the majority of San Juan County citizens, including Navajo tribal 

134 members, are opposed to it; 

135 WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Governor also favor protection and conservation of 

136 the Bears Ears area, but prefer a constitutionally sound, locally driven legislative approach; 

137 WHEREAS, citizens in rural Utah already experience difficult economic prospects, and 

138 tourism alone from Utah's current seven national monuments and five national parks has not 

139 been able to provide a sufficient, year-round revenue base for these communities; 

140 WHEREAS, citizens in rural Utah deserve the opportunity to create a diversified, 

141 ongoing economy; 

142 WHEREAS, responsible and environmentally sound economic development can be 

143 pursued simultaneously with wilderness preservation and conservation; 

144 WHEREAS, a monument designation would remove forever the possibility of 

145 economic development in the Bears Ears region, hurting those who live in the area to benefit 

146 those who only wish to visit the area; 

-5- House Floor Amendments 5-18-2016'i"' 
260 


Insert offset folio 327 here 22000A.226

H.C.R. 201 05-17-16 5:42PM 

147 WHEREAS, many potential issues with a proposed Bears Ears monument have not 

148 been resolved and need further informed discussion: 

149 WHEREAS, the proposed Bears Ears National Monument contains approximately 

!50 150,000 acres of School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration land; 

151 WHEREAS, neither the federal government nor the proponents of the Bears Ears area 

Sa House Floor Amendments 5-18-2016r,,,, 
261 


Insert offset folio 328 here 22000A.227

05-17-16 5:42PM H.C.R. 201 

152 have done any environmental or socioeconomic impact study of the proposal; 

153 WHEREAS, the system of having federal officials over a thousand miles away govern 

!54 land in Utah, particularly without sufficient local input, is contrary to the dual sovereignty 

155 design of our federal republic, which protects individual liberty by diffusing sovereign power; 

156 WHEREAS, decisions regarding the health, safety, and welfare of Utah citizens are, 

157 under our federal system, properly placed with local governments; 

!58 WHEREAS, the use of the Antiquities Act in recent years by presidents to designate 

!59 millions of acres of land as national monuments disparately impacts western states, including 

160 Utah, because only western states have large areas of federal land remaining within their 

161 borders; 

162 WHEREAS, two western states---Wyoming and Alaska --received special exemptions 

163 from the Antiquities Act in 1950 and 1980, respectively, after the act was used extensively 

164 within the boundaries of those two states; and 

165 WHEREAS, Utah is already the home to seven national monuments and should be 

166 considered for an exemption from the Antiquities Act, like Wyoming and Alaska: 

167 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the 

168 Governor concurring therein, expresses strong opposition to the creation of any new national 

169 monuments within the state by the President of the United States without approval by the 

170 Governor and the Legislature. 

171 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor encourage 

172 Congress to amend the Antiquities Act to prevent presidents from unilaterally designating 

173 enormous amounts of land within a sovereign state, Utah in particular, as national monuments 

174 without local input and state legislative approval. 

175 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor H ... [~] 

175a request that f-H 

176 Attorney General Sean Reyes H,.. 1~1 oppose t-H the authority of the President of the 

176a United States to 

177 designate a proposed national monument within the borders of the state of Utah without state 

178 legislative approval. 

179 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor H ... ]~] 

179a request that f-H 

180 Attorney General Sean Reyes H,.. [to teseateh and explore] pursue f-H all legal options H ... and 

180a ~ f-H available to the state 

181 regarding H,.. improper f-H unilateral national monument designations. 

182 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be sent to the President of 

-6- House Floor Amendments 5-18-2016 ''''' 
262 


Insert offset folio 329 here 22000A.228

H.C.R. 201 05-17-16 5:42PM 

183 the United States, the members of Utah's congressional delegation, and Attorney General Sean 

184 Reyes. 

Legislative Review Note 

Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel 
263 


Insert offset folio 330 here 22000A.229

RESOLUTION NO. '2..011£> ~o8 

A RESOLUTION OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH: 

DEFICIENCIES OF A PROPOSAL BY A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 

FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL MONUMENT IN SAN JUAN COUNTY; 

NOTIFICATION OF COUNTY PREROGATIVES AND INTENT FOR LAND USE 

PLANNING 

WHEREAS, we, the Commission of San Juan County, Utah, are 

locally-elected government officials responsible for the security, 

health, welfare, taxation, customs, culture, economic stability, and 

land-use planning for the county; 

WHEREAS, San Juan County is a sovereign political subdivision of 

the State of Utah that contains Federal, State, and county managed 

lands; 

WHEREAS, the Bears-Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (hereafter the 

Coalition), a Non-Governmental Organization having no 

governmental jurisdiction over San Juan County land-use planning 

activities, has made a proposal to the President of the United States 

and the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture requesting the 

establishment of a national monument under Title 54 of the National 

Park Service Preservation Statutes, Title 43 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act, and other statutes; 

WHEREAS, the proposal by the Coalition advocates pre-emption 

of no less than 18 established Federal, State and local land use and 

planning efforts, including an agreement between San Juan County 

and the Navajo Nation; 

WHEREAS, the Coalition's assertion of "rampant looting" of 

artifacts conflicts with reports from local and Federal law 

enforcement, the boundary proposed by the Coalition is arbitrary, 

and the proposal is deficient of the Quality, Utility, Objectivity and 

Integrity standards required of Federal Agencies for 

decision-making; 

WHEREAS, the 1.9 million acre area proposed for a national 

monument contains 151,000 acres of revenue-generating, School 

and Institutional Trust Lands Administration lands owned by the 

State of Utah that are valid existing property interests not meeting 

the definition of "public lands;" 

WHEREAS, the area proposed for a national monument contains 

43 grazing allotments that are limited-fee title, surface-estate lands 

that are valid existing property interests not meeting the definition 

of "public lands;" 

WHEREAS the area proposed for a national monument contains 

no less than 661 state-appropriated water-right diversion points 

that are valid existing property interests not meeting the definition 

of"public lands;" 
264 


Insert offset folio 331 here 22000A.230

WHEREAS the area proposed for a national monument contains 

approximately 18,000 acres of patented property that are valid 

existing property interests not meeting the definition of "public 

lands;" 

WHEREAS, pre-1976 in perpetuity easements, prescriptive RS 

2477 roadways, ditches, water conduits, utility routes, and 

first-responder rights-of-way across public lands do not meet the 

statutory, historical definition of "public lands" and are valid, 

pre-existing property interests not under ownership or control of 

Federal Agencies; 

WHEREAS, the Manti-La Sal National Forest contains the entire 

watershed, water storage and water-transfer infrastructure that the 

cities of Blanding and Monticello are entirely dependent upon for 

their culinary water needs; 

WHEREAS, the United States has no authority to appropriate 

water rights from, in, or to the Manti-Sal National Forest, such 

authority being vested with the State of Utah; 

WHEREAS, ongoing and unencumbered right-of-way access is 

essential to the exercise of property interests, rights, civic duties for 

law enforcement and day-to-day operational aspects of livestock 

grazing allotments; 

WHEREAS, the 1.9 million acre tract, having been demonstrated 

to contain vast private interests and areas of valid existing 

inholdings; 

THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTS BEING PRESENTED, QUESTIONS HAVING BEEN 

RAISED, OR CONCLUSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 

COUNTY OF SAN JUAN CONCLUDES AND AFFIRMS: 

I. The 43 surface grazing allotments occurring as split estate 

throughout the area proposed for a national monument do not 

meet the definition of "public lands," those lands being under the 

jurisdiction of State of Utah and San Juan County. 

II. The Antiquities Act gives the POTUS authority to withdrawal only 

Federally-owned or controlled public lands for national 

monuments; the presence, location and/or extent of public lands, 

if any, within the 1. 9 million acre boundary proposed by the 

Coalition has not been inventoried by the POTUS, the 

Departments of Interior or Agriculture. 

III. The Coalition's proposal would preempt State and local 

jurisdictions and a Memorandum of Agreement with the Navajo 

Nation for land use planning; 

IV. The Coalition's proposal violates protocols, has minimal basis in 

statutory law, and requests actions neither the POTUS nor the 

Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture have authority to grant; 
265 


Insert offset folio 332 here 22000A.231

V. The Coalition's proposal effectively requests the POTUS and 

Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture to re-appropriate water 

rights, take public and private rights-of-way, encumber or 

extinguish grazing allotments, and take State-owned tax revenue 

lands - all without procedural due-diligence, inholder notification, 

or opportunity for adjudication or compensation. 

VI. Title II, Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act affirms San Juan County as having a 

first-among-equals authority in land use planning, requiring the 

Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to attempt consistency with 

the land-use plans and planning efforts of San Juan County. 

VII. Establishment of a national monument, as proposed by the 

Coalition, has not been sufficiently investigated, has not been 

demonstrated as warranted, and, as proposed, will have 

foreseeable, negative consequences and impacts to the human 

environment. 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN 

JUAN, UTAH HEREBY PROPOSES AND DIRECTS: 

1) Revise and update San Juan County Land Use Master Plan, 

review, consider and incorporate, as appropriate, all County-wide 

State and Federal land-use plans and planning efforts; 

2) Lead the updating of a San Juan County Master Plan using the 

FLPMA doctrine of Coordination and a historical understanding of 

the definition of "public lands;" 

3) Survey, distinguish and publish in the updated County Master 

Plan, Federally-owned minerals and timber from valid existing 

surface rights, grazing allotments, water rights; 

4) Furnish advice to the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on 

timber harvesting, allocation and permitting in the Manti-La Sal 

National Forest such as will balance the environment and 

economic interests of all citizens and populations of San Juan 

County. 

5) Review - using established San Juan County Heritage Council or 

other County programs - the concerns of the Coalition for veracity 

and potential inclusion in the land-use planning process. 
266 


Insert offset folio 333 here 22000A.232

ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Governing Body this .!i!._"ctay of CJJ.vb1212016. 

Bruce Adams, an Juan County Commissioner 

"''~~:~m'"''"" 

ATIEST: 
267 

Senator LEE. Those documents include a resolution from the 

Blue Mountain Dine, a petition from the descendants of Kahlelli, 

a resolution from the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation, a resolution from the City of Blanding, a resolution from the City of Monticello, a resolution from the San Juan County Board of Commissions, a letter from the Utah Wildlife Board and a resolution from 

the Utah State Legislature. Each of these documents expressed 

Utahans’ strong opposition to the Presidential creation of a national monument in the Bears Ears area. Their message should be 

heard loud and clear. Enough is enough. These petitioners know 

their land and these petitioners know there is a better way. 

Congressman Rob Bishop, the Chairman of the House Natural 

Resources Committee, along with Congressman Jason Chaffetz, 

both from Utah, have spent the last three years working on the 

Public Lands Initiative (PLI), legislation that would further protect 

the lands, the very same lands, that President Obama is considering for a possible designation under the Antiquities Act. After 

holding more than a thousand meetings, Chairman Bishop is on 

the verge of passing the PLI. Unfortunately, this process risks 

being short-circuited by the premature creation of a national monument by executive fiat. This threat is exactly why I have introduced S. 3317 which would prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments in the State of Utah, except by express authorization of Congress. 

To be clear, this is not some new radical idea or some special 

unique carve out just for Utah. Since 1950, the State of Wyoming 

has enjoyed an identical exception from the Antiquities Act and the 

state is not some hellscape as a result of this. My bill would simply 

put Utah on an equal footing with Wyoming and give the people 

of Utah, who have been severely harmed by the abuse, the flagrant 

abuse, of the Antiquities Act, some piece of mind about the future 

of their lands and their livelihoods. 

Mr. Kornze, last week you praised the process that has brought 

us this far. We know we have further to go. Please, I implore you, 

I beg of you, let us continue to work toward consensus. Tell the 

President not to declare a national monument in San Juan County, 

Utah. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Lee. I know this is an extraordinarily important issue for you and the people of Utah. I got 

the feedback from you about the field hearing that you were able 

to conduct earlier this summer. This is a critically important issue 

to Utah and to those of us in the West, so thank you for your advocacy on this. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

holding this expansive hearing on a number of important lands 

bills. 

I introduced S. 2380, the RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act, to allow local governments greater flexibility when offering recreation opportunities. States and counties 

should be able to provide the same types of commercial recreation 

concessions that the BLM can. 

268 

I would like to submit for the record six letters of support for this 

bill, including ones from the National Association of Counties, National Association of State Park Directors, Maricopa County, Arizona and the Arizona State Parks. 

The CHAIRMAN. They will be included as part of the record. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay, thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

269 


Insert offset folio 337 here 22000A.233

March 21, 2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

Senate Russell Office Building 413 

Washington, D,C. 20510 

Dear Senator Flake: 

NATIONAL N:AJCc ASSOCIATION ) 

yCOUNTIES 

On behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo), the only national association representing all3,069 of 

America's counties, thank you to you and Senator McCain for introducing S. 2380, the RPPA Commercial 

Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act. 

NACo supports S. 2380 because it would create pilot programs in several counties that BLM could use to 

evaluate the impacts of third party recreation concessionaires. Clear legislative authority to allow third party 

concessionaires on BLM land has the potential to create new recreational and economic opportunities in public 

land counties across the United States. 

Over the years, counties have taken an active role in overseeing recreational areas within the BLM's purview. 

This is a win-win for BLM and the counties, creating new local recreational opportunities and freeing up BLM 

resources that may be utilized to address other management priorities. NACo appreciates your efforts to 

strengthen recreational opportunities through this bill. The expansion of public-private partnerships on public 

lands will enhance county economic development and provide flexibility that will promote additional park, 

conservation and quality of life programs. 

The RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act is a tool that can improve partnerships 

between counties and the BLM, provide economic development opportunities and create additional public 

recreational opportunities. NACo greatly appreciates your leadership on this initiative. 

Please contact Chris Marklund at cmarklund@naco.org or 202.942.4207 if you have any questions or we can be 

of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew 0. Chase 

Executive Director 

National Association of Counties 
270 


Insert offset folio 338 here 22000A.234

AMERICA'S 

STATE 

-----"--··---'~ ~ 

PA.RKS 

OFFICERS 

President 

Domenic Bravo 

WYOMING 

Vice President 

Linda Lanterman 

KANSAS 

Secretary Treasurer 

Bill Bryan 

MISSOURI 

Past President 

Priscilla Geigis 

MASSACHUSETTS 

DIRECTORS 

Ben Ellis 

ALASKA 

Dan Bortner 

INDIANA 

Eric Johnson 

NEVADA 

Phi! Bryce 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Phi! Gaines 

SOUTH CAROliNA 

Brent Leisure 

TEXAS 

EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR 

Lewis Ledford 

NORTH CAROLINA (ret) 

National Association of State Park Directors 

P 0. Box 91567 Raleigh, NC 27675 

(919) 218-9222 info@naspd.org 

www.naspd.org 

February 2, 2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

U.S. Senate 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Flake: 

The National Association of State Park Directors would like to express our 

appreciation for your work to provide for quality outdoor recreation on public 

lands. 

Specifically, S.2380 The RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot 

Program Act legislation you recently introduced with Senator McCain has merit in 

providing a pilot program for an improved methodology for the administration and 

provision of public services on BLM lands to state and local government and 

certain non-profit organizations for outdoor recreation. It will provide for the 

lands to be used for the intended purposes but without the restrictions that have 

heretofore limited state and local governments' ability to take full advantage of 

recreational opportunities for concession such as campgrounds, equestrian use, 

mountain bike rentals and more. In our view, the proposed legislation would 

afford comparable management and recreational use, including concessions, for 

local agencies that are similar to those that have been permissible by the federal 

agency. 

In discussions with states with BLM lands, some have expressed that they are 

not positioned at present to exercise an interest in acquiring lands for these 

recreational concession opportunities. However, others including some local 

governments have strong interests. We recommend there be some provisions 

included that would allow for future opportunities to "opt-in" as conditions and 

interests change. 

Finally, in a related outdoor recreational message, I encourage your strong 

support for the long-term reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund that restores allocations to a more equitable stateside assistance program 

where matching funds have been a hallmark of one of the more successful 

Congressional programs of the last 50 years. I would be pleased to share more 

in this regard. 

Sincerely, 

~'~ cc: Sue Black, Executive Director, Arizona State Parks 
271 


Insert offset folio 339 here 22000A.235

_',{1! '0hst](.'fli.·r~,m.::-lr,•ct 

WthH,)tlr 

l'hiw'li\,,\% ll5\Hl3-2l41 

Phnn<:.6\12-506-7642 

l·,,~-6ln-",,l{;--J?Wl 

www.maricopa.g,l\' 

Maricopa County Clint Hickman, Cbainnan 

Board of Supervisors, District 4 

September 19,2016 

Senator r ,isa Murkowski 

Senate Committee on Energy and 

N atmal Resomces 

304 Dirksen Senate Oflice Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

l'm writing today on behalf of Maricopa County, Arizona to express our strong 

support for S. 2380, the RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program 

Act. As Maricopa County has over fom million residents and covers 9,225 square 

miles with multiple recreation fUcilitics and parks, we have a significant interest in the 

passage of S. 2380 and are grateful for the leadership of Senator Flake and Senator 

McCain in introducing this important initiative. 

As you know, in 1926 Congress enacted the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

(RPPA), which authorizes the sale and lease of certain public lands lor recreation or 

public purposes to state and local governments. Since the passage of the act, counties 

across the west have benef1tted, including Maricopa County. On these lands, 

·Maricopa County provides 10 parks, 5 nature centers, an outdoor education center, 6 

campgrounds, 3 public golf courses and 500 miles of recreational trails in 

approximately 120,000 acres ofSonoran Desert Open Space. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has also benefitted significantly from 

counties taking an active management role in overseeing recreational areas that the 

BLM is not equipped to operate and adequately maintain. Further, the public is 

provided with recreation opportunities that enhance the quality of life for local 

residents, develop new tourism amenities for visitors and spur small business 

opportunities, which in turn helps stimulate the local and regional economy in 

communities across the country. 

Residents and visitors alike continue to express a need for new and enhanced 

recreation facilities and services on these lands. As a result, Maricopa Cotmty has 

explored the option of public/private partnerships or third party concession 

agreements to expand recreation and tourism oppommities. We understand that 

unfortunately, BLM does not believe they have the authority to allow these types of 

agreements on county lands that were granted under the RPPA, so Maricopa County 

is very supportive of this legislation which would establish a pilot program for 

commercial recreation concessions. 
272 


Insert offset folio 00011 here 22000A.236

September 19,2016 

Page 2 

Given the obvious benefits to the BLM, local economics and :he recreating public, 

:tv1aricopa County believes it is vital for the llLI\1 to find a way to encourage these 

lypcs of partncrsh~ps. We ~upport the RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions 

Pilot Program Act and thank you for yam leadership on this irnportant issue. 

?fj;tfl 

Clint llickman, Chairm~ ::viaricopa County Board of Supervisors 

Cc: Senator Jeff Flake 
273 


Insert offset folio 341 here 22000A.237

Doug Ducey Governor 

Sue Black ~ Executive Diraetor :: 

September 19,2016 

The Honorable jeff Flake 

Senate Russell Office Building 413 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Flake, 

Arizona State Parks (ASP) would like to express our support ofS. 2380, which will 

serve to improve and expand our partnerships with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and local counties across the state. 

The mission of ASP is "Managing and conserving Arizona's natural, cultural and 

recreational resources for the benefit of the people, both in our Parks and through 

our Partners." The work that Senator McCain and yourself have done with the RPPA 

Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act, strongly aligns with our 

mission and values. 

If you require additional information, please feel free to contact me directly at 

sblack@azstateparks.gov or (602) 542-7102. 

Sincerely, 

Sue Black 

Executive Director 

Arizona State Parks 

23751 N. 23rd Av~. #190 I Phn.,nix, AZ 85085 ] 607.541.4174 ! A2StateParks.com 

--

--

Artzon.- • Stat.aPark!'t 

"Managing and conserving natural. cultural. and recreational resources for the ~nefrt of the people. both in our Parks and through our Partners." 
274 


Insert offset folio 342 here 22000A.238

2015-16 Executive Board 

!)resident 

Dan1elBctt:, 

Dtrector of Rccreauon 

Forest Preserve Dtstnct of Cook County 

536 N Harlem Avenue 

Rtvcr Forest. IL 60305 

Phone 708-77!-1550 

Daniel Betts1?cookrountytl gov 

Past President 

Scott 

General 

Rncrstde County !{egwnal Park & Open 

President Elect 

John !-:_mght 

D1rcctor 

Vice President 

Justm Patterson 

Director Parks & Property Stewardship 

Metro 

600 NE Grand Avenue 

Justm Patlerson(!{'oregonmetro gov 

Secretary 

John Elholm 

Park~ Dtrcctor 

Sl!l!water,M:" 55082 

Phone 651-410-4303 

John Flhohn:ftco washington mn us 

Treasurer 

Bill Maasen 

Shawnee :'\1tssJon, KS 66219 

Phone 913-826-3437 

Btl I Maasen@jocogov org 

Association Mana~er 

Brenda Adams-Weyant 

PO Hox 74 

\1arienvdlc, Pi\ 16239 

Phone. 814-927·82!2 

Fax 814·927-6659 

Brendai\Wiiflvenron ne! 

NACPRO 

February 3, 2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

Senate Russell Office Building 413 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Flake: 

I'm writing today on behalf of the National Association of 

County Park and Recreation Officials (NACPRO) to thank you 

and Senator McCain for introducing S. 2380, the RPPA 

Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act. NACPRO 

is a non-profit, professional organization that advances official 

policies that promote county and regional park and recreation 

issues while providing members with opportunities to network, 

exchange ideas and best practices, and enhance professional 

development. NACPRO is a National Association of Counties 

affiliate organization. 

As you know, Congress, in 1926, enacted the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act (RPPA), which authorizes the sale and lease 

of certain public lands for recreation or public purposes to state 

and local governments. Since the passage of the act, counties 

across the west have benefitted. On these lands, many counties 

now provide parks, campgrounds, public golf courses and miles 

of recreational trails. 

The BLM has benefitted significantly by counties taking an 

active management role in overseeing recreational areas that 

BLM is not equipped to operate and maintain. Most importantly, 

the public is provided with recreation opportunities that 

enhance the quality of life for local residents and that provide 

recreational tourism opportunities for visitors, which in turn 

helps stimulate local economies. 

Residents and visitors continue to express a need for new and 

enhanced facilities and services on these lands. Many counties 

are not capable of financing large capital projects nor are they 

able to staff new facilities, so recently, many counties have 
275 


Insert offset folio 343 here 22000A.239

looked to public/private partnerships or third party concession agreements to expand 

recreation and tourism opportunities. Unfortunately, BLM does not believe it has the 

authority to allow these types of agreements on county lands that were grants under the 

RPPA, so NACPRO is thankful that you have introduced legislation that would establish such 

a pilot program for commercial recreation concessions. 

Given that there are obvious benefits to BLM, local economies, and, most of all, to the 

recreating public, we think it is vital for BLM to find a way to not only allow, but encourage 

these types of partnerships. NACPRO believes the RPPA Commercial Recreation Concessions 

Pilot Program Act is an excellent first step and we are extremely thankful that you are willing 

to lead the initiative. Please let us know if we can provide any assistance to you with this 

bill. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel E. Betts 

NACPRO President 
276 


Insert offset folio 344 here 22000A.240

February 3, 2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Flake: 

The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) would like to thank you for your 

efforts to provide quality outdoor recreation opportunities on public land. Specifically, we 

express our support for your introduction of S. 2380, the RPPA Commercial Recreation 

Concessions Pilot Program Act. 

NRPA is a nonprofit organization working to advance parks, recreation and 

environmental conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every 

American in every community every day. Through our network of more than 50,000 

citizen and professional members we represent park and recreation departments in 

cities, counties, townships, special park districts, and regional park authorities ensuring 

close-to-home access to parks and recreation opportunities exist in their communities. 

Everything we support and do is focused through our three pillars: Conservation; Health 

& Wellness and Social Equity. 

Therefore, we believe that S. 2380, which you have cosponsored with Senator McCain, 

has merit in providing a pilot program that will enhance the way Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands are conveyed to State and local government and certain nonprofit organizations for effective partnerships with which promote healthy outdoor 

recreation and economic activity. State and local governments will have increased 

ability to take full advantage of recreational opportunities for concession such as 

campgrounds, equestrian use, mountain bike rentals and more. 

Further, BLM will benefit significantly by partnering with local government entities with 

complementary missions to take a more active management role in overseeing 

recreational areas. Most important, the public stands to benefit most, through the 

improved recreation opportunities that enhance the quality of life for local residents and 

that provide recreational tourism opportunities for visitors, which in turn helps stimulate 

local economies. 

22377 Belmont Ridge Road I Ashburn, Virginia 120148 I www.nrpa.org 

703.858.0784 1 Fax 703.858.0794 
277 


Insert offset folio 345 here 22000A.241

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

February 3, 2016 

Page 2 

In fact, a recent NRPA study found that local and regional parks are a major economic driver 

with operations and capital spending in Arizona, alone, creating $2.1 Billion in economic activity 

and supporting directly 17,000 jobs each year. 

Given the clear benefits to BLM, local economies, and, most of all, to the recreating public, we 

think it is vital for BLM to find a way to not only allow, but encourage these types of mutually 

beneficial partnerships. NRPA believes S. 2380 is an appropriate and important step in this 

process and we are pleased to add our name in support of this legislation. 

Finally, in a related outdoor recreational message, we encourage your continued strong support 

for the long-term reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) that 

restores a more equitable annual allocation to the State Assistance Program. The LWCF has 

been one of the more successful Congressional programs of the past half-century and State 

Assistance- even while averaging about 15% of total LWCF spending for decades- has 

provided Arizona with more than $60 million in matching grant funding and supported the 

development of over 730 close-to-home public recreation projects and facilities across the state. 

Imagine what a robustly (and equitably) funded State Assistance Program could achieve. 

For information on NRPA's economic report and LWCF State Assistance, please contact me or 

visit www.nrpa.org to learn more. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin O'Hara 

Vice President for Urban and Government Affairs 

National Recreation and Park Association 
278 

Senator FLAKE. I also thank you for including H.R. 2009. This 

bill takes a small amount of land into trust for the Pascua Yaqui 

Tribe and it has the support of the entire Arizona delegation. 

Before Congress takes land into trust for tribes, it is important 

for all jurisdiction issues to be worked out with the affected governments. In this particular case to which H.R. 2009 applies, that has 

already been done. 

I would like to submit letters of support from Pima County and 

the tribe into the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Those will also be included. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

279 


Insert offset folio 347 here 22000A.242

Olivia Cajero Bedford Dlstrict3 

STAn! S£NATOR 

FIFTY -SECOND LEGISLATURE 

House Natural Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

1324 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

March 15, 2016 

Chairman Bishop and Committee Members, 

COMMITTEES: 

I write to express support for H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's Land Conveyance Act of 2015. The 36 acre vacant 

parcel would be conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe if this bill is signed into law. The parcel is bisected with a 

waterway called the Black Wash. This wash, during Arizona's monsoon flooding events, carries water, silt and 

debris across a major thoroughfare, Camino de Oeste, and Into a neighborhood in Southwest Tucson. The Tribe has 

plans to build flood control facilities on this parcel, once it is held in trust. Flood control on this parcel will help 

mitigate the flooding on Camino de Oeste and the Tribe's reservation, and wilt also help the non-reservation 

neighborhood that is just downstream from the parceL As you may know, when it rains in the desert water flows 

quickly and the effect can be very damaging after only a small amount of rain. A 15 minute rain in August can 

cause several days of clean-up on these streets and in these neighborhoods. Additionally, emergency response 

vehicles have encountered ingress and egress problems to and from Camino De Oeste, Calle Tetakusium 

responding to emergency calls during rainfalls. School and public transportation have the same issues. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has been a good neighbor to the City of Tucson, Pima County, and Tucson Unified School 

District for many years. The 36-acre parcel is bare desert land that is currently not used for any purpose. The ability 

of the Tribe to construct flood control facilities to collect and release water at a slower rate across the parcel 

would be another example of the Tribe working to help the entire community. 

Again, ! support the passage of H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance Act of 2015 for the reasons 

stated above, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have Mr. Chairman or members of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

State Senator Olivia Cajero Bedford 

Legislative District 3 
280 


Insert offset folio 348 here 22000A.243

~- ~- ., I' 

'-.. :lo:fn...,>/ 

SHARON BRONSON 

CHAIR 

June 29, 2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

PII\IA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

DISTRICT 3 

I'"\\ 1.\ I C<>N(;RESS STRLET liTH FLOOR 

ll t'\(f\. \RI/O~AXS701 1~17 

i "'i~!h '~4-:\0" I 

di-,!1!(\.~W pl!ll,l.~O\ 

1\11.\\ dt-,lt'IL'!.~ plllW.,!!Il~ 

Senate 413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0305 

Re: HR 2009 

Dear Senator Flake: 

I write to express support for H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's Land Conveyance Act of 2015. The 36 acre vacant 

parcel at issue would be conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe if this bill is signed into law. The parcel, located in 

Pima County, is bisected with a waterway called the Black Wash. This wash, during Arizona's monsoon flooding 

events, carries water, silt and debris across a major thoroughfare, Camino de Oeste, and into a neighborhood in 

Southwest Tucson. The Tribe plans to build flood control facilities on this parcel, once it is held in trust. Flood 

control on this parcel will help mitigate the flooding on Camino de Oeste and the Tribe's reservation, and will also 

help the non-reservation neighborhood that is just downstream from the parcel. As you may know, when it rains in 

the desert water flows quickly and the effect can be very damaging after only a small amount of rain. A 15 minute 

rain can cause several days of clean-up on these streets and in these neighborhoods. Additionally, emergency 

response vehicles have encountered ingress and egress problems to and from the area of Camino De Oeste and 

Calle Tetakusium while responding to emergency calls during rainfalls. School and public transportation have the 

same issues. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has been a good neighbor to the City of Tucson and Pima County for many years_ The 36-

acre parcel is bare desert land that is currently not used for any purpose. The ability of the Tribe to construct flood 

control facilities to collect and release water at a slower rate across the parcel would be another example of the 

Tribe working to help the entire community. 

Again, I support the passage of H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance Act of 2015 for the reasons 

stated above, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Sharon Bronson 

Pima County Board of Supervisors, Chair 

District 3 
281 


Insert offset folio 349 here 22000A.244

PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

RICHARD ElfAS PIMA COUNTY SUPERVISOR 

D!STRlCT 5 

July 12,2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

130 W CONGRESS STREET, 11 ~ FLOOR 

TUCSON. ARIZONA 85701-1317 

TELEPHONE (520) 724-8126 

FAX (520) 884-1152 

E-MAIL: dlstrlct5@pfma.gov 

WEBSITE: www.district5.pima.gov 

Senate 413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0305 

Re:HR2009 

Dear Senator Flake: 

I write to express strong support for H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's Land Conveyance Act 

of2015. Under this measure a 36-acre vacant U.S. parcel would be ccnveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

so it can construct much-needed features to control dangerous and damaging stonn flows. 

The Pima County parcel in my district is bisected with the Black Wash. This wash, during heavy 

monsoon flow events, carries water, silt and debris across a major thoroughfare, Camino de Oeste, and 

into a neighborhood in southwest Tucson. 

Tribe facilities on this parcel, once it is held in trus~ will help mitigate flooding on Camino de 

Oeste and on the Tribe's reservation, and will also help a non-reservation neighborhood that is just 

downstream from the parcel. 

As you know, when it rains in the desert water flows quickly and can be very damaging. 

Emergency response vehicles have encountered ingress and egress problems to and from the area while 

responding to emergency calls during rainfalls. School and public bases have the same issues. A ISminute rain can cause several days of clean-up on these streets and in these neighborhoods. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has been a good neighbor to the City of Tucson and Pima County for 

many years. The 36-acre parcel is bare desert land that is currently vacant. If the Tribe can construct 

flood-control facilities tu collect and release water at a slower rate across the parcel, it would be another 

example of the Tribe working to help the entire community_ 

I support the passage ofH.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance Act of2015, for 

the reasons stated above, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

~ Richard Elias 

District Five Pima County Supervisor 
282 


Insert offset folio 350 here 22000A.245

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT VALENCIA, CHAIRMAN OF THE 

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE OF ARIZONA 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONCERNING: 

H.R. 2009, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN LAND 

INHOLDINGS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE TUCSON UNIFIED 

SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE OF ARIZONA 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Madam Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of this Committee: 

On behalf of the Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council and membership, thank you for the 

opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee regarding H.R. 2009. My name is Robert 

Valencia, I currently serve as the Chairman of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, a Federally Recognized 

Tribe located near the City of Tucson, in Pima County, Arizona. The matter under consideration 

today is important to the Tribe because of the location of the Tribe's reservation in a flood plain 

called the Black Wash. 

Background: 

Our Yaqui ancestors walked the earth by the grace of the creator, as we still do today. 

Yaqui ancestors were indigenous to our aboriginal territory from Durango in Southern Mexico, 

north to Colorado, and west to California. The Tribe settled, prospered, and endured in the Rio 

Yaqui homeland since time immemorial. Authority was inherent and derived in part from our 

elders' ability to protect and provide for the needs of the Yaqui people. For 300 years, the Yaqui 

people fought the Spanish and later the Mexican government for control of their fertile homeland. 

War and hostilities drove factions of the Yaqui from their homeland into present day Arizona. The 

Yaqui people settled in various communities from South Tucson to Scottsdale. In 1964, 

Congressman Morris K. Udall introduced a bill in Congress authorizing the transfer of 202 acres 

of federal desert land to our Yaqui elders. On September 18, 1978, Public Law 95-375 recognized 

the Tribe as a United States Indian tribe. Fundamentally, 200-400 years have only superficially 

changed the Yaqui Nation. Although, now partly settled on our reservation Southwest of Tucson, 

Arizona, the obligations to the people passed down by our elders and our sovereign autonomous 

spirit has never changed. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe, as a historical Indian tribe, has inherent 

jurisdictional power over most matters occurring within our territory. H.R. 2009 would expand 

this territory, with the agreement of the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD), in a way that 
283 


Insert offset folio 351 here 22000A.246

Written Testimony of Chairman, Robert Valencia 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

On HR2009 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 

would allow the tribe to address significant flooding issues that affect the reservation and impacts 

our neighbors downstream. 

H.R. 2009: 

H.R. 2009 is a bill that will accomplish several goals. First, it will allow the Tucson Unified 

School District to hold two parcels (Parcel "B" and Parcel "C" of map, appendix 1) without 

restrictive covenants for the beneficial use of the District. Second, it will allow TUSD to convey 

an area of land (Parcel A) to the United States to be held in trust for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. 

Under its terms H.R. 2009, if passed and enacted into law, would affect a conveyance of 

three separate parcels ofland either now owned by the United States or for which the United States 

owns a reversionary interest under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926. 

The parcel described in Section 3(a) of the Bill is currently owned by TUSD, but is subject 

to the U.S.'s reversionary interest under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The Bill directs 

the U.S. to hold this parcel in trust for the Tribe if conveyed to the U.S. by TUSD. This parcel is 

almost entirely within the 100-year flood plain. It is directly to the east of the Tribe's Casino of 

the Sun, which is visible on the aerial photographs in your attachments. The District received this 

parcel under the Recreation and Public Purpose Act of 1926. In order for the U.S. to convey land 

to the District for public purposes under the Act, the District had to designate a specific use for 

this land. When the District asked for and received this land it designated the land for construction 

of a school. Time and events have made this land unsnitable for a school site, and the District has 

indicated that it has no plans to ever develop this land as a school. Under the 1926 Act if the land 

conveyed cannot be used for the specific purpose for which it was conveyed, the land would revert 

to the U.S. 

You may notice that there is a large wash, which is known as the "Black Wash," running 

through this parcel. The wash flows from Southeast to Northwest. The Black Wash is a significant 

topographical feature from which there is constant flooding to the west and northwest whenever 

there is a significant rain event. The flooding comes from east to west across Camino de Oeste 

(the roadway on the western boundary of this parcel) into the parking lot of the Casino of the Sun 

and into the parking lot of the Tribe's Administration Building just to the south of the Casino of 

the Sun. (Photos Appendix 2) These rain events occur frequently during Tucson's "Monsoon 

Season" from mid-June to mid-September each year. If the Tribe controlled this parcel, it could 

be improved to create safe, all-weather access to the Tribe's Reservation during rain events. At the 

current time a significant rain event can cut off all roads into the Tribe's Reservation, thus creating 

critical access issues that have resulted in the past in lack of outside emergency or medical services 

anywhere on the Reservation during a significant rain event. 

This parcel could also be used' to create a flood detention basin or other surface water 

catchments or channels to prevent or control this flooding. These improvements would also 

contribute to better control of downstream surface water flooding events that would benefit the 

2 
284 


Insert offset folio 352 here 22000A.247

Written Testimony of Chairman, Robert Valencia 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

On HR2009 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 

entire area, including in particular the downstream areas of unincorporated Pima County. For those 

reasons, the exchange as a whole is in the public interest. (See letters of support, Appendix 3) 

Conclusion: 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe is always moving forward and planning for its future and for the 

betterment of the lives of Pascua Yaqui members. Expeditious passage ofH.R. 2009 would give 

the Tribe the opportunity to continue to make improvements for the people. I respectfully request 

your support and passage ofH.R. 2009. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. This concludes 

the Tribe's remarks and I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

3 
285 


Insert offset folio 353 here 22000A.248

Appendix 1 

Insert offset folio 354 here 22000A.249

TUSO 36.65 ac. approx. Parcel A· 

Parcel B • 

US 13.24 ac. approx. 

Parcel C-

" TUSO 27 .s ac. approx. 

PYT Reservation 

PARCEL A: 

LOT 1 EXC W 75' & EXC S50' 

SECTION 19·T15S-R13E 

G&SRBM, ARIZONA 

36.65 AC APPRO X. 

PARCEL B: 

W2NW4NE4NW4, 

W2SW4NE4NW4, 

SE4SW4NE4NW4 

SECTION 19·T15S-R13E 

G&SRBM, ARIZONA 

13.24 AC APPRO X. 

PARCELC: 

E2NE4NW4, 

E2NW4NE4NW4, 

NE4SW4NE4NW4 

SECTION 19-T 15S-R 13E 

G&SRBM, ARIZONA 

27.50 AC APPROX. 

500 1,000 

---1 

Feet 

PYT Land Department 

.. /2015/BLM Congressional Bill 
287 


Insert offset folio 355 here 22000A.250

Appendix 2 
288 


Insert offset folio 356 here 22000A.251
289 


Insert offset folio 357 here 22000A.252
290 


Insert offset folio 358 here 22000A.253
291 


Insert offset folio 359 here 22000A.254
292 


Insert offset folio 360 here 22000A.255
293 


Insert offset folio 361 here 22000A.256
294 


Insert offset folio 362 here 22000A.257

Appendix 3 
295 


Insert offset folio 363 here 22000A.258

PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

RICHARD ELIAS PIMA COUNTY SUPERVtsOR 

DISTRICTS 

July 12,2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Serurte 

i30 W. CONGRESS STREET. ii"' FLOOR 

TUCSON, ARIZONA 8570i·i3H 

TELEPHONE (520) 724·8i2E 

FAX (520) 884-ll52 

E·MAIL: d!str!ct5@plma.gov 

WEBSITE: www.dlstrlct5.plma.gov 

Senate 413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0305 

Re:HR2009 

Dear Senator Flake: 

PlM.A ~· COU:NTY 

I write to express strong support for H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tn'be's Land Conveyance Act 

of2015. Under this measure a 36-acre vacant U.S. parcel would be conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

so it can construct much-needed features to control dangerous and damsging storm flows. 

The Pima County parcel in my district is bisected with the Black Wash. This wash, during heavy 

monsoon flow events, carries water, silt and debris across a m,Yor thoroughfare, Camino de Oeste, and 

into a neighborhood in southwest Tucson. 

Tribe facilities on this parcel, once it is held in trust, will help mitigate flooding on Camino de 

Oeste and on the Tribe's reservation, and will also help a non-reservation neighborhood that is just 

downstream from the parcel. 

As you know, when it rains in the desert water flows quickly and can be very damaging. 

Emergency response vehicles have encountered ingress and egress problems to and from the area while 

responding ro emergency calls during rainfalls. School and public buses have the same issues. A ISminute rain can cause several deys of clean-up on these streets and in these neighborhoods. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has been a good neighbor to the City of Tucson and Pima County for 

many years. The 36-acre parcel is bare desert land that is cll!Telltly vacant. If the Tribe can construct 

flood-control facilities to collect and release water at a slower rate across the parcel, it would be another 

example of the Tnbe working to help the entire community. 

I support the passage of H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance Act of2015, for 

the reasons stated above, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

~ Richard Elias 

District Five Pima County Supervisor 

...... !S 

!IO)T,.,1'tl>TOX.\!-l'.I'I!J":l 
296 


Insert offset folio 364 here 22000A.259

SHARON BRONSON 

CHAIR 

June 29,2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

PIMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

DISTRICT3 I _,n WEST CONGRESS STREET, liTH FLOOR 

Tl!CSON, ARIZONA 85701-1317 

;5201 72-1-ROS I 

district3@pima.gov 

\VWW ,district3.pinm.gov 

Senate 413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0305 

Re: HR2009 

Dear Senator Flake: 

I write to express support for H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe's land Conveyance Act of 2015. The 36 acre vacant 

parcel at issue would be conveyed to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe if this bill is signed into law. The parcel, located in 

Pima County, is bisected with a waterway called the Black Wash. This wash, during Arizona's monsoon flooding 

events, carries water, silt and debris across a major thoroughfare, camino de Oeste, and into a neighborhood in 

Southwest Tucson. The Tribe plans to build flood control facilities on this parcel, once it is held in trust. Flood 

control on this parcel will help mitigate the flooding on Camino de Oeste and the Tribe's reservation, and will also 

help the non-reservation neighborhood that is just downstream from the parcel. As you may know, when it rains in 

the desert water flows quickly and the effect can be very damaging after only a small amount of rain, A 15 minute 

rain can cause several days of clean-up on these streets and in these neighborhoods. Additionally, emergency 

response vehicles have encountered ingress and egress problems to and from the area of Camino De Oeste and 

Calle Tetakusium while responding to emergency calls during rainfalls. School and public transportation have the 

same issues. 

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe has been a good neighbor to the City of Tucson and Pima County for many years. The 36-

acre parcel is bare desert land that is currently not used for any purpose. The ability of the Tribe to construct flood 

control facilities to collect and release water at a slower rate across the parcel would be another example of the 

Tribe working to help the entire community. 

Again, I support the passage of H.R. 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe land Conveyance Act of 2015 for the reasons 

stated above, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Sharon Bronson 

Pima County Board of Supervisors, Chair 

District3 
297 

Senator FLAKE. I am also glad to work with my friend, Senator 

Heinrich, to introduce the Ace Act. This is truly a win/win. State 

trust lands get to swap their trapped lands for those with greater 

economic potential while federal land managers get to eliminate 

inholdings. We were able to work with Arizona’s ranchers, miners 

and water users to ensure their interest are protected in these exchanges. 

I would like to submit this letter of support from the Arizona 

State Land Department. 

The CHAIRMAN. That also will be included as part of the record. 

Senator FLAKE. Alright. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

298 


Insert offset folio 366 here 22000A.260

Douglas A. Ducey 

Governor 

Arizona State Land Department 

1616 \'Cest .\dams, Phoenix,,\/, 85007 

(602) 542·+631 

Statement for the Record 

Arizona State Land Department 

Lisa A. Atkins, Commissioner 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resource 

On 

Lisa A. Atkins 

Commissioner 

S. 3316, Advancing Conservation and Education Act of 2016 

September 22, 2016 

The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) appreciates the opportunity to provide a 

statement for the record in support of S.3316, Advancing Conservation and Education 

Act of 2016 (ACE 2016), a measure that provides a novel approach to solving challenges 

for federal and state land managers who cope with issues involving non-contiguous land 

tenure. 

Congress granted lands to western states, including Arizona, to be held in Trust as a 

permanent endowment for primary public institutions. Since Arizona's statehood and the 

creation of the State's land Trust (Trust}, significant increases in federal designations of 

special land use and conservation areas have caused conflicting land management 

patterns throughout the state, and ultimately, an ineffective execution of diverse agency 

missions. 

The patchwork of land ownership throughout the State limits realizable income for the 

Trust, and in most cases impedes access to various isolated and trapped surface and 

sub-surface estates belonging to the Trust Checker-boarded inholdings also limit the 

ability of federal agencies to manage priority and sensitive landscapes contiguously and 

without assurances that a conflicting use will not develop in the future. 

The proposed legislation is representative of true congressional purpose: identification of 

a problem and creating a resolution that is meaningful and bi-partisan. ASLD commends 

the sponsors, Senators Jeff Flake and Martin Heinrich for introducing the bill and 

providing a resolution to facilitate greater land and resource opportunities for citizens and 

beneficiaries throughout the West 

Serving Arizona',-; School;; and Public /m;titutions Since 1915 

•.vww.azland.gov 
299 


Insert offset folio 367 here 22000A.261

ACE 2016 provides an opportunity for the ASLD to relinquish certain State Trust land 

parcels within eligible sensitive federal land management areas and select alternative 

federal land parcels of equal appraised value. This "in lieu selection" process creates a 

more meaningful tool for all public and private land interests that current legal authorities 

do not provide. 

Existing authorities for land exchanges are limited, require a large amount of resources 

and involve limited options for potential selection and relinquishment. Saliently, ACE 2016 

proposes a more expeditious and considerate process for removing the Trust's lands from 

'inaccessible areas' with conflicting land management objectives. And, more importantly, 

the beneficiaries are made whole by compensating the Trust with replacement lands, 

allowing ASLD to fulfill its responsibilities to the Beneficiaries and the public. These 

transactions further benefit federal public land missions that involve protecting priority 

areas from development encroachment and creating perpetual assurances for those 

federal agencies that their planning and resource allocations are not in conflict with 

adjacent non-federal land. 

ASLD supports ACE 2016 as a solution for resolving land tenure issues that have 

increased financial burdens and untenable land management objectives that are not in 

the best interests of the Trust, nor the public. The measure provides a reasonable path 

forward for planning and executing better land and resource management through a 

transparent public process. 
300 

Senator FLAKE. Just a broader statement on national monuments, Madam Chair. You and other members of the Committee 

have heard me talk many times about the importance of the Colorado River to Arizona. We have enough challenges on the river 

without the specter of a new federal reserved right of bending the 

already perilous apple cart. That is why I introduced S. 1416 to 

prohibit the President from creating a new federal reserve water 

right with a national monument. 

Madam Chair, I am also glad to co-sponsor your improved National Monument Designation Process Act. The Federal Government owns nearly half of Arizona and when you account for other 

lands, public lands and tribal lands, you will find that only 18 percent of the state is actually in private ownership. With so little private land in Arizona, multiple use, public lands provide opportunities for grazing, mineral development and recreation of all types. 

Any action that removes those opportunities needs to be done in 

conjunction with the state and local governments, and your bill will 

ensure that cooperation happens. 

I would like to submit for the record these statements that I 

have received from a wide range of Arizona interests opposed to yet 

another national monument, including the Game and Fish Department, Arizona Game and Fish, Chamber of Commerce and the 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

301 


Insert offset folio 370 here 22000A.262

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

5000 W. CAREfREE HIGHWAY 

PHOENIX. AZ 85086·5000 

(602) 942·3000 • WWW.AZGFD.GOV 

GOVERNOR 

DouGLAS A. OUCEY 

COMMISSIONERS 

O!AI.RMAN. EOWARO ~PAT" MAoOEN, FLAGSTAFf 

JAMES R. Amt:ONS.- YUMA 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

1Y£.GRAY 

As Chairman of the Commission, I thank the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) supports multiple usc of public lands 

that provides Arizona's residents and the resource with net benefits, and continues to oppose 

federal special land-use designations that impact the ability of the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (Department) to fulfill its public-trust responsibility and mission to conserve 

Arizona's diverse wildlife resources and to manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation 

opportunities for current and future generations. Such a threat to this responsibility often looms 

in the waning days of a presidential administration in the form of the Antiquities Act 

Intended to curtail the looting and destruction of objects of historical or scientific interest, the 

!906 act granted the President of the United States unchecked authority to reserve a national 

monument of''the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects 

to be protected." The Act was well-intentioned and effective in its purpose, but remains outside 

the framework of checks and balances that ensures responsible governance. 

The power of the President to designate federal lands as a National Monument without the 

consent of Congress, local governments, or affected citizens is not consistent with the principles 

of a government by and for the people. 

Arizona currently has I 8 monument designations, the most of any state. These existing 

designations have negatively impacted the Department's ability to develop and maintain critical 

water sources, manage wildlife, restore habitat, and perform wildlife trans locations. For example. 

in 1999 Department biologists counted at least I 03 bighorn sheep making their home in the 

Maricopa Mountains of what later became the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The 

Department experienced detrimental delays. outright prohibitions of necessary wildlife 

management actions and a crippling lack of access to the area alter the 200 I designation 

necessitated a management plan to authorize the means and methods previously used to 

successfully nurture this wildlife resource. After the II year process of developing the plan was 

completed and another population survey could finally be conducted in 2015, 35 bighorn sheep 

remained. 

Time and again the Commission has seen the multiple use doctrine curtailed and the ability of 

Arizonans to recreate on their lands fundamentally impacted by special land usc designations. 

Even designations that seek to preserve existing uses require management plans that must be 

drafted at the federal agency level, navigating layers of bureaucracy that result in project delays. 

increased costs, increased man hours and legal challenges. Road closures and usc restrictions by 

federal agencies managing these lands are common. Especially relevant are those lands managed 

AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY REASONASLE ACCOMMODATiONS AGENCY 
302 


Insert offset folio 371 here 22000A.263

by the National Park System, where access roads deteriorate and are subsequently closed as a 

consequence of the System's $11.9 billion backlog of deferred maintenance, $329 million of 

which is attributed to the existing 1.2 million acres of the Grand Canyon National Park alone. 

llowever, the Antiquities Act does not include a process for public input, so there is no place for 

the Commission, or any other citizens, to formally bring such concerns or past experiences. 

The Antiquities Act has bestowed unilateral power upon the President of the United States to 

designate federal lands as a National Monument without the consent of Congress, local 

governments or affected citizens. The federal reserved water rights doctrine, established in 1908 

and expanded through decades of court battles ensures that when the federal government 

reserves public land for uses such as a monument, it also implicitly reserves sufficient water to 

satisfy the purposes for which the land-use designation was created. 

In 1952 Arizona began an II year Supreme Court battle to settle questions of allotments before it 

could begin to build the Central Arizona Project. The use of Colorado River water requires 

successful navigation of a century of laws. treaties, court decisions, decrees, contracts and 

guidelines that form the ''Law of the River .. and determine appropriate use of water in the 

Colorado River Basin. It also requires a contract with the Secretary of the Interior. 

In Arizona. an application to appropriate public water that is under the jurisdiction of the state 

costs a minimum of$1,000. The administrative review of this application takes 20 days and, if 

found to be complete, the substantive review of the request can range from 100 to 420 days 

depending on use. This lengthy review is conducted to verify that the use of water does not 

conflict with vested rights, is not a menace to public safety. and does not run counter to the 

interests and welfare of the public. 

In Washington D.C. the right to use water anywhere in the country can be reserved in exactly as 

much time as it takes for the President to sign his name. 

Designations made either by presidential executive fiat or those made by an act of Congress have 

implied reserved rights, but only one of those requires a public process. Only Congress is 

required to publically consider the interest and welfare of the people of Arizona. The lack of 

oversight inherent to the Antiquities Act could be devastating to Arizona's water future both 

statewide and in nearby local communities. 

The Game and Fish Commission supports the limitation of reserve water rights in a national 

monument By requiring that water rights for a monument created by Presidential decree be 

secured through the laws of the state. S.1416 ensures that Arizona's water future remains in the 

hands of its own citizens. 

Edward ''Pat'' Madden 

Chairman, Game and Fish Commission 
303 


Insert offset folio 372 here 22000A.264

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

January 15,2016 

5000 W. CAREFREE HIGHWAY 

PHoENIX. AZ 85086-5000 

16021 942·3000 • WWW.AZGFD.GOV 

The Honorable Barack Obarna 

President of the United States of America 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington. DC 20500 

UEPUTV OfRIECTOR 

T¥£,&RA'f 

Re: Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument 

Dear Mr. President: 

As present and fanner Arizona Game and Fish Commissioners, we have extensive knowledge on 

the importance of habitat conservation across the public and private lands in Arizona. As 

Commissioners. we are charged with making sure not only game species thrive within our 

borders, but also non-game species of wildlife such as the California condor and the Blackfooted ferret. We are responsible for all of Arizona's diverse wildlife and held accountable by 

both consumptive users as well as non-consumptive users. 

We are also well aware of the management issues surrounding Arizona's wildlife, and how 

complex that can be, particularly in dealing with land ownership matters, and the various Federal 

designations placed on much of that land. Arizona has more National Monuments ( 18), than any 

other State in the Union. In fact, only 23% of the remaining federally owned land in our State 

does not have some sort of special designation. We do not believe we need any more! 

The people of Arizona are our stakeholders. and to that end. we support the multi-use concept on 

our public land. That approach allows us to provide the most recreational opportunities with 

respect to wildlife for whatever pursuit a citizen desires. from hunting, to fishing, wildlife 

watching, boating, hiking. camping, photography, or OHV use. This multi-use approach allows 

us to work closely with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

in concert to further the objectives of the multi-use concept. 

That partnership is not broken, and we do not believe another layer of bureaucracy is needed to 

conserve or "protect" 1. 7 million more acres on the Arizona Strip or Kaibab National Forest. 

There have been several reasons put forth as to why a monument designation is needed, but we 

say to you, Mr. President. that reasoning is offering you a solution to a non-existing problem! 

Some of those issues include the following: 

At.~ EOUAL OPPoRTUNITY RFASONASU ACCOMMODATIONS AGENCY 
304 


Insert offset folio 373 here 22000A.265

• Protection from uranium mining The area is already protected under a moratorium on 

uranium mining until the year 2032. lfthat ore is ever needed. we might have an 

environmentally safe technology in the future that would allow tor clean extraction. 

• Protection of old growth trees Arizona's forest products industry is but a shell of its 

fonner self and selected harvest and forest management shouldn't be eliminated as a 

viable management tool. Some of the catastrophic tires over the last decade demonstrate 

the importance of regulated forest management. 

• Public land grazing The proponents of eliminating what they call "inappropriate 

livestock grazing"' would eliminate ranchers who exhibit good stewardship practices for 

both the land and wildlife. No one wants poor land stewards and they should be dealt 

with accordingly. but the good ones not only make a living ranching, they do so with 

wildlife in mind. The Arizona Game and Fish Department works hand in hand with 

ranchers and private land owners all over the state to that end. 

• Road closures Extensive travel management plans have been undertaken by the Forest 

Service and BLM which has resulted in the closure of many roads. We do not believe the 

public needs to be further shut out from accessing our public lands. 

• Wildlife migration corridors Some have said our premiere mule deer herd may be in 

jeopardy as they move between Arizona and Utah. but so far they are not. If there ever is 

an issue. we should seek to remedy and mitigate it ·not adopt another set of rules on this 

area now for a non-existent problem. 

President Theodore Roosevelt's legacy has already protected much of the Grand Canyon. In 

fact. the Grand Canyon National Park was first a monument. but now is a National Park and 

citizens must pay to see it and enjoy it. The National Park Service is behind in maintenance and 

management. and is millions of dollars in arrears. We don't have that problem on the Kaibab 

and Arizona Strip so we would respectfully request that you not designate these lands as a 

monument and subject them to more rules and regulations that are not only unnecessary. but 

would complicate the management of Arizona's wildlife by our Game and Fish Department. 

We can ensure Arizona's wildlife is properly managed and conserved by the continued 

cooperation and partnership of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. US FS and BLM, 

without the necessity of another National Monument in Arizona. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Kurt R. Davis 

Chainnan 

James R. Ammons 

Commissioner 

Edward ··Pat .. Madden 

Vice Chairman 

James S. Zieler 

Commissioner 

Robert E. Mansell 

Commissioner 
305 


Insert offset folio 374 here 22000A.266

Former Commissioners in Support of Commission Position: 

Larry D. Adams 

W. Hays Gilstrap 

Jack F. Husted 

J.W. Harris 

Robert R. Woodhouse 

William H. McLean 

Michael M. Golightly 

Susan E. Chilton 

CC: Arizona Congressional Delegation 

Governor Doug Ducey 

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell 

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vii sack 

Joe Melton 

Gordon Whiting 
306 


Insert offset folio 375 here 22000A.267

THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

January 15,2016 

The Honorable Raul Grijalva 

5000 W. CAREFREE HIGHWAY 

PHOENIX. AZ 85086-5000 

(602) 942-3000 • WWW.AZGFO.GOV 

1511 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Grijalva, 

GOVER:NO:R 

OOtJGLASA. t:ltJcr.y 

C.OMMISSlONERS 

CHAIRMAN, KI.JRT R. OAvtS, PHO£MX 

EDWAAO '"PAt" MAOOEfi, ftAGSW:f 

..IAM£s R. AMWftS, YUMA 

"""" S. ZIEUo. ST. Jol!!iS RceERrE. MANSa.L. WM!iWW 

DIRECTOR 

I.AAA'rll vorus 

DEPUTY DtR«TOR 

1'¥E.~AY 

On December 4, 2015, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) updated a resolution 

(enclosed) opposing further monument designation and voted unanimously to infonn you and the 

Arizona congressional delegation why the Commission opposes H.R. 3882: The Greater Grand Canyon 

Heritage National Monument Act. 

Cities, towns, counties, members of congress. sportsmen's organizations and businesses have coalesced 

and share a common concern that additional federal land-use designations in Arizona will have a 

detrimental impact on local economies and recreational access. Arbitrary road closures, coupled with 

restrictions on outdoor multi-recreational opportunities, have resulted in a significant intrusion on the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department's wildlife management authorities. 

In addition: 

• With 18 monuments, Arizona already has the most monuments in the nation. 

• 77 percent of Arizona's lands are restricted from public access and recreation. 

• More than 42 percent of Arizona's land is already under federal management. 

• The proposed monument would connect 1.7 million acres of federal land with the Grand Staircase· 

Escalante National Monument, Vennillion Cliffs National Monument, Grand Canyon-Parashant 

National Monument and Grand Canyon National Park to carve out an area of 6,139,878 acres, nearly 

the size of the state of Maryland. 

• The Grand Canyon National Park is dealing with a $329 million hacklog in deferred maintenance. 

Adding I. 7 million acres to an already overextended National Park Service risks the health and safety 

ofland, wildlife and visitors. 

The Commission continues to oppose any federal land-use designations that impact the Department's and 

Commission's ability to fulfill its public-trust responsibility to manage the State's wildlife and associated 

natural resources. H.R.3882 is harmful to our mission and, frankly, unnecessary as these lands already 

are being effectively managed. 

Sincerely, ~ 

~oyle:t- Director 

AN EQUAL OPPOOTUNffY REASONABlE ACCOMMOOATIONS AGEIIICY 
307 


Insert offset folio 376 here 22000A.268

A RESOLUTION OF THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION 

CONCERNING THE LOSS OF MULTIPLE-USE PUBLIC LANDS 

DUE TO SPECIAL LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS 

WHEREAS, Arizona's great strength lies in the value of its public lands, and the ability 

for the public to access and utilize those lands for a variety of recreational uses, and; 

WHEREAS, although federal lands make up 42 percent of Arizona, more than 43 

percent of those lands have special land use designations which prescribe significant restrictions 

to recreation and management. Only 23 percent of Arizona's lands remain open for public use 

and free from special land use designations, and more than 77 percent of Arizona's lands are 

restricted from public access and recreation through ownership (private, state, and tribal) or 

through federal special land use designations, and; 

WHEREAS, the conservation of wildlife resources is the trust responsibility of the 

Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) and this extends to all lands within Arizona, 

to ensure abundant wildlife resources for current and future generations, and; 

WHEREAS, with 4.5 million acres, Arizona has the third highest total designsted 

wilderness acreage in the U.S. This. coupled with an additional 5.8 million acres of special land 

use designations including National Monuments, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, 

National Conservation Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

and Wilderness Characterimcs Areas, has caused the systematic loss of recreational 

opportunities and erosion of the Arizona Game and Fish Department's (Department} ability to 

proactively manage wildlife on more than 10.3 million acres, and; 

WHEREAS, the Arizona Game and Fish Department has experienced adverse impacts 

resulting from special land use designations including loss of motorized access, project delays, 

increased costs, increased man-hours, and legal challenges. These ultimately lead to decreased 

efficiency in conserving and managing Arizona's wildlife resources, and; 

WHEREAS, public land managers have a responsibility to the people of Arizona to 

ensure continued opportunities for multiple-use recreational activities. For example, FLPMA 

( 1976) is tbe Bureau or Land Management's (BLM) "organic act" that establishes the agency's 

multiple-use mandate to serve present and future generations. Once federal lands are converted 

to special use lands such as Wilderness and National Monuments, the FLPMA mandate no 

longer applies and those lands permanently lose multiple-use provisions, and; 

WHEREAS, the National Park Service is currently operating with a deferred 

maintenance backlog of$11.49 billion dollars and is unable to keep up with current needs. This 

deferred maintenance affects road upkeep, water delivery, and safety of park visitors. The Grand 

Canyon, alone, has $329 million in deferred maintenance. Adding new responsibilities to this 

already overburdened system through additional special use designations puts wildlife habitats 

and populations at risk, and; 
308 


Insert offset folio 377 here 22000A.269

WHEREAS, in spite of organic legislation emphasizing multiple-use of public lands, 

neither the USFS nor BLM has established any objectives for acreages of public lands to be 

maintained in full multiple-usc, free from restrictive designations in Arizona, and; 

WHEREAS, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the Federal Land and 

Policy Management Act of 1976 both legally prohibit the federal land management agencies 

from affecting the state's jurisdiction and responsibilities. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission supports public land use that provides Arizona's public and resources with a net 

benefit, and; 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Arizona Game and Fish Commission opposes 

further conversion of public lands from multiple-use to land use designations that result in the 

net loss of wildlife resources, wildlife-related recreational opportunities and associated economic 

benefits, without expressed concurrence of the state of Arizona and the Commission, and; 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proposed special land use designation must 

analyze the cumulative impacts of further loss of public lands that provide for multiple-use and 

wildlife-related recreational and economic opportunities, and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any proposed special land use designation on 

federal lands must analyze the impact to the Arizona Game and Fish Department's ability to 

fulfill its trust responsibility to manage the state's wildlife resources. 

ADOPTED on the 151

h day of January, 2016 by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. 

r!i:w?ErChairman 

Arizona Game and Fish Commission 
309 


Insert offset folio 378 here 22000A.270

Douglas A. Ducey 

Governor 

Arizona State Land Department 

1616 \X"c:-:t ,\dam~, Pho<'ntx, _\/, 85007 

(602) 542-463! 

Statement for the Record 

Arizona State Land Department 

Lisa A. Atkins, Commissioner 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resource 

On 

S.437, Improved National Monument Designation Process 

September 22, 2016 

Lisa A. Atkins 

Commissioner 

The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) appreciates the opportunity to provide this 

statement in support of S.437, proposed by Chairman Murkowski and Senator Sullivan, 

to require congressional approval for monument designations and imposition of 

subsequent land use restrictions. 

Arizona is exemplary of conservation and preservation practices for the majestic 

landscapes within its borders. Arizona citizens are exemplary of cooperative resource 

management that advances both protection of historic and cultural sites and promotion of 

multiple-use land management. 

Congress granted lands to the western states as they were admitted into the Union to 

support endowed public institutions in perpetuity, with K-12 being the primary beneficiary. 

The ASLD serves as Trustee and fiduciary for the Arizona State Land Trust (Trust), a 

multi-generational, perpetual Trust consisting of 9.2 million acres. The Trust has a specific 

and unwavering obligation to ensure that the Beneficiaries are not only compensated for 

use of their land, but that decisions made on their behalf are consistently for best possible 

use. 

Throughout the 2Q1

h Century, Congressional and Executive actions have created special 

land designations that have narrowed the State and the ASLD's abilities to establish longterm land use plans compromising ASLD's constitutional obligations to serve its 

Beneficiaries. Further, the State's land base has been segregated into a patchwork of 

awkward land management boundaries. 

The Beneficiaries have never been compensated for the impacts of having trapped lands 

within the land designations such as National Monuments. 

Serving Adzona~s School-. and Public lm>titutiom; Since 1915 

\.\"\N'W,olZland.gov 
310 


Insert offset folio 379 here 22000A.271

S. 437 represents a first reasonable step toward mending a process where the federal 

government giveth and then taketh away. The Antiquities Act has been used by several 

U.S. Presidents within Arizona's borders that has resulted in encumbering several 

hundred thousand acres of surface and subsurface estate of State Trust land. 

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, Ironwood Forest National Monument, 

Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, Redfield Canyon, and Eagletail Mountains are 

examples of the continued erosion of the State's ability to rightfully plan and generate 

revenue from its original congressional land conveyance of Trust lands. 

The process of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Act) (54 U.S.C. §§ 320301-320303) is as 

antiquated as the objects and places it was created to protect The State of Arizona has 

expressed increasing concerns of proposed designations under the Act, such as the 

Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, which will result in increased 

management challenges and lost revenues to the State and Trust 

Arizona is an epicenter of innovation and growth in the West Infrastructure needs, trade 

routes, transportation corridors, urban development, military missions and outdoor 

recreation pose planning and resource allocation challenges for the State. Increased land 

restrictions through monument designations impose even greater challenges and 

financial burdens on public and private sectors, particularly when done without 

consultation or compensation. 

The Act was intended to serve as an emergency authority to allow Presidential protections 

of special artifacts and areas treasured by the American public. The emergency provision 

authorizes only a most minimal footprint necessary for their continued existence. 

Unfortunately, the Act has been applied much more broadly and, we believe, 

inappropriately used as a means to prevent consumptive land uses and as a de facto 

conservation tool. 

While S. 437 does not prevent future administrative land withdrawals and designations 

and does not prohibit the trapping of Arizona's Trust land from future congressionally 

adopted measures. However, it does promote a better process for public inclusion in 

future designations through mandating affected state(s)' approval and regulatory 

compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. 

seq.). 

We support the provisions of this bill that admirably create a more robust consultation 

process with states, as well as the effort to hold federal actions and decisions, including 

Presidential Proclamations, to public review processes under NEPA This would be 

consistent with other land designations established by Congress. 

ASLD is concerned that continued land designations, and increasing specialized land use 

demands, will force further restrictions on its ability to effectively manage and plan for use 

of the land and other natural resources it holds in Trust, and for which the Trust has not 

been compensated through the course of these tenured practices. Moving forward, we 

urge this Committee, and Congress to identify ways to compensate the Trust for actions 

that have resulted in lost and restricted value, as well as the inaccessibility to Trust lands 
311 


Insert offset folio 380 here 22000A.272

trapped by preexisting conveyance, special use designations and other land tenure 

issues. 
312 


Insert offset folio 381 here 22000A.273

Douglas A. Ducey 

Governor 

Arizona State Land Department 

1616 \'1/('~t ,\dam~, Phomix, .\/, 85007 

(602) j,J-:q63! 

Statement for the Record 

Arizona State Land Department 

Lisa A. Atkins, Commissioner 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resource 

On 

Lisa A. Atkins 

Commissioner 

S.1416, limitation on the authority to reserve water rights in designating a 

national monument 

September 22, 2016 

The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) appreciates the opportunity to provide a 

statement in support of S1416 co-authored by Senators Flake, McCain, Lee and Hatch 

to limit federal authority to reserve water rights in designating a national monument. 

Protection of existing water rights in Arizona, where approximately 70% of land ownership 

is federal or tribal, requires the State to be vigilant in monitoring changes to land and 

water use. Special federal land designations, particularly designations that are created 

with limited public input, pose concerns for other land owners whose existing water rights 

could become compromised by these federal actions. 

Congress granted lands to the western states as they were admitted into the Union to 

support public institutions in perpetuity. The ASLD serves as Trustee and fiduciary for the 

Arizona State Land Trust (Trust) consisting of 9.2 million acres. The Trust has a specific 

and unwavering obligation to ensure that the Beneficiaries are not only compensated for 

use of their land. but that decisions made on their behalf are consistently for best and 

highest possible use. 

Throughout the 201

h Century, as a consequence of Congressional and Executive actions 

that have created special land use designations, ASLD's abilities to establish and 

implement land use goals has been encumbered. These actions have diminished ASLD's 

decisions making, constitutional obligations, and has further segregated the State's land 

base into a patchwork of inconsistent, spurious land management boundaries. 

Additionally, the checker-boarded areas of State Trust land and federal land are 

hydrologically connected in most circumstances. The language in this bill will prevent the 

federal government from creating additional federal reserved water rights without seeking 

additional action by Congress. 

Serving Arizona',-; Schools and Puhb'c Institutions .'iince 1915 

www.az1and.gov 
313 


Insert offset folio 382 here 22000A.274

This is critical to Arizona's interest in protecting the value of State Trust Land, which is 

managed as a for-profit concern for the benefit of the Trust. Because federal reserved 

water rights have different attributes than State-based water rights, we must ensure that 

no additional federal reserved water rights are created without study as to the particular 

location, impacts to all users, and through a public and transparent process. The 

downstream impact of a poorly-sited federal reserved water right could have considerable 

implications for the value of Trust land throughout Arizona, as well as other adjacent 

private land owners. 

S.1416 represents a meaningful step toward ensuring Arizona's natural resources are 

maintained by the State in perpetuity and that use or diversion of its rightful resources are 

not taken without compensation and consultation. ASLD appreciates your recognizing 

and providing a tool to ensure the Trust's ability to properly manage its assets - land, 

water, and other natural resources - for the benefit of the thirteen public entities who 

derive revenue from those assets and provide indispensable services to the citizens of 

this State. 
314 


Insert offset folio 383 here 22000A.275

~ 

¥ 

ARIZONA CHAMBER 

--OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY--

Testimony by Glenn Hamer 

President and CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry 

Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Sept. 22, 2016 

On behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, we welcome this opportunity 

to submit for the record the following testimony, as well as a policy paper by the Arizona 

Chamber Foundation and Prosper Foundation, regarding the implications of the 

designation of the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. 

President Obama is considering using his power pursuant to the 100-year old Antiquities 

Act to designate 1. 7 million acres in northern Arizona-an area larger than the state of 

Delaware-the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. Monument designation will 

limit lands available for multiple use in Arizona, impede efficient land and resource 

management, and represent unwarranted and unwanted federal overreach. 

The Antiquities Act was originally intended to enable presidents to quickly protect federal 

lands and resources that contain historic landmarks and objects of scientific or historical 

interest, especially to prevent looting of archaeological and Native American sites. 

Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act contains few if any checks to ensure monument 

designations adhere to the limitations set forth in the Act itself. 

A monument designation in northern Arizona would be particularly damaging for a variety 

of reasons. First, almost 70 percent of Arizona is already controlled by the federal 

government; Arizona has more national parks and monuments than any other state. The 

National Park Service, which is the branch of the Department of Interior that typically 

manages national parks and monuments, is already struggling to maintain the land under 

its control, with an estimated shortfall in deferred maintenance of$11.5 billion. National 

parks and monuments in Arizona represent nearly $500 million of that shortfall, with 

Grand Canyon National Park alone suffering a shortfall of $329.5 million. Adding another 

1.7 million acres will only hinder-not help-land management, conservation and access. 

Furthermore, Arizona and the federal government have historically enjoyed a multiple-use 

partnership on the large percentage of Arizona's land under federal control. This 

partnership was born out of a bipartisan stakeholder consensus formed in the 1980s, 

including Arizona's congressional delegation, the federal government and environmental 

groups, and has been a critical component of the state's economic vitality. President 

Obama"s proposed monument designation completely upends that partnership, 

undermining the state-federal partnership that has previously characterized land 

management in Arizona. 

ARIZONA 

MANUFACTURERS 

COUNCIL 

3200 ~.Central Ave. ! Suite 1125 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

www .azchamber .com 

P; 602.248.9172 I F: 602.391.2498 
315 


Insert offset folio 384 here 22000A.276

Second, the monument designation has implications for private property and water rights 

in Arizona. Because a monument designation "federalizes" the land, it could impact the 

surface and groundwater rights in the monument area. Unless the monument designation 

is written to specifically respect existing water rights-and there is no indication it willthe monument designation will automatically carry an implied water right to serve the 

purposes of the designation. This opens the door to more conflicts in Arizona's general 

stream adjudications, including claims involving the complex interactions between surface 

and groundwater and putting state and private rights to the watershed in and around the 

monument area at risk. 

Monument designation also has negative implications for the future of education funding in 

the state by locking up 64,000 acres of State Trust land. Protecting State Trust land is more 

important now than ever in light of Proposition 123, a ballot initiative passed by Arizona 

voters in May 2016 that increases the financial distributions from the trust to beneficiaries, 

the most prominent of which is the state's K-12 system. 

Arizona's State Enabling Act makes clear that State Trust land may only be used in a way 

that serves the best interest of the trust. By locking up 64,000 acres of State Trust land 

without any discussion of compensation, the amount of money available to fund education 

in Arizona will be reduced. 

Finally, we know from past experience that a monument designation doesn't necessarily 

protect the plants and animals that live there. For example, in 1999, there were more than 

100 big horn sheep in the area that was later designated the Sonoran Desert National 

Monument. But monument designation made it more difficult for the Arizona Department 

of Game and Fish to access the area and provide new water sources. Since the monument 

designation the sheep population has plummeted to fewer than 35. 

Proponents of monument designation like to say that designation is necessary to protect 

the Grand Canyon. That simply is not true. The Grand Canyon is already protected as a 

national park. This monument designation has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon-it's 

about imposing more federal control and further restricting Arizona's land without any 

input or oversight from local stakeholders. 

A new national monument designation will restrict access to wilderness areas, impede 

active forest, wildlife and resource management, and risk jeopardizing Arizona's natural 

resources by placing them under the custody of an agency already experiencing a multibillion dollar shortfall. The best way to protect Arizona's land and natural resources is to 

enact good public policies that entrust the care of those resources to the people who know 

the land best-those here in Arizona. 

We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns over the abuse of the Antiquities Act. 

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry stands ready to offer its insight on this 

and other land and resource management issues as the Committee considers them in the 

future. 
316 


Insert offset folio 385 here 22000A.277

:t56o l STNW 

SU!TE 208 

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 

202-639-8727 

WWW.TRCP.ORG 

May 14,2015 

The Honorable Sally Jewell 

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849CSt.,N.W. 

Washington, DC 20240 

The Honorable Tom Vilsack 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1400 Independence Ave., S. W. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dear Madam Secretary and Mr. Secretary: 

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 

conservation organization working to guarantee all Americans quality places to 

hunt and fish. The TRCP is dedicated to the conservation legacy of its 

namesake and works on sportsmen's conservation issues in Arizona and across 

the United States. In Arizona, we draw on the support and action of over 2,400 

individual advocates and we work cooperatively with 25 sportsmen and 

conservation organizations. 

We are writing to express concern about the proposed Grand Canyon 

Watershed National Monument (GCWNM). In order for an area to merit 

consideration for monument designation under the Antiquities Act, we believe 

that the following criteria must be met: 

A thorough public process must be carried out that includes multiple 

stakeholder groups, including sportsmen. 

Significant sportsmen support must exist for any monument proposal 

overlaying areas open to hunting and fishing. 

Clear provisions must be offered and put in place to protect state agency 

fish and wildlife management actions, reasonable access, and the 

traditions of hunting and fishing. 

The proposed GCWNM meets none of these criteria. The proposed GCWNM 

was developed by a narrow group of interests and then thrust upon the public to 

react to. This lack of process has created far-reaching animosity and has forced 

interest groups to draw lines in the sand and take hard positions. Unlike popular 

and recently adopted monuments in New Mexico and Colorado, we are not 

aware of any hunting and tishing groups that support the proposed GCWNM, 

and we are aware of a long list of groups that are opposed. 
317 


Insert offset folio 386 here 22000A.278

Sincerely, 

I ) 1 

I/I~ 

' 

'] ,/ I 

;4/C~ .··L 

/ I 

Whit Fosburgh 

President and CEO 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation partnership 

CC: 

Arizona Congressional Delegation 
318 


Insert offset folio 387 here 22000A.279

Arizona 

Association of 

Conservation 

Districts 

Senator Jeff Flake 

Senate Russell Office Building 413 

Washington D.C. 20510 

Re: Support for S. 437 and S.l416 

P.O. Box50518 

Phoenix, AZ 85076 

Phone:480-452~95 

The Arizona Association of Conservation Districts welcomes the opportunity to endorseS. 437 

and S. 1416 sponsored by Senator Flake. Both bills are severely needed to curb the overreach of 

both party's Presidential monument declarations. 

Arizona is home to 32 Natural Resource Conservation Districts organized under state statute and 

10 tribal districts organized under federal statute. All are recognized by the Arizona Legislature 

as having "special expertise of natural resources within their districts.'' 

Arizona Revised Statute Title 37, Chapter 6, 37-1001 Declaration of policy states: 

''It is the declared policy of the legislature to provide for the restoration and conservation of 

lands and soil resources of the state, the preservation of water rights and the control and 

prevention of soil erosion, and thereby to conserve natural resources, conserve wildlife, protect 

the tax base. protect public lands and protect and restore the state's rivers and streams and 

associated riparian habitats, including fish and wildlife resources that are dependent on those 

habitats, and in such a manner to protect and promote the public health, safety and general 

welfare ofthe people". 

For seventy five years Arizona's local conservation districts have been working with and 

coordinating local conservation efforts to address local conservation problems. This 

model has proven to be the most effective means to join federal, state and local funds and 

talent to maintain and enhance Arizona's varied and unique landscapes while keeping 

them productive for our people and our nation. 

The Arizona Association of Conservation Districts has vigorously opposed the 

designation of the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument for the following 

reasons: 

The proposed designation, if enacted, removes the ability of our local Conservation 

Districts to address the watershed health, leaves no opportunity to address erosion (wind 

or water), and no opportunity to address noxious or invasive species; neither plant nor 

animal, by our locally elected people who live and work on these lands and understand it 
319 


Insert offset folio 388 here 22000A.280

because they are tied to it through their intimate lifelong and sometimes generational 

knowledge. 

The proposed designation, if enacted, prevents local stewardship of wildlife; creates an 

area of no management of numbers of wildlife or maintenance of water catchments. 

By creating the proposed National Monument. local management is eliminated and replaced by a 

form of non-management directed from Washington D.C. 

These reasons also apply to past and future monument designations. 

Our local conservation districts are now leading a massive multi-partner effort to eradicate 

invasive brush from large landscapes across Arizona to return it to its pre-fire suppression 

grassland state, including much of the lands within the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed 

National Monument designation. This effort will be eliminated from those lands under the 

Monument proposal. Is that what Arizona and the nation really want? This project coordinated 

locally will literally create new groundwater for our cities and towns by increasing penetration of 

the precious rain that falls on Arizona's rangelands and forests. How will that be achieved? A 

closed canopy caused by heavy brush infestation prevents 80% of the moisture that falls from 

reaching the ground; under a closed canopy there is no ground cover under that brush to prevent 

water erosion when large amounts of moisture do reach the ground. As we remove this brush, 

perennial grasses will return to the landscape catching and slowing the runoff of that water so it 

will soak in and more will reach our groundwater. It will also replenish our streams and rivers. 

Under Monument designations the ability to identify and address watershed health issues will not 

be an option. Under Monument designations, active management will be eliminated and replaced 

by a form of non-management which can only be characterized as benign neglect directed from 

Washington D.C. 

Under Monument designations there is no recognition of the lessons learned from Arizona's 

Schultz Pass Fire, Rodeo- Chediski Fire, or the Slide Fire to name a few. 

Under the monument designations, the ability to treat the results of a wildfire are removed; again 

because of non-management. We know this from experience. Despite assurances otherwise, past 

Monument designations have reduced or eliminated grazing, strong armed private inholders in 

order to get them to sell out and either removed water improvements or just let them deteriorate 

until they no longer function. 

Because we value locally led conservation above conservation directed from Washington D.C. 

the Arizona Association of Conservation Districts request that all efforts be made to stop the 

Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument designation and this body pass Senate bills 437 

and 1416. 

Bill Dunn 

President, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts 
320 


Insert offset folio 389 here 22000A.281

.!AI ARIZONA MtNING ASSOCIATION 

ARIZONA MINING ASSOCIATION 

916 W Adams Street Suite 2 

Phoenix AZ 85007 

(602) 266-4416 

Kelly Shaw Norton, AMA President 

US SENATE ENERGY and NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

September 22, 2016 

• The Arizona Mining Association (AMA) is a non-profit corporation comprised of entities engaged 

in mining and mineral processing in Arizona. Its members include (but are not limited to): 

ASARCO LLC, BHP Copper Inc., Freeport-McMoRan, Capstone- Pinto Valley, KGHM -

Carlota Copper Company, Hudbay- Rosemont Project, Resolution Copper Company, Florence 

Copper, Energy Fuels, Peabody Energy, and Golden Vertex. In 2013, AMA member companies 

produced approximately 65% of the nation's newly-mined copper, along with significant 

amounts of associated valuable co-products (e.g., gold, silver, selenium, tellurium and 

molybdenum). In 2013, the Arizona copper industry employed approximately 11,500 people 

and had an estimated direct and indirect impact on the Arizona economy of nearly $5 billion. 

AMA members also are engaged in the mining of coal, uranium and other materials, and make 

significant contributions to the Arizona economy as a result of those activities. The AMA is the 

unified voice of responsible, sustainable and safe mining in Arizona. We support educational 

programs that demonstrate the importance and benefits of mining to the economy and the 

quality of life. 

• We want to thank Senator Flake for the opportunity to submit concerns on the Antiquities 

Act and proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument withdrawal. 

• The Arizona Mining Association has been tracking the proposal to add another unneeded 

National Monument consisting of 1, 7 million acres since the Obama Administration withdrew 

1.2 million acres from mining and multi-use in 2012 in the same area in Arizona. 

• The Antiquities Act was intended as a tool to set aside "the smallest area compatible with 

the proper care and management of the objects to be protected." It was not meant to be 

used for expansive amounts of land without public input and Congressional approval. 

The proposed monument area which has been successfully managed for a very long time for 

multi-use by the Arizona Game & Fish Department, BLM, and US Fish and Wildlife. 

Transferring its management to the National Park Service who has been struggling to 

maintain the current land under its control would be a mistake. 

Web: www.azmining.org Twitter: @azmining FB: Arizona Mining Association 
321 


Insert offset folio 390 here 22000A.282

9-22-16 Arizona Mining Association 

US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

It is concerning that this proposed area also includes 64,000 acres of State Trust Land and 

28,000 acres of private land. Without knowing what restrictions will be placed on the 

monument once it's established, there is no guarantee that private landowners or the state 

would be able to access, use, develop, or transfer their property. 

• As Arizonan's we are all concerned about water. In the documentation we have seen it is 

unclear what portion of this monument is actually protecting the watershed. Most of the 

included land isn't anywhere near the Grand Canyon. 

• The withdrawal of this land from multi-use management will restrict reasonable and 

thoughtful use of natural resources. Industries affected include recreation, grazing, forestry, 

hunting & fishing, energy development, and mining. 

• We have heard arguments and read statements in the media that this monument is necessary 

to prevent uranium mining. 

Uranium is fuel for nuclear energy, providing over 60% of the emission-free and carbon-free 

electricity in the U.S. today. We need to rely on the deposits in our country instead of being 

reliant on the rest of the world for our uranium supply. 

• Uranium mining today is not like it was in the 70's. It is a highly regulated industry 

successfully enforced by federal, state, and local authority. 

• There has been a lot of discussion about Uranium mining contaminating the Colorado River 

but the AZ Geological Survey has found that "130,000 pounds of naturally-occurring uranium 

flows down the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon each year, not from past or present 

mining, but because uranium is a part of the natural environment." 

• We cannot let those who want to remove this land from natural resource management use 

scare tactics about water contamination as a reason and the Antiquities Act as the vehicle. 

• These lands historically provide a large portion of metals and hard rock minerals produced in 

and used by our country. If this area is designated as a national monument, existing claims 

would remain but we all know that any new mines would not be allowed to open in a 

designated national monument. 

It is no secret that most of the western states are trying to minimize the overreach of the 

federal government. 

• The decisions on the establishment of this and all national monuments in Arizona need to go 

through a complete NEPA process and be approved by the state of Arizona and Congress. 

Web: www.azmining.org Twitter: @azmining FB: Arizona Mining Association 
322 


Insert offset folio 391 here 22000A.283

9·22·16 Arizona Mining Association 

US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

• The state of Arizona has overwhelmingly said it does not want this monument. This includes 

the Governor, AG, State Land Commissioner, Legislature, Congressional delegation, cities, 

towns, and over 50 associations involved in the multiple uses found in our state. 

• The Arizona Mining Association and its members do not think the Antiquities Act should be 

abused by the federal government and used to take this land. 

Regards, 

Kelly Shaw Norton 

President 

Web: www.azmining.org Twitter: @azmining FB: Arizona Mining Association 
323 


Insert offset folio 392 here 22000A.284

May 28,2015 

Honorable John McCain 

US Senate 

241 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Jeff Flake 

US Senate 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators McCain and Flake: 

We write to thank you for your leadership related to the proposed designation by the Obama 

Administration of a "Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument." We read with great interest your 

March 10, 2015 letter to President Barack Obama and agree with the concerns you raise. We applaud 

your legislative efforts to curb the use of the Antiquities Act from affecting water rights without 

congressional approval. 

Specifically, we agree about the need for robust collaboration before any designation takes form. We all 

want to preserve the Grand Canyon for future generations and a sweeping designation of 1. 7 million 

acres of land could result in unintended consequences if stakeholders do not have the opportunity for 

adequate input. Elected leaders from the State of Arizona- federal, state, and local- should have 

ample opportunity to understand specifically what the Obama Administration is contemplating, and 

then engage with a wide variety of stakeholders to provide thoughtful input. 

Among those who need to provide considerable input is the travel and tourism industry- of which we 

play a significant role. Based on the details currently available, this designation has the potential to 

harm a variety of recreation and tourism industries, including our own, depending on how boundaries 

are defined and how management is conducted. We have none of those answers and would strongly 

oppose this designation prior to receiving those details and having the opportunity to provide input and 

receive assurances the travel and tourism industry would be held harmless. 

To punctuate the issue of boundaries mentioned above, the Town of Tusayan and the State of Arizona 

should have the opportunity to ensure the businesses and resources of the Town and the state-owned 

Grand Canyon Airport will not be adversely affected. Both Tusayan and Grand Canyon Airport rely on 

recreation and tourism and this proposed designation could significantly harm both. 

A designation of this size and scope should have a thoughtful and thorough process built around it and 

we look forward to being part of that dialogue. 
324 


Insert offset folio 393 here 22000A.285

Too much in politics comes down to an ali-or-nothing mentality which rarely results in a positive 

outcome. To that end, thank you for doing what you can to ensure this proposed designation receives 

the scrutiny it deserves. Please let us know how we can be a positive addition to your efforts. 

Sincerely, 

Brenda Halvorson 

Papillon Airways 

President, CEO 

Brian Brusa 

Maverick Aviation Group 

Vice President of Government Relations 

Alan Stephen 

Grand Canyon Airlines 

Vice President of Corporate Affairs 
325 


Insert offset folio 394 here 22000A.286

Archery Trade Association *Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies *Boone and Crockett 

Club * Camp Fire Club of America * Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation * Council to 

Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports * Dallas Safari Club * Delta Waterfowl Foundation * 

Houston Safari Club * Masters of Foxhounds Association * Mule Deer Foundation * National 

Association of Forest Service Retirees* National Rifle Association * National Shooting Sports 

Foundation* National Wild Turkey Federation* North American Bear Foundation *Orion: The 

Hunter's Institute* Quality Deer Management Association* Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation * 

Ruffed Grouse Society * Safari Club International * Tread Lightly! * Wildlife Management 

Institute * Wild Sheep Foundation*Whitetails Unlimited * U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance 

May 11,2015 

Dear Representative Grijalva, Kirkpatrick & Gallego: 

Our organizations, which represent millions of American hunter-conservationists are writing to express 

our concerns about your January 29'h letter to President Obama encouraging use of the Antiquities Act 

to designate 1.7 million acres of lands around the Grand Canyon National Park as the Grand Canyon 

Watershed National Monument. 

The land that would comprise the proposed monument includes some of the most important wildlife 

habitat, big game species and hunting opportunities in the U.S. including world class mule deer and elk. 

Not only is hunting an economic driver in the region, it also serves as a significant source of conservation 

revenue. In addition to license sales and excise taxes, this area generates revenue from the sale of 

special tags that have allowed the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD) to partner with the U.S. 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to invest millions of dollars in habitat conservation 

and wildlife management in the region. We are deeply concerned that these outstanding economic and 

natural resource benefits will be significantly impaired by an Antiquities Act designation. 

Proponents of the monument have cited a number of environmental challenges they inaccurately claim 

the designation could address. For example, 

• Proponents have identified timber sales on the Kaibab National Forest as a threat to the areas' 

ecological integrity. In reality, wildfire, due to excessive fuel build up, is the greatest threat to 

Southwestern forests. Reducing fire risk mandates active management to eliminate the risk of 

catastrophic fires. The drought in the west is worsening, leaving our untreated forests extremely 

vulnerable in a potential catastrophic fire season. Wildfires have scorched more than 4 million 

acres in Arizona since 2000. Another catastrophic fire would put the state forests and the 

wildlife that reside in them at risk. 

Proponents have asserted that off-highway vehicles (OHV) are destroying the lands. In reality, 

cross-county OHV travel is already prohibited. OHV use is restricted to designated roads/routes 

and managed by BLM and USFS under their respective Travel Management Plans which provide 

an adaptive framework that can address future concerns and management needs. 
326 


Insert offset folio 395 here 22000A.287

Proponents have asserted that an Antiquities Act designation will protect wildlife habitat 

connectivity. In reality, areas within the proposed monument are largely undeveloped; 

obstructions to wildlife movements are highly localized and typically associated with fences and 

roads. AGFD, the Arizona Department of Transportation, land management agencies, private 

landowners, and others are working to identify and remedy these barriers. There is no 

indication that a monument designation would expand or improve on those efforts. 

Proponents have asserted that overgrazing is harming these lands. In reality, livestock grazing 

within the proposed monument is responsibly and sustainably managed by the BLM and USFS. 

Stocking rates, seasons, and levels of use are specified by the management agency and adjusted 

to address resource needs and changing conditions. We feel that an Antiquities designation 

could be an unhelpful "solution in search of a problem" that would likely affect a system that is 

working well. 

We have consulted with the AGFD and learned that their concerns about monuments designated using 

the Antiquities Act are rooted in past experience. For example, designation of the Sonoran Desert 

National Monument in 2001 has impaired recovery efforts for the Sonoran pronghorn while also 

restricting water development projects critical to the Sonoran desert bighorn sheep population. These 

adverse impacts on resident wildlife populations, coupled with knowledge of similar problems in Arizona 

and elsewhere, has resulted in the AGFD Commission voting to oppose the Grand Canyon Watershed 

Monument in 2012 and again in 2015. 

In June, of 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Grand Canyon Game Preserve which he 

believed should be: "set aside forthe protection of game animals and be recognized as a breeding place 

therefore." It would be ironic indeed if the conservation legacy of Theodore Roosevelt were to succumb 

to a legacy of non-management and hamstringing of critical conservation measures due to a misguided 

monument designation proclaimed without the benefit of local stakeholder input. 

We would encourage you to honor both the wise legacy of President Roosevelt and the legacy of wildlife 

conservation by reconsidering your position supporting Administrative designation of the Grand Canyon 

Watershed National Monument without a thorough environmental evaluation and a thoughtful, 

transparent process including formal public involvement. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Archery Trade Association 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Boone and Crockett Club 

Camp Fire Club of America 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 

Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports 

Dallas Safari Club 

Delta Waterfowl Foundation 

Houston Safari Club 

Masters of Foxhounds Association 

Mule Deer Foundation 
327 


Insert offset folio 396 here 22000A.288

National Association of Forest Service Retirees 

National Rifle Association 

National Shooting Sports Foundation 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

North American Bear Foundation 

Orion: The Hunter's Institute 

Quality Deer Management Association 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Safari Club International 

Tread Lightly! 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Wild Sheep Foundation 

Whitetails Unlimited 

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance 
328 


Insert offset folio 397 here 22000A.289

April25, 2013 

Congressman Raul M. Grijalva 

Third District, Ariwna 

1511 Longworth HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re' HR 1348- Great Bend of the Gila River National Monument 

Dear Congressman Grijalva, 

205 ROOSEVELT AVENUE 

P.O. BOX 1726 

BUCKEYE, ARIZONA 85326-0160 

PH: (623) 386-2196 

FAX (623) 386-7789 

We are writing to express our concern over your proposed legislation that would create a new 

national monument in and around the Gila Bend area. 

We are an irrigation district that has drawn our existence from the Gila River since 1886. Water 

is our life blood and we are extremely concerned about the impact that this would have for us to 

continue our operations as they have existed for over l 00 years, including historically returning 

flow back into the Gila River. Agriculture is and will continue to be the economic driver in this 

area, and any mandates that affect lhis could be detrimental to the existing economy. 

Only 17.6% of Arizona is in private ownership. This legislation would invariably diminish 

development opportunities for private property owners in the future by limiting access via roads, 

utilities, energy transmission and also hinder existing land use on state and federal lands in this 

area. 

We do agree though that vegetation management is necessary in the Gila River and ask that you 

continue the work that Congressman Pastor started wilh lhe Tres Rios project. The Gila River 

from lhe confluence of the Agua Fria to Gillespie Darn has become overrun with salt cedars and 

tamarisk that threaten our lands and liwlihood by the impact they have diverting flows, flooding 

due to backwater effects and frequent fires. 

We would encourage you to work through the existing laws on the books to protect archeological 

sites and not paint with such a broad brush. 

Sincerely, 

fA_ )J~ Ed Gerak, General Manager 

CC: Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, First District, Arizona 

Congressman Ron Barber, Second District, Arizona 

Congressman Paul Gosar, Fourth District, Arizona 

Congressman Matt Salmon, Fifth District, Arizona 

Congressman David Schweikert, Sixlh District, Arizona 

Congressman Ed Pastor, Seventh District, Arizona 

Congressman Trent Franks, Eighth District, Arizona 

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema, Ninth District, Arizona 
329 


Insert offset folio 398 here 22000A.290

August 3, 2016 

Honorable Senator John McCain 

2201 East Camelback Road, Suite 115 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

Honorable Senator John McCain 

Office of the Mayor One City Plaza 

Yumo, Arizona 85364 

(928) 373-5002 

Fax (928) 373-5004 

As Mayor of the City of Yuma, I strongly support the position expressed by Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission Chairman Kurt Davis and the Arizona Game and Fish Department that opposes the 

proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. 

As you know, Arizona already has more National Monuments than any other state. Many of our 

residents are outdoor enthusiasts and travel to this area to hunt, fish, hike, boat, and bird watch 

among other outdoor activities. History of land designations tells us that lands will experience 

increased restrictions or full closures over time. local economies throughout Arizona will be negatively 

impacted while Arizona Game and Fish Department's ability to support wildlife conservation will be 

severely curtailed due to loss of revenue. 

The federal government cannot afford to maintain the existing national parks and monuments now. 

The additional!. 7 million acres for this national monument will only add to the inability to meet 

required maintenance needs of the full national parks system. Funding would better be directed to 

supporting the existing national park system or other national priorities like transportation 

infrastructure. 

Sincerely, 

/' -~---: </;;;/~· (--4---7"-::.- ~ ~.-:C:-2;_.._ 1 rfo;g! J. Ni oil~, PE, RLS 

Mayor ;-

City of Yuma 

cc: v Senator Jeff Flake 

Representative Paul Gosar 

Representative Trent Franks 

Director Christy Goldfuss, Environmental Quality 

Secretary Thomas Vilsack, Department of Agriculture 
330 


Insert offset folio 399 here 22000A.291

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

B85 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Economy· Ecology 

Land • People • Future 

Via email Chuck Podolak@flake.senate.gov 

The Honorable John McCain 

United States Senate 

241 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Via email nick matiella@mccain.senate.gov 

Re: Support for S. 1416 to amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the president from unilaterally creating 

a federal reserved water right when designating a national monument. 

September 19, 2016 

Dear Senators Flake and McCain; 

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization {ECO) regroups by an Intergovernmental Agreement under 

A.R.S. 11-952 the six counties of Apache County, Cochise County, Gila County, Graham County, Greenlee 

County and Navajo County. 

The mission of ECO if to develop, plan and implement specific programs impacting economic 

development in the Counties, and insuring that the Counties' safety, custom, culture and economic wellbeing concerns are integrated in land and natural resource management decisions made by the federal 

agencies. 

ECO operates 10 programs including Forest Restoration; Endangered Species; Watershed Restoration; 

Infrastructures; Recreation; Energy; Water; Natural Resources Planning; Public lands; and, Emerging 

Issues. 

By changing the designation of federal land the president also adjusts the nature of the water rights 

associated with those parcels. The Supreme Court examined this particular issue in 1976 and held that 

the Park Service could enjoin private landowners from withdrawing groundwater on adjacent lands, 

because those withdrawals can be seen as interfering with the purpose of the national park or 

monument. 

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization 550 N. 9'" Place Show Low, AZ 85901 (928) 637 3037 
331 


Insert offset folio 400 here 22000A.292

Recently, some members of the House requested the unilateral designation of a "watershed" national 

monument along the Colorado River. Such designation, if made without the timely enactment of 5. 1416 

could have significant consequences for the delicate balance of water rights in Northern Arizona. 

The Eastern Arizona Counties Organization is therefore pleased to write in strong support of S. 1416 to 

amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the president from unilaterally creating a federal reserved water 

right when designating a national monument, introduced by Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, and 

wants to express its appreciation to the Senators for their continued involvement and leadership in 

addressing the issues of water and water rights in Arizona. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

On behalf of the Board of Directors, 

Pascal Berlioux, Ph.D. MBA 

Executive Director 

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization 

pberlioux@easternarizonacounties.us 

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization letter of support for S. 1416 page 2 of 2 

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization 550 N. 91

" Place Show Low, AZ 85901 (928) 637 3037 
332 


Insert offset folio 401 here 22000A.293

2187 S. 2350 E. 

LittlefieldHurricane Valley 

Natural 

Resource 

Conservation 

District 

St. George, Utah 84790 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senate 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0305 

Dear Senator Flake: 

September 23, 2015 

We, as supervisors of the Littlefield-Hurricane Valley Natural Resource Conservation District, oppose the 

Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. Our purpose as conservationists is to make wise use of 

our Natural Resources. We are elected by the people in our area to make best use of the land and 

resources in our environment. We presently work together with the Bureau of Land Management, 

Arizona Game and Fish, State Land, Park Service and Private land owners to accomplish our mission. 

Our District has a mandate and goal to promote conservation, and monument designation will severely 

hinder those efforts. 

The state of Arizona and our neighboring state of Utah already have a significant amount of land 

designated as National Parks and National Monuments, and we don't feel that any further designation is 

warranted. The current system of management has been working for many years and we don't see the 

need to add another layer of control and additional cost to this area. 

Sincerely, 

Ed Bundy, Chairman 

Barry Bundy, Secretary 

Larry Iverson, Treasurer 

Orvel Bundy, Supervisor 

Littlefield-Hurricane Valley Natural 

Resources Conservation District 
333 


Insert offset folio 402 here 22000A.294

GAIL GRIFFIN 

STATE SENATOR, DISTRICT 14 

CAPITOL COMPLEX. SENATE BUII.OING i 700 WEST WASHINGTON 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007w2890 

(602) 925-5B95 

TOLL FREE 1~2-8404 

FAX> (602)"17..J025 

E-MAIL: ggriffrn(Jiaz:teQ goy 

Senator Jeff Flake 

Washington, DC 

~rhona ~tate ~enate 

September 21, 2016 

COMMITTEES! 

WATER AND ENERGY, CHAIR 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 

RULES 

Re: The Abuse of Presidential Power Regarding National Monuments in Arizona 

Dear Senator Flake, 

I am pleased that the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hearS. 437 and S. 

1416 on September 22"d. As you are aware, Arizonans have a grave concern that the current 

administration has abused its authority in an effort to put even more Arizona land under federal 

control through the Antiquities Act. Our concerns culminated in the Arizona Legislature passing 

by an overwhelming margin Senate Concurrent Memorial1001 during the 2015 legislative 

session (attached). 

The prevailing sentiment in the Legislature and amongst all Arizonans is that this egregious 

over-extension offederal authority subverts the purpose of the numerous federal and state laws 

already in place to protect vulnerable lands. This arbitrary and reckless designation of national 

monuments puts the state's proud environmental heritage and future fiscal well-being in danger. 

Further federal interference in Arizona land management will only undo the progress made in 

ensuring state lands are available for future generations. 

Please encourage your U.S. Senate colleagues to listen to our concerns and supportS. 437 and S. 

1416. Thank you for reaching out to your constituents and please let me know if you have any 

questions. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Gail Griffin 

Legislative District 14 
334 


Insert offset folio 403 here 22000A.295

SENATOR STEVE PIERCE 

1700 WEST WASHINGTON, SUITE S 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007·2844 

CAPITOL PHONE: {602) 926-5584 

CAPITOL FAX: (602) 417-3101 

TOLL FREE: 1-800.352-8404 

sp!erce@azleg.gov 

DISTRICT 1 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

United States Senator 

368 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Flake: 

September 23,2015 

SENATE PRESIDENT 2012 

COMMITIEES: 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

CHAIRMAN 

TRANSPORTATION 

JUDICIARY 

This letter expresses my opposition to the proposed creation of the Grand Canyon Watershed National 

Monument (GCWNM) within Arizona and joins others including: the Arizona Legislature, U.S. Senators 

John McCain and Jeff Flake, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and its commission and multiple local 

public officials. Without the necessary support from Arizona stakeholders this proposal for unilateral 

executive action should not advance. 

The GCWNM would designate 1. 7 million acres, making it the second largest national monument in the 

country and almost doubling the amount of national monument acreage in the state. Designating such a vast 

area- larger than the state of Delaware- requires a narrow management regime that could negatively affect 

the area's resources and the state as a whole. 

The multiple-use policy currently managing this area was developed with public input and based on 

resource management plans that allows for reasonable use of the area for purposes such as recreation, 

grazing, mining, energy development and hunting and fishing access. Such uses provide an economic and 

intrinsic benefit to Arizona and a national monument designation would eliminate this benefit for a 

nonexistent threat. 

Potentially more damaging are the consequences to the states' forests and water resources at a time when 

the Southwest is experiencing a 15-year drought. A national monument designation would lock away this 

area from crucial wildfire management and hinder water resource management practices without providing 

any tangible advantage. 

Although it is unquestionable the Grand Canyon is a national treasure that is worth protecting, a national 

monument designation serves no purpose other than to harm the state of Arizona and its resources. 

In light of these facts, I respectfully urge you to oppose the proposed GCWNM. 

Senator Steve Pierce 

Arizona State Senate 

Legislative District I 
335 


Insert offset folio 404 here 22000A.296

SENATOR STEVE PIERCE 

17GC WESTWAS'i!NGTON. SUITES 

;;>HOF.NIX. AH!WNA f.IS0Cl7 ·264<1 

CAPITOL PHONE (602; 926·5~84 

CAPITOL FAX (€02) 417-310" 

TOLL FREE 1-8QC.352-S4:14 

Sp!erce@azleg.gov 

DISTRICT1 

The Honorahle Jeff flake 

Unik•d States Senator 

368 Russell Senate Oftice Building: 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Flake. 

September 23, 201 5 

SENATE PRESIDENT 2012 

COMMITTEES 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

CHA!RMA~ 

TRANSPORTATION 

JUDICIARY 

This letter expresses my opposition to the proposed executive designation of the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock 

National Monument 

A subjective organization is bringing this proposal that lacks the necessary support from state leaders, Arizona's 

congressional delegation and the local community. ln fact, the Arizona State Legislatmc passed S.C.M. lOOi in Mnrch of 

this year expressing the state"s opposition to the unilateral creation of new national monuments and earlier that same 

montl1 U.S. Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake outlined their opposition in a letter to the President. 

The need for any national monument d~signation is unclear. The area is not under tlweat of widespread destJ11ction: only 

high use and \'andallsm. \Vhile it is important to addr~ss: these issues the most prudent way to do so is under the current 

multiple-use policy~ not tl1rough a national monument de:.;ignHtii.Jn. 

The effects of such a designation create many uncertainties. There are serim1s questions concerning land use, visitation. 

effects on private lands and the potential for decreased local controL Perhaps the most important consequence concerns 

the wntcr rights of the Sedona Verde Val!ey which are being adjudicated in court. Wa1cr is a vital resource to the area's 

economy. community and environment and a monument designation will complic~le an t!lready complex process. 

Responsible use of the area and its resources provide a SLtbstantial benefit and there is no need to endanger this bcnefi1 

for an already manageable and relatively minor threm. 

This issue is multifaceted, nuanced and will have a direct and permanent eft'Cct on the city of Sedona at!d its residents. 

for these reasons a thol'Ough and objective process is necessary before any designation should be considered by the 

President lnstead the proposal has been fast-tracked, questions remain unanswered and the amount of public input the 

issue deserves is tacking. 

The nationalmonuu:eul proposal is ill-timed, unnecessary and \VOtdd have potentially deleterious consequences. l 

respectfully urge you to oppo:;e it. 

Sincerdy. 

Senator Steve Pierce 

Lc.a;is;ativc DistriGt 1 
336 


Insert offset folio 405 here 22000A.297

MOHAVE COUNT\' SHERIFF'S OFFICE 

Arizona State Senate 

Capitol Complex 

1700 West Washington 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-2890 

Dear Senator .Flake: 

JIM McCABE 

I write to 

Canyon W••te•rsh•ed 

opj;>Ositio:n to the formation of the proposed Grand 

Monument by presidential e.xecutive order. 

Creating a new and enormous- 1.7 million acres National Monument 

amounts to a Federal land grab. It \IIOOJd add additional Federal 

regulation to activity, including ranching, hunting, and recreational 

access. 

It is just this sort of Federal overreached that has led to pr<>pc•sals 

assume control areas of public land in the ru'"""'~'u 

Creation not by CongJres:sio:naJ 

and action order, even 

contribute distrust of the Federal action. 

In opposing the propesed Grand Canyon Watershe-d 

Jim McCabe 

Sheriff 

iiOOWestil<llli~Stl'l!l!t"' ~0. ll!H '" 

!'HONE: f9lll} 753-11753 "' 

864112 
337 


Insert offset folio 406 here 22000A.298

TowN oF TusAYAN 

at the entrance to Grand Canyon National Park 

Statement to Senator Flake concerning the Proposed Grand Canyon Watershed 

Monument September 20, 2016 

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Unilateral as, "done or undertaken by one person or party ..• or 

affecting one side of a subject ... or an engagement which (obligates) only one party". The Monument 

appears to be a unilateral decision. In comparison, I will identify the impact of another unilateral 

decision affecting Tusayan, an Arizona incorporated municipality, within the proposed Monument zone. 

In 2014, the Forest Service accepted, in writing, a Tusayan road easement application offering housing 

opportunities for residents of Tusayan, where resident owned housing is non-existent. In March 2016, 

after two years of the NEPA process, the application was returned with an explanation that it did not 

meet the "initial screening criteria". After expending $400,000 on the application process and USFS 

consultants, they returned the application stating that a return was neither a denial nor a rejection and 

the return could not be appealed. As a result, demeaning, real life situations continue to befall Tusayan 

residents who dedicated their lives to the Grand Canyon. 

One example is recently retired former Mayor Greg Bryan. Mayor Bryan lived and worked in Tusayan 

more than 17 years, retiring in December 2015. Upon retirement, he was forced to move from the town 

he helped create, since no private owned housing exists. No private housing exists because the Forest 

Service refused to allow the Town to improve an existing road to Town property where affordable 

homes can still be built. 

The Forest Service broke their own rules in this unilateral decision. This told residents of Tusayan, your 

best chance of owning a home doesn't matter; your right to improve less than a mile of dirt road to your 

own property, doesn't matter; your chance to build a community, rather than keep an employer only 

housing paradigm doesn't matter. 

Arizona has more monuments than any other State in the Union, but this doesn't matter in unilateral 

decisions. 70% of Arizona is already federal land doesn't matter in unilateral decisions. Tusayan would 

become the only municipality entirely swallowed up in this monument doesn't matter in unilateral 

decisions. Private and municipal property would be unwillingly placed under an advisory committee to 

determine land management doesn't matter in unilateral decisions. 

The truth is, we do matter! 

The Town ofTusayan has proven itself a good and cooperative neighbor to the Park and Forest Service. 

In 2013, when the federal government shutdown, the Grand Canyon National Park closed, as did Forest 

Roads, and highways. While the shutdown lingered, Tusayan coordinated with the State of Arizona and 

local businesses to reopen the Park. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were forwarded to the federal 

government and the Park reopened. Upon settlement of the federal shutdown, Arizona was reimbursed 

their contributions to the federal government and made whole. local businesses were reimbursed their 

contributions and made whole. The National Park Service was restored to their original funding level and 

(928) 638-9909 PO Box 709, 845 Mustang Drive, Tusayan, A2 86023 www.tusayan-az.gov 
338 


Insert offset folio 407 here 22000A.299

TowN OF TusAYAN 

at the entrance to Grand Canyon National Park 

made whole. Tusayan has yet to be reimbursed and now has expended nearly a million dollars on 

federal responsibilities and Forest Service application requirements with nothing to show for it. 

Soundbites supporting the monument characterize it as "saving the Grand Canyon", mostly from mining. 

In reality, most federal agency representatives intimate with this effort, privately acknowledge concern 

with federal overreach. The monument process is being used to address mining issues which have 

already been blocked and restricted for decades. The potential members of an "advisory committee" are 

already expressing how they will finally be able to "push their agendas" without interference from 

people who actually live within the monument boundaries. Again, a unilateral decision. Tusayan has 

proven our willingness to work cooperatively. Federal beaurocrats, mainly in Washington, have proven 

to be the opposite. 

Tusayan strongly opposes the establishment of the Grand Canyon Watershed Monument, whether 

through Congressional decree or Executive Order. Tusayan believes this is federal overreach to appease 

special interest groups who do not live among, nor represent the views of the many life-long residents 

who cherish and manage the Grand Canyon. 

Unilateral means to obligate one party. This Monument is an underhanded way to achieve special 

interest goals, that can't be achieved any other way. The clear definition of a unilateral decision. 

Thankyou. ~ 

~·a .. 

Eric Duthie 

Tusayan Town Manager 

(928) 638-9909 PO Box 709, 845 Mustang Drive, Tusayan, A2 86023 www.tusayan-az.gov 

N 

l 
339 


Insert offset folio 408 here 22000A.300

DouGLAS A. DucEY GoVl!RNOR 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

OFFICE oF THE GoVERNOR 

Statement for the Record 

State of Arizona 

Governor Douglas A. Ducey 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 

Full Committee Hearing to Consider Pending Legislation 

September 22, 2016 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE 

On behalf of the State of Arizona, I appreciate the opportunity to provide written comment for 

the Congressional Record regarding pending legislation related to the designation of national 

monuments through unilateral authorities prescribed under the Antiquities Act of 1906. These 

designations ultimately result in restrictive use of natural resources and water rights belonging to 

private and state land owners and prohibitions for the public's full enjoyment and use of their 

public federal land. 

Arizona proudly boasts some of the country's most unique and majestic landscapes that entice 

visitors and businesses to this epicenter of western progress. My administration is focused on 

building upon opportunity: laying foundations for improving government efficiencies that truly 

reduce the bottom line, and modernize what are outdated rules and regulations that thwart sound 

principles of governance. 

Proposals that encourage protection, preservation or limitations on use of certain lands in the 

west have been advanced through various legal and administrative processes. Congressional 

actions and administrative withdrawals of certain lands including areas around the Grand Canyon 

have signified historic successes of multiple stakeholders to advance objectives that have been 

publicly vetted. 

The 1.7 million proposed GCWNM designation is different. By Presidential Proclamation 

authorized by Antiquities Act of 1906 (Act), the land becomes set aside in perpetuity without 

input from the State or its citizens and without any feasibility or economic impact analyses. The 

Act's passage in 1906 was to provide the President with the ability to protect certain artifacts that 

otherwise had no lawful protections at that time. 

I700 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 

602-542-4331 • www.azgovernor.gov 
340 


Insert offset folio 409 here 22000A.301

September 22,2016 

Page 2 of3 

It may have made sense at the time, too. Between 1906 and 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt 

issued executive proclamation creating 18 scientific areas or natural monuments under the 

authority granted to him by the Act - all of them in far western states, thousands of miles from 

Washington, D.C., in remote areas where thieves, bandits, and the dregs of society were 

destroying Native American sites. That is NOT how the Antiquities Act is being applied today. 

Today, the Antiquities Act is being used to lock- up private and public landscapes from common, 

legal, and necessary economic activities that are vital and necessary to the economic prosperity 

of our great nation. 

This administration represents progressive 21st century management that provides opportunities 

for ALL, and seeks to reduce and eliminate unreasonable and outdated regulations that are 

exclusionary and harmful to developing industries of all kinds. In 21st Century land management 

practices, the Act represents as antiquated a system as the antiquities it was created to protect. Its 

process is flawed and has evolved into a practice that resembles feudalism, serving only very 

small and limited interests. The Act does not require substantive input or analysis, and has never 

been challenged judicially. 

Aside from the immense failure of governing and process that the Antiquities Act represents and 

that GCWNM proponents promote, the creation of federal land use designations also has farreaching detrimental effects. By their very nature, federal land use designations such as this 

impede economic opportunity and the private property rights of landowners throughout the 

region. Let's be clear - these designations are purely about preservation, not multiple-use 

management that, as the first Chief of the Forest Service Gifford Pinchot would say, achieves 

"the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run." Multiple-use land management is an 

essential component of Arizona's economy: recreation, mining, agriculture, and grazing. Put 

another way, four of the "Five C's" represented in the great Seal of Arizona (copper, cattle, 

cotton, and citrus) would not exist if we did not allow for multiple uses of public lands, and of 

course the ability to recreate in Arizona 365 days per year relies on the fifth C (climate). 

Imposition of a preservation management objective overlay on 1.7 million acres of land in 

Arizona thwarts Arizona's land management objectives and values, and it does so by bypassing a 

public process that would most certainly result in a much more thoughtful result. 

The GCWNM is not narrow, targeted, wan·anted, or being considered thmugh an open, 

cooperative public process. The State opposes outdated laws and rules that violate a good faith 

contract between state and federal entities to work cooperatively to identify natural resources that 

require active or immediate action; and to undertake such efforts in a manner that is consistent 

with a balanced public process applicable to all other land management decisions. The State 

supports conservation and considerate management of its culture, history, and landscapes. There 

may be areas in the United States where creation of narrow, targeted preservation areas is 

warranted; however, the process should include considerable efforts to identify, balance, and 

mitigate impacts to economies, other potential resources, and to personal property rights. 
341 


Insert offset folio 410 here 22000A.302

September 22, 20 16 

Page 3 of3 

We, the State of Arizona, encourage a fair alternative to the proposed use of the Antiquities Act 

to create the GCWNM, which will unfairly limit access and prohibit the ability of private entities 

to conduct business on 1.7 million acres of lands in Arizona. Resource and land management 

decisions best serve all constituents when state and federal interests are intermingled; which 

results in true partnerships and democratically balanced outcomes. We ask that the United States 

Congress review and amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 as it is unrepresentative of the principles 

on which this great nation was founded: a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that 

government is honest, and making decisions that best serve all citizens. 
342 


Insert offset folio 411 here 22000A.303

Opposition to National Monuments within Arizona 

The State of Arizona is opposed to the creation of the proposed 1.7 million acre Grand 

Canyon Watershed National Monument (GCWNM), and any other new or enlarged 

National Monument within Arizona. 

The GCWNM is opposed by: 39 bipartisan Arizona State House and Senate members, 

25 members of the U.S. House of Representatives including the majority of Arizona 

Congressmen, both U.S. Senators McCain and Flake, the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and its Commission, Arizona city and county elected officials, members of 

the Arizona Havasupai and Navajo Tribes, and over 60 wildlife, recreational and 

agricultural organizations. 11 

Nearly 81 percent (59.7 million acres) of land within Arizona is already under the 

control of the United States (see the red areas in the BLM and AZ state maps below), 

including National Monuments, National Parks, National Forests, Bureau of Land 

Management, military, tribal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Wilderness restrictions and special 

land use designations. The GCWNM will withdraw 1.7 million additional acres from 

multiple-uses, such as recreation (hiking, camping, hunting, fishing), agriculture 

(farming, ranching, grazing), mining and development. 

Only about 18 percent of the 73 million acres of land within Arizona is in private 

ownership, and thus paying taxes for public education and other needed government 

services. This places Arizona and the other western states at huge fiscal disadvantages, 

in comparison to the eastern states that have very small percentages of their land under 

the control of the United States. 

AZ State Rep. Bob Thorpe: AZ's Opposition to National Monument. Page 1 of9 
343 


Insert offset folio 412 here 22000A.304

Executive Summary of the Facts 

The following includes many of the reasons why the United States cannot and should 

not create the GCWNM and other new National Monuments: 

• It is a contractual breach by the United States of the terms of Arizona's Enabling 

Act, which stipulates that a portion of the revenue from the State Trust land be 

used for public education (the beneficiaries.) The existing and newly proposed 

National Monuments encumber almost 162,000 acres of Arizona State Trust land, 

which violates the terms of Arizona's Enabling Act and financially punishes 

Arizona public education • 

• None of the Arizona Legislatures (as required by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 

17 of the U.S. Constitution), Governors, or any voter referendum has ever 

approved the creation of any of the National Monuments or National Parks 

created within Arizona 2 

• It will encumber 1.7 million more acres of land within Arizona (an area larger 

than the States of Delaware and Rhode Island combined), including the 

unconstitutional seizing of over 62,000 acres of additional State Trust land, 7,000 

acres of private land, and vast amounts of contractually leased public land. The 

perimeter fence alone will be greater than the distance between Washington D.C 

and New York City, approximately 206 miles long 

• It will lock-up vast natural lumber and mineral resources, including gold, silver, 

copper, and what is believed to be the largest and richest uranium deposits in the 

world, a resource that has been called "the most significant of strategic 

minerals." The National Materials and Minerals Policy Research and 

Development Act of 1980, TITLE 30 CHAPTER 28 § 1601 begins by stating "The 

Congress finds that (1) the availability of materials is essential for national 

security, economic well-being, and industrial production." Encumbering this 

important resource would be devastating for the United States, especially in light 

of the recent revelation that under Secretary of State Clinton, the Russians have 

gained control over 20 percent of the United States Uranium 10 

• GCWNM was not proposed in compliance with FLPMA (Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act) or NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), and its 

creation lacks transparency, public involvement and a full accounting of all 

impacts to multi-users including outdoor recreational enthusiasts. It specifically 

harms Arizona's authority to manage wildlife (including threatened and 

endangered) and their associated habitats ' 

• Use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 3 for the creation of National Monuments 

within the states is in violation of the U.S. Constitution: 

1. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17: use of state land by the United States must 

be for enumerated uses and "purchased by the consent of the legislature of 

A/. State Rep. Bob Thorpe: A/.'s Opposition to National Monument. Page 2 of9 
344 


Insert offset folio 413 here 22000A.305

the state". Arizona has never approved or has been compensated for the State 

Trust land encumbered within the National Monuments. 2 

2. The Fifth Amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or 

property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for 

public use, without just compensation," which has occurred repeatedly to 

Arizona State Trust, private and contractually leased public land 7 

3. Article 4, Section 4: citizens are constitutionally guaranteed a "Republican 

Form of Government" within the states, which is violated whenever an 

individual enters Federally controlled Arizona lands 8 

4. The Antiquities Act is unconstitutional because it grants the President with 

entirely new powers that are not enumerated and are not in Pursuance of the 

Constitution (the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2.) The U.S. 

Constitution does not grant Congress with the enumerated power or 

authority to enact these new Executive powers, which are clearly not in 

pursuance of the Constitution, but are in fact in direct conflict with it (Article 

I, Section 8, Paragraph 17.) In order for the Act to be considered 

Constitutional, a new amendment is required that would define "National 

Monuments" and "National Parks" as enumerated uses of land within a state 

by the United States, and would provide the President with these new 

powers claimed within the Act: to seize land within a state for use by the 

United States without the consent of the state legislature and without just 

compensation. 3 

• The GCWNM, and the current National Monuments, violate multiple provisions 

of the Antiquities Act of 1906 which is used as the instrument for the unlawful 

seizure of huge amounts of State Trust, private and contractually leased public 

land 3 

• It violates the doctrine of the Equality of States: The United States currently 

controls 59.7 million acres (81 percent) of land within Arizona. This includes 3.7 

million acres within 22 National Monuments and Parks, which have already 

encumbered almost 100,000 acres of State Trust land, and countless acres of 

private land and contractually leased public land. The United States only pays 

PIL T (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) at an annual average of about 59 cents per acre, 

but unlike all other private landowners, the United States does not pay assessed 

property taxes on any of the 59.7 million acres of land it holds within Arizona. 

This massive inequity in the Federal control of state land does not exist within 

the eastern states, and it dramatically harms our city, county and state 

government's ability to fund education and basic public services. 9 

• It again violates the doctrine of the Equality of States: Arizona currently has the 

largest number of National Monuments (22) created with the second largest 

number of acres (3.7 million.) There are grave inequalities between western and 

AZ State Rep. Bob Thorpe: AZ"s Opposition to National Monument. Page 3 of9 
345 


Insert offset folio 414 here 22000A.306

eastern states. There are almost 5 times more National Monuments in the 

western states (W=102, E=23), the total number of acres of National Monuments 

in the western states is 879 times larger (W=71,200,000 acres, E=81,000 acres), and 

the average number of acres within each National Monument in the western 

states is 189 times larger (W=698,337 acres, E=3,523 acres). 9 

• It will end multiple-use lands within the GCWNM, including access, 

conservation efforts and wildlife-related recreation, wildlife population 

augmentations, wildlife habitat manipulations and enhancements, wildlife water 

development and maintenance, and hunting and fishing access 1 

• It has huge potentially negative economic impacts: fishing, hunting and 

recreation generates $1.2 billion in spending, creating an economic impact of $2.1 

billion to the State of Arizona annually, supporting more than 18,000 jobs, $699 

million in wages, and generating more than $132 million in state tax revenue. 

Arizona's neighbor Utah reports that with the creation of the Escalante-Grand 

Staircase National Monument, local counties and communities have experienced 

rural depopulation, a negative impact on public schools, and overall economic 

losses and negative impacts to the cities, counties and state. 6 

In conclusion, the State of Arizona implores the United States to end its 109-year 

unconstitutional practice of creating National Monuments within Arizona and the other 

states, that place land use restrictions on additional acreage within Arizona, and to 

immediately begin the process of fully returning these lands to the control of each state. 

Additionally, the United States needs to immediately begin the process of disposing of 

its vast land holdings within Arizona and the other western states, as it has already 

done in the eastern states. 

The following information is provided in support of the claims made within this 

document, and are referenced by superscript numerals (see above) to the following 

numbered items. 

1. The Findings of the Arizona Game and Fish Department 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and its Commission are in 

opposition to the GCWNM, its special land-use designation, and the resulting impacts 

on multiple-use lands, including the impacts on access, conservation efforts and 

wildlife-related recreation. This proposed Presidential Proclamation lacks transparency, 

public involvement and a full accounting of all impacts to multi-users, specifically the 

Department's authority to manage wildlife, associated habitat and the impacts to 

outdoor recreational enthusiasts. 

The AZGFD Commission's concerns include: 

• The new National Monument has not been proposed in compliance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act or the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

AZ State Rep. Bob Thorpe: AZ"s Opposition to National Monument. Page 4 of9 
346 


Insert offset folio 415 here 22000A.307

It does not take into consideration traditional uses of the land, which includes 

recreational opportunities. 

It may further restrict and preclude motorized access for recreational use, 

wildlife viewing opportunities, disabled hunters and anglers, and the retrieval of 

downed game. 

It may cause legal ambiguity concerning the ability to properly manage wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. 

An analysis by the AZGFD demonstrates that this new national monument designation 

can lead to restrictions on proactive wildlife management, including but not limited to: 

• Wildlife population augmentations 

• Wildlife habitat manipulations and enhancements 

• Wildlife water development and maintenance 

Hunting and fishing access 

2. U.S. Constitutionally: Enumerated Use of State Land by the United States 

According to the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17, the United States 

has specific enumerated uses for land within a state that are "purchased by the consent 

of the legislature of the state." Much of the 59.7 million acres (81 percent) of Arizona 

land that is currently under the control of the United States does not serve a 

Constitutionally approved enumerated purpose, including: 

• National Monuments 

• National Parks 

• National Forests 

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acreage 

• Wilderness Areas 

• Wildlife Refuges 

• National Historic Sites 

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holdings 

3. The Antiquities Act of 1906 

The enumerated powers and restrictions of the United States government are defined 

within the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment states that "The powers not 

delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are 

reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The Antiquities Act is 

unconstitutional because Congress does not have the power or authority to grant the 

Executive Branch of the United States with the power to seize land, a power which is 

not granted anywhere within the Constitution. In fact, Article 4, Section 3 suggests that 

Congress only has the power to dispose of land, not to acquire. 

The Antiquities Act is also unconstitutional, because it allows for the creation of 

'National Monuments,' which are not defined as constitutionally enumerated uses of 

state land by the United States. In the past 109-years, Congress has never bothered to 

propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would fix these problems .. 

i\Z State Rep. Bob Thorpe: i\Z's Opposition to National Monument. Page 5 of9 
347 


Insert offset folio 416 here 22000A.308

Section 2 of the Antiquities Act states '"lhat the President of the United States is hereby 

authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, 

historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that 

are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United 

States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the 

limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper 

care and management of the objects to be protected: Provided, That when such objects 

are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private 

ownership, the tract, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and 

management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of 

the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of 

the Government of the United States." 

The Act states that those lands that will become National Monuments must be owned 

or controlled by the government of the United States, which has typically not been the 

case in much of the lands that constitute the National Monuments created within 

Arizona. Nowhere within the Act does it suggest that the United States has the 

authority to seize State Trust land, especially without state legislative approval or just 

compensation as required by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17. 

The Act encourages property owners with a "tract covered by a bona fied unperfected 

claim or held in private ownership" to relinquish their property to the United States, 

which conflicts with the Fifth Amendment that requires the United States to 

compensate citizens when it takes property for public use. 7 

However, the Act does state "the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the 

smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be 

protected." In almost every case, this provision of the Act has been violated by the 

United States, where the average size of the National Monuments located within 

Arizona is almost 174,000 acres, clearly not confined to the smallest area as called for 

within the Act, lands that include Arizona State Trust, private and contractually leased 

public land. 

The United States has not demonstrated a valid justification for the immense 1.7 million 

acre size of the proposed GCWNM, or in fact the other 22 National Monuments that 

were created within Arizona. Where is the inventory of each specific individual 

"historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or 

scientific interest" to be protected, as called for in the Act? Where is each object located 

(GPS coordinates), where are the digital photographs of each object, where is the 

independent peer-reviewed scientific documentation and justification I necessity for 

protecting each object, how many square feet of land does each object occupy and what 

is the amount of land (in square feet) that is required for the "proper care and 

management of the objects to be protected" as called for within the Act? 

AZ State Rep. Bob Thorpe: AZ's Opposition to National Monument. Page 6 of9 
348 


Insert offset folio 417 here 22000A.309

4. Arizona Enabling Act of 1910 and Public Education Funding 

The creation of National Monuments directly conflicts with Arizona's Enabling Act, 

which repeatedly refers to the use of State Trust land, and in Section 24 states: "the 

passage of this Act are hereby granted to the said State for the support of common 

schools". If the United States creates another National Monument within Arizona, 

almost 162,000 acres of State Trust land will be financially unavailable for use by the 

beneficiaries outlined in Arizona's Enabling Act, including public schools and 

universities. This is a violation, a breach of the contractual terms agreed to by Congress 

and by the State of Arizona within its Enabling Act, which stipulates that the financial 

proceeds from the Arizona State Trust land would be used to support public education. 

5. National Monuments Located Within Arizona 

The twenty-two National Monuments created within Arizona total3.7 million acres. 

The addition of the proposed 1.7 million acre GCWNM would increase Arizona's total 

National Monument acreage by 146 percent to 5.4 million acres. The total size of 

National Monuments within Arizona would then exceed each individual size of the 

states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, 

an area 127 times larger than Washington DC. 

6. Negative Economic Impacts of National Monuments 

According to the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, fishing and hunting 

recreation generates $1.2 billion in spending and creates an economic impact of $2.1 

billion to the State of Arizona annually. These activities support more than 18,000 jobs, 

provides residents with $699 million in salary and wages and generates more than $132 

million in state tax revenue. Our neighbor Utah reports that with the creation of the 

Escalante-Grand Staircase National Monument, local counties and communities have 

experienced rural depopulation, a negative impact on public schools, and overall 

economic losses and negative impacts to the cities, counties and state. 

7. Due Process Under the Law 

The seizure of 1.7 million more acres for the GCWNM by Presidential Proclamation is a 

violation of the State of Arizona and its private citizen's constitutionally guaranteed 

Due Process rights. The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall ... be deprived of 

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken 

for public use, without just compensation." 

8. Guaranteed Republican Form of Government 

The 59.7 million acres of land currently controlled by the United States within Arizona 

is a violation both of Arizona state sovereignty and Arizona's constitutionally 

guaranteed Republican Form of Government (Article 4, Section 4). When within those 

Federally controlled lands, citizens do not have a voice or vote, they do not have the 

same liberties that are guaranteed by Arizona outside of those lands, and they have no 

city, county or state representation. 

AZ State Rep. !lob Thorpe: AZ"s Opposition to National Monument. Page 7 of9 
349 


Insert offset folio 418 here 22000A.310

9. Doctrine of the Equality of States 

Arizona's Enabling Act of 1910 states "the proposed State of Arizona shall be deemed 

admitted by Congress into the Union by virtue of this Act on an equal footing with 

other States." The Supreme Court ruled (3 Stat. 489, 492 (1819)) concerning the 

sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States, that inasmuch as the original States retained 

sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within 

their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over 

common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an 

equal footing with the original States. (http:l/law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/22-

doctrine-of-equality-of-states.html). The huge 81 percent of land controlled by the 

United States places Arizona (and the other western states) on an unequal footing with 

the original States and with the eastern states. 

10. Arizona Uranium deposits in the proposed GCWNM 

On June 24,2015, the Arizona State Geologist released its new report "Partial database 

for breccia pipes and collapse features on the Colorado Plateau, northwestern Arizona" 

(http://www.azgs.az.gov/news_releases2015.shtml#jun24) that found concentrations of 

breccia pipes 10 to 100 times higher than previously known, in two test study areas. 

Breccia pipes are the primary targets for uranium and other minerals. The State 

Geologist believes that the same density of pipes extends across the entire region, which 

would make the area, that includes the GCWNM, one of the largest and richest uranium 

districts in the world. For the United States, Uranium has been called "the most 

significant of strategic minerals." From a safety standpoint, more Uranium flows down 

the Colorado River from natural erosion (60 tons) than is annually mined worldwide. 

11. Resolutions, Letters and Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National 

Monument Include 

A February 2015 letter in opposition written to the President by 25 members of 

the U.S. House of Representatives 

• A 2015 Arizona State Legislative Concurrent Memorial #1001 

A February 2015 Legislative Resolution from the Arizona State House of 

Representatives 

A May 2012 Resolution from the Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Commission 

A March 2015 Resolution from Jim Unmacht, the President of the Arizona 

Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation, which includes AZ Deer Association, AZ 

Outdoor Sports, AZ Big Game Super Raffle, 1.2.3.Go ... , AZ Antelope 

Foundation, AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Outdoor Experience 4 All, Xtreme 

Predator Callers, AZ Houndsmen, AZ Fly casters Club, Coconino Sportsmen, AZ 

Bowhunters Association, South Eastern AZ Sportsmen's Club, Mohave 

Sportsman Club, AZ State Chapter of National Wild Turkey Federation, AZ Elk 

/\Z State Rep. Bob Thorpe: /\Z's Opposition to National Monument. Page 8 of9 
350 


Insert offset folio 419 here 22000A.311

Society, AZ Chapter of Safari Club International, AZ BASS Nation, The BASS 

Federation, SRT Outdoors, Anglers United, AZ Council of Trout Unlimited 

An April 2015 Resolution from Mayor John Moore and the city council of the 

City of Williams, Arizona 

• An April 2015 Resolution from the Town Council of Fredonia, Arizona 

A letter to The Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior 

and to The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

from Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt 

·Conservation partnership 

• A letter to U.S Representatives Grijalva, Kirkpatrick & Gallego from the members 

of Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boone 

and Crockett Club, Camp Fire Club of America, Congressional Sportsmen's 

Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari 

Club, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Houston Safari Club, Masters of Foxhounds 

Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Forest Service 

Retirees, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, 

National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Bear Foundation, Orion: The 

Hunter's Institute, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Tread Lightly!, 

Wildlife Management Institute, Wild Sheep Foundation, Whitetails Unlimited, 

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance 

• A March 2015 letter to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from the Arizona 

Wildlife Foundation 

A March 2015 letter to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from the Apache 

County Supervisor Barry Weller 

An April 2015 letter from Steve Clark, Executive Director of the Arizona Elk 

Society 

• A public statement in August 2015 by Mohave County, the Mohave Cattlemen 

association and the Mohave Sportsmen Club 

• Letters sent to Federal officials by the Arizona Cattlemen's Association 

• Letters sent to Federal officials by the Arizona Farm Bureau 

• Letters sent to Federal officials by President Jim Parks and the Coconino County 

Cattle Growers & Farm Bureau 

Former Yavapai County Cattle Growers President Andy Groseta 

The members of the Arizona Rock Products Association 

AZ State Rep. Bob Thorpe: AZ's Opposition to National Monument. Page 9 of9 
351 


Insert offset folio 420 here 22000A.312

Impact of the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

The Grand Canyon National Park Airport is owned and operated by the State of Arizona through the 

Arizona Department of Transportation. Although it has historically failed to consistently generate 

revenues adequate to cover its expenses, it has managed to do so for the past three years due to the 

introduction of a number of operating efficiencies, process improvements and expense reductions. A 

business plan for the modernization of the Airport has been created that promises to allow it to achieve 

long-term financial self-sufficiency and generate sufficient revenue to cover its operating and capital 

expenses without being a burden to the taxpayers of Arizona. The establishment of the Grand Canyon 

Watershed National Monument could have a profound impact upon this plan, the Department's 

ongoing modernization and the airport's financial sustainability. 

The use ofthe Antiquities Act to envelop the Grand Canyon National Park Airport within a National 

Monument would lead to an uncertain future for Arizona's 4'" busiest commercial airport because the 

State of Arizona would be deprived of the established procedures for public review and stakeholder 

input provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy 

Act. Without adequate input into the process, or knowledge of impending constraints, the Arizona 

Department of Transportation cannot plan for the future or determine whether the Airport will maintain 

financial self-sufficiency or become a permanent burden to the taxpayers of our state. 

The three areas of potential impact most of concern to the Department are {1) water, (2) tour 

operations, and (3) infrastructure modernization. 

(1) Water 

Airports must have water for firefighting purposes, general public use in restroom facilities and for 

drinking water. This proposed National Monument has the potential to affect access to water, which 

would decrease the Airport's fire protection and prevent it from properly serving the visitors that come 

to Arizona and the Grand Canyon from all over the world. The following issues describe the current 

water situation and the potential impact ofthe National Monument in greater detail. 

• Currently, the Airport contracts with Hydro Resources, the local water provider, to supply water 

during certain periods oftime which is then stored in tanks on the airport property. Hydro 

Resources' supply depends on its control of water wells and water rights in Tusayan. There is 

the potential that the proposed Monument could alter the distribution of local water rights and 

require the Airport to find another water source. 

• The Airport deed for 859 acres from the National Forest Service provided water rights for the 

airport, but not Rain Tank, a five acre pond in the middle of airport property. The State and the 

Airport have spent more than $10 million in legal costs to resolve the water rights around Rain 

Tank, while preserving the water rights originally received from the National Forest Service. 

There is the potential that the Watershed Monument could alter this arrangement and limit the 

State's options for future water resources at the Airport. 

• If any existing water rights or arrangements are altered by creation of a National Monument, 

the Airport, and taxpayers of Arizona, could have to resort to the more costly method of 

trucking water onto the property. 
352 


Insert offset folio 421 here 22000A.313

(2) Tour Operations 

Grand Canyon National Park Airport is the 4th busiest commercial airport in Arizona. 

Approximately 80% of the passengers fly on tour flights over the Grand Canyon and five of the 

airport tenants own 99% of the allocations for tour flights. 

• The proposed National Monument has the potential to limit or restrict tour operations and 

reduce related passenger revenues, including enplanement-based FAA capital improvement 

grants. Restrictions on revenue, and the sources of this revenue, would impair the ability of the 

Airport to meet and maintain federally required standards and result in an additional burden to 

Arizona taxpayers. 

(3) Modernizing and new business at the airport 

The Airport's 50 year-old terminal must be replaced, or at least modernized to handle 

anticipated passenger growth, comply with the Americans with Disability Act, meet current 

aviation security requirements and incorporate basic energy and water efficiency. A National 

Monument designation has the potential to limit this needed development, reduce the Airport's 

ability to meet passenger demand and impair its financial self-sufficiency. 

• A key to the financial self-sufficiency of the Airport is the development of Airport property that 

doesn't have an aeronautical use. These future developments would help provide a revenue 

stream that could cover operational and capital expenses while also creating local jobs and 

economic growth. The proposed Monument could restrict this kind of future development. 

• The proposed Monument could also impact the Airport's ability to obtain easements of utilities 

needed for future modernization of the Airport or to run water lines from wells outside of the 

proposed Monument's boundaries. 
353 


Insert offset folio 422 here 22000A.314

MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD of SUPERVISORS 

2001 College Drive, Sulte 90 

Lak.e Havasu City, AZ 86403 

johnsbd@frontiernet net 

Telephone (928) 453-0724 

Fax (928) 453-0717 

1-888-735-3711 

BUSTER D . .JOHNSON 

SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 3 

Honorable Senators thank you for allowing local input on these very important pieces of 

legislation having to do with this nation's energy and natural resources. 

I am Buster Johnson and have represented Mohave County's 3rd District since elected in 

1996. lam submitting written testimony today in support ofS. 437. the Improved National 

Monument Designation Process Act, and S. 1416, a bill designed to limit the authority to 

reserve water rights in designating a national monument. Both pieces of legislation are 

important tor Mohave County and the constituents l represent. As you may know, the 

majority of Mohave County residents depend on the Colorado River Jor both recreational and 

economic growth. With nearly 50% of Arizona now being owned by the federal government 

and nearly 90% of Mohave County, we cannot afford any further monument designations. 

S. 437 is crucial for Mohave County and Arizona. With the President proposing to take 

executive action to designate nearly I .7 million acres of land in northern Arizona as the 

Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, this legislation is greatly needed. 

S.437 would require input from Congress, state and local governments before a presidentially 

created monument can be approved. Should the President go ahead with the executive 

action, it would be devastating tor the future growth of Arizona and have a long lasting effect 

on Mohave County. 

As the federal and state government continues to take privately held lands away from our 

residents, it becomes harder and harder to create jobs and keep our taxpayers employed, In 

January of2000, President Bill Clinton signed a proclamation taking away l million acres of 

land in the Arizona Strip area for the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument That 

monument is now one of I 8 monuments in the state which is more than any other state has. 

Designating land for a new monument will take away even more land in the Arizona Strip 

area putting it in the hands of the federal government and away from the taxpaying citizens 

of this state. 

I am asking you also to approve 5.1416. Water is becoming a scarce resource in Arizona. 

As it stands right now, if the President were to move forward with this proposed monument, 

it could have the potential to 'federalize' the areas watershed and uproot critical water rights 

in Arizona and Mohave County. This legislation would protect Arizona's water by 

prohibiting the president from conducting ·'water grabs" by creating a new federally reserved 

right with a national monument. 

Our state cannot afford to lose any more land or water rights to the federal government. Why 

as a matter of public policy is locking down known natural resources wise? The Parashant 

Monument has not added to the beauty or economy of our state. The only thing it has done 

has placed "keep out signs" on the land barring our citizens from making a living or enjoying 

the land. 
354 


Insert offset folio 423 here 22000A.315

Protecting our lands can be enhanced with current mining operations and offroaders who 

want to preserve our lands for future generations to experience. Working together will 

protect the land far better than no trespassing signs. Allowing economic development on this 

land would be a great benefit to both the state and Mohave County. It is estimated that 

allowing uranium mining in this area would create more than a thousand jobs directly related 

to mining operations, and many more jobs would be created as a result of the economic 

activity associated with the mining. Designating this land as a national monument will take 

away this economic opportunity for the taxpayers of Mohave County and an estimated $40 

million annually in payroll. 

I again ask for your support ofS. 437 and S. 1416. If we all work together, we can find was 

to preserve the natural beauty of this country while at the same time keeping it open for 

future generations to enjoy. 

Buster D. Johnson 

Mohave County Supervisor 

District Ill 
355 


Insert offset folio 424 here 22000A.316

~ Al\IZONA CATTLE 

r , 

Sept~6lfr 30, 2016 

Honorable Senator John McCain 

218 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

1401 NORTH 24T!~I STREET, 

PHOENIX. ARIZONA fi.SOC!fi ~ 

www. Azr:attlemensassoc .01 ~-

Re: Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument 

Dear Senator McCain: 

ON 

The Arizona Cattle Growers' Association wishes to inform you of the concerns we have with the potential creation of the 

Grand Canyon National Monument. On January 28, 2015 Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, Congressman Grijalva and 

Congressman Gallego sent a letter to the President urging him to create the Grand Canyon Watershed National 

Monument. This monument would encompass the Kaibab National Forest, Bureau of land Management areas in the 

Arizona strip~ and would further expand two other national monuments. The proposal includes 1.7 million acres of land 

and will impact ranching, recreation, hunting and even local communities. Arizona is home to the most national 

monuments in the United States with a total of 18. Over 2.5 million acres of Arizona land is a national monument. 

Congressman Grijalva is also trying to codify the monument through legislation, HR3882 Greater Grand Canyon Heritage 

National Monument Act, which will be devastating to those rural communities that depend on these public lands. 

National monuments in Arizona have put increased pressure on management of the land. In many cases, the only 

productivity left on these lands is cattle grazing and these designations slowly bring grazing to an end. These lands take 

extra time to manage, have higher standards of management and lead to additional litigation for land management 

agencies because of a "special designation". The land managing agencies are faced with a greater challenge as these 

monuments go through the 10 year planning process. It is at these points that competing interest for public lands do 

not align and environmental groups put added pressure to remove any and all multiple use activities. The most recent 

example has been the Sonoran National Monument, designated by President Clinton. This monument eliminated 

grazing south of Interstate 8 and the planning process completed in 2013 dosed one grazing permit and cut numbers on 

others. In addition, recreation on these lands has been severely hindered. 

Our public lands system has a great deal of process and protection to authorize a !I multiple use activities. Often times, 

these processes take multiple years before any decision is made and is usually litigated. National Monuments only 

further exacerbate the issue while those that live and work on the land suffer from inability to manage, We hope that 

you others in the Arizona delegation understand our concerns for the future of these lands, 

Sincerely1 

Jim O'Haco 

President 
356 


Insert offset folio 425 here 22000A.317

September 23, 2016 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

Farm Bureau Federation 

325 S. Higley Rd, Suite 210 

Gilbert, AZ 85296 

Senate Russell Office Building 413 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Flake, 

In light of the proposed 1.7 million acre Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument (GCWNM), we 

appreciate the work you are doing to update and modernize the Antiquities Act (Act). Senate bill1416, 

which you sponsored, amends the Act to prohibit the president from unilaterally creating a federal 

reserved water right when designating a national monument. Another bill, Senate bill437, which you 

have co-sponsored modifies the process for creating new national monuments to require Congressional 

and state legislature approval, as well as a NEPA process. Both bills are critically important to protecting 

water rights and improving the process by which national monuments are created. 

The Antiquities Act was established in 1906 as a means to preserve historic landmarks, historic and 

prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interests and their landmass was 

to be "confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the 

objects to be protected." Today the Act is used to restrict large swaths of land with little to no 

consultation or evaluation of the impact on local communities and industries and give further 

control of natural resources like water over to the federal government. It is by far time the Act 

be updated to involve land owners, grazing permitees, and local governments as affected 

partners in the process where federal land use designations restrict public use and access. We 

also support congressional approval and NEPA review for any proposed designation. 

The regulation of water quantity, and correspondingly water rights, has been the purview of the 

states. The federal government should not impinge on a state's authority to regulate water rights 

through national monument designations. 

Some of our own Farm Bureau members have experienced first-hand grazing and access limitations 

under previous designations. Even more of our members will face a similar situation if the Antiquities 

Act is not fixed. We support Senate bills 1416 and 437. 

Sincerely, 

~~~. ~--- Kevin Rogers, President 

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation 
357 


Insert offset folio 426 here 22000A.318

t1<1rftd.S(<.J~.P'"l 

Vnc-t.\IWltl,lCI 

Moilh.ntl'~h M 

SanJIWIC';~--tlt 

W;u!ml$tunCt~ ttl 

r''"''~~ o!lrM!ma . . ~-

September 23, 2016 

Dear Senators, 

We are writing as elected officials whose counties represent areas directly impacted by 

uranium mining and the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument. We 

are writing in support ofS. 437, the Improved National Monument ~signation Process 

Act, and S. 1416, a bill designed to limit the authority to reserve water rights in 

designating a national monument Both pieces of legislation are important to the areas 

represented by this Coalition. Arizona and Utah have a history of diverse economic 

opportunities ranging from livestock grazing to tourism and significantly, mining. We 

respact and take a responsibilit~· for protecting the Grand Canyon, but designating this 

land as a national monument will take away current mining operations and off roaders 

who want to preserve our lands for future generations to experience. 

We are in support of S. 437. lt is a crucial piece of legislation. With tbe President 

proposing to take executive action to designate nearly l. 7 million acres of land in 

northern Arizona as the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, this legislation is 

greatly needed. S.437 would require input from Congress, state and local governments 

before a presidentially created monument can be approved. Should the President go 

abead with the executive action, it would be devastating for the future growth of Arizona 

and Utah and have a long lasting effect on our economies. 

Our states cannot afford to lose any more land to the federal government. Nearly 50% of 

both Arizona and Utah is now owned by the federal government. Mohave County alone 

has oo!y I 0% private land. Designating another I. 7 million acres to the feds will reduce 

private ownership even more. Why as a matter of public policy is locking down known 

natural resources wise? In January of 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a proclamation 

taking away I million acres of land in the Arizona Strip area for the Grand CanyonParashant National Monument. That monument is now one of 18 monuments in the 

state which is more than any other state has. Designating land lor a new monument will 

take away even more land in the Arizona Strip area putting it in the hands of the federal 

government and away from the taxpaying citizens of this state. 
358 


Insert offset folio 00012 here 22000A.319

We are also asking the Committee to approve S.l4l6. Water is becoming a scarce 

resource in Western states.. As it stands right now, if the President were to move forward 

with this proposed monument. it could have the potential to 'fcderalize'lhe area's water .. 

shed and uproot critical water rights. This legislation would protect those water rights 

by prohibiting the president from conducting ··v.'llter grabs'' by creating a new federally 

reserved right with a natio-nal monument. 

Remo,:lng public access to this land does fk.'lthing to protect our watershed. Our water .. 

shed has been threatened over the past 15 years due to extreme drought conditions and 

without the necessary tools pro\.·ided by certain industries. the watershed w111 continue to 

~depleted with no remedies to protect the well-being of our citizenry. Water has a) .. 

ways been a critical issue in the southwest and we continue to fmd ways to reduce 

consumption and recyc;le wherever possible. This designation will make it more difficult 

for state and local governments to find the means necessary to ensure our citizens have a 

continued water suppl)'·. 

We again ask for yoursupport ofS. 437 and S. 1416. If we all work 10gether, we can 

find was to preserve the natural beauty of this counlry while at the same tjmc keeping it 

open for future generations to enjo)'. 

/~ 

Buster Johnson 

/~~~ 

Alan Gardner 

Mohave County Supervisor Washington County.IJT Commissioner 
359 

Senator FLAKE. When I travel around the state I repeatedly hear 

from constituents asking me to help stop a new designation. Senator Lee talked about some of the issues that go along with that 

and the lack of economic opportunity that results. 

It is frustrating, Madam Chair, that we cannot do anything 

about these monuments and we have no voice in the process. That 

is why it is important to have these kind of fixes that this bill 

would put in place. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Flake, and all of the letters 

and reports that you have asked to be included as part of the 

record shall be included as such. 

There has clearly been a fair amount of discussion and concern 

raised by members of the Committee here this morning as it relates to monuments and monument designations. The fact that we 

have three measures before the Committee that relate to that, I 

think, is significant. 

As I mentioned in my opening comments, utilization of the Antiquities Act, designation of monuments is not a partisan exercise. 

Sixteen of the 19 presidents since 1906 have created 152 different 

monuments. I find it rather interesting that it was President 

Franklin Roosevelt who used the authority the most often, 36 

times. But when you look at what he set aside through these 

monument designations it was 2.8 million acres of monuments, 

only on land. 

Yet, when you look at what has come out of this Administration, 

President Obama has clearly proclaimed the most monument acreage, nearly 553 million acres both on land and on sea. Again, the 

Antiquities Act was designed to reserve the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected is the language. 

I recognize that some of the monument designations are smaller 

in size, less than 5,000 acres. But then you look at some of the 

larger ones, particularly the marine designations, the largest is 283 

million acres. 

As has been noted by my colleagues from not only Arizona and 

Utah, but also Montana and Colorado, there is impact when you 

do these designations, real impact on the livelihoods of those who 

live near the designated areas, whether we are talking about traditional hunting and gathering practices or commercial fishing or 

mineral or grazing rights or just the ability to use a snow machine 

in the winter time. There is a real life impact on local communities. 

Mr. Kornze, I have a couple questions for you as they relate to 

national monuments. 

First is along the same lines as Senator Gardner asked in Colorado, and that is whether or not you can give me any information 

as to whether the Administration plans to designate any new onshore or offshore monuments in the State of Alaska before this 

President leaves office? 

Mr. KORNZE. So, if I can indulge just for one second, and Senator 

Flake raised a number of important points. I just want to note the 

Ace Act is exciting. I think we need to clean up a lot of the scattered lands. 

360 

The Concessions Act, the BLM would be very excited to have 

Congress develop a concessions authority that applies to us in the 

same way that it does to the Park Service or the Bureau of Reclamation. Your legislation does something quite different. We 

would be, we would love to sit down with you and develop something that is a true concessions authority. We think it would be 

great for recreation in all states. Thank you, Chairman. 

Related to Alaska, I can give you the same answer that I gave 

Senator Gardner. You know, I don’t have anyone in my office, talking about monuments in Alaska. Again, I can’t tell you what the 

President is or isn’t thinking but in terms of, you know, my interaction with these issues, I’m not aware. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have indicated there is nobody in your 

office. Are you aware of any conversations outside of your particular office where there is discussion about designation of either 

an onshore or offshore monument designation in Alaska? 

Mr. KORNZE. I’m not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

I would ask the same that Senator Gardner has which is that if 

you are made aware of such conversations we would certainly appreciate that information. 

I wanted to ask about the comment or a comment in your written 

testimony. In my bill, S. 437, we have the requirement to apply 

NEPA to the President’s designation to designate a monument. You 

have suggested in your testimony that this requirement would be 

unprecedented because you say that NEPA only applies to federal 

agencies, and the President is not a federal agency. 

I certainly understand the President is not a federal agency, but 

also, Congress is not a federal agency. Since Congress is not a federal agency, how is it that the Administration requires or demands 

that a NEPA analysis be done on decisions that are made by Congress and legislation? 

I will give you my specific example, and it ties back to an issue 

that I care very much about and that is the King Cove Land Exchange. When we passed the Omnibus Lands Act back in 2009 and 

through Public Law 111–11, we subjected to NEPA our decision to 

authorize that land exchange. You will recall that was a 300 to 1 

land exchange to facilitate the construction of the King Cove Road. 

Was it inappropriate to do that? We are not, again, Congress is 

not a federal agency. So if you think that it was appropriate in that 

instance how do you justify the President’s decisions being excluded 

from a NEPA? 

Mr. KORNZE. So, I’m not intimately familiar with all the process 

that has run on King Cove but I can—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I just use that as an example. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because King Cove was, of course, on my mind. 

Mr. KORNZE. So here’s my understanding of the issue. You know, 

NEPA does not necessarily apply to Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. KORNZE. President or the courts. But when federal agencies 

are asked to take an action, NEPA is something that is done, right? 

So Congress, for instance, and again, I’m not the world’s expert 

on this issue, but I’ll give you what I think I know. If Congress has 

361 

the power to say, you know, ‘‘x’’ thing is established, right? This 

thing does exist or Congress could say we direct the Bureau of 

Land Management to do this. So, if you’re putting us in motion, 

NEPA would be part of our process. You could, though, definitively 

say, ‘‘x’’ is established. 

So, I think it’s a fine line. It’s a piece of administrative law or 

what sector of law we would describe this as, but the President has 

the authority, like Congress does, to take actions. 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess I would just suggest that it would not be 

unprecedented to suggest that monument designations should be 

subjected to NEPA analysis. 

You have indicated in response to a couple questions on this that 

you would not suggest anything that would limit the President’s 

powers to move forward under the Antiquities Act. Congress has 

done that a couple times. It was mentioned back in 1950 when Wyoming had its exclusion and Alaska under ANILCA in 1980 it was 

determined that Alaska basically had certainly provided enough to 

the country when it came to designation by the President, by President Carter at that time, that any designation would be subject to 

a limitation. 

So it is not something where, again, the President should be able 

to advance just on his or her own volition and directive. The suggestion that has been made, certainly, by members here is that it 

is appropriate to take into account local stakeholder input, the 

input from the councils and the assemblies, the input from congressional delegations and legislatures, legislators. 

When you have responded to the inquiry about what level of 

weight or significance is given to that local input and recognizing, 

for instance what Senator Lee has presented to the Administration, 

to the President, with respect to Bears Ears, I think it is important 

that we figure out a way that the public is listened to, that there 

is a process, that stakeholder engagement is not only encouraged, 

but that it is heard. 

I think you have heard from many, all Westerners, on the issue 

of monument designation but it is something that is on the top of 

Westerner’s minds and, I think, for good reason. We have to have 

a way that we can weigh in when our economies are being impacted. We hear from our constituents that this is an issue that is 

as big as anything that is out for discussion right now. I think you 

need to carry that message back to all those within the Administration. 

Senator Cantwell has not had an opportunity to ask questions. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I wanted to go to Ms. Weldon. Thank you for being here today. 

This is the first time the Forest Service has publicly announced 

its support for mineral withdrawal of the Methow headwaters. I believe this is an important step, and I hope we can coordinate with 

you and the Forest Service and the staff in the region to work on 

this particular area. 

I saw in your testimony that the Forest Service proposed a fiveyear administrative withdrawal for S. 364, the Southwest Oregon 

watershed bill which you described as a withdrawal in aid of legislation. Can you describe how this would work, particularly with the 

362 

Methow, and would you start working on that withdrawal immediately? 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, our goal is to begin working on that, coordinating with the Bureau of Land Management on the process for an 

administrative withdrawal. There’s quite a bit of work, as you 

know, that’s entailed within that. So, as we get started we’ll be 

looking at how long it takes for us to get through that, but definitely we’ll be initiating the process. 

Senator CANTWELL. So you do not think it would be consistent 

while you are going through that process to approve anything that 

would be counter to that? 

Ms. WELDON. In light of us beginning this process the likelihood 

of us approving any additional expirations is low. We need to make 

sure we’re focusing on the long-term withdrawal process. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay, because we certainly would see that as 

very inconsistent to start on a withdrawal and then all of a sudden 

make an approval. So we certainly hope that working together, 

both legislatively and administratively, we can make sure that we 

are listening to the people of that area, who certainly do not support any mining activity that would threaten those headwaters 

since they are such vital headwaters for the entire region. So, 

thank you for that. 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. Also, regarding one of the bills on the agenda, S. 2056, the bill Senator Murkowski and I introduced, establishing a national volcano and early warning system. Can you expand on what role the Forest Service might play? I bring this up 

because Mount Baker and Glacier Peak, two of our volcanoes—I 

think we have only one seismometer on each of those peaks. People 

have said you need at least five to make sure that we are assessing 

the risk. What are your thoughts about how the Forest Service 

could work with USGS and local emergency managers, particularly 

since Lahar is such a major threat to us? 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you. 

Yeah, I spent quite a bit of my career working in those landscapes, especially with the Cascade ranges there. I know we have 

some continuing activity that we’re coordinating, especially with 

Mount St. Helens. We plan to continue to work with the USGS as 

we keep exploring the value of warning system that’s more extensive. 

I’m not totally up to date on the status of that but with our actions and activities that we do and coordinate on an emergency 

basis, the preventative side of that, I think, is equally important. 

So, we look forward to continuing coordinating closely with the 

USGS, with our local elected officials, local communities as well. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I have one last question and Mr. Kornze, I am sure you must 

have anticipated that there had to be a King Cove question. 

Mr. KORNZE. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. I also tried to loop it into my comments on monuments, but I am just clearly so troubled. You heard the Senator 

from West Virginia weigh in and say for gosh sakes, can’t we 

363 

please just finally get this resolved? She is so supportive of the 

some thousand people who live in King Cove, who are just looking 

for a 11-mile, one lane, gravel, non-commercial use road to gain access to the all-weather airport there in Cold Bay. It is such a simple thing, yet it has risen to a level where it is not just about King 

Cove, it is the principle of the matter. How can the Federal Government be denying these people living in a very remote part of 

America something that we would absolutely take for granted in 

any other part of America? 

I struggle with this because this situation has not gotten better, 

as you know. Fifty-two, 52 Medivacs since the Secretary rejected 

this road in 2013, 52 of them, 17 requiring the Coast Guard to 

come in. 

I was in Kodiak this weekend as the Coast Guard was cutting 

a ribbon on new Coast Guard housing. I had to thank every single 

one of those Coast Guard men and women and their spouses for 

the call outs that they do as one of the most potentially dangerous 

and threatening missions that they do. This is not part of Coast 

Guard’s core services to provide Medivac service to a community 

600 miles away. And yet, that is what has happened. It is simply 

not acceptable. 

When you hear stories like a 70-year-old man waiting 40 hours 

for the fog to lift when if there were a road he could be there. He 

could be to a full hospital. And the story that Senator Sullivan 

shared this morning, just last week. Yet another incident. 

I do not understand how those in the Department can just sit 

back and say this is okay or this is acceptable or maybe Lisa will 

just stand down one of these days. No. 

So, the question to you is the question that I have asked Secretary Jewell every time she is before any of the committees that 

I sit on. She made a promise to me saying that she was going to 

be there to help, that she would find a way to help. I still have yet 

to see any proposal, any plan that would help the nearly 1,000 

Alaskans that live in this remote community. 

There was one proposal that was written down and it was basically a rehash of the various ideas that have been out there over 

the past couple decades, but we have gotten nothing. In the meantime, people’s lives are in jeopardy. 

Mr. KORNZE. So this is a very important issue. I know it’s extremely important to you. 

As I noted earlier I’ve not been intimately involved with this, as 

you can imagine, working from the Bureau of Land Management, 

but I am happy to take your thoughts back to the Secretary and 

to the Fish and Wildlife Service and we do take them very, very 

seriously. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is not just my thoughts. 

Mr. KORNZE. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is not my thoughts. It is my prayers because 

I just cannot stand by thinking that there is going to be a tragedy. 

Instead, it is just suffering, lots of suffering and pain and fear and 

fright, needless, unnecessary because we can do something about 

it. 

For crying out loud, this is a small, one lane, gravel, non-commercial use road. And it is the government that says nope, we can’t 

364 

do that. We cannot add a small connector road because we are 

afraid that somehow or other that is going to disturb the waterfowl 

that come through the area. The waterfowl that U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service promotes for hunting. How ironic is that? 

This is crazy talk. When people get frustrated with their government, it is because of situations just like this where they say, wait 

a minute, can’t there be some way to work this out? 

Well, there was. It was a 300 to 1 exchange. The Federal Government was going to get wilderness. The Native people were willing 

to give up their lands that they had received as part of their settlement because they wanted 206 acres to build out this small, connector road. 

You already have road that goes right up to the boundary of the 

refuge on the King Cove side and a road that comes right up to the 

boundary from the Cold Bay side. All we need is that connector. 

And in the middle of this refuge are roads that crisscross all over 

and back that have been part of the landscape since World War II. 

I know what is happening. This Administration is just running 

the clock. They are running the clock, and they will be able to wash 

their hands of it. In the meantime, as of today, 52 different Alaskans, infants, elders, have suffered. That is absolutely unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable. 

So the message that you need to take back to the Secretary and 

to the President is on their watch, on their watch, they have 

turned their back on Alaskans, on Alaska Natives, on their responsibility, on our responsibility. And they are now going to walk 

away, and they will be able to wipe their hands clean. I just hope 

they will still remember that in the meantime under their watch 

people have been living in fear, in trepidation and with pain and 

suffering that could have been addressed. It is inexcusable, and I 

am not backing down on this. 

One way or another, it probably won’t be with this Administration, but one way or another the people of King Cove are going to 

find safety. That is the message that you can take back. 

Mr. KORNZE. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

With that, we stand adjourned. I thank you both for coming before the Committee and 21 bills we would like to work with you 

in these areas to advance them. 

Thank you so much and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(365) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

366 


Insert graphic folio 444 here 22000A.320

lJ.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

Questions from Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Question 1: You maintained in your testimony that scheduled sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort 

planning areas in 2016 and 2017 respectively, were cancelled due to a lack of industry interest 

and market conditions. What specific information did you receive ti·om industry that provides the 

basis for your statement? When did you receive such information? Please provide a list of 

documents that support your contention. 

Response: Prior to moving forward with an OCS oil and gas lease sale, the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issues a Call for Information and Nominations 

(Call). A Call is designed to provide BOEM with information about interest in OCS oil 

and gas leasing by requesting that industry identify specific blocks in a Program Area that 

appear promising for oil and gas exploration and development. 

Relevant to the lease sale in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area (Sale 237), originally 

scheduled for 2016, a 45-day Call was published in the Federal Register on September 

26,2013, with a closing date of November 18,2013. See 

https://www .federalregister. gov I documents/20 13/09/2 7/20 13-23 6 7 0/ outer-continentalshelf-ocs-a1aska-ocs-region-chukchi-sca-planning-area-proposed-oil-and-gas-1ease. The 

Call deadline was extended to accept information and nominations until December 3, 

2013, due to the government shutdown that occurred in early October, 2013. In response 

to the Call, BOEM received no nominations from industry. 

Relevant to the lease sale in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area (Sale 242), originally 

scheduled for 2017, a 45-day Call was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2014, 

with a closing date of September 12, 2014. Sec http://www.boem.gov/79-FR-44060/. In 

response to the Call, BOEM received one nomination of interest from ConocoPhillips 

Company on September 1 L 2014. After analyzing the single nomination, BOEM 

determined that there was no competitive interest in the Call area. The detailed 

information for the nomination is considered to be proprietary information and will be 

provided to Chairman Murkowski separately upon request. 

Question 2: Do you agree that under ANILCA the Native Village of Shishmaref has the right to 

gain a transportation route across the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve? 

Response: The Department is aware of the proposed relocation of the village of 

Shishmaref: and understands that the National Park Service's Bering Land Bridge 

National Preserve superintendent has been in communication with village representatives 

on this important matter. When the relocation occurs there will be a need for gravel/rock 

material. It remains to be determined what the best options are for obtaining these 

materials. One option would be to build a road from a new village site to Ear Mountain, 

which would cross approximately six miles of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. 

Another option would be to obtain rock from an existing or new quarry and barge it to the 

new village. There is an operating quarry at Nome that may be the best and least 
367 


Insert graphic folio 445 here 22000A.321

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

expensive alternative. The various alternatives will need to be investigated as the village 

relocation project progresses. If it is determined that the best option tor obtaining rock for 

the village relocation is construction of a road to Ear Mountain and development of a 

quarry there, the NPS will work with Shishmaref and others on the ANILCA Title 11 

requirements for that project. 

Question 3: Concerning the Fortymile Mining District in Alaska: 

a. How, specifically, can mining operators engage with BLM, especially in light ofBLM's 

pattern of inconsistencies and failed commitments to these operators, to ensure fair, 

reasonable, and permitted access and use, particularly when they have business and land 

use operations for which they must plan? 

Response: The BLM is collaborating with partners, and stakeholders to develop welldefined and transparent criteria in order to provide a quantitative means to assess 

reclamation success. Once developed, the criteria will help to reconcile conflicting 

interpretations of the regulations and clarify expectations between the BLM and miners. 

The BLM has met with the Fortymile Mining District and the Alaska Miners Association 

(AMA) on numerous occasions to discuss the development of these criteria and to listen 

to their associated concerns. Staff have provided presentations at the AMA Convention 

in Fairbanks, the AMA Federal Oversight Committee, to the Fortymile Mining District in 

Chicken, and to BLM Alaska's Resource Advisory Committee. Each presentation 

included opportunities for stakeholders to provide input and feedback. 

In the summer 2015, the BLM implemented the Jack Wade Creek Demonstration project 

in the Fortymile Wild and Scenic River Corridor to test new reclamation techniques for 

placer mined streams in Alaska. As part of this project, the BLM held a a workshop to 

discuss reclamation evaluations and view the demonstration project in Chicken, Alaska. 

One of the successes from the workshop is that one of the area miners has asked the BLM 

to help develop another demonstration project in 2016 on his mine site The BLM has 

committed funding and staff time to work with that miner to help him employ new 

reclamation techniques and to otherwise assist in his reclamation activities. This 

demonstration project is a great exan1ple of how the BLM is employing a collaborative 

approach to ensure placer miners will have the opportunity to carry on this historic 

activity for years to come. 

Another opportunity for engagement with the BLM is through BLM-Alaska's Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC). The RAC is a 15-member advisory panel which provides 

advice and recommendations on resource and land management issues to the BLM. 

ELM-Alaska's RAC has diverse representation that includes a board member from the 

Fortymile Mining District. Through the advice of the RAC, BLM Alaska has established 

a placer mining subcommittee which has representatives from the AMA, Fortymile 

Miners, the State of Alaska, other placer miners and the conservation community to help 

facilitate engagement with placer miners on ensuring federal regulations are met and do 

2 
368 


Insert graphic folio 446 here 22000A.322

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

not create an undue burden on the placer miner. The BLM held the first meeting of the 

subcommittee on July 27, 2016, in Tok, Alaska, which was attended by several local 

placer miners. Additional meetings to engage the subcommittee to assist in refining our 

processes and identify aTeas we can improve efficiency are planned for the spring. 

The BLM will continue to work closely with all stakeholders on land management issues 

to both ensure applicable requirements are mel and that placer mining continues to be 

viable in Alaska. 

b. What is your agency chain of command? Is it true that the State Director has no authority 

over field ofJices? Does Headquarters have authority over State offices? 

Response: The BLM Director has authority, given to him by the Secretary of the 

Interior, over all BLM programs. The BLM State Directors have been delegated the 

authority by the BLM Director to oversee all the BLM offices and programs within their 

respective states. 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: Senator Murkowski and Senator Flake have both proposed modest amendments to 

the Act with the desire to increase local input, and hopetully buy-in, from the public in the areas 

surrounding a potential monument designation. Given the Department's ongoing campaign to 

increase conservation partnerships and other collaborative efforts, does the Department believe 

that the President, as an elected ofticial, should be able to proceed with processes like monument 

designations, regardless of potential public outcry and opposition? 

Response: Used by presidents of both parties for more than I 00 years, the authority 

granted to the President by Antiquities Act is one of the most important tools a president 

has to preserve and protect critical natural, historical, and scientific resources on Federal 

lands for future generations. It is a tool that this President has not used lightly or invoked 

without serious consideration ofthe impacts on current and future generations. The 

Administration has consistently invited public comment from national, state, local and 

Tribal stakeholders at meetings in local communities. However, requiring the forrnal 

approval of Governors and legislatures or additional formal processes prior to designation 

would limit the flexibility of the President to respond to impending threats to resources, 

and the ability of the President to recognize, protect and preserve areas of incredible 

importance to the Nation's heritage. 

Question 2: Does the BLM or Department ofinterior have a formalized notification process to 

inforrn state, local, and federal officials when considering or designating a monument? 

Response: Designation of monuments under the Antiquities Act is a presidential, not 

Departmental, action. When examining whether to recommend particular monuments for 

3 
369 


Insert graphic folio 447 here 22000A.323

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

Presidential action, the Department engages in consultation with national, state, local, and 

tribal stakeholders, in keeping with the President's commitment. 

Question 3: Given the Park Service's significant deferred maintenance backlog, coupled with 

the fact that the agency manages most monuments post-designation, is the agency consulted 

about the size, scope, or seale of a prospective monument prior to designation? Does the agency 

have the ability to recommend changes to a proposed designation? 

Response: Designation of monument, including its size and scope, under the Antiquities 

Act is a presidential, not Departmental, action. The President may request 

recommendations from the Secretary of the Interior, and the National Park Service (NPS) 

may provide input for the responses to those requests. This input can include NPS 

recommendations as to size, scope, or other issues. 

The NPS is mindful of the deferred maintenance backlog and the contribution that new 

national monuments may have to it. To minimize the impact, the NPS pursues 

partnerships and philanthropic support to help staff and maintain new national 

monuments. For instance, with Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, the 

donor of the monument lands also donated $20 million to help support the new 

monument and pledged to assist with raising another $20 million. In the case of the 

Stonewall National Monument, the NPS and New York City signed a cooperative 

management agreement in which the City agreed to continue to provide daily 

maintenance of Christopher Park, the federally owned portion of the monument. The 

NPS is also considering partnerships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups 

to aid in interpretation of the site and with the Christopher Park Alliance, the group that 

has historically installed and maintained the landscaping in Christopher Park. Finally, 

with respect to the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument, NPS received a 

$1 million donation to upgrade the ventilation system and address other maintenance 

issues. The site is also managed in cooperation with the National Woman's Party. 

Question 4: In 2016 alone, the President has designated or expanded monuments to the tune of 

more than 285 million acres. That's a land mass of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, 

plus a few thousand acres. Following Senator Murkowski and Senator Gardner's line of 

questioning, how many more monuments does the President intend to designate in the final days 

of this administration? 

Response: Designation of monuments under the Antiquities Act is a presidential, not 

Departmental, action. When examining whether to recommend particular monuments for 

Presidential action, the Department engages in consultation with national, state, local, and 

tribal stakeholders, in keeping with the President's commitment. 

4 
370 


Insert graphic folio 448 here 22000A.324

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

Question 5: While not the subject of the hearing today, please provide an update on the BLM's 

process to develop mitigation policy, in compliance with the larger Department oflnterior 

policy, as a result of the Presidential Memorandum on mitigation. 

Response: The BLM's final mitigation policy is comprised of both a Manual and a more 

detailed Handbook. The BLM released these documents on December 23, 2016. 

Questions from Senator Ron Wyden 

Question 1: Director Kornze, I know the BLM and the Forest Service have been working 

together on a 5-year administrative mineral withdrawal of this same area, but during the 600-plus 

comments that we heard at your public meetings, almost all asked for either a 20 year or a 

permanent withdrawal. Is this something your agency is considering? Will you support either a 

20-year or a permanent withdrawal? If not, what needs to happen to have you work with us and 

Oregonians to make either of those a possibility? 

Response: On September 30,2016, the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM published in 

the Federal Register a notice announcing an amended proposal for a 20-year withdrawal 

in southwestern Oregon. The public comment period lor the 20-year withdrawal 

proposal closed on December 29,2016. The BLM made a recommendation in support of 

the proposed withdrawal, which was signed by the Assistant Secretary for Land and 

Minerals Management on December 30, 2016. 

Question 2: The BLM recently closed the comment period for a 5-year administrative mineral 

withdrawal for the same area that is identified in my bill, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed 

and Salmon Protection Act of2015. Of course, an administrative withdrawal would expire after 

5 years, while my bill would ensure permanent withdrawal and protections for this important 

ecosystem. Based on the comments you received during the comment period, is the local 

community and the stale supportive of the withdrawal? Can you give examples of support 

demonstrated? 

Response: The BLM received over 20,000 comments on the proposed agency 

withdrawal. A majority of these comments were in support of the withdrawal. The BLM 

received comments from members of the public, state and local agencies and elected 

representatives. The amended application would increase the duration of the withdrawal 

from 5- to 20-years, and would specify that the agencies themselves are requesting the 

withdrawal in order to protect certain resource values. The comment period for the 

amended application closed on December 29,2016. 

Question 3: What makes the Baldface Creek and Rough and Ready Creek, and the surrounding 

lands, an important place to protect and an unsuitable place for mining? 

5 
371 


Insert graphic folio 449 here 22000A.325

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

Response: Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek are listed as eligible for 

National Wild and Scenic River designation by the U.S. Forest Service. This area is also 

home to a high concentration of rare plants. It is also a popular recreation destination due 

to its forested trails and scenic views. 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question 1: Roughly half of the land within the boundaries of the proposed Grand Canyon 

Watershed National Monument falls under the BLM. What actions, if any, has the Department 

taken in regard to a possible designation of a new national monument in Arizona? 

Response: Designation of monuments under the Antiquities Act is a presidential, not 

Departmental, action. The BLM is aware of continued interest in the protection of land 

surrounding Grand Canyon National Park, however, BLM has not taken any fonnal 

actions related to a possible designation by the President. 

Question 2: Secretary Jewell has participated in public meetings about a proposed new national 

monument in Utah. Are you aware of any plans by the department to conduct public meetings 

about a possible new national monument in Arizona? 

Response: The BLM is not aware of current plans by the Department for public 

meetings regarding a new national monument in Arizona. 

Question 3: In a hearing last February, Secretary Jewell told me that when examining whether 

to recommend a new monument "the Department engages in consultation with national, state, 

local, and tribal stakeholders." What should Arizona stakeholders expect that consultation with 

the Department to look like? 

Response: The Administration consistently strives to take into account the interests and 

concerns of national, state, local, and tribal stakeholders, and invites public comment 

from these stakeholders, including at meetings in local communities. In fact, 

Administration officials, including from the Department, have attended many community 

meetings across the nation, and have heard from stakeholders interested in protecting the 

places that they care about. These officials have also heard from stakeholders concerned 

with the potential impacts of any such designation. Arizona stakeholders, as well as 

other interested stakeholders, should expect that their public comments will be considered 

prior to any decision by the President to invoke his authority under the Antiquities Act. 

Question 4: In your written testimony you imply that S.2380 would "allow[] unlimited profitgenerating activities on covered lands". Does the Department view 43 CFR 2920 and 2030 as 

"allowing unlimited profit-generating activities"? 

6 
372 


Insert graphic folio 450 here 22000A.326

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

Response: The 43 CFR 2920 authorizes the issuance of commercial, residential, 

industrial, and agricultural leases, penn its, and easements under certain conditions, and 

43 CFR 2930 authorizes pennits for recreation. The cited regulations do not limit the 

amount of profit that can be generated by lessees from activities authorized on the lease. 

However, the regulations require that the authorized activities confonn to BLM plans, 

policy, objectives and resource management programs as well as the payment of fair 

market value for all such profit-generating uses of the public lands. 

Question 5: In your written testimony you state that S.2380 would "open[] covered lands to 

virtually any residential, agricultural, industrial, or commercial use." The Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act as amended by S.2380 would allow a "pilot program to authorize commercial 

recreation concessions" (emphasis added). Please explain how the Department interprets 

residential, agriculture, or industrial uses to fall under a recreation concession. 

Response: S. 2380 states that "any activity defined as pcm1issible under parts 2920 and 

2930 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be permissible" with respect to land 

covered by an agreement under the bill. 

Question 6: Please identify the number of commercial recreation concessions that the BLM 

allows to operate on BLM land and indicate whether the all the revenue from these concessions 

are used on the same lands which generated the revenues. 

Response: The BLM currently manages 18 commercial leases authorizing commercial 

recreation activities on public lands. Commercial lease holders pay fair market value for 

the use of the public lands, and commercial lease revenues collected by the BLM are 

deposited in the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. None of the revenue is retained or 

used for the management of the lands on which it is generated. Because commercial 

lease holders pay fair market value for the leases, the BLM places no additional 

restrictions on the revenues they generate. 

Questions from Senator Steve Daines 

Question 1: There is significant concern among many sportsmen groups about national 

monuments being managed for preservation, rather than for the multiple uses identified in the 

Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA). As you know, national monument 

proclamations typically include implied, rather than explicit, language permitting hunting and 

tishing. Many sportsmen groups are concerned federal agencies could prohibit hunting and 

fishing in certain monuments because these uses are not explicitly pennitted in proclamations. 

It's my understanding the Bureau of Land Management follows manuals for national monuments 

that describe pennitted uses, including hunting and fishing. However, management plans for 

monuments managed by the National Park Service appear to be more site specific and often do 

7 
373 


Insert graphic folio 451 here 22000A.327

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22,2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to the Honorable Neil Kornze 

not allow hunting. Do you support including explicit language in all monument management 

plans to allow hunting and fishing in monument proclamations where these activities are 

appropriate? 

Response: The BLM supports hunting and tishing on pub lie lands, including national 

monuments, where appropriate. The BLM manages national monuments under its 

jurisdiction according to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 

including the principles of multiple usc and sustained yield, consistent with the authority 

that designated each national monument (either a presidential proclamation issued under 

the Antiquities Act of 1906 or an individual Act of Congress). Discretionary uses on 

national monuments do not need to be explicitly included in a national monument 

proclamation to be allowed. Many historic uses on national monuments including 

hunting and fishing-- continue as they did before monument designation, unless 

specifically limited by law, regulation, policy, or by specific language in a proclamation. 

The BLM acknowledges and respects the State's role in setting hunting and fishing 

regulations and works closely with them on the management of fish and wildlife on 

public lands, including national monuments. 

Question 2: Many proposed national monument areas include robust big game populations, 

including elk and mule deer, and are appropriate for hunting. Active habitat management 

projects such as thinning, water development, prescribed fire and timber harvest can benefit 

wildlife in these areas. Water developments such as wildlife water guzzlers are especially critical 

for proposed monuments in the arid southwest. Do you support authorizing habitat management 

projects in monument management plans, where needed? 

Response: The BLM supports habitat management projects on public lands, including 

national monuments, where appropriate. 

8 
374 


Insert graphic folio 452 here 22000A.328

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22,2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Leslie Weldon 

Questions from Chairman Usa Murkowski 

Question 1: My economic development bill would grant Alaska an exemption from the 

Roadless Rule, which was re-imposed on us in 2009. According to the draft Record of 

Decision on the amendment to the Tongass Land Management Plan, 80,251 acres of the 

Tongass are currently listed as roadless areas, even though roads have already been built 

through them- "roaded roadless." Those acres were carelessly placed in roadless in 2001 

because the proposed management classifications were crafted nearly 30 years earlier. 

The timber industry in the Tongass. and the Administration's young-growth transition 

plan, desperately need many of those acres to be restored to the timber base. That would 

reduce the need for early logging of young-growth in areas like beach tringe, and would 

improve the economics of Forest Service timber sales since the roads to those tracts 

already exist. If you aren't willing to support an Alaska exemption to the roadless rule, 

would the Administration look at allowing access to the "roaded roadless" in the Tongass 

as a way of allowing our timber industry to survive until a young-growth transition can 

take place? 

Answer: The Forest Service evaluated an alternative in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the Tongass Plan Amendment that considered allowing old growth 

and young growth harvest in portions of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were 

roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 2001 Roadless Rule exemption 

period for the Tongass. As indicated in the FEIS, no harvest could occur in "roaded 

roadless" until agency rule-making modified the 2001 roadless rule at 36 C.F.R. 

294.13(b)(4). The Record of Decision was published in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2016. 

Question 2: The Administration recently completed the purchase of the tirst two of 13 

tracts that the Forest Service has identified for acquisition inside the Admiralty Island 

National Monument in Southeast Alaska ncar Cube Cove. Since the Administration is so 

strongly supportive of the land acquisition. why is it not more supportive of the 

provisions in my ANSCA Improvement Act that are essential for the Sitka Native 

corporation, Shee Atika, to be able to afford to sell the lands for preservation? 

Answer: The Forest Service generally does not have concerns with section 5 of the bill. 

However, we would like to discuss with the sponsor a technical issue concerning the 

assignment of responsibilities under section 5(d). 

Question 3: The Forest Service recently issued a press release announcing the purchase 

of lands on Admiralty Island. The release discusses the purchase of the surface estate, but 

ignores the fact that Sealaska Native Corp. owns the subsurface and still has the right to 

impact the surface if and when it moves to develop the subsurface estate. Exactly what is 
375 


Insert graphic folio 453 here 22000A.329

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Leslie Weldon 

the Forest Service prepared to do to settle Sealaska's surface estate issues on Admiralty 

Island? 

Answer: The Forest Service received a letter from Sealaska Corporation dated January 

20, 2016, proposing to exchange their subsurface estate on the Cube Cove property for 

tee simple estate ofNational Forest System land on Prince of Wales Island. In response 

to this letter, we expressed our desire to explore an opportunity to unify ownership in the 

event that the Forest Service acquired the surface estate from Shee Atika, Incorporated. 

We also explained that we would wait to engage in discussion until a split estate existed 

between the United States and Sealaska Corporation on the property. The recent 

purchase of the first two of 13 segments of the Cube Cove property by the United States 

created a split estate, so the agency is now prepared to meet with Sealaska Corporation 

regarding a potential land exchange. 

The Forest Service's land exchange regulations at 36 CFR part 254, subpart A, along 

with other applicable laws, regulations, and policy direction, govern the Agency's land 

exchange process. As an initial step, the Forest Service prepares a feasibility analysis of 

a proposed land exchange as a first-level screen to: 1) ensure that the proposal complies 

with the forest land and resource management plan; 2) identify public benefits: 3) ensure 

the availability of resources to complete the proposed exchange, 4) identify title and 

property description problems; and 5) identify potential support and opposition. 

We are interested in initiating a feasibility analysis if Sealaska Corporation remains 

willing to participate in the land exchange process regarding the Cube Cove property and 

National Forest System land. Any exchange proposal will require appraisals of the 

federal and non-federal estates. We will begin discussions with Sealaska Corporation in 

the near future. 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question 1: Roughly half of the land within the boundaries of the proposed Grand 

Canyon Watershed National Monument falls under the Forest Service. What actions, if 

any, has the Service taken in regard to a possible designation of a new national 

monument in Arizona? 

Answer: The Forest Service docs not currently have any direction specific to national 

monument designations in Arizona. 

Question 2: Are you aware of any plans by the service to conduct public meetings about 

a possible new national monument in Arizona? 

2 
376 


Insert graphic folio 454 here 22000A.330

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22, 2016 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Ms. Leslie Weldon 

Answer: The Forest Service is unaware of any public meetings on a possible new 

national monument in Arizona. 

Question 3: In a hearing last February, Secretary Jewell told me that when examining 

whether to recommend a new monument "the Department engages in consultation with 

national, state, local, and tribal stakeholders." As manager of half of the land in the 

proposed monument I would expect the Forest Service to participate in this consultation. 

What should Arizona stakeholders expect that consultation with the service to look like? 

Answer: For all potential land management decisions. the Forest Service seeks input from 

a broad cross-section of stakeholders, generally including local businesses, elected 

officials and conservation, tribal, academic, and cultural preservation communities. 

3 
377 


Insert graphic folio 455 here 22000A.331

Department of Energy 

Wasl:\lnt;;ton, DC 20585 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

~tober l%, 2\H6 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington,DC 20510 

Dear Madam Chairman: 

The Department of Energy submitted a Statement for the Record for the September 22, 

2016 hearing regarding S. 3312, the Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of2016. 

To complete the hearing record, please find enclosed the answer to a question that you 

submitted for this hearing. 

If you need any additional information or further assistance, please contact me or Fahiye 

Yusuf, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at (202) 586-5450. 

Enclosure 

cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Sincerely, 

Jed D'Ercole 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Senate Affairs 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 

@ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
378 


Insert graphic folio 456 here 22000A.332

QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN LISA MURKOWSKI 

QJ. In Scc.401 ofS. 3203, there is a provision to allow the Department of Energy to make 

grants for the demonstration of new technology, using molecular recognition 

processes, to reduce the cost of separating minerals using non-toxic means. If 

enacted, these grants could help solve our lack of domestic production of rare earth 

clements, especially heavy rare earths. I know DOE has asked one of its national labs 

to work on REE processing technology. Exactly what steps is DOE taking to reduce 

our current I 00% foreign dependence for rare earth clements, and could a specific 

authorization for molecular recognition technology help speed up that process? 

A 1. The Department of Energy's (DOE) Critical Materials Strategy Reports 1 identified 

three pillars to address critical materials challenges: 1) diversifying supply of critical 

materials, 2) developing alternatives to critical materials, and 3) driving recycling, 

reuse, and more efficient use of critical materials. First, diversified global supply 

chains arc essential. To manage supply risk, multiple sources of materials arc 

required. This means taking steps to facilitate the extraction, processing, and 

manufacturing of critical materials here in the United States, as well as encouraging 

other nations to expedite alternative supplies. In all cases, extraction, separation, 

processing, and manufacturing must be done in an environmentally sound manner. 

Second, substitutes must be developed. Research leading to material and technology 

substitutes will improve flexibility, decrease demand for critical materials, and help 

meet the materials needs of the clean energy economy. Third, recycling, reuse and 

more efficient use of critical materials could significantly lower world demand for 

newly extracted materials. Research into recycling processes coupled with welldesigned policies will help make recycling economically viable over time. 

Addressing these three pillars is a moving target, as critical materials challenges 

change over time. 

Several entities within the Department contribute to and closely collaborate on DOE's 

critical materials research and development (R&D) effort. The Basic Energy Sciences 

program in the Office of Science supp011s broad-based, fundamental materials research. 

The Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy invests in high-potential, high-impact 

1 http:// cnergy.gov f sitesjprodjfilesjDOE_CMS2011_F!N AL_Full.pdf 

1 
379 


Insert graphic folio 457 here 22000A.333

energy technologies that are likely too early for private-sector investment. Within the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), investment in research 

related to critical materials occurs within the Vehicle Technologies Office, the Wind 

Power Technologies Office, the Solar Energy Technologies Office, the Geothermal 

Technologies Office, and the Advanced Manufacturing Office. The DOE Office of Fossil 

Energy (FE), through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), has 

undertaken a program to establish the economic research to explore the technical 

feasibility of recovering rare earth clements from coal and coal byproducts. 

DOE national laboratories arc also integral to this R&D effort. The national laboratory 

system includes the Nation's historic leader in rare earth materials research, the Ames 

Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. While Ames Laboratory has a core-competency in rare earth 

materials, many other national laboratories also contribute significantly to R&D aimed at 

reducing the criticality of critical materials. For example, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Sandia 

National Laboratories, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have complementary 

efforts spanning from basic and applied research to development. 

In response to the Critical Materials Strategy reports, the Department launched a national 

competition for an Energy Innovation Hub. Early in 2013, DOE announced the Critical 

Materials Institute (CMI), led by Ames National Laboratory. CMI is the Nation's premier 

research, development and analysis institute dedicated to finding innovative solutions and 

developing creative, transformational paths to eliminating the criticality of rare earth and 

other materials. 

The Institute has focused its efforts around the three pillars of the Critical Materials 

Strategy. For example, to diversify supply, researchers arc studying new, lower cost ways 

to extract, separate and process rare earth metals from orcs and recycled materials. To 

develop substitutes, Institute researchers, in partnership with private sector partners, arc 

searching for substitutes for rare earth magnets and phosphors. To improve reuse and 

recycling, CMI's R&D in this area is focused on two major areas: first, improving the 

cost- and energy-efficiency of separating the rare earth containing components from end2 
380 


Insert graphic folio 457A here 22000A.334

of-life products like light bulbs, hard drives and motors; and second, developing new 

technologies to extract rare earth elements from these end-of-life components to produce 

new materials. 

One of the primary barriers to upstream domestic critical materials development has been 

the high cost requirements associated with overcoming the technical challenges at the 

separation stage in the supply chain. This barrier to entry has led to a natural monopoly of 

processing operations concentrated in certain countries. The Department addresses 

processing innovations through R&D to help reduce processing cost requirements. For 

example, CMI is developing several more efficient, more environmentally friendly, and 

lower cost ways to extract, separate, and process rare earth metals from ores and recycled 

materials, such as neodymium for permanent magnets. 

In addition, currently NETL has an open Funding Opportunity Announcement for 

"Production of Salable Rare Earth Elements from Domestic U.S. Coal and Coal ByProducts." This FOA may provide opportunities to assist with the scale up of new 

technologies for the small scale production of salable rare earth products. We encourage 

all U.S. developers of rare earth production technologies to access the current funding 

opportunity announcement and consider applying. 

3 
381 


Insert graphic folio 458 here 22000A.810

Ripchens!cy. Darla (Enerpr> 

Subjoct: FW: 53315, Second Division Memorial Modification Act -for the record 

Importance: High 

From: Ave;s Thompson [m!IDI!!:!IV!!S96®aoi.!Xl!11) 

Sent: Monday, 5eptl!mber 19, 2016 11:09 AM 

Subject: $.3315, Second Division Memorial Modification Act 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Energy and Resources Committee 

Re: S.331S, Second Division Memorial Modification Act 

Dear Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, 

The 2nd lndianhead Division Association Scholarship and Memorials FoundatiOn (Foundation) seeks to 

rededicate the 2M Division Memorial on Constitution Avenue near 1,m Street In the President's Park on the 

National Mall in Washington, DC., by making a small but important modification to the Memorial. 

The Memorial was initially erected and dedicated in 1936 to honor the 2M Division soldiers killed In World War 

1 and rededicated in 1962 by adding two winp to the Memorial to honor the 2"" Division dead In World War II 

and the Korean War. Unfortunately, the Memorial no longer reflects all members of the 2"" Division who 

have given their life In service of their country, specifically those who have fallen on or near the Korean 

Demllltarized Zone (DMZ} between South and North Korea, as well as those who have fallen in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. 

S. 3315, has been introduced to make a small, but crudal, change to the Memorial. The legislation will allow 

for the addition of three small benches commemorating the fallen 2•d Division soldiers in service on and near 

the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea and the fallen soldiers of both 

Afghanistan and Iraq. Legislation is necessary, as the National Park Service has denied modification of the 

Memorial based on current law (40 USC Section B903(b). 

We ask for your assistance in changing the law to allow this small but Important modification. 

As President of the Foundation and on behalf of its nearly 2,000 members, we urge you to support this 

legislation that will allow this small but Important modifiCation. Please note that the Korean War Veterans 

Association and the Veterans of Foreign Wars organizations also support this legislation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully, 

11M~ Aves Thompson, National President 

2nd lndianhead Division Association 

SECOND TO NONE 

(907) 240-0114 cell and text 
382 


Insert graphic folio 459 here 22000A.335

TESTIMONY ON THE METHOW HEADWATERS PROTECTION ACT 01' 2016 

(S. 2991) 

September 22, 2016 

For consideration by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Submitted hy Erik Murdock, Policy Director 

Access Fund 

4720 Walnut St #200, Boulder, CO 80301 

www .accessfund.org 
383 


Insert graphic folio 460 here 22000A.336

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Members of Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: 

On behalf of the Access Fund, I welcome the opportunity to submit this testimony for inclusion 

into the public record regarding the proposed ·'Methow Headwaters Protection Act Of 20 16" (S. 

2991 ). We enthusiastically support S. 2991 for the reasons stated herein. 

The Access Fund is a national advocacy organization whose mission keeps climbing areas open 

and conserves the climbing environment. A 50 I (c)(3) non-profit and accredited land trust 

representing millions of climbers nationwide in all forms of climbing-rock climbing. icc 

climbing. mountaineering, and bouldering-the Access Fund is the largest US climbing 

advocacy organization with over 13,000 members and I 00 local affiliates. The Access Fund 

provides climbing management expertise. stewardship, project specific funding, and educational 

outreach. Washington is one of our largest members states, Access Fund members from across 

the country regularly climb in the region addressed by this proposal, and we have invested 

significant resources in the region with our Conservation Team on trail projects and we've 

worked extensively with the US Forest Service in support of sustainable recreation management 

policies on the Okanogan National Forest. For more information about the Access Pund, 

visit www.accessfund.org, 

The Upper Methow Headwaters region contains some of the most outstanding climbing and 

mountaineering in Washington state, including short challenging sport climbs up the Chewack 

River, the massive multi-pitch climbing on the towering Goat Wall, alpine rock climbing and 

glacier mountaineering around the Silver Star Massif, sport climbing near Robinson Creek and 

mountaineering along the Pacific Crest Trail, and nationally significant alpine rock climbing 

along Early Winters Creek and Washington Pass. Climbers value this area greatly for its wide 

range of year-round seasonal opportunities in a diverse and spectacular setting. There are also 

many other recreational activities that would be protected by this bill, including boating, biking 

hiking, fishing and hunting, and skiing. We enthusiastically support this proposal that would 

protect the nationally-significant climbing opportunities and the unique quality of life in the 

Upper Methow area that is characterized by stunning peaks, and beautiful riparian corridor, 

pastoral fanning and undeveloped viewsheds. For more information on climbing in the Upper 

Methow region. see Mazama and Washington Pass rock climbing information at 

www.mountainprojcct.com. 

All of these unique values are greatly threatened by the prospect of a copper mine on Goat Peak 

which is central to this landscape, as is evidenced by the placement of a fire lookout on its 

summit. Industrial scale mining in the Upper Methow-with its damaging impacts to water and 

air quality, impaired viewshcds, and harm to the recreational experience-is incompatible with 

climbing and mountaineering as well as other recreational activities and the quality of life in the 

area, Also. the significant economic contributions brought by the recreation community to the 

Upper Methow area would be severely damaged. as many visitors would choose to go elsewhere 

if mining were allowed. Furthermore, the local population would greatly suffer from industrial 

scale mining because truck traffic moving copper out of the valley would necessarily have to 

move either through the small town and four-way stop in the idyllic town of Winthrop, or travel 

over the Scenic Byway of the North Cascades Highway which boasts some of the most 

breathtaking scenery in the country with Washington Pass, North Cascades National Park and the 
384 


Insert graphic folio 461 here 22000A.337

3 

Ross Lake National Recreation Area. There couldn't be a location more ill suited to industrial 

mining than the Upper Methow Valley. This is why the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 

2016 is such an important step in protecting the long-term recreational and economic integrity of 

the treasure that is the Upper Methow Valley. 

The Methow Headwaters Protection Act of2016 would implement a "mineral withdrawal" of 

340,000 acres in the Okanogan National Forest in and around the Methow Headwaters and 

prevent future mining including the prospect of a large-scale copper mine on Goat Peak. This 

withdrawal brings much-deserved protection to the Methow Headwaters area from the impacts of 

industrial mining, an effort that is widely supported by the recreation and conservation 

communities, local businesses, and elected officials, downstream ranchers and farmers, and 

residents throughout the area. 

The Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 20 I 6 will protect the many unique values in the area 

for future generations of Washington residents and the many thousands oftourists that visit the 

area each year. The Access Fund very much appreciates Senators Murray and Cantwell's 

leadership in recognizing the threats of mining to this incredible landscape when crafting this 

widely supported bill. 

* * * 

Chairman Murkowski and members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the 

Access Fund appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on Methow Headwaters Protection 

Act Of 20 I 6 (HR. 5780). The Access Fund has reviewed this bill and supports it strongly. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Erik Murdock 

Policy Director 

The Access Fund 
385 


Insert graphic folio 462 here 22000A.338

Fleurant, Susan {Energy) 

Subject: FW: 53315 

From: Corlyss Affeldt [mai!to:;:ori:B;;@S[@jj.~;.gmJ 

Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:08PM 

To: lane, Michelle (Energy) 

subject: 53315 

****** 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Energy and Resources Committee 

Re: S.3315, Second Division Memorial Modification Act 

Dear Madame Chair and Members of the 

Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Energy and Resources Committee 

Re: 8.3315, Second Division Memorial Modification Act 

Dear Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, 

The 2"d lndianhead Division Association Scholarship and Memorials Foundation (Foundation) seeks to 

rededicate the 2"dDivision Memorial on Constitution Avenue near J7"')ill£~t in the President's Park on the 

National Mall by making a small but important modification to the MemoriaL 

The Memorial was initially erected and dedicated in 1936 to honor the 2"d Division soldiers killed in World War 

I and rededicated in 1962 by adding two wings to the Memorial to honor the 2"dDivision dead in World War II 

and the Korean War. Unfortunately, the Memorial no longer reflects all members of the znct Division who have 

given their life in service of their countty, specifically those who have fallen on or near the Korean 

Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea, as well as those who have fallen in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. 

S. 3315, has been introduced to allow for the addition of three small benches commemorating the fallen 

2nd Division soldiers in service on and near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North 

Korea and the fallen soldiers of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Legislation is necessary, as the National Park 

Service has denied modification of the Memorial based on current law ( 40 USC Section 8903(b ). 

We ask lor your assistance in changing the law to allow this small but important modification. 

As a 2d Infantry Division Veteran, I urge you to support this legislation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully, 

Corlyss Affeldt 

l 0800 forestview circle 

Eden prairie mn 55347 
386 


Insert graphic folio 00013 here 22000A.813

Statement of the Alaska Chapter Sierra Club 

for the hearing record on 

S.437,S.3204,S.3203,S.3273 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 

September 22, 2016 

ocr' 1 2ot8 

The Alaska Chapter of the Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the 

four bills dealing with the public lands in Alaska. 

In summary, the Chapter opposes 8.437, Improved National Monument Designation Process Act; 

S. 3204, King Cove Road Land Exchange Act; various sections in S. 3203, Alaska Economic 

Development and Access to Resources Act; and various sections in S. 3273, Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016. 

There is one provision we support. Section 5 of S. 3273, Shee Atika Incorporated, authorizes 

federal acquisition of the corporation's surface estate in 23,040 acres within Admiralty Island 

National Monument. 

S. 437 would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to require the president, before proclaiming a 

national monument, to seek the approval of Congress and !he legislature of the state in which the 

monument would be located. The president would also be required to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Essentially the same requirements would apply to a proposed national 

marine monument within the U.S. exclusive economic zone. 

Requiring congressional and state approval of a proposed monument would allow opponents of 

national monuments to cause lengthy delays and potentially block a proposed monument 

proclamation. This would prevent the president from acting in a timely manner to protect public 

lands and other nationally significant historic and scientific resources threatened by adverse 

developments and incompatible activities. 

An example of timely presidential action to safeguard threatened public lands is President Jimmy 

Carter's national monument proclamations in Alaska. Had the President not acted, public land 

areas being considered for addition to the national conservation systems would have been 

opened to private appropriation under the public land laws and to state land selections aimed at 

disqualifying the proposed areas. His action preserved Congress's options as it completed work 

on what became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. 

S. 3204 King Cove Road land Exchange Act. 

S. 3204 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to engage in a land exchange with the State of 

Alaska and the King Cove Native village corporation. The exchange would enable the State to 

build a road across the lzembek Wilderness portion of the lzembek National Wildlife Refuge to 

link King Cove with the community of Cold Bay. 

As shown by studies done by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the proposed road is 

incompatible with the purposes and values of the refuge. A road would facilitate off-road vehicle 

access to the wilderness area and other sensitive refuge areas, leading to habitat damage and 

increased hunting and trapping pressure on refuge wildlife. 
387 


Insert graphic folio 00014 here 22000A.814

S. 3203 Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. 

• Title ThreJ~ would establish an oil and gas leasing program for the coastal plain of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

• Subtitle B of Title Three would direct the Secretary to offer oil and gas leases in National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; 

• Iill!1. Four section 403 would amend the so-called "no more· provision of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that terminates executive branch 

withdrawals of over 5,000 acres unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of approval 

within one year after the withdrawal. The amendment would require congressional 

approval to any withdrawal of 5,000 acres or more that "limits, or has the effect of limiting 

or impeding activities and uses allowed on public lands as of the date of enactment of this 

section." including wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, Endangered Species Act 

critical habitats, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concem.(ACECs). The amendment 

also revokes existing ACECs in Alaska; 

• Title 5, section 501. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule would not apply to the Tongass 

and Chugach national forests in Alaska; 

• Title 5, section 502, Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange, directs the Secretary of 

Agriculture to trade national forest timber land on Prince of Wales Island for Trust-owned 

acreage adjacent to southeast Alaska communities. 

• Title 5, section 503, Tongass State Forest Facilitation, would direct the Secretary of 

Agriculture to convey two million acres of the Tongass National Forest to the State of 

Alaska for addition to the state forest system. 

S. 3273 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016. 

• Section !'!.Admiralty Island National Monument Land Exchange, directs the Secretary of 

Agriculture to allow the Sealaska Corporation to trade its 23.040 acres of subsurface 

estate (Shee Atika Incorporated owns the surface estate) in the monument for 14,000 

acres of national forest timber land on Prince of Wales Island; 

• Section 7, CIRI Land Entitlement, would authorize the Cook lniet Region, Inc., a Native 

regional corporation to select 43,000 acres of its ANSA land grant from federal lands, 

including from National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, national wildlife refuges, wild and 

scenic rivers, and national forests; 

• Section 1 0, Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and 

Compensation, would establish five urban Native corporations that would select a total of 

115,200 acres (23,040 acres each) from the Tongass National Forest; and 

• Section 11, Alaska Native Veterans Land Aliotment Equity, would convey 160-acre Native 

Allotments to Alaska Native veterans, and approves Native allotment applications pending 

before the Interior Department when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was enacted 

on December 18, 1971. 

Thank you for considering our views. 

Jack Hession 

Executive Committee 

Alaska Chapter Sierra Club 
388 


Insert graphic folio 466 here 22000A.342

I. Introduction 

Written Testimony before the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing ta Receive Testimony on Various Bills 

Hearing September 22, 2016 

Testimony Submitted for the Record October 6, 2016 

Submitted by: 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

On behalf of: 

The State of Alaska 

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources- The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) 

submits the following testimony on a number of the bills heard on September 22n" that pertain to 

the land and natural resources of Alaska. On behalf of Governor Bill Walker, thank you for this 

opportunity to provide this testimony. 

The testimony for each bill is enumerated below. ADNR takes no position and has no 

objection to the bills heard at the hearing but not discussed in this testimony. 

II. S. 437- Improved National Monument Designation Process Act 

ADNR supports this legislation and the involvement of affected states in federal executive 

branch actions- both within the boundaries of the state and in the offshore waters adjacent to the 

state. 

Ill. S. 1416- A Bill to limit the Authority to Reserve Water Rights in Designating a National 

Monument 

ADNR supports this legislation and the role of an affected state in managing water and 

water rights associated with newly created national monuments within their borders. Respectfully, 

the Committee or members of Congress may wish to clarify that neither the declaration of a 

national monument under 54 USC§ 320301(a) nor the reservation of particular parcels of land 

under 54 USC§ 320301(b) includes expressed or implied federal water rights outside of the 

applicable state process and law. 

IV. S. 2056- National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act 

ADNR supports this legislation. Modernizing the National Volcano Early Warning and 

Monitoring System moves our national capacity for responding to these events from "detect and 
389 


Insert graphic folio 467 here 22000A.343

react" to "forecast and prepare" and is likely to protect and prevent harm to the people and 

resources of Alaska and the United States. Alaska's population and economy are especially 

susceptible to volcanic and geologic hazards given the geologic, seismic, and volcanic profile of the 

state and its extensive and remote territory. 

Respectfully, the Committee or members of Congress may wish to include state 

participants, such as the respective state geological surveys, in the advisory committee discussed in 

section 4 (c)(2), to inform the Secretary of the needs of states such as Alaska that feature significant 

volcanic activity. 

For reference, there are currently 52 active volcanoes in Alaska, and on average at least one 

of these volcanoes erupts in a given year, generating potentially hazardous ash clouds. The Alaska 

Volcano Observatory (AVO), has responded to 26 eruptions from 10 different volcanoes over the 

last decade and this legislation would enhance these efforts to forecast and prevent harm and 

impact from these eruptions. Ash clouds are extremely hazardous to safe aircraft operation. Due 

to Alaska's geographic position, a significant percentage of all international air freight and 

approximately 50,000 people in a given day travel through areas that could be affected by the 

eruption of Alaskan volcanoes- making Alaskan volcanic monitoring an issue of national and 

international importance. 

V. S. 3203- Alaska Economic Development Act 

Title 1- ADNR supports this title of the legislation. Hydrocarbon production from federal 

acreage brings royalty and economic benefits to the State, in addition to economic and energy 

security benefits to the country as a whole. A comprehensive plan in furtherance of such 

production is completely consistent with the State's interests, and ADNR is available to assist 

federal partners with development of such a plan. Additional land entitlement would also benefit 

the state and increase the access and utilization of Alaska's natural resources for the benefit of 

Alaskans. 

Title II- ADNR supports this title of the legislation. The statutory inclusion of lease sales in 

the leasing program for the federal planning areas in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is 

consistent with the State's position of strong support for these sales through the administrative 

planning process and is of critical importance to the State. This is a position which the State, the 

North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation have uniformly supported because 

responsible development in the Arctic OCS benefits the communities who live in the region in 

addition to all Alaskans. 

Title Ill- ADNR supports this title of the legislation. An orderly leasing program within the 

coastal plain is consistent with the intent of prior legislation and federal administrative findings, and 

would be of enormous benefit to the economy of Alaska and the nation as a whole. 

Title IV- ADNR supports this title of the legislation, including the provisions to encourage 

the development of rare earth elements, to secure federal mining claims, and to clarify the scope of 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) withdrawals. 
390 


Insert graphic folio 468 here 22000A.344

Title V- ADNR supports this title of the legislation, including an exemption for Alaska from 

the "roadless rule," the completion of the land exchange between the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

and the U.S. Forest Service, and the creation of a Tongass State Forest. 

VI. S. 3204 - King Cove Road land Exchange Act 

ADNR supports this legislation and a solution to this long-standing issue for the residents of 

King Cove and Cold Bay. The Governor of Alaska has prioritized this issue and ADNR stands ready to 

assist facilitate land transactions necessary to effectuate this legislation subject to applicable state 

law. 

In closing, thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony on these bills. 
391 


Insert graphic folio 00015 here 22000A.815

10/3/2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

3745 Community Park loop, Suite 200 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

907-269-7960 

www.mhtrust.org 

I am writing in my capacity as chairman of the board of trustees for the Alaska Mental Trust on 

behalf of the entire seven member board. We obviously strongly support the Alaska Mental 

Health Trust Land Exchange Legislation. I urge to you pass legislation allowing the Trust to 

fulfill its financial responsibility of supporting programs serving Alaska's most vulnerable 

populations. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust and the Trust Land Office (TLO) have been working toward a 

land exchange for more than 10 years to enable the Trust to better fulfill its mission of 

generating income to assist in meeting the needs of Trust beneficiaries. Trust beneficiaries 

include Alaskans of all ages with mental illness, developmental disabilities, substance use 

disorders, traumatic brain injuries, and Alzheimers's and related dementias. 

Our efforts to effect a land exchange have been undertaken in order to make Trust land 

productive for our beneficiaries while accommodating the interests of communities in Southeast 

Alaska and broader public interests as well. Those efforts have included extensive public 

participation while defining the exchange parcels and efforts to define and best accommodate 

myriad public and private interests. 

The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

0 Protects popular trails, viewsheds, and iconic recreational sites along the Inside 

Passage; 

o Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

o Preserves old growth timber stands in the forest; 

Ensures jobs stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber and tourism 

industries; 

o Protects and promotes the interests of vulnerable Alaskans by providing revenue to 

support the Trust's mission. 
392 


Insert graphic folio 00016 here 22000A.816

The State of Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in its history. Cuts to state programs threaten 

to reduce vital services for Trust beneficiaries. There is a critical need for the Trust to generate 

income to assist in meeting beneficiary needs. While the Trust provides over $20 million 

annually in support of programs and services for beneficiaries it is insufficient to meet the need. 

Additional revenue is needed and needed soon. If the Trust cannot generate additional revenue 

in a timely fashion the well-being and even the lives of our beneficiaries will be increasingly at 

risk. Legislation is the best option to complete the exchange in a timely fashion. 

Trustees want to do what is right for Southeast community and economy, for the broad public 

interest, but most importantly for vulnerable Alaskans that benefit from the Trust. It's essential 

that the Alaska Mental Health Trust increase its ability to provide financial support for programs 

serving our beneficiaries. 

I encourage you to pass this legislation with appropriate modifications that have been 

negotiated by the TLO and the USFS. I also offer the Trust's assistance if we can help in any 

way. 

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Alaskans. 

Sincerely, 

Russ Webb 

1338 F Street 

Anchorage, AK 99501 
393 


Insert graphic folio 469 here 22000A.345

ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION 

121 W. FlRE:WEEO SUITE 120 i ANCHORAGE, ALASKA: 99503 907.563.9229 i ALA9KAMIN£R5.0RG 

September 21, 2016 

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Re: Testimony for the record for September 22, 2016 Committee Hearing: S. 3203, S.3204, S.3273 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

The Alaska Miners Association (AMA) appreciates the opportunity to provide a statement for the record 

in advance of the September 22,2016 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing, which 

will present several key pieces of legislation vital to Alaskans and Americans. 

AMA is a non-profit membership organization established in 1939 to represent the mining industry in 

Alaska. We are composed of comprise more than 1,400 members that come from eight statewide 

branches: Anchorage, Denali, Fairbanks, Haines, juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan/Prince of Wales, and Nome. 

Our members include individual prospectors, geologists, engineers, vendors, suction dredge miners, 

small family mines, junior mining companies, and major mining companies. We look for and produce 

gold, silver, platinum, molybdenum, lead, zinc, copper, coal. limestone, sand and gravel, crushed stone, 

armor rock, and other materials. 

AMA wishes to provide comments on the following Legislation: 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act- Title IV. Mining 

"Withdrawal" as used in ANILCA § 1326. S. 3203 contains a host of provisions, of which one of the 

most vital is a definition of the word "Withdrawal" as used in ANILCA § 1326. "No More" was a principle 

which the Alaska Legislature insisted be part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act (ANILCA). The 

idea was that, in exchange for setting aside millions of acres of Federal Lands in Alaska as Wilderness, the 

remaining Federal Lands would be open to development. 

However, Federal Agencies in Alaska are evading the intent of the "no more" clause because the word 

"withdrawal" is not specifically defined in ANILCA. Their position is that land set aside in management 

plans are "temporary" and, therefore, not a withdrawal. Even if not designated as a withdrawal, if the 

agencies temporarily treat the land as if it was withdrawn and then roll over that "temporary 

withdrawal" from land plan to land plan it results in a de facto withdrawal of areas. Examples are "Old 

Growth Reserves" (OGRs) on the Tongass National Forest and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs) on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. 

The Congressional intent of ANILCA was clear; however. executive agencies have used various devices 

to circumvent ANILCA § 1326. Furthermore, in the recent case of Southeast Conference v. Vi/sack, 684 
394 


Insert graphic folio 470 here 22000A.346

F.2d 135 (D.D.C. 2010) the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

decided that because there was no ANILCA definition of "withdrawal," it 

was free to use the definition of "withdrawal" set out in § 204( e) of the 

Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and related case law: 

AL.ASKA MINERS 

[A] withdrawal exempts covered land from the operation of laws that otherwise authorize the transfer 

of federal lands to the private domain for private use. (Attached Slip Opinion at page 13). 

Based on this definition, the Court determined that 1.22 million acres of "Old Growth Reserves" set aside 

by the 2008 Amended Tongass Land Management Plan were not withdrawals but are merely examples 

of the Forest Service's statutory responsibility under the National Forest Management Act to "provide 

for multiple use and sustained yield products and services of units of the National Forest System." 16 

U.S. C. § 1604( e). They neither exempt lands from the operation of public land laws, nor suspend the 

operation of those laws in certain lands. Land-use designations simply have no effect on laws that 

authorize transfer of federal lands to the private domain (Slip Opinion at page 14 ). 

The FLPMA definition is a problem for Alaskans because, among other things, it is restricted to the 

concept of "transfer." Alaskans use federal lands for many other important purposes, including access 

across and through federal lands to other State lands and inholdings. Alaskans also use federal lands 

extensively for many legitimate purposes, including we prospecting federal lands for mineral outcrops, 

which can be barred when land is "withdrawn." In brief, an unlimited "temporary" closure of land to 

multiple use is as much a withdrawal as a permanent closure, 

The BLM, for instance, has determined that ACECs on public domain should be considered land-usc 

designations under FLPMA not subject to the "no more" clause. This is a gigantic loophole which the the 

agency has wrongfully attempted to usc to set aside millions of acres in Alaska notwithstanding the 

unequivocal language and intent of "no more" clause. 

Section 403 of S.3023 would close the loophole by defining the word "withdrawal" in ANILCA. This 

definition would cause the "no more" clause of ANILCA to actually work as a "no more" clause. 

Hokan Mountain-Dotson Ridge mining project: provisions within Title IV of S.3203 promote 

development of green technology and strengthens national security by encouraging the development of 

new technologies to meet the nation's demand for critical and strategic materials. Domestic supply of 

these minerals is vital; provisions that incentivize domestic development are vital toward advancing this 

priority. 

Advancements in technology over tbe past halt~century have driven the demand for rare earth elements. 

From smartphones to electric vehicles, to the highly technical products employed by our Nation's Armed 

Forces, rare earths are in high demand and their supply is almost entirely foreign. Currently, the 

production of these elements is dominated by China which controls the majority of the world's mining of 

rare earth containing ore and each subsequent stage in the separation supply chain. Chinese production 

of rare earths relies upon production techniques that may and would not necessarily comply with the 

United States' regulatory requirements. This begs the question, why should we buy these products from 

a nation with possible undesirable practices, when we can develop the products domestically in an 

environmentally responsible manner, at the same time enhancing the economy? 
395 


Insert graphic folio 471 here 22000A.347

ALASKA MINERS 

Section 401 of S.3203 provides for the creation of a grants program to Assoc>ATOON 

develop "more environmentally acceptable and less expensive ways to 

separate and process rare earth elements, which would increase the 

likelihood of economic production of rare earth elements in North America." Not only would this 

language promote the development of an alternative to foreign sources of rare earths, improving U.S. 

national security, but section 401 would foster American development of clean technology. 

"Environmentally benign technologies," as referred to by the bill, offer the ability to meet 21" century 

demand for rare earths while simultaneously promoting metal sustainability and the elimination of 

pollutants from the rare earth separation supply chain. Section 401 would not only help alleviate U.S. 

dependence on foreign sources of rare earths, but also drive innovation toward the next generation of 

development technologies. 

The Alaska Miners Association supports S.3203 and urges swift passage of this bill. 

S. 3204, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act 

AMA supports S.3204 not because our immediate members or the mining industry stand to benefit from 

its passage, but as an Alaskan-based organization support this bill because its passage is simply the right 

thing to do. The proposal of a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, in the name of safety, 

should be honored and construction and operation of the road can be done without negative impacts to 

the environment. 

S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

AMA supports S.3273 because the majority of its provisions contain policies that will enhance the ability 

of Alaska's Native Corporations to receive the entitlements and benefits expressly contained in the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act upon its passage in 1971. Items such as conveyance of Cook Inlet Region, 

Inc.'s remaining 43,000 acres of land; land exchange proposals for several Corporations, reestablishment 

of the l3<h Regional Corporation; and several other provisions help Alaska's Native Corporations to use 

its land and sustain its communities for years to come, and are compelling reasons to vote for the passage 

ofS.3273. 

S. 437, the Improved National Monument Designation Process Act 

National Monument Designation is a major issue, particularly with Alaskans who live, work, and play in a 

state with more Conservation System Units than the rest of the Nation combined. Designation of a 

National Monument comes with associated land withdrawals, management prescriptions, and other 

classifications that prevent access to and multiple use of lands. We support limiting the authority of the 

Executive Branch under the Antiquities Act to designate to create any more National Monuments and 

Parks in the United States or its economic zone without consultation of the impacted states. 

Conclusion. AMA applauds the introduction ofS. 3203, S. 304, S. 3272, and S. 437 as strong legislation 

that will enhance economic and community development for Alaskans and Americans alike. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. 

Deantha Crockett 

Executive Director 
396 


Insert graphic folio 464 here 22000A.340

~LASKA CHAMBER 

September 21, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Testimony for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Hearing on September 22, 2016 on S. 3203, S.3204, S. 437, and S. 3273. 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (Alaska Chamber) would like to 

express its support for S. 3203, S. 3204, and S. 3273 as these key pieces of 

legislation will be most beneficial to Alaskans and the Alaska economy. 

The mission of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (Alaska Chamber) is to 

promote a positive business environment in Alaska. The Alaska Chamber 

represents hundreds of businesses, manufacturers and local chambers from 

across Alaska. Our members support resource development that is both done in 

a responsible manner and brings economic opportunity to Alaska and its 

residents. 

One item in particular, and as you are probably already aware, the Alaska 

Chamber has long been a supporter of exploration and development of our oil 

and gas resources in the Alaska Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

Development of the OCS has the potential to provide 54,700 new jobs 

nationwide with a cumulative payroll of $145 billion. OCS development will also 

help extend the longevity of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). TAPS 

has played a critical role in Alaska's economic prosperity and our nation's energy 

security. Without a significant new source of oil, TAPS may be forced to shut 

down, dealing a heavy blow to Alaska and posing an energy and national 

security risk to the nation. 

The remainder of the provisions of S. 3203 (Alaska Economic Development and 

Access to Resources Act) will help bolster Alaska's economy by providing the 

necessary access to our natural resources here in Alaska. Not that long ago 

when we joined the Union it was under the auspices that developing Alaska's 

natural resources would provide us with a strong economy. By reminding policy 

makers and the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. of this fact we can hope to take 
397 


Insert graphic folio 465 here 22000A.341

frALASKA CHAMBER 

our future into our own hands and provide for a prosperous economy for 

generations to come. 

The majority of land in Alaska is already under federal control, and the federal 

agencies in charge of those lands continue to either outright block any potential 

utilization of the natural resources in those lands or make it nigh impossible by 

creating so many hurdles that its no longer feasible to pursue. By S. 437 

(Improved National Monument Designation Process Act) limiting the authority of 

the President to designate any more National Monuments without first not 

consulting the impacted states first we have at least a fighting chance of 

preventing any more of Alaska to be locked up. 

Despite being passed in 1971 there are still unresolved provisions under Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). S. 3273 (Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Improvement Act) seeks to finally close the loop on promises made 

and enable native corporations to fully utilize their lands and resources which 

while bolstering their communities for years to come will also enhance Alaska's 

economy as a whole. 

While not having any direct association with impacting Alaska's economy, the 

Alaska Chamber supports the conveyance of land for the sake of building the 

road out of King Cove. By finally conveying these lands will the level safety and 

security for those Alaskans in King Cove who would greatly increase. S. 3204 

will finally allow this long overdue endeavor to occur. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments for the record and your, 

and the rest of Alaska's delegation's, efforts to continue to stand up for Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

!:::·~·~·- Curtis W. Thayer 

President and CEO 
398 


Insert graphic folio 472 here 22000A.348

Alaska Wilderness League * American Rivers * Clean Water Action 

Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship * Defenders of Wildlife * Earthjustice 

Environment America * League of Conservation Voters 

Natural Resources Defense Council * Oceana * Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center * The Wilderness Society 

September 20, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen Murkowski and Upton and Ranking Members Cantwell and Pallone: 

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to only report an energy bill 

if it will facilitate our nation's transition to cleaner sources of energy and doesn't have 

provisions that would further climate disruption or harm our air, water, wildlife, and other 

natural resources. 

The latest scientific evidence dictates that our transition to clean, low-carbon energy must be 

accelerated if we are to mitigate the worst effects of the climate change. Unfortunately, the 

provisions in Senate-passed Energy Policy and Modernization Act (EPMA), 5.2012, do not meet 

that urgent need. This conference will not be able to rectify that deficiency but could advance 

modest but important provisions to upgrade our grid, improve energy efficiency, invest in new 

renewables and train the workforce needed to implement this transition. 

Positive provisions included in EPMA include permanent extension of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, new programs to support grid storage and advanced grid technologies, the 

Sensible Accounting to Value Efficiency (SAVE) Act, many provisions from the Energy Savings 

and Industrial Competitiveness Act (Portman-Shaheen), Senate building code language, Senate 

America COMPETES Act reauthorization, workforce training, and manufacturing initiatives. In 

order to make any progress in transitioning to clean energy these provisions must be included 

in the final version of this bill. 
399 


Insert graphic folio 473 here 22000A.349

Unfortunately, EPMA also includes several provisions that would weaken current law, 

undermine climate science and are at odds with the overwhelming desire of the American 

public to protect the environment. Unless these harmful provisions are removed this bill would 

lock in fossil fuel development and infrastructure with its attendant air, water and land 

pollution for decades to come. 

The bill passed in the House is even more concerning. The House-passed bill is littered with 

extreme ideological provisions that undermine many of our current protections including those 

secured under the Clean Air Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act, National Environmental Policy 

Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other key laws. The House bill (HB) 

contains the legislative language from H.R.8, H.R. 2898, H.R. 2406, H.R. 1937, H.R. 538, H.R. 

2647 and H.R. 1806, all of which are controversial, have veto threats from the Obama 

Administration, and should not be included in a final bill. 

We understand that Senate conferees intend to narrow the vast number of policies under 

consideration for the conference report. Still, we remain concerned that even this more limited 

universe may include provisions that undermine the positive provisions of the bill or harm our 

environment, climate, and public health. 

Our organizations will vigorously oppose a final bill if it would do damage to the environment. 

Noted below are provisions of strong concern. 

Energy Efficiency: 

EPMA Section 1015/HB Sec. 3116: This provision repeals Section 433 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) which requires all new and modified federal 

buildings to eliminate fossil fuel generated energy by 2030. A repeal of this provision 

alone would undermine our transition to a clean, low-carbon energy future. The federal 

government has tremendous potential to reduce pollution and leverage the significant 

benefits of energy efficiency to reduce the $6 billion it spends on energy in its buildings 

and should be demonstrating leadership in this transition. 

EPMA Section 1020, Elimination of Green Building Programs: This provision requires 

the federal government to review green building programs and look for duplication. The 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report referenced in the section recommends 

enhanced coordination between agencies to increase effectiveness of complementary 

programs. Nothing in the GAO report suggests elimination of programs, and the report 

asserts in some areas "it may be appropriate for multiple agencies or entities to be 

involved in the same programmatic or policy area due to the nature or magnitude of the 

federal efforts." 

EPMA Section 1103, Furnace Efficiency Standard Delay: This provision would delay and 

damage an essential federal efficiency measure for furnaces and reduce its carbon and 

monetary savings. The legislation developed regarding minimum efficiency standards for 
400 


Insert graphic folio 474 here 22000A.350

residential furnaces has been highly contentious and controversial. The language 

approved by the House is the result of negotiation and represents a broad consensus of 

stakeholders. The language in the EPMA Sec. 1103 does not reflect the efforts of 

stakeholders to find common ground and enjoys no such support. The Senate language 

would further delay a standard that is already 25 years overdue and will cut energy 

waste, netting consumers almost $700 on average over the life of the furnace. DOE is on 

track to finalize an improved standard through a thorough, open and transparent 

stakeholder process, and policymakers should avoid setting a negative precedent 

undermining the progress made to bring this standard to a meaningful resolution. 

EPMA Section 1104, Third-Party Certification Under Energy Star Program: This section 

removes the checks and balances for consumer electronics products within Energy Star. 

The proposed amendment would essentially gut the front end certification of the 

ENERGY STAR program for consumer, home office, and electronic products. 

Manufacturers would be allowed to self-certify that their products meet the ENERGY 

STAR requirements and their submissions would no longer be subject to review by an 

independent third-party certification body, which all other products are required to do. 

The proposal opens the door for products to falsely qualify for the ENERGY STAR label. 

HB Division A Sec. 3152, Clarifying Rulemaking Procedures: This provision mandates a 

public comment period before the Department of Energy can issue a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, creating an inflexible, unnecessary statutory requirement. Further the 

provision is highly skewed to consider only manufacturers' interests on areas that DOE 

already considers throughout the regulatory process. Finally, the provision risks 

negatively impacting as many as 11 of the 13 rules currently under development at 

DOE. 

Infrastructure 

EPMA Section 2201-3, Expedited Project Review- LNG: This provision expedites the 

review of applications to export liquefied natural gas. It does not give DOE sufficient 

time to consider all factors, including full economic and environmental reviews, in 

approving LNG export terminals. Speeding up the process of approving LNG export 

terminals ties our economy more closely to fossil fuels at a time when we should be 

transitioning away from their use. 

HB Section 1101, Natural Gas Pipeline Review: This section attempts to limit the 

environmental review of major interstate natural gas pipelines by allowing inaccurate or 

inadequate aerial surveys to assess land impacts and allowing conditional approval 

without verification of environmental data, sets an arbitrary deadline for agency 

decisions that can be used to expedite pipeline permits at the expense of thorough 

environmental review, and limiting environmental analysis in other ways. 

HB Section 1115, National Energy Security Corridors: This section would eliminate the 

established federal review processes under the National Environmental Policy Act for 

approval of pipelines and affiliated infrastructure in National Parks and other federal 

lands. This would eliminate environmental and public review of these land use changes 
401 


Insert graphic folio 475 here 22000A.351

and transfers authority over these lands to the Department of Energy, an agency with 

no practical experience in proper stewardship of federal lands. 

EPMA Section 3001, Hydropower Relicensing: We appreciate that in the markup of S. 

2012 the Committee removed the most egregious anti-environmental provisions from 

the hydropower title, and we are pleased that the bill does not contain the provisions in 

H.R. 8 that weaken the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, or the protections 

for fish, wildlife, and public lands in Sections 18 and 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, 

respectively. And we are pleased that S. 2012 makes it easier for States to process water 

quality certifications in a timely fashion by requiring power companies to submit 

completed applications. This provision in particular will prevent power companies from 

intentionally delaying their relicensing proceedings in order to avoid compliance with 

the Clean Water Act. However, we share the concerns of States, Tribes, and the White 

House about how the provisions in Section 3001 would be implemented. For example, 

we are concerned that if enacted as written, Section 3001 could limit agencies from, as 

part of the relicensing process, requiring power companies to conduct new studies into 

the impacts of their dams. This section would apply even if the dam's existing license, 

and thus the studies that the current license depends on, are more than 50 years old 

and pre-date modern environmental statutes and changing climate conditions. Further, 

we share the concerns of many stakeholders that elevating disputes over license 

conditions to the Council on Environmental Quality, and ultimately the President, 

politicizes what should be a technical and science-based decision process. Finally, we 

are concerned that provisions in Section 3001 require federal natural resource agencies 

to conduct costly, wasteful and time-consuming review of matters outside of their scope 

of expertise and jurisdiction. Taken together, the effect of these provisions could lead to 

increased costs to taxpayers and unnecessary delays in licensing, which is contrary to 

the goals of all parties to license proceedings. 

EPMA Section 3017, Biomass Definition: This provision categorically asserts that all 

types of forest bioenergy should be treated as carbon-neutral, and that biomass is a 

renewable energy source as long as it is harvested from forest land that remains as 

forest land. This is scientifically inaccurate. Using biomass from whole trees or 

"thinnings" for electricity can take several decades to achieve net carbon reductions, 

during which time the carbon dioxide burden to the atmosphere increases. Additionally, 

the language of this provision creates ambiguity over the respective roles of EPA, 

Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA). This could 

undermine EPA's statutory authority over carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. 

EPMA Section 3115, Renewable Energy Definition: This provision revises the definition 

currently used in the federal purchasing of renewable energy to include waste heat. Yet, 

this provision does not increase the purchasing requirements. Without increasing the 

requirements, this definition change will ultimately decrease the amount of renewable 

energy the federal government is using because it will award the government for what it 

already does. 
402 


Insert graphic folio 476 here 22000A.352

EPMA Section 3101, Methane Hydrate Research and Development: This provision 

would dramatically expand methane hydrates research and development with the goal 

of unlocking a fossil fuel that could contribute massively to carbon pollution. At a time 

when our economy is transitioning away from these fuels to meet our carbon reduction 

goals, our government shouldn't be subsidizing the development of new ones. 

Additionally, the vast majority of methane hydrates are located offshore where 

environmental damage is more likely to occur. For example, a newly authorized activity 

under this program is seismic exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Seismic exploration 

involves the use of powerful airgun bursts that has been shown to harm marine life and 

fisheries over large areas of ocean and has proven highly controversial off the southeast 

U.S. and elsewhere. 

EPMA Section 3305, Expedited Project Review- Mining: This section would require 

federal land management agencies to develop expedited review processes for new 

mining permits. This is a misguided approach that will sacrifice protection of public 

resources and our environment. 

EPMA Section 3402, Carbon Capture and Sequestration Modifications: This section 

establishes a new coal technology program at DOE to replace existing programs. While 

the section includes laudable goals of developing technologies to make coal less 

environmentally harmful, it also subsidizes coal systems that are incompatible with 

climate protection. For example, it would subsidize converting coal to other products 

like transportation fuels. Additionally, a proposed modification to this section would 

create a system that assumes that co-firing biomass combined with capture 

automatically creates negative carbon emissions. As previously stated, biomass is not 

automatically carbon neutral, and Congress should leave the determination of its carbon 

emission profile to scientists and other experts. 

EPMA Section 3501; HB Title XXXIII, Nuclear Research: This provision spends taxpayer 

resources to expand the already heavily subsidized nuclear industry's research arm in 

clearly uneconomic areas despite its demonstrated risks. Moreover, the provision lacks 

any of the required environmental and security reviews to ensure that the program's 

long term impacts do not significantly erode the quality of the human environment and 

nuclear nonproliferation goals. 

Accountability 

EPMA Section 4301, Bulk-power System Reliability Impact Statement: This provision 

establishes unnecessary and duplicative assessments by requiring the Electric Reliability 

Organization (ERO), also known as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

(NERC), to issue "reliability impact statements" for all major rulemakings at Federal 

agencies that may impact electric utilities. It also requires agencies to consider these 

statements in their rulemakings, as well as respond to the reliability impact statement in 

detail in the final rule. NERC is a private corporation that does not allow for public 

participation in their deliberations. Furthermore, NERC's approach assumes that there 

will be no corrective actions or future investment in electric transmission or 

replacement generation. Therefore, the loss of old generation, which is primarily fossil 
403 


Insert graphic folio 477 here 22000A.353

fuel-based, is always determined to be a risk, and the basis for a negative review of 

reliability impacts. 

EPMA Section 4401, Sale of Public lands: This provision would require the Secretary of 

the Interior to develop a multipurpose cadastral survey of Federal real property and 

identify inaccurate, duplicate, and out-of-date Federal land inventories to facilitate 

proposals to sell off America's public lands. We strongly support data transparency, but 

heed the caution raised by the U.S. Geological Survey on a similar proposal in 2013 that 

the approach would yield limited value at a significant cost, potentially billions of 

dollars. Furthermore, we're concerned that this provision would encourage the 

inappropriate sale of public lands and other assets to address short-term needs, which is 

in direct contrast with consistent public polling showing that Westerners from all 

political parties strongly oppose proposals to sell off America's public lands. 

Resources 

EPMA Section 10101, National Parks Budget Cut: This provision requires the Director of 

the National Park Service to reimburse states that paid to reopen national parks during 

the October 2013 government shutdown. Though we believe that the funding of 

national parks is first and foremost a federal responsibility, utilizing funds from the fiscal 

year in which the states are reimbursed will result in an effective cut to the National 

Park Service's operating budget. Our parks are already underfunded and deserve more 

funding, especially in the year of their centennial. 

HB Division C, Section 2064, Imposed Hunting in National Parks: This section would 

require the National Park Service to use volunteer hunters to reduce wildlife 

populations unless the agency has permissions from the respective state not to use 

volunteer hunters. This would directly conflict with that Park Service's fundamental 

stewardship responsibilities. We are concerned with the continued attempts to impose 

hunting in national park units where it conflicts with the visitor experience and values of 

the park. 

HB Division c, Section 2151, Bison Management: This section is premature -the 

National Park Service is currently preparing a Bison Management Plan for the hybrid 

bison in Grand Canyon National Park. Wildlife management of any species should be 

based on the best available and objective scientific analysis, not the prescription of a 

management plan by Congress. 

HB Division C, Title I, California Water Management: The House bill includes language 

from H.R. 2898 to override the Endangered Species Act in California's Bay-Delta 

watershed. This bill is a non-starter that the White House has threatened to veto. Other 

legislative proposals to address California's drought include titles that mandate or 

authorize water project operations that are similar to those implemented over the past 

several years of the drought. However, these legislative efforts would also adversely 

affect thousands of fishing jobs that depend on healthy salmon runs, and new scientific 

information shows that such water project operations would likely result in the 
404 


Insert graphic folio 478 here 22000A.354

extinction of several native fish species in California. In light of enormous declines in key 

species due to drought, federal agencies have reinitiated consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act. In light of these administrative responses, the inclusion of 

legislation regarding water project operations in California's Bay-Delta watershed in the 

conference report is wholly inappropriate and inconsistent with the Endangered Species 

Act and state law. In contrast, legislation and funding that improves agricultural and 

urban water use efficiency, funds wastewater recycling, or the development of similar 

sustainable water supplies would help advance meaningful solutions to water issues 

across the West. 

Opposition to House-passed legislation 

H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, contains efficiency 

provisions that would increase energy use and costs to consumers, a hydropower title 

that curtails NEPA review along with state, local, and tribal authority over projects on 

their own lands, allows pipelines to be built on National Park land without the necessary 

environmental reviews, and provisions that could lock in dirty fossil energy for decades 

to come at a time when we should be investing in cleaner, cheaper alternatives. 

H.R.538, the Native American Energy Act, would limit public involvement in energy 

projects on tribal lands. 

H.R.1937, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, weakens 

environmental review for the hard rock mining industry and jeopardizes the water 

quality of nearby communities. 

H.R.2406, the SHARE Act, threatens wildlife and public lands while undermining our 

bedrock environmental protections. 

H.R.2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, would legislatively promote 

devastating logging projects and subvert environmental review. 

H.R.2898, the Western Water and American Food Security Act, weakens protections 

for salmon, migratory birds, and other fish and wildlife in California's Bay-Delta estuary 

and threatens the jobs that depend on the health of these species. 

H.R.1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, would undermine 

investments in science and federal research and development. 

We stand ready to work with you to ensure that the final conference report not only addresses 

America's energy future, but also protects our environment, climate, and public health. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Alaska Wilderness League 

American Rivers 

Clean Water Action 

Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship 
405 


Insert graphic folio 479 here 22000A.355

Defenders of Wildlife 

Earthjustice 

Environment America 

League of Conservation Voters 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Oceana 

Sierra Club 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

The Wilderness Society 

cc: Senators John Barrasso, Jim Risch, John Cornyn, Ron Wyden, and Bernie Sanders; 

Representatives Rob Bishop, Joe Barton, John Shimkus, Robert Latta, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 

Pete Olson, David McKinley, Mike Pompeo, Morgan Griffith, Bill Johnson, Bill Flores, 

Markwayne Mullin, Don Young, Cynthia Lummis, Jeff Denham, Bruce Westerman, Lamar Smith, 

Randy Weber, Mike Conaway, Glenn Thompson, Raul Grijalva, Cresent Hardy, Lee Zeldin, Collin 

Peterson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Peter DeFazio, Bobby Rush, Lois Capps, Doris Matsui, John 

Sarbanes, Peter Welch, Ben Ray Lujan, Paul Tonko, Jared Huffman, and Debbie Dingell 
406 


Insert graphic folio 00017 here 22000A.356

AlASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE • BRAIDED RIVER • DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE • 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER • EARTHJUSTICE • EYAK 

PRESERVATION COUNCIL • FRIENDS OF AlASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES • 

GREEN PEACE • GREATER SOUTHEAST CONSERVATION COMMUNITY • KLAMATH FOREST 

ALLIANCE • NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY • OCEAN CONSERVATION RESEARCH • SIERRA 

CLUB • NORTHERN AlASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER • THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY • 

WILDERNESS WATCH 

The Honorable Lisa A. Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-0203 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-4705 

September 29, 2016 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On behalf of our members and supporters, we are writing to express our deep concern and strong 

opposition to S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act, introduced on 

July 13, 2016, which received a hearing in your committee on September 22, 2016. This bill was 

introduced among a slate of other bills which, taken as a whole, would constitute an all-out attack on 

the integrity of Alaska's public lands, threatening to privatize some of the most valuable and ecologically 

sensitive lands and waters throughout the state. 

S. 3203 is a wide reaching development bill that would pose a serious threat to some of the most 

pristine and unique public lands and waters across Alaska. Broadly, the legislation would place millions 

of acres of federal public lands at risk of damaging, non-renewable resource development, targeting 

many of the same lands that currently provide for Alaska's renewable industries, subsistence resources, 

and tourism-based activities. It would remove opportunities for Alaskans to have their say in the future 

of their state and for all Americans to weigh in on some of our nation's most beloved public lands by 

bypassing public processes and replacing them with congressional action. Finally, it would transfer 

millions of acres of federal public land to the state of Alaska or private ownership, for the purpose of 

extractive resource development. 

Section by Section, our organizations concerns' with this bill include: 
407 


Insert graphic folio 481 here 22000A.357

Title I -Federal production requirements with land transfer penalties 

Title 1: would give the Department of the Interior one year to develop a plan to increase oil production 

on federal land in Alaska by 500,000 barrels of oil per day by 2026. For every year that this plan is not 

completed, the state of Alaska would be entitled to an additional1 million acres of land. In essence, this 

provision would be a ticking time bomb for federal lands in Alaska, mandating a (potentially 

unachievable) pro-development use of federal land in Alaska to the detriment of all other values of this 

land. It is implied that lands transferred to Alaska under the penalty component of this provision would 

be extensively developed. This title holds Alaska's public lands hostage, demanding increased drilling 

regardless of factors outside of the agency's control, public input or environmental impacts. 

Title II- Outer Continental Shelf drilling 

Section 201: would allow oil companies to suspend leases held in the Arctic Ocean- in effect extending 

the leases without either producing on them or rebidding on them in future lease sales. As required by 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, these leases were sold for initial terms of 10 years. At the end of 

each term, leases expire and revert back to the federal government, at which time a new decision must 

be made as to whether to lease again in those areas. Under specific circumstances, leases can be 

suspended by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), pushing the expiration date 

beyond the initiallO-year term. Between 2003 and 2008, the oil and gas industry leased approximately 

3.S million acres in the Arctic's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Of those leases sold, only 1 current lease in 

the Chukchi Sea and 37 current leases in the Beaufort Sea remain today. Due in large part to selfinflicted mistakes and a lack of preparedness, companies that purchased leases in the Arctic Ocean have 

been unable to safely conduct drilling there, and many leaseholders have asked BSEE to exercise its 

authority and suspend the expiration of their leases. Allowing companies to keep leases longer than the 

standard 10 years is to the detriment of both the American taxpayer and the fragile environment of the 

Arctic. 

Section 202: would mandate two lease sales each in the next 5 year OCS drilling plan for the Beaufort (in 

2017 and 2022), Cook Inlet (2017 and 2019) and Chukchi (2017 and 2019) planning areas. Considerable 

company failures (for example, Shell's disastrous 2012 drilling season), the harshness of the Arctic 

climate, and a 75% chance of a major oil spill in the Chukchi Sea if oil production moves forward 

underscores why the Arctic is no place to drill. America's Arctic Ocean is also ground zero for the 

devastating impacts of climate change- warming at about twice the rate of the rest of the world- and 

offshore drilling will only exacerbate the problem. Legislating additional lease sales in the Arctic outside 

of the 5-year plan process and taking away the public's right to voice its concerns about Arctic drilling is 

of significant concern to the fragile Arctic environment. 

Title Ill -Onshore drilling 

Subtitle A: would establish an oil and gas leasing program in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

While this legislation appears to prioritize oil drilling in the undeformed area of the Arctic Refuge's 

Coastal Plain (375,000 acres as defined in this USGS document), Section 302 actually opens the entirety 

of the Coastal Plain (including nearly 100,000 acres of Arctic Slope Regional [ASRC] corporation 

subsurface estate, as well as the non-Wilderness areas of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) to 

development by repealing the Alaska National interest Lands Conservation Act Section 1003's 

prohibition on development. The Coastal Plain provides habitat for numerous species of migratory birds, 
408 


Insert graphic folio 482 here 22000A.358

as well as calving and post-calving nursery areas for the Porcupine Caribou Herd. Even if development 

was limited to the undeformed area, it would cause significant damage to the biological heart of the 

Arctic Refuge ecosystem- this area comprises 78% of the coastline and 70% of the river delta habitat in 

the Refuge. 

Section 302: would exempt or severely limit application of the National Environmental Policy Act- the 

nation's charter for environmental protection- to the drilling program in the Refuge and allows 

decisions to be made about exploration based on a nearly thirty-year old environmental review 

document without any new review. It also eliminates the fundamental "compatibility" determination 

that is at the heart of national wildlife refuge management, under which activities that impair refuge 

purposes are identified and, if necessary, prohibited or restricted. Section 303 mandates leasing and 

requires that the first least sale include at least 200,000 acres with the greatest oil potential, regardless 

of other wildlife or subsistence values. 

Sections 305 and 306: contains misleading and discretionary provisions related to environmental 

"protections," reclamation standards, and lease provisions. For example, Section 306 contains a 

meaningless and misleading 2,000-acre "limitation" on development. But Subtitle A opens the entire 

1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain to oil and gas activities, and exploration and production wells could be 

drilled anywhere on the Coastal Plain. This "limitation" only addresses surface areas covered by 

"production and support facilities" and does not cover seismic or other exploration activities, which 

have had significant impacts on the Arctic environment. It also does not include any requirement to plan 

for consolidated operations in a way that is protective or avoids duplicative infrastructure. Overall, 

Subtitle A restricts the Secretary's ability to protect sensitive areas or to engage in meaningful review of 

the environmental effects of any development on the Coastal Plain. 

Section 308: would perfect Kaktovik lnupiat Corporation's (KIC) land selections within the Arctic Refuge 

and convey title to the subsurface estate below KIC selections to ASRC. ASRC received these lands in a 

questionable behind-closed-doors land exchange. This land exchange specifically prohibited leasing and 

development of these lands for oil and gas in the absence of congressional authorization. By repealing 

ANILCA section 1003, section 302 of this subtitle would allow for oil and gas exploration, leasing, 

development, and production on these lands. These corporation lands may not be subject to acreage 

limitations and other minimal environmental protections in the bill and, like the rest of the Coastal Plain, 

are not appropriate for oil and gas development. Additionally, Section 308 would trade over 500,000 

acres of federal land and subsurface rights in the Refuge for adjacent state lands. 

Section 309: would unilaterally decide a dispute over the western boundary of the Refuge that the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management settled in the 1960s, but that the State has recently tried to revive. 

Opening the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling would have 

devastating impacts on Refuge's biological heart- home to more than 250 species including polar and 

brown bears, muskoxen, and birds that migrate from all 50 states and 6 continents each year. The 

Porcupine Caribou Herd, a primary subsistence food source for the indigenous Gwich'in people, 

migrates hundreds of miles each year to the Coastal Plain, which the Gwich'in call "Sacred Place Where 

Life Begins", to give birth. Drilling the Arctic Refuge could alter the annual path of the Porcupine caribou 

herd, threaten critical breeding grounds for migratory birds, and cause population-scale impacts for 

many species. 
409 


Insert graphic folio 483 here 22000A.359

Subtitle B, section 311: would require at least one lease sale in the northeast portion of the National 

Petroleum Reserve- Alaska (Reserve) to include critical environmental areas in the vicinity of Teshekpuk 

lake. Much of the area surrounding Teshekpuk lake is currently closed to oil and gas leasing under the 

management plan for the Reserve. Teshekpuk lake is the largest lake in Arctic Alaska, and is important 

habitat for many threatened migratory birds. Teshekpuk lake and the surrounding area is also important 

to local communities, who rely on wildlife in the area as a subsistence resource. 

Section 312: would require an extensive review of sources of gravel in the Reserve to use in the 

construction of roads and other infrastructure supporting oil and gas development, which is of 

significant environmental concern. 

Title IV- Mining 

Section 401: would establish a grant program within the Department of Energy that encourages the 

development and demonstration of "environmentally benign" rare earth element extraction and 

separation processes, along with techniques that produce rare earth salts. It requires at least $7.5 

million be made available for the testing of green chemistry separation processes, and it also requires 

the construction of a pilot plant that uses molecular recognition technology to provide 'proof of 

concept' for element separation and processing. The potential effects of this section depend on any 

impending grant projects. 

Section 402: would exclude certain mining claims, including unpatented hard rock and placer mining 

claims, located prior to any withdrawal from the scope of that withdrawal. Withdrawal is broadly 

defined to include statutory and regulatory withdrawals, as well as other actions that withhold federal 

land from mining or mineral activity to protect other values. Section 402 also puts the burden on the 

government to disprove the validity of these mining claims. Perhaps most egregiously, Section 402 

exempts these mining claims from any law or regulation. This provision has the potential to reopen 

protected areas, such as National Parks, to mining activities and to exempt those activities from 

environmental review, public process and agency oversight, and other environmental protections. 

Section 403: would invalidate all designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) that exist 

today in Alaska. ACECs have been a fundamental part of BlM's land management authority since 1976, 

and today ACECs protect subsistence and ecological values in the state. BlM has created ACECs in close 

consultation with Alaskans, including tribes who seek protections for the subsistence way of life. This 

subsection is of significant conservation concern, as it undermines past public processes which have 

created ACECs, and limits future use of this management tool. 

Even more egregiously, Section 403 would require congressional action to affirm any designation of 

more than 5,000 acres offederallands in Alaska or a management decision where that designation or a 

management decision in some way limits activities or uses of that land. It requires notice and a joint 

resolution of approval from Congress within one year, or the federal action is terminated. This severely 

restricts all federal land management agencies from moving forward with land planning decisions. This 

subsection would hamstring the ability of federal land and wildlife management agencies to make any 

significant or lasting changes to management of public lands or to protect sensitive species or areas. 

Title V- Forestry 
410 


Insert graphic folio 484 here 22000A.360

Section 501: would exempt national forests in Alaska from the Roadless Rule, encouraging increased 

clearcutting of our largest national forest at a time when the U.S. Forest Service is trying to transition 

away from old-growth logging. 

Section 502: would override an on-going public process to exchange public lands from the Tongass 

National Forest for lands currently owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trust (the Trust). The exchange 

could allow up to 21,000 acres of environmentally sensitive National Forest System lands to be 

conveyed to the Trust for the sake of clear-cut logging. The public deserves to weigh in on this plan to 

concentrate logging in heavily impacted areas of Revillagigedo Island (Ketchikan) and Prince of Wales 

Island and the ongoing public process should not be bypassed. 

Section 503: would allow the state of Alaska to seize control of more than two million acres of public 

land from the Chugach National Forest and Tongass National Forest for clearcutting- equaling an area 

the size of Yellowstone National Park. Alaska already has more than nine times the amount of stateowned land than any other U.S. state, with the fourth smallest state population. Alaska's national 

forests provide benefits and resources in their natural state for sustainable industries, communities and 

the public at large. For the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska, transferring lands out of federal 

management would have far reaching impacts for the region's ecosystem and economy. Encompassing 

some of the largest remaining tracts of coastal temperate rainforest left on earth, the Tongass is a 

wealth of wildlife and scenic beauty. Handing these invaluable lands over to the state for intensive 

development would hurt the region's existing and thriving tourism and commercial fishing industries. 

These sustainable industries generate around $2 billion annually into the southeast Alaska economy, 

and they continue to grow because of the healthy fisheries, iconic American wildlife and scenic beauty 

of public lands. If enacted, this section would put southeast Alaska's remaining pristine old-growth 

forest, its wildlife and its sustainable economy in peril. This section could result in the transfer of an area 

of national forest land larger than Delaware for rapid clear-cut logging. 

The Bottom Line: 

This bill is part of a suite of dangerous bills and riders introduced by the Alaska delegation that together 

serve as an all-out attack on the integrity of federal lands and waters in Alaska. S. 3203 would put 

millions of acres of Alaska's more iconic, beloved and relied upon federal public lands at risk for 

damaging, non-renewable resource development. 
411 


Insert graphic folio 00018 here 22000A.361

ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE • BRAIDED RIVER • DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE • 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER • EYAK PRESERVATION COUNCIL • 

FRIENDS OF ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES • GREEN PEACE • GREATER SOUTHEAST 

CONSERVATION COMMUNITY • KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE • NATIONAL AUDUBON 

SOCIETY • OCEAN CONSERVATION RESEARCH • SIERRA CLUB • SITKA CONSERVATION 

SOCIETY • NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER • THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY • 

WILDERNESS WATCH 

The Honorable Usa A. Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-0203 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-4705 

September 29, 2016 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On behalf of our members and supporters, we are writing to express our deep concern and strong 

opposition to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act, S. 3273, which received a hearing 

on September 22, 2016. This bill was introduced among a slate of other bills which, taken as a whole, 

would constitute an all-out attack on the integrity of Alaska's public lands, threatening to privatize some 

of the most valuable and ecologically sensitive lands and waters throughout the state. 

Senator Murkowski introduced S. 3273 in June as an updated version to an earlier introduced bill, S. 

3004. Some portions of the bill have been considered in previous legislation. This legislation purports to 

improve the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), however, instead it would circumvent 

this landmark law by removing important checks and balances, especially with regard to the Tongass 

and National Wildlife Refuges. It would open unprecedented doors to for-profit Native corporations, 

increasing the corporate land cap, expanding corporate selection power, creating new corporations and 

granting unwarranted subsurface rights. This bill would set a precedent for an untold number of new 

for-profit Native corporations to stake claims to federal lands throughout Alaska for natural resource 

exploitation. 

The provisions of this bill are broad ranging, and many parts of the bill pose significant threat to public 

lands across Alaska. Section by section, these are the areas of significant concern for our organizations: 
412 


Insert graphic folio 486 here 22000A.362

Section 3: Barrow Sand and Gravel 

This section would transfer sand and gravel rights for 22 sections of land near Barrow to the Ukpeagvik 

lnupiat Corporation (UIC). These lands neighbor the Barrow Gas fields, as conveyed in 1984, and surface 

rights for the land are currently held by UIC. The bill sponsor has indicated that the purpose of this 

section is to provide subsurface rights to the corporation so that gravel can be obtained for construction 

in Barrow. If this transfer happens, road building and gravel mining could move forward around 

important Steller's eider nesting habitat. Steller's eiders are listed as Threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), however the bill does not address potential ESA requirements for mitigation nor make 

assurances that mitigation efforts will be sufficient. 

Section 4: Shishmaref Easement 

This section would create a 300-foot easement from the community of Shishmaref -located on Alaska's 

northwest coast -to Ear Mountain, approximately 25 miles to the south, through the Bering Land Bridge 

National Preserve. Ear Mountain has been identified as a source of gravel for use in reinforcing the 

eroding coastline or relocating the residents of Shishmaref. 

This section would permit a road easement across a National Preserve, allowing for expedited 

review/conveyance, bypassing ANILCA reviews and circumventing public process. Assisting the village of 

Shishmaref with the effects of significant coastal erosion due to climate change is an important priority, 

however, as written the language allows the Shishmaref Native Corporation, the City of Shishmaref, and 

the Native Village of Shishmaref to define an easement, within a National Preserve with few restrictions 

regarding duration of time, purpose, and mitigation. Without a plan in place that identifies the needs for 

the gravel this easement may be premature and could set a bad precedent. 

Sections 5/6: Tongass National Forest Land Exchange and Buy-Back 

These two sections of the bill work together to return surface and subsurface rights for a recently logged 

parcel of land on Admiralty Island to the federal government, directing the government to buy these 

rights back and exchange the logged lands for currently intact forest. 

Section 5: would authorize the federal government to buy back surface rights of 23,000 acres on 

Admiralty Island, which has been completely clearcut by the Shee Atika corporation. The U.S. Forest 

Service is already in the process of buying back this land, and this administrative process should be 

allowed to continue, with appropriate public oversight. 

Section 6: would exchange the subsurface rights of the same 23,000 acres on Admiralty, owned by 

Sea Iaska corporation, for 8,800 acres of surface/subsurface and 5,100 acres of surface rights on 

unlogged and valuable acres elsewhere in the Tongass National Forest. This "dirt for trees" exchange 

should not be allowed to take place. Instead, Sea Iaska should participate in the buy-out occurring 

between the Forest Service and Shee Atika, and receive fair market value for the subsurface estate. 

When coupled together, this legislative land exchange allows a corporation to divest itself of lands 

drained of economic value, in return for new pristine lands elsewhere, creating a leap-frog effect of 

natural resource extraction that could reverberate throughout the Tongass. An equitable land sale 
413 


Insert graphic folio 487 here 22000A.363

between the corporations and the agency could create an intact National Monument, and also allow 

corporations to obtain the last remaining economic value of their lands allocated under ANCSA. But 

legislation to leverage the sale for additional extraction and economic gain is inappropriate and 

offensive. The solution should be for the U.S. Forest Service to buy back lands from willing Native 

Corporation sellers, after fair market appraisal using public input and oversight. 

Section 7: CIRiland Entitlement 

This unprecedented policy would provide CIRI- an Alaska Native regional corporation based in south 

central Alaska with the ability to select 43,000 acres of land in Alaska from an exceptionally broad pool 

of public lands across the entire state. All federal land managers except the National Park Service could 

be affected, and no prohibition exists for selecting lands within identified special areas, or numerous 

other areas protected because of historical, cultural, or ecological importance. Once conveyed to CIRI, 

extractive resource development activities would be near certain: CIRI confirmed its interest in finding 

lands with 'economic potential' during a July 2016 interview. 

This section would allow for the privatization of currently protected public lands- at undisclosed 

locations, without a public process- and would likely subject those lands to unsustainable and 

destructive extractive resource development. 

Section 8: Native Corporation land Conveyance 

This section would convey lands to three Alaska Native corporations in three different areas of Alaska. 

First, it would convey up to 6,400 acres of lands to the Native Village of Canyon Village, along the 

western edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while granting the subsurface rights for these lands 

to the Doyon Regional Corporation- unless it opts to select elsewhere. It also would require that lands 

selected by Kaktovik within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be conveyed despite provisions in the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that expressly prohibit such a land transfer. 

Finally, the bill would provide lands to Nagamut- matching exactly or as closely as possible the original 

townships of the Native Village- within national wildlife refuge lands. 

This section would allow the Doyon corporation to receive title to additional lands within the Arctic 

Refuge- providing increased pressure for oil and gas development- and it overrides key provisions of 

ANILCA that ensure protection of the fragile Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. 

Section 9: Expanded Role of Native Corporations 

This section would expand the role of Alaska Native corporations in the state, placing them on par with 

tribes in certain instances, including within the Forest Protection Act, the Native American Graves 

Protection and Reparation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Tribal sovereign powers are those reserved for federally recognized tribes in Alaska to uphold their 

obligations to current and future generations to sustain culture, traditional way of life, and health 

and quality of their traditional lands. This section would grant a portion of these sovereign powers 

to ANCSA corporations, for-profit entities that serve under a fiduciary duty to shareholders. 
414 


Insert graphic folio 488 here 22000A.364

Section 10: Southeast Alaska- Five New Urban Corporations 

This section would create five new 'urban corporations' in southeast Alaska for the communities of 

Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) passed, these communities were deemed ineligible for village or urban corporation status and, 

as such, community members were given 'special status' as members of their regional corporation, 

receiving additional shares. 

Under this provision, new corporations would receive 23,040 acres of land, likely from within the 

Tongass National Forest. History has shown a pattern of extensive old-growth clearcutting by similarly 

situated corporations in the region, and as new corporations driven by a motive to provide economic 

returns to shareholders, similar activities would be likely here as well. 

Furthermore, this section would create a precedent to reopen the process for more than 80 additional 

communities throughout the state. The bills would hand over 115,000 acres of high-value public landsincluding exceptional habitat in the Tongass National Forest -to these new corporations for intensive 

development and private gain. The bills would threaten some of our nation's most ecologically valuable 

natural areas while exposing millions of acres of the public lands in Alaska to an uncertain future. 

Section 11: Alaska Native Vietnam Veteran Allotment Staking 

This section makes significant and potentially precedent-setting changes to previously settled land 

claims by reopening and expanding a nearly completed process for Alaska Native Veterans of Vietnam to 

apply for parcels of land currently owned by the federal government. In 1998 and 2000, legislation was 

passed to allow Alaska Native veterans of Vietnam and their descendants who may have missed their 

opportunity to apply for land transfers due to active duty, and the Bureau of land Management 

conducted a rapid assessment and land transfer process. This bill seeks to reopen the process to 

broaden pool of individuals eligible and expand the lands available for withdrawal to include vulnerable 

public lands such as wildlife refuges, national forests, wilderness areas, national defense withdrawn 

lands, and lands selected by, or conveyed to, the State of Alaska or an Alaska Native Corporation. 

Additional scattered private in holdings on public lands throughout the Tongass and other areas of the 

state would limit public access to the surrounding public domain. 

The bills would allow for the transfer of nearly half a million acres of public lands to private ownership, 

and would allow corporations to pool public lands to maximize development. The language also has the 

potential to produce thousands of in holdings in conservation units, with few limitations that protect 

these environmentally, culturally or historically important areas currently in the public trust. 

Public lands in Alaska benefit all of the people of Alaska, as well as people across the country. Many of 

these lands provide significant economic benefit, with visitor industry spending contributing $2.42 

billion to the state annually and generating 38,700 jobs in Alaska. Transferring these valuable lands into 

private ownership would allow for intensive development which, in turn, endangers the region's fish and 

wildlife and its sustainable economy. 

Section 13: Chugach Alaska Corporation Land Exchange Pool Study 

This section would require the U.S. Department of Interior (DOl) to identify the impacts that federal law 

and federal and state land acquisitions since December 1980 have had on the value of land conveyed to 
415 


Insert graphic folio 489 here 22000A.365

the Chugach Alaska Corporation in south central Alaska. DOl would be required to study potential 

compensation for any land value changes, including financial compensation, easements or land 

exchanges, and then report to the Senate and House Natural Resources Committees on its 

recommendation. This section has the potential to cause significant management problems for our 

nation's second largest national forest. 

The Bottom line: 

This bill is part of a suite of dangerous bills and riders introduced by the Alaska delegation that together 

serve as an all-out attack on the integrity of federal lands and waters in Alaska. S. 3273 contains 

numerous provisions that transfer some of the most pristine public lands in Alaska out of the public trust 

and into the hands of private, for-profit corporations. These transfers pose threats not only for wildlife, 

but for the people who rely on these public lands for subsistence and economic uses. 
416 


Insert graphic folio 490 here 22000A.366

The Honorable Lisa A. Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-0203 

September 13, 2016 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-4705 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On behalf of our members and supporters, we are writing to express our deep concern and strong 

opposition to a recent slate of bills, including S. 3004, 3005, 3006, 3202, 3203, 3204 and 3273, 

as well as related riders attached to the Interior Appropriations Bill (S. 3068) and the draft 

Wildfire Legislation. These bills and riders collectively threaten to remove citizen access and 

public oversight for some of the most valuable, scenic, and ecologically sensitive areas in the 

state and nation. Taken as a whole, the legislation is an all-out attack on the integrity of federal 

public lands and waters in Alaska- from the Tongass to the Arctic. 

We have substantial concerns with this sweeping legislative package, which would hand over 

nearly 700,000 acres of our shared American public lands- including National Forests, 

Wilderness areas, National Monuments. National Wildlife Rcfi1gcs. and other areas of historical, 

cultural, or ecological importance and place these public resources into private hands. The 

package would erode the public's voice on important land management decisions an essential 

check that ensures sound decision-making to balance a variety of factors and interests in a 

predictable, open, and transparent manner. The bills would also set precedent that could expose 

millions of additional acres of public lands in Alaska to private takeover in the future. 

The legislation ignores tough decisions and compromises already made by the current and prior 

administrations. agencies. the American people. and Congress alike. These bills do not improve 

federal land management across the state of Alaska, nor do they thoughtfully address 

deficiencies in past decisions. Furthermore. they disregard Alaska's robust subsistence, tourism 

and fishing economics which rely on Alaska's public land and waters for fish and wildlife habitat 

and access to world-class scenery. 

Some of America's greatest natural treasures would be harmed if this package of bills moves 

forward. Provisions would eliminate environmental protections established for the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, allowing oil and gas leasing and development in the sensitive Coastal 

Plain. Other proposed legislation exempts America·s largest national forests -Alaska's Chugach 

and Tongass National Forests from the Road less Rule. One bill mandates that a road be built 

through designated Wilderness and globally significant wetlands habitat in the Izembck National 

Wildlife Refuge, requiring less ecologically valuable lands to become part of the refuge in 

exchange. Other provisions allow a private corporation to select lands within refuges and 
417 


Insert graphic folio 491 here 22000A.367

designated Special Areas in the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, and force Arctic lease 

sales without the scrutiny of proper administrative and public oversight, including multiple lease 

sales in the Arctic Ocean. 

Functionally, this package of bills and riders would be particularly destructive in the Tongass 

National Forest. The legislation uses a variety of ways to cause aggressive and destructive 

clearcutting of forest lands, adding to decades of past social and environmental harm. One 

provision would transfer two million acres oftorest into state control, beyond the reach of 

federal protections for public access and wildlife conservation. The bills would further seize 

115,000 additional acres for private ownership, by creating five new corporations. Other 

provisions would delay or bypass ongoing U.S. Forest Service public processes, thus derailing 

any meaningful transition toward more sustainable Tongass management. The legislation would 

also force the public to give away old-growth forested lands to corporate logging interests, in 

exchange for negligible mineral rights beneath lands already exhausted by old-growth clearcut 

logging. Any hills implementing land swaps and land selections leading to increased destruction 

in Southeast Alaska are flatly unacceptable. 

Each of these bills represents a harmful impact to federal public lands or waters in Alaska. 

Collectively, they are catastrophic. This suite of short-sighted legislation threatens to drain 

Alaska and the U.S. at large of some of its most prized and unique public areas for temporary, 

and mainly private, benefit. These are the very lands and waters that will be critical tor Alaska's 

future resiliency and sustainability as it develops subsistence, fishing, and tourism industries in 

an increasingly urbanized and changing world. We urge you to not move any of this legislation 

forward. It constitutes a bad deal for Alaskans and the American public at large. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Kowalsky 

Chairman 

Alaskans For Wildlife 

Helen Chcrullo 

Executive Director 

Braided River 

Martin Hayden 

Vice President a_[ Policy 

Earthjustice 

David Raskin 

President 

Friends of Alaska National 

Wildlife Refuges 

Cindy Shogan 

Executive Director 

Alaska Wilderness League 

Miyoko Sakashita 

Oceans Director/Senior Counsel 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Anna Aurilio 

Director, Washington DC Office 

Environment America 

David Beebe 

Board President 

Greater Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Community 

Ronald Fowler 

President 

Blue Goose Alliance 

John Sterling 

Executive Direc/or 

The Conservation Alliance 

Carol Hoover 

Executive Director 

Eyak Preservation Council 

Mark Magana 

President 

Green Latinos 
418 


Insert graphic folio 492 here 22000A.368

Larry Edwards 

Forest Campaigner 

Green peace 

Brian Moore 

Legislative Director 

National Audubon Society 

Jessica Girard 

Program Director 

Northern Alaska 

Environmental Center 

Andrew Thoms 

Executive Director 

Sitka Conservation Society 

Fran Mauer 

Alaska Representative 

Wilderness Watch 

Bernadette Demientieff 

Executive Director 

Gwich'in Steering Committee 

Desiree Sorenson-Groves 

Vice President, Government Affairs 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Association 

Michael Stocker 

Director 

Ocean Conservation 

Research 

Meredith Trainor 

Executive Director 

Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Council 

Osprey Orielle Lake 

Founder/Executive Director. 

Women's Earth and 

Climate Action Network 

Cc: Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Alex Taurel 

Deputy Legislative Director 

League of Conservation Voters 

Niel Lawrence 

Arctic Director 

Natural Resources Defense 

Counsel 

Athan Manuel 

Director of Public Lands 

Sierra Club 

Nicole Whittington-Evans 

Alaska Regional Director 

The Wilderness Society 
419 


Insert graphic folio 493 here 22000A.369

Aleut A CORPORATION 

September 22, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee 304 Dirksen Senate Building Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Testimony for the record for the September 22, 2016 Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee Hearing: S. 3204 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

The Aleut Corporation is writing to provide a written statement for the record in advance of the 

September 22, 2016 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing, which will 

include Senate Bill S. 3204. 

The Aleut Corporation is one of the thirteen Regional Native Corporations that were established 

in 1972 under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). To date, the 

Aleut Corporation has approximately 3900 shareholders. Operations of the Aleut Corporation 

and its subsidiaries include Government Contracting, Fuel Sales, Mechanical Construction, 

Radiochemical Analysis and Remediation, Industrial Products & Services and Real Estate 

Management. The Company also participates in various partnerships, joint ventures and other 

business activities. We currently have over 900 employees throughout the U.S. 

The Aleut Corporation writes to comment on the following legislation: 

S. 3204, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act 

The Aleut Corporation joins the Alaska delegation, thousands of Alaskans, and many business 

and trade associations, including the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) and the ANCSA 

Regional Corporation CEO's Association in support of the King Cove Road exchange. 

For years the Aleut Corporation has urged approval of the King Cove land exchange. We 

strongly believe that a road corridor from King Cove to the a!!·weather airport at Cold Bay is in 

the best interest of all Alaskans. This is a public safety and human rights issue, which should be 

given the highest priority. 

The Aleut Corporation applauds the introduction of S. 3204 as a key piece of legislation for the 

health and safety of Alaskans. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas Mack, President 

Aleut Corporation 
420 


Insert graphic folio 494 here 22000A.370

Thomas J. Sarrett 

Presiden! 

September30, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

p 0 9()~ 196660 

Chair, Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

U.S. Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Of.ice Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkovtski: 

Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 

regarding sections of S.3203. the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. 

Among other provisions, the bill seeks to facilitate production in the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska, the non-wilderness portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Outer Continental 

Shelf off A'aska's North Slope. 

Expanded access to responsible development of onshore, near-shore, and offshore oil and natura! 

gas resources on the North Slope of Alaska is vitally important to the United States' energy security 

and job prosperity, and is particularly important to the future sustainability of the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System (TAPS). We, therefore, support proposals that seek to provide for that expanded 

access and responsible development. including the proposals in S. 3203. 

Operated and maintained by A!yeska Pipeline Service Company, TAPS has safely delivered crude 

oil to meet the nation's energy needs for 39 years. The ongoing success of this sturdy pipeline 

system and its role in the nation's energy infrastructure 1s directly dependent on healthy levels of 

Alaska crude oil production. 

At the peak of Alaska's production in 1988, TAPS delivered 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, 

transporting some 24 percent of the nation's crude oil production. In 2015 the pipeline averaged 

only 508,446 barrels per day. The lower throughput creates serious challenges for the long-term 

operation of TAPS. Lower throughput means lower flow rates and lower crude temperatures. To 

keep the pipeline operating safely, we must apply significant new investments tore-engineer and 

adapt the pipeline. The changing hydraulic profile on TAPS has triggered the replacement of our 

mainline pumps, in-station pipe replacement, additional piping for recirculation to heat tho 

slipstream oil, added heating equipment along the line, additional pigging, and an additional pig 

launcher and receiver. 

We are confident in cur handling of these and other issues that required significant attention and 

considerable resources and investment We know, however, that these challenges will grow in 

difficulty as long as throughput continues to decline. The most effective long-term solution to these 

challenges is simply for more oil to be delivered into TAPS from the North Slope of Alaska. Better 

management of leasing programs on federal lands onshore and offshore Alaska could play a vital 

role in that long-term solution. 
421 


Insert graphic folio 495 here 22000A.371

The Ho!lorable lisa Murkowski 

September 30, 2016 

Page Two 

As we focus on ensuring the nation continues to ben eft from the investment in the existing energy 

infrastructure of TAPS over the next several decades, we strongly support responsible exploration 

efforts that result in increased throughput Into the pipeline. We are confident that once additional 

hydrocarbon resources are developed, Alyeska will be able to deliver the oil for the bene~it of the 

American people and America's economy through the existing infrastructure of TAPS. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. If you have any questions or need additional 

information, please contact Kim Harb of my staff at (202) 466-3866. 

Sincerely, 

cc: The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member. Energy & Natural Resources Committee 
422 


Insert graphic folio 496 here 22000A.372

10 N Post St 

P. 

Testimony of The American Exploration & Mining Association 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act 

September 22, 2016 

Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, on behalf of the American Exploration 

& Mining Association ("'AEMA") please accept for the official record the testimony of Laura 

Skaer, Executive Director, in support of S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic Development 

and Conservation Act. 

American Exploration & Mining is a 121 year old, 2,000 member, non-profit, non-partisan trade 

association based in Spokane, Washington. AEMA members reside in 42 states (25% of our 

membership resides in Nevada) and are actively involved in prospecting, exploring, mining, and 

reclamation closure activities on USFS administered lands, especially in the West. Our diverse 

membership includes every facet of the mining industry including geology, exploration, mining, 

engineering, equipment manufacturing, technical services, and sales of equipment and supplies. 

AEMA's broad membership represents a true cross-section of the American mining community 

from small miners and exploration geologists to both junior and large mining companies. More 

than 90% of our members are small businesses or work for small businesses. Most of our 

members are individual citizens. 

AEMA applauds the visionary approach S. 3102 takes to resolve the longstanding challenge of 

managing the checkerboard lands in Pershing County, Nevada. This 40-mile wide zone of 

alternating sections of public and private lands is difficult and costly for both landowners and the 

Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") to manage. The process inS. 3102 to privatize some of 

the public land sections within the checkerboard will be a win-win for landowners, BLM, and 

Pershing County. 

First, S. 3102 will help landowners realize the full potential of the lands they already hold by 

creating contiguous blocks of private land that can be more readily developed into responsible 

projects that will provide jobs and tax revenue to Pershing County. Secondly, the expedited 

process in S. 3102 for selling lands that BLM has already identified as being suitable for disposal 

will allow the agency to better meet its mandate to more effectively manage its resources on 

public lands with higher natural resources values. BLM also will receive a portion of the 

proceeds from the land sales, which will help fund future conservation programs in Pershing 

County. Finally, S. 3102 will directly benefit Pershing County and its rural residents by 

increasing the private land tax base, reducing the County's reliance on PILT, and stimulating 

economic growth and diversification. 
423 


Insert graphic folio 497 here 22000A.373

AEMA Testimony 

Pershing County Economic Development and Conscr\'ation Act 

Page 2 of2 

AEMA. in particular, supports Title II of the bill. which provides mining companies in Pershing 

County the opportunity to purchase the lands where their operations are located. Privatizing these 

mining lands provides economic certainty to all the stakeholders, including the local taxpayers. 

Once the mining companies purchase these lands at fair market value. BLM's regulatory 

jurisdiction over future mine development and expansion is removed. BLM's mine permitting 

process is time consuming, bureaucratic, and unpredictable. Eliminating BLM's role in this 

process will facilitate and expedite the future development and expansion of these Pershing 

County businesses. The State of Nevada. which has comprehensive and e!Tective regulations 

governing mine design, operation, closure reclamation. and bonding. will assume jurisdiction 

over these lands and will ensure that these mines continue to be operated, closed. and reclaimed 

in an environmentally responsible fashion. 

Although AEMA does not generally support the designation of new wilderness areas, we 

understand the wilderness areas in S. 3102 were developed in a consensus process in which 

Pershing County residents and the County Commissioners worked closely with ranchers, miners. 

prospectors, and conservationists to draw the boundaries of these wilderness areas. AEMA 

respects this stakeholder-driven process and hopes that future bills with wilderness designations 

will follow a similar collaborative process. 

Several of our member companies worked closely with the Pershing County Commissioners. 

Pershing County residents. and members of Congress during the public dialogue that formed the 

foundation for S. 3102. AEMA endorses the collaborative approach that Pershing County used to 

develop this land bill and suggests that this grassroots process should be adopted as a template 

for the right way to develop future land bills elsewhere. We urge the Committee to swiftly adopt 

and send S. 3102 forward for full Senate consideration. 

Sincerely. 

~1)._11Jc.ctLA.._./ 

Laura Skaer 

Executive Director 
424 


Insert graphic folio 498 here 22000A.374

September 21,2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chair 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chair and Ranking Member: 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The American Motorcyclist Association applauds the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural 

Resources for holding a legislative hearing on several bills, including on H.R. 1838, the Clear Creek 

National Recreation Area and Conservation Act. This bipmtisan bill would reopen the Clear Creek 

Management Area in California for off-highway-vehicle usc. The AMA supports H.R. 1838. 

Founded in 1924, the AMA is the premier advocate of the motorcycling community, representing the 

interests of millions of on- and off- highway motorcyclist and all-terrain vehicle riders. Our mission 

is to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect the future of motorcycling. 

In 2008, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management closed the Clear Creek Management Area, citing 

concerns about high levels of naturally occutTing asbestos. Upon further investigation, these 

concerns tumed out to be unwarranted. 

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contends that levels of asbestos within the 

management area are unsafe, subsequent studies commissioned by the state of California have 

demonstrated that the amount of asbestos that OIIV riders are exposed to is limited. In fact, other 

activities in the area expose recreationists to significantly higher levels of asbestos. 

The legislation under consideration would direct the Bureau of Land Management to reopen the 

Clear Creek Management Area. This site once was considered to be one of the premier OHV 

recreation sites in the country and provided wholesome recreation for thousands of visitors mmually. 

The effect of this bill's passing would be a significant boost tor the economics of local communities 

and for the recreational oppmtunities ofOHV riders across the West. 

Again, the AMA applauds the committee for holding this hearing. Please submit our letter of support 

into the recmd at the committee's discretion. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. 

;;z:~ !:~Allard ;~e·~·esident of W.PJ'Kidl-!H'CljJfto/~llf, NW 1 Suite 8371 Washington, D.C. 2000i 

Phone (202) 220-i 390 I Fax (202) 220-i 399 I www.AmericanMotorcyclist.com I @AMA_Rights 
425 


Insert graphic folio 499 here 22000A.375

1101 

September 22, 2016 

Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Oftlce Building 

Washington, D,C 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D,C, 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On behalf of American Rivers' more than 200,000 members and supporters across the 

nation, I am writing to express our strong support for the Southwestem Oregon 

Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 (S, 346) and for Methow Headwaters 

Protection Act of2016 (S, 2991), We would also like to register our opposition to S, 

1416, a bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to limit the authority to reserve water 

rights in designating a national monument and to S, 437 and S, 3317, which would 

undermine the Antiquities Act 

S, 346 would help protect pristine and unique natural areas contained on solely federal 

lands in three outstanding watersheds in southwestern Oregon. This legislation would 

preserve habitat alongside the Wild and Scenic North Fork Smith River in Oregon, the 

watershed of Rough and Ready Creek (an eligible Wild and Scenic River and tributary to 

the Wild and Scenic fllinois ami Rogue rivers), as well as I 7 miles of the Wild and 

Scenic Chetco River, Also protected would be the headwaters of Hunter Creek and the 

Pistol River--two prized native salmon and steel head rivers and sources of drinking 

water for small Oregon communities. 

Local and statewide hi-partisan support tOr withdrawing the area ffom new mining claims 

is exceptionally strong; towns, counties. businesses, and tribes have all spoken in favor of 

a mining withdrawaL During the related public process for an administrative withdrawal 

for the area, more than 35,000 public comments were submitted to the U,S, Forest 

Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in favor of mineral withdrawaL 

Of the 23,000 public comments during the more recent Environmental Assessment on the 

administrative withdrawal, the liSFS reported that 99,9percent were in favor of 

withdrawing the area, On September 9, 2015, nearly 300 local residents and concerned 

citizens attended a public meeting held by the l!SFS and BLM regarding the 

administrative withdrawaL The testimony of every speaker was in tavor of the mineral 

I 

N\\1 Washington, 
426 


Insert graphic folio 500 here 22000A.376

withdrawal. Similarly the following night in Grants Pass. the overwhelming majority 

(approximately 90 percent) of speakers testified in favor of the withdrawal. 

The bill covers approximately 106,000 acres located on l\ational Forest and BLM lands 

that have exceptionally clean water that provide excellent habitat for spawning steelhead 

and salmon as \vel! as drinking water to residents in Josephine and Curry Counties in 

Oregon and Crescent City. California. This vibrant river system remains one of the few 

strongholds for abundant wild salmon and steclhcad in the continental Lnited States, 

Salmon from these rivers support robust commercial and sport-fishing industries. The 

Wild and Scenic Rogue River alone contributes $16 million every year into the economy 

of southwest Oregon. 

The region's rare plants foster unique globally rare biodiversity in designated and 

proposed Botanical Areas. The rivers also provide outstanding hiking, rafting, fishing, 

and hunting opportunities. The area also already contains two Bureau of Land 

Management {BLM) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

By withdrawing certain publicly owned lands in Curry County and Josephine County, 

Oregon. from all nc\v forms of entry. appropriation. disposal. location. patent, mineral 

leasing. and geothermal leasing laws. S. 346 effectively safeguards these areas while also 

protecting existing rights and sustainable economic activity. 

Another bill on the docket fclf today, S. 2991 or the \lethow f lead waters Protection Act 

of2016, stands to withdraw from mineral entry 340,079 acres in the headwaters of the 

Methow watershed in Washington State. This legislation \vould remove from potential 

destruction an incredible landscape of outstanding importance to the ecosystem. The pure 

headwaters provide habitat for a myriad of threatened and endangered species while 

providing ample opportunities for outdoor recreation. That recreation economy 

providing approximately S 150 to the people of Okanogan County-would be imperiled if 

a current proposal for an industrial-scale copper mine vv·erc to move forward. We 

strongly support its enactment. 

As for S. 1416, a bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to limit the authority to 

reserve water rights in designating a national monument, the overly broad language of 

this title prevents the Executive departments from fulfilling several essential waterrelated strictures set out in statute and guided by more than a century of court precedents. 

This legislation. if enacted. \\Ou!d jeopardize the ability of federal resource agencies to 

acquire and perfect federal reserved water rights necessary to carry out public land 

management purposes, S, 1416 would confuse and possibly negate the federal 

government's reserved water rights and water rights obtained through state~ based 

administrative and judicial systems. Moreover, this legislation would prevent full 

compliance with applicable state laws. federalla\VS and executive orders. consistent with 

Federal agency authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 

U.S.C. §§1701-1785 (fLPMA) relating to water use. 

I'LPMA states that the public lands shall be managed "in a manner that will protect the 

quality of scientific, scenic. historicaL ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, 

\Vater resource. and archaeological values" (Section 102 (8)). \Vhere Congress, or the 
427 


Insert graphic folio 501 here 22000A.377

Executive Branch, has withdrawn lands tfom the public domain for a specific Federal 

purpose, such reservation may create a Federal reserved water right to unappropriated 

water in the amount necessary to lui till the primary purpose of the reservation (U.S. v. 

New Mexico). The U.S. Supreme Court established Federal reserved water rights in the 

1908 case of Winters v. United States. 207 U.S. 568. Erasing one of the underpinnings of 

federal land management and water rights in the United States will have no beneficial 

effect, and so we object strongly to S. 1416. 

For 110 years. the Antiquities Act has provided 16 Presidents to set aside some of the 

United States' most incredible lands and waters to preserve them for the coming 

generations. Many properties. such as the Grand Canyon and Olympic National Parks. 

have had their protections expanded by Congress once it recognized the value of the 

property and the Antiquities Act's inability to fully conserve them. Beyond defending 

rich historical, natural, and cultural sites, properties designated under the Antiquities Act 

provide a tremendous financial benefit to local communities; the I 0 monuments created 

by President Obama alone provide $156,4 million in annual economic benefits to the 

Americans living near them. 

The changes proposed inS. 437 and S. 3317 run contrary to the intent and exercise of the 

Antiquities Act. Neither governors nor state legislatures should have the ability to deny 

the President the ability to designate a monument offederal property. asS. 437 would 

allow. Providing exemptions tor a single state, such as S. 3327 would permit, would 

create a lack of equity between states with respect to federal lands contained within them. 

Therefore we oppose both pieces oflegislation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support ofS. 346 and S. 2991. and in 

opposition to S. 437. S. 1416, and S. 3317. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Bradley 

Vice President. Policy and Government Relations 
428 


Insert graphic folio 502 here 22000A.378

A \' ·~r, Thomas O'Keefe, Phf) 

·~ ~~~~ 4 T. AJ'WIEHICAN Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director 

..__. _ _._.&•- lNHITElNATEH Seatt1~2~v4;;~~:; 

w'Y.'::Y·at.P_~ricanwhitewater.or!..!; 

September 21, 2016 

Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

okcefC(iramericanwhitcwater.~l!_g 

American Whitewater appreciates having the opportunity to provide testimony in support 

of S. 346 (Wyden), the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 

2015. Thank you for your willingness to hold a hearing on permanently protecting the 

pure rivers of the Kalmiposis region from future mining activities. There is 

overwhelming local and regional support from residents, businesses, elected officials and 

tribes for permanently protecting the conservation and economic values of the pristine 

rivers of Southwestern Oregon from these threats. In light of this, and the undeniable 

negative impacts that metals mining would have on the region, we supportS. 346 moving 

quickly into mark-up and final passage. 

American Whitewater is a national 50 I (c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to 

'"conserve and restore America's whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to 

enjoy them safely." With over 5,400 members and 100 affiliate clubs, we represent the 

conservation interests of tens of thousands of whitewater enthusiasts across the country. 

A significant percentage of our membership lives in Oregon and Northern California, and 

we have over a dozen affiliate clubs in the region. Many of our members choose to live 

and work in the Kalmiopsis region because of the access they have to spectacular rivers 

like Rough and Ready Creek, the Wild and Scenic Illinois River, the Wild and Scenic 

Rogue River, Baldface Creek, the Wild and Scenic North Fork Smith River, and the Wild 

and Scenic Chetco River. Additionally, our members from across the country travel to the 

region to experience these wild rivers, which are free from the negative impacts caused 

by resource extraction or development. 

In addition to our members who recreate on these rivers for personal enjoyment, several 

of our members have businesses based on the rivers directly within the areas covered by 

S. 346 and those downstream. The rivers of the Kalmiopsis region have been legendary 

among river runners for decades for the outstanding whitewater experiences they provide, 

which includes high quality whitewater, exceptionally pure water quality. opportunities 
429 


Insert graphic folio 503 here 22000A.379

for backcountry exploration, nationally significant botanical values, and pristine and 

critical habitat for Fall Chinook, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout, resident rainbow and 

threatened SONNC coho. 

Many of these same values form the backbone of the local recreation economy by 

providing additional outstanding recreational opportunities-including fishing, hiking. and 

camping-that attract outdoor enthusiasts from around the world and provide millions of 

dollars of revenues to the region. The sport-fishing industry of the Rogue River alone 

contributes $16 million annually to the local economy .

1 All river guides, hotels, 

restaurants, commercial fishermen and many other small businesses in Oregon and 

California benefit from the clean waters and world-renowned salmon runs these rivers 

hold. and the economic benefits of withdrawing these lands from new mining activities 

will be realized by protecting the business interests of those who make their living on 

these rivers. Additionally. and importantly. Baldface Creek and the North Fork Smith 

River in particular provide clean drinking water for downstream communities. 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the metals mining industry is 

the largest source of toxic pollution in the country .

2 There is a long history of mining 

companies seeking to develop industrial-scale strip mines in the region. If these proposals 

are realized, they will have a direct and severely negative impact on all the values and 

benefits described above. 

Our members are just one facet of a broad and diverse range of local and regional 

residents, businesses and tribes who overwhelmingly support permanently protecting the 

pure rivers of the Kalmiopsis region from future mining activity. As you are likely aware, 

the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are currently pursuing a temporary 

mineral withdrawal in aid of S. 346. During the comment period for the NEPA process 

for this action, the public submitted over 35,000 comments in favor of withdrawing the 

area from new mining claims. According to the Forest Service, 23,000 of these comments 

were submitted during the Environmental Assessment phase and 99.9% of them were in 

support of protecting the area from mining. Additionally, on September 9'h, 2015, nearly 

300 local residents attended a public meeting in Gold Beach, Oregon and every speaker 

who testified supported the action. A second public hearing was held the following night 

in Grants Pass. Oregon. and approximately 90% of the speakers testified in favor of the 

withdrawal. 

Passing S. 346 and protecting Kalmiopsis rivers from mining impacts is in alignment 

with previous Congressional and federal agency designations that recognize that the 

greatest value for these rivers is for conservation of water quality and fishery values and 

protection for public use and enjoyment. S. 346 includes the pristine watersheds of 

nationally outstanding rivers and streams, including the Congressionally-designated Wild 

1 ECONorthwest. The Economic Value of' Rogue River Salmon, p. I (January 2009). Available at 

http://kswild.org/what-we-do-2/WildlandProtection/RogueSalmonFinalRcport.pdf, last visited September 

20,2016. 

2 Sec U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014 Toxic Release Inventory at 

https:/ /www .epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/comparing-industry-sectors-20 14-tri-national-analysis, last visited 

September 20,2016. 
430 


Insert graphic folio 504 here 22000A.380

and Scenic Rogue, Illinois, North Fork Smith and Chctco Rivers. The Forest Service has 

determined that certain tributaries--Rough and Ready (tributary to the Illinois) and 

Baldface Creeks (tributary to the North Fork Smith)-are eligible for ''Wild and Scenic'' 

designation in their own right. 

S. 346 also helps to ensure that the recreational values of the Congressionally-designated 

Smith River National Recreation Area in California are permanently maintained and not 

degraded by mining activities in the State of Oregon. The Smith River NRA was 

withdrawn from mineral entry to protect the outstanding recreational and fisheries values 

of the Smith River. It is now prudent to extend the withdrawal to the entire Smith River 

watershed to prevent possible harmful impacts from mining that would have significant 

negative economic consequences to the local economy. 

By withdrawing certain publicly owned lands in Curry County and Josephine County, 

Oregon from all forms of entry, appropriation, disposal, location, patent, mineral leasing, 

and geothermal leasing laws, S. 346 permanently safeguards these areas while also 

protecting existing rights and sustainable economic activity. We join with those who 

overwhelmingly support passingS. 346. 

Thomas O'Keefe, PhD 

Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director 

Seattle, WA 

Megan Hooker 

Associate Stewardship Director 

Bend, OR 

Dave Steindorf 

California Stewardship Director 

Chico, CA 
431 


Insert graphic folio 505 here 22000A.381

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: Support for the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Art of 

2015 (S. 346) 

From: Andras Outfitters [m,;H]tl:ilJ1Qre.'i'l'll\fL\l£I2l+ltl1l!C CC)tnJ 

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 20161:14 PM 

To: Gautreaux, <M.im J::i!!i!lLl!Cl.!b'.ll+'l?'YSl:mJ~1~l!C,QQ'!>; 

Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Member Maria Cantwell 

& Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

<i,2,:Li:U\u,.'!t!~l?!:l1li:£m£n:l?ij.0l~t&Q£ 

RE: Sup ort for the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Ad of2015 (S. 346) 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member C.antwel!: 

We the undersigned businesses of southwest Oregon, express our steadfast support for the Southwestern 

regon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of20l5 (S. 346) in order to protect the headwaters of the Wild 

d Scenic Illinois and Smith Rivers and Hunter Creek !i·om proposed nickel strip mines. 

The S. 346 bill will protect some of the most 

for spawning salmon, abundant opportunities 

rivers in North America, which provide excellent habitat 

recreation-based as well as drinking 

ater to residents in Josephine and Curry Counties in and Del Norte County in --. .. uw'mta. 

We believe that clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities must be protected and 

reserved for future generations. This high of life attracts new residents, and creates jobs that strengthen 

ur small businesses and local communities. depend on the clean water and the scenery that draw 

ople to southwest Oregon and northwest California. With threat of destructive nickel strip mining, these 

atural treasures and related local industries are endangered. 

We respectfully ask you to protect this important area of our beloved region. Thank you for this 

pportunlty to testify in support of S. 346, 

Warm regards and good fishing, 

Jim and Rachel Andras I Andras Outfitters 

sl4~QQ\lUJ'r~~m.~1~J'I""'''''"''""''~ 7992 

Rachel Andras; Professional Health and Wellness Coach 
432 


Insert graphic folio 506 here 22000A.382

Statement of Phyllis Baxter, Executive Director of Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc. to 

Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee regarding 

S.3167, To Establish the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

September 15, 2016 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the Subcommittee's consideration of S. 3167 to establish the Appalachian 

Forest National Heritage Area. We would like to offer brief comments in support of this bill and to share with 

you some of the ongoing benefits of this endeavor. 

Appalachian Forest Heritage Area celebrates the central Appalachian forest including its history, culture, 

natural history. forest management and products. Our grassroots partnership has been operating as an ad hoc 

heritage area initiative for over thi11een years within eighteen counties in the highlands of West Virginia and 

western Maryland. Our organization promotes rural community development through heritage tourism 

development and forest conservation. 

We have developed diverse stakeholder suppo11, identified assets related to forest heritage, and established an 

organization through a broad range of partnerships. We have over 175 support letters from stakeholder 

organizations including forest industry. public agencies, local governments and communities, and 

environmental, heritage, historic preservation, and community development partners. We have completed a 

Feasibility Study addressing the National Heritage Area criteria identified by the National Park Service, which 

has been reviewed and approved by the National Park Service as meeting this criteria. In completing this study. 

and throughout our planning, operations, and efforts to seek national designation, we have done all that we can 

to follow the steps and standards set forth in the proposed National Heritage Area program bill, so that if and 

when such a bill is passed, we will be fully compliant with its provisions and expectations. 

Appalachian Forest Heritage Area has operated as a sustainable organization for more than thirteen years, 

demonstrating that we are committed to helping build the future for our unique and nationally signil!cant forest 

region. We explore the relationship between the Appalachian highlands forest and the people who live within it 

by developing interpretive products to share multiple forest heritage themes and stories, connecting cultural 

heritage and natural tourism sites, and establishing a forest heritage museum and information center which is 

serving over 2000 visitors a year. We mobilize volunteers to assist cooperating public lands and private 

landowners with forest conservation efforts such as non-native invasive species control. tree plantings, 

recreation improvements, and environmental awareness. 

We administer a dynamic AmeriCorps program which places members with local sites providing direct service 

for conservation, historic preservation, and heritage development. In the most recent program year, 38 AFHA 

AmeriCorps members served over 65,000 hours benefiting local communities. They improved over 1700 acres 

of public land and managed over 1,000 volunteers. Each member completed at least one substantial project that 

would not otherwise get done, while providing direct community service. 

We are seeking National Heritage Area designation because this honor will acknowledge the national!) 

significant role that the Appalachian Forest has had in our nation's history, and will provide recognition of the 

importance of our region~s forest heritage resources historically and today. National Heritage Area designation 

will provide us with access to technical assistance and resources that will help us to expand our efforts, and to 

reach out more effectively across the entire IS-county, two-state area. This designation will enable us to 

accomplish much more to benefit our forests. our area. and our communities. 

National Heritage Areas are a proven strategy to suppot1 collaborative regional efforts where stakeholders arc 

working together to preserve their nationally significant resources while leveraging those resources for 

appropriate growth and community benefit. Appalachian Forest Heritage Area is working every day towards 

accomplishing these goals for our rural. under-developed area. We ask you to approve action on this Bill to 

establish the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area to recognize. protect. and help develop the forest 

heritage assets of this outstandingly beautiful. nationally significant region. 

Thank you for your attention to our elforts. 
433 


Insert graphic folio 507 here 22000A.383

Anchorage Office • 3900 C Street, Suite 801 • Anchorage. Alaska 99503-S963 • 907.339.6000 • FAX 907.339.6028 • 1 800.770.2772 

~._ -:~!'~~I corporation 

September 26, 2016 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: September 22, 2016 Hearing on Various Bills, Including S. 3203, the Alaska Economic 

Development and Access to Resources Act, and S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Improvement Act of 2016. 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

On behalf of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation ("ASRC"), I am pleased to submit comments on 

the subject of the Committee's September 22, 2016 hearing on various bills, including S. 3203, 

the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act, and S. 3273, the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016. 

ASRC is an Alaska Native corporation, representing the liiupiat people of the North Slope region 

of Alaska. We were created at the direction of Congress under the terms of the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act of 1971 ("ANCSA"). ANCSA was designed to settle the aboriginal claims 

of Alaska Natives and authorized the transfer of roughly 45 million acres of land to twelve forprofit regional corporations and more than two hundred village corporations in the state. The 

legislation extinguished Alaska Native aboriginal land rights, and authorized and directed us to 

adopt a western corporate model to manage Native lands and natural resources for the benefit 

of our shareholders. 

ASRC owns nearly 5 million acres of land on Alaska's North Slope. Our shareholders live 

primarily in eight extremely remote Arctic villages in one of the most isolated and challenging 

environments in the world. Through ANCSA, Congress authorized ASRC to use the North 

Slope's natural resources to benefit the lfiupiat people both financially and culturally. 

Consistent with this unique legislation, ASRC is a for-profit business committed both to 

providing sound returns to its shareholders and to preserving liiupiat culture and traditions. 

Corporate Headquarters • PO Box 129 • Barrow, Alaska 99723-0129 • 907.852.8533 or907.852.8633 • FAX 907.852.5733 
434 


Insert graphic folio 508 here 22000A.384

Page 2 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

Title I- Fill TAPS 

Title I of S. 3203 directs the Department of the Interior to increase oil production on federal 

lands, with the ultimate objective of increasing production on federal land in the State of Alaska 

to 500,000 barrels of oil per day by 2026. 

We support this language, which would ensure the continued viability of the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System (TAPS), infrastructure that is critical to the economic and social wellbeing of 

lf\upiat communities on the North Slope. 

TITLE II- Outer Continental Shelf 

Section 201 of S. 3203 extends Alaska outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease terms to allow credit 

for months of the year when operations are not permitted. Section 201 also establishes that 

any oil and gas lease on the Alaska OCS shall be issued for a primary term of not fewer than 10 

years and perhaps should be extended to "not fewer than 15 years." 

The OCS leasing system is development-based, meaning that an operator currently must be 

able to commercially develop a lease within 10 years in order to retain it. Other Arctic nations 

employ exploration-based systems, allowing developers time to determine technical and 

commercial viability. On the Arctic OCS, developers cannot conduct exploratory drilling 

operations year round, severely limiting their ability to develop a lease within a 10 year period, 

hence the need to extend the lease term to a minimum of 15 years. 

The current leasing system makes no sense for the Arctic OCS. And yet, the Arctic OCS has 

incredible resource potential-greater than that of the Atlantic and second only to the Gulf of 

Mexico. BOEM's 2016 National Assessment estimates that the Alaska OCS contains more than 

a quarter of total OCS undiscovered technically recoverable oil (26.61 Bbbl) and more than a 

third of total OCS undiscovered technically recoverable gas (131.45 Tcfg). We therefore 

support the common sense reforms set forth in Section 201. 

Section 202 of S. 3203 directs the Secretary of the Interior to include additional lease sales in 

the five-year OCS oil and gas leasing program for fiscal years 2017 through 2023, including: 

in the Beaufort Sea planning area, 11ease sale in each of years 2017 and 2022; 

in the Cook Inlet planning area, 11ease sale in each of years 2017 and 2019; and 

• in the Chukchi Sea planning area, 11ease sale in each of years 2017 and 2019. 

In contrast, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's ("BOEM") "2017-2022 Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program" ("Proposed Program"), 81 Fed. 
435 


Insert graphic folio 509 here 22000A.385

Page 3 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

Reg. 14,881 (March 18, 2016), identifies just one potential lease sale each in the Beaufort Sea 

(2020) and Chukchi Sea (2022) Planning Areas. The Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Program states that fewer lease sales are scheduled for Alaska 

Program Areas "where offshore oil and gas experience is much more limited." ASRC submits 

that new exploration should not be delayed for want of experience, nor is this even a valid 

concern. Oil and gas activities are not new to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, let alone the 

Arctic region. In the 1980s and 1990s, 32 exploration wells were drilled in Alaska's OCS alone. 

Likewise, in more recent years, both Shell and Hilcorp Alaska have engaged in successful Arctic 

OCS operations. ASRC submits that by scheduling additional lease sales during the 2017-2022 

lease sale period, S. 3203 would spur the investment that is needed to develop a successful 

program. 

Title Ill- Federal Onshore 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

Subtitle A of Title Ill ("Authorizing Alaska Production") would authorize the exploration, leasing, 

development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the "undeformed area" 

of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 

The provisions of Subtitle A are nearly identical to another bill you have introduced, S. 494 (the 

"Authorizing Alaska Production Act"), which we support fully. 

We note that Section 308 requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey to: (1) the Kaktovik 

lnupiat Corporation (KIC) the surface estate of certain land, and (2) ASRC the remaining 

subsurface estate to which it is entitled. Congressional authorization is required to complete 

the conveyance of land to KIC which it selected pursuant to ANCSA and a 1986 land exchange 

with the United States. Under the terms of ANCSA and a 1983 land exchange agreement 

between ASRC and the United States, ASRC is entitled to receive the subsurface estate under 

the remaining KIC entitlement lands within ANWR. KIC and ASRC have waited more than 30 

years to receive these lands to which they are entitled, and ASRC fully supports the final 

resolution of this matter. 

Lease Sales in the Northeast NPR-A 

Subtitle B of Title Ill ("National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska") directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to offer one or more area-wide oil and gas lease sales in areas identified as "Available for Oil & 

Gas Leasing" in the Preferred Alternative and mapped as Figure II.C.1, in the Northeast National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Record of Decision, dated October 1998. Subtitle B also directs the Secretary to develop a plan 

for exploration and evaluation in the NPR-A of gravel sources suitable for the construction of 

roads and pads necessary for oil and gas development. 
436 


Insert graphic folio 510 here 22000A.386

Page 4 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

The 23 million-acre NPR-A was set aside nearly 90 years ago and contains some of Alaska's best 

potential for onshore oil and gas. Estimates show the Reserve could hold nearly a billion barrels 

of recoverable oil, and more than 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Oil and gas exploration 

and development can coexist with wildlife populations and the subsistence needs of the people 

of the North Slope. ASRC participated in the development of the Integrated Activity 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement completed in 1998. We support this legislation's 

mandate to permit lease sales in areas identified as "Available for Oil & Gas leasing" in the 

1998 plan. 

Strengthening the "No More" Clouse 

Section 1326 of the Alaska National Interest lands Conservation Act (ANilCA) (the "no more" 

clause) currently prohibits certain permanent withdrawals in Alaska without the approval of 

Congress: 

(a) No future executive branch action which withdraws more than 

five thousand acres, in the aggregate, of public lands within the 

State of Alaska shall be effective except by compliance with this 

subsection. To the extent authorized by existing law, the 

President or the Secretary may withdraw public lands in the State 

of Alaska exceeding five thousand acres in the aggregate, which 

withdrawal shall not become effective until notice is provided in 

the Federal Register and to both Houses of Congress. Such 

withdrawal shall terminate unless Congress passes a joint 

resolution of approval within one year after the notice of such 

withdrawal has been submitted to Congress. 

(b) No further studies of Federal lands in the State of Alaska for 

the single purpose of considering the establishment of a 

conservation system unit, national recreation area, national 

conservation areas or for related or similar purposes shall be 

conducted unless authorized by this Act or further Act of 

Congress. 

However, as noted by Alaska's Resource Development Council, "[f]ederal agencies have 

commonly navigated around Section 1326(b) by conducting wilderness and wild and scenic 

river reviews in conjunction with updating land management plans. The agencies claim that 

because the studies are conducted in conjunction with management plan revisions, they are 

not conducted 'for the single purpose' of establishing a new conservation system unit." 
437 


Insert graphic folio 511 here 22000A.387

Page 5 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

S. 3203 clarifies that certain Executive Branch land management decisions in Alaska would 

violate ANILCA's "no more" clause. Section 403 amends Section 1326 of ANILCA to establish 

that a "withdrawal" of more than 5,000 acres of public lands within the State shall be defined 

to include any designation of lands that "limits, or has the effect of limiting or impeding, 

activities and uses allowed on public lands as of the date of enactment of [ANILCA], including 

designations and management of public lands as a wilderness study area, a component of the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), an area of critical environmental concern (as defined in section 

103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)), and any similar 

land use designation or management of public lands pursuant to any Federal land use law." 

S. 3203 establishes that the President or the Secretary of the Interior may withdraw lands from 

public activities and uses (that were permitted at the time ANILCA passed) only after providing 

notice of the designation in the Federal Register and to Congress, and that any such 

withdrawals shall have no effect unless approved by Congress within one year. ASRC supports 

this commonsense amendment to Section 1326 of ANILCA. 

"Areas of Critical Environmental Concern" 

Section 403 of S. 3203 also provides that "[e]ach designation of an area within the State as an 

area of critical environmental concern in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection is 

revoked." 

The designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) has resulted in the set aside 

millions of acres of public lands in Alaska, which clearly conflicts with Congressional intent 

under ANILCA's "no more" clause. ASRC supports this language, which effectively clarifies that 

ACECs violate the "no more" clause and should not have been designated in the first place. 

S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

S. 3273 contains numerous "updates and improvements" to ANCSA, including a variety of 

stand-alone provisions that address the specific interests of individual Alaska Native 

corporations. 

Our testimony addresses three sections of interest to ASRC, and requests that the Committee 

consider adding an additional section to address certain federal mitigation requirements that 

have unnecessarily resulted in the permanent set aside of Native lands. 

Section 3- Conveyance of Sand and Gravel to UIC 

Section 3 of 5. 3273 amends the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984 to direct the Secretary of 

the Interior to convey sand and gravel deposits under certain Ukpeagvik liiupiat Corporation 

(UIC) lands to UIC. 
438 


Insert graphic folio 512 here 22000A.388

Page 6 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

Since the passage of ANCSA, ASRC has consistently supported the desire of the eight village 

corporations in the Arctic Slope region of Alaska to obtain the sand and gravel resources near 

the villages to provide the village corporations with a reasonable economic base, and to provide 

our communities with the sand and gravel resources they need. ASRC fully supports the 

transfer of these sand and gravel resources to UIC. 

Section 7- CIRI Land Entitlement 

Section 7 of S. 3273 authorizes the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) to select its outstanding 43,000 

acres of land entitlement under ANCSA from areas throughout Alaska. The legislation 

establishes that any conveyance of land outside of the CIRI region shall be subject to the 

condition that CIRI obtain the written consent of the Alaska Native regional corporation for that 

region. ASRC supports Section 7 with this consent language. 

Section 8 Conveyances to Canyon Village, Kaktovik, and Nagamut 

Among other things, Section 8 requires the Secretary to withdraw and convey to KIC the surface 

estate of certain land which KIC selected pursuant to ANCSA. Under a 1983 land exchange 

agreement between ASRC and the United States, ASRC would be entitled to receive the 

subsurface estate under the KIC entitlement lands. KIC and ASRC have waited more than 30 

years to receive these lands to which they are entitled, and ASRC fully supports the final 

resolution of this matter. 

Request to Add Language to Address Certain Federal Mitigation Requirements that Have 

Unnecessarily Resulted in the Permanent Set Aside of Native Lands 

ASRC requests that the Committee consider amending S. 3273 to address inequities in the 

application of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to lands owned by Alaska Native corporations. 

As you know, the CWA regulates impacts to all "waters of the United States." Section 404 of 

the CWA requires a Section 404 permit for all non-exempt activities for the placement of fill or 

dredged materials into any water of the United States. Activities regulated under the Section 

404 program may include resource development projects, water resource projects, and 

infrastructure development projects, all of which may yield important economic and 

noneconomic opportunities for Alaska Native communities. 

Section 404 of the CWA and federal implementing regulations require Section 404 permittees 

to take appropriate and practicable steps to avoid, and then minimize adverse impacts to the 

aquatic ecosystem. When these methods have been exhausted, compensatory mitigation is 

required for aquatic "resource losses which are specifically identifiable, reasonably likely to 

occur, and of importance to the human or aquatic environment." See 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(r)(2). 
439 


Insert graphic folio 513 here 22000A.389

Page 7 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

Compensatory mitigation must be "directly related to the impacts of the [project] proposal, 

appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts, and reasonably enforceable." /d. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps") has issued compensatory mitigation 

regulations under 33 C.F.R. part 332 that govern the extent and form that mitigation must take. 

The fundamental objective of the compensatory mitigation rules is to offset environmental 

losses resulting from unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States authorized by the 

Army Corps. The rules generally require that compensatory mitigation should be located within 

the same watershed as the impacted site, and should be located where it is most likely to 

successfully replace lost aquatic functions and services. 

Army Corps regulations authorize four methods of compensatory mitigation, including: (1) 

restoration, (2) establishment, (3) enhancement, and, in certain circumstances, (4) 

preservation. Credit for "preservation" as a form of compensatory mitigation generally is given 

only when existing wetlands and/or other aquatic resources are preserved in conjunction with 

restoration, creation or enhancement, though the preservation of existing wetlands and/or 

other aquatic resources in perpetuity may be authorized as the sole basis for generating credits 

in exceptional circumstances. However, while preservation is not the preferred method of 

mitigation, preservation is an important method of mitigation where opportunities for 

restoration, establishment, or enhancement are limited, such as within ecologically intact 

environments, which is common in Alaska. 

While ASRC recognizes the value of working with the Army Corps to ensure that individual 

projects on Native lands avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, and other 

aquatic resources, we think Alaska Native corporations should be exempt from CWA 

compensatory mitigation requirements when the Native corporation itself applies for a Section 

404 permit and the project is located on Native lands. 

In ANCSA, Congress granted to Alaska Native corporations the right and obligation to serve as 

the stewards of the land conveyed to them in settlement of aboriginal land claims. Alaska 

Native values demand that we manage our lands for past, current and future generations. 

However, complying with federal compensatory mitigation rules can impose unreasonable 

costs on Native corporations, and may preclude us from pursuing important resource 

development, water resources, and infrastructure projects on Native lands. Many projects on 

Native lands occur within ecologically intact environments, which means that opportunities for 

restoration, establishment, or enhancement within the watershed are extremely limited. As a 

consequence, Native corporations have been forced to set aside permanent conservation 

easements to mitigate project impacts. Native corporations should not be forced to 

permanently set aside lands received in settlement of aboriginal land claims-nor should they 

be forced to create or restore new wetlands in other regions-simply to advance projects that 

will produce important economic and noneconomic benefits for Alaska Native communities. 
440 


Insert graphic folio 514 here 22000A.390

Page 8 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

We therefore support amending federal law to exempt Alaska Native corporations from the 

compensatory mitigation requirements under Section 404 of the CWA for projects on Alaska 

Native lands, while clarifying that Native corporations remain subject to requirements under 

the CWA to work with the Corps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, 

and other aquatic resources. 

Additionally, the use of preservation as a method of mitigation can be challenging in the 

context of impacts on watersheds on Alaska Native lands, where there are often few privatelyheld lands available for purchase. While a Native corporation may choose to set aside a 

conservation easement to advance a Native-owned project, or may sell a conservation 

easement to a project proponent in order to offset the impacts of a project that is not Alaska 

Native-owned, Army Corps regulations currently require that such conservation easements 

must be perpetual in duration. The Alaska Native people have suffered the loss of millions of 

acres of their traditional lands. Native corporations should not have to set aside additional 

lands through the execution of perpetual conservation easements in order to satisfy mitigation 

requirements under the CWA. 

We therefore support amending federal law to allow Alaska Native corporations to lease land 

for the purpose of conserving that land through the life of a project. A Section 404 permittee 

would thus be allowed to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for an activity by 

entering into a preservation lease with a Native corporation so long as the permitted activity 

affects wetlands located in the same watershed as the Native land to be leased. At the 

conclusion of a project, once impacted aquatic resources have been fully restored, all rights to 

the land would revert back to the Alaska Native corporation. 

Sincerely, 

ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION 

Richard Glenn 

Executive Vice President 

Lands & Natural Resources 

Cc: Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 
441 


Insert graphic folio 515 here 22000A.391

Page 9 

ASRC Comments 

09/26/2016 

Senator Dan Sullivan 

Congressman Don Young 

Governor Bill Walker 

Regional Association of ANCSA CEO's 
442 


Insert graphic folio 516 here 22000A.392

ARl 

nJs rnme national patks cmd monuments 

~han any other state country 'ands 

ovvn~.:_:d and managed ty ~:~e feder a\ qovernment 

and those 1t holds 1n trust for the ind1an 

land rn Anzona u;1der 

;)Ovenv:lent. Pr:vateiy"owned land 

yet !ess \han 20% or 

owned As such .. '\r!zona depends on the r;·'uitJrnu\tiple·use ~art'le:sh1o nas worked 

Oban:a 15 now cons1dennq to 

the mutupic· usc mandate on Ar!zona's 

lands by us1ng a 

des:gna~e l 7 M:lLon acres of northern Ar:zona as 

t!le Grand Canyon Watershed Na\:onal 

Until 2012, the rnaJor'tY of t'lose 1 7 t'l:lliorl acres 

were successful>/ under a n,,,,~,,P,cn 

W1·1er1 the Secretary of ~he !nlc::nor w:thdrew 

almost one rn:g:on 

oy Senator ,~r..Ym 

tor JCYt ky\ CHong w:th Ol hC'~ 

in Arizona is under the 

control of the federal government 

than of land in Arizona 

privately owned 

The Grand Canyon \IVatershed National 

Monument would designate another 

of Arizona as federal land 
443 


Insert graphic folio 517 here 22000A.393

m>cmc"im>ri! dck:qation~·-ilC 

wor\, undermwmg PllDZYtam state~ federal 

oartncrsh1p that had prev1ously tand 

r-lanagement 1n fhc oroposed r;ronumcnt 

des1gnat~on w::l even further i1rntt the lands 

able tT1ul;;pie use, drasttcai!y reduc1ng publ1c 

1mpej1ng eff1oent tand management 

representing unwarranted and unwanted fc:dcra\ 

overreacn 

addit:on, the proposed monurrent designat1on 

would break tile spw1L of o h1sto•1c compromtse on 

wilderness dcs1gnatio;-1s and multiple land usc poi-

:cy that culmina~ed in the Arizoqa Wilderness Acl 

of 1984 The ~'\cl, w!--J1cl w1a be explored 1n greater 

deta1l 1n future F:oundat1on designated 

over mrtiion of Wilderness across 

and, at the same t1mc. released an add1t1onal 

540,000 of land mult1p!e~use 

velopment. 1 The Act represerns the "goid slandar·d 

of stakeholder coi\aborat~on and btpart1san 

a!lowtnq "susta1nab\e 

wdh 

most treas~JI"ed :latur·ol resources' 

Plvolved ,'l Lhat htstonc process tncludcd the 

The proposed Grand Canyon 

Watershed National Monument 

would encompass million acres 

of northern Arizona. This single 

presidential designation would 

double the amount of acreage in 

Arizona designated as a national 

monument, and would include 

most of Arizona north of the Grand 

Canyon and a significant area 

between Flagstaff and the Grand 

Canyon National Park boundary. 

Congress and the stakeho!ders invo!ved 

low~tmpact metllod of breccta ptpe urar/um 

mwnng occmnng Loday r1onh of Grand Canyon 

Nattonal ?ark did not ~hreaten the newly created 

w1ldemess 

valved futly expected that the future develoocnent 

c: those vvould be governed by the land 

managemen~ planning orocess Movtng :orward 

ry>onument des~g:1atron now would 

as1dc that histone co:nprom1se at-\d undcrrntne the 

co~laborottvc and fcderJlland ""'"nnP>nP''" 

process Anzona has long enJoyed 

dowever_ ores1de'ittai 

ilJve tong 

clud1ng the 

des1gnat:ons 

des1gnated. types of 

inclusion 
444 


Insert graphic folio 518 here 22000A.394

of nonfedera\ tunds w1th1n 1T1onument boundar· 

and the 

example, 19/8 .Pres;dcnr J1mrny Carter used 

'and and on Jddiz onat 28.000 ocrcs of pr,vatc!y 

proposed Grand Canyon V'Jatershed Nu~:onal land' 
445 


Insert graphic folio 519 here 22000A.395

the disappointing 

mismanagement important 

vvestern is that 

Washington, on its own, is not 

steward of Arizona's 1and and 

natural But should the 

monument designation proceed, 

the of Interior-based 

Washington-would obtain 

exclusive control of the area within 

the monument designation 
446 


Insert graphic folio 520 here 22000A.396

tnat typ:catiy manages nat:onat parks and rnonumems. already strugqles lo rna;ntanl the land under 

'ts control. w1th estimated deferred 

Na:,onal Monument destgnat1on would say that :t 

:s des1gned to help preserve and protect 

,t wcu~d do jUSt Indeed, presidential 

dcs1gnat10:lS under tne Anttqu:::cs to create 

"ialtonal monuments represent the worst 

of federal overreach. and ~'l'S proposed mo~1ument 

const:tutes rea: 

nauon wou!d have faHcach1ng 

publtc 

resourCE' management 

and access for Ar:Lona·s cattic · 

men, sportsn<en. and 

10 

no 

Fout1 dat:on 

subjcc to c!osures due ~o government 

they do so. Some r1onumcnt 

oroclamatrons have restr:cted or proh1b:ted 

prov·dc new and susta:nable water 

a nat:onal rY:onurncnt des:gnation could 

surface water and (Jroundwater rtgf1ts i""l 

Wh·~e ~,onument 

could to 

uncrDnqcd by the des1qnat:on (rY1LJd1 1n rhe way a 

p~octamatton cou\d protect va!;d ex1st~nc;; :and 
447 


Insert graphic folio 521 here 22000A.397

law, the designation 

automatically carries with it an 

implied water right to serve the 
448 


Insert graphic folio 522 here 22000A.398

m~~:1ng 1ndustry, and these \unds 

il!S~torica!ly have· and Will to---provide a 

~argc of metals and :1ardrock 

oroduced and used Lh1s cou:1try 1\llhough a 

monument des1qnation may preserve valid existmg 

m1n1nq 

energy would be 

an actual m1n:ng \M\h1n a nat1onal 

monument vvouid be operat1onai!y and soc!aUy 

irnpossmle 

Proponents 

that 

What's worse, ~he 

nattonul monument also 

by proponents may be :[[usory Altlloug!l 

prooo'";ents have a nat1ona; monurnent dcs1gnar~on would strengthen and expond 

econom1c growth reg1on, t1ere 

or ViJ forced condemnation lmportant\y_ 

eve:1 1f the techn1cal ownership of the land nor 

as a resu,l of a des1gna\1on (i.e 

federal gover:1rnent does not actuatiy acquire 

t:tlc to tile land), nghts of pnvate lJndho!ders, 

be 

st;rnutus for local econornies and, some cases. 

r1CQi3\!VC eCO,IOmiC 

co:Kluded 

that iJ'ld protection ti-vough monun1ent 

Designating the area as a national 

monument "federalizes" the \and, 

opening the door to new restrictions on 

use and access for Arizona's cattlemen, 

sportsmen, and recreating public 

tile case of me prooosed Grand Canyon 

Watersr\ed Nat:onat Monument. ~Jie tmp!icat!Ons for 

Protect:nq State Trusl :and :s 
449 


Insert graphic folio 523 here 22000A.399

proposed Grand 

Canyon Watershed National 

Monurnent, the implications for 

lar-cdholders are sigmficant. Of 

1.7 million acres in the proposed 

monument, roughly 64,000 acres 

part of Arizona's State Land Trust 
450 


Insert graphic folio 524 here 22000A.400

Designation of che Gr·and Canyon 

f\Jat,onol Monument pursuant to tile 

Arizona may soon be under the exc!us:ve Jur•sdrc · 

t:on of 

now severat d:fferer~t underway 

to protect Anzona·s land .crcservc states' ngrns 

fro01 t"c proposed monument destgnatron 

'Sa 

idaho< called Tne Natrona( Monurr:em Desr~;nation 

rransoarency and ;\ccountabJ:ty Act 228), 

woutd limtt the Pres,dent's unfettered d:scret:on 

1n destgnat1119 nal,onal monurr:ents by 

Congress to aporove new national monunwnts 

wtthin two years of estabLshmcnt and only after 

derermining "that the 1n whtch the monument 

:S to be located has enacted leg:slation approv:ng 

in the obsence of congressional 

aoproval, new r"Tlonuments would revert to 

orevious status Senator Crapo's b:ii would chSO 

E:nsure that any restr:ct~O'"lS on pubk lands 

the OOJCCS prolE'Cted by 

J ;nor~u;r:ent des1qnat~on, thereby ensunng better 

the gu1dCi1nes :r-1 tne Ant1qu:tres Act 

nre 

underway to 

protect Arizona's land and preserve 

states' from the proposed 

monument designation: 

National Monument 

Designation Transparency and 

Accountability Act 

Gosar-Hardy Amendment 

"A bill to amend title 54, United 

States Code, to limit the authority to 

reserve water rights in designating a 

national monument" 
451 


Insert graphic folio 525 here 22000A.401

The best solution for Arizona -and 

other western state that faces 

threat from Washingtoninstead, grassroots movement 

that, with help of state governors, 

attorneys general, and state land 

managers across the Southwest, 

conveys opposition to the President 

and federallegi.slators in Washington. 
452 


Insert graphic folio 526 here 22000A.402

l2 .'!Go 

S!F Outdoors 
453 


Insert graphic folio 527 here 22000A.403
454 


Insert graphic folio 528 here 22000A.404

~ 

't 

ARIZONA CHAMBER -- fOU,'-'DAll0:-1 -"--

Arizono Cho~bcr Foundation 

3200 North 

Phoenix. Ar,;.:ona 85012 

602~248·9~72 

Suite 

www.azc'lan:ber corn/foundaUor. 

f:·oundat·on 

:S?OO Nortil Ccnt:-ol ;\venue. 

Ari?.Oild 8~012 

602 529·120<1 
455 


Insert graphic folio 529 here 22000A.405

Statement for the Record 

Paul A. Lang, President of Ark Land Company 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 22,2016 

Re: S. 2681 

Chairman Murkowski, and Members of the Committee, my name is Paul Lang and I am 

President of Ark Land Company ("Ark Land"), the land holding subsidiary of Arch Coal, Inc. 

On behalf of Ark Land, I would like to submit this statement for the record in strong support of 

S. 2681, the ··san Juan County Settlement Implementation Act of2016.'' 

Ark Land urges swift enactment of this legislation, and we appreciate the leadership of Senators 

Heinrich and Udall in crafting this bill. We also appreciate the work of Representatives Lujan 

and Lummis, who have authored similar legislation, 1-I.R. 1820, which is pending in the full 

!-louse of Representatives. 

S. 2681 would enable the Department of the Interior to complete a tribal lands settlement and 

resolve related lands management and mineral rights issues, which have remained unresolved for 

over four decades. The absence of a resolution has precluded both the Navajo Nation and Ark 

Land from exercising their respective property rights. Ark Land and others have held valid coal 

preference right lease applications in San Juan County, New Mexico since the late J 960s and 

these applications are on lands that were selected by the Navajo Nation under the terms of the 

Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974. The Navajo Nation has been unable to take title to these 

lands all of this time, because the Settlement Act requires that lands transferred to the tribes be 

unencumbered. Additionally, over these decades, special land management classifications have 

been layered onto these public lands, including certain lands that arc now classified as wilderness 

study areas, a Fossil Forest, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Additionally, all of 

these parcels abut or are very near the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. 

All sides have wanted a resolution of this issue for years, and have more recently negotiated in 

good faith to reach a solution via a Settlement signed on March 5, 2012 between Ark Land and 

the BLM. In that Settlement, the mineral rights are retired in return for bidding credits 

exercisable against federal lease and royalty obligations. In the Settlement, BL~1 also stipulated 

that Ark Land is holding preference right lease applications for 267 million tons of commercial 

quantities of coal. This property right is an asset for which Ark Land needs to be compensated if 

it cannot exercise its rights, and the Settlement provided a path to resolution. However. a few 

years ago, the Solicitor's Office determined that the Department of the Interior would need 
456 


Insert graphic folio 530 here 22000A.406

legislation in order to resolve the coal preference right lease applications in a manner that would 

also leave states financially whole, since states receive a portion of bonuses and royalties paid. in 

accordance with section 35 (a) of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

The San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act of2016 would provide a fair and equitable 

resolution of these outstanding issues, tor the Navajo Nation, those who hold coal preference 

right lease applications, the states, as well as the U.S. taxpayer, by avoiding a takings claim that 

is sure to cost the US Government far more than the negotiated settlement enabled by this 

legislation. With certain modifications to the bill text as introduced, which have already been 

shared with the Committee and are being pursued by the House sponsors as well, this equitable 

solution can be enacted at no cost to the taxpayers. 

While S. 2681 contains additional provisions of which we are supportive but which are beyond 

the direct interest of Ark Land, we urge enactment of the bill before the 114'h Congress adjourns. 

As the saying goes, ''Justice delayed is justice denied." We believe that four decades is too long 

for the Navajo Nation and for Ark Land to have waited. But a just and equitable agreement is 

within our grasp, and we urge the Congress to act now so that all the parties involved can finally 

have resolution to this public lands issue, and the federal agencies can move forward with the 

management of these lands for their other values. 

In closing, thank you again, Chairman Murkowski. for your interest in this matter, and for 

convening this legislative hearing. Ark Land is happy to answer any questions the Committee 

may have. 

*For additional information, contact: 

Tom Altmeyer 

TAltmeyer@archcoal.com or 202 333 5265 
457 


Insert graphic folio 531 here 22000A.407

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: Ak mental health trust land exchange with the USForest Service 

·····Original Message----

From: Mike Barton [mailto:mikebarton@gci.net) 

Sent: Wednesday, October OS, 2016 10:32 PM 

To: Kleeschulte, Chuck (Energy) 

Subject: Ak mental health trust land exchange with the US Forest Service 

Honorable Usa Murkowski 

US Senate 

Washington, DC 

Dear Senator Murkowski1 

1 urge the passage of this legislation. It provides the means for supplying the last vestiges of the once thriving timber 

industry with enough wood to continue the employment of 150 people and the resulting health and well being of their 

families. At the same time it provides the Mental Health Trust with the revenues it needs to provide services for the 

beneficiaries of the Mental Health Trust. These services, and the means for providing them, were part of the 

negotiations and discussions surrounding Alaska's statehood. 

Furthermore, the passage of this legislation facilitates the transition from the utilization of old-growth timber to young 

growth timber in order to help meet the country's needs. This transition has been made more urgent because of the 

withdrawal offederallands from the Forest Service's timber base. Much of that withdrawal resulted from Congressional 

action. 

In summary, I understand that the local communities support this legislation. 1 urge passage. 

Thank you 

Mike Barton 

POB 240070 

Douglas,AK 

99824 

Sent from my iPad 
458 


Insert graphic folio 532 here 22000A.408

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: Testimony, 5.3315, 2d ID Memorial Modification 

Importance: High 

From: David Benbow [.mailto:Davidjiilstatesvill_elaw.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 2.0, 2016 5:52PM 

To: Lane, Michelle (Energy) 

Cc: Aves Thompson; bob haynes (teflonbobl2\&gmali,Q;JPl) 

Subject: FW: Testimony, 5.3315, 2d !D Memorial Modifocation 

Importance: High 

Michelle Lane (michelle lane@energy.senate.gov) 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Energy and Resources Committee 

Re: S.3315, Second Division Memorial Modification Act 

Dear Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, 

The 2•• lndianhead Division Association Scholarship and Memorials Foundation (Foundation) seeks to 

rededicate the 2•• Division Memorial on Constitution Avenue near 17'h Street in the President's Park on the 

National Mall in Washington, DC., by making a small but important modification to the Memorial. 

The Memorial was initially erected and dedicated in 1936 to honor the 2•• Division soldiers killed in World War 

I and rededicated in 1962 by adding two wings to the Memorial to honor the 2•• Division dead in World War 11 

and the Korean War. Unfortunately, the Memorial no longer reflects all members of the 2nd Division who 

have given their life in service of their country, specifically those who have fallen on or near the Korean 

Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea, as well as those who have fallen in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. 

S. 3315, has been introduced to allow for the addition of three small benches commemorating the fallen 2"' 

Division soldiers in service on and near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea 

and the fallen soldiers of both Afghanistan and Iraq. legislation is necessary, as the National Park Service has 

denied modification of the Memorial based on current law (40 USC Section 8903(b). 

We ask for your assistance in changing the law to allow this small but important modification. 

As a 2d Infantry Division Veteran, I urge you to support this legislation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully, 

David Benbow. Benbow ond Phillips. Attorneys at Law. PO Box 432, Statesville, NC 28687-

0432 .. .formerly Sgt Benbow, Company C. 3/23'" Infantry. 2'• Infantry Division, 1968 and 1969 and 3''" 

platoon member with Michael Rymarczuk, from Philadelphia, who was killed '" the DMZ by North Koreans 

in an ambush on July 30, 1968 
459 


Insert graphic folio 533 here 22000A.409

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: $3004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/22/2016 

From: Art Bloom (D:@!lto:artml)foorl!..@..iQ!l.!iJ!.£.~1~1] 

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:09PM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <fortherecviJLi?EH:ffu·?~:.!£;.G.i.\.;;:> 

Subject: 53004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/22/2016 

~S3004/3273 Section 10 would allow a for-profit corporation to select lands anywhere in Tenakee Inlet, even watersheds (Kadashan 

and Trap Bay) that were guaranteed permanent protection by the T ongass Timber Reform Act of 1990. 

-Other Tenakee Inlet watersheds important to Southeast Alaska's $1 billion regional salmon fishery- Crab Bay, Saltery Bay, Seal 

Bay, Long Bay1 Goose Flats- would also be opened to logging under less restrictive management practices than re.quired on federal 

land. 

~Tenakee is a rural community and is classified as "rural" for subsistence purposes, but this bill would establish an "urban" 

corporation. Tenakee can not be rural and urban at the same time, and we oppose anything that would cloud our community's 

subsistence standing, 

-Previous investigations have concluded that no group qualified for corporation status in Tenakee Inlet under ANSCA. and this bill is 

a thinly disguised attempt to withdraw lands from the Tongass National Forest to make it available for private clearcut logging. 

-Opposition to establishing a new corporation in Tenakee, or privatizing Tongass lands, does not diminish our respect for traditional 

Native culture and values. 

-S 300413273 Section 10 does not provide any maps showing potential areas to be transferred 

-S3004/3273 Section 10 does not identifY the beneficiaries of the proposed new corporations 

-S3004/3273 Section I 0 does not provide for any public process in land selection or transfer 

I am strongly opposed to 53304/3273. 

Arthur Bloom 

Resident ofTenakee Springs, Alaska 

PO Box42 

Tenakee Springs, AK 9984 I 
460 


Insert graphic folio 535 here 22000A.411

July 10, 2016 

Secretary Sally Jewell 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, DL 20240 

Chief Thomas Tidwell 

U.S. Forest Service 

1400 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20250·1111 

Secretary Tom Vilsack 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

Re: Support for proposed Methow Headwaters mineral withdrawal 

Dear Secretary Jewell, Secretary Vilsack, and Chief Tidwell: 

I am writing to express support for the proposed permanent mineral withdrawal of lands in the Methow 

Headwaters. The Methow Valley is an important and vital contributor to the economy of Okanogan 

County. Its waters are critical to farming, ranching, and salmon, and the area's aquifer supplies 

commvnlties that include Winthrop and Twisp. Its lands are home to important, diverse wildlife 

populations and provide recreational and scenic qualities that attract visitors and second homeowners 

to the valley, as well as support the livelihoods of a large number of full-time residents. 

Development of a large-scale mine in the headwaters is misplaced and threatens the qualities that 

define the Methow Valley, its economy and the rural character of Okanogan County. Further, opposition 

to large-scale mining has unified the community. Concern over a potential industrial mine in the 

Methow Headwaters has continued to grow and today includes more thon 135 diverse businesses, 

community leaders and organizations, Including the Okanogan farm Bureau, and many concerned 

citizens. 

Withdrawing these lands so that a legislative solution can be pursued Is important and urgent. I support 

immediate action by the Forest Service to imtiate the withdrawal process "in aide of legislation." In 

doing so I support the desires of our community, the continued growth of the regional economy and the 

precious water supplies that are the region's most important resource. 

Ray Campbell 

Okanogan County Commissioner, District~ 

Cc: Representative Dan Newhouse, US House of Representatives 

Senator Patty Murray, US Senate 

Senator Maria Cantwell, US Senate 

Jim Pena, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region (R6l 

Mike William, Forest Supervisor, Okanogan· Wenatchee National Forest 
461 


Insert graphic folio 536 here 22000A.412

INCORPORATED 

213 Third Street+ Juneau, Alaska 99801 + (907)586-8228 +Fax (907) 586-8226 + www.reachak.org 

October 5, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

I am in support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust land Exchange Legislation. The Alaska Mental 

Health Trust and the Trust Land Office have been working toward a land exchange for more than 10 

years with extensive public participation while defining the exchange parcels. I urge to you pass 

legislation allowing the Trust to fulfill its financial responsibility of supporting our most vulnerable 

populations in Alaska. 

Given that Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in history, legislation is the best option to complete the 

exchange in a timely fashion. In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 grants to organizations 

in Southeast, totaling more than $3 million. Another 323 Trust beneficiaries in Southeast have been 

awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over $482,000. We need to ensure that the Trust can 

continue to provide revenue for comprehensive, integrated mental health services in Alaska today and 

into the future. I cannot emphasize enough the value of this critical safety net for the most vulnerable 

Alaskans. 

The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

• Protects popular trails, viewsheds, and iconic recreational sites along the Inside Passage 

• Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

• Preserves old growth timber stands in the forest 

• Ensures jobs stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber and tourism industries 

• Protects mental health services by providing revenue to support the Trust's mission 

Without legislation we are putting our communities at risk. 

• If the Trust cannot generate revenue in a timely fashion, we jeopardize our mental health 

services. 

I want to do what is right for the Southeast community and economy, and for all of the people that 

benefit from the Trust. It's time to let the Alaska Mental Health Trust continue its critical work for those 

who experiencing mental illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism. and Alzheimer's 

disease and related dementia. 

s~~~CJ:k . .,._._ 

REACH 

Kim Champney 

Chief of Services 

~ ~ 
462 


Insert graphic folio 537 here 22000A.413

June 20,2016 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2805 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2803 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-2802 

Dear Nevada Members of Congress: 

We are writing to express our support for the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation 

Act (the "Proposed Ace) and to urge you to utilize all efforts possible to pass this Proposed Act into law. 

As you are aware, the Proposed Act was unanimously recommended by the Pershing County Commission 

to ensure the future of the County's economic well-being while protecting vital wilderness areas in the 

region. 

ln addition, the Proposed Act is absolutely critical to the future of mining in Pershing County. The Proposed 

Act will give mining companies in the County, including Clover Nevada LLC. the opportunity to purchase, 

at fair market value, the lands they currently hold under federal mining claims. 

Privatization of mining lands will provide mining companies with increased ownership and regulatory 

certainty that will lead to greater investments, additional development and production from these lands. For 

Pershing County, the foregoing will translate into much needed economic development and employment 

creation in the region. 

The State of Nevada, a national leader in mining regulation, will regulate and oversee the development and 

reclamation of these lands in the future, providing confidence to Nevadans that the lands will be developed 

and reclaimed in a responsible manner. 

The proceeds from the privatization oft he lands outlined for disposal in the Proposed Act will be distributed 

as follows: 
463 


Insert graphic folio 538 here 22000A.414

10% of the proceeds will go directly back to the County and can be utilized for critical public 

functions--·-which are desperately needed; 

5% of the proceeds will go back to the State of Nevada to be utilized for public education purposes 

across the State; and 

The remaining proceeds will be utilized by the Nevada BLM to mitigate for wild fire, sage grouse 

habitat restoration and drought mitigation. These revenues will also ensure both economic wellbeing and the future of conservation in Pershing County. 

Lastly. we support the designation of public lands as wilderness under the 196-1 Wilderness Act to protect 

Pershing County's most important wild places. This wilderness proposal is truly a grass roots effort that 

has considered all users of these public lands with great attention given to grazing. mining, recreation. and 

conservation interests. Unprecedented cooperation among often-competing interests has produced a 

County lands bill that enjoys broad support from the citizens of Pershing County and unanimous support 

by the Pershing County Commissioners. 

We appreciate your public service and look forward to working with you to enact the Pershing County 

Economic Developmenl and Conservation Act. 

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing. please feel free to contact the 

undersigned at jack.mcmahontifelkominingL:ro\!l)_com. 

Respectfully. 

~~~..-:::::::.-

Clover Nevada LLC 

Jack McMahon 

Authorized Signatory 
464 


Insert graphic folio 539 here 22000A.415

June 16, 2016 

fo!'''~~it\li'l's Wildlife offers our full support for 

d Conservation Act We believe in 

through the stakeholder 

is a great example of 

comprehensive proposal 1ild!l ontl'!e1~ff{lrtS 

County Lands Committee, a cornm,unJtv-amJen fc)!i~OI'teJ:x:lrnolicated 

land management issues in which our 

restoration, 

management 

becomes lflt;lum:uern,vpun ""''"~m<m '" 

wilderness plans. 

to deal with the complicated land management issue 

of checkerboard lands. These present a management problem both for BLM and 

private land owners and often confusion for sportsmen and other outdoor recreationalists. 

Passage of this legislation could result in a logical checkerboard resolution model, with 

large chunks of key wildlife habitat being placed in public hands while lands with economic 

<leltelclpmlent potential could be put into private hands, creating tax revenue to benefit 

"'"''"nmn County. 

NEVADA SPORTSMEN AND CONSERV A TlONISTS WORKING FOR 

THE ENHANCEMENT OF WILDUFE AND HABITAT 
465 


Insert graphic folio 540 here 22000A.416

Our organization stands ready to assist with the passage of this important legislation. We 

believe in the value of our public lands, healthy wildlife habitat, opportunities for diverse 

recreation, economic development for our counties and the enhanced quality of life those 

factors provide. We applaud the efforts of the Pershing County Commission in working to 

solve public land issues through this democratic process. 

We strongly believe that County Land Bills are the mos.t effective means of conveying 

needed federal lands to the state and private interests in contrast to wholesale transfer of 

our public federal lands to This issue be handled by local interests 

with local knowledge; in any the public 

We look forward to your introduction of this bill soon 

bipartisan work, our delegation Will ensure it's 

Sincerely, 

Larry J. Johnson- P'£~•<>irlAnt 

Tom Smith 

Stacey Trivitt Director{il\!so Carson Valley 

Joel Blakeslee- Director (also President, Nevada T.-.~ ... ~"·~ As$o<:iat!On~·. 

Judi Caron - Director (also Member, Safari Club 

Jim Puryear-- (also Director, Nevada Rin•h"rn" Uhlirni~e<:~:en;:i:llttso 

Nevada Outfitters and Guides As!soc:iation) 

Willie Molini - Director (President, Nevada IAI"'t.'"rf'niAII Assoc:iation 

Mike Cassiday - Director North,F>rn 

Les Smith- Director (also 

Karen Boeger,.. Director ( ~lso 

Bob Brunner - Director 

NEVADA SPORTSMEN AND CONSERVATIONISTS WORKING FOR 

THE ENHANCEMENT OF WILDLIFE AND HABITAT 
466 


Insert graphic folio 541 here 22000A.417

June 27, 2016 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2805 

Reid 

Building 

washington oc 10510-2803 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-2802 

Mitchel! J. Kroll• 

President & Chief Executive 

Director 

RE: Economic Development and Conservation Act Proposal- Pershing County, Nevada 

Dear Nevada Members of Congress: 

Coeur Mining has prepared this letter to express our support for the Pershing County Economic 

. Development and Conservation Act and urge you to Introduce this legislation and do all you can to enact 

this critical effort for the future of Pershing County. The Pershing County proposal, as unanimously 

recommended by the Pershing County Commission, will insure the future of the County's economic and 

conservation future by addressing critical land tenure and federal land management issues. We urge 

the Nevada Congressional Delegation to Introduce this legislation and utilize all efforts possible to enact 

this proposal into law. We stand ready and eager to assist in this important work. 

The Pershing County proposal is critical to the future of mining In Pershing County. Our company and 

others will have the opportunity to purchase at fair market value the lands we currently hold under 

federal mining claims. Privatization of these mining lands will provide these companies with increased 

ownership and regulatory certainty that leads to greater investments, additional development and 

production from these lands, and Important for Pershing County - economic development and jobs. 

Since our operations began in 191!6, the Rochester silver and gold mine in Pershing County has been an 

important contributor to the local economy and community, generating over $14 million annually in 

taxes, employment, and labor-related income revenue to Pershing County alone. The Rochester Mine 

supports sustainable development and contributes to positive economic conditions to strengthen our 

surrounding areas and communities. 

The State of Nevada, which is a national leader In mining regulation, will regulate and oversee the 

development and reclamation of these lands In the future so Nevadans can be confident that these 

lands will be developed and reclaimed In a responsible manner. 

The sale of mining lands as well as the checkerboard sales will benefit Pershing County and the State of 

Nevada through the distribution formula in the legislation. 10% of land sales will go directly back to the 

County which can be utilized for critical public functions, which is desperately needed. 5% of land sales 

will go back to the State of Nevada to be utilized for public education purposes across the State. 

Coet~r Mining, Inc. l1o4 S. Michigan Aw., Suite 900 I Chicago, Illinois 60603 I!: 312-489·58581 f; 312-489-58971 www.coeur.com 
467 


Insert graphic folio 542 here 22000A.418

Lastly, the remaining revenues will be retained by Nevada BLM to be utilized to mitigate for wild fire, 

sage grouse habitat restoration, and drought mitigation. These revenues will also insure the economic 

and conservation future in Pershing County. 

Lastly, we support the designation of public lands as Wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act to 

protect Pershing County's most important and wild places. This wilderness proposal is truly a grass 

roots effort that has considered all users of these public lands with great consideration given to grazing, 

mining, recreation, and conservation interests. The power of cooperation among often competing 

interests has produced a powerful county lands bill that enjoys broad support from the citizens of 

Pershing County and unanimous support by the Pershing County Commissioners. 

We appreciate your public service and look forward to working with you to enact the Pershing County 

Economic Development and Conservation Act. 

Sincerely, 

President and Chief Executive Officer 
468 


Insert graphic folio 543 here 22000A.419

October 5, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

We are in support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Legislation. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust and the Trust Land Office have been working 

toward a land exchange for more than 10 with extensive public 

participation. We urge you to the Trust to fulfill its 

financial responsibility of populations in Alaska. 

Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in history. Legislation is very important 

and key to help support the land exchange in a timely fashion. 

Connections provides services to a wide range of individuals in Southern 

Alaska including individuals with developmental disabilities, youth and families 

with mental health concerns and seniors who need supports to stay in their 

, own homes. The Alaska Mental Health Trust helps support our agency through 

' grant funding of our services and programs. We serve nearly 600 people and 

their families each year. We need to guarantee that the Trust can continue to 

provide revenue for comprehensive, integrated mental health services in 

Alaska, so like Community Connections can continue to serve our 

most people. 

The is of great benefit because it: 

' • popular trails, view sheds, and recreational sites along the 

Inside Passage 

Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive 

clean water 

Preserves old growth timber stands 

Ensures stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber 

and tourism HJLiu~u "'" 

Protects mental health services by providing revenue to support the 

Trust's mission 

, Without we are putting our communities at risk. 

If Trust cannot generate revenue in a timely fashion, we jeopardize 

, our mental health services. 

It is important to support the Southeast communities and economy, and for all 

of the people that benefit from the Trust. We encourage you to fully support 

the legislation for the land exchange so the Alaska Mental Health Trust can 

continue its critical work for those who mental 

develoomE!ntal disabilities, chronic and Alzheimer's and 

Executive Director 
469 


Insert graphic folio 544 here 22000A.420

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

P.O. Box 150, Nespelem. WA 99155 (509) 634-2200 

FAX: (509) 634-4116 

Honorable Patty Murray 

United State Senate 

154 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington. DC 20510 

June 9, 2016 

llonorablc Maria Cantwell 

United States Senate 

511 Hart Senate Of1ice Building 

Washington. DC 20510 

RE: Methow Headwaters Protection Act (S.2991) 

Dear Senators Murray and Cantwell: 

On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CCT), I wish to thank you for 

introducing the !liethow Headwaters Protection Act of'2016 (5.2991). which would protect the Methow 

Valley from potential mining activity in the Okanogan-Wenatchee ~ational Forest. 

The CCT's ancestral homelands lay within the Methow Valley and we oppose any development of 

large-scale mining that would desecrate our sacred, aboriginal lands. The Colville Tribes have long 

been involved in projects to restore critical habitat in the Methow with federaL state, and local partners. 

Most recently, in October 2015 the Bonneville Power Administration and the CCl"s Fish and Wildlife 

Department entered into a $417.000 agreement for the Tribes to continue habitat restoration work in the 

Methow Sub-basin. The Colville Tribes' work under this agreement will benefit Chinook salmon. 

summer steclhcad. bull trout and Pacific lamprey, and will protect the Methow River by restricting 

livestock access to critical watersheds. 

Large-scale mining in the Methow would threaten the CCT' s longstanding and ongoing habitat 

restoration efforts. Most importantly. contamination resulting ti·om the leakage of chemicals could 

affect the health and well-being for all residents of the Methow for many generations. 

We appreciate your interest in these issues and stand ready to assist in moving S.299l forward. Thank 

you for your leadership and continued support f(lr the Colville Tribes. 

If you have any questions, please feel fi·ee to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

(/ -'7 A ~(--_:>;\ 

Jim Boyd 

CIIAIRMAN 
470 


Insert graphic folio 545 here 22000A.421

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 9/22/2016 

From: Jan M. Conitz !mai!to:jconitz(illgma•[P"'·'l 

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 4:03 AM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <forttl~~..9Jd @en~se-r atggQ_y> 

Subject: S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 9/22/2016 

I am writing to express concern that some provisions of this bill will take the public lands in the Tongass 

National Forest out of the public's hands and tum them over to industrial logging and mining interests that do 

not benefit the public in general. 

Sec. 402- Valid Existing Claims: the USFS should not be restricted in being able to regulate surface use of 

Tongass National Forest lands. Otherwise the character and public benefits of these lands could be permanently 

destroyed. 

Sec. 503 - Roadless Area Conservation Rule Exemption: Why should Alaska's National Forests be exempted 

from the rule?? The reasons for the Roadless Rule are every bit as valid in Alaska's forests as they are in the 

lower48. 

Sec. 502 and 503 - Land swaps and provisions for Mental Health Trust and state forest lands are unnecessary 

and are counter to the purpose of the Tongass National Forest, which should be for the greatest possible public 

benefit 

Jan Conitz 

PO Box 100095 

Anchorage AK 99510 
471 


Insert graphic folio 546 here 22000A.422

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016, 9/22/2016 

From: Jan M. Conitz [mai:to:tQ.?'llt£\WgQ:li,lj_L;:_gq)} 

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 4:16AM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <fu..ctherecorQ_zWetH~f£Li.t~~<!l!'..K~t~> 

Subject: S, 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016, 9/22/2016 

Please accept my comments on this bilL 

Sec. 6 - Admiralty Island National Monument Land Exchange is a poor deal. The value of lands proposed to be 

provided in exchange for subsurfuce estate at Cube Cove is far higher than the value of the subsurface estate 

and gives away some of the last intact old growth forest lands on Prince of Wales Island to industrial logging 

and degradation. 

Sec. I 0 - New Native Corporations: perpetuates an existential cont1ict tor Alaska Native residents of areas in 

and around the Tongass Forest, by compelling them to log lands upon which they have depended for 

subsistence for thousands of years. The capitalist model of putting short-term profits above sustainability is 

inherently unjust to Alaska Natives, and should not be perpetuated at the expense of these forest lands and the 

people who use them. 

Sec. II -- Alaska Native Veterans AHottnent Equity: the existing processes should brought to conclusion, This 

along with other provisions in the bill appear to be motivated by certain interests seeking to convert as much 

additional old growth forest in the Tongass to short-term cash benefitting only a few and hurting the forest and 

the greater public good. 

Jan Conitz 

PO Box 100095 

Anchorage AK 99510 
472 


Insert graphic folio 547 here 22000A.423

0~/n;'2015 WED 17148 PAX 

(OVNCIL OF ATHABASCAN TR!l'lAL GOVERNMENTS 

P.O. 8ol<33 

Fort Yukon, AK 99740' 

Ph: 907-662-2587 Fa-. 907.-662~3333 

www.catg.org 

The Hooorable Lisa Murkowsld 

Chairwomtm 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Offloe Building 

Washington, DC 20510·0203 

September20, 2016 

The Honorable Maria Cant~ll 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510..4705 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

li!l002/004 

We respectfully request that these written comments be ioolu.ded as part of the september 22, 

2016 hearing record to voice our oppOilition to S. 3203. Our comments today are in opposition ofS, 

3203 and we ask that you do not move this bill forward, and if it does move forward that you sttike 

Section 403 in its entirety. 

The Salmon Fork ACEC was proposed by Alaska Naiive Tribes and Alaskan l'e»idents and was 

not imposed by the BLM. It is the fruit of 11 true grass roots efforl, democracy in a;;tion. The Salmon 

Fork ACEC is result of a near·decade long effort of advocacy, cooperation, and re»>urces that Tribes in 

Alaska devoted to the process in an "ffort to protect tl'aditionalllomelands, clean drinking water, and 

iovaluable subsistence resources. 

We have learned that in your position as Chair of the Senate Ene!'gy and Natural Resources 

Committee (ENR) you have $Cheduled a Committee hearing that will ioclude bill S. 3203- Alaska 

Economic Development and Access to ResoU!'I:es Act. The witness list has not been released yet and we respectfully request that you include a tribally·elected leader to testify on S. 3203. We believe it is 

imperative that a tribally-elected leader from our region to voice concerns in person reg~rding a bill that 

many tribal leaders believe would be detrimental to the health and welfare of tribal citizens and 

traditional tribal homelaod~. If requested, we would be happy to suggest to the ENR committee tbe 

nrunes of a few well-informed Alaska Native tribally-elected leaders who would gladly offer in-petson 

testimony. 

Tv.'O provisions iriS. 3203 are especially concerning to Tribal leadership. Section 403 would 

amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (AN!LCA) to severely limit agencies' 

ability to manage public lands and protect tribal and subsisteooe t-esouroos. It states "(c) Limitation on 

land use designations" that designation of an area of critical cnvitonmcn1al concern shall not be effective unless notice is provided to Congn:ss as v:ell as in the Federal Register, and tbe designation would 

terminate unless, not later than 1 year after the date on which notice of the action has been submitted to 

Congress, Congress passes a joint resolution of approval of the executive branch action. Additionaity, 
473 


Insert graphic folio 548 here 22000A.424

0~12172015 WED 17: H FAX ilJ0031004 

subsection "(d) Revocation of designations of areas of critical environmentlll concern" would revoke 

any area of critical environmental concern in the State in effect on the date of enactment of this 

subsootion. 

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is currently defmed in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1 702) as an area "within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or u!ied or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damllge to important historic, 

cultlll'al, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems ot proce.~ses, or to protect 

life and safety from natural hazards." 

The ACEC is used a~ an important planning tooll!y the BLM to en.~ure that protections for critical areas are given priority. FLPMA section 202, 43 U.S.C. 1712 requiros BLM give priority to identifying and designating ACECs in the course o:f developing a rosource management plan. During the public scoping process the Chalkyitsik tribal government and others nominated 1,577,752 acres of the Draanjik River watershed (Salmon Fork) as an ACEC, encompassing 66% ofBLM managed land within 

the Upper Dr!ll!lljik River Subunit. The purpose of this nomination was to protect clean drinking water and unique and irreplaceable resources that are critical to our traditional and customary land use. 

The BLM evaluated the proposal and determined that a portion of the area met the importance and relevance criteria (43 CFR 1610. 7-2) that require special management attention. The BLM included 623,000 acres in the Salmon Fork ACEC in Alternative E of the recently published pl1111, a compromise 

from the noarly 1.6 million acres originally nominated. Chalkyitsik Village Council t'Uld the Owichyaa Zhee Gwich'ill Tribal Government, as cooperating agencias in the planning process, support this oompromise and regard the designation of the Salmon Fork ACEC to be in the best interests of the Tribes. It is imperative that these special management considerations for this important area not removed. 

The BLM is currently working on three difterent resource management pltUls as well as amendments to plans and sub-plans across Alaska. Numerous Tribes h~ve nominated ACECs ln their t'l.'lgions to protect unique and important natural resourees. The management plans combined will impact nearly 100 Alaska Native Tribes. The needs of rural tribal communities must be conaidered. An ACEC is a necessary tool, not only for the BLM but also for citizens and Tribes to be meaningfully engaged in tho planning process for land management decisions that will impact Alaska Native tl'llditiona! 

homelands for many years to oome. 

We recognize that through S. 3203 you hope to create opportunities for resource development in Alaska and we understand that the ACEC revocation was included to prevent the BLM from using the designation as a management tool to create more wilderness in Alaska in oontravention to ANILCA' s "no more" clanae. However, the ACEC designation is not in violation of the "no more" clause because it does not operate to withdraw public lands and should not be equated with Conservation System Units 

· and Wilderness Areas and it does not designate wilderness. 

The Federal Lands Policy and Management Aot of 1976 (FLPMA 102(j}, 43 U.S. C. 1702@ defines tho term "withdrawal" to mean ''wilhnolding an area of l:'ederalland from settlement, sale,' location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose oflimiting activities under 

2 
474 


Insert graphic folio 549 here 22000A.425

~9/21;'2015 WED 17• 49 FAX ~0041004 

those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area fur a partieular 

public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area ofFederalland, other than 

"property" governed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended from one 

department, bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency." In applying the statute, the 

ACEC designation in iiself does not trigger the AN1LCA clause because it does not remove laudS from 

the operation of public land laws. It simply allows BLM the ability to manage areas to protect specitic 

values, like cultural and subsistence uses. 

The BLM may recommend withdrawal by the Secretary of the Interior of land~ within an ACEC 

from mineral entry. Simply making a reconwendatioo in a Resource Management Plan doesn't trigger 

ANILCA's provision. The ANILCA provisioo would not be triggered until the Secretary ac!OO on the 

recommendation and withdrew the land. Neither the designation of an ACEC by itself nor the 

recommendation for a withdrawal triggers AN!LCA 's cla!Jile beca!Jile the BLM's associated 

management prescriptions do not remove lands from the operation of public laud laws. Applying the 

definition of"withdrawal" from FLPMA to trigger ANILCA 's no-more provision, the agency must 

make land unavailable to private appropriation by removing it from operation of some or a,ll of the 

general public and laws. Neither m ACEC desiglllltion nor a recommendation to withdraw land takes 

land outofthe operation of public land laws. Neither action is a withdrawal; neither action triggers 

ANILCA's no-more provision. 

S. 3203's Section 403 (c) amends ANJLCA and puts ACECs into the "no more" category, which 

effectively removes ACEC nomination from the toolkit Tribes may use to participate ln land 

management actions affecting them, The result will be to disempower Tribes by weakening their ability 

to protect traditional resources, Our Tribes have worked extremely hard over the past eight years to gain 

protection for the Salmon Fork through ACEC designation in the Eastern Interior plan. We have 

expended scarce resources and considerable staff and volunteoc time on education and advocacy efforts. 

The provision in your bill that would strip Alaska of its current ACBC protections, disregards the vnlue 

and work of tribally elected leaders, advocates, elders and traditional chie:fl!. Many of the elders and 

chie:fl! who participated in this planning process have dedicated their life's work to protecting the 

Draanjik region ll!ld have since passed away. 

ln conclusion, we respectfully request that the provision ofS 3203 concerning ACECs in Alaska 

be reconsidered and rescinded. At the least, we ask this bill be tabled and that you provide au outreach 

effort to tribes. As written, the bill would usurp the government-to-government relationship and 

dishonor the trust responsibility the federal government owes to Tribes. It also directly erodes the 

Tribe's voice as cooperating agenoies. Alaska Tribes should be consulted especially as this legislation 

directly impacts Tribes and critical protectiQns n~eded to a.void exposing saered traditional homelru~ds 

and clean river water to potential environmental disaster. 

Si7JJaALWoodie W. Salmon 

Chairman 

Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments 

3 
475 


Insert graphic folio 550 here 22000A.426

September 19, 2016 

Honorable Senator Murkowski 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Senator Cantwell 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Southwest Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act 

Dear Senators Murkowski and Cantwell: 

We are a group of small business owners, sportfishermen, and a local mayor in Curry County, 

Oregon. Our community, businesses -and favorite recreation -are based on the clean water 

and salmon in our rivers. Our local Chambers of Commerce call our corner of Oregon 

"America's Wild Rivers Coast" because each fall and winter nearly 100,000 people come here to 

fish for big salmon and steelhead. 

For that reason, we are grateful to Senators Wyden and Merkley for introducing the 

Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act, and we urge you to support it. 

The bill is a non-controversial, straightforward "mineral withdrawal." 

We need it because two companies, one foreign-owned, want to develop strip mines for nickel 

at the headwaters of some our best rivers, including the renowned National Wild and Scenic 

Illinois, Rogue, and Smith. The ore is poor grade so any mining would require moving a huge 

amount of earth and cause a lot of damage for not a lot of gain. 

Our clean rivers are the economic engines of our small coastal communities that depend on 

tourism. According to an Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife report, freshwater fishing 

brings in nearly $5 million to our county (latest data is 2007). The same report estimated that 

visitors made 98,000 freshwater fishing trips and local people made 87,000 fishing trips 

annually. These add up to a lot of fishing and fishing-generated revenue that is a key to our 
476 


Insert graphic folio 551 here 22000A.427

local economy, rural food system, and quality of life for residents. The last thing we need is 

mine pollution, and we don't trust the EPA to keep our river waters clean. 

This bill is non controversial. The legislation is supported by local businesses, sportsmen's 

groups, and our city. Please see the attached list of local business supporters and resolutions 

from the City of Gold Beach in support of the mineral withdrawal. Two public hearings held by 

the Forest Service last fall to consider a temporary withdrawal in aid of this legislation drew 500 

local people in support. The public comment period drew 45,000 comments; 99 percent were in 

support. 

Because our livelihoods depend on keeping our water clean and filled with salmon, we urge you 

to support this popular and non-controversial bill. 

If you have any questions or want to come and fish for salmon on our coast, please give a call. 

Respectfully, 

/ s/ .2>ave Lacey 

South Coast Tours 

Gold Beach, OR, (541} 373-0487 

/s/ >'"/arvey Yoa"'} 

Fishawk River Company 

Brookings, OR 

/s/ JOMeS 5M;th 

Arch Rock Brewing Company 

Gold Beach OR 

/s/ Larry Brennan 

Arch Rock Brewing Company, 

Gold Beach OR 

/sf Karl Po;>of'l' 

Mayor 

City of Gold Beach, OR 
477 


Insert graphic folio 552 here 22000A.428

LOCAL BUSINESS SUPPORT 

FOR SOUTHWESTERN OREGON SALMON AND WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT 

We the undersigned businesses of southwest Oregon need your help in protecting the 

headwaters of the National Wild and Scenic Illinois and Smith Rivers, as well as Hunter 

Creek and Pistol River from proposed nickel strip mines. We respectfully ask you to protect 

this important area of our beloved region by passing the Southwestern Oregon Salmon and 

Watershed Protection Act of 2015. 

Tourism, recreation and related business ventures are a growing industry and asset to the 

Illinois Valley, Curry County and surrounding areas in Southwest Oregon. Businesses 

depend on clean water and the scenery that draw people to the Wild Rivers Coast as well as 

the Illinois Valley. The communities that surround the Smith, Illinois and Hunter Creek 

watersheds have so much to gain from healthy, protected watersheds. Investment in 

sustainable industries and community infrastructure will add to the attractiveness of the 

region bringing new businesses and residents alike. With the threat of destructive nickel 

strip mining, these natural treasures and related local industries of southwest Oregon are 

endangered. 

We believe that clean water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities, must 

be protected at the present, and preserved for future generations. This high quality of life 

attracts new residents and creates jobs that strengthen our small businesses and local 

communities. Please protect the headwaters of the Smith, Illinois, Pistol and Hunter Creek 

to support the community's efforts in promoting sustainable economic development in 

Southwest Oregon's Wild Rivers Country. 

Sincerely, 

South Coast Tours LLC 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Fishawk River Company 

Brookings, OR 97444 

Crumley's Guide Service 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Smithstonian Design 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Arch Rock Brewing 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Team Sucio Productions 

Pistol River, OR 97444 

Siskiyou Forestry 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

RMDC Consultants 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Confluence Outfitters 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Travis Bowman Guide Service 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Catch of the Day 

Wedderburn, OR 97444 

Shane's Welding 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 
478 


Insert graphic folio 553 here 22000A.429

Hunter Creek Bar and Grill 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Confluence Outfitters 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Helen's Guide Service 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Bryson Appraisals 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Barnacle Bistro 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Three Wishes Beads 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Mark Van Hook Guide Service 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Gene Garner Guiding 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Bill Monroe Outdoors 

Gresham, OR 97080 

Early Fishing 

Brookings, OR 97115 

Dean Finnerty Guides & Outfitters 

Cottage Grove, OR 97424 

Interior Cover Ups 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Finish Line Copy Services 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Sew Like the Wind 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Wilderness Canyon Adventures 

Pistol River, OR 97444 

TNT Electronics 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Picture This Photography and Framing 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Dave Lacey Woodworking 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Tradewinds Bamboo Nursery 

Hunter Creek, OR 97444 

Fox and Fern Botanicals 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Five Star Charters 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Curry Home Inspection 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Wild Rivers Art Emporium 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Sacred Gifts 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Denny Hughsons Rogue Guide Service 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Bob Reese Fishing Guide 

Bay City, OR 97107 

Western Waters Guide Service 

Brookings, OR 97415 

VIP Outdoors 

Molalla, OR 97038 

Wild Rivers Fishing 

Brookings, OR 97415 
479 


Insert graphic folio 554 here 22000A.430

RESOLUTION Rl516-16 

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN OREGON WATERSHED AND SALMON 

PROTECTION ACT OF 2015-MINERAL MINING WITHDRAWAL FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL 

LANDS IN CURRY & JOSEPHINE COUNTY 

WHEREAS, Federal Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley introduced Senate Bill 346, and 

Federal Representative Peter DeFazio introduced House Bill 682, both known as the 

Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015; and 

WHEREAS, those federal bills were introduced to protect the Hunter Creek and Pistol River 

watersheds from the catastrophic effects of nickel mining at Red Flats; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed nickel mining at Red Flats is by a foreign owned company and their 

venture will bring no economic benefit to Curry County; and 

WHEREAS, it appears that special interest lobbyists are attempting to persuade federal 

senate and house members from other regions and states that the mining proposal is an 

economic benefit to our region and our region supports the mining; and 

WHEREAS, the Wild Rivers Coast which starts at Klamath, California and extends north to 

Bandon, Oregon has the highest concentration of federally designated Wild & Scenic Rivers 

in the United States: the Klamath, the Smith, the Chetco, the Rogue, the Illinois, and the 

Elk-the area encompassed by the act as introduced in the S346 & HR682 federal bills; and 

WHEREAS, in the past 4 years, Travel Oregon and the Wild Rivers Coast Regional Tourism 

Collaborative (comprised of city, county, state, and local tourism and economic 

development professionals) have invested a significant amount oftime and resources in 

developing an experiential outdoor recreation economy on the south coast because of the 

region's superlative natural resources and scenic wonders; and 

WHEREAS, any large scale mining, but specifically nickel mining at Red Flats, will have a 

detrimental and devastating impact on habitat, fish and wildlife, the environment, and our 

fragile tourism economy. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT resolved the City Council of the City of Gold Beach formally 

opposes any mining in the national forest surrounding our community, but specifically the 

Red Flats nickel mining proposal, and fervently supports the efforts of Senators Wyden & 

Merkley, and Representative DeFazio to have the areas designated in S346 and HR682 

PERMANENTALY WITHDRAWN from any possible or future mining. 

Page 1 of2 

Resolution Rl516·16 
480 


Insert graphic folio 555 here 22000A.431

PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLD BEACH, COUNTY OF CURRY, STATE OF 

OREGON, and EFFECTIVE THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2016. 

Page 2 of 2 

Resolution R1516-16 
481 


Insert graphic folio 557 here 22000A.433

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: fW: S 3203 and 53713 

·····Original Message---· 

From: Bonnie Demerjian [mailto:bhdemerjian@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 11:15 PM 

To: forthere<:ord (Energy) <fortherecord_@energy.senate.gov> 

Subject: S 3203 and 53273 

We are writing to express our deep dismay over Senator Mutf<owski's bills 53203 and 53273. Contrary to the intent of 

these measures, we want Tongass National Forest lands to remain in public hands and be managed in the best interests 

of ALL Americans, not special interest groups. 

Bonnie and Haig Demerjian 

PO Sox 1762 

Wrangell, AK 99929 

Sent from my iPad 
482 


Insert graphic folio 558 here 22000A.434

Statement of Lisa Diekmann 

Regarding S. 3192, The Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act of2016 

Submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

October 5, 2016 

Chairman Murkowki, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee, 

My name is Lisa Diekmann, and I am writing to express my deep appreciation 

to all of you for your recent hearing regarding S. 3192, the Alex Diekmann 

Designation Act of 2016, and for your gratifying interest in commemorating the life 

and work of my late husband. 

As you know, a broad spectrum of public officials, community leaders, 

ranchers, farmers, and other landowners, eminent conservationists, and many other 

people from my state of Montana and elsewhere have urged passage of this 

legislation, which recognizes Alex's remarkable work to conserve a host of iconic 

places throughout the Northern Rockies. Many of these people have shared their 

personal stories about the unique, abiding value of Alex's conservation 

achievements and his special role in their lives and their communities. I am grateful, 

as you consider the naming of Alex Diekmann Peak, for the opportunity to add my 

own perspective to theirs, and for the inclusion of this brief statement in your 

hearing record. 

Like so many families in our hometown of Bozeman, throughout the West, 

and all across America, our family is deeply connected to the remarkable scenic 

lands that surround us. These are the mountains we hike, the trails we run and ski, 

the rivers we fish, but the connection runs deeper still; just as we are a part of this 

landscape, it truly is a part of us. I was blessed to share that experience with Alex 

and our two sons, Logan and Liam, in the life we shared here, not only in the time we 

spent enjoying it, but also in his passionate commitment to protecting it for us today 

and for the generations to come. 

Alex spent a full but all-too-brief career here conserving the scenery, natural 

resources, and recreation access that are part and parcel of life in Montana. I admit 

that I am biased when it comes to Alex's achievements, but the facts with regard to 

his accomplishments on behalf of others are clearly evident: protecting over 

100,000 acres of spectacular mountains and valleys, farms and ranches, fishing and 

hunting access, and critical wildlife habitat. His presence is still here, in all those 

places that are protected thanks to his investment of spirit- from Glacier National 

Park, the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, and Whitefish Lake in northern Montana to the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem closer to our home, to celebrated national treasures 

outside the state, including the Salmon River and the Sawtooths in Idaho and Devil's 

Canyon in Wyoming. 
483 


Insert graphic folio 559 here 22000A.435

Among that panoply of conservation highlights, the currently unnamed peak 

that would be named for Alex through the bill you are considering has a particular 

significance. It stands as a sentinel above the Madison River, rising up from a 

wonderful ranch that Alex was able to protect for the future. This is where Alex 

helped to safeguard some 13 miles of amazing Madison River frontage, forging an 

unlikely partnership of landowners, public agencies, and other community interests 

to conserve and restore a world-class resource. It is also where he taught our boys 

to fish and where, at his request, we scattered his ashes, so he could remain here 

forever. 

I have been deeply touched and overwhelmed by the outpouring of support 

for the designation of Alex Diekmann Peak in recognition of his work, and his 

remarkable gift for bringing people together to protect the open spaces they love. I 

am particularly grateful to Senators Steve Daines and jon Tester, and to 

Congressman Ryan Zinke, for their many kindnesses to my family and their efforts 

to make this designation a reality. 

For me, Alex is imprinted already on the map of the Madisons, as it is on all 

the other places of his work life and of our life together. The official naming of Alex 

Diekmann Peak will serve as a beautiful, appropriate, lasting reminder for one and 

all of the surpassing value of my husband's public-interest work, and of the model 

for positive change that work represents. Thank you so very much for what you are 

doing to honor my husband, his conservation legacy, and a very special place. 
484 


Insert graphic folio 560 here 22000A.436

October 4, 2016 

DONN lESON SADDLES 

211t COACH D.RI~t: · GIIIA .. l'S PASt, OttEGOIIt 97127 

PHON< 1541) 476·1762 · OO,.NhUO .. IADOL~.CO" 

TESTIMONY from Donn and Karin Leson of Donn Leson Saddles, Grants Pass, 

Oregon in support of the Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed 

Protection Act (S. 346 and H.R. 682). 

Our small business has customers from around the world, but we make our 

home in Southwest Oregon because of the quality of life it provides and the 

accessibility to some of the finest National Forest and Bureau of Land 

Management lands in the West. These federal public lands and the beautiful 

rivers and creeks that flow through them are priceless to us. 

One of our very favorite areas is the Rough and Ready Creek watershed, which 

is subject to the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act's 

mineral withdrawal provisions. It's an irreplaceable gem that provides many 

delights and hikes-from short to long-and one of the finest swimming holes in 

an area of who's rivers have of the cleanest, clearest water in the nation. 

Just south of Rough and Ready Creek, in the wilds of the unprotected South 

Kalmiopsis, is the Baldface Creek and North Fork Smith River watersheds. Like 

Rough and Ready Creek, the area is also subject to the Act. This is an 

exceptional area of wild creeks, rare plant wetlands, vast vistas and big skies. 

As with the adjacent Rough and Ready Creek Watershed, it produces some of 

the cleanest, clearest water in the nation. 

Mine development, ore haul roads and nickel processing facilities would have 

irreversible impacts to this mostly pristine area-altering its character forever 

and degrading the exceptional water quality of these creeks and National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers. 

We commend and thank Senators Wyden and Merkley and Representatives 

DeFazio and Huffman for introducing and working to pass into law the 

Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protections Act 

With appreciation, 

Donn and Karin Leson 
485 


Insert graphic folio 561 here 22000A.437

Aubrey Dunn 

COMMISSIONER 

September 21, 2016 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski 

United States Senate 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

State of !New :M.e:(jco 

Commissioner of <Pu6Cic 

Lands 

310 OLD SANTA FE TRAIL 

P.O. BOX 11'18 

SAl'ITA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-1118 

RE: S. 3049 (Organ Mountains Desert Peaks Conservation Act) 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

COMMISSIONER'S 

OliFlCE 

Phone(505)827-5760 

Fax (505) 827-5766 

www.nmstatelands.org 

I am writing in opposition to S. 3049 (the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act) sponsored by 

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and cosponsored by U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) because of its 

negative effect on neighboring state trust lands. 

The bill seeks to designate 19,197 acres of wilderness in association with the existing Organ MountainsDesert Peaks National Monument in southern New Mexico. Over 73,000 acres of New Mexico state trust 

lands are already landlocked within the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, which has 

greatly limited the Land Office's ability to lease this lar>d and generate the support that was intended 

when those lands were granted to the state by the U.S. Congress through the Enabling Act of 1910. The 

additional wilderness designation will land lock an additional6,720 surface and mineral state trust land 

acres more or less, and approximately 1,280 split-estate mineral acres. By essentially eliminating any 

productive use that may be made of this land, passage of this legislation would undermine achievement 

of the purposes intended when the state trust lands were granted; namely, support of public schools, 

universities, hospitals and other important institutions in New Mexico. 

With low oil prices already severely reducing state trust land revenues, the proposed designation of new 

wilderness areas will only add insult to injury and further reduce "'venues needed to provide educational 

opportunities for New Mexico's schoolchildren and other basic state functions. In total, recent 

designations of national monuments and wilderness study areas and execution of conservation 

agreements for threatened species in New Mexico have reduced or eliminated productive use of 
486 


Insert graphic folio 562 here 22000A.438

162,000 acres of state trust lands. As New Mexico's State Land Commissioner, I have a fiduciary 

responsibility to ensure that state trust lands provide the support that was intended when the lands were 

granted in trust, and I will not stand idly by and watch the federal government commit another land grab. 

WhileS. 3049 would ;wthorize the Department of the Interior to acquire the state trust lands in two of 

the affected townships and convey other, unidentified federal lands in exchange, prior experience 

working with the BLM indicates that this is a woefully inadequate remedy. Since taking office in January 

of 2015, I have sought to work with the BLM to identify dispos<JIIands that could be conveyed in 

exchange for state trust bnds landlocked within the recently designated Rio Grande Del Norte National 

Monument, but those efforts have not succeeded. I have no reason to believe that the authority granted 

in this bill would be used any more effectively to achieve timely and effective compensation for the 

detriment that the wilderness designation will cause to the state trust 

Therefore, I oppose uny designation of wilderness a reds proposed in S. 3049. Without lesislation that will 

result in making the trust whole again to serve its original purpose of benefiting New Mexico's 

universities, hospitals, other important institutions and primarily the public schoolchildren in New 

Mexico, I will continue to strongly oppose this legislation. 

Land Commissioner 
487 


Insert graphic folio 563 here 22000A.439

September 22, 20 16 

Chairwoman 

Lisa Markowski 

E.\HTIIW<)HI\S 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Support for the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon 

Protection Act of 2015 (S. 346) 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this letter in support of S. 346, the Southwestern 

Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015. There is overwhelming local and 

regional support from residents, businesses. elected officials and tribes for protecting the 

conservation and economic values of the pristine rivers of Southwestern Oregon via this 

legislation. 

We would like to thank Senators Wyden and Merkley for introducing S. 346 and also 

Representatives Peter DeFazio (OR) and Jared Huffman (CA), who have introduced companion 

legislation in the House of Representatives (ll.R. 682). 

Earthworks is a national 50 l (c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to protecting communities 

and the environment against the adverse effects of mineral and energy development. We 

represent approximately 75,000 members, including those who live. recreate and work in the 

Kalmiopsis region of southwest Oregon. 

This legislation would protect key salmon habitat that contributes to major regional commercial 

and sport-fishing industries. The Wild and Scenic Rogue River alone contributes an estimated 

1612 K ST. N.W. /SUITE 8o8/WASHlNGTON, DC 20006 /P 202 8871872 F 202 8871875 /VV\NW.EARTHWORKSACT!Oi\J.ORG 
488 


Insert graphic folio 564 here 22000A.440

S 16 million every year into the economy of southwest Oregon.' 

As you are likely aware, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are currently 

pursuing a temporary mineral withdrawal in aid of S. 346. In response to this proposal, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service highlighted the tremendous conservation value of the region, stating 

that the Kalmiopsis-Siskiyou region hosts some of the most productive salmon and steelhead 

fisheries outside of Alaska. The agency further stated that "Salmonid strongholds, including ESA 

listed Coho salmon and nationally significant Wild and Scenic Rivers, occur throughout the 

proposed withdrawal area. and concluded that, "Withdrawing this area from mining will provide 

needed long-term habitat conservation benefits to lamprey and native freshwater resident fishes 

while simultaneously benefiting anadromous salmonid species.''' 

Once again. we express our strong support for this legislation. 

Thank you. 

1 ECONorthwesL The Economic Value of Rogue River Salmon. p. I (January 2009). Available at 

http:l/kswild.org/what-we-do-2/WildlandProtcction/RogucSalmonFinalReport.pdf, last visited 

September 20, 20 !6. 

'U.S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to State Director BLM from State Supervisor 

Oregon Fish and Wildli!C Office, comments on the proposed mineral withdrawal hy the Bureau of Land 

Management and U.S. Forest Service in southwestern Oregon iFWS Tails #tOIEOFW00-2015-CPA-0060. 

1612. K ST. N.W. /SUITE. 808 /WASHINGTON, DC 20006/ P 202 8871872 f 202 8871875/WWW.EARTHWORKSACTION.ORG 
489 


Insert graphic folio 565 here 22000A.441

ELKD 

M I N I N 6 6 IHJ tJ P tLc 

June 15,2016 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate OffiCe Building 

Washington DC 20510-2805 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2803 

The Hononble Mark Amodei 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-2802 

Dear Nevada Members of Congress: 

We are writing to express our support for the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation 

Act (the "Proposed Act") and to urge you to utilize all possible efforts to pass the Proposed Act into law. 

The Proposed Act will give mining companies in Pershing County, including the companies managed by 

Elko Mining Group LLC ("Elko"), namely: Solidus Resources, LLC ("Solidus"). and Clover Nevada LLC 

("Clover"), the opportunity to purchase, at fair market value, the lands they currently hold under federal 

mining claims. 

The privatization of Solidus's and Clover's lands will provide the companies with increased regulatory 

certainty and will result in an accelerated permitting process for the companies' mining projects in the 

County. The accelerated permitting will allow for the swift construction of the projects, leading to rapid 

job creation in the County, and spurring increased investments in the County by both companies. 

Elko's employees appreciate your public service and look forward to supporting you as you endeavor to 

enact the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act. 

concerns regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact 

l!!t;k!JJ&llll!!JQ!li!!!.<O!.~Q.!JJU!J!JJ!>&f.Q~~J2·<0~!m. on behalf of the undersigned. 
490 


Insert graphic folio 566 here 22000A.442
491 


Insert graphic folio 567 here 22000A.443

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2805 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2803 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-2802 

Dear Nevada Members of Congress: 

We are writing to express our support for the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation 

Act and urge you to introduce this legislation and do all you can to enact this critical effort for the future 

of Pershing County. The Pershing County proposal, as unanimously recommended by the Pershing 

County Commission, will insure the future of the County's economic and conservation future by 

addressing critical land tenure and federal land management issues. We urge the Nevada Congressional 

Delegation to introduce this legislation and utilize all efforts possible to enact this proposal into law and 

we stand ready and eager to assist in this important work. 

The Pershing County proposal is critical to the future of mining in Pershing County as our company and 

others will have the opportunity to purchase at fair market value the lands we currently hold under 

federal mining claims. Privatization of these mining lands will provide these companies with increased 

ownership and regulatory certainty that leads to greater investments, additional development and 

production from these lands and important for Pershing County-economic development and jobs. The 

State of Nevada, who is a national leader in mining regulation, wHI regulate and oversee the 

development and reclamation of these lands in the future so Nevadans can be confident that these 

lands will be developed and reclaimed in a responsible manner. 

The sales of mining lands as well as the checkerboard sales will benefit Pershing County and the State of 

Nevada through the distribution formula in the legislation. 10% of land sales will go directly back to the 

County which can be utilized for critical public functions-which is desperately needed. 5% of land sales 

wl!l go back to the State of Nevada to be utilized for public education purposes across the State. Lastly, 

the remaining revenues will be retained by Nevada BLM to be utilized to mitigate for wild fire, sage 

grouse habitat restoration, and drought mitigation. These revenues will also insure the economic and 

conservation future in Pershing County. 

Lastly, we support the designation of public lands as Wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act to 

protect Pershing County's most Important and wild places. This wilderness proposal is truly a grass 

roots effort that has considered all users of these public lands with great consideration given to grazing, 

mining, recreation, and conservation interests. The power of cooperation among often competing 

interests has produced a powerful county lands bill that enjoys broad support from the citizens of 

Pershing County and unanimous support by the Pershing County Commissioners. 
492 


Insert graphic folio 568 here 22000A.444

EpMinerals=--®--

We appreciate your public service and look forward to working with you to enact the Pershing County 

Economic Development and Conservation Act. 

Sincerely, 

:::!:~ President and CEO 

EP Minerals, lLC 
493 


Insert graphic folio 569 here 22000A.445

Testimony of Congressman Sam Farr 

H.R. 1838, the Clear Creek National Recreation Area 

and Conservation Act 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests, and Mining 

Madam Chairwoman. members of the Subcommittee. thank you for this opportunity to 

speak to you about H.R. 1838, the Clear Creek National Recreation Area and Conservation Act 

On behalf of myself and my House colleagues Mr. Valadao and Mr. Denham. I want to thank 

you for considering this important legislation. This bill truly represents a bipartisan 

collaboration and l am proud to have them join me in working to advance this modest bill. 

On July 5, 2016, the House passed H.R. 1838 by voice vote under a motion to suspend 

the rules and pass the bill. This legislation protects and enhances in three ways the public's 

access to and enjoyment of some of the unique public lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in Central California. First. the bill re-designates the Clear Creek 

Management Area (CCMA) as the Clear Creek National Recreation Area (CCNRA) and reopens 

it to off road vehicle (OHV) recreation. Second. the bill designates the adjacent Joaquin Rocks 

landscape as wilderness and finally designates 5 BLM identified streams in the area as National 

Wild & Scenic Rivers. 

These actions together encapsulate the ctTorts of both the OHV community and 

California's wilderness advocates and ensures that this legislation has a broad base of support 

from the community and local electeds. l would now like to take the opportunity to describe 

these three facets of the bill in more detail. 

Clear Creek 

The Clear Creek stream gives its name to approximately 65.000 acres of mountainous 

land managed by the BLM that lies in the Diablo Mountains between the coastal Salinas Valley 

and California's great inland Central Valley. Designated by the BLM as the CCMA, this area 

includes a significant concentration of serpentine rock at the surface which leaves many stretches 

of open barren slope ideally suited to OHV recreation. BLM recognized this and managed 

approximately 30.000 acres of the CCMA for public OHV recreational use. As OHV recreation 

grew in popularity through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, Clear Creek became a haven for dirt bike 

enthusiasts and others drawn to its open spaces and challenging terrain. By 2005. annual use had 

grown to over 35,000 visitors, including hikers. campers, hunters, rock collectors, but primarily 

OHV users. 

In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a study that 

concluded the naturally occuuing asbestos prevalent in the CCMA's serpentine soils posed an 

unacceptable cancer risk to members of the public, especially OHV users, recreating within its 

boundaries. People familiar with the CCMA area had long understood that its serpentine rock 
494 


Insert graphic folio 570 here 22000A.446

contained uncommon concentrations of asbestos. Indeed. throughout the 1960s and 70s. the 

Atlas Asbestos Company operated an asbestos mine in the CC'VIA. In I 984. the BLM 

designated approximately 31, 000 acres within the CCMA that had the highest concentrations of 

serpentine soils as the Clear Creek Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

In the years leading up to 2008, BLM increasingly had taken measures to minimize the 

recreating public's asbestos exposure. However, until the EPA's report. the BLM lacked any 

clear quantification of the risks associated with OHV use. With those risk numbers at hand. 

BLM leadership felt that it could no longer permit the OilY and other uses that it had up to that 

point. So on May 1 '', 2008, BLM issues a temporary closure order for the CCMA and initiated 

the '-Jational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to reach a decision on a long term plan. 

In February of this year. the BLM completed that process with the release of its tina! Record of 

Decision for the CCMA. That decision allows limited public access to but makes permanent the 

2008 ban on OHV use within the CCMA. 

The 2008 closure sparked an intense outcry from the OHV community. Obviously. 

people resented loosing access to one of the premier OHV locations in the western United States 

and one at which many of them had been riding at for years. The surrounding communities felt 

the loss of visitor income when people stopped traveling to Clear Creek. BLM's public meeting 

on the subject of the closure regularly drew hundreds of people. Many argued that the EPA· s 

study over sampled the amount of asbestos an OilY user would typically be exposed to riding at 

Clear Creek. In 2011, the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation's on: 

Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission even sponsored an alternative analysis of 

EPA's data that concluded the health risk to OHV use in the CCMA was far less than that 

identif1ed by EPA. 

H.R. 1838 stands for the proposition that the Americans ought to have a greater degree of 

freedom in judging the risks that they can accept while recreating on our public lands. I have 

no doubt that riding a motorcycle at Clear Creek is risky and that riders face additional risks 

from asbestos exposure. And I do not question the good intentions of BL'VI's leadership in 

making the management decisions that they did in the face of the health risks outlined by EPA. 

It was an understandable reaction in today's risk adverse world. But should we banish all risk 

from public lands recreation? Hunting. skiing. rock climbing, mountaineering. diving. boating, 

surfing, kayaking. and any number of other outdoor sports pose risks. In some cases, people lose 

their lives or suffer serious injury while engaged in one of these recreational activities. Provided 

the risk is not so overwhelming and the person recreating knows the nature and magnitude of the 

risk. the federal government ought not to substitute its own judgment in place of the individual 

knowingly taking on the risk. 

1-LR. 1838 establishes the CCMA as the Clear Creek National Recreation Area 

(CCNRA). It directs the BLM to reopen the CCNRA to ofOHV recreation. It provides for 

BLM to reuse its 2006 route plan developed prior to the 2008 shutdown on an interim basis 
495 


Insert graphic folio 571 here 22000A.447

while it develops a long term plan. Within these parameters, the bill provides BLM the broad 

discretion to implement measures to minimize the recreating public's exposure to asbestos. It 

also gives the BLM the authority to levy a recreational user fee and apply the proceeds to the 

management ofOHV recreation at CCNRA and to contract with qualified state or local 

government agencies to manage all or a portion of the CCNRA's recreational activities. Finally, 

the bill requires an extensive public information effort to fully inform people recreating within 

the CCNRA of all known and suspected asbestos related health risks associated with recreation 

within the CCNRA . 

.Joaquin Rocks Wilderness 

Just to the cast of the Clear Creek Management Area and wholly outside the traditional 

OHV riding areas lays a little known natural wonder called the Joaquin Rocks. 1 I.R. 1838 would 

designate approximately 21,000 acres of this feature and the surrounding ridgeline as federal 

wilderness all which is located entirely on Bureau of Land Management administered lands in 

the southern Diablo Range 

The area takes its name from the legendary Joaquin Murieta, believed by some to be a 

heroic figure in early California and an outlaw by others. The Joaquin Rocks are said to have 

provided a secluded hiding place for him and his band during the 1850s. The area also shows 

archeological evidence of past Native American occupation. Rising up over 4,000 feet from the 

valley floor, the striking Joaquin Rocks are the centerpiece of this remote area. These three 

scenic 250' tall monoliths arc the eroded remnants of an ancient vaqueros sandstone formation. 

The area features numerous rugged canyons. Oak woodlands cloak the numerous spur 

ridges that descend down to the valley. Vegetation in the area includes, blue oak, California 

juniper, grey pine. chaparral, and native grasslands. Due to the cooler climate provided by its 

elevation. the area delivers outstanding displays of native wildt1owers well into summer. The 

steep cliffs of the Joaquin Rocks-and the numerous other towering sandstone formations found 

throughout the area ~are host to species of falcons. hawks and owls. These formations could also 

provide potential nesting habitat for the California condor which has been reintroduced into the 

nearby Gavilan Range. One of the peaks of the Joaquin Rocks- La Centinela- hosts a unique 

vernal pool supporting fairy and tadpole shrimp. 

In closing Madam Chairwoman, I want to recognize several people who have played an 

important role in shaping this legislation. Don Amador from the Blue Ribbon Coalition and 

Gordon Johnson from the California Wilderness Alliance are the odd couple of California public 

lands policy. Their collaboration provided the initial inspiration f(lr this bill and helped resolve 

countless details over the course of its drafting. I also want to thank the BLM's local staff who 

has been extremely helpful and professional throughout this process. And finally I \vant to thank 

several constituents who never let me forget how important Clear Creek was to them: Ed Tobin 
496 


Insert graphic folio 572 here 22000A.448

with the Salinas Ramblers :vlotorcycle Clllb is a tireless organizer who has kept the Clear Creek 

riding community focused on the public and political process; and Ron DeShazer, a retired 

forklift operator and a long time Clear Creek rider, came to dozens of town halls and other 

meetings for the last six years to calmly ask for Congressional assistance to reopen Clear Creek 

to public OHV use, 
497 


Insert graphic folio 573 here 22000A.449

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: Comments on the Senate Bills 5. 3203, hearing date 9/22/16 

From: Cheryl Fecko [maiito:cherylfecko\WgmoiL\-.QJ.1~] 

Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:50 PM 

To: fortherecord (Energy} <forthergcord @e~~.IR~Q~J..S£Qy> 

SUbject: Comments on the Senate Bills S. 3203, hearing date 9/22/16 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee-To whom it may concern, 

I am writing this email to voice my opposition to all of the proposed Senate Bills that will continue to privatize 

the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska. For 30 years I have lived, worked, and recreated on Prince of 

Wales Island (POW), the 3rd largest island in the US. We previously have had access to public lands on POW 

to hunt, fish, harvest wood, many of us living a near subsistence lifestyle by choosing. If these bills become law 

that lifestyle and that access will diminish. 

Prince of Wales Island was hit hard in the early days of intensive logging, and continues to be divided up and 

logged by legislation that puts National Forestland in private hands taking land managed for multiple use and 

designating it for clearcut logging. The logging practices used by State, private, and Native lands is another 

reason to leave our public lands public. Logging is done with less protection for scenic byways, beach fringe 

and lakeside buffers, wildlife corridors, and smaller but vital fish streams. As more and more public land 

becomes private land, these important forest components and the forest as an ecosystem loses. 

I mention Prince of Wales Island not only because it is where I live but because it now seems that any prologging legislation gets slapped on Prince of Wales. I get it, our voices are small in number and not as loud, but 

we care for our communities, watersheds, and surroundings just like others do. I get it, there is one mill left and 

it's on POW island, but it has to ship out in some cases 60% of what is harvested to stay in business. Is that 

keeping a "mill" in business? 

S. 3203 is especially directed at public lands on Prince of Wales Island, that will allow mines unregulated access to forest 

land, and allow Mental Health Trust and the State of Alaska to take lands managed for multiple use and manage millions 

of acres for only one use-clearcut logging. Most of the Mental Health Trust land Exchange will lag steep slopes and 

community backdrops on POW. It's just not fair. I thought the days of such logging practices were gone, but apparently 

not. 

8.3273 allows for new Native corporations to form. Haven't we seen what a disaster that model held for Native 

corporations formed through ANSCA? And again here is another bill meant to privatize public land that we all access and 

utilize. We are now seeing that permits need to be purchased to access tribal lands on Prince of Wales Island. This may 

be just the beginning. 

I am appealing to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to keep the Tongass National Forest public lands 

public. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, 

Cheryl Fecko 

Prince of Wales Island Resident 
498 


Insert graphic folio 574 here 22000A.450

S~n. Lisa Murkowski 

S~n. Marla Cantwell 

Forest RecreaHon Management, Inc. 

PO Box 1168, Hill City, SD 57745 

605-574-4402, fax 605-574-4407 

September 21, 2016 

En~rgy and Natural Resources Committee Office 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dsat Senators, 

In committee tomorrow (Thursday), you will be marking up an amendment that will transfer 

land and facilities from the Black Hills National Forest to the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks. The main purpose of the bill, sponsored by the South Dakota 

delegation, is to create a new State Park in Spearfish Canyon. P;;~rt ofthe proposed action is to 

include the transfer of Forest Service holdings around Bismarck Lake, including a campground 

and summer camp. Bismarck laf.:~ is 50 miles from Spearfish Canyon and is totally unrelated to 

Spearfish Canyon. While we would like to keep all three of them in our permit area, Bismarck 

lake is of our highest concern. 

Forest Recreation Management, Inc,, of which lam the President, encourages you to at least 

amend the Bismarck t.ake area out of the Spearfish Canyon transfer amendment. Forest 

Recreation Management, Inc. has the concession permit from the Forest Service to operatP. the 

campgrounds and other recreation facilities in the Bl<lck Hills National Forest and has done so 

for the past 18 years. This proposal removes three profitable properties from the Nation<'ll 

Forest. Bismarck Lake is the one which provides the largest profit to our company allowing us 

to successfully operate some ofthe less profitable areas in the Black Hifl>. 

It would trade prime lakeside property with developed recreation to the State fat undeveloped 

prairie property. The facilities built by US t;;~xtniYers and recently renovated by them would be 

given to the state to reap the profits, Our employees would be replaced by either State 

employees or volunteers. The federal income tax we pay would go away and the 

Improvements we make at the campground would then be paid instead by state tax money. 
499 


Insert graphic folio 575 here 22000A.451

The fees we pay annually through the use of Granger-Thye fee offset monies, would be 

substantially lowered resulting in a decrease of improvements to our local Forest Service areas. 

fhe addition ofthe Bismarck Lake area into the Spearfish Canyon land exchange Is a bad deal 

for US taxpayers and especially for Forest Recreation Management, Inc., both as a company and 

as a Service Partner to the 61a~;k Hitls National Forest. 

In fairness to the South Dakota delegation, the state failed to Inform them that we were 

concessioners and would be damaged by the exchange. 

Please reject the Bismarck Lake area from the legislation. 

cc. Sen. John Thune 

Sen. Mik~ Rounds 

Rep. Kristi Noem 

Yours truly, 

J. Alan Johnson, 

President 
500 


Insert graphic folio 576 here 22000A.452

September 21, 2016 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

This letter is submitted in comment on S.2056, a bill to provide for the 

establishment of the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System. 

Passage of this bill would represent a significant milestone in the effort to keep our 

country safer and reduce the economic and human losses to volcanic hazards. 

Volcanic eruptions pose significant and underappreciated hazards to the United 

States, its people, infrastructure and economy. The impacts of volcanic eruptions are 

not limited to places on the ground next to volcanoes, because volcanic ash can 

disrupt air traffic over large areas and ash fall can extend a long distance away from 

the eruptive center. The economic losses caused by a single eruption can be large 

and felt globally. The 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallaj6kull volcano in Iceland caused 

more than 2 billion dollars of economic losses from air traffic disruption and 

airspace closures, and business losses caused by them. Closer to home, every day 

about 50,000 people fly over active volcanoes in Alaska (all trans-Pacific air traffic 

between North America and Asia), along with immense quantities of air cargo; the 

passenger count has more than doubled over the last 15 years. People and facilities 

on the ground near volcanoes in several states face more direct hazards from lava 

flows, pyroclastic flows, ash fall, and other direct hazards. 

We cannot prevent or delay volcanic eruptions, but we can in many cases provide 

early warning that will reduce the number of people at risk, and ideally that will 

keep people and aircraft entirely out of harm's way. Advance warning is possible for 

many volcanic eruptions because volcanoes often give warning signs in advance of 

eruption; to see these warning signs, we need to maintain a variety of monitoring 

instruments on the volcano, and provide for the staff and systems to interpret these 

data. We also need a thorough knowledge of the volcano's eruptive history and its 

tendencies, which allow us to put this monitoring data into context and make 

informed decisions about likely future activity. The NVEWS bill, if passed into law, 

would provide the directive and funding to expand and modernize networks of 

volcano monitoring instruments, to provide for the staff needed to maintain them, to 

analyze and interpret monitoring data, and to make informed assessments of 

present and potential future activity. 

This bill would authorize the funding needed to monitor volcanoes in the United 

States commensurate with the threat that they pose. The level of threat has been 

assessed based on each volcano's known historic and prehistoric activity, its 

potential for harming people or facilities on the ground, and its potential for 

producing ash clouds in the airspace that pose a threat to aviation. Assuming that 
501 


Insert graphic folio 577 here 22000A.453

the expenditures authorized by this bill are backed up with appropriations, passage 

of this bill would result in a targeted expansion of volcano monitoring in the United 

States prioritized by the level of volcanic threat. Expanded volcano monitoring will 

enhance public safety and reduce losses when eruptions occur. Benefits, especially 

the economic benefits that come from reduced losses and disruption of business, 

will be felt nationwide. 

My state of Alaska faces direct volcanic hazards on a regular basis. Airborne ash 

from volcanic eruptions causes flight cancellations several times each year, and 

often far from the erupting volcano. These disruptions can occur hundreds of miles 

away, so no part of the state is immune from these effects. The geologic record, and 

even the historical record, shows that much larger eruptions with far more serious 

effects could happen at any time in the future. It is wise for our society to invest in 

efforts that reduce risks to lives, property and our economy, especially given that 

the annual cost of these efforts is smaller than the earnings of many individual 

athletes or celebrities. The losses we can avoid through improved volcanic 

monitoring and early warning will be much larger than the costs of the monitoring 

efforts. 

I urge Congress to pass this bill and fully support its implementation. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. jeffrey T. Freymueller 

Professor, G~:\:!f?h~sJcl<l) l~l;l:i~Ute and Dept. of Geosciences 

Coordinating Scientist, Alaska Volcano Observatory 

uni,Vi;J~s:ttyofAla'slia Fa:n"Banks 

Fairbanks, AK 99775 
502 


Insert graphic folio 578 here 22000A.454

October 5, 2016 

Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Southwest Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346) 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a letter of support to the hearing record for the 

Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act-S. 346 and H.R. 682 and for 

holding a hearing on this important legislation. S. 346 withdraws three very special areas of 

mostly National Forest lands in Southwestern Oregon from location and entry under the mining 

laws of the United States and makes technical corrections to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act specific to the congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Chetco River. Both the legislation 

and a proposed temporary withdrawal have overwhelming public support. The support includes 

that of the communities that would be most impacted by the potential start-up of nickel strip 

mines. 

Friends of the Kalmiopsis is a place-based group that has been working to protect the Rough 

and Ready Creek and North Fork Smith River watersheds and the greater South Kalmiopsis wild 

area since the early 1990s. These watersheds, along with the headwaters of Hunter Creek and the 

Pistol River, and 17 miles of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River constitute the little over 106,600 

acres subject to S. 346. 

We're part of a local effort that now spans the state line between Oregon and California and 

three counties. The effort includes local grassroots groups who've organically come together 

with our neighbors to protect the world-class Wild and Scenic Rivers of this remote, rugged 

corner of Southwest Oregon and Northwest California. The National Forest and adjacent BLM 

lands of the region produce some of the cleanest, clearest drinking water in the nation. It's an 

area where some of the last best wild salmon and steelhead runs on the West Coast--south of the 

Olympic Peninsula-still inhabit pristine creeks and rivers. And it's also host to one of the 

highest concentrations of rare and endemic plants in North America. 

We can speak with experience to the decades of public support for protecting these 

watersheds and their rivers and opposition to their being mined. In the 1990s, before the current 

advances in the internet, over 5,000 citizens wrote to the U.S. Forest Service in opposition to the 

Friends of the Kalmiopsis in support ~f Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Projection Act- Page 1 of 6 
503 


Insert graphic folio 579 here 22000A.455

proposed Nicore Mine at Rough and Ready Creek. Most of these asked for a solution such as 

mineral withdrawal and/or protective legislation. There were only l 0 letters in favor of any level 

of mining. To this day, support for protecting these areas from mining remains overwhelming, 

and if anything stronger than before. Of the 45,000 comments received on the proposed 

temporary administrative withdrawal over the period of a year, all but 26 supported the mineral 

withdrawaL Opportunities for the public to provide input included two forum! comment periods 

(spanning a total of 120 days) and two public hearings. 

Also indicative of the support for protection and the struggle against mining in our area is the 

establishment of the Smith River National Recreation Area (Smith River NRA), in which 

Congress withdrew approximately 400,000 acres of National Forest land in the Smith River 

watershed in California. Driving the legislation was a proposed nickel stiip mine and processing 

facility in the North Fork Smith River's lower watershed in California. The scars of extensive 

mineral exploration (from almost 40 years ago) are easily visible on Google Earth. However, 

even though the mining company that held over 4,000 plus acres of existing nickel-laterite 

claims had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate their valid existing right to mine the area, they 

did not take advantage of it, or renew attempts to develop the Gasquet Mountain Nickel Mine. 

First of their own volition, the company dropped their mine project when federal subsidies 

for nickel were eliminated. Eventually the foreign-owned company simply walked away 

(abandoned) from their Gasquet Mountain nickel claims. With the low price of nickel and the 

relatively low grade of the North Fork Smith River nickel-laterites we can only guess that it 

would not have been a wise investment to develop a mine and processing facility on the 

companies existing claims within the Smith River NRA. 

It should be noted that according to U.S. G. S. reports, the Gasquet Mountian/North Fork 

Smith River nickel laterite is the largest, and overall of a higher grade than the other southwest 

Oregon nickel laterites, with tbe single exception of the Nickel Mountain Mine at Riddle, Oregon 

in Douglas County. Glenbrook Nickel, who owned the Nickel Mountain Mine, closed it and the 

nearby smelter pennanently in 1998. This after the company had spent over $30 million on an 

import facility at Coos Bay Oregon in the early 1990s, and for a number of years imported high 

grade nickel laterite from 6,000 miles away. 

Court records exist showing that the holder of a large block of nickel-laterite claims at Rough 

and Ready Creek----in the largest of the three areas subject to the withdrawal provisions ofS. 346 

----tried to interest Glenbrook in purchasing Rough and Ready Creek nickel laterite soils to 

process in their smelter. However, Glenbrook was not interested due to low quality of the Rough 

and Ready Creek deposits. Instead the company preferred importing high grade nickel laterite 

from many thousands of miles away, to the low quality nickel-laterite in their backyard, less than 

1 00 miles away. 

In the 1990s, the USFS conducted an extensive environmental analysis of the proposed 

Nicore Mine Project at Rough and Ready Creek. What they found was an area of"extremely 

high scientific, social and ecological values" juxtaposed with a speculative mining venture that 

lacked critical details. The dearth of information in tbc plan was egregious. For example, there 

was no provision for where and how the mined material would be processed or even where the 

water needed for the operation would come from. Without these critical details, the USFS could 

Friends of' the Kalmiopsis in support of Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Projection Act- Page 2 of'6 
504 


Insert graphic folio 580 here 22000A.456

not fully analyze the effects of the Nicore Project. They could not deny the mining outright 

either. So they went back to the proponent yet another time to try and get the needed information 

to complete his mining plan. 

If the U.S. Forest had allowed the speculative, incomplete Nicore Project to proceed the 

environmental and health impacts would have been significant and irreversible. We know now 

that residents near the Glenbrook Nickel import facility at Coos Bay brought a class action 

lawsuit against the company over the red dust that it's operation generated. They'd lived with the 

ill health effects and inconvenience of their homes being coated with the red dust generated by 

the import facility despite the State of Oregon's regulation of it. We also know now that in 1998, 

US EPA was in the process of implementing rules specific to the Glenbrook Nickel Smelter and 

the facility's hazardous air pollution emissions. And in recent years we have seen the great 

distances that mine pollution spills can travel down rivers. The community of Gasquet, 

California's water intake, a little more than 15 miles downstream of one of the potential mine 

projects in North Fork Smith River watershed and in the area subject to S. 346, is directly in the 

path of any pollution released by a mine and nickel processing facility. 

Mines pollute. It's not a matter of if but when. Repeatedly metal mining facilities in the 

United States are responsible for a little less than half of all toxic pollution released to the 

environment. In the current reporting year, the US EPA's Toxic Release Inventory found that just 

88 metal mine facilities were responsible for 45% of all toxic pollution in the United States. 

The withdrawal of 17 mines of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River has also undergone 

thorough environmental analysis, with numerous opportunities for public input. It also has 

overwhelming public support. 

The technical corrections to the Act designating 44.5 miles of the Chetco River as a National 

Wild and Scenic River were included in the River's Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 

after undergoing environmental analysis and public comment under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). They were recommended by the Siskiyou National Forest (now the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest), the agency in charge of managing the river in compliance with 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 5,610 acres of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River 

subject to S. 346 's withdrawal provisions constitutes approximately 1/4 mile on either side of 

this world-class salmon and steelhead river, from the Kalmiopsis Wilderness boundary to the 

U.S. Forest Service Boundary, excluding private land. 

On July 26,2013 the 5,610 acres of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River were temporarily 

withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws and leasing under the 

mineral and geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 5 years by Public Land Order No. 7819. The 

measure is designed to make sure nothing happens to this special congressionally protected river 

and its nationally outstanding water quality, fisheries and scenic values while Congress considers 

legislative protections found in S. 346. The interim measure was subject to analysis and public 

comment by the Bureau of Land Management during a 90 day period and by the U.S. Forest 

Service under the NEPA. During these opportunities for public input, the agencies received over 

11,000 comments supporting the withdrawal of the river corridor with only 6 dissenting 

comments. The measure was also overwhelming supported during the local public hearing. 

Friends of the Katm;opsis in support ofSoutk•vestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Prqjection Act- Page 3 of6 
505 


Insert graphic folio 581 here 22000A.457

S. 346 is straightforward legislation. It will prevent the location of new mining claims on 

approximately 106, 631 acres of federal public land and require the holders of existing mining 

claims to demonstrate there's been the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit on each claim and 

that it complies with laws of the United States before mining activities can commence. S. 346 is 

subject to valid existing rights so it grandfathers in existing claims, but only if they comply with 

the laws of the United States, including the 1872 Mining Law. 

We understand that the legislation will not prevent mining on existing claims, if they are 

found to have a valuable mineral deposit that can be mined profitably, in compliance with the 

laws of the United States. However, it will···-in advance of irreversible environmental impactsrequire that the mine proponent show they have an actua I right to mine before degradation of 

pristine areas begins. 

The three areas subject to S. 346 provides some of the cleanest drinking water in the nation to 

downstream communities. In Del Norte County California, the communities include Gasquet, 

Hiouchi. Redwoods National and State Parks and Crescent City. According to the Del Norte 

County Board of Supervisor's letter in support of S. 346, the majority of Del Norte County 

resident get their drinking water from the Smith River downstream of the National Forest lands 

subject to S. 346. In Josephine County, one of the wells that provides drinking water to the 

communities of Cave Junction and Kerby is on the floodplain of the Illinois River, downstream 

of the area subject to S. 346. The community of Brooking--with a population of a little over 

1 0,000-gets their drinking water from the Chetco river about II miles downstream of one of 

the withdrawal areas. Many residents live along rivers down stream of the proposed withdrawal 

area. Their drinking water sources are wells, many of which more than likely have a hydrologic 

connection to the rivers. 

In addition to the importance of the areas subject to S. 346 as a source of pure drinking water, 

they may be unique in the exceptional and diverse conservation values packed into relatively 

small areas of federal public lands. And while the withdrawal areas have national and regional 

significance in their own right, they're also a central to one of the most important ecological 

regions on the West Coast---the Kalmiopsis/Wild Rivers Coast regions. This area is at the heart 

of the greater Klamath-Siskiyou Region, which is the northernmost extension of the California 

Floristic Province. The Province is a globally important region for conservation and a hotspot of 

biological diversity. 

The proposed withdrawal would not only provide protection from mining for the 

exceptional I 06,631 acres directly subject to it, but also adjacent congressionally protected areas 

and rivers and nearby and downstream communities and residents. The downstream rivers 

include the National Wild and Scenic North Fork, Middle Fork and Mainstem Smith Rivers and 

the National Wild and Scenic Illinois River. Hunter Creek and the North Fork Pistol River. The 

communities include Cave Junction, Gasquet, Hiouchi, the Redwood State and National Park, 

Crescent City and Gold Beach. 

The Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek proposed withdrawal area ofS. 346 shares 

an approximately 20-mile common boundary with the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The withdrawal 

area's southern boundary is directly adjacent to and downstream of the Smith River National 

Recreation Area, sharing an approximately 14 mile common boundary with the NRA. The 

Friendc; qf'the Kalmiopsis ;n support qf'Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Prqjecthm Act- Page 4 of6 
506 


Insert graphic folio 582 here 22000A.458

Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek withdrawal area, and the adjacent congressionally 

protected and unprotected National forest lands form watersheds, provide exceptionally clean 

and clear domestic water supplies to many thousands of residents in Southwest Oregon and 

Northwest California. The withdrawal area and the adjacent Wilderness and Smith River NRA 

are home or headwaters to three National Wild and Scenic Rivers, each with outstandingly 

remarkable wild salmon and steel head runs (world-class), water quality and recreation and scenic 

values. 

While part of larger ecological landscapes and regions of national importance, the 

exceptional conservation values of the three withdrawal areas are justification enough for their 

protection under S. 346. They include: 

Nine special designated US Forest Service or BLM Botanical Areas or Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (and one proposed Botanical Area); 

6.5 miles of the National Wild and Scenic North Fork Smith River, a world-class salmon 

and steelhead river with outstandingly remarkable water quality, fisheries and scenic 

values; 

17 miles of the National Wild and Scenic Chetco River, a world-class salmon and 

steelhead river with outstandingly remarkable, water quality, fisheries, scenic and 

recreation values; 

Two USFS Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers (Baldface Creek and Rough and Ready 

Creek, with outstandingly remarkable fisheries, water quality, scenic, geological/ 

hydrological, and botanical values); 

Approximately 148 miles of streams (including pristine to near pristine habitat for 

sensitive or threatened species including coho salmon, chinook salmon, steelhead and 

cutthroat trout and foothill yellow-legged frogs); 

All or a large part of two USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas (South Kalmiopsis and 

Packsaddle); 

The USFS proposed 34, !53 acre South Kalmiopsis Wilderness Addition with additional 

adjacent lands found to have high wilderness character; 

Numerous rare plant wetlands known Serpentine Darlingtonia Fens that are subject to a 

United State Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Agreement: and 

Diverse habitats for numerous rare, threatened, endangered and/or sensitive plant and 

animal species. 

Conclusion 

The protection that S. 346 would provide these exceptional National Forest and BLM lands 

and their beautiful creeks and rivers has undergone extensive analysis, review and public 

comment for many years. Each time the public has overwhelmingly supported protection for 

these areas from mining. The land managing agencies' environmental analysis and 

recommendations substantiates that these federal public lands are important for conservation and 

their extremely high scientific, social and ecological values. S. 346 will protect any valid existing 

rights that existing claim holders may be found to have. 

Frientl< of the Kalmiopsis in support oj'Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Proiection Act- Page 5 oj'6 
507 


Insert graphic folio 583 here 22000A.459

We thank its hardworking sponsors, Senator Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and 

Representatives Peter DeFazio and Jared Huffman in the House and Chairman Senator 

Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee for your consideration of this important legislation and urge you to 

support it. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony in support ofS. 346. 

Sincerely, 

Barbara Ullian, Coordinator 

Friends of the Kalmiopsis in support of Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Projection Act. Page 6 of 6 
508 


Insert graphic folio 584 here 22000A.460

Ripchensky, Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Lydia Garvey <wolfhowlmama@yahoo.com> 

Friday, September 23,201610:15 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

Subject: re 5 3203/3273, hearings 9/22/16- comments 

Dear Civil Servants, 

I have serious concerns, see below: 

s 3203-

Sec. 402- Valid Existing Claims- Elevates mining above all uses of the forest by restricting 

the USFS's authority to regulate surface use of National Forest lands. Our national forests 

must be managed for all users. 

Sec. 503 --Road less Area Conservation Rule Exemption- Exempts both the Tongass and 

Chugach National Forests from Road less Rule. The Roadless Rule makes sense fiscally and 

ecologically and should continue to be implemented in Alaska. 

Sec. 502 --Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange --Authorizes the exchange of about 

20,000 acres of Tongass National Forest lands for timber development on Prince of Wales and 

Revilla Islands for over 18,000 acres of existing Mental Health Trust lands near Ketchikan and 

Petersburg. No logging should occur on the steep hillsides and popular recreation areas that 

the Alaska Mental Health Trust currently owns, but this issue can be resolved in Alaska; 

legislation is unnecessary. 

Sec. 503 -- Tongass State Forest Facilitation- Allows selection of two million acres of the 

Tongass National Forest by the State of Alaska for a state forest, which would be managed for 

timber production first, not "multiple use." Alaska Fish and Wildlife habitat standards are less 

protective than federal standards. 

Re 3273-

Sec. 5- Reacquiring Cube Cove Surface Lands -- permits Shee Atika to elect to receive 

payment in cash or bid credits for acquiring federal surplus property from federal agencies for 

about 23,000 acres of land it clearcut on Admiralty Island. This is actually a little bit of good 

news; it would eventually make Admiralty Island National Monument "whole". 

Sec. 6 --Admiralty Island National Monument Land Exchange -- authorizes the USFS to obtain 

Sealaska's subsurface estate at Cube Cove in exchange for surface and subsurface estate to 

about 8,872 acres and the surface estate to approximately 5,145 acres of Tongass lands on 

Prince of Wales Island. This exchange is not for equal value. In a real "value for value" 

exchange, Sealaska would get less than 500 acres of old-growth forest in exchange for its 

23,000 acres of subsurface estate at Cube Cove. 

Sec. 1 0 New Native Corporations -- authorizes Native residents of Haines, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell to organize Urban Corporations and receive 23,040 acres 

of Tongass lands each. Fails to provide protection for Tongass Legislated LUD II wildlands and 

perpetuates all the flaws of the ANCSA corporate model. 

Sec. 11 --Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Equity - reverses key compromises reached in 

1998 and disrupts efforts to finalize entitlements under existing laws. This section causes more 

problems than it solves. 

Do your job-Protect Our lands, waters, wildlife, health & future! You work for Citizens- Not 

industry! 

Your attention to these most urgent matters would be much appreciated by all present & future 

generations of all species. 
509 


Insert graphic folio 585 here 22000A.461

• Thank you 

• Lydia Garvey Public Health Nurse 

• 429 S 24th st Clinton OK 73601 
510 


Insert graphic folio 586 here 22000A.462

SCIENCE ADVISORY 

BOARD 

Scott Hoffman Black 

Xerces Soc1ety 

Robert E. Gresswell, Ph.r: 

GEOS 

INSTITUTE 

September 24, 20 16 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

U.S. Senate, SH-709 Hart Senate Office Building 

us Geological Survey The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Healy Hamilton, Ph.D. 

NatureServe 

lara J. Hansen, Ph.D. 

EcoAdapt 

Thomas Hardy, Ph.D. 

Texas State University 

Mark Harmon, Ph.D. 

Oregon State University 

Richard Hutto, Ph.D. 

University of Montana 

Steve Jessup, Ph.D. 

Southern Oregon 

University 

Wayne Minshall, Ph.D. 

Idaho State University 

Reed Noss, Ph.D. 

Un1vers1ty of Central 

Florida 

Dennis Odion, Ph.D. 

University of California, 

Santa Barbara 

Michael Parker, Ph.D. 

Southern Oregon 

Univers1ty 

Thomas Michael Power, 

Ph.D. 

University of Montana 

Jim Strittholt, Ph.D. 

Conservation Biology 

1nst1tute 

Vicki Tripoli, Ph.D. 

Jack Williams, Ph.D. 

Trout Unlimited 

U.S. Senate, SH-511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Re: Support for S. 346 the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon 

Protection Act of 2015 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Geos Institute would like to thank the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee ("Committee") for this opportunity to submit testimony in support 

ofS. 346, sponsored by Oregon's U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. 

Geos Institute is a nonprofit organization that provides science-based solutions 

to climate change challenges by partnering with decision makers, conservation 

groups, and land managers. Since 1998, we have been compiling scientific and 

economic information on the importance of the Kalmiopsis wildlands and 

rivers in southwest Oregon that we summarize herein for the Committee and in 

support of permanent protection for the area as specified in S. 346. 

We would especially like to thank Senators Wyden and Merkley, and also 

Representatives Peter DeFazio (OR) and Jared Huffman (CA), who have 

introduced companion legislation in the !louse of Representatives (H.R.682) 

This legislation is necessary to withdraw from mining specified federal public 

lands in Curry and Josephine Counties, for amending the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act to elevate the certain segment designations, and to extend full 

protection for the Chetco Wild and Scenic River against mining impacts to the 

myriad public values represented by these unique and relatively pristine rivers 

and landscapes. 

I would like to call the Committee's attention to related testimony submitted 

by conservation groups (The Pew Charitable Trusts, American Rivers, 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center et al) demonstrating overwhelming 

public support for the area as reflected in public meetings on temporary 

mineral withdrawal in aid of legislation conducted by the Forest Service and 

the support of numerous businesses, local leaders, Native Americans. and 

other constituents. In sum, withdrawing the area from mining has generated 

very little public opposition. 

Using science to help people predict, 84 Fourth Street Ph: 541.482.4459 122 C Street NW Suite 240 Ph: 310.779.4894 

reduce, and prepare for climate change Ashland, OR 97520 Fax: 541.482.7282 Washington, DC 20001 Fax: 202.544.5197 

www.geosinstitute.org 
511 


Insert graphic folio 587 here 22000A.463

At-Risk Ecological Values of Scicntitic and Public Interest 

The Kalmiopsis wildlands of southwest Oregon represent a unique geo-botanically rich area 

within the world-class Klamath-Siskiyou ecorcgion that encompasses southwest Oregon and 

northern California. The World Wildlife Fund recognized the larger ecoregion within which this 

remarkable area lies as among the top temperate conifer forests in the world (DellaSala 2013). 

The larger ecoregion within which it lies is well known in the scientific community for its worldclass values that are present in the affected area. Some ofthese unique values include: 

Pristine rivers that support a continentally significant fishery; 

Most intact landscape along the Pacific Coast from Mexico to Canada; 

Streams with at least one Forest Service recognized "outstandingly remarkable value;" 

Outstanding botanical diversity including one of the highest concentrations of rare plants 

in western North America and the highest concentration of rare plants of any of Oregon's 

1,400 watersheds. many of which are localized endemics (highly restricted distributions) 

occurring on serpentine soils (rare soil type containing unusual concentrations of certain 

minerals); 

Critical habitat for threatened fish and wildlife species; 

Large relatively intact landscape connections to over I million acres of nearby 

wilderness, national parks (redwoods). and recreation areas (e.g .. Smith River National 

Recreation Area); 

Climate refuge for rare plants, fish. and wildlife in search of relatively stable 

environments (low human disturbance): and 

Historical and cultural sites. 

I would also like to call the Committee's attention to the importance of the specific creeks and 

tributaries proposed tor withdrawal inS. 346 as follows. 

Rough & Ready Creek and Tributaries the Wild and Scenic Eligibility Report by the Forest 

Service ( 1994a) states that this creek is "unusual by both national and regional standards.'' It 

includes streams flowing through serpentine rock types (uncommon nationally) with unconfined 

alluvial channels (rare regionally), contains large numbers of rare plants ("exceptional levels:" 

37 occurrences of22 sensitive plants documented), rare plant communities (western hemlock,, 

sadler oak plant association). is free-flowing (however, some small impoundments and 

diversions occur on the lower reaches), has "the potential to provide exceptionally high quality 

habitat for fish species indigenous to the region" (wild stocks, state or federally listed species), 

and is "internationally, nationally or regionally an important producer of resident and/or 

anadromous fish species." 

Ba/dface Creek and Tributaries- at the time of its eligibility detern1ination, the USDA Forest 

Service (1994b) concluded that this creek "provides some of the best water quality and fisheries 

habitat known on the Siskiyou National Forest" and that "the world-class fishery on the Smith 

River depends on the water and fish produced in the Raldface drainage.'' Further, "more numbers 

2 
512 


Insert graphic folio 588 here 22000A.464

offish were counted on this creek than any other on the Illinois Valley Ranger District." Other 

outstanding remarkable values include botanical, wildlife, scenic (landscape elements of 

landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors that are notable or exemplary visual 

features) recreational, and cultural (prehistoric). 

Chetco River and Tributaries - outstandingly remarkable water quality supporting regionally 

important fisheries, including unusually large fall chinook salmon runs, winter steelhead, and 

sea-run coastal cutthroat trout. 

Greater Red Flat Area (Hunter Creek and North Fork Pistol River)- includes the BLM 

designated Hunter Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), which contains the 

Hunter Creek Bog (species rich fen with numerous wildflowers), five special status wildlife 

species (clouded salamander, southern torrent salamander, red-legged frog, mountain quail, 

winter steelhead) along with over 120 other wildlife species. Notably, mardon skipper, a 

candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). has been surveyed in the Hunter 

Creek ACEC and other areas with serpentine soils. Fall Chinook salmon and winter steelhead 

runs occur in the Greater Red Flat area as well. The area also contains the headwaters of Hunter 

Creek and North Fork Pistol River and has exceptional concentrations of rare plants. 

The two mineral withdrawal areas combined contain habitat for some 400 species of plants. 

including McDonald's rockcrcss, a federally threatened species and second plant species to be 

listed under the ESA. Veva's erigeron, an extremely rare member of the sunflower family, is 

known to occur in this area. 

Mining Threats 

Where there are serpentine soils, there is nickel, chromite, cobalt and other potentially 

exploitable minerals. The concentration of nickel in particular has resulted in industrial scalemining proposals that would degrade water quality, salmon, and botanical values. Small amounts 

of gold arc present in streambeds and miners use suction dredges mounted on small craiis to 

remove flecks of gold, an activity extremely harmful to salmonid spawning sites. Of note, fom1er 

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in his visit to the area in January 200 I declared that the area's 

mining violations were "among the most egregious in the nation." In sum, the impacts of current 

and proposed mining led American Rivers in 2015 to declare Rough and Ready and Bald Face 

creeks and the North Fork of the Smith River as among America's most endangered rivers. 

I am including as Exhibit B an executive summary of an economic study conducted by Oregon 

economist Ernie Niemi, who estimated the value of the area's natural amenities and potential 

costs from proposed industrial-scale nickel mining to at-risk public values. In sum, natural 

amenities of the Kalmiopsis area support an increasingly thriving tourism industry that spent 

some S245 million in Curry and Josephine Counties in 2013, generated more than $70 million in 

business earnings, 3,400 jobs, and almost S9 million in government revenues. Dollars were 

primarily spent on visiting Oregon Caves National Monument, rafting, angling, and a variety of 
513 


Insert graphic folio 589 here 22000A.465

outdoor recreation pursuits (hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, jet boating), The public comes to 

the region to recreate because of the beautiful landscape, wild rivers, and outdoor amenities that 

are increasingly difficult to find in today's developed world and that would be irreparably 

harmed by industrial-scale nickel mining and other mining activities. 

Proposed nickel mining would diminish natural values, increase health risks from toxic wastes 

and air pollution, reduce nearby home values and commercial properties, result in taxpayer 

funded cleanup costs, and contribute to overall economic destabilization (high volatility of 

mining activity and jobs, Exhibit B). For example, if the proposed nickel mines resemble similar 

mines elsewhere, the acid-rain costs, alone, to those exposed could total $30,000--$450,000 per 

year. Property values could be reduced by 4 to 21 percent from Superfund sites needed to clean 

up mining wastes that could cost taxpayers some $1 ,000-50,000 (2003 dollars) per acre of 

disturbed lands. Tourism values and related business would suffer economic impacts as well. 

In closing, simply put, this is the worse possible place to conduct mining in one of the last 

relatively untrammeled and exceptionally important wild areas remaining in western North 

America. 

We would also like to request that Senator Wyden consider asking the Committee to include in 

this legislation the provision for his proposed Illinois Valley Botanical and Salmon Area that is 

in his proposed Oregon and California Land Grant Act of 2015 (S.132). The areas overlap and 

complement each other hydrologically and ecologically. 

Sincerely, 

Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D. 

Chief Scientist, Geos Institute 

Ashland, OR 

Citations 

DellaSala, D.A. 2013. Klamath-Siskiyou Conifer Forests of northern California and southwest 

Oregon. Biomes and Ecosystems: An Encyclopedia, Howarth, R.W. ed. Ipswich, MA; Salem 

Press, 2013; Salem Press. Pp: 742-744. 

USDA Forest Service. l994a. Rough and Ready Creek Siskiyou National Forest: Eligibility 

Study. USDA Forest Service, Illinois Valley District, Cave Junction, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994b. Baldfacc Creek Siskiyou National Forest: Eligibility Study. USDA 

Forest Service, Illinois Valley District, Cave Junction, OR. 

4 
514 


Insert graphic folio 590 here 22000A.466

Exhibit A: Scientist Letter (over 200 signatories) in Support of Permanent Protection for 

the Kalmiopsis Area 

September 15,2015 

Jerome E. Perez, Esq. 

State Director: Oregon/Washington 

Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR 

Re: Recognition of the Kalmiopsis Wildlands in Southwest Oregon and Need for Maximum 

Interim Protection From Industrial-Scale Nickel Mining 

As scientists with expertise in natural resources management, we write to request your leadership 

in the temporary withdrawal of -95,805 acres of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest and 5,216 

acres ofBLM Medford District in southwest Oregon from industrial scale-nickel mining 

proposals. We request that you provide the maximum possible interim protection allowable (20 

years) under the 1872 Mining Law while pem1anent protection efforts are considered such as the 

Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act introduced by Oregon Senators Ron 

Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Congressman Peter DeFazio (OR) and Jarred Hoffrnan (CA). 

"The permanent protection olthis area [Klamath-Siskiyou] will not vnfv be an important benefit 

for science, but will also rank as one olthe great environmental achievements 

in American history." 

E.O. Wilson, Professor Emeritus Harvard University 

The Kalmiopsis wildlands represent a hotspot of geo-botanical richness within the world-class 

Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion ofsouthwcst Oregon and northern California. The World Wildlife 

Fund recognized the ecoregion as among the top temperate conifer forests in the world 

(DellaSala et al. 20 13). The Kalmiopsis area within the ecoregion contains nationally significant 

botanical values that have been the focus of scientists for well over a century. Pioneering 

botanists such as Dr. Thomas J. Howell began cataloguing the area's plants in the 1880s, Dr. 

Robert Whittaker ( 1960) documented the extraordinary plant diversity in the 1950s, and Drs. 

Robert Coleman and Art Kruckerberg (Coleman and Kruckeberg 1999) described the 

relationship between the area's unique serpentine geology and high concentrations of rare and 

endemic plants in the 1980s. The area includes a rich assortment of plant communities from 

Jeffrey pine savannah to mature forest to Darlingtonia fens, many of these communities include 

plant species found nowhere else on Earth. Scientists also have documented the importance of 

roadless areas as "refugia" for sensitive species in the area requiring relatively intact landscapes 

such as the endemic Port Orford-cedar that is being killed off by Phtyophorus /ateralis (root rot 

fungus) primarily spread by mud on vehicles. Other studies have demonstrated that the area's 

river corridors might function as a climate refuge for numerous plants and wildlife (Carroll ct al. 

2010, Olson et al. 2012). 

5 
515 


Insert graphic folio 591 here 22000A.467

The watersheds of the Kalmiopsis contain the headwaters of continentally significant rivers 

(Abell et al. 2000) and clearest waters in the nation, including Baldface Creek and Rough and 

Ready Creek, that are tributaries to the Wild and Scenic Smith and Illinois Rivers, respectively. 

Additionally, Hunter Creek and the North Fork Pistol River represent two highly productive 

native salmonid streams on the Wild Rivers Coast. American Rivers recently recognized the 

Rogue and Smith rivers as among the most endangered in the nation due to proposed nickel 

mines in these tributaries that you now seck to withdraw from mining. 

We appreciate the collaboration that is taking place between the BLM and Forest Service in the 

withdrawal process underway for this area and ongoing interest from the Oregon Congressional 

delegation in seeing it receive the maximum interim protection allowable while congress 

deliberates on longer-term proposals. When permanently protected, the at risk-watersheds and 

wildlands of the Kalmiopsis region, in aggregate with the surrounding Kalmiopsis Wildemcss 

and adjoining Smith River National Recreation Area, would make this one of the nation's 

premier wildlands complexes that will continue to provide downstream communities with 

outstanding ecosystem benefits that come from intact public lands and watersheds. 

Sincerely (affiliations are for identification purposes only), 

On~v the Lead Signatories are Shown Here 

Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D 

Chief Scientist, Geos Institute 

Ashland, OR 

David Wilcove, Ph.D. 

Princeton University 

Princeton, NJ 

Erik S. Jules, Ph. D 

Humboldt State University 

Arcata, CA 

Aaron Johnston, Ph. D 

University of Washington 

Seallle, WA 

Jack E. Williams. Ph.D. 

Senior Scientist, Trout Unlimited 

Medford, Oregon 

Bill Ripple, Ph.D. 

Distinguished Professor of Ecology 

Oregon State University, Corvallis 

Reed Noss, Ph.D. 

University of Central Florida 

Orlando, FL 

Carlos Canol], Ph.D. 

Klamath Center for Conservation Research 

Orleans, CA 

Susan P. Harrison, Ph.D. 

University of California, Davis 

David M. Olson, Ph.D. 

Conservation Earth Consulting 

Burbank, CA 

Paul Hostcn, Ph.D. 

Plant Ecologist 

Kauai, Ill 

Dennis Odion, Ph. D. 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

6 
516 


Insert graphic folio 592 here 22000A.468

Citations 

Abell, R., et al. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C 

Carroll, C., J. R. Dunk, and A. J. Moilanen. 2010. Optimizing resiliency of reserve networks to 

climate change: multi-species conservation planning in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Global 

Change Biology 16:891-904. 

Coleman, R.G., and A.R. Kruckeberg. 1999. Geology and plant life of the Klamath-Siskiyou 

Mountain region. Natural Areas Journa/19(4):320-340. 

DellaSala, D.A. 2013. Klamath-Siskiyou Conifer Forests of northern California and southwest 

Oregon. Biomes and Ecosystems: An Encyclopedia," Howarth, R.W. ed. Ipswich, MA; Salem 

Press, 2013; Salem Press. Pp: 742-744. 

Olson, D.M., D.A. DellaSala, R.F. Noss, J. R. Strittholt, J. Kaas, M. E. Koopman, and T.F. 

Allnutt. 2012. Climate change refugia for biodiversity in the Klamath-Siskiyou ccoregion. 

Natural Areas Jouma/32:65-74. 

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological 

Monographs 30:279-238. 

7 
517 


Insert graphic folio 593 here 22000A.469

Exhibit B: The Economic Importance of the Kalmiopsis Area's Natural Resource 

Amenities Executive Summary, Prepared by Economist Ernie Niemi, Natural Resource 

Economics, Eugene, Oregon 

The Kalmiopsis area's outstanding natural amenities also arc important to the economy. They 

generate steady jobs, personal income, business earnings, and government revenue through the 

outdoor recreation industry and by enabling Curry and Josephine Counties to attract workers, 

business managers, entrepreneurs, and households. Powerful economic trends, such as the 

increasing number of retirees seeking to live where the quality of life is high, will enhance the 

natural amenities' ability to generate robust, resilient future economic growth, but only if 

appropriate actions are taken to protect these amenities and their exceptional character. 

Recent studies document the economic importance of the Kalmiopsis area's natural amenities: 

Travelers spent $245 million in Curry and Josephine Counties in 2013, nearly all of 

which by those who came to the area as a destination rather than just passing through. 

This spending, plus re-spending by businesses and workers, generated more than $70 

million in business earnings, 3,400 jobs, and almost $9 million in government revenue . 

Travelers' spending generated about four percent of all jobs in Josephine County, and 16 

percent in Curry County. 

72,717 individuals from elsewhere visited Oregon Caves National Monument in 2013 

and spent $4,795,000 locally, generating 69 jobs and $1,757,000 in personal income. 

In 2007, 13,147 rafters and anglers 11oated the wild section of the lower Rogue River, and 

84,840 passengers took trips on commercial jetboats on the He ligate section of the river. 

These recreationists spent $9.8 million in Josephine County, generating $14 million in 

total sales by businesses and governmental agencies, 225 full- and part-time jobs and 

$7.5 million in personal income for workers and business owners. The average income 

per job was about $30,000, slighty less than the average for the economy as a whole. 

In 2008 recreationists spent more than $40 million (2013 dollars) in Curry and Josephine 

Counties, combined, on shcllfishing, fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing. 

Proposals to develop three nickel strip mines---two southwest of Cave Junction and one east of 

Gold Beach-threaten many natural amenities and their ability to stimulate business growth. The 

mines pose multiple risks for neighbors, taxpayers, communities, and the overall economy: 

Degraded natural amenities. Case studies of mines in western states found three-quarters of 

resulted in pollution that exceeded water-quality standards. Moreover, whenever the mines 

took steps to prevent or reduce the pollution, about two-thirds of these efforts failed. 

Increased risk of cancer. Individuals downwind from the mines would face the risk of cancer 

from exposure to nickel refinery dust, a human carcinogen. 

Costs to neighbors from exposure to mine-related pollution. Strip mines and ore-processing 

facilities elsewhere often emit pollutants harmful to humans, pets, livestock, fish, wildlife, 

crops, native vegetation, buildings, and materials. Rural and urban residents of southwestern 

8 
518 


Insert graphic folio 594 here 22000A.470

Oregon likely would incur costs similar to those in this table, which were determined by 

national studies. If the three mines resemble nickel mines elsewhere, the acid-rain costs. 

alone, to those exposed would total $30,000--$450,000 per year. 

Costs to Rural and Urban Populations Exposed to Air Pollutants, per Ton of Pollutant 

Annual Cost Per Ton of Pollutant --

Population ! so2 

Exposed PM2.s PM to !'lOx NH3 voc (Acid Rain) 

Rural Sl,lOO $200 i S300 $ 100 $300 $300 

Urban $3,300 $500 : $300 $4,200 $500 $600 

Source: Muller, N.Z. and R.O. Mendelsohn. 2007. "Measunng the damages from mr pollutiOn m 

the United States." Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management. 54(1), 1-14. 

Note: PM2_5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller. PM 10 =particulate matter I 0 

microns in diameter or smaller. NO, ~ nitrogen oxides. NI-h ammonia. VOC = volatile organic 

compounds. S02 =sulfur dioxide or its equivalent source of acid rain. 

Reductions in the nearby home values. Many strip mines and ore-processing operations have 

become highly contaminated Superfund sites. A nationwide survey of studies found that 

Superfund sites reduce the value of nearby residential properties by 4 to 21 percent. Even if 

the three mines do not become Superfund sites, the development of industrial operations 

could reduce the values of nearby homes. 

Reductions in the value of some commercial properties. Reductions in the value of tourism 

businesses would occur if mining-related pollution were to diminish the area's attractiveness 

to outdoor recreationists. Widespread negative commercial impacts would occur if, for 

example, mining pollution were to degrade the quality of municipaJ/industrial water supplies 

so all users must pay extra for clean water. 

Stigma. Severe contamination, or even the threat of it, could cause people and businesses to 

leave the area. Case studies of Superfund sites have found stigma reduced the value of nearby 

residential properties by as much as 40 percent. 

Taxpayer-funded cleanup costs. Mine operators often have failed to set aside enough money to 

cover cleanup costs, and, by declaring bankruptcy or abandoning a mining site, push these 

costs onto taxpayers. Cleanup costs at mines elsewhere have cost taxpayers $1,000-$50,000 

[2003 dollars] per acre of disturbed land at the mining site. 

Economic destabilization. The high volatility of mining activity and jobs could destabilize 

families, businesses, communities, and public services. 

These costs can be prevented by permanent conservation of the natural amenities at risk from the 

proposed mining. Numerous studies of protected areas in Oregon and other western states 

indicate the permanent protection also likely would enable the area's natural amenities to 

generate economic activity even more broadly and at a faster pace than occurs now. 

9 
519 


Insert graphic folio 595 here 22000A.471

Permanently protecting the area's natural amenities in a matter that increases its attractiveness to 

visitors likely would generate at least 200-400 local visitor-related jobs. Additional jobs would 

materialize as the protection reassures in-migrants that the area's natural amenities and quality of 

life will remain extraordinary. Protection via other mechanisms likely would have a less robust 

effect on the local economy. 

10 
520 


Insert graphic folio 596 here 22000A.472

GOLD ACQUISITION CORP. 

June 19, 2016 

Sent via E-mail 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2805 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-2802 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2803 

Dear Senator Heller, Senator Reid, and Congressman Amodei: 

I am writing to express Gold Acquisition Corp.'s, and our parent company, Pershing 

Gold Corporation's, strong support for the Pershing County Economic Development 

and Conservation Act and urge you to introduce this legislation and do all you can 

to enact this critical effort for the future of Pershing County. As owner and operator 

of the Relief Canyon Mine in Pershing County, this bill will make an important 

difference in our future, as well as the economy and well being of Pershing County. 

The Pershing County proposal, as unanimously recommended by the Pershing 

County Commission, will insure the County's economic and conservation future by 

addressing critical land tenure and federal land management issues. 

The public process the Pershing County Commissioners used to seek input from 

Pershing County residents on this proposal was unprecedented. They held 

numerous Town Hall meetings to seek input from all sectors of the community 

ranching, mining, wilderness advocates, prospectors, outfitters, and area business 

interests. I attended all of these meetings and was truly impressed with the 

extraordinary efforts the County Commissioners made to listen to and carefully 

consider this public input. This collaboration serves as a wonderful example of the 

democratic process where all sides of the issue were presented and given thoughtful 

consideration. 

The public dialogue about the proposed creation of wilderness areas in Pershing 

County was unique in my experience. Ranchers, miners, outfitters, wilderness 

advocates, and the Pershing County Commissioners all worked together to 

minimize existing land use conflicts and the proposed wilderness area boundaries. 

There was give and take on all sides, with the end result producing a county lands 

bill that is a balanced approach that enjoys broad support from the citizens of 

Pershing County and unanimous support by the Pershing County Commissioners. 

The Pershing County proposal will greatly enhance the future of mining in Pershing 

County. Under Title II of the proposal, Pershing Gold and other companies will 

1055 CORNELL AVE, P.O. BOX 1033, LOVELOCK, NEVADA 89419 

PHONE (775) 273-7019 FAX (775) 273-7063 
521 


Insert graphic folio 597 here 22000A.473

Gold Acquisition Corp. 1055 Cornell Ave P.O. Box 6, Lovelock, Nevada 89419 

have the opportunity to purchase at fair market value the lands we currently hold 

under federal mining claims. Owning these mining lands will provide us with much 

more regulatory certainty about when we will be able to secure future permits, 

which will lead to faster discovery of new deposits and expansion of our exiting 

operations. In addition to creating more jobs and tax revenue for Pershing County, 

the improved business certainty resulting from the proposal will stimulate 

investment interest in Pershing County that will benefit all Pershing County 

mineral interests as well as local businesses that provide goods and services to 

Pershing County mines and mineral exploration companies. 

Following privatization of these mining lands, the State of Nevada will regulate the 

development and reclamation of these lands. As you know, the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection is recognized as having one of the most comprehensive 

and effective mine regulatory and financial assurance programs worldwide, so 

Nevadans can be confident that these lands will continue to be developed and 

reclaimed in a responsible manner. 

Title I of the bill gives Pershing County the important opportunity to rationalize 

and consolidate the checkerboard lands to stimulate future economic growth and 

diversification. It also gives the Secretary of the Interior the opportunity to identify 

special management areas to support a wide array of public land management 

objectives including enhancing wildlife habitat, preserving cultural resources, and 

providing public access for recreational pursuits. 

Pershing County will receive ten percent of the revenue from the land sales derived 

from both titles and will increase its private land tax base. The County sorely needs 

this increased revenue to be able to fulfill its obligations to provide for public health 

and safety. The Bureau of Land Management will also receive a revenue stream 

from the land sales which can be used in Pershing County to rehabilitate burned 

areas, restore and enhance sage-grouse habitat, and implement drought mitigation 

measures. 

I very much appreciate your vision and leadership and the dedication of your staffs 

in working with the Pershing County Commissioners to develop this proposal. I 

urge you to introduce this legislation as soon as possible. I look forward to working 

with you and your staffs in the upcoming effort to enact this proposal into law. 

Please do not hesitate to call on me to assist in this important work. 

Sincerely yours, 

!:>ebYCl W. Stn.d-1SClc.fzey 

Debra W. Struhsacker, Vice President 

Pershing Gold Corporation 

cc: Mr. Darin Bloyed, Chairman, Pershing County Commissioners 
522 


Insert graphic folio 598 here 22000A.474

Sitka Field Office Box 6484 Sitka, Alaska 99835 907-747-7557 

October 6, 2016 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

Washington, D.C. 

For the Record <fortherecord@energy.senate.gov> 

Subj: Comments on S.3203 and S.3273 {both regarding Alaska). for the 9/22 hearing record 

I am writing for Greenpeace conceming S.3203 (Alaska Economic Development and Access to 

Resources Act) and S.3273 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act), and 

particularly from my perspective of being a 40-year resident of Southeast Alaska who has 

been involved for that time in forest issues on the Tongass National Forest and elsewhere in 

the region, and having moved here as an engineer for Sitka's former pulp mill. These are 

timely comments, being submitted before the 6 PM EST deadline today, and concem aspects 

of the bill that would affect the region. 

We urge the committee to not pass these bills. Both of the bills will worsen the excessive 

social and ecosystem impacts that have occurred from intense logging in Southeast Alaska 

over the past six decades, on private- and state-owned as well as the Tongass National 

Forest, and particularly in the south em half of the region where the negative impacts of these 

bills on forests are focused. 

Concerning S.3203 {Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act) 

Title V of the bill would impact forests. Concerning§ 501 (excluding the Tongass NF from the 

Roadless Rule) and §503 (a 2-million acre land-grab from the Tongass, for the State of Alaska 

to log), we agree with testimony given on Sept. 22 by Forest Service Deputy Chief Leslie 

Weldon. The three photos below, although illustrating a different land give-away in the bill, 

epitomize the failure of public trust protection that would occur if lands if this legislation 

transfers land to the State of Alaska, which would manage them under the very weak Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Act. The act for example has no limit on clearcut size. 

Section 502 is for a roughly 21,000 land-for-land exchange between the Alaska Mental Health 

Trust (AMHT) and the US Forest Service. Instead, the best approach by far would be a 

financial exchange for the forest lands that AMHT cannot reasonably develop and which it 

wants to unload. Sen. Murkowski should be agreeable to a buy-out of these lands since 

AMHT's real need is finances, not land particularly, and an endowment from such a buy-out. 

would meet that need. Further, she has promoted this kind of solution in S.3273 §5, for Shee 

Atika Corporation (discussed below). 

The three photos below, all taken a year ago yesterday, illustrate why we believe the Forest 

Service should not entertain or condone such land-for-land exchange on the Tongass 

National Forest, where the other party's objective is logging. These show AMHT's nearly 4,000 

acre clearcut extending from the head of George Inlet to Leask Lakes (on Revillagigedo, east 

of the city of Ketchikan). This recent continuous clearcut is immediately adjacent to the 

appx. 8,000 acres that AMHT would get through the land-for-land exchange in S.3203 §502 

(and which is also the sole topic in S.3006). We strongly oppose §502 (and S.3006) unless it 

is modified to being a finances-for-land exchange. 

1 
523 


Insert graphic folio 599 here 22000A.475

AMHTs Leask Lakes clearcut of nearly 4,000 acres, at the head of George Inlet, looking northward. In the §502 land 

trade, AMHT would get an adjacent 8,000 acres to the east. (Photos: 101512015. Greenpeace). There is other extensive 

logging nearby on both federal and non-federal land. Please, don't allow the §502 land-for-land exchange. 

Concerning S.3273 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act) 

Four sections of the bill directly concern Southeast Alaska, and a filth one may also do so. 

Section 5 (titled "Shee Atika We approve of §5. This is a finances-for-land 

exchange. Although the land has clearcut, there is a national 

advantage to this trade. The trade is already proceeding 

2 
524 


Insert graphic folio 600 here 22000A.476

completed last month, with the remainder to be completed when funding allows. The bill 

would speed this up. This section of the bill serves as a model for the Tongass for doing 

finances-far-land exchanges instead of land-for-land exchanges, but they should be done 

instead of Jogging occurring. 

Section 6 (titled "Admiralty Island Nat'! Monument Land Exchange"): We strongly oppose 

this section, which would trade the subsurface, owned by Sealaska Corporation, which 

under Shee Atika's above surface estate. It is a subsurface-far-land exchange that would give 

Sealaska 15,000 acres of forest land on already very heavily logged Prince of Wales Island. 

These photos of on-going Sealaska logging operations illustrate the problem. 

Two photos from October 2015 (Greenpeace). 

Above: Sealaska's valley~scale clearcutting on the west end 

of the Cleveland Peninsula. Logging is continuing northward 

to beyond the top of the photo, in an additional land 

selection obtained in a rider to the 2014 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA}. While this clearcut is not on 

Prince of Wales Island, where Sealaska would get land under 

§6, it illustrates Sealaska's current, unacceptable practices. 

Left: Sealaska's clearcutting in Election Creek, on Prince of 

Wales Island. This land selection was a medium~sized Old~ 

growth Habitat Reserve (OGR) of the Tongass National 

Forest, until Sealaska obtained it in the rider to the 2014 

NDAA. This year, logging is continuing into forest at the 

top of the photo* which is also part of the same land 

selection. 

Allowing Sealaska to select and log more land for 

logging for logging will have very serious 

environmental impacts, especially on Prince of Wales 

3 
525 


Insert graphic folio 601 here 22000A.477

Island or anywhere else in southern Southeast Alaska. This kind of logging is not allowed on 

the Tongass National Forest (and certainly not in a designated old-growth reserve), but it is 

the common practice on private- and state-owned forest land, because the State of Alaska's 

weak Forest Resources and Practices Act. 

Section 7 (titled "C!Rlland entitlement"): This section allows Cook Inlet Region Incorporated 

to select its remaining 43,000 acres of land entitlement from federal lands pretty much 

anywhere in the state of Alaska, including from the Tongass National Forest. This is 

extremely with regard to Southeast Alaska, because the forests of the region have already 

been extensively logged, with the best logged first (in terms of both timber value and 

ecological value) and then the best of the rest. Moreover, if CIRI were to pick land in this 

region it would likely be on the southern half because its land is the most productive, 

including most likely Prince of Wales Island. Simply put, this would be a very bad outcome, 

as the photos above illustrate. 

Section 10 (titled "Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities"): This section would 

establish five new for-profit corporations in the region, with a total land entitlement of 

115,000. The issue has been before Congress many times in the past and should by now be 

a settled matter, and ANCSA has provided for these communities in certain ways. To the 

extent that Congress may determine that additional recognition of the communities is 

justified, the recognition should be financial and not include land conveyances. At this late 

date, Southeast Alaska has been carved up and impacted by logging to the extent that no 

further large blocks of federal land should be disbursed. 

Section 11 (titled "Alaska Native veterans land allotment equity"): This section has statewide 

effect, including in Southeast Alaska. The deadline for applying for Native land allotments 

has previously been extended, and there is no need to do so again. See attachment #1 to this 

letter, which beginning on p.10 includes a statement by former Rep. George Miller giving the 

history of the matter. (House Rept. 107-744, 2002, regarding an act of the same title as at 

present). 

Conclusion 

Note that at several places the two bills preclude land selections from "conservation units" 

such as national parks and designated Wilderness areas. Such preclusions are not adequate 

protection of the public trust. As shown above, there have had to be other kinds of 

protections, administrative ones such as above the old-growth habitat reserve in Election 

Creek. Additionally, in heavily impacted areas like Prince of Wales Island and southern 

Southeast Alaska protecting the public's interest requires careful examination of particular 

development proposals, to which broad-brush land give-aways by Congress are anathema. 

Finally, attachment #2 is my point-by-point tear-down of testimony by the State of Alaska 

before Congress last November, on supposed justifications for the kinds of forest land 

give-aways that Sen. Murkowski is proposing in these two bills. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Larry Edwards (ledwards(iilgreenpeace.org) 

Attachments: (1) House Rept. 107-744, 2002. (2) "Critique of Alaska Governor's-Office 

Statements ... Sept. 29, 2015," by Greenpeace, Nov. 3, 2015. 

4 
526 


Insert graphic folio 602 here 22000A.478

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrnt7441htrnliCRPI-107hrot744.htm 

[House Report 107-744] 

[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] 

107th Congress Report 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

2d Session 107-744 

(See: "Dissenting views of representative George Miller", beginning on p.10) 

ALASKA NATIVE VETERANS LAND ALLOTMENT EQUITY ACT 

October 11, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted' the following 

REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

(To accompany H.R. 3148] 

(Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Corrunittee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3148) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to 

provide equitable treatment of Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 

favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 

as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 

following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ''Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment 

Equity Act''. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE VETERAN LAND 

ALLOTMENTS. 

Section 41 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 u.s.c. 1629g) is amended as follows: 

{1) Paragraphs {1) and (2) of subsection (a) are amended to 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
527 


Insert graphic folio 603 here 22000A.479

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt744/html/CRPT-107hrpt744.htm 

read as follows: 

'' { 1) The period for filing allotments under this Act 

shall end 3 years after the Secretary issues final 

regulations under section 3 of the Alaska Native 

Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act. A person described 

in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) shall be 

eligible for an allotment of not more than two parcels 

of Federal land totaling 160 acres or less. 

'' {2) (A) Allotments may be selected from the 

following: 

'' (i) Vacant lands that are owned by the United States; 

'' (ii) Lands that have been selected or conveyed to the State 

of Alaska if the State voluntarily relinquishes or conveys to 

the United States the land for the allotment. 

''(iii) Lands that have been selected or conveyed to a Native 

Corporation if the Native Corporation voluntarily relinquishes 

or conveys to the United States the land for the allotment. 

''(B) A Native Corporation may select an equal amount of acres of 

appropriate Federal land within the State of Alaska to replace lands 

voluntarily relinquished or conveyed by that Native Corporation under 

subparagraph (A) (iii). 

'' (Cl For security reasons, allotments may not be selected from--

,' (i) lands within the right-of-way granted for the 

TransAlaska Pipeline; or 

'' {ii). the inner or outer corridor of that right-of-way 

withdrawal. ' ' . 

{2) Subsection (a) (3) is repealed. 

{3) In subsection (b) (1), strike ''A person'' and insert 

''Except as provided in paragraph (3), a person''. 

{4) Subsection (b) (1) {B) is amended to read as follows: 

'' (B) is a veteran who served during the period between 

August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975, including such dates.''. 

(5) Subsection (b.) (2) is amended to read as follows: 

'' (2) If an individual who would otherwise have been eligible for an 

allotment dies before applying for the allotment, an heir on behalf of 

the estate of the deceased veteran may apply for and receive the 

allotment.' '. 

{6) In subsection (b) (3), insert before the period the 

following: ·, except for an heir who applies and receives an 

allotment on behalf of the estate of a deceased veteran 

pursuant to paragraph (2) ''. 

(7) Subsection (e) is amended to read as follows: 

''(e) Regulations.--All regulations in effect immediately before the 

enactment of subsection (f) that were promulgated under the authority 

of this section shall be repealed in accordance with section 

552 (a) (1) (E) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 O.S.C. 

552(a)(l).(E)).''. 

(8) Add at the end the following new subsections: 

''(f) Approval of Allotments.--(!) Subject to valid existing rights, 

and except as otherwise provided in this subsection, not later than 

January 31, 2007, the Secretary shall approve an application for 

allotments filed ln accordance with subsection (a) and issue a 

certificate of allotment which shall be subject to the same terms, 

conditions, restrictions, and protections provided for such allotments. 

'' (2} Upon receipt of an allotment application, but in any event not 

later than October 31, 2005, the Secretary shall notify any person or 

entity having an interest in land potentially adverse to the applicant 

of their right to initiate a private contest or file a protest under 

existing Federal regulations. 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
528 


Insert graphic folio 604 here 22000A.480

http:llwww.goo.govlfdsyslpkg!CRPT-1 07hrot7441html/CRPT-I 07hrot744.htm 

'' (3) Not later than January 31, 2007, the Secretary shall--

,' (A) if no contest or protest is timely filed, approve the 

application pursuant to paragraph {1); or 

'' (8) if a contest or protest is timely filed, stay the 

issuance of the certificate of allotment until the contest or 

protest has been decided. 

''(g) Reselection.--A person who made an allotment selection under 

this section before the date of the enactment of Alaska Native Veterans 

Land Allotment Equity Act may withdraw that selection and reselect 

lands under this section if the lands originally selected were not 

conveyed to that person before the date of the enactment of Alaska 

Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act.' •. 

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of the Interior shall issue final regulations to 

implement the amendments made by this Act. 

Purpose of the Bill 

The purpose of H.R. 3148 is to amend the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act to provide equitable treatment of Alaska 

Native Vietnam veterans, and for other purposes. 

Background and Need for Legislation 

In 1998, Public Law 105-276 amended the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act {ANCSA) to provide Alaska Native Vietnam 

veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment of up to 160 

acres of land under the Native Allotment Act. Approximately 

2, 800 Alaska Natives served in the military during the Vietnam 

conflict and therefore did not have an opportunity to apply for 

their Native allotment. However, Public Law 105-276 contains 

three major obstacles that prevent Alaska Native Vietnam 

veterans from selecting and obtaining their Native allotment. 

First, Alaska Native Vietnam veterans can only apply for land 

that was vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved when their use 

first began. Second, Alaska Native Vietnam veterans can only 

apply if they served in active military duty from January 1, 

1969 to December 31, 1971 (even though the Vietnam conflict 

began August 5, 1964 and ended May 7, 1975). Third, Alaska 

Native Vietnam veterans must prove they used the land (applied 

for in their native allotment application) in a substantially 

continuous and independent manner, at least potentially 

exclusive of others, for five or more years. This requirement 

was not in the original Native Allotment Act, ·nor has it been 

required of other Alaska Native applicants in applying for 

their native allotment. Further, adjudication of use and 

occupancy issues will take years and will be very costly. 

H.R. 3148 will increase the available land by authorizing 

Alaska Native Vietnam veterans to apply for land that is 

federally owned and vacant. The lack of available land under 

existing law nullifies the very purpose of granting Alaska 

Native Vietnam veterans an allotment benefit. H.R. 3148 will 

also expand the military service dates to coincide with the 

entire Vietnam conflict: August 5, 1964 through May 7, 1975. 

The expansion of military service dates to include all Alaska 

Natives who served in the military during the Vietnam conflict 

1011012015 4:55PM 
529 


Insert graphic folio 605 here 22000A.481

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt744/html/CRPT-l07hmt744.htm 

is consistent with the federal government's policy of providing 

benefits to veterans of the Vietnam war. In addition, H.R. 3148 

will also replace existing use and occupancy requirements with 

legislative approval of allotment applications. Use and 

occupancy requirements would be replaced for several reasons: 

(1) Congress has made legislative approval available to all 

other allotment applicants under 43 U.S.C. 1634 (a) (1) {A); (2) 

legislative approval of allotments prevents costly and lengthy 

adjudication of use and occupancy issues; and {3) many Alaska 

Native Vietnam veterans could not meet use and occupancy 

requirements as a result of military service. 

The bill would also extend the deadline of the allotment 

application to three years after the Secretary of the Interior 

issues final regulations under section 3 of the bill. H.R. 3148 

would also correct the dates of approval of allotments to 

accommodate the extension of the application process of an 

Alaska Native Vietnam veteran. Language has also been added to 

assure ANCSA native corporations that their land entitlement 

would remain intact when a veteran makes his or her allotment 

land selection on corporation lands. For security reasons, H.R. 

3148 prohibits an Alaska Native Vietnam veteran from selecting 

lands within the right of way granted for the TransAlaska 

Pipeline (or the inner or outer corridor of that right-of-way} 

and lands withdrawn or reserved for national defense purposes. 

Section 2 (g) would allow a person who made an allotment 

selection under this section, before the date of. enactment of 

this bill, to withdraw that selection and reselect lands under 

this section if the lands originally selected were not conveyed 

to that person prior to enactment of this bill. H.R. 3148 also 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop final 

regulations to implement the bill. 

Committee Action 

H.R. 3148 was introduced on October 16, 2001, by 

Congressman Don Young (R-AK) • The bill was referred to the 

Committee on Resources. On June 5, 2002 the Committee held a 

hearing on the bill. On September 12, 2002, the Committee met 

to mark up the bill. Congressman Don Young offered an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute to make several changes 

recommended by Doyon Limited, CIRI, several Alaska Native 

Corporations and Alyesk,a Pipeline Company. It was adopted by 

voice vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably 

reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

Cornrni ttee Oversight Findings and Recommendations 

Regarding clause 2{b) (1) of rule X and clause 3(c) (1) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 

Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 

are reflected in the body of this report. 

Constitutional Authority Statement 

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 

States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

Compliance With House Rule XIII 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
530 


Insert graphic folio 606 here 22000A.482

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt744/htmi/CRPT-107hrnt744.htm 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3 (d) (2) of rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 

a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 

incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d) (3) {B) 

of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 

the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 

cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c) (2) 

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 308{a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 

bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 

authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax 

expenditures. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 

H.R. 3148 could increase direct spending, but they estimate 

that any such impact would not be significant. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c) {4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 

objective of this bill is to amend the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act to provide equitable treatment of Alaska Native 

Vietnam Veterans, and for other purposes. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3 {c) (3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 

for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 

Office: 

Ron. James V. Hansen, 

U.S. Congress, 

Congressional Budget Office, 

Washington, DC, October 3, 2002. 

Chairman, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3148, the Alaska 

Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act. 

If you wish further details on this eStimate, we will be 

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan 

Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

Barry B. Anderson 

{For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3148--Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act 

Summary: H.R. 3148 would amend current law to authorize the 

Secretary of the Interior to grant allotments of federal lands 

to certain Alaska Natives or their heirs. CBO estimates that 

implementing H.R. 3148 would cost $11 million over the 2003-

2007 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

The bill could increase direct spending, but we estimate that 

any such impact would not be significant. 

H.R. 3148 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act {UMRA) 

and would have no significant impact on the budgets of state, 

local, or tribal governments. 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
531 


Insert graphic folio 607 here 22000A.483

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-1 07hrpt744/htmi/CRPT-1 07hrnt744.htm 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 

budgetary impact of H.R. 3148 is shown in the following table. 

The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 

(natural resources and environment). 

By fiscal year 

2003 2004 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ..................................... . 

Estimated Outlays .......•.....................•.................... 

Basis of estimate: Assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts, CBO est.imates that implementing H.R. 3148 would cost 

$11 million over the next five years. We also estimate that the 

bill could reduce offsetting receipts (a credit against direct 

spending), but by less than $500,000 a year. For this estimate, 

CBO assumes that H.R. 3148 will be enacted early in fiscal year 

2003 and that the necessary funds will be provided near the 

start of each fiscal year. Estimates of outlays are based on 

historical spending patterns for similar activities. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

H.R. 3148 would amend current law to authorize the 

Secretary of the Interior to grant allotments of federal lands 

to certain Alaska Natives who served in the a:nned forces in 

Vietnam during the period from August 5, 1964, to May 7, 1975. 

The bill also would authorize the Secretary to grant allotments 

to the heirs of eligible deceased veterans, and, under certain 

circumstances, would allow certain other Alaska Native 

indi victuals and organizations with existing allotments to 

withdraw those allotments and select other lands instead. H.R. 

3148 would direct the Secretary to promulgate regulations to 

implement the proposed program and specifies that applications 

to participate could be submitted until three years after the 

date when those regulations are published. Under the bill, any 

application still pending as of January 31, 2007, would be 

automatically approved at that time, provided that no other 

party has contested the application. 

Based on information from the Department of the Interior 

(DOI), CBO estimates that issuing regulations pursuant to H.R. 

3148 would cost about $1 million in 2003. We also estimate that 

eligible Alaska Natives would file up to 2,000 new applications 

for allotments. Assuming that, on average, the department 

spends $5,000 to review each application permit, we estimate 

that the costs of processing those applications would total $10 

million over the 2004-2007 period. 

Direct spending 

Under H.R. 3148, eligible Alaska Natives could apply for 

allotments on a wide variety of federal lands in Alaska, 

including those that might produce offsetting receipts from 

programs to develop natural resources, According to DOI, the 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
532 


Insert graphic folio 608 here 22000A.484

http:/lwww.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt7441htrnUCRPT-107hrot744.htm 

Secretary is unlikely to approve applications for allotments on 

lands that are expected to generate significant receipts over 

the next 10 years. Under the bill, it is possible that some 

applications may be automatically approved on January 31, 2007, 

even if the Secretary has not had sufficient time to review 

them. However, any applications so approved would be subject to 

valid existing rights; hence, we estimate that any forgone 

offsetting receipts under H. R. 3148 would likely be 

insignificant. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H. R. 3148 

contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 

defined in UMRA and would have no significant impact on the 

budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller; and 

Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

Compliance With Public Law 104-4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law 

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 

tribal law. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3 (e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 

proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 

matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 

proposed is shown in roman) : 

SECTION 41 OF THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT 

OPEN SEASON FOR CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE VETERANS FOR ALLOTMENTS 

Sec. 41. {a) In General.--[{!) During the eighteen month 

period following promulgation of implementing rules pursuant to 

subsection {e), a person described in subsection (b) shall be 

eligible for an allotment of not more than two parcels of 

federal land totaling 160 acres or less under the Act of May 

17, 1906 (chapter 2469; 34 Stat. 197), as such Act was in 

effect before December 18, 1971.] (1) The period for filing 

allotments under this Act shall end 3 years after the Secretary 

issues final regulations under section 3 of the Alaska Native 

Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act. A person described in 

paragraph (1) or {2) of subsection (b) shall be eligible for an 

allotment of not more than two parcels of Federal land totaling 

160 acres or less. 

[ ( 2) Allotments may be selected only from lands that were 

vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved on the date when the 

person eligible for the allotment first used and occupied those 

lands. 

[ ( 3) The Secretary may not convey allotments containing any 

10110/2015 4:55PM 
533 


Insert graphic folio 609 here 22000A.485

http:!/www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt744/html!CRPT-107hrot744.htm 

of the following--

[ (A) lands upon which a native or non-native campsite 

is located, except for a campsite used primarily by the 

person selecting the allotment; 

[(B) lands selected by, but not conveyed to, the 

State of Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act 

any other provision of law; 

[(C) lands selected by, but not conveyed to, a 

Village or Regional Corporation; 

[(D) lands designated as wilderness by statute; 

[(E) acquired lands; 

[(F) lands containing a building, permanent 

structure, or other development owned or controlled by 

the United States, another unit of government, or a 

person other than the person selecting the allotment; 

[(G) lands withdrawn or reserved for national defense 

purposes other than National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; 

[(H) National Forest Lands; and 

[(I) lands selected or claimed, but not conveyed, 

under a public land law, including but not limited to 

the following: 

[ {1) Lands within a recorded mining claim. 

[ (2) Home sites. 

[ (3) Trade and Manufacturing sites. 

[ (4) Reindeer sites or headquarters sites. 

[ ( 5) Cemetery sites. ] 

(2) (A) Allotments may be selected from the following: 

(i) Vacant lands that are owned by the United States; 

(ii) Lands that have been selected or conveyed to the 

State of Alaska if the State voluntarily relinquishes 

or conveys to the United States the land for the 

allotment. 

(iii) Lands that have been selected or conveyed to a 

Native Corporation if the Native Corporation 

voluntarily relinquishes or conveys to the United 

States the land for the allotment. 

(B) A Native Corporation may select an equal amount of acres 

of appropriate Federal land within the, State of Alaska to 

replace lands voluntarily relinquished or conveyed by that 

Native Corporation under subparagraph (A) (iii). 

(C) For security reasons, allotments may not be selected 

from--

{il lands within the right-of-way granted for the 

TransAlaska Pipeline; or 

(ii)~ the inner or outer corridor of that right-of-way 

withdrawal. 

(b) Eligible Person.-- (1) [A person] Except as provided in 

paragraph (3), a person is eligible to select an allotment 

under this section if that person--

(A) * * * [(B) is a veteran who served during the period 

between January 1, 1969 and December 31, 1971 and--

[ ( i) served at least 6 months between January 

1, 1969 and December 31, 1971; or 

[ (ii) enlisted or was drafted into military 

service after June 2, 1971 but before December 

10110/2015 4:55PM 
534 


Insert graphic folio 610 here 22000A.486

http://www.gpo.sov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt744/htmi/CRPT-1 07hrot744.htm 

3, 1971. 

( (2) The personal representative or special administrator, 

appointed in an Alaska State court proceeding of the estate of 

a decedent who was eligible under subsection (b) (1) (A) may, for 

the benefit of the heirs, select an allotment if the decedent 

was a veteran who served in South East Asia at any time during 

the period beginning August 5, 1964, and ending December 31, 

1971, and during that period the decedent--

[ (A) was killed in action; 

[(B) was wounded in action and subsequently died as a 

direct consequence of that wound, as determined by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs; or 

[(C) died while a prisoner of war.] 

(B} is a veteran who served during the period between 

August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975, including such dates. 

{2) If an individual who would otherwise have been eligible 

for an allotment dies before applying for the allotment, an 

heir on behalf of the estate of the deceased veteran may apply 

for and receive the allotment. 

{3) No person who received an allotment or has a pending 

allotment under the Act of May 17, 1906 may receive an 

allotment under this section, except for an heir who applies 

and receives an allotment on behalf of the estate of a deceased 

veteran pursuant to paragraph ( 2 l . 

[{e) Regulations.--No later than 18 months after enactment of 

this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate, 

after consultation with Alaska Natives groups, rules to carry 

out this section. ] 

(e) Regulations .--All regulations in effect inunediately 

before the enactment of subsection {f) that were promulgated 

under the authority of this section shall be repealed in 

accordance with section 552{a) (1) (E) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act {5 U.S.C. 552(a) (1) (E)). 

(f) Approval of Allotments.--{1) Subject to valid existing 

rights, and except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 

not later than January 31# 2007, the Secretary shall approve an 

application for allotments filed in accordance with subsection 

(a) and issue a certificate of allotment which shall be subject 

to the same terms, conditions, restrictions, and protections 

provided for such allotments. 

(2) Upon receipt of an allotment application, but in any 

event not later than October 31, 2005, the Secretary shall 

notify any person or entity having an interest in land 

potentially adverse to the applicant of their right to initiate 

a private contest or file a protest under existing Federal 

regulations. 

{3) Not later than January 31, 2007, the Secretary shall--

{A) if no contest or protest is timely filed, approve 

the application pursuant to paragraph (1); or 

(B) if a contest or protest is timely filed, stay the 

issuance of the certificate of allotment until the 

contest or protest has been decided. 

{g) Reselection.--A person who made an allotment selection 

under this section before the date of the enactment of Alaska 

Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act may withdraw that 

selection and reselect lands under this section if the lands 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
535 


Insert graphic folio 611 here 22000A.487

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrot744/html!CRPT-107hrot744.htm 

originally selected were not conveyed to that person before the 

date of the enactment of Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment 

Equity Act. 

DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE MILLER 

While cloaked in a veil of sympathetic beneficiaries, this 

legislation is fraught with substantive problems. By 

resurrecting an old homesteading statute, the Allotment Act of 

1906--which was repealed by Congress in 1971--H.R. 3148 would 

allow any Alaska Native (or their heirs) who served in the 

military anytime between 1964 and 1975 to freely select and 

receive up to 160 acres of public land in Alaska. As a result, 

several hundred thousand acres of pristine and valuable lands 

could be conveyed out of public ownership, with several 

thousand new private inholdings created in national parks, 

national wildlife refuges, national forests, military 

withdrawals and other important public lands in Alaska. Once 

conveyed, such allotment lands may be developed or even sold 

without restriction. 

In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act granted 

Alaska Native corporations over 44 million acres of land and 

over $1 billion to manage on behalf of Native shareholders. In 

1958, the Alaska Statehood Act provided the State of Alaska 

over 104 million acres of land. Yet neither the Alaska Native 

corporations nor the State have chosen to grant any of their 

own lands to Native veterans of Vietnam or any other era as a 

reward for their military service. Instead, H.R. 3148 seeks yet 

again to make more private withdrawals from the bank of lands 

that are owned by the United States for the benefit of all the 

American people. 

Congress has twice in recent years addressed the ''missed 

opportunity' • equities of Alaska Natives who served in the 

military just prior to the 1971 repeal of the Allotment Act of 

1906 and who may have lost out on their opportunities to apply 

because of that service. In 1998, a rider on the FY 99 VA-HUD 

Appropriations bill {Public Law 105-276) restored eligibility 

for a limited class of military veterans, those who served 

between 1969 and 1971. In 2000, additional refinements and 

technical changes were made (Public Law 106-559). 

At that time, however, the Department of the Interior 

stated that ''we are opposed to further changes or expansion of 

the law, which we believe fully and fairly addresses the 

problem of lost opportunity due to military service for Alaska 

Native veterans of the Vietnam War to apply for allotments. • • 

And the Democratic floor manager stated that ''by allowing this 

bill to proceed, it is our intent that this action is final and 

that there will be no further extensions of land claims under 

an act that was passed by Congress at the turn of the century 

and repealed three decades ago.'' [See: Congressional Record, 

October 10, 2000 at page H9616] 

Unfortunately, H.R. 3148 would rewrite the 1998 and 2000 

negotiated agreements, disregard the ''missed opportunity'' 

rationale and eliminate the eligibility criteria of the 

original Allotment Act. The bill would substantially expand the 

number of veterans, or their heirs, who could obtain lands, and 

open public lands such as wilderness areas or the Tongass and 

Chugach National Forests that are off-limits under current law. 

In effect, it would sanction thousands of new claims on 

!0/!012015 4:55PM 
536 


Insert graphic folio 612 here 22000A.488

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrot744/htmi/CRPT-107hmt744.htm 

virtually any federal lands in Alaska, without even any showing 

of prior use or occupancy of the lands as was required under 

the Allotment Act. 

The substitute adopted at the committee markup does not 

remedy any of the fundamental flaws of the legislation. It puts 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline corridor off-limits to new allotment 

land grants, but fails to similarly protect Department of 

Defense lands or other congressional designated reserves and 

conservation areas. It allows Native corporations and the State 

of Alaska to chose to convey lands for Native allotments, but 

further undercuts and complicates public land management in 

Alaska by providing that they will be reimbursed by the Untied 

States with additional lands. 

Even the Bush Administration testified in strong opposition 

to H.R. 3148 at the June 5, 2002 full committee hearing. In a 

June 21st letter, the Department of the Interior restated their 

rationale for opposing the bill, noting that it ''essentially 

makes the renewal of the opportunity to apply for an allotment 

under the 1906 Allotment Act a special bonus or reward for 

service for one class of Alaska Natives, those who served in 

the Vietnam war, but no longer has any basis in missed 

opportunity. * * * This bonus program, available only to Alaska 

Natives and to no other veterans, also raises the possibility 

of Constitutional challenge as to whether it may be an 

impermissible preference. • • [See: Attachment A] An analysis 

dated September 24, 2002 by the Congressio~al Research Service 

states that ''it is possible that the courts might view H.R. 

3148 • s extension of a benefit to Alaska Native veterans not 

shared by all veterans or non-Alaska Native residents of the 

State as describing a racial classification subject to strict 

judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. • • [See: 

Attachment 8] 

Regardless of its potential Constitutional defects, H.R. 

3148 is fundamentally bad public policy. It reopens and 

exponentially expands the Allotment Act of 1906 that Congress 

repealed in 1971 when it enacted the most generous land 

settlement in United States history. It discards the equitable 

missed opportunity premise underlying the negotiated agreements 

of 1998 and 2000 and discards the protections in those laws to 

expose wilderness areas, national forests and other valuable 

public lands to privatization. 

H.R. 3148 should not have been reported by the Committee on 

Resources and it should be rejected if it comes before the 

House of Representatives. 

George Miller. 

[ATTACHMENT A] 

Department of the Interior, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, DC, June 21, 2002. 

Hon. James v. Hansen, 

Chairman, Committee on Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request for 

the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 3148, which 

would amend section 1629 {g) of the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement ·Act (ANCSA), originally enacted as the Alaska Native 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
537 


Insert graphic folio 613 here 22000A.489

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT~l07hmt744/html/CRPT-107hmt744.htm 

Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act of 1998 {Section 432 of Public 

Law 105-276). The purpose of the 1998 Act was to redress 

unfairness that may have resulted for certain Alaska Native 

Veterans of the Vietnam War who may have missed an opportunity 

to apply for an allotment under the 1906 Native Allotment Act 

because of service in the armed forces irrunediately prior to the 

repeal of the Allotment Act. The Allotment Act was repealed 

with the enactment of ANCSA on December 18, 1971. The 1998 Act 

gave qualified Vietnam veterans a renewed opportunity to apply 

under the Allotment Act. This letter follows and confirms my 

testimony to the Conunittee on June 5, 2'002. 

We certainly support the principle of equitable treatment 

of Alaska Vietnam Veterans, and we have made every effort at 

fairness under the 1998 Act. While we have made considerable 

progress under the 1998 Act, we appreciate that there may be 

frustrations among many Alaska Native veterans under the 

current act, frustrations in that there are limitations on 

eligibility and entitlements under the Act, frustrations about 

time of administration, and frustrations in that all are not 

entitled. We believe there may be a misconception among many 

Native veterans that because they served, they are entitled to 

an allotment. That was not the purpose of the 1998 Act. 

The new bill, H.R. 3148, while it aims at fairness, raises 

a number of serious new policy, management, and technical 

concerns, and it would give rise to new issues of fairness with 

respect to other Alaska Natives and other Vietnam veterans. It 

would undo the important compromises reached in the passage of 

the 1998 Act. It would stall, if not negate the progress made 

so far under the 1998 Act, and it would disrupt ongoing 

progress, settled land use arrangements under ANCSA and ANILCA, 

and efforts to finalize land entitlements under ANCSA, the 

Statehood Act, and the 1906 Allotment Act. Therefore the 

Administration is opposed to H.R. 3148. 

H.R. 3148 is a significant departure from the original 

''missed oppostunity'' concept of the Alaska Native Vietnam 

Veterans Allotment Act. H.R. 3148 extends the eligibility 

period of the current Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act. 

H.R. 3148 extends the eligibility period of the current law 

from a three year period to the entire Vietnam Era, from 1964 

to 1975, including four additional years after the 1971 repeal 

of the Alaska Native Allotment Act, when other Alaska Natives 

could no longer apply. Essentially, most if not all Alaska 

Native Vietnam veterans, or the heirs of deceased veterans, 

would appear to be eligible to apply for an allotment. 

The 1998 Act limited military service eligibility to those 

individuals who served between 1969 and 1971. The rationale 

behind this limitation was the fact that that was the period 

when missed opportunity because of service was likely to occur. 

Also, there was a major effort by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Alaska Legal Services Corporation, the Rural Alaska Community 

Action Program (RurAlCAP) and other entities during this period 

to solicit the filing of Native allotment applications in 

anticipation of the repeal of the 1906 Act. Those Alaska 

Natives who were serving in the military during this period may 

not have been able to benefit from the outreach effort. 

Veterans who served prior to January 1, 1969, generally had the 

same opportunities to learn about the Native allotment program 

and to apply as any other Alaska Native. Those who served after 

December 18, 1971, as with all other Alaska Natives, had no 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
538 


Insert graphic folio 614 here 22000A.490

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt744/html/CRPT-107hrot744.htm 

further opportunity to apply for allotments because of repeal 

of the Act. Neither group can be considered to have missed 

their opportunity to apply for an allotment because of their 

military service. 

The new bill, H.R. 3148, essentially makes the renewal of 

the opportunity to apply for an allotment under the 1906 

Allotment Act a special bonus or reward for service for one 

class of Alaska Natives, those who served in the Vietnam war, 

but no longer has any basis in missed opportunity. 

H.R. 3148 would thus discriminate and create inequities 

between Alaska Native Vietnam veterans and Natives who did not 

serve in the military, between Native veterans and non-Native 

veterans, and between Native veterans with military service 

during the Vietnam Era and Native veterans who served in World 

War II, Korea, or other conflicts. This bonus program, 

available only to Alaska Natives and to no other veterans, also 

raises the possibility of Constitutional challenge as to 

whether it may be an impermissible preference. 

Progress under the current law 

From the passage of the 1998 Act until the final 

regulations were published, BLM conducted extensive outreach 

efforts to reach potential Alaska Native Veteran Allotment 

applicants. These efforts are detailed on the attached 

appendix. 

Section 432 of Public Law 104-276 required the Secretary of 

the Interior to promulgate regulations within 18 months to 

carry out the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment program. The law 

also provided for an 18-month application filing period to 

begin when the regulationsbecame effective. On February 8, 

2000, following a series of public meetings to gather input from Native 

groups, State and Federal entities, and private individuals and groups, 

a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. Following a 60-

day comment period, the final rule was published on June 30, 2000. 

Revised regulations to implement the terms of a December 2000 amendment 

to the 1998 Act were published in final form on October 16, 2001. 

During development of the regulations to implement the 1998 

Act, the BLM estimated that as many as 1,100 Alaska Native 

veterans might be eligible to apply for allotments under the 

provisions of that Act. This estimate was based on analysis of 

the DVA data used to prepare the Department's 1997 Report to 

Congress, and was inflated somewhat to account for the fact 

that there were potentially eligible individuals who were not 

identified by DVA. 

The filing period for Native veterans allotment 

applications began on July 31, 2000, and continued through 

January 13, 2002. BLM received applications for 991 parcels of 

land from more than 700 individual applicants. A majority of 

the applications were received, and approximately 700 parcels 

were claimed during January 2002, the last month of the filing 

period. Many of the applications filed in 2000 and 2001 have 

been rejected because of non-resident status, failure to meet 

military service criteria, or application for lands that have 

been conveyed or are not available. For applications involving 

unavailable lands, BLM made every effort to identify those 

applications as quickly as possible so that applicants who are 

otherwise eligible could still have the opportunity to apply 

for other land. 

10/!0/2015 4:55PM 
539 


Insert graphic folio 615 here 22000A.491

http://www.ooo.gov/fdsysipkWCRPT-107hrot744/htmi/CRPT-107hmt744.htm 

We do not know at this time how many of the applications 

filed in January 2002 are legally sufficient or defective, in 

part because we have had to concentrate our efforts on 

serializing the large, late influx of new applications and 

having them noted to the official BLM records. We note that 

approximately 250 applications received at the end of the 

filing period contained no land descriptions. Work is ongoing 

on other veterans applications. Field examination and survey of 

veterans allotment parcels are mixed in with existing schedules 

for similar work on original applications filed under the 1906 

Act. 

Also pursuant to section 432 of P.L. 105-276, the 

Department has submitted a report to the Congress on the status 

of Alaska Vietnam veterans who served during a period other 

than that specified for eligibility under section 432. The 

report made an extensive survey of circumstances of Alaska 

Vietnam veterans and reasons why they did not apply under the 

Allotment Act, but it recommended against expanding the 

eligibility period and raised no considerations consistent with 

terms proposed by H.R. 3148. 

Other problems with H.R. 3148 

In addition to the fairness and potential Constitutional 

problems noted above, the bill raises other serious concerns. 

H.R. 3148 rescinds all regulations promulgated to implement 

the current law 

H.R. 3148 would repeal all regulations promulgated under 

the Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Act of 199"'8, which 

includes the original regulations published in the Federal 

Register in June 2000 (43 CFR 2568) as well as the amended 

regulations published on October 16, 2001, to implement the 

changes made by Public law 106-559 in December 2000 (the 

amended regulations became effective on November 15, 2001). 

Eliminating the veterans allotment regulations would not only 

leave BLM and the other land management agencies without any 

guidance to implement the program, but it would also leave 

applicants with no certainty of what is expected of them. These 

regulations provide, among other matters, the guidance 

essential for the processing of veterans allotment 

applications, the rules governing compatibility determinations 

for applications in Conservation system units, the rules 

governing appeals from different types of decisions, and 

safeguards to State and ANCSA entitlements. 

H.R. 3148 removes protections for certain lands provided 

under the 1998 act 

The change in the definition of available lands for 

allotments from ''vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved'' to 

''vacant lands that are owned by the United States'' raises the 

question whether the prior requirements of the 1906 Allotment 

Act still apply. Section (b) (1) of the 1998 Act, as kept under 

HR 3148, would indicate that they do, but the new (a) (2) is 

conflicting. If the term ''vacant land of the United States'' 

controls, then any vacant U.S. lands are open, including parks, 

refuges, wilderness, and possible defense properties. CSU 

protections may be rendered moot. Previously withdrawn lands, 

including, for instance, Tongass National Forest, would 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
540 


Insert graphic folio 616 here 22000A.492

http:llwww.goo.gov/fdsyslpkg!CRPT-107hrot744/html/CRPT-107hrot744.htm 

presumably become available. Further, H.R. 3148 proposes to 

repeal 43 u.s.c. 1629g(a) (3), which protected numerous special 

areas, including acquired lands, lands withdrawn for defense 

purposes, National Forest lands, wilderness, campsites, trade 

and manufacturing sites, lands containing buildings or other 

development, cemetery sites, home sites, and more. Defense and 

acquired lands would be available. For instance, since 1991, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent over 150 million 

dollars acquiring land on Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges, 

mostly from Native corporations and allotted. These newly 

acquired lands would be available for Native veteran allotment 

applications under this bill. 

Additionally, H.R. 3148 may eliminate the standard 

Allotment Act rules concerning use and occupancy of the land. 

This changes previous tenets of law for occupancy of public 

lands. 

In a related issue, it is unclear whether H.R. 3148 would 

eliminate the requirement of the 1906 Native Allotment Act that 

an applicant must be a resident of Alaska. Allowing Native 

allotments in Alaska for non-residents, many of whom have never 

lived in Alaska, we believe would be totally contrary to the 

intent of both the 1906 Act and the 1998 Alaska Native Veterans 

Allotment Act. While we do not interpret the language in H.R. 

3148 as eliminating the residency requirement, we wish to make 

it clear that we are opposed to any effort to eliminate 

rthisrequirement and we object to any language which could be 

interpreted to do so. 

H.R. 3148 provides for legislative approval of all 

applications eighteen months after the filing 

deadline 

This, combined with the rescission of the regulations, 

virtually assures that most applications will be approved 

without the regular review process and without the applicants 

demonstrating that they used and occupied the claimed land in 

accordance with the 1906 Native Allotment Act and remaining 

regulations. Persons who do not meet the use and occupancy 

requirements can apply for land secure in the knowledge that 

becasue of short time frames and lack of regulations, BLM will 

not be able to field examine and adjudicate most claims by the 

deadline and most will ul tirriately be legislatively approved. 

This will encourage wrongful claims and result in wrongful 

conveyance of Federal land. It will also render ineffective the 

protections provided to conservation system units (CSU' s) by 

Section (1) (a} (5) of the existing law. 

Eligibility of all heirs of all decedents 

Although the right to file an application under the 1906 

Allotment Act did not survive the death of an individual, the 

1998 Act, for the first time in the history of public land law, 

allowed the filing of an allotment application by the personal 

representative of the estate of a deceased veteran if that 

veteran died in combat or as a POW during a certain period of 

time or died later as a result of a service connected wound 

received during that time. The military service eligibility 

period for deceased veterans in Section 432 was January 1, 

1969, through December 31, 1971; this period was expanded by 

the December 2000 amendment to include the period beginning 

August 5, 1964, and ending December 31, 1971. These provisions 

were a carefully limited compromise from earlier pre-enactment 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
541 


Insert graphic folio 617 here 22000A.493

http://www.goo.gov/fdsyslpkg/CRPT~ 1 07hrnt744/htmi/CRPT-1 07hrnt744.htm 

provisions that allowed all heirs to apply, strongly opposed by 

the Department. 

The lack of manageability of allowing all heirs to apply 

can be illustrated by reference to one word, Cabell. At the 

core of that now infamous lav;o case is the essential 

impossibility of tracking multiplying heirs and fractionated 

heirships. H.R. 31413 would eliminate all reference to a 

personal representative and would allow ''an heir'' to apply 

for an allotment on behalf of the estate of a deceased veteran. 

Many Native allotment applicants have numerous heirs, and many 

estates of deceased Natives have never been probated so 

heirship is unknown. H.R. 3148 would put the Department in the 

business of attempting to determine eligible heirs, of having 

to establishing the class of possible eligible heirs in order 

to grant an allotment, and of risking, after such allotment 

were g:i'anted, facing another claim by some other undiscovered 

heir. Multiple potential heirs could apply on behalf of a 

single estate, and if there is a dispute among heirs, BLM would 

have to engage in the conflict. 

When combined with the 18 month legislative approval, a 

likely result of the heirship provisions is that several claims 

could be approved for the same decedent, even if conflicting, 

because necessary review would not be achieved in the 18 

months. 

Added to this is the inevitable additional difficulty of 

proof of site and of use and occupancy through heirs, rather 

than by the original occupant. There is substantial potential 

for conflict, litigation, and delay of all allotment 

applications by virtue of any heirship provision. The 

Department is strongly opposed to any expansion of rights of 

heirs to apply. 

unrealistic deadlines and impacts on current ANCSA, State, 

and Allotment Act conveyances and on third party 

interests 

Because the work on new Veterans applications is 

necessarily mixed in with current work on already pending 

Allotment, State, and ANCSA applications the bill would result 

in devastating impacts on BLM' s ability to finalize State and 

A.t\ICSA land transfer entitlements and to complete conveyances to 

other Alaska Natives under the 1906 Native Allotment Act. 

We estimate that the potential exists for as many as 5200 

parcels of land to be claimed under the expanded eligibility 

provisions of H.R. 3148. H.R. 3148 would create a filing period 

for applications ending on July 31, 2003. The bill also 

contains a provision for approval of veterans allotment 

applications and issuance of certificates of allotment ''not 

later than January 31, 2005, that is, eighteen months after the 

end of the filing period. This deadline is problematic for two 

reasons: (1) it is unrealistic to expect as many as 5200 

individual parcels of land to be adjudicated, examined, 

surveyed, and conveyed in an eighteen-month period (survey 

alone normally takes longer than eighteen months from issuance 

of survey instructions and contracts to approval of survey 

plats and field notes and notation of surveys to BLM records); 

and (2) the deadline would necessitate that the processing of 

veterans allotment applications be placed ahead of State 

applications and other Native applications under the 1906 Act 

and under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
542 


Insert graphic folio 618 here 22000A.494

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsysipkg!CRPT-l07hrpt7441htmi/CRPT-l 07hrot744.htm 

BLM records show that more than 3100 parcels claimed under 

the 1906 Allotment Act are still pending and awaiting final 

disposition. Many of the applicants for these parcels have been 

waiting for decades to receive title to their allotments. 

Third party or adverse interests could be compromised by 

the application and protest deadlines and automatic approvals 

of allotment applications, resulting in potential takings, 

since the Department will not have the time to identify all 

third party interests in time to meet the protest requirements 

of the bill and third parties may not be informed and be able 

to protest and adjudicate their interests before an allotment 

is approved. 

These are some, but not all of the serious concerns raised 

by the bill. We believe that the bill will cause far: more 

problems than it will solve. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 

no objection to the presentation of this report from the 

standpoint of the Administration's program. 

Sincerely, 

Paul Hoffman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

[ATTACHMENT B] 

Congressional Research Service, 

Washington, DC, September 24, 2002. 

Memorandum 

To: House Committee on Resources, Attention: Jeff Petrick. 

From: M. Maureen Murphy, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division. 

Subject: Potential Constitutional Issues in Connection with Providing 

Allotments to Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans as Proposed in 

H.R. 3148. 

This responds to your request for information on potential 

constitutional challenges that could be raised to H.R. 3148, 

the Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act, \1\ whicih 

the House Committee on Resources voted to report on September 

12, 2002. As requested, our response will be limited to 

identifying potential constitutional claims and describing the 

standards that the courts might apply in deciding the issues 

raised by them. 

\1\ A bill similar to H.R. 3148, as introduced, is S. 2553, 

introduced by Sen. Murkowski for himself and Sen. Stevens. 148 Cong. 

Rec. 52553 (May 22, 2002). 

This legislation would amend the Alaska Native Vietnam 

Veterans Allotment Act of 1998 (hereinafter, the Act), \2\ which 

resurrected a 1906 law repealed by the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971 (~NCSA) \3\ for the limited purpose of 

permitting Alaska Native veterans who had been serving in the 

military during 1969, 1970, or 1971 to receive allotments of 

public lands in Alaska. The amendment would broaden the class 

of Alaska Native Vietnam Era veterans able to take advantage of 

this law and liberalize the conditions under which allotments 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
543 


Insert graphic folio 619 here 22000A.495

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT·l 07hrot744/html/CRPT·l 07hrot744.htm 

may be granted. 

\2\ Pub. L. 105-276, Sec. 423, 112 Stat. 2516, 43 u.s.c. Sec. 1629g 

(1998). 

\3\ Pub. L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688, 43 u.s.c. Sec. Sec. 1601 et seq. 

You are specifically interested in exploring what the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks, may have meant, in a June 21, 2002, memorandum to 

Chairman Hansen, by stating that the program contemplated by 

this legislation '·raises the possibility of Constitutional 

challenges as to whether it may be an impermissible 

preference.' 1 We not that the memorandum to Chairman Hansen 

does not elaborate on the reference to impermissible 

preference; nor does it assert that such a challenge would 

succeed. Whether such a challenge could succeed depends upon 

whether the class that is given a preference is held to be a 

suspect class, such as a class based on race, and whether in 

enacting the legislation Congress meets the standard that the 

courts will apply to the class distinguished for special 

treatment. Obviously, the group that is given preferential 

treatment in this legislation is comprised of Alaska Native 

veterans, who served in the years covered by this amendment. 

The reference in the memorandum, therefore, refers either to 

the possibility that the class is race-based because it 

consists of only Alaska Natives or to the fact that the 

beneficial treatment is being accorded on an arbitrary or 

capricious basis, rather than on a rational basis, to a group 

of Alaska Natives rather than all Alaska Natives; to a group of 

Vietnam Era Veterans rather than to all Vietnam Era veteran; or 

to a group of veterans rather than to all veterans. Without 

further specification, we can only speculate that this comment 

directs your attention to the possibility that the legislative 

history of this amendment would not provide a court sufficient 

information to conclude that Congress has met the appropriate 

standard for the legislation to survive equal protection 

scrutiny. 

The rationale behind the 1998 Act may not be easily 

transferable to the current proposal. The 1998 legislation 

appears to have been an attempt to remedy a perceived injustice 

visited upon Alaska Natives who were eligible for allotments 

under the 1906 act but were serving in the military immediately 

prior to its repeal by ANSCA. The logic is that if they were in 

military service, they might not have been fully able to take 

advantage of the widely publicized \4\ last opportunity to 

apply for an allotment. \5\ Remedying the situation addressed by 

the 1998 legislation, therefore, would seem to comport with the 

test the Supreme Court has applied to legislation that singles 

out Indians or Indian tribes for preferential treatment in such 

cases as Morton v. Mancari \6\ and Delaware Tribal Business 

Comm. v. Weeks. \7\ Morton v. Mancari, the Supreme Court upheld 

laws providing preferential BIA hiring for Indians, emphasizing 

the breadth of Congressional authority in Indian affairs. It 

indicated that laws providing preferential treatment for 

Indians wojuld be upheld: ··[a) s long as the special treatment 

can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique 

obligation toward the Indians, such legislative judgments will 

not be disturbed. • • \8\ 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
544 


Insert graphic folio 620 here 22000A.496

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT·1 07hrpt744/html!CRPT·1 07hrot744.htm 

\4\ See 65 Fed. Reg. 6259 (February 8, 2000), describing efforts of 

Alaska Native Advocacy groups to contact eligible Natives who had not 

applied for allotments. 

\5\ In introducing the legislation that gave rise to the 1998 Act. 

Rep. Don Young set forth its remedial purpose: ''Alaska Natives, who 

were in service to their country during the Vietnam War, missed their 

opportunity to apply for a Native allotment under the Native Allotment 

Act. Many were in war zones and others had not received their 

application from the Bureau of Indian Affirs (BIA). It is my firm 

belief that our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans merit the same rights as 

other Alaska Natives under this act. It is morally wrong of our country 

* * * to deny them the basic right afforded to other Alaska Native 

citizens under this act. This legislation will correct this inequity 

and give them the opportunity to apply for their allotment under the 

Native Allotment Act.'' 143 Cong. Rec. E 2220, E 2221 (November 7, 1997 

daily ed.). 

\6\ 417 u.s. 535 (1994). 

\7\430 u.s. 73 (1977). 

\8\ 417 u.s. 535, 555. 

Whether that reasoning may be applied to H.R. 3148 with 

similar force depends to some extent upon the justification 

advanced in the legislative process. In enacting H.R. 3148, is 

Congress remedying failures in the original legislation and, 

thereby, acting as a trustee for the Alaska Natives whoe 

opportunities for allotments were foreclosed by their military 

service? If H.R. 3148 is merely providing an additional benefit 

to Alaska Native VietnamEra veterans not made available to any 

other Alaska Natives, Vietnam veterans, or veterans in general, the 

legislative history, to be most persuasive to a court, should indicate 

the reason for singling out those Alaska Native veterans in terms of 

some trusteeship obligation to them. Even if there is a sufficient 

showing of why Congress is obligated to provide this type of benefit 

for these beneficiaries or why Congress, in exercising its trusteeship 

powers in Indian affairs, has chosen to single this group out for 

special treatment, there lurks another issue that the courts may choose 

to address: how the enactment of ANSCA has altered Congress• 

trusteeship relationship towards Alaska Natives. 

H.R. 3148 would broaden eligibility for allotments under 

the 1998 legislation by: extending the time period during which 

military service would qualify an Alaska Native veteran for an 

allotment; permitting allotments in some land not covered in 

the 1998 legislation; removing various requirements in the 

earlier legislation; and broadening the class of survivors able 

to claim an allotment on the basis of a decedent. Among the 

requirements removed are those specifying: (1) that the land be 

''vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved on the date when the 

person eligible for the allotment first used and occupied those 

lands;'' \9\ and, (2) that the applicant for an allotment 

provide the Secretary of the Interior with proof of 

''substantially continuous use and occupancy of the land for a 

period of five years. 1 ' \10\ Under the amendment, any Alaska 

Native veteran who served at any time in the Vietnam Era, 

August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975, who is determined to meet the 

qualifications of the 1906 Act as it existed upon repeal, would 

be eligible. Moreover, survivors of such veterans would be able 

to apply. \11\ 

\9\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1629g(a) (2). 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
545 


Insert graphic folio 621 here 22000A.497

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-l07hmt744/htmi/CRPT-1 07hrot744.htm 

\10\ Act of May 17, 1906, ch. 2469 1 34 Stat. 197, as amended and 

codified at, 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 270-1 to 270-3, prior to repeal by 

Pub. L. 92-203, Sec. 18 (a), 85 Stat. 710 (ANSCA) and incorporated by 

reference into Pub. L. 105-559, Sec. 301. (hereinafter, the 1906 Act). 

\11\ According to Rep. Young, who introduced this legislation, 

these are viewed as ''obstacles' • to the allotment process. 147 Cong. 

Rec. E 1894 (October 15, 2001). 

There are other liberalizing features in the proposal, some 

of which may be viewed as corrections of defects in the earlier 

legislation and the regulatory regime implementing it. The 

proposal requires repeal of the entire set of regulations 

issued under the 1998 law, indicating dissatisfaction with how 

the earlier remedial legislation had been implemented. Among 

the changes that might be seen as remedies for the failure of 

the current regulatory process of issue allotments 

appropriately is an extension of the time for filing 

applications. The proposal permits applications for 3 years 

after the Department of the Interior (DOI) issues final 

regulations. Current law provided an 18-inch period that ended 

January 31, 2002.\12\ Another is an expansion of the available 

lands. The current law limits the lands available for 

allotment. For example, it excludes campsites, wilderness 

areas, lands containing buildings owned other than by the 

person selecting the allotment, lands withdrawn for national 

defense purposes, national forest lands, and lands selected or 

claimed under a public land law, or lands selected by the State 

of Alaska or a Native Corporation and not conveyed. \13\ H.R. 

3148 specifies only that selections of allotments may not be 

made from lands within the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right-of-way 

and the inner corridor of that right-of-way withdrawal. The 

current law provides for limited survivor's benefits for the 

estates of decedents who served in South East Asia at any time 

from August 5, 1964 to December 31, 1971, and were killed in 

action or died from a wound received in action or as a prisoner 

of war, and requires application be submitted by the 

administrator or personal representative appointed by an Alaska 

state court. \14\ The proposal would permit heirs of any 

eligible Alaska Native Vietnam Era veteran to apply for the 

allotment on behalf of the estate. 

\12\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2568.70, as promulgated 65 Fed. Reg. 40954, 

40963 (June 30, 2000). 

\13\ 43 u.s.c. Sec. 

\14\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 

Given that the enlargement of the class of persons who may 

apply for allotments does not appear to be based upon the 

rationale behind the original legislation, the legislative 

history of the current proposal is likely to be scrutinized by 

a court that uses the Morton v. Mancari test and attempts to 

determine whether H. R. 3148 is legislation that is ''tied 

rationally'' to a trust obligation to Alaska Natives. It would 

appear that at least two factors would be important to such an 

inquiry: \1) any documentation in the legislative history with 

regard to the intention of Congress and (2} how the court 

assess the trust obligation of Congress with respect to Alaska 

Natives in light of the enactment of ANSCA. 

At present, without publication of a Report by the 

10/!0/2015 4:55PM 
546 


Insert graphic folio 622 here 22000A.498

http://www.goo.gov/fdsyslpkg/CRPT-107hrot744/htm1/CRPT-107hrot744.htm 

Committee, the leading piece of legislative history for H.R. 

3148 is Rep. Don Young's statement upon introducing the bill. 

In it, he identified the problem: ''Many Alaska Native Vietnam 

veterans'' who saw the 1998 Act ''as their last opportunity to 

obtain land which had been used by their families for 

generations for subsistence purposes'' ''lost' ' that 

opportunity because they ''were excluded by the terms of * * * [the 1998 Act] * * *' '\15\ He identified three obstacles to the 

allotment process that his legislation sought to address. Only 

two of these appear to be defects in the 1998 legislation with 

respect to its intended beneficiaries: lack of available land 

and proof of use of the land continuously for five or more 

years. Under the amendment, these corrections would modify 

requirements of the 1906 law as incorporated into the 1998 

legislation. Were H.R. 3148 confined to these provisions, the 

same rationale that serves for the earlier legislation might be 

applied to it. Increasing the available land and eliminating 

the continuous usage requirement arguably go to the missed 

opportunity of those serving in the military before the cut off 

date. This might be seen as nothing more than fine tuning the 

earlier legislation to prevent military service from impeding 

eligibility for an allotment. 

\15\ 147 Cong. Rec. E 1894 {October 16, 2001). The number of 

veterans so situated was estimated by Rep. Young to be 1, 700. 

The third obstacle is another matter, permitting all 

Vietnam Era Alaska Native veterans to apply for a missed 

opportunity allotment. In presenting H.R. 3148, Mr. Young 

emphasized the expanded dates in terms of veterans' benefits, 

rather than fairness to those whose military service impeded 

their applications before the cut off date. He stated: 

The expansion of military service dates to include 

all Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who served in the 

military during the Vietnam conflict is consistent with 

the federal government • s policy of providing benefits 

to all veterans for the Vietnam conflict and not just 

to some of those veterans. This provision also fulfills 

the trust obligation to Alaska Natives. The limited 

military service dates have excluded many Alaska Native 

Vietnam veterans who bravely served during the Vietnam 

conflict. Never before has the United States given 

veteran land benefits to only a portion of those who 

served their country. The federal government has given 

public land benefits to all veterans (or their widows 

or heirs) of every war beginning with the Indian Wars 

of 1790and ending with the Korean conflict in 1955. As 

Members will recall, Alaska Native veterans were not eligible for these 

public land benefits until 1924 because the courts had determined 

Alaska natives were not United States citizens. \16\ 

\16\ Id., at E 1895. 

The key difference between the 1998 law and H.R. 3148 seems 

to be that the ending date for military service that determines 

eligibility in the 1998 law roughly \17\ coincides with the 

date that ANSCA was enacted and the 1906 allotment process was 

repealed. The dates of military service in the proposal are not 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
547 


Insert graphic folio 623 here 22000A.499

http://www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrpt744/htmi/CRPT~ I 07hrnt744.htm 

coordinated to the repeal of the allotment process but to the 

Vietnam Era. This difference may open the way for a court to 

look at the issue of what trust obligation exists toward Alaska 

Natives following the enactment of ANSCA. 

\17\ ANSCA was effective December. 18, 1971; military service until 

December 31, 1971, could be used to determine eligibility under the 

1998 Act, provided the veterans had served at least 6 months between 

January 19, 1969, and December 31, 1971, or enlisted or was drafted 

after June 2, 1971 but before December 3, 1971. 43 U.S.C. 

Sec. 1629g(b)(B). 

Federal laws granting preference to Indian tribes have been 

upheld under the Morton v. Mancari standard provided they are 

found to be rationally related to the trust obligation of the 

federal government toward Indians. Until the passage of ANSCA, 

the existence of that trust obligation was generally 

unquestioned. Beginning with the treaty by Alaska Natives to 

the Indian affairs authority of Congress, \18\ all branches of 

the federal government have treated Alaska Natives analogously 

to Indians as objects" of a federal trust relationship. One of 

those efforts was in the direction of providing land for their 

occupancy and subsistence in legislation such as the 1906 

Alaska Natives Allotment Act and the 1926 Alaska Natives 

Townsite Act, as well as in instances of administratively 

established land reserves for Alaska Natives. \19\ The courts 

have been hospitable to the exercise of trusteeship powers by 

the federal government with respect to Alaska Natives. \20\ 

\18\ ''The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and 

regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in 

regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.'' Act of March 30, 1867, 

Art III, 15 Stat. 539, 542. 

\19\ See U.S. Department of Interior, Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANSCA): ANSCA 1985 Study: June 29, 1984 Draft I-23 

(1985). 

\20\ See, e.g. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 

78 (1918); Territory of Alaska v. Annette Island Packing Co., 298 Fed. 

671 (9th Cir. 1923), cert. denied, 26 U.S. 708 (1923); In Re Sah Quah, 

31 F. 327 (D.Alaska 1886). 

The recent case, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal 

Government, \21\ may presage a change in that perspective, 

llowever. In Venetie, a unanimous Supreme Court rules against an 

Alaska Native entity, the Native of Village of Venetie Tribal 

Government, in its assertion of taxing authority. In reaching 

this conclusion, the Court construed various provisions of 

ANSCA as well as the federal Indian country statute, 18 u.s.c. 

Sec. 1151. Although the case did not present the issue of 

federal trusteeship over Alaska Natives or the existence of a 

government-to-government relationship between the United States 

and Alaska Native entities, the Court may have indicated a 

certain attitude to those issues. For example, it quoted 

extensively from provisions of ANSCA alluding to a change in 

the nature of the federal relationship after passage of the 

claims settlement legislation in 1971. For example, citing 43 

U.S.C. Sec. 1601 (b), the Court stated: 

\21\ 522 u.s. 520 (1998). 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
548 


Insert graphic folio 624 here 22000A.500

htto:l/www.goo.gov/fdsys/pkg!CRPT-107hrot7441htrni/CRPT-107hrot744.htm 

In enacting ANSCA, Congress sought to end the sort of 

federal supervision over Indian affairs that had 

previously marked federal Indian policy. ANSCA • s text 

states that the settlement of the land claims was to be 

accomplished ''* * * without establishing any permanent 

racially defined institutions, rights, privileges, or 

obligations [and] without creating a reservation system 

or lengthy wardship or trusteeship'' \22\ 

\22\ 522 u.s. 520, 523-524 (emphasis in the original) 

Even before Venetie, claims of governmental powers by 

Alaska Native entities have not received full endorsement by 

the courts. \23\ Central to Morton v. Mancari is the Court • s 

view of the political, government-to-government relationship 

between the federal government and the Indian tribes. Although 

whether such a relationship has been affected by ANSCA has not 

been determined by the courts, the effect of the Venetie 

decision, if not its precise holding, may be viewed as 

undermining the notion of Indian sovereignty for Alaska Native 

entities. \24\ Against this backdrop, it is possible that the 

courts might view H.R. 3148's extension of a benefit to Alaska 

Native veterans not shared by all veterans or non-Alaska Native 

residents of the State as describing a racial classification 

subject to strict judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection 

Clause. \25\ Strict scrutiny generally requires that challenged 

legislation serve a ''coinpelling'' governmental interest and 

that it do so by ''narrowly tailored'' means. The Supreme Court 

has recognized that the federal government has a compelling 

interest in remedying ''lingering effects'' of past 

discrimination against a protected group. The nature and level 

of proof that must be advanced by the legislature in support of 

a remedial racial classification remain largely unsettled, 

however. \26\ Moreover, whether a traditional remedial rationale 

even applies may be questioned where the reason for preferring 

all Alaska Native Vietnam Era veterans, regardless of years of 

service abroad, over other Alaska Natives or other veterans has 

yet to be fully fleshed out. The bill's preference for Alaska 

Native Veterans may also call for a showing by the government 

that it is a necessary and effective vehicle for accomplishing 

a congressional purpose that may not be accomplished by race 

neutral means. This ''narrowly tailored'' aspect of strict 

scrutiny is generally designed to curb legislative overbreadth 

and confine the scope of any racial classification to the 

particular purpose sought to be served 

\23\ See1 e.g., Kake Village v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 (1962); 

\24\ See, John R. Bielski, · ·corrunent: Judicial Denial of 

Sovereignty for Alaskan Natives: An End to the Self-Determination 

Era• ', 73 Temple L. Rev. 1279 (2000). 

\25\ Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). 

\26\ E.g., Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense, 

262 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

We hope this information assists you and that you will call 

upon our office should you need further assistance. 

M. Maureen Murphy, 

Legislative Attorney. 

10/10/2015 4:55PM 
549 


Insert graphic folio 625 here 22000A.501

Critique of Alaska Govemor's-Office Statements to the House Federal Lands Subcommittee 

Re: Testimony of Tom Crafford on Sept. 29, 2015 

by Larry Edwards 

Sitka Field Office, Greenpeace 

November 3, 2015 (Rev. 1) 

Tom Crafford testified on Sept. 29, 2015 at the Federal Lands Subcommittee's Oversight 

Hearing on Federal Forest Management, on behalf of Alaska's governor and in support of a 

transfer of two million acres of Tongass National Forest land to the state or other entities. 

This report challenges the veracity of his testimony, which contrasted forest management 

done under State of Alaska law (which applies to all non-federal forestlands, public and 

private) with federal management on the Tongass National Forest. I believe his testimony was 

simply wrong on essentially every point, misleading Congress on the forest management 

situation on both federal and non-federal forestlands in the region (Southeast Alaska) that 

includes the Tongass. The purpose of this critique is to identifY the features of his testimony 

that would grossly mislead Congress if not exposed, and to reveal facts the testimony failed 

to disclose and which conflict with the state's request for either the outright giving away of 

Tongass forestland or granting the state management-in-trust over Tongass lands. 

About myself: I came to Southeast Alaska in 1976 as an engineer for Alaska Pulp 

Corporation, and have been involved in forest issues here since leaving the mill in 1978. I 

have been a Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace in the region for about fifteen years. 

Point-by-point responses to Mr. Crafford's assertions 

Below, Mr. Crafford's ten main points are quoted or summarized, followed by an expose of 

the incompleteness or other untruths of each one. The ten points encompass practically 

every one he made. Footnotes provide time-code citations for the video of the hearing that is 

posted on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwEi7ypR 3A). 

1) Crafford assertion: Alaska's Forest Practices and Resources Act is "[cjertainly far, far more 

streamlined and far less cumbersome than federal rules1 ... while at the same time we 

think it provides those appropriate protections for other resources"2 

Alaska's Forest Practices & Resources Act (FRPA) is extremely weak, and does not adequately 

protect other resources. The act has no enforceable protections for wildlife or wildlife habitat, 

which is particularly glaring because the act places no limit on the size of clearcuts. The 

statute also lacks requirements to consider cumulative impacts - a particularly important 

matter across multiple land ownerships at the landscape scale, in the many areas of 

southeastern Alaska that have been very heavily logged over a period of several decades. 

Although FRPA does place some emphasis on aquatic resources, the streamside no-cut 

buffers it requires as protection along fish-bearing stretches are minimal on non-federal 

public forestland (100 feet from the banks) and sub-minimal on private forestland (66 feet). 

The provisions have not been scientifically peered reviewed for efficacy, variances from the 

requirements are commonly granted, and upper reaches of streams are not protected. 

Below are October 5, 2015 photos of recent logging administered under FRPA on private land 

(two parcels owned by Sealaska, Inc.) and "other public land" (owned by the Alaska Mental 

' Time code 1 :09:31. 

2 Time code 1:10:18. 
550 


Insert graphic folio 626 here 22000A.502

Health 1 shows recent 

m'lir:tlruad in Southeast 

clearcutting began 

habitat reserve, ec<)logic:ally 

Figs. 3 & 4). 

Sealaska on the Cleveland Peninsula,3 an 

photo spans about 1.5 miles across. 

Fig 2: North Election Creek, 5-0ci-2015 

3 Cleveland Peninsula, Sealaska parcel: Lat. 55" 37' 21.50" N, Long. 132° 10· 40.90"" Ws 

4 North Election Creek, Sealaska parcel: Lat 55• 41· oo·· N, Long. 133• 0' 0" W. 

2 
551 


Insert graphic folio 627 here 22000A.503

Fig. 4: Land ownership legend for the above. 

3 
552 


Insert graphic folio 628 here 22000A.504

Figs. 5 & 6: Ak Mental Health Trust land. Leask lakes parcel,' -4,000 acres, Rovillagigedo Island. 5-0c!-2015 

4 
553 


Insert graphic folio 629 here 22000A.505

I believe the above explanation and photographs (and Fig. 7, below) demonstrate that the 

State of Alaska cannot legitimately claim that it is capable of balanced multiple use forest 

management. Its management and oversight of non-federal forests falls far short of being 

equivalent to management of the Tongass National Forest as prescribed by the Multiple-Use 

and Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act. In fact, the 

implementation of FRPA always shows a strongly timber-first bias. Mr. Crafford's testimony 

is contradicted by the facts on the ground, and is extremely misleading. Although we have 

legitimate complaints about the Forest Service's management of the Tongass National Forest, 

management of non-federallands under state law is far from balanced. 

2} Crafford assertion: "{T]he act [FRPA] has been updated several times as new science 

becomes available. "6 "Scientific findings are reviewed in a two-step process, through 

Alaska's Board of Forestry and effectiveness and implementation components that ensure 

that best management practices (or BMPs} remain current." 

Policy has consistently trumped science at the legislative and administrative levels in Alaska 

regarding forest management issues, ever since the inception of FRPA in 1979 and 

throughout its revisions. The FRPA has never been subjected to a rigorous scientific peer 

review, in contrast to review given the conservation strategy that is part of the Tongass Forest 

Plan. The Alaska Board of Forestry is biased toward timber industry interests through both 

its legislated composition (AS 41.17.041) and frequently over the years the nature of 

individuals selected for the few board seats that ostensibly provide counterbalance. The 

inclusion of those few seats is at best a token effort and not a serious one for ensuring wise 

multiple use management. The board should not be considered a reliable judge of the 

available conservation science about logging impacts and how it should be applied. Detailed 

minutes of the board's meetings are on-line, and even a cursory review shows that the board 

serves primarily as an advocate for the timber industry, without the needed balance.7 

Additionally, as discussed elsewhere in these comments, the State of Alaska has 

demonstrated its budgetary inability to provide the protections that the FRPA does require. 

3} Crafford assertion: FRPA is administered with the "three-legged stool" of the resource 

departments: Fish and Game, Environmental Conservation, and Natural Resources. R 

Both the State of Alaska's policies (including the FRPA) and the state's severe budgetary 

crisis largely prevent the three resource agencies from regulating non-federallogging 

activities in a way that is compatible with multiple uses and ecosystem integrity. 

The FRPA budgetary situation: In December 2014 the incoming governor exposed Alaska's 

severe budget crisis to public view, and it is broadly expected to endure far into the future. 

Oil production revenue is the state's primary funding source, and with the recent unforeseen 

substantial drop in per-barrel oil prices the state has been far short of funding its obligated 

operations. Deep cuts were made across agency budgets in this year's legislative session, and 

more cuts are planned for the next two years. The three state agencies that implement the 

FRPA, especially DNR's Division of Forestry (DoF), have been hit hard. This is documented in 

news articles9 and the Alaska Board of Forestry's (BoF) July 2015 minutes. w In the Division 

" Time code 13:26. 

See list of minutes at: http:l/forestrv.alaska.gov/alaskaboardforestry.htm 

s Time code 16:28. 

9 Attached documents: ( 1) Some Southeast timber funds restored, Ketchikan Daily News, 3/11/15. 

(2) Forestry jobs lost but Haines may retain part of office , KHNS radio, 4/29/15. 

2015: 

5 
554 


Insert graphic folio 630 here 22000A.506

of Forestry's (DoF) Coastal Region (which includes Southeast Alaska), 23 jobs were cut this 

year, including five of the eleven forester positions, all occupied when cut. The supervisory 

Coastal Regional Forester position is now only two months per year. (Id. at 10). Initially, in 

the House Finance's Natural Resources Subcommittee much deeper cuts were passed, likely 

foretelling the future. Those proposed cuts "would have ended the state's timber program for 

all but the Alaska Interior and closed [al!J state forestry offices in Southeast." (Ketchikan D. 

News, 3/ 11/15). As the legislative session closed, a 9-month seasonal forester position was 

added-back in Haines to keep that office open, and the Ketchikan office was reinstated with 

three instead of its former five foresters, plus an administrator. The final budget halved the 

FRPA work of the Dept. of Environmental Conservation's sole staffer devoted to that. (BoF 

minutes at 1). Fish & Game's FRPA responsibilities go to its Habitat Division, which "took a 

large budget cut this year," causing it to restrict its fieldwork only to the most important 

anadromous streams. (!d. at 2). This means there will be no state oversight of logging in any 

but the most exceptional anadromous watersheds. 

The State of Alaska's "One-voice" (timber over-all) policy: Even so, the supposed three-legged 

stool for applying wisdom in the state's regulation of logging had collapsed long before the 

budget crisis, through state policy that censors the state's scientists in order to maximize the 

region's federal and non-federal timber production. A November 2014 Greenpeace reportu 

exposed the policy, based on 16,000 pages of documents from a public records request. The 

one-voice policy (a term used within state government) is enforced by an administrative 

apparatus linked to the governor's office, and has blocked information and professional 

opinions from Fish & Game's biologists and the Dept. of Environmental Conservation's 

experts from being considered in timber sale planning or from becoming public knowledge. 

So, the state lacks funding to fulfill the requirements of the FRPA (which are inadequate to 

begin with), and the other agencies are handcuffed from affecting a timber program that is 

driven by DNR's Division of Forestry and the state government's blind-to-harms policy of 

maximizing timber output. Mr. Crafford's three-legged stool is just splinters on the floor. 

4) Crafford assertion: State timber sales are designed to protect fish habitat and water 

quality, 12 with streamside buffers and best management practices (BMPs). 

On state forest land, 14 for those stretches of streams that have anadromous (e.g. salmon) or 

resident fish (Class I and II streams, respectively),I5 the requirements for streamside no-cut 

buffers are comparable to those used by the Forest Service on the Tongass. However, FRPA 

provides no buffer protections along streams or tributaries that feed into the Class I and II 

stretches. The foreground stream running right to left in Figure 1 illustrate this.J6 There is a 

barrier falls beyond the left of the photo, below which there is a short Class I stretch (to 

tidewater) that has no-cut buffers on both sides. But in the remainder of the watershed the 

forest has been removed on one or both sides of the fishless stretch (Class III) and its steep 

headwaters feeders (Class IV streams). A well-established body of evidence suggests that a 

lack of Class III and IV stream buffers and the lack of a limit to clearcut size make streams 

13 Time code 16:47. 

14 AS 41.17.118(a)(l). 

This Forest Service nomenclature is more commonly used and equivalent to (but simpler than) 

stream classification nomenclature in the FRPA. 

16 Although the photo is of logging on private land, the AS citation is to FRPA provisions for state land, 

the principles discussed here concerning the Class Ill & IV streams shown also apply to state land. 

6 
555 


Insert graphic folio 631 here 22000A.507

more susceptible to conditions that can harm downstream fish populations. These conditions 

include: flash flows, increased turbidity and sediment flow, and an increase in stream 

temperature in summer and a decrease in winter (when salmon eggs are in the gravel).17 

On private forestlands, FRPA requires only a 66-foot buffer (instead of 100) on Class I & II 

streams, allows variances for tree removal from within the buffer, and requires no buffers on 

Class Ill & IV streams. This is inadequate, given the broad geographic scale involved. 

A separate, important point here is that while Mr. Crafford emphasized the state's protection 

of aquatic habitat in his testimony, he made no mention of wildlife habitat. The FRPA does 

not specify protections for wildlife habitat, nor does it require the analysis and consideration 

of contribution to cumulative landscape-scale impacts, across time and all land ownerships. 

5) Crafford assertion: State timber sales typically take about 18 months to plan and offer for 

sale. 18 In contrast, "the federal forest planning process takes "typically about five years" 

and planning an individual sale "is about another five year planning process.": 9 

There are several faults with Mr. Crafford's statement. First, the US Forest Service's planning 

at the Forestwide and individual timber sale scales are separate, non-sequential processes. 

That is, revising the Tongass Forest Plan does not delay timber sale decisions. 

Second, there is no "typical" period for planning Forest Service timber sales. In increasing 

levels of detail, some sales are done under "categorical exclusions" from NEPA, and others 

are done under an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). 

However, even large timber sales with E!Ss have taken less time to prepare than Mr. Crafford 

suggests. For the largest Tongass timber project in over 20 years, Big Thorne, the Forest 

Service published a Notice oflntent in February 2011, a DEIS in October 2012, a decision in 

June 2013, and an advertisement for sale of two-thirds of the timber in August 2013. That is 

2-1/2 years, half the time Mr. Crafford stated. Then, because the State of Alaska had 

through its "one-voice" policy (see above) withheld from the Forest Service during the NEPA 

process important information regarding the project's impacts, the project was delayed by a 

year for preparation of a "supplemental information report." The contract was readvertised in 

August 2014. That is only three years and two months after publication of the NO! and much 

less than Mr. Crafford's "five years," despite a one-year delay caused by the state itself. 

Third, the Forest Service has multiple timber projects in various stages of planning at the 

same time -not just one at a time. For example, in 2015, prior to decisions being issued on 

two major projects, the agency had five major timber projects in planning at the same time. 

Finally, the state's short time for timber sale planning on its own forestlands underscores 

that the FRPA sets a low bar for both planning and environmental protection. Under the 

FRPA, the "primary purpose" of state forests is timber production, so in planning and 

decisionmaking the Division of Forestry gives little consideration to non-timber resources and 

uses. Also, the state has recently become more aggressive in offering timber from its 

Southeast State Forest. For example, the state intended to offer 80 million board feet in the 

fiscal year that just ended. This unbalanced, aggressive approach will attract administrative 

appeals that will cause a narrowing of whatever difference in planning periods may exist now 

between state and federal sale programs. 

See: e.g. Rhodes (2013) at 7-8 and 29-30. The document is a commentary on problems with a 

Forest Service timber project, but describes relevant concerns for Class III & IV streams under FRPA. 

See also: Carstensen (2013) at 14, discussing the Election Creek area in Fig. 2. 

Time code 16:20. 

:9 Time code 1:09:40. 

7 
556 


Insert graphic folio 632 here 22000A.508

6) Crafford assertion: Federal timber sales are often marginally economic or can't be sold 

because they are below-cosuo 

It is unsurprising that Tongass NF timber sales are sometimes marginally economic, for two 

reasons. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, the most profitable timber on the 

Tongass has already been cut, through "high-grading" at both the landscape and timber 

project scales. This has meant, over times going back at least to the 1950s, cutting the best 

(the highest quality, most easily accessed timber), then the best of the rest, and so on. What 

is left now is generally closer to what was average quality before, and is often more expensive 

to access as well. Another reason that timber quality and profitability on the Tongass has 

diminished is the nature of land entitlement selections by the State of Alaska and Native 

corporations that have been made since the 1960s'' and which generally were for the most 

valuable timber available. Additionally, in contrast to the Forest Service's 100 acre clearcut 

size limit, it must be acknowledged that the unlimited clearcut size allowed by FRPA- on 

state land (Fig 7, below), other public non-federal land (Figs. 5 & 6) and private land (Figs. 1 

to 3) is highly subsidized in the form of uncompensatable losses to watersheds, wildlife 

and other public values. Keeping Tongass National Forest lands under federal ownership and 

control will avoid worsening this already uncontrollable clearcutting situation, which is 

promoted by this state subsidy that the Tongass NF does not and should not offer. 

Fig. 7. Alaska Division of Forestry's South Thorne Bay Timber Sale (5 Oct 2015) 

When Mr. Crafford said Tongass timber sales cannot be sold if they are below cost, he was 

correct. However, because this well-justified restriction exists by an act of Congress, it is 

under the control of Congress and therefore is not a justification for Congress to transfer 

Tongass forestland to the state. Moreover, such transfer to the state (or other entities) would 

spread farther and wider the kind of destructive old-growth logging shown in the photos. 22 

Time code 15:42. 

21 These land entitlements are from the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971. Also, after the initial selections land swaps with the federal government have 

intensified the "select the best" approach. 

The existing Alaska state forest parcels arc smaller (e.g. 

The land transfer the state is requesting could however 

8 

than those of Native corporations. 

parcels and damage as shown in 
557 


Insert graphic folio 633 here 22000A.509

7) Crafford assertion: "[F]ederal forest management has so de emphasized timber production in 

the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest" that only 672,000 acres remains available for 

timber management, and "timber jobs have fallen from 4, 600 in .1990 to about 400 today. "23 

First, it is absurd to compare the size of an administrative land unit named the Tongass 

National Forest two thirds of whose 17 million acres are either non-forest or unproductive 

forest to the area of available timberland it contains. The comparison is an intentionally 

misleading, commonly used ploy the state government and timber industry use to distort 

debate in order to grab land from the Tongass. Further forestland transfers would break the 

back of the peer reviewed Tongass Conservation Strategy, which has been a foundation of the 

Tongass Forest Plan since 1997. Moreover, Mr. Crafford's false comparison fails to account 

for the approximately one million acres of land in the region, primarily forestland, owned by 

the State of Alaska, Native corporations, the Alaska Mental Health Trust and the University 

of Alaska- all of which are in the timber business. 

Mr. Crafford's timber industry employment figures for 1990 and today are flatly incorrect. A 

2013 socioeconomic report done for the Forest Service reveals, "[t)imber employment in 

Southeast Alaska peaked at the end of the 1980s, with slightly more than 3,500 jobs in 1989 

and 1990 (Figure [8, below))"2 4 not Mr. Crafford's 4,600 jobs (probably a statewide 

number). Also, the decline began about 25 years ago, mainly spanning a dozen years, and 

there is no reasonable rationale for this old peak to justifY another boom (and bust). 

Fig. 8. Southeast Alaska timber industry employment, 1982 to 2010 

The "logging" sector employment shown in Fig. 8 produced logs not only for the pulp mill and 

sawmill employment above it, but also for the export of unprocessed round logs- a 

significant subsector of "logging" employment that the chart does not break out. Export logs 

came almost entirely from non-federal forestlands, and primarily from those owned by Native 

corporations. Due to favorable pulp, lumber and log export markets in the late 1980s and 

earliest 1990s, there were a pronounced peaks in overall timber industry employment in the 

three sectors: pulp and lumber production (Fig. 8 and the green in Fig. 9) and the export of 

the other photos. Yet, if instead a land transfer were put into smaller parcels of equivalent acreage, to 

better target the most valuable remaining old-growth, the impacts to wildlife would be much greater 

than large parcels. 

Time code 14:21. 

Fig. 8 is from "Socioeconomic Resource Report Final, 2013" (USFS Big Thorne project doc. 

736_2234). It originally appeared in several Forest Service ANILCA 706(a) reports to Congress, most 

recently report #24, submitted in 201 l. 

9 
558 


Insert graphic folio 634 here 22000A.510

logs from Native corporation lands (essentially all of the orange timber volume in Fig. 9). 25 

Those corporations were liquidating their old-growth forests into cash as rapidly as possible. 

All together, this is what caused the unsustainable boom in timber industry 

employment to 3,500 jobs in 1990, by an inevitable bust. 

Fig. 9. Southeast Alaska logging levels, by land ownership sector, 1981-2012. 

1,200 

1,000 

u. 800 Ill 

::;; 

::;; 

e 600 

.2 

;!; 400 

200 

Closures of the Sitka pulp mill in 1993 and Ketchikan pulp mill in 1997'" were significant 

contributors to the decline of employment to the current level, as shown in Fig. 8. The two 

pulp mills were selling into a global market for dissolving pulp, the two mill's only product. 

That market drove an all-time production high in 1974 (in which 590 million board feet was 

logged on the Tongass National Forest), declined 25% by 1982, recovered somewhat in 1988, 

and declined globally every year since then except 1995, according to a 2004 Forest Service 

document. (PNW-GTR-611, at 51-52)." Demand and prices for dissolving pulp also declined 

substantially, as new technologies and materials displaced dissolving pulp (e.g. the main 

end-product, rayon, lost popularity). Indicative of the market's collapse, other mills making 

dissolving pulp closed in Port Angeles, Washington in 1997 and Sweden in 1998. (!d.). 

Concerning the effect of Native corporation logging on employment, Fig. 9 shows that after 

timber production began on the lands transferred under ANCSA (the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971), the annual volume logged increased quite rapidly. This volume 

eclipsed the substantial production that had been on-going on the Tongass National Forest. 

It reached the 1990 crescendo that was afforded by a favorable log export market, followed by 

9 is a compilation of statistics former Region 10 Economist for the Forest Service, Joseph 

lVltauKcu,, Now retired, he has to collect the statistics. 

After Ketchikan Pulp Company closed its mill in 1997, in a timber contract cancellation RP":wcml,nt 

the Forest Service allowed KPC to log an additional 320 million board feet of timber between and 

2000 for and export. This explains the thick tail of the decline in timber volume between 

between those Sec: (1) ANlLCA report #20 report to Congress, for 

& Pulp Parachute: How Got Paid To Destroy the 

23, !997.nw&U~~~~~rrw~~~~~~~~ 

~~\<@~w~:~~~Q!~~~~~~=n£a~~,L~ 

'' Mazza, R, 2004. Economic Growth and Change in Southeast Alaska. USFS PNW Research Sta. 

10 
559 


Insert graphic folio 635 here 22000A.511

a bust as one after the other- the village Native corporations exhausted their old-growth 

forestlands and the regional corporation (Sealaska, the major landholder among the Native 

corporation) logged at a slower pace toward eventual exhaustion of its old-growth inventory. 

In conclusion, Mr. Crafford's claim is false that the decline from a few thousand timber 

industry jobs in 1990 to a few hundred today was caused by a "de-emphasis" by the Forest 

Service on timber sales. Instead, what occurred was a classic boom and bust, with the bust 

caused by a crashing global-market for dissolving pulp, the rapid exhaustion of the Native 

corporations' standing timber, and the best and most profitable timber on the Tongass 

having been largely exhausted by the pulp mills.2R The industry has for quite some time now 

been an insignificant segment of Southeast's economy, and the economy has adjusted to 

that. Further, more harm than good would come from boosting the current industry's size by 

giving the state or other entities additional old-growth forest to liquidate. Doing so would 

multiply the enduring cumulative impacts that the region must already contend with from 

decades of past intensive logging. Lasting harm would be caused to the otherwise future 

contributions to the regional economy by commercial fisheries, tourism and subsistence use. 

8) Crafford assertion: "[W]ith each successive iteration of planning and the NEPA review, it 

seems like the available timber base is whittled down further and further and further, to the 

point that so little is left" for the timber industry. 2 9 

What Mr. Crafford describes comes in large part from the industry itself whittling away at the 

non-renewable old-growth forest. This has been ongoing on a large scale in the region for six 

decades, across all land ownerships the Tongass NF as well as lands owned by the 

University of Alaska, the Alaska Mental Health Trust, the State of Alaska, and eleven village, 

urban and regional Native corporations. All together, this still-continuing logging has already 

clearcut nearly 900,000 acres of old-growth forest. Moreover, in successive iterations of this 

logging, generally the best was taken, and then the best of the rest, and so on. The resource 

management and business models that drove this virtually ensured a bust for the industry, 

in addition to long-term damage to watersheds, wildlife and other economically important 

forest values. Devolving more Tongass National Forest land to state or other ownership will 

worsen this tragic outcome both economically and environmentally.30 These models are 

unsustainable. We are long past the 1990s bust now, and should not create another one. 

9) Crafford assertion: Management of state forests is balanced, and management of federal 

forests needs a similar balanced approach.31 

My critiques above demonstrate that Alaska's management of its state forests in Southeast 

Alaska falls far short of being balanced management. The fact of the matter is that Mr. 

Crafford has it backwards. The Forest Service's management is much closer to being 

balanced than the state's. 

:s The pulp mills "high-graded" the biggest, most valuable timber (which was also the best habitat), 

taking the best, then the best of the rest, etc. By the time the mills closed, this had greatly impacted 

their economics and is one reason they ended business in their competitive market. 

29 Time code 1:09:55. 

Jo The full impact to wildlife takes 3-4 decades to become occur since it takes that long for the second 

growth forest canopy to close (creating a virtual desert on the forest floor). That is, much of the impact 

of logging as long ago as the mid-1980s is not yet fully realized there is irrevocable impact debt. 

Time code 17:06. 

11 
560 


Insert graphic folio 636 here 22000A.512

1 0) Crafford assertion: Short of deeding-over federal forest land to the state or another entity, 

the other options (either the status quo or other approaches such as stewardship programs, 

good neighbor agreements, or states taking over (in trust) management of federal lands) 

would still leave in place the "hurdle" of federal environmental laws. 32 

Any of Mr. Crafford's suggested changes to the status quo would be a disaster for the region's 

forest environment and the social and economic structures that depend on it remaining 

functionally intact. Especially destructive would be the deeding of Tongass land to "the state 

or another entity." But any of Mr. Crafford's other non-status-quo suggestions would also be 

disastrous because Alaska's Forest Practices and Resources Act- which governs logging on 

all non-federallands- is very weak, the state is fiscally incapable of meeting FRPA's weak 

requirements, and the state's "one-voice" policy is antithetical to balanced, science-based 

management. Federal ownership of, and management authority over, the Tongass National 

Forest should be fully maintained. 

Submitted by: 

References 

Larry Edwards, Forest Campaigner 

Sitka Field Office, Greenpeace 

Box 6484, Sitka, Ak 99835 

907-7 4 7-755 7, ledwardS(ct'greenpeace .org 

Alaska Board of Forestry minutes (list): http:/ /forestry.alaska.gov/alaskaboardforestrv 

ANILCA 706(a) reports to Congress (#24 was cited). listed at "timber supply and demand reports: at: http: II www .fs. usda.gov I detail I r 1 0 /landmanagement/ resourcemanag(;'ment /?cid,fsbdev2 038785 

AS 41.17, Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Act (FRPA): http:l/www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/statutes.asp#41.17 

Big Thorne project document 736_2234 (20 13), "Socioeconomic resource report- Final." {Attached to email 

transmittaL) 

Carstensen, R. {2013), "Sealaska Lands Bill S.340- Global treasures in the karst-&-cedar shell game." A report. 

{Attached to email transmittaL) 

Ketchikan Daily News (March 11, 20 15), "Some Southeast timber funds restored." (Attached to email transmittaL) 

lost but Haines may retain part of office." 

Rhodes, J. (2013), expert declaration concerning logging impacts to watersheds, regarding a Southeast Alaskan 

timber project. {Attached to email transmittaL) 

St. Claire, J. & Cockburn, A. {1997), "How Louisiana-Pacific got paid to destroy the Tongass.'' CityPages, April23, 

1997. http: //WW'.v.citypages.com /news/the pulp parachute how-louisiana pacific-got-paid-to-destroy· the-tongass-6715439 

'' The premises here were put forth by Crafford at time code 1:03:22. Regarding those, Rep. LaMalfa 

then asked at time code 1:04:24, "So short of deeding the land over to state or the entity involved, 

you're still going to be subject to the same hurdles, you feel?" Mr. Crafford answered, "Yes, sir" at 

1:04:32. 

12 
561 


Insert graphic folio 637 here 22000A.513

Senator Dean Heller - Opening Statement 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Legislative Hearing: the Pershing County Economic Development and 

Conservation Act of2016 (S.3102) 

September 22, 2016-9:30 AM 

Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell. thank you for holding today's legislative 

hearing and for including my legislation, the Pershing County Economic Development and 

Conservation Act, in the agenda. 

For years, residents of Pershing County have worked diligently to develop this innovative public 

lands proposal that will provide their communities new opportunities for economic development 

while reducing wildfire threats, improving wildlife habitat, and increasing hunting, fishing, and 

other outdoor recreation opportunities. It builds on the efforts of the Pershing County 

Checkerboard Lands Committee, initiated over a decade ago, which was a community-driven 

process to solve complicated land management issues. The details were hashed out by an 

inclusive grassroots-driven public process, including meetings, discussions, small working 

groups, and visits with and between Pershing County officials, local residents, and important 

stakeholders. The resulting legislation is a great example of a grassroots proposal, rather than a 

top-down public approach for public lands related legislation, and I am proud to put it before this 

committee on behalf of my constituents. 

Over 75 percent of the lands within Pershing County, Nevada are administered by the federal 

government and much of that land is in a "checkerboard pattern." A remnant of railroad 

construction in the 1800s, these checkerboard lands now present a major land management 

problem for our communities. It is confusing for sportsmen and other outdoor recreationalists, it 

limits economic development opportunities along the 1-80 corridor, and it is a bureaucratic 

headache for both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and adjacent private land owners 

including some of the biggest ranching operations in the region. Resolving this mess in a 

common-sense manner will benetit all Nevadans. 

Similar to other major public lands legislation championed and enacted into law by our 

delegation in the past, like my Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation Act, the 

Pershing County bill finds the delicate balance between sustainable economic development and 

conservation. Specifically, it has four major pillars: 

First, it advances a sale and exchange plan for the over 300,000 acres ofBLM lands in Pershing 

County identified for potential disposal by the BLM's resource management plans. This process 

is modeled off the highly successful process established by the Southern Nevada Public Land 

Management Act (SNPLMA) in 1998 that has facilitated sustainable development in the Las 

Vegas Valley since its enactment. Together with Pershing County, the Department of the Interior 

will jointly select lands and the parcels to be sold through a competitive bidding process for no 

less than fair market value ensuring a fair return for the American taxpayer. Facilitating these 

targeted land sales and exchanges along the Interstate 80 corridor in a responsible manner will 
562 


Insert graphic folio 638 here 22000A.514

increase the county's tax base. increase outdoor recreation opportunities. spur economic 

development. and improve land stewardship. 

Second. it will facilitate the expansion and development of existing mining projects within 

Pershing County. The county has a wide variety of mineral resources. but silver. gold, and 

tungsten have been the mainstays for over a century and a half. Production began in J 860 in the 

i lumboldt district. and later spread throughout the region. In fact. the first successful smelter to 

treat the base-metal ores in Nevada was built in Pershing County. so mining runs deep in its 

history. This initiative will be a boon for economic growth. yielding millions of dollars of 

investments in the county and greatly improving the county's tax base. 

It will also allow Pershing County to acquire land in the Unionville cemetery. The Unionville 

cemetery was established in the J 870s and has been in continuous use ever since. At some point. 

it was discovered that the cemetery lies on BLM land and the BLM is now prohibiting new 

burials there. This simply does not make sense. 

Third. any proceeds from land sales facilitated by the bill will be invested in Northern Nevada. 

benefiting the State· s education system, conservation, and county programs. The resources 

allocated to the county deliver critical services and develop much-needed capital improvement 

projects. such as road maintenance. public safety, and law enforcement. The federal portions 

will greatly improve stewardship of important wildlife habitat for Great Basin species such as the 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Desert Bighorn Sheep. and antelope. It will also improve important 

migration corridors that are important to wildlife management in the region. 

Finally, the bill resolves some long-standing land designations within the county. Five 

wilderness study areas within the county have been in limbo for nearly thirty years. all being 

managed as wilderness by the BLM. These areas were carefully looked at by the residents on the 

ground, and the boundaries were carefully designed. The resulting maps conserve important 

wildlife habitat. ensure existing road access into wilderness, and resolve local ranchers· issues 

with the current "wilderness study area" boundaries that will provide their operations more 

flexibility and stability moving forward. It is important to note that nearly 50,000 acres of public 

land currently being managed as wilderness will be put back into multiple-use. Those areas will 

be available for mineral exploration. energy development. ranching, and other activities. 

As you can see. this proposal in its entirety will yield major benefits not only for Pershing 

County. but for the American people. It is important to note that this legislation has the 

unanimous support of the Nevada Congressional Delegation. My good friend Congressman 

Mark Amodei introduced the !louse companion. H.R.5752. with our other three House 

colleagues as original cosponsors. We all worked closely with our constituents as they finalized 

their grassroots proposal to ensure the legislation was a proposal we could move through the 

Congress. 

I am also proud to report to this Committee that we've garnered the support of a diverse group of 

stakeholders throughout Nevada. That includes business groups like the Nevada Mining 

Association and the Nevada Farm Bureau Federation: the Coalition tor Nevada's Wildlife which 

is comprised of sportsmen groups like Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, Back Country Hunters and 
563 


Insert graphic folio 639 here 22000A.515

Anglers, and Nevada Waterfowl Association; local ranchers; and even environmental groups like 

the Friends of Nevada Wilderness. That support is indicative of the residents' hard work to 

develop an innovative lands package that balances the opinions of diverse stakeholders alike. I 

want to commend the Pershing County Commission and their constituents for a job well done. 

Thank you again Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell for the opportunity to 

present this important Nevada public lands proposal. It is my hope that together we can a find a 

way to advance this bill and the handful of other Nevada proposals that have been considered by 

the Committee. like the Douglas County Conservation Act (S.472) and the House-passed Eastern 

Nevada Land Implementation Improvement Act (H.R.I8 I 5), before the end of the year. 

### 
564 


Insert graphic folio 640 here 22000A.516

I. 

Advanced Technologies 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

September 26, 2016 

IBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. (''IBC") wishes to express support for Senate bill 3203, the Alaska 

Economic Development and Access to Resources Act, and the associated hearing which was held by 

the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on September 22, 2016. As a leader in metals 

separations specializing in Molecular Recognition Technology ("MRT"), IBC believes that 

provisions in S.3203 will support the U.S. domestic industrial base for the production of critical and 

strategic materials by encouraging the development of new technologies and consequently strengthen 

U.S. national security. 

IBC, based in American Fork, Utah, has a proven track record of efficiently separating and providing 

pure materials worldwide using environmentally clean and sustainable separations technology. 

Founded in 1988, IBC has built an extensive network of domestic and international partnerships and 

developed a wide breadth of knowledge about the challenges currently facing the metals industry. 

The supply chain for rare earth elements ("REE") is dominated by China. In fact China exerts near 

complete control over the production of REE in the mining, separation, and processing stages. This 

presents a dangerous situation to the United States as a host of defense-related applications are 

dependent upon rare earths and would be rendered inoperable without these critical materials. 

Despite this situation, the United States continues to expose itself to unnecessary risk by relying on 

Chinese-sourced and produced rare earths even as the last remaining domestic alternative to foreignsourced rare earths ceased operations in the United States last year. 1 

IBC specializes in the separation of metals utilizing a highly selective green chemistry MRT process. 

MRT allows tor the separation and recovery of metals, including REE, with greater than 99 percent 

purity without reliance on waste-generating solvents. In fact, MRT has already been used to 

demonstrate the recovery of 99.99 percent pure dysprosium from a domestic feed stock. 2 This 

technology would provide the United States the security of a domestic rare earth separation 

capability, reducing dependence on China. Additionally, MRT's green chemistry process provides an 

~Celia Jamasmie. "Molycorp shuts down Mountain Pass rare earth plant." Mining.com. August 26.2015. 

<http://ww\v.mining.com/molycorp-shuts-down-mountain-pass-rare-earth-plant/> 

~Press Release. "Ucore Con11rrns Success ofSupcrLig,R:-One Pilot Plant via Independent Analysis," September 26. 

2016. <http://ucorc. com/ucorc-con firms-succcss-o f-supcr! ig -one-pi lot -plant-\, ia-i ndependent -analysis> 

Innovative Molecular Recognition ProductsTM 

IBC Advanced Technologies. Inc. 

856 East Utah Valley Drive, American Fork, Utah 8.\003.l'SA 

vvch: W\\w.ibcmrt.com • email: ln!'o·dihcmrt.com 

Tel: (801) 763-8400 • Fax: (801) 763-8491 
565 


Insert graphic folio 641 here 22000A.517

I. 

Advanced Technologies 

environmentally friendly alternative to the traditional solvent extraction process used to separate rare 

earths in China which results in the generation of immense amounts of highly toxic, corrosive, 

organic waste and results in significant environmental degradation. 

Section 40 I of S.3203 would promote the domestic development of separation technologies capable 

of processing rare earth elements. Notably, the language requires the development and construction 

of''a pilot plant to provide proof of concept for rare earth separation and processing using molecular 

recognition technology." With headquarters in American Fork, Utah and nearly three decades of 

experience in MRT applications, IBC is well positioned to compete for an opportunity to meet the 

requirements of this section. 

IBC's location in Utah enables the company to serve commercial Notth American markets as well as 

the United States government. Specifically. IBC's experience with MRT can help to provide a 

domestic source of rare earths, including those identified by the Department of Defense as being in 

shortfall, thus alleviating foreign sourcing. MRT is also capable of refining and recovering numerous 

specialty metals including: cobalt, nickel, copper. zinc, molybdenum, rhenium, uranium, gold and the 

platinum group metals (platinum, palladium, rhodium. iridium and ruthenium). MRT is used to 

recycle valuable metals as well as to extract impurities and pollutants, including radionuclides, from 

waste and process streams that not only damage the environment but could adversely affect endproduct quality. 3 

The language included in S.3203 is a necessary step forward in the development of a domestic rare 

earth separation market and would undoubtedly ameliorate the security posture for the United States. 

Additionally, the bill will promote new domestic technologies with a direct investment in local 

economies like that of American Fork, Utah that will spur job creation, boost innovation, and 

promote a transition to clean. cost effective alternative separation technology. 

IBC supports S.3203 and believes the bill promotes the development of the next generation of clean 

separation technologies once again enabling domestic production of critical materials. 

Regards, 

IBC Advanced Technologies, Inc. 

3 ··SupcrLig:gJ Products." ibcmrt.com. 1\ccessed: September 26.2016. <http://www.ihcmrt.com/products/superlig/> 
566 


Insert graphic folio 00019 here 22000A.520

JAY INSLEE 

Governor 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR P.O. Box 40002 • Olympia, Washington 98504·0002 • (360) 902-4111 • www.govemor.wa.gov 

September 14,2016 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

United States Senator 

154 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senators Murray and Cantwell: 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

United States Senator 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

I write to express my support for legislation you have introduced- S. 2991, the Methow 

Headwaters Protection Act o/2016- and to thank you for your dedication to protecting the 

Methow River Valley from industrial-scale mining activities that would be injurious to the 

region, and are opposed by the local community. 

As you know, the Methow Valley is a pristine landscape located in north-central Washington 

State. The region is a home for many, and a destination for many others who seek its incredible 

tourism and recreational opportunities. The valley lies in an area of our state where the economy 

is dependent on a clean and healthy natural environment, and in which a commitment to 

conservation is critical. Approximately 1 million people visit the valley each year, and contribute 

over $150 million to the Okanogan County economy. The important contribution that this 

economic activity makes to the local community has become all the more important in recent 

years, as the region has been devastated by record-breaking wildfire seasons. 

Through your legislation, which would establish a mineral withdrawal for roughly 340,000 acres 

in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, the federal government can protect the headwaters 

of this valley, and the environment, economy and the community that they sustain. While 

mineral extraction makes sense in some areas, this region of our state is unique. The importance 

of preventing the degradation of this river valley's headwaters, and the related negative impacts 

of mining activity on fish and wildlife, cannot be overstated. This includes protecting public 

lands and clean water, accelerating salmon recovery, and conserving other critical habitat. 

!join with local elected leaders, tribes, businesses, and other organizations in support of the 

Methow Headwaters Protection Act. Thank you for your hard work in Congress on behalf of our 

state, and for ensuring that the voices of those living in and around the Methow Valley are heard. 
567 


Insert graphic folio 645 here 22000A.521

Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell 

September 14,2016 

Page2 

cc: 

~~ The Honorable Sally Jewell, U.S. Secretary of the Interior 

The Honorable Thomas L. Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service 

Mr. Jim Pefia, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 

Mr. Mike Williams, Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 
568 


Insert graphic folio 646 here 22000A.522

Testimony of Patrick !tWin; Pershing County Commissioner 

Pershing County, lovelock, Nevada 

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Meeks, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to provide written testimony in support of S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic 

Development Act and Conservation Act. This important legislation will resolve long-standing public lands 

issues in Pershing County, provide protection for environmentally important federal lands, and create 

positive economic conditions for rural communities. 

I am Pat Irwin, a Commissioner of Pershing County. On behalf of my constituents and fellow 

Commissioners, I commend Senators Reid and Heller for introducing the Pershing County Economic 

Development and Conservation Act 

S. 3102 represents a model for other counties to emulate in creating customized legislation that meets 

the current and future needs of county residents while harmonizing those needs with the multiple use 

concept of public lands and environmental preservation. AsS. 3102 moves through Congress, we feel 

the eyes of the western United States upon us and we are proud to be at the forefront of this innovative 

approach to resolving public lands' issues. 

S. 3102 enjoys broad support from numerous, yet disparate interests. Marshalling such broad support 

for S. 3102 was not easy. Exchanges during town hall meetings and even Commissioners meetings were 

occasionally heated and emotionally charged. I am gratified, however, by the atmosphere of 

compromise and cooperation that ultimately won out during County meetings regarding S. 3102. The 

legislation before you reflects careful consideration of a vast spectrum of interests and is unanimously 

endorsed by the Pershing County Board of Commissioners. As the culmination of give-and-take 

between mining companies, farmers, ranchers, hunters, conservationists, state wildlife representatives, 

geologists, placer miners and more, no one gets everything they want, but each gets something of value 

and significance. 

This legislation confers many financial benefits to the County. For decades, Pershing County has 

struggled to find productive uses for 20 miles of checkerboard lands located on both sides of the 1-80 

corridor. Many other counties in Nevada and neighboring states grapple with similar issues. S. 3102 

provides a solution to this problem by making public lands within the checkerboard available for 

purchase at fair market value. The sale of these lands will encourage development in communities 

along 1-80 by creating, for the first time, the prospect of contiguous parcels of private property. Such 

development will expand the tax base and bring needed jobs to our economically stressed county. 

Along the same lines, allowing mines to purchase, not lease, federal property will increase the value and 

security of mining interests on privately held land and provide a more predictable permitting process for 

mineral extraction. In addition to creating jobs, private ownership of mining lands will expand the 

County's private property tax base and decrease its reliance on Payment-In-Lieu of Taxes. 

We viewS. 3102 as a means to secure our County's future. Simply put, Pershing County cannot remain 

sustainable on the tax structure as we inherited it Pershing County's population is 6,698, which includes 

1,500 state prisoners. This, coupled with the fact that 75 6% of Pershing County is owned by the Federal 

Government, means we can collect taxes on merely 24.4% of the County. Unfortunately, Payment in 

Lieu of taxes (PILT) has proven to be the most critical portion of our budget While financial viable 
569 


Insert graphic folio 647 here 22000A.523

counties provide services from budgets funded by property taxes, our county must rely on PILT funding 

which varies in amount from year-to-year (assuming we receive it). Our reliance on PILT funding places 

Pershing County in an untenable and unpredictable predicament year after year. 

S. 3102 bill will allow us to create a sustainable tax base to support the public safety entities in our 

county such as the ambulance and fire departments (which are 100% volunteer), Sheriff's Office, senior 

center, library, and many other services that may need to be trimmed without the passage of this bill. 

The bill will also allow us to dedicate money to our infrastructure and broadband initiatives that could 

drive economic development in our rural communities. Already, at least three mining companies await 

passage of S. 3102 before expanding into Pershing County. The arrival of these companies would add 

over 200 jobs to our community; thereby adding 200 families to our community and creating exciting 

possibilities for economic growth. 

In addition to economic benefits, S. 3102 ends the conflict over the wilderness study areas that SLM 

identified in the 1980s as warranting permanent protection as wilderness and other areas that should 

be managed for multiple uses. Since then, these areas have been in limbo. The bill ends this 

unproductive standstill by designating roughly 130,000 acres as wilderness and releasing about 40,000 

acres of wilderness study areas to public land uses other than wilderness. 

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Meeks, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to address this important legislation. Should ycu have a question or need clarification on a 

point of testimony, I will be happy to assist you. 

Pat Irwin 

Pershing County Commissioner 

~ ~4y •. ,.J for Pat Irwin 

Commission Chairman 
570 


Insert graphic folio 648 here 22000A.524

Fleurant, Susan {Energy) 

SUbject: FW: ANSCA hearing statement landless provision 9-22-16 

From: Richard H Jackson [mailto:richjackiiJOgci.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 9:35 PM 

Subject: Re: landless heads up 

Sent from my iPad 

On Sep 21,2016, at 5:10PM, Richard H Jackson <ri,:!]iac!. a cci .. n;j> wrote: 

I am a Native Vietnam Veteran, fonner president of KIC, three time Grand President of the 

Alaska Native Brotherhood. I support the Viernam Native Veterans Allotment Act but have 

concerns over exclusion from National Monuments. The Misty Fjords National Monument was 

approved by congress well after the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. My family has 

subsisted there for generations. I applied for an Allotment on the previous Veterans Allotment 

attempt and was denied. l applied in the Misty fjords at Kaheeni River. I would request language 

to waive the exclusion. The Viernam Native Veterans Allotment Act should address traditional 

land use before any Congressional Act for a Monument Wilderness area. 

Regards, 

Richard Jackson 

US Navy 

MM3 

USS Coral Sea CVA-43 1%7-1971 

Sent from my iPad 
571 


Insert graphic folio 649 here 22000A.525

TYLER RENTAL 

October 3, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski. 

I am in support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Legislation. The Alaska 

Mental Health Trust and the Trust Land Office have been working toward a land exchange for 

more than I 0 years with extensive public participation while defining the exchange parcels. I 

urge to you pass legislation allowing the Trust to fulfill itsfinancial responsibility of supporting 

our most vulnerable populations in Alaska. 

Given that Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in history, legislation is the best option to 

complete the exchange in a timely fashion. In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 

grants to organizations in SE, totaling more than $3 million. Another 323 Trust beneficiaries in 

SE have been awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over $482,000. We need to ensure that 

the Trust can continue to provide revenue for comprehensive. integrated mental health services 

in Alaska today and into the future. 

For nearly a decade the Alaska Mental Health Trust has been seeking to exchange 17,341 acres 

of Trust lands near downtown Ketchikan, Juneau. Petersburg. Wrangell, Sitka, and Myers Chuck 

in exchange for up to 20,580 acres of US Forest Service timber lands of equal value in the 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough and on Prince of Wales Island. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange bill is critical to maintain the current timber 

industry in SE Alaska. It provides the Trust the ability to offer sufficient timber supply until 

other lands owners can place enough timber on the market during the transition to young growth 

harvest. Trust timber sales will provide required timber for the last medium size sawmill on 

Prince of Wales. This impacts 150 employees at the mill, along with others who work in the 

timber industry in the community. My company. Tyler Rental. Inc. is included is the list of other 

companies that will be affected by reduction in timber supply. Tyler Rental rents and sells all 

types of equipment to customers on Prince of Wales Island and throughout Southeast Alaska in 

support of the timber, mining, energy, tourism, and fishing industries. 

The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

• Sustains the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by providing more timber lands that could be 

managed on a sustained yield basis 

• Ensures jobs stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber and tourism industries 

• Protects popular trails, viewsheds, and iconic recreational sites along the Inside Passage 

• Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

Ketchikan,AK 

5216 Borch Street 

PO Box 8158 

Ketchikan, AK 9990 I 

Office: 907-225-6069 

Fax: 907-225-6118 

Craig,AK 

400 P011 Bagial Blvd 

PO Bo.x 1172 

Craig.AK 99921 

Office: 907-826-2924 

Fax: 907-826-2956 

Juneau,AK 

5295 Glacier Hwy 

Juneau,AK 99801 

Office: 907-780-2210 

Fax: 907-780-2213 

Chehalis, WA 

153 Hamilton Rd North 

Chehalis, WA 98532 

Office: 360-748·8109 

Fax: 360-748-8113 
572 


Insert graphic folio 650 here 22000A.526

Without legislation we are putting our communities at risk. 

• If the Trust cannot generate revenue in a timely fashion, we jeopardize our mental health 

services. 

I want to do what is right for the Southeast community and economy, including the timber 

industry, and for all of the people that benefit from the Trust. It's time to let the Alaska Mental 

Health Trust continue its critical work for those who experiencing mental illness, developmental 

disabilities, chronic alcoholism, and Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. 

Sincerely, 

,0~~/rc 

Randy Johnson, President 

Tyler Rental, Inc. 

P.O. Box 8158 

Ketchikan, AK 9990 I 
573 


Insert graphic folio 651 here 22000A.527

September 2015 

To: Senator Ron Wyden 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Congressman Peter DeFazio 

Governor Kate Brown: 

As a small business owner here in the Illinois Valley of J6sephine,\County, we support 

the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 (HR 682 in the 

House of Representatives and S 346 in the Senate). We also support the proposed fiveyear mineral withdrawal that will assist this important legislation by protecting the 

National Wild and Scenic North Fork of the Smith River and the headwaters of Hunter 

Creek and the Pistol River-all prized for their salmon and steelhead runs. This will also 

protect, after over twenty-year of tireless efforts by many stakeholder groups, the Rough 

and Ready Creek area here in southern Josephine County. This is a botanical hotspot, 

with the highest concentration of rare plants in Oregon and is a source for clean water to 

our community. These important water courses mean so much more to us than what 

nickel strip mining and large scale gold mining on the Chetco River would do for our 

communities. Over 11 ,000 people are in support of protecting these important 

watersheds with virtually none in opposition. Preserving the clean air and nationally 

outstanding water quality and fisheries of our region's rivers and streams protects our 

business prosperity and rural communities. 

Iron Mountain Soapworks, Cave Junction, Oregon 

It's a Burl, Gallery, Woodyard, Shop, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Diggin Livin, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Cave Junction Liquor, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Yanase Jewelers, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Rosie,s Inferno, Wood Fired Pizza, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Solis Skin Care, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Eden's Edge Farm, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Douglas Kendall, Designer, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Out N About Treesort, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Rachel Goodman, LMT Massage Therapist, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Forest Edge Farm, Fine Llamas, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Big Springs Kennel, German Shepherd Pups, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Kathy Lombardo, Secretary, Illinois Valley Garden Club, Cave Junction, 

Oregon 

Natural Family Medicine, Margaret Philhower, NO, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Siskiyou Alpaca, Christine and John Gardiner, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Raven Flight Photos, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Must B Felt, Fine Fabric Designers, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Goodness and Mercy, Handyman Services, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Madd Moose, Dining and Moose Watering Hole, Cave Junction, Oregon 
574 


Insert graphic folio 652 here 22000A.528

Siskiyou Mountain Herbs, Cave Junction, Oregon 

IV Trophy and Collectibles, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Cave Junction Acupuncture, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Meadow Martell, Supporting Access to Health Care, Cave Junction, Oregon 

The Dome School, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Dancefarm, Organic Veggies and Dance Instruction, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Wilson Biochar Associates, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Siuslaw Guide Service, Salmon and Steelhead Fishing, Cave Junction, 

Oregon 

Wild Bill's Oregon Outlet, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Mama Angie's Ladles of Love, Fine Food Catering, Cave Junction, Oregon 

4 Whatever Photography, Fine Photos and Cards, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Wright's World Emporium, Clothing and Gifts, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Wheel's A Turnin' Garden Supply, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Crucial Thymes, Fine Foods, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Rogue Natural Living, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Althouse Nursery, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Running Fox Guitars, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Kiaya Pace, Independent Hairstylist, Back Street Salon, Cave Junction, 

Oregon 

Ravenswood Gallery, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Jefferson State Financial Group, Cave Junction, Oregon 

Margaret Phillhower, NO, Cave Junction, Oregon 
575 


Insert graphic folio 653 here 22000A.529

Sept. 19, 2016 

Kalmiopsis Audubon Society 

P.O. Box 1265 Port Orford OR 97465 

Chairman Usa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Southwest Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346.} 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

I am writing on behalf of the Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, based in Curry County, Oregon, part 

of an extraordinary region we call "America's Wild Rivers Coast." Our group has more than 300 

members who are concerned about habitat for birds, fish, wildlife and who care deeply about 

stewardship of our public lands for present and future generations. We've been engaged in 

conservation of wildlife habitat in our region for more than 35 years. 

We strongly support the Southwest Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346.), 

introduced by Senators Wyden and Merkley, which would provide permanent protection 

through a mineral withdrawal for remote areas in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and 

~djacent BLM lands that form the headwaters of several nationally renowned rivers. 

rhese streams include 

Rough and Ready Creek at the headwaters of the National Wild & Scenic Illinois River, 

which flows into the National Wild & Scenic Rogue 

Baldface Creek at the headwaters of the National Wild & Scenic North Fork Smith River, 

which flows into the National Wild & Scenic Smith in the Smith River National 

Recreation Area and Redwood State and National parks; and 
576 


Insert graphic folio 654 here 22000A.530

Hunter Creek and Pistol River, which flow to the Pacific south of Gold Beach, near Pistol 

River State Park and in the heart of the "America's Wild Rivers Coast," a two-state area 

that local businesses have promoted based on the valuable natural asset of rivers and 

salmon 

National Wild & Scenic Chetco River, which flows from Kalmiopsis Wilderness to the 

Pacific 

We are proud that our region hosts America's highest concentration of National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, known for clear water, world-class salmon runs, and outstanding recreational 

opportunities that draw anglers and outdoor enthusiasts from afar. Our local communities rely 

on the pure water, robust salmon runs, and associated recreation, as renewable resources that 

fuel the small businesses that make up our tourism based economies. Local communities also 

depend on these pure rivers as the source of drinking water. 

There is broad and diverse local support- including from Curry County Commissioners, Del 

Norte County Supervisors, several local cities, businesses, tribes, and civic organizations-- for 

protecting the headwaters of our wild rivers from strip mining. This destructive type of mining 

would cause irrevocable harm to sensitive public lands and detract from the clean-water 

economy that our local fishing- and tourism-based communities now depend on. According to 

the U.S. EPA's Toxic Release inventory, metal mining is the nation's most polluting industry, and 

local communities don't want to put our outstanding National Wild and Scenic Rivers -nor our 

drinking water -at risk. 

We are concerned that existing mining laws are inadequate to safeguard the outstanding 

values -clean water, fisheries, recreation-that citizens value most highly. The Forest Service 

has clearly indicated that, absent a mineral withdrawal, it has no authority to prevent any 

mining, despite the extraordinary natural resource values at stake. Moreover, in the past two 

years alone, a series of horrific mine disasters, including the Mount Polley tailings spill in British 

Columbia and the Animas River spill in Colorado, have left local communities and ecosystems 

with devastating damage. These incidents plainly shown that oversight of mine development 

and mines is not sufficient to protect local communities let alone nationally significant rivers 

into the future. 

For all these reasons, we deeply appreciate Senator Wyden and Merkley's leadership in 

introducing the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act with its aim of 

securing permanent protection for the extraordinary wild rivers and unique wildlands of 

southwestern Oregon, and we strongly encourage you and all Senate Natural Resource 

committee members to support it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of S. 346. 

Sincerely, 

Ann Vileisis, President 
577 


Insert graphic folio 656 here 22000A.532

SUPPORT for the 

Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act 

This packet contains the following resolutions and letters of support for the 

Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 201S (SOWSPA): 

City of Gold Beach Resolution in support of SOWSPA 

City of Cave Junction letter in support of SOWSPA 

There is broad support for protecting the headwaters of Southwestern Oregon's wild 

rivers from mining, as indicated by these letters and resolutions recently submitted in 

support of the Southwestern Oregon Mineral Withdrawal, which also mention support 

for permanent protection through the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon 

Protection Act: 

California Assembly Resolution in support of permanently protecting the Smith 

River in Oregon from mining 

California Sen. Mike McGuire letter supporting mineral withdrawal and SOWSPA 

Elk Valley Rancheria, letter in support of mineral withdrawal and SOWSPA 

Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians, letter in support for mineral withdrawal 

and SOWSPA 

Del Norte County letter in support of mineral withdrawal and SOWSPA 

City of Gold Beach, OR letter in support of mineral withdrawal and SOWSPA 

Pacific Coast Fishermen's Federation, letter in support of mineral withdrawal and 

SOWSPA 

These letters also express support for protecting the headwaters of Southwestern 

Oregon's wild rivers from mining, focusing on support for the Southwestern Oregon 

Mineral Withdrawal and or mention support for permanent protection: 

Curry County Commissioner David Smith letter in support of mineral withdrawal 

Crescent City, CA, letter in support of mineral withdrawal 

Big Rock Services [Water] Dist. letter in support of mineral withdrawal 

Gasquet Services [Water] Dist. letter in support of mineral withdrawal 

Crescent City Chamber of Commerce, letter in support of mineral withdrawal 

Craft Brewers for Clean Water, letter in support of mineral withdrawal 

At the end of you'll find a complete list of tribes, municipalities, businesses and 

organizations that support protection of Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Rough and Ready 

Creek and the North Fork of the Smith River from industrial nickel mining. 
578 


Insert graphic folio 658 here 22000A.534

RESOLUTION Rl516·16 

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN OREGON WATERSHED AND SALMON 

PROTECTION ACT OF 2015-MINERAL MINING WITHDRAWAL FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL 

LANDS IN CURRY & JOSEPHINE COUNTY 

WHEREAS, Federal Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley introduced Senate Bill 346, and 

Federal Representative Peter DeFazio introduced House Bill 682, both known as the 

Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015; and 

WHEREAS, those federal bills were introduced to protect the Hunter Creek and Pistol River 

watersheds from the catastrophic effects of nickel mining at Red Flats; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed nickel mining at Red Flats is by a foreign owned company and their 

venture will bring no economic benefit to Curry County; and 

WHEREAS, it appears that special interest lobbyists are attempting to persuade federal 

senate and house members from other regions and states that the mining proposal is an 

economic benefit to our region and our region supports the mining; and 

WHEREAS, the Wild Rivers Coast which starts at Klamath, California and extends north to 

Bandon, Oregon has the highest concentration of federally designated Wild & Scenic Rivers 

in the United States: the Klamath, the Smith, the Chetco, the Rogue, the Illinois, and the 

Elk-the area encompassed by the act as introduced in the S346 & HR682 federal bills; and 

WHEREAS, in the past 4 years, Travel Oregon and the Wild Rivers Coast Regional Tourism 

Collaborative (comprised of city, county, state, and local tourism and economic 

development professionals) have invested a significant amount oftime and resources in 

developing an experiential outdoor recreation economy on the south coast because of the 

region's superlative natural resources and scenic wonders; and 

WHEREAS, any large scale mining, but specifically nickel mining at Red Flats, will have a 

detrimental and devastating impact on habitat, fish and wildlife, the environment, and our 

fragile tourism economy. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT resolved the City Council of the City of Gold Beach formally 

opposes any mining in the national forest surrounding our community, but specifically the 

Red Flats nickel mining proposal, and fervently supports the efforts of Senators Wyden & 

Merkley, and Representative DeFazio to have the areas designated in S346 and HR682 

PERMANENTAL Y WITHDRAWN from any possible or future mining. 

Page 1 of2 

Resolution Rl516·16 
579 


Insert graphic folio 660 here 22000A.536

PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLD BEACH, COUNTY OF CURRY, STATE OF 

OREGON, and EFFECTIVE THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2016. 

Page 2 of2 

Resolution R1516·16 
580 


Insert graphic folio 659 here 22000A.535

City of Cave Junction • Home of the Oregon Caves 

P.O. Box 1396 • 222 Uster Street • Cave Junction. OR 97523 

Phone (541} 592-2156 • Fax (541} 592-6694 • TOO Relay 1-800-735-2900 

e-mail: cityofcj@cavenet.com 

September 15, 2015 

To Governor Kate Brown, Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Congressman Peter Defazio; 

As City Councilors of the City of Cave Junction, we support the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and 

Salmon Protection Act of 2015 (HR 682 in the House of Representatives and 5346 in the Senate). We 

also support the proposed five year mineral withdrawal that will assist this important legislation 

protecting the National Wild and Scenic North Fork of the Smith River and the headwaters of Hunter 

Creek and the Pistol River-all prized for their salmon and steelhead runs. This will also protect after over 

twenty years of tireless efforts by many stakeholder groups theW. Fork of the Illinois River, Rough and 

Ready Creek area here in southern Josephine County. This is a botanical hotspot, with the highest 

concentration of rare plants and a source for clean water to our community. Preserving our watershed 

and nationally outstanding water quality in our region's rivers and streams protects the citizens of Cave 

Junction and our rural communities. 

j 

CARL B. JAC08SON, JR. 

Mayor 

d}vv,)<2, &kiu 

Dan Bosch 

Councilor 

??-Y~ DA1'fl£L DALEGOWSKI 

Councilor 

Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer 
581 


Insert graphic folio 662 here 22000A.538

Smith River Watershed Resolution 

Senate Joint Resolution 3 

Approved by the California Senate and Assembly 

July2015 

WHEREAS, The Smith River watershed of approximately 610 square miles in California and 

115 square miles in Oregon is considered the prize of the California wild and scenic river system 

since it was included in the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1972, and then later 

included in the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1981; and 

WHEREAS, The Smith River is the indirect primary source of drinking water for the majority of 

Del Norte County's 28.000 residents. with the largest user being the City of Crescent City: and 

WHEREAS, The Del Norte County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of Crescent City 

have voted unanimously to oppose the issuance of a limited water use license for the Cleopatra 

Check Drilling Program based on the potential to cause significant adverse environmental 

impacts within the overall watershed of the Smith River and subsequent impacts on drinking 

water for residents and thousands of annual visitors; and 

WHEREAS, The California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department 

ofFish and Wildlife, the Natural Resources Agency and the Oregon Water Resources 

Department have also opposed any mining within the Smith River watershed because of the 

detrimental effects of strip mining; and 

WHEREAS, The Smith River is unparalleled for its free flowing status, large and abundant 

salmon and steel head stock, and extraordinary botanical diversity, and is the only major 

undammed river in California; and 

WHEREAS, The Smith River National Recreation Area Act, passed by the JOist United States 

Congress in 1990 (Public Law I 0 1-612). amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 and 

permanently protected all federal lands of the Smith River watershed within California by 

establishing the Smith River National Recreation Area; and 

WHEREAS, The Oregon portion of the North Fork of the Smith River was not included in the 

act and remains vulnerable to mining; and 

WHEREAS, Any strip mining activities on the North Fork of the Smith River could have 

devastating and irreversible impacts to the entire National Wild and Scenic Smith River 

Watershed; and 

WHEREAS, In 2012, Red Flat Nickel Corporation submitted the Cleopatra Check Drilling 

Mining Plan for the watershed of the North Fork of the Smith River to the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest, with the goals to develop and operate a devastating 3,980 acre strip mine to 

extract nickel, cobalt, and chromium; and 
582 


Insert graphic folio 663 here 22000A.539

WHEREAS, The proposed mining operations will unnecessarily put the people and wildlife that 

rely on the Smith River at risk; and 

WHEREAS, The United States Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that hard rock 

mining, which includes strip mining, is the largest source of toxic pollution in the United States; 

and 

WHEREAS, The United States Department of Agriculture's Technical Guide to Managing 

Groundwater Resources documents numerous published reports concerning the release of toxic 

metals to ground water and surface water resulting from mines and mine-related facilities; and 

WHEREAS, Mining operations along the tributaries of the Smith River would inevitably impact 

water quality and quantity with the potential to cause significant injury to fish and other wildlife, 

including threatened coho salmon; and 

WHEREAS, The Smith River's coho salmon are protected under the federal Endangered Species 

Act and arc recognized as a core independent population with a high risk of extinction; and 

WHEREAS, The Smith River is one of California's most important, irreplaceable watersheds for 

the threatened coho salmon; and 

WHEREAS, The Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, and steelhead runs are vitally important to the 

economies and environment ofnorthem California and Oregon; and 

WHEREAS, Millions offcderal, state, and private dollars have been spent in the past decades on 

improving water supply systems and for restoration and protection of salmonid habitat and 

watershed lands downstream from the proposed mining operations; now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature 

urges the President of the United States and Congress to permanently safeguard the currently 

unprotected North Fork of the Smith River watershed in Oregon from any mining activities that 

would have potential impacts on water supplies. economies, or the environment in California's 

portion of the Smith River watershed; and be it further 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the author for 

appropriate distribution. 
583 


Insert graphic folio 664 here 22000A.540

SENATOR MIKE MCGUIRE 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIAS SECOND SENATE DISTRICT 

September 25,2015 

Mr. Jerome E. Perez, Oregon State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon State Office 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, Oregon 97208-2965 

Dear Mr. Perez: 

RE: Comments in Support of Proposed Mineral Withdrawal and Smith River Protection 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment on this matter of critical importance to my 

constituents in Del Norte County and citizens of California. I strongly support the proposed 

withdrawal of approximately 100,000 acres of National Forest and Bureau of Land Management 

land located in southwestern Oregon from use under federal mining laws. Moreover, I support a 

permanent mineral withdrawal as proposed in the "Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon 

Protection Act of2015'' (S. 346 and l!R 682). 

In July of this year. the California Senate and Assembly approved Senate Joint Resolution- 3 

the Smith River Watershed Protection measure which urges the President of the United States 

and Congress to permanently safeguard the currently unprotected North Fork of the Smith River 

watershed in Oregon from any mining activities. SJR-3 is appended to this letter and is herewith 

included as part of my comments. 

In summary of SJR-3, strip mining in the Smith River watershed is simply unacceptable. The 

Smith and the companion rivers included in the proposed mineral withdrawal area are 

extraordinary streams of national significance. Any future mining activities will unnecessarily 

put the people and wildlife/fisheries that rely on these rivers at risk and would create irreversible 

impacts to the entire watersheds of these streams. 

Again, l appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Proposed Mineral Withdrawal 

and look forward to the well-deserved protection of the Smith River watershed. If you have any 

questions regarding this letter please contact Thomas Weseloh, Chief Consultant to the 

California Legislature's Joint Committee on Salmon and Fisheries at Tom.Weseloh({vsen.ca.gov 

or 707 445-7014. 

• I' t 1 ~~ ',<;I ...j( >< I·' o SE~IATE C 4 
584 


Insert graphic folio 00020 here 22000A.541

Wannest Regards, 

MIKE McGUIRE 

Senator 
585 


Insert graphic folio 666 here 22000A.542

Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon State Offtce 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, OR 97208-2965 

August 7, 2015 

Re: Notice of Proposed Withdrawal; Elk Valley Rancheria, California's Comments 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Elk Valley Rancheria, California, a federally recognized Indian tribe (the "Tribe") 

located in Del Norte County, California, provides its comments in support of the proposed 

mineral withdrawal of95,806 acres of National Forest System lands on the Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest and 5,216 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands on the Medford 

District and Coos Bay Districts. 

The Tribe supports Senate Bill 346 and House Resolution 682, the "Southwestern Oregon 

Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of2015." The proposed withdrawal assists with the 

preservation of the status quo and does not allow for mining claim location or entry under the 

mining laws, mineral lease or geothenna! operations both the two-year segregation period 

and the subsequent five-year mineral withdrawal, for a of up to seven years. 

The Tribe has previously expressed concern about mining in the Smith River watershed 

and has supported on-going efforts to protect the Smith River and associated watershed from the 

negative impacts of proposed nickel mining efforts. The proposed strip mining and other 

mineral extraction activities have been demonstrated to have a uegative effect on the water 

that is so vit4l to the region. Likewise, those activities negatively affect cultural and 

sites of importance to the Tribe and its ancestors. 

The proposed withdrawal would avoid the nickel mine's destruction of wilderness quality 

public lands, eradication and disturbance of the local flora and fauna, pollution of downstream 

waters, and depletion of a fully stream. Likewise, maintaining the status quo would 

avoid pollution that would harm and water supplies. The cessation of both the 

short tenn mineral exploration drilling and long term industrial strip mining would clearly be 

beneticial to the public interest. 
586 


Insert graphic folio 667 here 22000A.543

BLM 

Re: Mining Withdrawal 

August 7, 2015 

Page2 

Again, the Tribe supports the proposed withdrawal and urges the Secretary to take said 

action. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter of great public importance. 

cc: Congressman DeFazio 

Congressman Huffinan 

Senator Feinstein 

Senator Boxer 

Elk Valley Tribal Council 

Grants Director 

General Counsel 

Sincerely, 

Dale A. Miller 

Chairman 
587 


Insert graphic folio 668 here 22000A.544

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians P.O.Box549 

(541) 444-2532 1-800-922-1399 

September 18,2015 

Jerome E. Perez, Oregon State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

State Office 

Portland, Oregon 97208-2965 

Re' Withdrawal of Southwestern Oregon eligible Federal lands from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, patent under the mining Jaws, and operation under the mineral leasing and for other purpuse...~~ 

Dear Director Perez: 

Our ancestral homelands include basins of Southwest Oregon. Although we were driven from these ancestral our connection to the cultural resources in these basins has continued since removal. and ancestral ways, specific to the resources is critical to the future success of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz. of this is our devotion to our annual Run celebration wherein we commemorate our ancestor's removal from their treasured homelands, 

travelling their footsteps in reverse direction. 

with their families reconnecting to family histories 

cultural troditions such as fishing for salmon and gathering basketry materials, 

These activities occur seasonally during other months of the year as welL Through these activities tribal members be able to drink the natural waters produced within these basins, eat mammals, 

shellfish environmental pollutants. 

to uses within these basins we \\ill highlight one species/beneficial use derr!om;tration purposes. 
588 


Insert graphic folio 669 here 22000A.545

Lamprey eel are a key fisheries resource for the Siletz Tribe. Larval lamprey rear in freshwater 

streams for four to ten years before they begin their ocean migration. During the pest twenty yesrs west 

coast trihes have forced the agencies to recognize multiple issues driving Pacific lamprey population 

declines. Using several genetic studies carried out during the past fifteen years, fiSheries experts from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Technical Worldng Group (federal, state and tribal partners) have identified the 

Rogue Basin as a key producer ofPacific lamprey when considering all stocks oflamprey found across 

the eastern Pacific. Because Pacific lamprey larvse reside in freshwater for so long along with other 

biological factors proving super-sensitivity, they have been shown to be more suseepttble to 

environmental pollution (Portland Harbor Super Fund studies and recent Columbia River Intertribal Fish 

Commission studies). Toxic run off from mining operations would be detrimental to the remaining . 

stocks of lamprey found in our above mentioned streams of concern. In tum we are equally concerned 

about water use to support these activities and how that use will compete with critical fisheries habitat 

The current proposed mining activity has a long history of high risk and extensive enviromnental 

pollution under which the responsible parties rarely take financial responsibility and for which tbe citizens 

of the state or country where it occurs carry all the financial burden of the cleanup. Although we support 

economic development across Oregon we do not support ventures associated witb a high degree of 

enviromnental risk. 

In summary we wish to express our great concern over the sustainability of resources within our 

ancestral homelands under any sort of precious mineral exploratory or otherwise, mining activities. In 

addition we wish that you extend the current two yesr segregation period to a five year witbdrswal. 

Lastly, we request that you work toward a full twenty year witbdrswal to allow our legislators adequate 

time to pass the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act oj2QI 5 with its' intended 

permanent withdrswal of101,021 acres of Federal lands from future(!} entry, appropriation, or disposal 

under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, end patect under the mining laws; and (3) operation under 

the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws. 

~' 

~0.-~ Tribal Chairman 
589 


Insert graphic folio 670 here 22000A.546

Phone 

(707) 464-7204 

COUNTY OF NORTE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

98l "H" 

Crescent City, 

Jerome E. Perez, State Director 

BLM Oregon 

1220 S.W. 3rd Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204 

Fa-'< 

(707)464-1!65 

09122115 

Subject Mineral Withdrawal in Support of the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and 

Salmon Protection Act 

Dear State Director Perez, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very critical subject. The responsiveness of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to the request of our federal legislators for a five-year mineral withdrawal on lands that flow into our pristine watersheds is 

greatly appreciated. 

Del Norte County is home to the Smith River which is considered to be the prize of the California Wild and Scenic River System because of it unparalleled free-flowing status, large and abundant salmon and steelhead stock, and extraordinary botanical diversity. The river's recreation opportunities are abundant and it provides the indirect source of drinking 

water for the majority of Del Norte County's 28,000 residents. value of a healthy Smith River to the vitality of Del Norte County is incalculable. While the California portion of the Smith River was afforded protection under the Smith River National Recreation Area Act and Wild and Scenic River designation, the upper reaches of the North Fork of the Smith River, which lie in Oregon, remain vulnerable to large scale strip mining operations. 

In July 2014, the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to oppose the issuance of the limited water use license for Red Flat Nickel Corporation's Cleopatra Check Drilling Program based on the potential to cause significant adverse environmental impacts within the overall watershed of the Smith River and subsequent impacts on drinking water for residents and thousands of annual visitors. While this request was later withdrawn, the County has continued to work with California slate legislators to garner the support needed to permanently safeguard the North Fork of the Smith River. Most recently the California Stale Legislature approved Senate Joint Resolution No. 3- Smith River Watershed Protection which resolves that the state Legislature will urge the President of the United States and Congress to permanently safeguard the Smith River. 

Given the exigency of the matter, Del Norte County strongly urges your support in 

recommending approval of the mineral withdrawal to the Director of the Bureau of Land 

Management to allow adequate time for our federal legislators to approve the Southwest 

Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act which will permanently protect our world class rivers and streams. 
590 


Insert graphic folio 00021 here 22000A.547

Respectfully submitted, 

cc: Representative Jared Huffman, U.S. Congress 

Senator Mike McGuire, California State Senate 

Mayor Ron Gastineau, City of Crescent City Council 
591 


Insert graphic folio 672 here 22000A.548

City of Gold Beach 

29592 Ellensburg Avenue • Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Administration: 541-247-7029 • Police: 541-247-6671 •l!!!l!!I!IL:Q!lJ;J.Q!i<l£!J£f!@Sl!itLJ;JQl1 

SENT VIA EMAIL & USPS 

Robert MacWhorter, Forest Supervisor 

% Shannon Downey 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

3040 Biddle Rd, 

Medford, OR 97504 

RE: SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal 

Dear Mr. MacWhorter: 

Visitor Center: 541-247-7526 • 

Friday, May 20, 2016 

Please accept this letter as a placeholder comment in favor of SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal 

legislation. The Gold Beach City Council, at the May 9th Council meeting, voted to send a 

letter supporting the mining withdrawal proposal as well as draft a resolution in support of 

the withdrawal. The resolution will be ratified at the June 13'° Council meeting. Even though 

the comment period will be officially closed at that time, will forward a copy of the 

resolution once signed. 

The Red Flat mining proposal--that was the genesis of this proposed withdrawal legislation--is 

located in close proximity to the City of Gold Beach. In the past our area has been heavily 

dependent on a natural resources extraction economy that was strongly encouraged by the 

USFS and other federal agencies. Most of that extraction was in the form of timber, but Curry 

County does have a long history of mineral extraction as well-mostly aggregate, though, not 

hazardous mining like nickel mining. 

In the past 20 years, and specifically in the past 1.0, our area has worked really hard to make 

lemonade from the lemons we were handed in the early '90s (no harvesting of a renewable 

resource on federal lands that make up 75% of our county). But the timber discussion is a 

horse beaten so dead there isn't enough left for glue--so no point in going there. It is what it 

is, and we will never go back to harvesting and replanting, so we have tried to move on. We 

are making lemonade economically by working on building a successful tourism economy that 

embraces the "wild" in the wilderness and wild rivers that surround us. 

Nickel mining-anywhere-but specifically HERE would be catastrophic to that tourism 

economy, and, in my opinion, kind of a slap in our faces. We are no longer permitted to 
592 


Insert graphic folio 673 here 22000A.549

resource: now may 

devastating extraction of a non-renewable source metal. Those extraction activities scar and 

pollute the surrounding areas and bring ZERO income to the locals that are affected by the 

devastation. How does that comport with the past 25 years of rhetoric that logging destroys 

the environment and threatens fish habitat? Roads aren't even being maintained in the 

national forest surrounding Gold Beach because that maintenance may adversely impact 

habitat. But strip mining is a possibility? 

The mining company isn't even on American company. If you want to say there is controversy 

surrounding this issue: there it is-a foreign company strip mining a one-of-a-kind wilderness 

area, devastating salmon habitat, devastating watersheds of federally designated wild rivers, 

and destroying a fragile tourism economy in one of the most economically devastated 

counties in the entire west. All based on some obscure law over 100 years old? THAT is the 

controversy. 

We are a first world country. We know what strip mining does to the environment and to 

communities surrounding it. The fact that we have to even say: STOP. PLEASE. is shameful in 

2016. 

But that is what we are saying: STOP PLEASE. Help us preserve our fragile tourism economy, 

Help us to preserve the wild areas that make us America's Wild Rivers Coast. Withdraw these 

areas from consideration for mineral extraction. Not just for 5 years. Not even for 20. 

Withdraw them permanently. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Jodi Fritts 

City Administrator 
593 


Insert graphic folio 674 here 22000A.550

David Bjtts 

President 

Duncan MacLean 

Tnamrer 

Please Respond to: 

0 California Office 

P.O. Box 29370 

San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 

Tel: (415) 561-5080 

Fax: (415) 561-5464 

www.pcffa.org 

Email: fishlitr@aol.com 

28 September 2015 

IFatershed Cottmvatiotl DimttJr 

In Memoriam: 

Nathaniel S. Bingham 

Harold C Christensen 

[X] Northwest Office 

P.O. Box 11170 

PDF Email to: 

Eugene, OR 97440-3370 

Tel: (541) 689-2000 

Fax: (541) 689-2500 

Jerome E. Perez, Oregon State Director 

Bureau of Land Management, BLM OR W A WITHDRAW ALS@blm.gov 

Oregon State Office, 

P.O. Box 2965, 

Portland, Oregon 97208-2965 

Dear Oregon State Director Perez: 

We submit these comments to you on behalf of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 

Associations (PCFFA) as well as its sister organization, the Institute for Fisheries Resources 

(IFR). 

As the largest trade association of commercial fishing families on the west coast, we at 

PCFFA (together with IFR) urge you to protect the headwaters of the Wild and Scenic Illinois 

and Smith Rivers and the Wild Rivers Coast from proposed nickel and other strip mines. We 

respectfully ask you to protect these waterways, which (as key salmon producing rivers) are crucially important to our livelihoods and those of our members, many of whom harvest salmon 

for all or part of their living. 

Every stream and river in Oregon counts for and is important for commercial salmon fishing 

production due to "weak stock management." This is the biologically and legally 

required management tool by which all fisheries in a given at-sea area can be closed if any one 

stock, or substock, that is intermingling with the other targeted hut more abundant stocks 

becomes too weakened in population size to allow any additional incidental or even accidental 

take without risking its depletion or eventual extinction. 

This is not just a theoretical threat, but happens as a regular part of west coast ocean fisheries 

management. For instance, in 2006 ocean salmon fisheries from Monterey, CA to the OR-WA 
594 


Insert graphic folio 675 here 22000A.551

PCFFA Comments 

South Oregon Mining Withdrawals 

28 September 2015 

border were closed or severely restricted because of the one very weak fall-Chinook stock in the 

Klamath River that year. Once the Klamath fall-Chinook populations dipped below the 

"minimum spawner floor" in 2006, all other fisheries in that 700 mile area were either closed 

down or severely restricted to prevent even accidental take of the weakest fall-Chinook from the 

Klamath. This closure cost our industry about $200 million in economic losses, even though the 

rest of the fall-Chinook stocks coastwide were relatively strong and could, in themselves, have 

otherwise supported abundant fisheries. 

Weak stock management-driven closures could just as easily affect the Oregon coastal salmon 

stocks if any of these intermingling stocks get seriously depressed, due to destructive industrial 

mining, in any one river system on the coast All other Oregon (and perhaps Northern California 

and Washington) ocean salmon fisheries could potentially be shut down to protect any one very 

weak stock, at a huge economic cost to our industry. The risk of a mining-triggered salmon 

habitat loss which results in an economic disaster in our industry is just too great to allow such 

impacts. 

These same streams for which protection is sought also contain ESA-listed Oregon Coastal 

ESU coho, and/or Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU coho. Significant loss of either of 

these protected populations could trigger serious weak stock management restrictions, and could 

also limit large portions of the commercial at -sea fishery in both states. 

It also just makes no sense from a public policy perspective to be spending tens of millions of 

dollars repairing damaged in-stream coho spawning and rearing habitat while simultaneously 

allowing mining operations tore-destroy that same habitat, and at a huge tax-payer subsidy. 

I ask you to support the maximum possible interim protection available while Congress 

considers permanent protection through legislation, such as the Southwestern Oregon Watershed 

and Salmon Protection Act, which we fully support. 

Cc: Tim Sloane, PCFF NIFR 

Executive Director 

Letter to BLM Re Mining Withdrawal Rule (09-28-15) 

Sincerely, 

gkt:JC~ 

Glen H. Spain 

Regional Director 

PCFF A and IFR 

2 
595 


Insert graphic folio 677 here 22000A.553

Curry County 

Board of Commissioners 

David Brock Smith, 

Commissioner 

Neil Komze, National Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

1849 C Street NW, Room 5665 

Washington D.C. 20240 

94235 Moore Street, Suite 122 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

541-247-3296, 541-247-2718 Fax 

800-243-1996 www.co.curryows 

Jerome Perez, Oregon State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

333 S.W. 1'1 Avenue 

Portland OR 97204 

Regarding: Mineral withdrawal on 95,806 acres of National Forest System lands on the Rogue 

River-Siskiyou National Forest 

As a Commissioner for Curry County and on behalf of our residents, l thank you for the 

opportunity to comment on the critical issue of mineral withdrawal in Southwestern Oregon. On 

August 7th, 2013, the Curry County Board of Commissioners passed an Amendment to the Curry 

County Code adding a New Article One, Division Fourteen relating to a Federal Coordination Policy. 

This Policy, under Section 1.14.010, subsection (1) asserts additional coordination as outlined in the 

FLPMA and NFMA to, "provide early and frequent opportunities for .... local governments to 

n"'•'lir:in,.iiA in the planning process". The purpose of the Federal Coordination Policy, as outlined in 

1.14.020, is that Curry County asserts its maximum rights to coordination, as provided 

with all federal agencies conducting activities in or affecting Curry County and the policies 

in the Federal Coordination Policy are enacted with the express intent of developing meaningful and 

productive relationships with the federal agencies that coordinate with Curry County. 

Section 1. 14.030, Subsection (3) outlines the Federal Coordination Policy Mining Policies. The 

Curry County Board of Commissioners agrees that the proposed project to be conducted by the Red 

Flat Nickel Corporation will cause serious negative externalities to the project location at the 

headwaters of the free flowing Hunter Creek and Pistol River watersheds. If allowed to be developed; 

the board also recognizes there will be serious negative impacts to the surrounding area, restriction of 

access to popular recreational areas, degradation of the rare and unique botanical resources, as well 

as the health risks to the residents and wildlife. The Board places higher values on its citizens' health 

and safety, the many recreational uses of the Red Flat area as well as the highly prized Hunter Creek 

and Pistol River fisheries for wild chinook and coho salmon, steelhead, cutthroat and resident trout 

than on the foreign owned Red Flat Mining Corporation interests. Furthermore, the BOC feels this 

proposed project is not in line with a number of other Curry County policies outlined within the Federal 

Coordination Policy. 
596 


Insert graphic folio 678 here 22000A.554

Additionally, the Smith River; which is considered to be the prize of the California Wild and Scenic 

River System, is included in the proposed mineral withdrawal. While the California portion of the 

Smith River has the protections of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act and Wild and Scenic 

designation, the headwaters and North Fori< lie in Southwestern Oregon and therefore have no 

additional protections. The Smith River's free flowing status, large, abundant salmon and steelhead 

runs and extraordinary botanical diversity, coupled with multiple recreation opportunities and an 

important source of drinking water for the majority of the residents, make its health vitally important to 

the safety, welfare and economy of our residents. 

We understand that the proposed mineral withdrawal in no way disrupts our citizen's rights to access, 

recreate and utilize these lands within the proposed area and encourage citizens to do so. We would 

also encourage the respective federal agencies to fund road infrastructure maintenance programs on 

the road systems that exist within the proposed area. 

In closing, given the critical significance of the Hunter Creek, Pistol River and Smith River 

Watersheds to the Southwestern Oregon and Northwestern California communities and their 

economies, Curry County respectfully requests your approval of the proposed mineral withdrawal 

within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Thank you for your consideration on this important 

matter. 

Respectfully, 

David Brock Smith, Commissioner 

Curry County Board of Commissioners 

District 4 Chair, 

Association of Oregon Counties 

Association of O&C Counties Board Member 

CC: Senator Ron Wyden 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Congressman Peter DeFazio 

Rob MacWhorter 

Patricia Bur1<e 
597 


Insert graphic folio 679 here 22000A.555

City of Crescent City 

Jlllhere the Redwoods Moot the Sea 

377 J Street. Crcsccut 

September21, 2015 

Oregon State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon State Office 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, OR 97208-2965 

CA9SS31 • 707.464.7483 • Fox 707.465.4405 • 

Re: City of Crescent City public conunent supporting proposed mineral withdrawal 

To Whom it May Concern: 

The City is opposed to any activities that could be detrimental to the water quality of the Smith 

River. The Smith River is the conununity's water source and provides high quality drinking 

water for 14,000 plus residents, as well as thousands of visitors year-round. In addition to 

providing drinking water to the City's municipal water users, the Smith River also offers a 

multitude of recreational activities including kayaking, rafting, swimming, and fishing. The 

Smith River and its tributaries are the spawning grounds and habitat for a world-class fishery 

(salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout). These recreational and fishing opportunities are not only 

enjoyed and valued by local residents, they are also an important feature of the region's tourist 

industry. As such, the City is opposed to any activities that could be detrimental to the water 

quality of the Smith River. 

If you have any questions you can contact Eugene Palazzo, City Manager at 707-464-7483 ext. 

232 or by email at epalazzo@crescentcity.org. 

Sincerely, 

~~ ~~e-------~ 

Ron Gastineau, Mayor 

City of Crescent City 
598 


Insert graphic folio 680 here 22000A.556

BIG ROCK 

COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 

Jerome E. Perez 

Oregon State Director 

US. Bureau of Land Management 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, OR 97208-2965 

Re: Proposed Mineral Withdrawal 

Dear Director Perez: 

P.O.Box453 

Crescent City, CA 95531 

(707) 464-7769 

September 11. 2015 

We understand that the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to temporarily withdraw from 

mining nearly I 00,000 acres of federal public lands in southern Oregon that could be threatened 

by nickel mining at some point in the future. We also understand that the "Southwestern Oregon 

Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of20 15" (S. 346 and H.R. 682) was introduced earlier this 

year to permanently withdraw these lands from mining and mineral entry. And, we understand 

that the mineral withdrawals proposed with this legislation, if implemented, would not nullifY 

existing mining claims. 

The Big Rock Community Services District is a California Special District with Constitutional 

governance authority over its place of use. Its jurisdiction is proverbially known as the Township 

of Hiouchi. Hiouchi is located on the north bank of the pristine Smith River downstream from 

where the North, Middle and South Forks converge into a single body of river water. One of the 

Special District's key municipal obligations is to supply drinkable water to the commercial 

businesses and community residents within its jurisdiction. Revenue to support all of the Big 

Rock CSD 's municipal services comes from water consumers on a fee basis and also from 

property tax. Indeed, the Big Rock CSD 's jurisdiction includes the Redwood National Park and 

California 's priceless Jedediah Smith Redwoods Stale Park that collectively host tens of 

thousands of visitors to this area every year. Much of the Hiouchi's disadvantaged economy is 

derived from sport fishing for steelhead and salmon. As is true of this township on a smaller 

scale, the general health of Del Norte County's businesses at large is dependent upon tourism and 

recreation throughout the year. A critical component of commercial dynamics in this county and 

a vital contributor to the attractiveness of the entire region is the pristine nature of the Smith 

River watershed. 

The Big Rock Community Services District's Board of Directors/Trustees made an informal, but 

determined effort to solicit the related views of its constituents. Without exception to date, the 

residents of this community felt that exploration leading to possible mining operations could 

threaten the pristine nature of the Smith River and its downstream confluences. 
599 


Insert graphic folio 681 here 22000A.557

The position of the Special District is thus. A plus B equals C. Having heard of a proposed 

mineral exploration site being (A) located dangerously near the North Fork (and tributaries) of 

the Smith River and, worse yet, (B) situated on a steep incline above the river was (C) sufficient 

to convince the Township of Hiouchi to reject any and all attempts by private or commercial 

operators to acquire permits. Thus. the Board of Directors/Trustees, Big Rock Community 

Services District, officially resolved to support both the proposed 5-year and permanent mineral 

withdrawals and to oppose Red Flat Nickel Corporation's mining proposal. 

Inquiries regarding this matter may be addressed to 2680 U.S. Highway 199, Crescent City, CA 

95531-9309. 

~~- Board of Directors/Trustees 
600 


Insert graphic folio 682 here 22000A.558

Gasquet Community Services District 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon State Office 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, Oregon 97208-2965 

BLM_ OR_ WA_ WITHDRAWALS@blm.gov 

September 21,2015 

RE: Comments m Support of Proposed Mineral Withdrawal on Specified Lands in 

Southwestern Oregon, 80 Fed. Reg. 37015 (June 29, 2015). 

On behalf of the Gasquet Community Services District, we provide the following 

comments in support of a 5 year mineral withdrawal on all lands specified in 

Southwestern Oregon, 80 Fed. Reg. 37015 (June 29, 2015). We also support a 20-year 

or permanent mineral withdrawal in order to preserve our drinking water supply. 

The Smith River provides drinking water to thousands of people in Del Norte County. 

Proposed mining activity by a foreign-owned corporation would be located upstream of 

the water supply intakes for residents in numerous communities. Our service district 

provides drinking water to approximately 300 residents/households in Gasquet, California. 

P.resently, the water we distnbute to our customers is of the highest quality-- and this is 

critically important to our community. Our service district is small and we could not 

afford additional treatment costs if mining waste and activity polluted the water. 

Recent mine accidents in British Columbia and Colorado have polluted rivers that used to 

provide clean drinking water to downstream communities. We do not want to see such a 

tragedy happen here. Existing laws and regnlations against mining waste spills are 

inadequate to protect our drinking water. Therefore, we urge you to move forward with 

the proposed 5-year or longer mineral withdrawal and to work towards securing a 

permanent mineral withdrawal for the North Fork Smith River and surrounding 

watersheds. 

Sincerely, Mark Dodd 

fvlJ!(/_ 

Gasquet Community Services District 

(707)457-3107 

f,O, 8cJt<, '8'6 

&tt1>~~~ CA-. r tjt;'f? 
601 


Insert graphic folio 683 here 22000A.559

Crescent City & Norte County Chamber 

of Commerce 

RE: Comments 

residents and numerous cornn:mnitiec~. 

is and tourism. To state the 

Smith River will put our community at risk and is entirely umrcc,ept:abJ,e. 

Recent mine accidents in British Columbia and Colorado 

drinking water to downstream communities. Please do not 

the 

Sincerely, 

Bureau 

jparmer@delnorle.org 

September 2015 
602 


Insert graphic folio 00022 here 22000A.817

Gold Beach, OR Brookings, OR 

J<~~ Sfh,.,.r:JQ~"lt~:n 

BREWinG 

Broottings,OR Coos Bay, OR 

n CONNER FlElQS 

BREWING 

Grants Pass, OR Grants Pass, OR 

• Medford, OR Medford, OR 

Medford, OR Medford, OR 

Ashland, OR Ashland, OR 

September 21st 2015 

FR: Wild Rivers, Wild Brews Coalition 

TO: Jerome E. Perez, Oregon State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon State Office 

P.O. Box 2965 

Portland, OR 97208-2965 

RE: Comment Regarding 5-Year Mineral Withdrawal for SW Oregon 

Dear Oregon State Director Perez: 

We the undersigned breweries of southwest Oregon are writing in support 

of the proposed withdrawal of approximately 95,805 acres of National 

Forest and 5,216 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed 

land in southwest Oregon's Kalmiopsis region from entry and location 

under the mining laws of the United States. We make this request for the 

multitude of benefits that come from protected watersheds. 

For starters, clean water is essential for great tasting beer. Clean water also 

plays a critical role in providing drinking water for healthy communities, 

providing habitat for fish and wildlife and supporting local agriculture. Our 

coalition of breweries stands together to support protections that would 

keep the crystal clear, salmon-studded waters of the Kalmiopsis clean for 

our communities, fish and wildlife and local businesses that depend on 

clean water. 

The communities that surround the Smith, Illinois, and Pistol rivers and 

Hunter Creek have so much to gain from healthy, protected watersheds . 

Investment in sustainable industries and community infrastructure will add 

to the attractiveness of the region, bringing new businesses and residents 

alike. Craft brewing, tourism, and recreation based business ventures are 

growing industries and assets to Curry and Josephine counties and the 

surrounding areas of southwest Oregon. With the threat of destructive 

nickel strip mining, these natural treasures and related local industries of 

southwest Oregon are endangered. 

We believe that clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational 

opportunities must be protected now, and preserved for future 

generations. These uses represent the highest and best use of our public 

lands and resources. The high quality of life in southwest Oregon attracts 

new residents and creates jobs that strengthen our small businesses and 

local communities. 

We appreciate the BLM and the US Forest Service working together to 

initiate a process to limit mining in the Kalmiopsis. Please protect the 

headwaters of the Smith, Illinois, Pistol and Hunter Creek to support the 

community's efforts in promoting sustainable economic development in 

southwest Oregon's Wild Rivers Country. 

Sincerely, 
603 


Insert graphic folio 00023 here 22000A.818

James & Kristen Smith 

Head Brewer & 

Chief Operating Officer 

Arch Rock Brewing Co. 

Gold Beach, OR 

Mike Frederick & Alex Carr-Frederick 

Owners & Brewers 

Chetco Brewing Co. 

Brookings, OR 

Mark, Hanna and Matt Camarillo 

Owners & Brewers 

Misty Mountain Brewing Co. 

Brookings, OR 

Carmen Matthews & Annie Pollard 

Co-owners & Brewers 

7 Devils Brewing Co. 

Coos Bay, OR 

Brandon Crews 

Head Brewer 

Climate City Brewing Co. 

Grants Pass, OR 

Jon Conner 

Owner & Brewer 

Conner Fields Brewing Co. 

Grants Pass, OR 

Scott Saulzbury 

Head Brewer 

Southern Oregon Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Nick Ellis 

Owner & Brewer 

Opposition Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Neil Smith 

Head Brewer 

Bricktowne Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Cameron litton 

Head Brewer 

Walkabout Brewpub 

Medford, OR 

Alex & Danielle Amarotico 

Co-owners 

Common Block Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Brandon Overstreet 

Owner & Brewer 

Swingtree Brewing Co. 

Ashland, OR 

Larry Chase 

Head Brewer 

Standing Stone Brewing Co. 

Ashland, OR 

Jim Mills 

Owner 

Caldera Brewing Co. 

Ashland, OR 
604 


Insert graphic folio 686 here 22000A.562

Kalmiopsis Rivers and Wild Rivers Coast 

Supporters 

The following tribes, municipalities, businesses and organizations support protection of 

Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Rough and Ready Creek and the North Fork of the Smith River 

from industrial nickel mining. 

Tribal 

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Elk River Rancheria 

Takelma, and leader Agnes Baker Pilgrim 

Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (Smith River 

Rancheria) 

Public Sector 

Big Rock Community Services District 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

California State Assembly 

Cave Junction City Council 

Congressman Jared Huffman 

Congressman Peter DeFazio 

Crescent City Council 

Crescent City and Del Norte County Chamber 

of Commerce 

Curry County Board of Commissioners 

Del Norte County Board of Supervisors 

Gasquet Community Services District 

Gold Beach City Council 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 

Board 

Oregon Water Resources Department 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Redwood National Park 

Senator Ron Wyden 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Local Business 

4 Whatever Photography, Fine Photos and 

Cards, Cave Junction, OR 

7 Devils Brewing Co., Coos Bay, OR 

All Star Rafting, Maupin, OR 

Althouse Nursery, Cave Junction, OR 

Andras Outfitters, Talent, OR 

Arch Rock Brewing, Hunter Creek, OR 

Ashland Automotive, Ashland, OR 

Ashland Fly Shop, Ashland, OR 

Antiquarium Books and Collectables, Ashland, OR 

ARTA River Trips, Merlin, OR 

Barking Mad Farm, Enterprise, OR 

Big Bottom Whiskey, Hillsboro, OR 

Big Springs Kennel, Cave Junction, OR 

Bill Dobucki, Chetco Fishing, Brookings, OR 

Bliss Unlimited, LLC, Eugene, OR 

Bob Rees' Oregon Fishing Guide Service, 

Tillamook, OR 

Brandon Worthington Fly Fishing, Talent, OR 

Bricktowne Brewing Co., Medford, OR 

Bryson Appraisal Service Inc., Gold Beach, OR 

Bucksport Sporting Goods, Eureka, CA 

Caldera Brewing Co., Ashland, OR 

Carson's Guide Service, Shady Cove, OR 

Catch of the Day, Wedderburn, OR 

Cave Junction Acupuncture, Cave Junction, OR 

Cave Junction Liquor, Cave Junction, OR 

Chetco Brewing Co., Brookings, OR 

Pinecone Books, Cave Junction, OR 

Christina Paul Photography, Kerby, OR 

Clear Creek Family Practice, Selma, OR 

Climate City Brewing Co., Grants Pass, OR 

Common Block Brewing Co., Medford, OR 

Confluence Outfitters, Gold Beach, OR 

Conner Fields Brewing Co., Grants Pass, OR 

Crucial Thymes, Fine Foods, Cave Junction, OR 

Crumley's Guide Service, Hunter Creek, OR 

Curry Home Inspection, Gold Beach, OR 

Dancefarm, Organic Veggies and Dance 
605 


Insert graphic folio 687 here 22000A.563

Sew Like the Wind, Hunter Creek, OR 

Shane's Welding, Gold Beach, OR 

Siskiyou Alpaca, Cave Junction, OR 

Siskiyou Ecological Services, Applegate, OR 

Siskiyou Forestry, Gold Beach, OR 

Siskiyou Mountain Herbs, Cave Junction, OR 

Siuslaw Guide Service, Cave Junction, OR 

Smithsonian Design, Hunter Creek, OR 

Solar Light & Energy, LLC, Bend, OR 

Solis Skin Care, Cave Junction. OR 

South Coast Tours LLC, Gold Beach, OR 

Southern Oregon Brewing Co., Medford, OR 

Standing Stone Brewing Co .• Ashland, OR 

Stephen Gerould Lamps and Accessories, 

Portland, OR 

Willow Witt Ranch, Ashland, OR 

Swing Tree Brewing Co .• Ashland, OR 

Team Sucio Productions, Pistol River, OR 

Terra Firma Botanicals, Inc., Eugene. OR 

The Beebe Company, Portland, OR 

The Dome School, Cave Junction, OR 

The G Spot. Fine Bar and Grill, Kerby, OR 

The Haul, Grants Pass. OR 

The Tool Merchants, Matt Stern, Williams, OR 

Tradewinds Bamboo Nursery, Hunter Creek, OR 

Travis Bowman Guide Service, Gold Beach, OR 

Tributary Whitewater Tours, Weimar, CA 

Turtle Island Co., Hood River, OR 

Under Solen Media, Portland, OR 

Upstream Adventures, Oakridge, OR 

Vitalist School of Herbology, Grants Pass, OR 

Walkabout Brewpub, Medford, OR 

Wheel's A Turnin' Garden Supply, Cave 

Junction, OR 

Wild Bill's Oregon Outlet, Cave Junction, OR 

Wilderness Canyon Adventures, Pistol River, 

OR 

Wildland Photography, Eugene, OR 

William Olsen Designs, Ashland, OR 

Wilson Biochar Associates, Cave Junction, OR 

Winter's Hill Vineyard, Dayton, OR 

Wolfhound Cycles, Talent, OR 

Wooden Valley Ranch, Salem, OR 

Wright's World Emporium. Clothing and Gifts, 

Cave Junction, OR 

Wylie's Honey Brews, Phoenix, OR 

YAKIMA Products Inc., Beaverton, OR 

Yanase Jewelers, Cave Junction, OR 

Your Personal Ceremony, Portland, OR 

Organizations 

American Whitewater 

America Outdoors Association 

California Trout 

Cascadia Wildlands 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Cultural and Ecological Enhancement Network 

Curry County Democrats 

Earthworks 

Environmental Protection Information Center 

Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs 

Friends of Del Norte 

Friends of the Kalmiopsis 

Geos Institute 

Hunter Creek River Steward 

Illinois Valley Community Development 

Organization 

Innominate Garden Club 

Josephine County Democrats 

Kalmiopsis Audubon Society 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

Lower Columbia River Canoe Club 

Lower Rogue Watershed Council 

Native Fish Society 

Native Plant Society of Oregon 

Native Plant Society, South Coast Chapter 

North Coast Environmental Center 

Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club 

Oregon Coast Alliance 

Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited 

Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club 

Oregon Wild 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's 

Association 

Pacific Rivers Council 

Rainforest Action Network 

Rogue Riverkeeper 

Siskiyou Land Conservancy 

Smith River Alliance 

Soda Mountain Wilderness Council 

South Coast Watershed Council 

Sunset Garden Club 

Surfrider Foundation 

The Association of NW Steelheaders 

The Larch Company 

The Northwest Guides and Anglers Association 

The Wilderness Society 

Trout Unlimited 

WaterWatch of Oregon 
606 


Insert graphic folio 688 here 22000A.564

Instruction, Cave Junction, OR 

Dave Lacey Woodworking, Hunter Creek, OR 

Diggin Livin, Cave Junction, OR 

Douglas Kendall, Designer, Cave Junction, OR 

Eden's Edge Farm, Cave Junction, OR 

eNRG Kayaking, Oregon City, OR 

Environmental Paper & Print, Inc., Portland, OR 

Finish Line Copy Services, Gold Beach, OR 

Fishhawk River Company, Brookings, OR 

Fiver Star Charters, Gold Beach, OR 

Flywater Travel, Ashland, OR 

Flying Fish Company, Portland, OR 

Forest Edge Farm, Cave Junction, OR 

Full Circle Real Estate- Ashland, OR 

Gita Maria Inc., Eugene, OR 

Goodness and Mercy, Handyman Services, 

Cave Junction, OR 

Greenspace, Portland, OR 

Helens Guide Service, Gold Beach, OR 

Hunter Creek Tavern, Hunter Creek, OR 

Hydro Flask, Bend, OR 

Indian Summer, Kerby, OR 

Indigo Outfitters, Ashland, OR 

Interior Cover Ups, Gold Beach, OR 

Iron Mountain Soapworks, Cave Junction, OR 

It's a Burl, Gallery, Cave Junction, OR 

IV Trophy and Collectibles, Cave Junction, OR 

Jeanne Young, DC, DIBCN, Bend, OR 

Jefferson State Financial, Cave Junction, OR 

Juniper Ridge, Oakland, CA 

Kathy Lombardo, Secretary, Illinois Valley 

Garden Club, Cave Junction, OR 

KEEN Footwear, Portland, OR 

Kerbyville Natural Farms, Kerby, OR 

Kiaya Pace, Independent Hairstylist. Back Street 

Salon, Cave Junction, OR 

Klamath-Siskiyou Native Seeds, Applegate, OR 

Madd Moose, Dining and Moose Watering Hole, 

Cave Junction, OR 

Mama Angie's Ladles of Love, Fine Food 

Catering, Cave Junction, OR 

Margaret Phillhower, NO, Cave Junction, OR 

Meadow Martell, Supporting Access to Health 

Care, Cave Junction, OR 

Migration Brewing, Portland, OR 

Misty Mountain Brewing Co., Brookings, OR 

Momentum River Expeditions, Ashland, OR 

Mountain Rose Herbs, Eugene, OR 

Mt. Tabor Veterinary Care, Portland, OR 

Must B Felt, Fine Fabric Designers. Cave 

Junction, OR 

Natural Family Medicine, Cave Junction, OR 

New Outlook Financial, Portland, OR 

North West Nature Shop, Ashland, OR 

North West Outdoor Shop, Medford, OR 

Northwest Rafting Company, Hood River, OR 

Northwest River Guides LLC, Portland, OR 

Nolo Group, Inc., Portland, OR 

OARS, Angels Camp, CA 

Ocean Haven Corp., Yachats, OR 

Opposition Brewing Co., Medford, OR 

Oregon Green Clean, Portland, OR 

Orange Torpedo Trips, Merlin, OR 

Organic Harvest, Selma, OR 

Organically Grown Company, Eugene, OR 

Out N About Trees Oregon, Cave Junction, OR 

Pat's Hand-Tied Flies, Trail, OR 

Patagonia, Ventura, CA 

Peter Grubb, ROW Rafting, Merlin, OR 

Pint Shack, Hood River, OR 

PlanGreen, Portland, OR 

Plywerk, Portland, OR 

Pond Gallery, Portland, OR 

Portland Integrated Health and Sports Medicine, 

Portland, OR 

Pro Photo Supply, Portland, OR 

Rachel Goodman, LMT Massage Therapist, 

Cave Junction, OR 

Rama Krisa Shiitakes, Ashland OR 

Raven Flight Photos, Cave Junction, OR 

Ravenswood Gallery, Cave Junction, OR 

Redwoods and Rivers, Big Bar, CA 

Rich Earth Organic Skin Care , Portland, OR 

River Drifters, Maupin, OR 

River Trail Outfitters, Eugene, OR 

RMDC Consultants, Gold Beach, OR 

Rogue Aquatics, Central Point, OR 

Rogue Fly Shop, Grants Pass, OR 

Rogue Klamath River Adventures, Gold Hill, OR 

Rogue Natural Living, Cave Junction, OR 

Rogue Rock Gym, Medford, OR 

Rogue Wilderness Adventures, Merlin, OR 

Rosie's Inferno, Wood Fired Pizza, Cave 

Junction, OR 

Ruby's Neighborhood Restaurant, Ashland, OR 

RuffWear, Bend. OR 

Running Fox Guitars, Cave Junction, OR 

Seven Seeds Farm, Williams, OR 
607 


Insert graphic folio 689 here 22000A.565

Western Environmental Law Center 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Wild Salmon Center 

Scientists 

Brett Adams, Ph.D., Utah State Univ. 

Peter Albers, Ph.D., USGS, (ret.) 

John Alcock, Ph.D., Arizona State Univ. 

Kayce Anderson, Ph.D., Colorado State Univ. 

William Anderson, Ph.D. College of Charleston 

W. Scott Armbruster, Ph.D., Univ. of AK. Fairbanks 

Kenneth Arrow, Ph.D., Stanford Univ. (ret.) 

Peter Bahls, M.S., Northwest Watershed Institute 

William Baker. Ph.D., Univ. of Wyoming 

Bruce Baldwin, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Berkeley 

Jesse Barber, Ph.D., Boise State Univ. 

Frank Barnwell, Ph.D., Univ. of Minnesota 

Roger Barry, Ph.D., Univ. of Colorado 

Constance Becker. Ph.D., Life Net Nature 

Craig Benkman, Ph.D., Univ. of Wyoming 

Michael Bennett, Ph.D., A. Einstein Coli. of Med. 

David Benzing, Ph.D., Oberlin College 

David Berg, Ph.D., Miami Univ. 

Robert Beschta, Ph.D., Oregon State Univ. 

Harvey Blankespoor, Ph.D., Hope College 

Bazartseren Boldgiv, Ph.D .. Nat. Univ. of Mongolia 

Arthur Boucot, Ph.D., Oregon State Univ. 

Richard Bradley, Ph.D. 

William Bridgeland, Ph.D. 

James Brown, Ph.D., Univ. of New Mexico 

Jesse Brunner, Ph.D., Washington State Univ. 

Brian Burna, Ph.D., Univ. of Alaska 

Eric Burr, M.F., Conservation NorthWest 

Tom Cade, Ph.D .. Cornell Univ. 

Philip Cafaro, Ph.D., Colorado State Univ. 

Ken Carloni, Ph.D., Umpqua Community College 

Kai Chan, Ph.D., Univ. of British Columbia 

F. Stuart Chapin, Ph.D., Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks 

Donald Charles, Ph.D., Drexel University 

Norman Christensen, Ph.D., Duke Univ. 

Malcolm Cleaveland, Ph.D., Univ. of Arkansas 

Mark Colwell, Ph.D., Humboldt State Univ. 

Paul Corogin, M.S., Univ. of Florida 

Ericha Courtright, M.S., USDA 

Patrick Crist, Ph.D., George Mason Univ. 

Paul Crosbie, Ph.D., Cal. State Univ., Fresno 

David Culver, Ph.D., Ohio State Univ. 

Luise Davis, Ph.D., Society of Wetland Scientists 

Paul Dayton, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal .. San Diego 

James Deacon, Ph.D., UNLV 

Alan Dickman, Ph.D., Univ. of Oregon 

Dana Dolsen, M.S., Univ. of Alberta 

Craig Downer, M.S .. Andean Tapir Fund 

Ken Driese, Ph.D., Univ. of Wyoming 

Marianne Edain, B.A. 

Richard E. Edelmann, Ph.D., Miami Univ. 

Robert Espinoza, Ph.D., Cal. State Univ., Northridge 

Jonathan Evans, Ph.D., Univ. of the South 

Thomas Fleischner, Ph.D., Prescott College 

Janet Franklin, Ph.D. 

Douglas Frederick, Ph.D., NC State Univ. 

Christopher Frissell, Ph.D. 

Flathead Lake Bio. Station, Univ. of MT 

Robert Fuerstenberg, M.S., Ecologist (ret.) 

Jed Fuhrman, Ph.D., Univ. of Southern Cal. 

Stephen Fuller, Ph.D., Univ. of Mary Washington 

Daniel Gavin, Ph.D., Univ. of Oregon 

Donald Geiger, Ph.D., Univ. of Dayton 

James Gessaman, Ph.D., Utah State Univ. 

Thomas Giesen, MFA; M.S., Univ. of Oregon 

Barrie Gilbert, Ph.D., Utah State Univ. (ret.) 

Matthew Gitzendanner, Ph.D., Associate Scientist 

Rachel Golden, M.S .. Oceana 

Steven Green, Ph.D., Univ. of Miami 

David Griffith, Ph.D., Ferris State Univ. 

Jon Grinnell, Ph.D., Gustavus Adolphus College 

Gary Grossman, Ph.D. 

Simon Gunner, M.S., Olofson Environmental, Inc. 

John Hall, Ph.D., West Virginia Univ. 

Kenneth Helms, Ph.D., Univ. of Vermont 

Bill Hilton Jr., Ph.D., Hilton Pond Center for Piedmont 

Natural History 

Andres Holz, Ph.D., Portland State Univ. 

Elizabeth Horvath, M.S., Westmont College 

Malcolm Hunter, Ph.D. 

Brian Inouye, Ph.D., Florida State Univ. 

David Inouye, Ph.D., Univ. of Maryland 

Jerome Jackson, Ph.D., Florida Gulf Coast Univ. 

David Janos, Ph.D., Univ. of Miami 

Karl Jarvis, Ph.D. Candidate, Northern Arizona Univ. 

School of Forestry 

David Jenkins, Ph.D.,Univ. of Central Florida 

Mitchell Johns, Ph.D., Cal. State Univ. 

Bart Johnson, Ph.D., Univ. of Oregon 

Jay Jones, Ph.D., Univ. of La Verne 

Jacob Kann, Ph.D., Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences 

Anne Kapuscinski, Ph.D., Dartmouth College 

James Karr, Ph.D., Univ. of Washington 

Ruth Kern, Ph.D., Cal. State Univ., Fresno 

Nicole King, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Berkeley 

Bruce Kirchoff, Ph.D., Univ. of N. Carolina, Greens. 

John Kloetzel, Ph.D., Univ. of Maryland 

Marni Koopman, Ph.D., Geos Institute 

Drew Kramer, Ph.D., Univ. of Georgia 

John Lamperti, Ph.D., Dartmouth College 
608 


Insert graphic folio 690 here 22000A.566

Rick Landenberger, Ph.D., West Virginia Univ. 

Beverly Law, Ph.D., Oregon State Univ. 

Geoffrey Lawrence, M.S., N. Henn. Comm. Coli. 

William Lidicker, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Berkeley 

Jason A. Lillegraven, Ph.D., Univ. of Wyoming 

Jay Lininger, M.S., Center for Biological Diversity 

Frank Logiudice, M.S., Univ. of Central Florida 

Marilyn Loveless, Ph.D., The College of Wooster 

Marvin Lutnesky, Ph.D., East. New Mexico Univ. 

Andrew L. Mack, Ph.D., Indo-Pacific Cons. All. 

Calvin Maginel, M.S. Candidate, Univ. of Missouri 

Debora Mann, Ph.D., Millsaps College 

Sandra Mardonovich, M.S., Miami Univ. 

Sharyn Marks, Ph.D., Humboldt State Univ. 

Travis Marsico, Ph.D., Arkansas State Univ. 

Patrick Martin, Ph.D., Colorado State Univ. 

Carlos Martinez del Rio, Ph.D., Univ. of Wyoming 

Terry McCloskey, Ph.D., Louisiana State Univ. 

Carl McDaniel, Ph.D., Oberlin College 

Gary Meffe, Ph.D., Univ. of Florida (ret.) 

E. Charles Maslow, Ph.D., USGS (ret.) 

Brian Miller, Ph.D., Middle Tennessee State Univ. 

Toni lyn Morelli, Ph.D., Univ. of Massachusetts 

Molly Morris, Ph.D., Ohio Univ. 

John Morse, Ph.D., Clemson Univ. 

Richard Munson, Ph.D., Miami Univ. 

Dennis Murphy, Ph.D., Univ. of Nevada, Reno 

Peter Murphy, Ph.D., Michigan State Univ. 

Philip Myers, Ph.D., Univ. of Michigan 

Michael Napolitano, M.S., SF Bay Wat. Qual. Bd. 

Richard Nawa, M.A., KS Wild 

Charles R. Neal, B.S., U.S. Dept. of Interior (ret.) 

Andrew Nelson, Ph.D., SUNY Oswego 

Gretchen North, Ph.D., Occidental College 

Richard Olmstead, Ph.D., Univ. of Washington 

John Pagels, Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth Univ. 

Theodore Papenfuss, Ph.D., UC Berkeley 

Michael Parker, Ph.D., Southern Oregon Univ. 

Harmony Patricio, M.S. 

Dave Perry, Ph.D., Oregon State Univ. 

Esther Peters, Ph.D., George Mason Univ. 

E. Pielou, Ph.D., D.Sc 

Thomas Power, Ph.D., Univ. of Montana 

Jessica Pratt, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Irvine 

Robert Pyle, Ph.D., Xerces Society 

Gurcharan Rahi, Ph.D., Fayetteville State Univ. 

Peter Raven, Ph.D., Missouri Botanical Garden 

Ann Rhoads, Ph.D., Univ. of Pennsylvania 

David Roberts, Ph.D., Montana State Univ. 

Garry Rogers, Ph.D., Agua Fria Open Space All. 

Steven Rogstad, Ph.D., Univ. of Cincinnati 

Thomas Rooney, Ph.D., Wright State Univ. 

Amy Rossman, Ph.D., USDA-ARS 

John Rotenberry, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Riverside 

Matthew Rubino, M.S., NC State Univ. Dept. of 

Applied Ecology 

Periann Russell, M.S., NC Dept. of Environment and 

Natural Resources 

Ann Sakai, Ph.D.,Univ. of Cal., Irvine 

Robin Salter, Ph.D., Oberlin College 

Scott Samuels, Ph.D., Univ. of Montana 

Benedetta Sarno, Ph.D., DVM 

Melissa Savage, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., los Angeles 

Fiona Schmiegelow, Ph.D., Univ. of Alberta/Yukon 

Kate Schoeneker, Ph.D., USGS/Col. State Univ. 

Fred Schreiber, Ph.D., Cal. State Univ., Fresno 

Kathy Schwager, M.S. 

Thomas W. Sherry, Ph.D., American 

Ornithologists' Union, Ecological Society 

Jack Sobel, M.S., ETI Professionals, Inc. 

Michael Soule, Ph.D., UC Santa Cruz 

Wayne Spencer, Ph.D., Conservation Biology lnst. 

Timothy Spira, Ph.D., Clemson Univ. 

Pamela Stanley, Ph.D., Albert Eistein Col. of Med. 

Richard Steiner, M.S., Univ. of Alaska (ret.) 

Alan Stemler, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Davis 

Glenn R. Stewart, Ph.D., Cal. State Polytech. 

Christopher Still, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., SB 

Paul Torrence, Ph.D., Northern Arizona Univ. 

Pepper Trail, Ph.D., USFWS Wild. Forensics lab 

Vicki Tripoli, Ph.D. 

James Valentine, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Berkeley 

Pete Van Hoorn, M.S. 

Ken Vance-Borland, M.S., Cons. Planning lnst. 

Mike Vandeman, Ph.D. 

Thomas Veblen, Ph.D., Univ. of Colorado 

John Vickery, M.S., M.A., Denver Natural Areas 

Marlene Wagner, Ph.D. Cand., Simon Fraser Univ. 

David Wake, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal, Berkeley 

Faith Walker, Ph.D., Northern Arizona Univ. 

Greg Walker, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal, Riverside 

Donald Waller, Ph.D., Univ. of Wisconsin 

Gerald Wasserburg, Ph.D., Cal.lnst. of Tech. 

Vicki Watson, Ph.D., Univ. of Montana 

Orion Weldon, Ph.D. Candidate 

Rutgers Univ., Ecology & Evolution 

Stephen Weller, Ph.D., Univ. of Cal., Irvine 

Hart Welsh, Ph.D., USDA Forest Service 

David Whitacre, Ph.D. 

Sue Wick, Ph.D., Univ. of Minnesota 

James Williams, Ph.D., U.S. Dept. of Interior (ret.) 

Norris Williams, Ph.D., Univ. of Florida 

Paul Wilson, Ph.D., Cal. State Univ. 

Marianna Wood, Ph.D., Bloomsburg Univ. 
609 


Insert graphic folio 694 here 22000A.570

Michael C. Klnvllle 

P08ox57345 

North Pole, Alaska 99705 

(907) 687-6356 

Michael.kinville@gmall.com 

9/20/2016 

The Honorable Usa Murkowskl 

Post Office Box 142 

Columbia, S.C. 29202-0142 

Dear Senator Murkowslci, 

My name is Michael C. Kinvllle, and I reside at 3505 Yellowstone Road, North Pole, Alaska. I am a 

shareholder in both Shee Atlka Inc. and Sealaska Inc. 

I am writing you in regard to Senate 81113273, ANCSA Improvement Ad 

I must admit to a great deal of disappointment as I read this bill. I have two primary areas of concern. 

First, I am disappointed that Congress has, once again, failed to hold the state of Alaska accountable fur 

not establishing. state laws that bring ANCSA corporations to parity with conventional corporations at 

the state level. As ANCSA worked its way through Congress in approximately 1970, Congress insisted 

that the state of Alaska establish laws to govern ANCSA corporations in a manner similar to Federal SEC 

laws. Alaska promised to enact these laws, but never did. 

This lack of oversight at the federal level and lack of follow-through at the state level has created what 

one journalist refers to as uself-electing boards of directors". In my own experience I have found state 

agency charged with enforcing fair corporate elections apathetic and unresponsive to evidence of 

corporate violations of state law. 

My first concern is based on what this bill exduded, my second concern regards what the bill indudes. 

Rather than address fundamental flaws in ANCSA, this bill serves as a vehicle that speeds the Shee 

Atika's directors down a path of selling the last major section of land that we, Shee Atlka, received as a 

result of ANCSA. I haw yet to talk to one of my fellow Shee Atika shareholders who support this sale. 

This Is very Illustrative of how ANCSA corporation's boards of directors, through utter control of the 

election process, have isolated themselves from the will of their shareholders. 
610 


Insert graphic folio 695 here 22000A.571

I am in a loose coalition of ANCSA shareholders who are determined to address the lack of due oversight 

of our corporations as we seek to increase our fellow shareholder's access and input to the 

management of our corporations. 

I ask that you do not support Senate 81113273, the ANCSA Improvement Act as it is written. It fails to 

address basic structural problems in the current version of ANCSA, and it speed along the sale of an 

asset that needs to be, must be, a legacy to our future generations. 

If possible, I would ask that you submit this letter for public record as the bill is considered. 

Thank you for your time, and your consideration of my request. 

Respectfully, 
611 


Insert graphic folio 003 here 22000A.572

A TRIBAL ADVOCATE'S CRITIQUE OF PROPOSED ANCSA AMENDMENTS 

PERPETUATING A BROKEN CORPORATE ASSIMILA TIONIST POLICY 

(September 2016) I 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On 26 March 2015, Alaska Senators Murkowski and Sullivan introduced the Unrecognized 

Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. 2 On 14 July 2016, 

those Alaska Senators introduced S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Improvement 

Act3 These bills have a common objective: to "recognize" an undetermined number of individual 

Alaska Native residents, or their heirs, in Wrangell, Ketchikan, Tenakee, Haines, and Petersburg 

and allow them to organize as Urban Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA)4 Once incorporated, the Secretary of the Interior would offer each of these five newlyminted Corporations 23,040 acres of land (a township each, or 115,200 acres total) as 

compensation for the extinguishment of their aboriginal title to Alaska lands. Ostensibly, the 

creation of these five corporations, and conveyance of a township to each, rectifies these 

communities' exclusion from ANCSA forty-five years ago. The proposed methodology for that 

"recognition" -- perpetuation of a failed engrafted corporate model on Alaska villages -- remains 

assimilationist. In recognition of the serious limitations of the ANCSA corporate model, Alaska 

Tribal, subsistence, and Native cultural advocates should seek to amend this legislation to provide 

that land for each of these omitted villages be conveyed to the Secretary of the Interior and held in 

trust for the four Alaska Tribes, and for the traditional Tenakee Clan. Alternatively, one 

corporation could be created for all five communities with one township conveyed by the to 

Secretary of the Interior in Trust for the four Tribes and traditional Tenakee Clan. The bottom line, 

though, is that this legislation, as now introduced, is fundamentally flawed and should be opposed 

by Alaska Tribal advocates and all others who depend on the truly renewable resources of the 

Tongass National Forest. 

I By Vance A. Sanders, Attorney at Law. Mr. Sanders individually represented California Indian 

Tribes and was co-counsel for the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government and Alaska InterTribal Council, as amici, in John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999); cerl. den. 528 U.S. 1182 

(2000) (recognizing Alaska Tribal sovereignty and adjudicatory authority). Since 1984, he has 

represented Alaska Tribes and individual Alaska Natives in federal, state, and tribal courts, and in 

administrative matters. 2 Introduced on 26 March 2015 "[t]o provide for the recognition of certain Native communities and the 

settlement of certain claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes." 

On 15 May 2015, Alaska Representative Don Young introduced a companion Bill: HR 2386. 1 Section 10 of S 3273. S. 3273, meanwhile, followed introduction by these Alaska Senators of S. 

3004 on 26 May 2016. Because all of these bills (S. 872) or a portion of these bills (S. 3273 and S. 

3004) relate to amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 

688 (codified, as amended, at 43 U.S. C. 1601 et seq.), below these three bills are referred to 

collectively as ANCSA corporate legislation. 4 Section 6 of S 872 (as introduced); Section 10 of S 3273. 
612 


Insert graphic folio 697 here 22000A.573

II. ALASKA TRIBAL STATUS: GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT 

Alaska Natives have inhabited present-day Alaska for many thousands of years. Their status as 

"tribes" was formally acknowledged beginning with Article III of the 1867 Treaty of Cession, 

through which the United States of America "acquired" Russia's interest in Alaska. That Treaty 

divided the population of Alaska into two categories. The "inhabitants" were to be admitted to 

United States citizenship or permitted to return to Russia. The "uncivilized native tribes", 

meanwhile, were summarily excluded as citizens and "subject to such laws and regulations as the 

United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country."5 The 

unchallenged interpretation of this provision through present is that the treaty applies the whole 

body of federal Indian and statutory law to Alaska tribes. 6 

In 1993 -- 126 years after the Treaty of Cession and 22 years after ANCSA's passage-- and 

buoyed by an exhaustive solicitor's opinion, the Department of the Interior published a list of the 

federally recognized Alaska tribes. 7 The next year, Congress enacted the Federally Recognized 

Tribe List Act of 19948 This statute directed the Department of the Interior annually to publish the 

list of recognized tribes; it has done so since 1994. By January 2015, the list includes 235 Alaska 

Native tribes. Among those are the Ketchikan Indian Corporation, Chilkoot Indian Association 

(Haines), Wrangell Cooperative Association, and Petersburg Indian Association;9 Tenakee has not 

been and is not now on that list since it has not met the criteria for inclusion. However, Tenakee is 

the customary and traditional use area for the Wooshikitaan Clan. 

The Tribe List Act specifically prohibited the Interior Department from removing any tribe 

from the list absent an act of Congress. Both the federal 10 and state courts 11 have held this is 

5 Treaty of Cession U.S.-Russia, Art. III, 30 March 1867, 15 Stat. 542. 6 In re Minook, 2 Alaska Rpts. 200, 220-221 (D. Alaska 1904). 7

"Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian 

Affairs", 58 Fed. Reg. 54,364, 54,368-69 (1993). Publication of the list was based on then-Solicitor 

Sansonetti's conclusion that Alaska villages are tribes. !d. at 54,365 citing Op. Sol. M-36, 975 at 58-

59 (11 Jan. 1993). 8 25 U.S.C. a§ 479a et seq. 9 "Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian 

Affairs", 80 Fed. Reg. 1943, 1946-1948 (14 January 2015): "The listed Indian entities are 

acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian tribes by 

virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States[.]" Tenakee has no listed 

tribe. 

10 See e.g. Native Village of Fort Yukon v. Alaska, (Fort Yukon-Tribal status) No. F.86-0075 Civ (D. 

Alaska, September 20, 1995); see also Cogo v. Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indians, 465 F. 

Supp 1286 (D. Alaska 1979); Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. United States, 680 F.2d 122, 

124 (Ct.Cls. 1982); cert. den. 459 U.S. 969 (1982); Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 

775, 779-780 (1991), all of which adjudicated the interests of Alaska "tribes" prior to publication of 

the 1993 list. 11John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 770 & 776, n. 5 (Alaska 1999); cert. den. 528 U.S. 1182 (2000): "In 

view of the 1993 recognition by Secretary Deer of this tribal status of Alaska's Native villages ... the 

existence of their sovereignty is not an issue. They have the same sovereign powers as recognized 

2 
613 


Insert graphic folio 698 here 22000A.574

dispositive and tribes exist in Alaska. Alaska's executive branch has followed the lead of the 

Courts. 12 Given recognition of the Alaska Native tribes by the federal and Alaska state courts, the 

federal and state executive branches and Congress, tribal status in Alaska is now well established. 

III. ANCSA'S CORPORATE MODEL IS INEMICAL TO ALASKA TRIBES AND 

SHOULD NOT BE PERPETUATED BY NEW ANCSA LEGISLATION 

In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to extinguish 

Alaska aboriginal title to Alaska lands in consideration for title to some 44 million acres of land and 

almost a billion dollars. 13 Alaska Natives "supported ANCSA as a formal recognition of their 

longstanding use and occupancy of the land. They thought it would safeguard their traditional 

subsistence-based economy by securing title to that land for generations." 14 That fundamental hope 

was doomed by Congress's preferred corporate model to implement the landholding portion of the 

settlement: 

[C]ongress did not convey the land to tribal entities. When Congress enacted ANCSA, it 

considered tribal governments to be an impediment to assimilation. Instead, the law required 

the Natives to set up village and regional corporations to obtain title to the land. The land that 

ANCSA conveyed does not belong to Alaska Natives, it belongs to corporations. Hence, the 

Native corporations are the most visible structures established under this legislation. But these 

corporate structures put the land at risk. For Native land is now a corporate asset. Alaska 

Natives fear that, through corporate failure, corporate takeovers and taxation, they could lose 

their land. 15 

Any policy maker serious about protecting Alaska aboriginal peoples' ties to the land and its 

genuinely renewable resources should also heed the Alaska Native Review Commission's prescient 

findings. Among those findings, made after holding extensive field hearings all over Alaska from 

1983 to 1985, or nearer in time to ANCSA's enactment, are: 

"In 1971, Alaska Natives believed that, if they owned their own land, they could protect the 

traditional economy and a village way of life. Subsistence is at the core of village life, and 

tribes in other states." Indeed, they do. And they have since begun to exercise those government-togovernment powers in ways Alaska's Congressional delegation has yet fully to understand. 12 Administrative Order 186 (September 29, 2000). 13 43 U.S.C. sec. 1605. ANCSA revoked all but one of the existing Native reserves (Annette Island), 

repealed the authority for new Native allotment applications, and declared a broad policy to settle land 

claims. 43 U.S.C. 1618(a), 1617(d), and 1601(d). 14 Martha Hirschfield, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Tribal Sovereignty and the 

Corporate Form, 101 Yale L.J. 1331 (1992); see also Thomas R. Berger, Village Journey (Village 

Journey), at vii-viii (1985). 15 Village Journey, at 7. (British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Thomas R. Berger was appointed in 

1983 by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference to conduct the Alaska Native Review Commission "to 

review the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971." Id at vi. This task took Justice Berger to 

Native villages all over Alaska "to hear the evidence of Alaska Natives - Eskimos, Indians, and 

Aleuts." !d. Village Journey is a must read for any policy maker serious about meaningfully 

addressing the economic, social, and cultural issues still faced by Alaska Natives. 

3 
614 


Insert graphic folio 699 here 22000A.575

land is the core of subsistence. You cannot protect the one unless you protect the other. 

The law [ANCSA] has protected neither. One of the ironies of ANCSA is that, in Alaska, 

where the Native peoples live closer to the land and sea, with greater opportunities for selfsufficiency than Natives of any other state, they have no clearly defined tribal rights, no 

rights as Natives peoples to fish or wildlife. Elsewhere in the United States and Canada, 

Native communities enjoy special rights. ANCSA extinguished aboriginal hunting and 

fishing rights throughout Alaska." 16 

It is remarkable how little ANCSA assimilationist policy has changed on the federal level in the 

30 years since the publication of Village Journey. This seminal work's findings surprise no one- then 

or now. 

A 1985 Department of the Interior study on the effects of ANCSA's implementation observed: 

"[O]ne must bear in mind the limitations of the corporate form of organization as a means of delivering 

benefits. Corporations can transfer money directly to the shareholders either by giving them jobs or by 

paying them dividends. ANCSA corporations have only been able to employ a small fraction of 

Native and most corporations have been unable to pay significant dividends." 17 

More recently, in 2013, the Indian Law and Order Commission, formed by Congress to 

investigate criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, shed light on the deplorable public safety 

conditions in Alaska Native communities, and recommended remedying those conditions. 18 The 

Commission report acknowledged that "a number of strong arguments can be made that [Alaska fee] 

land may be taken into trust and treated as Indian country" and "[n]othing in ANCSA expressly barred 

the treatment of former [Alaska] reservation and other Tribal fee lands as Indian country."19 The 

Commission recommended that these lands be placed in trust for Alaska Natives,20 a recommendation 

endorsed by the Secretarial Commission on Indian Trust Administration and reform, established by 

former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. 21 

With these policy recommendations for reform, spanning thirty (30) years, one may reasonably 

ask why Alaska Senators Murkowski and Sullivan and Representative Young would propose any 

ANCSA amendments in 2015, 2016, or later, to utilize the ill-considered and wholly ineffective 

corporate model.22 Unless an Alaska Native is directly employed by a profit-making ANCSA 

corporation, or receives occasional dividends, the corporate model does not benefit him or her. It 

16 Village Journey at 60. 17 Martha Hirschfield, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Tribal Sovereignty and the 

Corporate Form, 101 Yale L.J. 1331 (1992) (footnotes referencing Dept. of the Interior's 1985 

ANCSA Study omitted). 18 Indian Law and Order Commission, "A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report to the 

President and Congress of the United States," at 33-61 (November 2013). 19 Id at 45, 52. 20 /d. at 51-55. 21 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, "Report of the Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform," 

at 1 (December 10, 2013). 22 1n a 7 December 2015letter to Julie Koehler, Senator Murkowski advised that pursuant to SB 872, 

"[t]he land would be used to help the corporations to make money to aid their shareholders." In other 

words, more of the same. 

4 
615 


Insert graphic folio 700 here 22000A.576

provides no cultural, traditional, or subsistence protective benefits. The failed corporate model is 

designed primarily to promote commercial activities on land owned by state-chartered corporations 

wholly divorced from traditional Native land use. As history in the Tongass has shown, this profit 

focus results in intense clearcut logging of many Southeast Alaska village core subsistence use areas 

village residents depend on for personal and cultural sustenance. 

IV. PENDING ANCSA CORPORATE LEGISLATION PERPETUATES ANCSA'S 

FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS 

S. 872's stated purposes (parroted in S. 3404/3273) are to "redress the omission of the communities 

described in subsection (a)( 6)23 from eligibility by authorizing the Native people enrolled in the 

communities to form Urban Corporations for the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee, and Wrangell under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ... and to receive certain 

settlement land pursuant to that act."24 To achieve these purposes, the Secretary of the Interior is 

directed to enroll each individual Native in the newly-created Urban Corporations, to issues shares of 

stock, and to offer as compensation each of these Urban Corporations 23,040 acres of land, which 

"shall give preference to land with commercial purposes and may include subsistence and cultural 

sites, aquaculture sites, hydroelectric sites, tideland, surplus Federal property and eco-tourism sites." 25 

The 23,040 acres to each Urban Corporation would be comprised of "local" public lands, 

which, as now drafted, could come from any lands, no matter their importance for subsistence, cultural, 

or traditional uses. As to those lands, "[t]he Secretary shall offer as compensation under this 

subsection local areas of historical, cultural, traditional and economic importance to Alaska Natives 

from the Villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, or Wrangell." 26 And the Secretary "shall 

give preference to land with commercial purposes" in making these land selections and withdrawals. 27 

Read together, these mandatory provisions require the Secretary to focus on lands historically, 

culturally, traditionally and economically important to these five Native villages, which shall be used 

for commercial purposes. As the Southeast Native villages of Hoonah, Hydaburg, Craig, Kake, 

Klawock, Yakutat, and Kasaan can readily attest, this mandate inevitably will result in clearcut logging 

in these five rural communities, with irreversible losses to subsistence, cultural, and traditional uses 

long predating those selections and industrial scale logging. 

23 Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. 24 S 872, Sections 2(b)(l)(2); S 3273 Section 10. 25 S 872, Section 6 (emphasis added); S 3273 Section I 0. Lest there be any doubt about the 

importance and protection of traditional subsistence areas for these 5 communities relative to those for 

commercial purposes, the use of "shall" in the commercial context and "may" in non-commercial 

contexts dispels that doubt. Ironically, over 30 years after Justice Berger documented the 

fundamentally flawed corporate model as protective of Alaska Natives' subsistence uses, S 872 

contains this same corporate overlay. 26 S 872 sec. 6(a)(2)(A); S. 872, Section 10 (amending 43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.). (Emphasis added.) 27 S 872 sec. sec. 6(a)(2)(B)(i); S. 872, Section 10 (amending 43 U.S. C. 1601, et seq.). (Emphasis 

added.) 

5 
616 


Insert graphic folio 701 here 22000A.577

As written, S. 872 and section 10 of S. 3273 provide no protections for lands set aside by 

Congress in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).28 Nor do they protect 

any of the 732,463 acres of legislated LUD lis and 300,473 acres of wilderness created in the 1990 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). Ironically, that legislation passed the U.S. Senate 99-0, 

including aye votes from then-Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski. These 732,463 acres of 

Legislated LUD !Is and 300,247 acres of wilderness include lands with great importance to Native and 

other communities in the Tongass National Forest for protection of salmon watersheds, fishing, 

hunting, subsistence, berry picking, and cultural and historical recreational values.29 Notably, these 

LUD II-protected areas had broad support from small Native and non-Native communities throughout 

the Tongass who recognized the importance of permanently protecting these special areas. 

S. 872 and S. 3004/3273 undermine ANILCA's and the TTRA's fundamentally important land 

use protections in one fell swoop. 

In 2014 the Sealaska Lands Entitlement Act was signed into law, ostensibly to finalize the land 

conveyances for the nearly 20,000 Native shareholders of Sealaska, including shareholders in all five 

communities targeted in S. 872 and Section 10 of S. 3273.30 It also established 152,067 acres of 

additional legislative LUD !Is in the Tongass. Now, S. 872 and S. 3404/3273 threaten those additional 

LUD II areas. 

It is difficult to imagine how legislation enacted just over a year ago to finalize land 

conveyances to 20,000 Native shareholders of Sealaska and to protect over 150,000 acres used by 

many of those shareholders could so blithely be jeopardized under the guise of recognizing five 

communities some 45 years after ANCSA's enactment. 

S. 872 and S. 3004/3273 also provide that the Urban Corporations would receive the surface 

estates on the selected lands, with Sealaska to receive the subsurface estate. 31 At least one 

commentator has criticized this split estate component of ANCSA: 

Although severance of ownership between surface and subsurface estates is not unusual in 

Alaska, and villages must consent to subsurface development within their boundaries, this 

division of title raises problems of accountability. Thus, while village corporations are 

28 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq. Among other findings, in ANILCA Congress stated its intent "in this Act ... 

to provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for, wildlife species of inestimable 

value to the citizens of Alaska and the Nation, including those species dependent on vast relatively 

undeveloped areas [and] to preserve in their natural state extensive unaltered arctic tundra, boreal 

forest and coastal rainforest ecosystems. 16 U.S.C. 31 01(b). Enacting legislation such as S 872 and S 

3004/3273 --that would likely lead to up to 115,200 acres of new clearcuts in the Tongass National 

Forest-- hardly serves either of these important purposes. 29 P.L. 101-626, codified at 16 U.S.C. 539 et seq. The sound public policy in the TTRA is now 

threatened by the corporate greed driving SB 872. 30 Sealaska Lands Entitlement Act, Section 3002 ofP.L. 113-291, the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

"Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2015. 31 SB 872 sec. 6(a)(2)(c)(2) and (3); S. 3273 sec. 10. 

6 
617 


Insert graphic folio 702 here 22000A.578

established as autonomous entitles, the powers granted to the regions can put serious limitations 

on their independence. 32 

And this and other commentators have characterized this "Village consent" provision as 

illusory: 

[G]iven the conflict in the Act between the role of the villages in protecting subsistence 

interests for small groups of Natives and the role of the regions in further resource development 

for the benefit Native Alaskans as a whole, some commentators believe it unlikely that villages 

would be able to exercise absolute veto power over regional subsurface development plans. 

'[T]he Village Corporation cannot veto exploration which would not affect subsistence values 

or subsistence sites, nor can it demand compensation except as a substitute for the value of the 

surface estate lost."' 33 

This plethora of fundamental problems -- mandatory selection of subsistence, cultural, or 

traditional use areas for commercial development, lack of control over subsurface mining, drilling, and 

other subsurface activities, and perpetuation of the fatally flawed ANCSA corporate model -- should, 

from a Tribal perspective, doom S. 872 and S. 3004/3273. Although Washington policy makers seem 

to have learned nothing from ANCSA's failed corporate model, Alaska tribes have: ANCSA's focus 

on commercialization of traditional Tribal lands is the very definition of assimilation.34 Indeed, and 

ironically, it is assimilation by slow, sure demise of truly renewable resources from the land. And, as 

Justice Berger learned over 30 years ago from his field hearings, it is the land that sustains Alaska 

Natives, not money from industrial-scale clearcutting or an occasion dividend. 

V. ALTERNATEPROPOSALS 

To "redress the omission" of the five Southeast Alaska communities at issue in S. 872 and S. 

3004/3273, and because of the reality of intense commercial development of 115,200 acres of 

fundamentally important Native use lands should this legislation pass as currently drafted, certain 

viable alternatives should instead be meaningfully pursued. 

a. Place Withdrawn and Conveyed Lands in Trust for The Four Tribes and 

Traditional Tenakee Clan 

32 Martha Hirschfield, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Tribal Sovereignty and the 

Corporate Form, 101 Yale L.J. 1331 (1992), citing43 U.S.C. sec. 1613(f) (1988). 33 !d. at n. 45, citing Monroe E. Price, Region-Village Relations Under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (pts. I & 2), 5 UCLA-ALASKA L. REV., 58, 237 (1975-1976). 34 This utter and complete lack of policy insight reminds one of Chief Seattle's words: "It matters little 

where we pass the remnant of our days .... A few more winters -and not one of the descendants of the 

mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great 

Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people -once more powerful and hopeful than yours . 

. . . Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like waves to the sea .... Your time of decay may be 

distant, but it will surely come, for even the White Man ... cannot be exempt from the common 

destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see." (See 

http://www.chiefseattle.com/history/chiefseattle/speech/speech.htm). 

7 
618 


Insert graphic folio 703 here 22000A.579

At the time of ANCSA's 1971 passage, Alaska tribal status was not nearly as certain as it is 

today. Following the Federally Recognized Tribe List Act of 1994, annual publication of the list of 

federally recognized Tribes, and the Alaska Supreme Court's decision in John v. Baker, Alaska tribal 

status is now certain. Too, it is now certain that the Secretary of the Interior may take lands in trust for 

Alaska tribes under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) as amended. 35 

Due in part to a Federal District Court's decision in Akiachak Native Community v. Salazar, 

935 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2013) (successfully challenging the Department's "Alaska exception" to 

taking lands in trust under Section 5 of the IRA), and 2013 Indian Law and Order Commission's 

Report and the Report of the Commission on Indian Trust and Administration Reform, 36 on 23 

December 2014, the Department of the Interior published a final rule relating to land acquisitions in 

Alaska.37 Accordingly, the Department may take lands in Alaska in trust for Alaska tribes under 

Section 5 of the IRA. 

This is a significant development. In response to comments that removal of the "Alaska 

exception" would be contrary to ANCSA, the Department stated "It is important to remember that 

Alaska Native land and history did not commence with ANCSA, and that ANCSA did not terminate 

Alaska Native tribal governments ... [ANCSA] did not repeal the Secretary's authority to take land 

into trust in Alaska under the IRA." 38 Moreover, the Department found that taking land in trust for 

Alaska Native tribes would: 

"Allow Alaska Native tribes to regulate and protect their traditional land bases in Alaska and 

potentially obtain tax income to support the exercise of essential governmental functions, such 

as providing infrastructure and human services; [i]mprove Alaska Native tribes' ability to 

maintain their cultural integrity, including language preservation, religion, traditional Native 

foods, and other aspects of tribal identity and sovereignty; [p ]romote and strengthen tribal self 

governance and determination, which are closely associated with sovereignty over and 

management of tribal lands; [a]llow tribal members, rather than corporate shareholders, to 

guide development to take more useful forms and improve standards of living for all tribal 

members; [a]dvance the policy goals established by Congress in the IRA, eight decades ago, of 

protecting tribal lands and advancing tribal self-determination." 39 

For all these reasons, and more, SB 872 and Section 10 of S. 3273 should be amended to 

instruct the Secretary to take withdrawn lands in trust for the tribes in Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, 

Haines and the traditional Clan in Tenakee. 

b. Alternatively, Create One New Southeast Urban Corporation, and Have Its 

Land Withdrawn and Conveyed in Trust for The Four Tribes And Traditional 

Tenakee Clan 

35 Act of May 1, 1936, P.L. 74-538, sec. I, 49 Stat. 1250 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 473a). 36 Seep 3 & nn. 18-21above. 37 79 Fed. Reg. 76888-76897 (2014), codified at25 C.F.R. Part 151 (2015). 38 !d. at 76890. 39 /d. at 76891. 

8 
619 


Insert graphic folio 704 here 22000A.580

Alternatively, S. 872 and S. 3004/3273 could be amended to provide for the creation of a single 

Urban Corporation for all five of the omitted villages. A township of land could then be conveyed to 

the Secretary of the Interior under Section 5 of the IRA, as amended, to be held in ttust for the four (4) 

tribes in Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, and Haines, and for the traditional Tenakee Clan. 

C. Preserve Wilderness, National Monuments and Legislated LUD II Areas 

Established in ANILCA, TTRA and the Sealaska Act. 

Minimally, S. 872 and S. 3004/3273 should be amended to prevent any Secretary ofthe Interior 

from offering any lands previously designated by Congress as Wilderness, National Monuments, or 

Legislated LUD II Management Areas in the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 

Tongass Timber Reform Act, and the Sealaska Act. These areas are simply too important to be 

jeopardized for the corporate bottom line. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

From a traditional Alaska Native tribal perspective, the pending Senate ANSCA corporate 

legislation perpetuates the assimilationist policy embodied in ANCSA. Although, as detailed above, 

Alaska Tribes have made much progress on the state and federal levels since the passage of ANCSA in 

1971, key policy makers continue to fail to heed the 1985 findings of a respected jurist and two 

Commissions, one established by Congress and reporting to it and the President, as well as a former 

Secretary of the Interior, and only two years ago. One can only wonder what is driving the quest to 

privatize over 115,000 acres of land, presumably in the Tongass National Forest. One thing is certain, 

though: if Alaska's Senators and its representative are serious about recognizing and honoring the five 

villages omitted in ANCSA, it now has the tools to do so in a manner that genuinely works for those 

villages. The only question is whether, armed with this knowledge and experience of ANCSA's 

failures over the past 45 years, and counting, and the current tools available to them, they have the 

political will finally to do right by Alaska Natives on the Natives' terms. Only time will tell. 

9 
620 


Insert graphic folio 705 here 22000A.581
621 


Insert graphic folio 706 here 22000A.582

PO Box 1331 

Petersburg, Alaska 99833 

October 3, 2016 

Subject: Comments to the official Sept. 22, 2016 Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee hearing record for S. 3203. 

Dear Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee: 

S.3203 was among bills in your Sept. 22 hearing. These comments 

concern section 502 specifically, and the bill generally. 

Comments on Section 502 (concerning the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

Please change section 502 of the bill to be a federal buyout of the Alaska 

Mental Health Trust (AMHT) lands instead of a land-for-land exchange. 

This buyout approach is gaining public support, and as explained below 

it is the best solution to the land exchange dilemma now facing residents 

of Southeast Alaska. 

Section 502-the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange has received 

great attention and controversy in Southeast Alaska. It would result in a 

legislative transfer of up to 21,000 acres of National Forest Land to the 

Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority for logging. This section is also 

known as S. 3006-Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 

2016. All of the lands AMHT would receive are highly problematic. In 

order to finally put the exchange issue to rest, the least controversial 

solution would be a federal buyout of the lands AMHT is intending to give 

up [Exhibit A). These lands are in or near six affected communities 1• 

In fact, in a forward thinking action, the Petersburg Borough Assembly 

recently supported the federal buyout option if the legislation fails to 

1 Agreement to Initiate. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. June 30, 2015. ''The 

non-Federal lands encompass approximately 18,066 acres of scenic backdrops for the 

Southeast Alaskan communities of Ketchikan, Meyers Chuck, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, and 

Juneau, Alaska." htto:l/mhtrustland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2 USFS-AMHT-SignedATI-6-30-2015 2·24-2016-v1 O.odf 
622 


Insert graphic folio 707 here 22000A.583

pass [Exhibit BJ and the AMHT has indicated it is open to the option of a 

buyout. [Exhibit C]. 

The reasonableness of a buyout is demonstrated by the Shee Atika, Cube 

Covej Admiralty Island buyout2 which has already been partially 

accomplished administratively [Exhibit DJ. Moreover, AMHT could 

actually finalize the action much sooner this way, which directly and 

exactly addresses the reason AMHT issued its threat to log its 

controversial Petersburg and Ketchikan uplands, i.e., lack of time. With 

the endowment (buyout) approach, only half the surveys and appraisals 

would be involved since only the AMHT lands would be included-not 

Forest Service land. 

According to an op-ed by Trust Board Chair Russ Webb, the land-forland exchange through administrative processes "could cost [the Trust] 

as much as 6 million dollars." [Exhibit E]. The cost of a legislative landfor-land exchange would likely be similar. An endowment (buyout) is 

instead the most timely and least costly alternative to the Trust and 

would result in no environmental harm. It also makes fiscal sense 

because it would cost the Trust roughly only half the $6 million cited by 

Mr. Webb of the Trust. 

This solution only requires the combined will of Senator Murkowski and 

AMHT and judging by the already success-in-progress of the Shee Atika 

situation, with their support it could very well become reality. 

General comments on S.3202 

Finally, please oppose S. 3203-the Alaska Economic Development and 

Access to Resources Act in its entirety. It is a raid on Alaska's public 

lands. If enacted, it would privatize large swaths of public lands 

for corporate benefit and transfer up to two million acres of the Tongass 

National Forest to State control, which has far weaker land use 

regulations than federal. Also, such transfer would likely result in 

prompt sale of those acres to the highest bidder to help defray Alaska's 

four billion dollar plus budget deficit. Other provisions of the proposed 

Act are equally troublesome. Please do not allow S. 3203 to advance one 

step further. 

2 Alaska Dispatch News. Forest Service purchases big swath of Admiralty Island land from 

Native corporation. Sept. 17, 2016. http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2016/09/17/forest-servicepurchases-big-swath-of-admiraltv-island-land-from-native-corporation/ 
623 


Insert graphic folio 708 here 22000A.584

Thank you, 

Rebecca (Becky) Knight 

Petersburg, Alaska 

Attachments: 

Exhibit A. My Turn/ A better solution for the mental health lands debacle 

Exhibit B. Petersburg Borough Assembly letter 

Exhibit C. Deer Mountain land buyout talk grows 

Exhibit D. Forest Service purchases land in Cube Cove, returning it to 

Wilderness 

Exhibit E. Trust has duties to manage assets for beneficiaries 
624 


Insert graphic folio 00024 here 22000A.585

fiJuneauEmpire.com All ACCESS 

MEMBERSHIP 

JOIN NOW ACTIVATE 

SIGN IN 

My Turn: A better solution for the mental health lands debacle Posted: September 7, 2016 • l2:03am 

By BECKY KNIG!IT 

FOR THE JUNEAU EMPIRE 

The Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community believes there are better solutions than a land eXchange to solve the highly controversial 

Alaska Mental Health Trust debacle. The exchange is detailed in Sen. Lisa Murkowski's AJaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 2016 

($,3006). 

Specifically, what should be pursued instead is either a federal buy~out or a land transfer ·with the state, not feds, from existing state forestlands. 

Clearly, AMHT's threats that Murkowski's bill be passed - or else - have angered many. Further, moving the impacts of large-scale, destructive 

logging out of the local public's eye to Prince of Wales Island and elsewhere on Revilla Island only caves in to the trust's threats and simply shifts 

the destruction to old-growth forests already highly-fragmented by decades of logging. 

The best alternative would be for the federal government to trade an ample monetary endowment to AMHT in exchange for the land holdings the 

trust has been trying to unload. The endowment should be based on an appraisal of the profit that the trust could be expected to net over two 

cutting cycles (i.e. the net value to the trust of the present timber, plus something for the land). 

Of the two alternatives suggested above, the endowment alternative would be best for the environment and would focus AMHT on its real work, 

instead of its current distracting extra role as an arm of the timber industry. 

The endowment alternative is inspired by an item in another of Murkowski's bills, authorizing the federal government to purchase outright Shee 

Atika Corporation's large, already-clearcut landholding at Cube Cove, on Admiralty Island. Clearly, the senator's confidence that the federal 

government can afford this approach demonstrates that a federal buy-out for AMHT in Southeast is doable. Certainly, it is a worthy goal since it 

would move the trust out of the land management business and instead focus AMHT's attention on its vital role of serving the mental health needs 

of Alaskans. There would be no loss of valuable public lands and scenic resources, and no threat to life and limb from logging-triggered landslides. 

That threat is very real and must be avoided on slopes above Petersburg homes and on Ketchikan's Deer Mountain. 

The other alternative, a land transfer with Southeast State Forest lands has some justification, since the state was the original source of the problem 

in the '70s and '8os when it seized AMHT's prior land holdings, forcing the trust beneficiaries to court to have them restored with new ones. While 

a land exchange with the state would still result in logging by AMHT, DNR intends to log those lands in their entirety anyway. Although the public 

at least has minimal say on DNR's logging, the endowment alternative is best. 

Lastly, in addition to the AMHT exchange, Murkowski's goal to move federal lands to other ownerships through privatization and transfer, includes 

the landless Natives bill with a 115,200 acre Joss, and other legislation which includes transfer of the heart of the Tongass to the state with up to 

a 2 million acres loss. The senator's legislation is all about transfer of the American public's old-growth forest and other resources in order to 

circumvent gold-standard federal laws like NEPA and NFMA, as well as kill the opportunity for public comment. If passed, it would further ctlpple 

an already severely frayed and inadequate Tongass conservation strategy and would fulfill Murkowski's objective of placing logging under the weak 

Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Act, which for example allows clearcuts of unlimited size. 

• Becky Knight is a longtime Southeast Alaska grassroots volunteer and is on the board of the Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation Community. 

She was president of Petersburg-based Narrows Conservation Coalition, worked as a forester for the U.S. Forest Service and is retired from the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Juneau Empire @2016. All Rights Reserved. of Serv•ce Pnvacy Policy I Abo\JI Our Ads 
625 


Insert graphic folio 006 here 22000A.672

PETERSBURG 

ALASKA 

September 22, 2016 

Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority 

Trust Land Office 

Attn: John Morrison, Executive Director 

3745 Community Park Loop, Suite 200 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Dear Mr. Morrison and Mr. Stewart, 

US Forest Service 

Tongass National Forest 

Attn: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor 

648 Mission Street 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

The Petersburg Borough Assembly is extremely concerned with the August 24, 2016 decision of the Alaska 

Mental Health Authority ("Trust") to approve the sale of its timber parcels in Petersburg and Ketchikan 

should Congress fail to pass the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 2016 by the Trust's 

January 15, 2017 deadline. The sale parcels are part of an ongoing land exchange between the Trust and 

the US Forest Service ("Forest Service") that has been in negotiations since August, 2006, with an 

Agreement to Initiate signed on June 30, 2015. 

We are in favor of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 2016. The Assembly has 

supported the United States Forest Serviceffongass National Forest and Alaska Mental Health Trust 

Authority Proposed Land Exchange, dated September 4, 2012. We strongly encourage the Trust to 

continue to work with the US Forest Service to realize the exchange. While we support the Southeast 

Alaska timber industry, we adamantly feel that logging should not take place on the Trust's slopes above 

Milko! Highway under any circumstances, as doing so could pose an accelerated risk of landslide and 

blowdown, endangering homes and property below, cause a loss of water quality to homeowner's patented 

mountainside water streams, threaten citizens transiting the highway- including Petersburg School District 

buses August through June, and jeopardize the Tyee hydroelectric utility corridor. 

The Trust has expressed concerns for the cost of required environmental review needed to complete the 

land transfer; however, previous credible analyses of the likely landslide risks as a result from logging these 

acres clearly puts the burden of liability on the State of Alaska should impact of life or property occur. As 

we are sure you would agree, the safety of all Alaskans should be the driving force in matters such as 

these. 

Nine (9) landsides have occurred since 1986, of which eight (8) were on Trust property, crossing and closing 

Mitkof Highway, and within the proposed land exchange/timber sale parcel area. As an attachment to this 

letter you will find a map showing the slide dates and locations along with many photos of slide debris. 

In April of 2006, the Trust contracted with Craig Erdman of GeoEngineers, Inc., to perform risk assessments 

on the Trust's mountainside parcels above Mitkof Highway. 

The Mitkof Highway Homeowners Association's attorneys, Dillon & Findley, contracted with Douglas N. 

Swanston, Ph.D, a Certified Professional Geologist, to also conduct risk assessments. Dr. Swanston, 

recently retired from the Forest Service, hired Art Dunn of Dunn Environmental Services to perform the 

updated assessments on the Mitkof Highway mountainside. Dr. Swanston conducted slope stability 

assessments on the Milko! Highway corridor in the 1970's as a Forest Service employee. He compared 

the 2006 field findings taken by Mr. Dunn to his 1970's baseline findings and concluded "the risk or danger 

to the utility corridor, structures and residents along the Mitkof Highway corridor from debris torrents initiated 

Borough Administration 

PO Box 329, Petersburg, AK 99833 Phone (907) 772-4425 Fax (907)772-3759 

www .petersburgak.gov 
626 


Insert graphic folio 797 here 22000A.673

by logging in this zone" (from Taain Creek and northward) "is moderately high", and '~he risk or danger to 

structures and residents along the Mitkof Highway corridor from debris torrents initiated by logging in this 

zone" (from Taain Creek and southward) "is extremely high". These conclusions are detailed in Dr. 

Swanston's Assessment of Landslide Risk to the Urban Corridor Along Mitkof Highway from Planned 

Loooing of Mental Health Trust band§. which is provided as an attachment. 

In response to the Trust's own risk report of logging their Petersburg mountainside parcels, Dr. Swanston's 

Critique of: "Geotechnical Forestrv Practices Evaluation Petersburg Slope Stabilitv Assessment 

Petersburg, Alaska Fjle Number 5342-004·00 concluded, "Logging disturbance of any sort along the steep, 

unstable slopes above Milko! Highway, particularly on slopes that drain into the gullies and channels 

reaching the highway, is extremely reckless and irresponsible above such an important transportation 

corridor and an area of known permanent occupation and planned urban expansion. The risk is simply 

too high considering the demonstrated unstable conditions along the slopes, the presence of numerous 

active and dormant torrent channels reaching the highway and the clear and demonstrated danger to the 

utility corridor and residents along the highway." 

The Petersburg Assembly respectfully implores you, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Stewart, to find a way to complete 

the land exchange within a reasonable timelrame. Doing so will be the best course of action for all 

Alaskans. 

In the event the land exchange fails to move forward prior to the deadline of January 15, 2017 mandated 

by the Trust, we suggest, strictly as a "Plan B" option to the 2016 Act, the federal government offer an 

ample monetary endowmentto Alaska Mental Heatth Trust Authority in exchange for the controversial Trust 

lands in Southeast Alaska, including Petersburg and Ketchikan. 

Cc: Governor Bill Walker 

Senator Usa Murkowski 

Senator Dan Sullivan 

Attachments: 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 

Map of slides that impacted Mitkof Highway from 1986 to present 

• Photos of slides with dates and locations 

• Dr. Swanston's 2006 Assessment of Landslide Risk to the Urban Corridor Along MKko! Highway 

from Planned Loogjng of Mentel HeaHh Trust Lands 

• Dunn Environmental Services May 22, 2006 Report on Field Investigations. Mitkof Hwy Area. 

Petersburg. AK 

Dr. Swanston's August, 2006 Critique of: "Geotechnical Forestry Practices Evalua)ion Petersburg 

Slope StabiliW Assessment Petersburg. Alaska File Number 5342-004 -oo· 

Borough Administration 

PO Box 329, Petersburg, AK 99833- Phone (907) 772·4425 Fax (907)772·3759 

www.petersburgak.gov 
627 


Insert graphic folio 713 here 22000A.589

ws 

CO., INC, 

9/17/2016 

Deer Mountain land buyout talk grows 

With quick passage of a land swap bill in Congress looking unlikely, more talk is surfacing about buying 

the Alaska Mental Health Trust land on Deer Mountain. 

At the end of August, Russ Webb, chairman of the Alaska Mental Health Trust's board of trustees, 

wrote in an op-ed that Ketchikan and other communities haven't shown interest in trust land. 

"Communities that value nearby Trust land have had years to secure community interest in it," Webb 

wrote. "No community has chosen to do so. Circumstances are now forcing the Trust to act more 

quickly. We have two viable choices: exchange the land or log it while there is still a timber industry." 

While in Ketchikan, Sen. Dan Sullivan said opposition !l·om environmental groups might derail a bill 

thai would force a land swap between the trust and the U.S. Forest Service, and would avert the Jogging 

on Deer Mountain. 

The proposed timber sale includes 9:20 acres of 

land above Ketchikan and makes up a significant 

portion of the community's viewshed. (Photo via 

Alaska Mental Health Trust) 

"I'm not sure we can the Senate because there 

might be outside groups who think they know 

more about what's going on in Ketchikan than 

Sullivan told the Greater Ketchikan Chamber 

With the future of the bill, Senate Bill3006, uncertain and the 

trust adamant in its assertion that without the bill passed by Jan. 

15 it would start the process of logging Deer Mountain, talk of 

buying the land is spreading. 

Borough that 

the borough consider 

approximately 900 acres of land preserving it. 
628 


Insert graphic folio 714 here 22000A.590

"It certainly is worth talking about. I don't know what the cost would be, but we have done something 

like that before with the South Point Higgins Beach," Landis said. "There are things that we can do, and 

the time is short so we need to do them quickly." 

On Monday, the Borough Assembly will decide whether it wants to ask the trust for a written statement 

that the land is for sale based on the idea that Webb's letter didn't exactly say the trust land was up for 

grabs. 

"I've had conversations about whether there would be an opportunity for the community to purchase the 

land to preclude the options of logging," said Borough Manager Dan Bockhorst on Friday." ... Some 

people have expressed concern that there's nothing in writing that says this." 

The manager said he's verbally requested a price for the land, and the trust hasn't given him one. 

"They have not done an appraisal," Bockhorst said. " ... We have no idea what a price would be." 

Bockhorst stressed that a potential purchase isn't the borough's responsibility alone, and that it would 

involve the entire community. 

If a negotiated sale were to take place, the community could pay a 20 percent premium on top of what 

the land is determined to be worth. 

The borough was faced with a situation similar to Deer Mountain in 2008, when the trust was proposing 

to develop land along South Point Higgins Beach. 

Instead, the borough paid $1.1 million for the land including the 20 percent premium to maintain it as a 

public park. 

The transfer was completed as a negotiated sale, which avoided an open, competitive bid process. 

Anyone could bid through an open process, including those who want to log or develop the land. 

"So if the borough or the community or some other entity wanted to buy this property outside of a 

competitive sale, then (the trust has_ in the past- and I don't believe the policy has changed insisted 

that a negotiated sale price will be 20 percent higher than the appraised value," Bockhorst said. 

2 
629 


Insert graphic folio 717 here 22000A.593

http://juneauempire.com/state/2016-09-19/forest-service-purchases-land-cube-cove-retuming-it-wildemess 

hJJuneauEmpire.com 

Forest Service purchases land in Cube Cove, returning it to Wilderness 

September 19,2016 

JUNEAU EMPIRE 

JUNEAU- Friday marked the completion of the purchase of the first two segments of a multi-segment 

land acquisition in Cube Cove on Admiralty Island. 

In July, a landmark purchase agreement between the Forest Service and Shee Atika Corporation was 

completed in order to turn over 22,000 acres of land back into Wilderness within the million-acre 

Admiralty Island National Monument. Due to the size of the property, the purchase agreement 

established a method to acquire the property in segments through the LWCF. Friday's purchase of 

4,463.45 acres represents approximately 20 percent of the total purchase. 

Funds for the purchase came from the congressionally-designated Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Cube Cove is located 30 miles south of Juneau. 

When this purchase is completed it will be the largest transfer oflands from a private inholding back 

into Forest Service-managed Wilderness in the history of the agency. 

"I'm pleased to fmalize the purchase of Cube Cove and see these lands become a part of the Admiralty 

Island National Monument and Kootznoowoo Wilderness," said Alaska Regional Forester Beth 

Pendleton. 

Admiralty Island is located within the Tongass National Forest, which is the largest intact temperate 

rainforest in the world and home to large populations of brown bears and other wildlife, and also critical 

watersheds for salmon and fish stocks. 

The land owner, Shee Atika Corporation, is a Sitka-based urban Native corporation organized under 

terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Cube Cove lands were conveyed to Shee Atika 

in the early 1980s as part of ANCSA. 
630 


Insert graphic folio 715 here 22000A.591

ws 

CO,, INC 

9/l/2016 

By RUSS WEBB 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority recently took the first step to authorize sale of timber on land 

near Ketchikan and Petersburg. This action has generated some strong emotions reflected in statements 

of support, objection, and even some accusations and threats. Here are the !acts. 

The Trust exists to help ensure the state has a mental health It has a duty to 

enhance and protect the value of its trust. mental illness, 

developmental disabilities, substance use disorders, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and 

traumatic brain injuries. Beneficiaries are members of every community and nearly every family in our 

state. 

Trust income comes from two sources: cash investments, and the sale and development of resources 

from Trust land. The Trust provides $20 million annually to state and local government agencies, 

no:npJ:ottts, providers and individuals to the lives and circumstances of beneficiaries. This is far 

less is requested and tar, far less than needed. 

Much of the Trust's income from its land has come from the sale of timber $43 million over the last 

20 years. The Trust's remaining marketable timber is on land near communities in Southeast and valued 

by those communities for public purposes. 

To accommodate community interests, the Trust has delayed logging these and has been 

a land with the Forest Service for the past 10 years. We worked in collaboration 

communities, environmental organizations and the Forest Service to identify 

that balanced various interests. of the the 

would make land, such as the Deer 

Trust would receive more remote land of equal value, which it can use to generate 

responsibility to beneficiaries. 

of the board's recent action was to assure the Trust could the value of timber on its 

there is still a viable timber industry. Trustees have a responsibility~ a duty to 

manage trust assets for the best interest of beneficiaries. We cannot legally or ethically put emm1nmuv 

interest in Trust land above those of beneficiaries and allow the land to lose value or squander the 

oppmtunity to gain revenue from it. 

Communities that value nearby Trust land have had years to secure community interest in it. No 

community has chosen to do so. Circumstances are now the Trust to act more quickly. We have 

two viable choices: exchange the land or log it while there is a timber industry. 
631 


Insert graphic folio 716 here 22000A.592

An exchange through administrative processes could take another seven years, cost as much as $6 

million, and might ultimately fail. In that time, the Southeast timber industry would likely be gonerendering Trust timber lands virtually without commercial value. 

In May 2016 Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced legislation, Senate Bill 3006, directing the Secretary of 

Agriculture to make the land exchange. We are working with Sen. Murkowski to pass the bill. We are 

told passage in this Congress is possible though challenging. 

Passage ofS3006 is the Trust's preference. It would serve the interests of Trust beneficiaries, Southeast 

communities, and the Southeast timber industry. However, the Trust has to be prepared ifS3006 is not 

successful. Trustees took the frrst step to do that by approving a potential timber sale near Ketchikan and 

Petersburg. 

If exchange legislation does not pass, the Trust Land Office will proceed with a prescribed process for a 

timber sale. That process requires a written determination that the timber sale is in the best interests of 

the Trust. The public will receive notice of that decision and be given a 30-day period to provide 

information on why the sale would not be in the best interest of the Trust. If a final Best Interest 

Decision affrrms or modifies the initial decision, another 20-day period is allowed for previous 

commenters to request reconsideration before a timber sale would occur. 

Russ Webb is chairman of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority board of trustees. 

2 
632 


Insert graphic folio 718 here 22000A.594

Ripchens!<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

jen Iaroe <jalaroe@yahoo.com> 

Sunday, September 25,2016 10:14 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

S. 3203 9/22/16 hearing 

I want Tongass National Forest lands to remain in public hands and be managed in the best interests of all Americans 

Jen LaRoe 

5134 Glacier HWY 

Juneau, AK 99801 
633 


Insert graphic folio 719 here 22000A.595

Fleurant, Swan (Enerpl 

FW: National Wildlife Federation urges support for Antiquities Act 

From: Mike l..eehy [ma!ltn:LeahyM@nwf.orgl 

sent: Wednesday, september 21, 2016 6:17 PM 

To: Kleesclwlte, Chuck (Energy) 

SUbject: National Wildlife Federation urges support for Antiquities Act 

I Clk:l< To v- Oocumln18: Ltr NWE Antiouitiea Act docx f33KBl; 

Dear Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 

I am writing to remind you of the strong support of the National Wildlife Federation, our state affiliates, and our 

more than 6 million members and supporters for national monuments and the Antiquities Act that makes them 

possible. The attached letter explains why we and many of our affiliated state organizations support this 

important law. 

In your hearing tomorrow you will be discussing three bills that would weaken and undermine the Antiquities 

Act-S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317. 

S. 437 would allow states to dictate bow national lands and waters are managed by requiring state approval for 

national monuments within state borders or within I 00 miles of state shores. 

S. 1416 could undermine the purposes of certain national monuments dependent on adequate water to support 

water-based recreation such as fishing or boating, or to support fish, wildlife and plants, by limiting the 

reservation of water rights for national monuments. 

S. 3317 would deprive Utahns and all Americans of national monuments within Utah's borders. 

We urge your opposition to all three of these bills. 

Thank you, 

Mike Leahy 

Senior Manager, Public Lands and Sportsmeo's Policy • 
634 


Insert graphic folio 768 here 22000A.644

fil 

WILDLIFE 

IM!f I 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION® 

National Advocacy Center 

1990 K Street NW, Suite 430 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-797-6800 

www.nwf.org 

On behalf of over 6 million members and supporters, including hunters, anglers, fish and wildlife 

professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, the National Wildlife Federation wishes to express our 

support for the President's authority under the Antiquities Act to establish national monuments 

that preserve our country's natural, cultural ,and historic treasures. We urge Congress to oppose 

any legislation that would undermine or block the President's ability to create national 

monuments that protect important wildlife habitat and priceless cultural artifacts, and preserve 

access to public lands for current and future generations of Americans. 

Initially signed into Jaw by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, the Antiquities Act has since 

been used by 16 presidents from both parties to create more than 130 national monuments. Time 

has demonstrated the wisdom of providing presidents with this authority, as nearly half of our 

nation's national parks- including the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, Acadia National 

Park in Maine, and Zion National Park in Utah - were initially protected as national monuments. 

Today, the monument designation process is unofficially required by the White House to have 

strong public support and engagement before the administration will consider a proposed site. 

NWF agrees with this approach and supports local, community-driven monument proposals. For 

example, in 2014, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico was 

propelled by widespread public support. The next year, Browns Canyon National Monument 

followed suit after Colorado governor John Hickenlooper and Senators Udall and Bennet 

requested designation on behalf of their constituents, many of whom had been campaigning in 

support of the monument for over two decades. 

Efforts to limit usage of the Antiquities Act would effectively block local community driven 

proposals to protect important public lands and waters. While some of these areas now enjoy the 

recognition they deserve as national parks, monuments and refuges, many historic and naturally 

significant public lands and waters continue to face threats like vandalism, looting and unfettered 

development. Others simply lack permanent protections and have uncertain futures. Monument 

designations can allow for broad access to a variety of uses and honor existing rights, including 

oil and gas leases, public access, hunting, fishing, grazing and rights-of-way. Following a 

designation, site-specific management plans are put into place with input from local jurisdictions 

and agencies, community groups and the public. 

Rather than locking away lands, as some critics have stated, national monument designation 

often preserves the status quo on federal lands, ensuring future access and the continuation of 

multiple uses like grazing, hunting, and fishing, along with recreational activities like hiking and 

horseback riding. Not only do national monuments protect our irreplaceable natural treasures for 

the future, they also benefit local economies today. Following the March 2013 designation of Rio 

Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico, tourist visitation to the area increased by 
635 


Insert graphic folio 769 here 22000A.645

40 percent. The nearby city of Taos saw an increase in lodgers' tax and the hospitality sector's 

gross receipts tax. 

For II 0 years, the Antiquities Act has been used by presidents to protect some of our most 

treasured historic, cultural, and natural wonders. This privilege should continue. Our public lands 

and waters are where we connect with America's history, hunt and fish with our friends, camp 

with our families and enjoy the solitude and natural beauty of our country. National Wildlife 

Federation and the undersigned affiliates strongly urge Congress to oppose any efforts to weaken 

this vital conservation and cultural tool. 
636 


Insert graphic folio 720 here 22000A.596

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Abe Levy <abe@slought.org> 

Friday, September 23, 2016 7:44 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

info@seacc.org 

Protect the Tongass National Forest 

The Tongass NF is the crown jewel of rain forests in the entire USA. For the interests of Alaska, the USA, and the 

planet, we need to protect it in its entirety. 

Please do not compromise the integrity of the Tongass NF in any way with any logging or any other activity other than 

those compatible with wilderness designation, which I would advocate for the entire NF. 

Thank you kindly. 

Abe Levy 

4875 Pelican Colony Blvd Apt 301 

Bonita Springs FL 34134-6916 
637 


Insert graphic folio 721 here 22000A.597

Re: S3004/3273, ANCSA Improvement Act, 9/22/2016 

Honorable members of the Senate Energy Committee: 

Box 53 

Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 

tenakeetwo@yahoo.com 

I write to you about the so-called "ANCSA Improvement Act". I hope that, after reading this note, 

that you will agree with me that this act is poorly named, and will, on the contrary, create innumerable 

problems and probably fix none. 

I'll start with Section 6. 

This section is a blatant give-away of federal lands to a for-profit corporation. Sealaska Corporation 

would receive 14,017 acres of prime Forest Service old growth timber lands in exchange subsurface 

rights to another parcel which has no known minerals or other values (the equivalent to less than 500 

acres of old-growth). This is an overpayment of about 30 times. It just doesn't make sense and cheats 

the American taxpayer. If sub-surface rights are to be purchased, they should be purchased with cash at 

market values. 

Now on to Section I 0, the New Native Corporation section. 

This poorly considered section creates new urban corporations. It would grant these five new 

corporations over 115,000 acres of Federal Lands with no limits on where these selections could be 

made. Iflands were to be selected on the Tongass National Forest, they could include legislated 

Wilderness, LUD II and other lands that were granted protection under the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act and other legislation. Forest planning, congressional mandates, and ecological values are not 

considered relevant. Interestingly, we are asked to comment on this legislation with no maps, no list of 

who the beneficiaries of this legislation are, and absolutely no public process within Alaska. 

This is not reasonable. It is not sensible or well thought out legislation. It reopens ANCSA questions 

and has an inordinate inpact on small Southeast Alaskan communities. For instance, the community of 

Tenakee Springs, where I live, is considered "Rural", a designation that is critical for our ability to 

harvest subsistence fish and game. How can this now be considered an urban corporation? This would 

undoubtedly cloud our subsistence status, a critical component for many who live in Tenakee. 

Tenakee has historically opposed the privatization of public lands and for over 40 years the community 

has called for permanent protection at the watershed level of our irreplaceable salmon streams. Thus 

far, only two areas have been protected with LUD II designations----and under this legislation, even 

these areas would be open to selection and potential road building and timber harvest. These 

watersheds are critical to our community's stability and prosperity, both for those harvesting fish and 

wildlife for subsistence, and for commercial fishers, sport fishing and wildlife guides, and for nonconsumptive tourism. 

Forest Service lands that are harvested require much more rigorous safeguards than do private lands 

that fall under the relatively lax Alaska timber harvest regulations. Thus, our local watersheds and 

those in the other 4 communities named in this legislation would face potentially much greater damage 

to watersheds harvested under the new owners than under the For est Service. 
638 


Insert graphic folio 722 here 22000A.598

I do support finding ways to TRULY improve ANCSA so that the law treats native peoples fairly 

outside of any corporate structure and facilitates closer ties among native and non-native peoples who 

now share these lands. However, this hastily crafted, and poorly implemented legislation is NOT the 

right way to do this. Rather it deepems cultural; divisions and benefits large for-profit corporations 

rather than the individual Native tribal members who will likely lose places they love to Jogging and 

gain little as the corporations and their managers reap monetary benefits. 

Now, consider S3203. 

S3203 would give the state of Alaska 2 million acres of the prime timberlands in the Tongass. 

BOTH these bills, are simply attempts to privatize and develop enormous portions of the Tongass 

National Forest, and would result in huge losses to American taxpayers and to all communities of 

Southeast Alaska. 

I urge you to put this legislation in the round-file where it belongs and work with Alaskans to find a 

sensible way to rectify any wrongs that ANCSA created. 

Thank you, 

Steve Lewis 
639 


Insert graphic folio 723 here 22000A.599

Box 53 

Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 

tenakeetwo@yahoo.com 

Re: S3203, Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act, 9/22/2016 

Honorable members of the Senate Energy Committee: 

S3203 is a terrible piece oflegislation and deserves to never get past committee. I'll describe two parts 

of this bill that make this abundantly clear. 

Section 503 abolishes the long-standing Roadless Rule for Alaska. This Rule has prevented enormous 

waste of federal funds on National Forests in Alaska. Timber harvest and requisite road buidling have 

proven to be uneconomical in the areas affected by the Rule, and the values of intact ecosystems are 

tremendous, both for the plants and animals that inhabit including humans. The Road less Rule makes 

sense because it protects the resources basic to productive commercial fishing, sport fishing, hunting 

and wildlife viewing; important economic drivers in Southeast Alaska, and especially important in my 

home community of Tenakee Springs. 

The current road system still provides access to timber for the small scale logging operations that make 

sense in the Tongass---harvesting trees and doing value-added manufacture that provides jobs to locals, 

rather than sending jobs overseas by shipping large portions of industrial scale harvests in the round to 

overseas manufacturers. 

Even more troubling is a section ofS3203 allowing the state of Alaska to select 2,000,000 (TWO 

MILLION) acres ofthe Tongass for state ownership. This would be well over 10% of the acreage in 

the Tongass, and almost certainly over 50% of the remaining commercially and ecologically valuable 

forested lands in the Tongass. 

It's hard to imagine, but these lands would be managed for timber harvest by the state, not the multiple 

use management we value from the Forest Service. There are no apparent limits on where these 

selections could occur, but even if there were, this is a completely noxious piece of legislation. It is a 

pure and simple a give-away of America's public lands and is totally inappropriate. 

I urge you to vote against S3203. 

Thank you, 

Steve Lewis 
640 


Insert graphic folio 01 here 22000A.819

12/7/2015 

Secretary Sally Jewell 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Jim Peiia, Regional Forester 

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) 

U.S. Forest Service 

1220 SW3 

Portland, OR 97204-3440 

Chief Thomas Tidwell 

U.S. Forest Service 

Sam and Brooke Lucy 

Bluebird Grain Farms 

Box 1082 

Winthrop, WA 98862 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-1111 

Mike Williams 

Forest Supervisor 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

215 Melody Lane 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Re: Letter of Support for Protection of the Headwaters of the Methow River, in the North 

Cascades of Washington State, through a Withdrawal of Lands from Mineral Entry 

Dear Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Peiia, and Supervisor Williams: 

As residents and business owners in the Methow Valley, we are writing to express our support for 

protecting the upper Methow Valley from industrial-scale mining by withdrawing the lands in the 

upper valley from mineral entry and exploration. We believe the development of an industrial 

scale copper mine in the Methow Valley is completely incompatible with our landscape, our local 

economy and our community values. Worse, the proposal is a waste of valuable US Forest 

Service time and resources, at a time when massive fire danger and rapidly growing recreational 

use deserve all of our Forest managers focused attention. 

Our business, Bluebird Grain Farms LLC, produces and processes organic small grains and dry 

products here in the Methow Valley. Bluebird Grains has been in business 11 years and now 

employs 6 people year-round. 

Prior to Bluebird, we owned and operated a large seale land restoration business for 6 years and 

Sam farmed for another grower in the valley before that. Collectively, Sam has 23 years working 

on the land here in the Methow. In that time, our love for this place has only grown. 
641 


Insert graphic folio 02 here 22000A.820

Generally, the climate here is a good climate for growing food. In particular, safe, high quality 

toxic free food due to the Methow's isolation from large scale Agriculture that has so 

compromised the food system elsewhere. In other terms, this is a pure environment to grow pure 

food. 

Times change and so do industries. One older industry that still seems to fit here is agriculture, 

though it has changed form as well. Although we only farm 250 acres, I think we are the biggest 

farm employer in the upper Methow. And we want to grow. In no way, shape or form does 

industrial mining of any form benefit agriculture in this valley. Unlike farming, mining is no 

longer economical viable here, nor does it add value to place. With the growth of tourism 

here- the number one industry I believe these days- care of the countryside is paramount. Most 

folks visiting and living here love to see our fields of grain; few would enjoy seeing a mining 

operation. 

Plants need sunlight and clean water to thrive. If we soil our watershed up here, it spoils the 

entire food system downstream. 

We are opposed to industrial-scale mining because of the threat it poses to all things that make 

the Methow special, such as clean water, scenic views, peace and quiet, rural character, and 

healthy fish and wildlife habitat. 

Polluted waters, disturbed land, negative impacts on fish and wildlife, and noisy industrial 

activity could literally erase the very reasons many of our customers and employees have 

chosen to visit or relocate to the Methow. It could also threaten the foundation of our 

agricultural economy-clean and abundant water. Destruction of these assets will hurt our 

businesses and reduce the economic viability of our community as a whole. Moreover, these 

losses will extend beyond the Methow, affecting all of Okanogan County by threatening our 

amenity-driven property tax valuations, sales taxes, and hotel/motel taxes. 

The prospect of an industrial-scale mine on Flagg Mountain threatens the very values that arc at 

the heart of our success as a community, including our economic health. This activity is simply 

incompatible with the economic well-being of our valley and our community. It would directly 

and negatively impact business interests which arc strongly oriented toward sustaining our local 

population and welcoming visitors from far and wide to enjoy the natural beauty of this place. 

We ask you, Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Peiia, and Supervisor Williams, 

to work together and move quickly and initiate the process to administratively withdraw Flagg 

Mountain and appropriate surrounding national forest lands in the Upper Methow Valley from 

mineral exploration and entry for as long as possible, and to secure any funding that may be 

necessary to complete the withdrawal process. This action is critical to protecting one of the most 

visited and beloved valleys in Washington state and an integral economic engine of north central 

Washington. Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this important issue. 
642 


Insert graphic folio 03 here 22000A.821

Sincerely, 

Brooke Lucy 

Bluebird Grain Farms 

Sam Lucy 

Bluebird Grain Farms 

Cc: Senator Patty Murray, United States Senator 

Senator Maria Cantwell, United States Senator 

Representative Dan Newhouse, U.S. House of Representatives 

Tom Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture 

Neil Komze, Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Acting Director, Washington and Oregon Office, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Michael Liu, Methow Valley District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 
643 


Insert graphic folio 724 here 22000A.600

October 5, 2016 

To: US Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

Subject: Comments on the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 

SB 346 

The proposed mineral withdrawal area covers certain Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

Forest Service (FS) lands in Curry and Josephine Counties, Oregon. The bill is titled the 

Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 introduced in Congress on 

February 3, 2015 (S 346 and HR 682). I have lived next to the proposed mineral withdrawal 

area near Rough and Ready Creek for the past 23 years and enjoy hiking the lands, viewing 

the wildflowers, and swimming in the creeks. My property includes 40 acres in O'Brien, 

Oregon adjacent to FS land. 

The BLM and FS public lands at issue currently make all Americans and local citizens rich in 

spirit and quality of life. Those lands are currently under their highest and best uses. The 

subject watersheds support valuable fisheries, threatened species, botanical areas, recreation 

and tourist industries, and provide abundant clean water for drinking and irrigation. Land 

resources include Wild and Scenic Rivers, Roadless Areas, State Parks, and a National 

Recreation Area. Thousands of people are employed, make their livelihoods, and support their 

families and communities based on the existing economic uses of these natural resources. 

Mining operations in these watersheds would make all Americans and the local citizens forever 

poorer through the loss of existing jobs, loss of fisheries, pollution of the waters, and 

denudation of the landscapes. 

Many residents who live along these federal lands have water rights from streams and springs 

for their domestic uses and garden irrigation. The springs and streams are created from the 

steep mountain terrain that people live at the base of. I am a Certified Water Right Examiner 

in Oregon and have personally worked on many of these water rights for neighbors. Mining 

these steep lands would destroy many of those surface water sources. Wells could also be 

damaged by mining activities. That would constitute a taking of private property rights. 

It is very important that the valuable natural resources of the area be protected in perpetuity. 

Allowing mining by foreign or local interlopers would be devastating economically and 

ecologically. A permanent mineral withdrawal will provide the protection that is needed to 

ensure clean water, an intact environment, and the economic benefits now enjoyed by all 

Americans and local citizens. 

I strongly support SB 346 and the permanent mineral withdrawal. 

Sincerely, 

Gordon Lyford 

P.O. Box 118 

O'Brien, OR 97534 
644 


Insert graphic folio 00025 here 22000A.601

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: 53004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/23/2016 

·····Original Message----

From: Craig Mapes [mailto:mapescr@gmall.coml 

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:57 AM 

To: fortherecord {Energy) <fortherecord_@energy.senate.gov> 

Subject: 53004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/23/2016 

Honorable US Senators, 

I have resided in SE Alaska for 36 years and have appreciated and enjoyed some of the last intact natural ecosystems 

in existence. The abundance of fish and wildlife present here is due to natural habitat. 

The reason there is so much natural habitat in SE Alaska is because many years ago large tracts of land were set aside 

in public National Forest and Park Land. The lands held by private interests have largely been clear cut for short term 

gain for relatively few people. 

I strongly oppose any legislation that privatizes public land for any reason and therefore oppose the 53004/3273 

ANCSA Improvement Act 9/23/2016. 

Sincerely, 

Craig Mapes 

PO Box46 

Tenakee Springs, Alaska 99841 
645 


Insert graphic folio 726 here 22000A.602

Fleurant. Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: S3004/3273ANSCA Improvement Act 9/22!2016 

From: Joan McBeen !mailto:joanmcbeen@yahoo.coml 

sent: Thursday, september 29, 2016 11:08 AM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <fortherecord @energy.senate.gov> 

Subject: S3004/3273ANSCA Improvement Act 9/22/2016 

Dear Senators, 

I am opposed to S3004 because of the effects it would have on the Tongass in privatizing public land resulting in mch of the old 

growth being clearcut. Tenakee Springs is a rural community with a population of and 114 and as such does not qualifY for the 

establishment of an "urban • corporation. Most Tenakee residents lead subsistence life styles and I object to the possibility of 

losing our subsistence standing. 

I am a 40 year resident of Tenakee Springs and have fought hard to keep our inlet intact. Since there are no maps to indicate 

which land would be privatized, 1 fear all our work could be wiped out with massive clearcutting in our special places to hunt, 

fish and recreate. 

Thank you for this opporttmity to comment. 

JoanMcBeen 

POBox23 

Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 
646 


Insert graphic folio 727 here 22000A.603

FW: S3004/3273ANSCA Improvement Act 9!22/2016 

From: Samuel McBean !mal!to:smcbeenftvahoo.corn I 

Sent: Saturday, October 1, 201612:19 PM 

To: fortherecord (Enell'f) <fortherecord @ener&V.senate.goy> 

Subject: S3004/3273ANSCA Improvement Act 9/22/2016 

1 am a forty year resident of Tenakee Springs and aHhough I supported ANSCA initially and I still 

support it today, I am totally apposed to S300413273ANSCA Improvement Act. 

This has issue been appealed, debated and litigated for decades and the justlfiCiltion for it has never 

been established. Passage of this act would be irresponsible and a disservice to the vast majority of 

your constituents. 

Please take a few minutas to read the report that follows. The facts embodied in this report are still 

the facts and it's conc:tusions are stil accurete. 

Sincerely, Samuel E. McBeen 

A Comprehensive Review of the ISER Report 

and 

A Summary of iu Findings 

By John Wisenbaugh. Tenakee Springs, June 2009 

In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA). ANSCA was intended to 

settle aboriginal claims of the native peoples of Alaska. ANSCA conveyed 44 million acres of land and $1 

billion to 13 n:gional corporations and over 200 village corporations. In Southeast Alaska, the regional 

corporation is Sealask.a. Ten villages \VCR: listed for village corporations. Two cities, Juneau and Sitka, were awarded urban corporations. Two towns appealed their being unlisted, Tenakee and Haines, to the Alaskan 

Native Claims Appeal Board. The Appeal Board ruled that the list of 10 villages was exclusive and could not be added to. Later Ketebilcan appealed and received the same rulins. Haines, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan (the "big four"} and Tenakee fonned a group called the Southeast Alaska ANSCA Land Acquisition 

Coalition (SAALAC). SAALAC began to lobby Congress for a study of why they \VCR: left out, with the 

intention to try to get the Act amended and get themselves included in the list of villages. SAALAC hoped to 

get language inserted in a bill that would authorize the study. (Appendix E, memo: Stole, Rives, Boley, Jones, and Grey, to SAALAC) They were successful, and in 1993 Congress directed the Department of Interior to study why the five communities (the Big Four and Tenakee) were left out of ANSCA, to find whether they were 

inadvertently overlooked or deliberately excluded, and report back to Congress. The Department of Interior 

tasked the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs with 

preparing the report. They in tum contracted with the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the 

University of Alaska. ISER was directed to research and report the factual information available on why they 

were omitted and compare the conununity's historical development and circumstances to other Southeast 

villages. In February 1994 ISER submitted to Congress what is now referred to as the ISER Report. 

Since 1994, the Alaska congressional delegation has introduced several bills to compensate the five 

SAALAC communities not eligible for village corporations in ANSCA. The most recent bill, S. 784, introduced 

by Lisa Murkowsld, ~gnized the Big Four and Tenakee as uncompensated and directed the establishment of 
647 


Insert graphic folio 728 here 22000A.604

five new urban cmporations, each receiving 23,000 acres of land and $650,000 cash. The congressional 

delegation has based these bills on an erroneous interpretation of the ISER Report, finding that these five 

communities were unrecognized, inadvertently overlooked, and uncompensated. This Summary will show that 

all three conclusions are patently false. 

ANSCA is the result of over 40 years of native claims, congressional action, litigation, and legislative 

debate. Many early bills preceding ANSCA were proposed but were judged unsuitable. All of the enrolled 

ANSCA Natives received some compensation, all Native residents were considered. Many places were 

eliminated if they did not fit the criteria Congress developed for inclusion in the bill. All Natives were 

recognized as members of Regional Corporations. Some were also able to participate in their village 

corporations. There were many different levels of compensation across Alaska and not all shared equally, nor 

did Congress intend that they should. 

I. Uncompensated. 

All Alaska native's enrolled under ANSCA received some level of compensation from the pool of$! 

billion and 44 million acres awarded by Congress ( pg.VII, para 3). The $1 billion ANSCA settlement fund was 

divided based on population, between the village, regional, and urban corporations (pg, 3 para 4) Southeast 

Alaska was treated differently in ANSCA from the rest of the State. A separate section, Section 16, listed 10 

villages eligible for village corporations. Section 16 did not contain any provision to appeal eligibility. 

determination, as did Section 11 for the rest of Alaska ( pg.VIII, Para 3). This would prove to be the reason 

Haines, Tenakee and Ketchikan's appeals were denied. The primary reason Southeast was treated differently 

was the passage of an earlier bill, The Tlingit and Haida Settlement Act. The legislation awarded $7.5 million 

and established The Tlingit and Haida Central Council to manage the funds. The Act was intended to 

extinguish aboriginal claims against the Federal Government. The Tlingit and Haida Settlement communities 

included the "big four" but not Tenakee (page IX, Table 1 ). Southeast was also treated differently because of 

the inunense value of its timberland. (page 91, para 4). Distribution of the I billion was through the Alaska 

Native Fund. Every enrollee, statewide, became a shareholder of their regional corporation. Eacb Southeast 

regional shareholder received I 00 shares of Sealaska Regional Corporation stock. Also, each village and urban 

corporation shareholder received 100 shares of village or urban corporation stock. Each shareholder statewide 

received a $1,000 initial payment, about eight percent of the fund. Forty-six percent of the fund, $6,000 for each 

shareholder, was distributed to the regional corporations, most of which, in Southeast, was paid out as a 

dividend. The remaining 46% of the fund, another $6,000 per shareholder, was paid to the village, regional and 

urban corporations. However, rather than paid directly to the individual village shareholders it was received 

lump sum to the village corp. The village corporation decided what to with the funds, some paid it out in 

dividends and others invested it.. Shareholders of the urban corporations and at-large members ofthe regional 

corporations received the payment directly (page 93, para 1-3). The ISER report does not give a dollar amount 

for the distributions to the at-large shareholders, but the information is found in Appendix D. As of 1214!93, 

Sealaska paid the at-large and urban shareholders $13,569.22 per one hundred shares. Seala•ka paid its 

shareholders that are also enrolled in village corporations, $5,!86.01 (Appendix D, letter: Review of Draft 

Report, Bob Loescher Ex. VP. Sealaska to Michael Barton, Regional Forester, USFS, page 4. Chapter 2, para 

2). 

Each Sealaska shareholder has an ownership interest in 17 acres of timberland and receives the direct 

financial return from 8 acres. The Sealaska shareholders will also receive a sbare of earnings from the 

subsurface mineral rights to all of the Southeast land conveyances, including the village corporation lands (page 

95 para!). While Seala~ka has ten times more land than any village or urban corporation (17 acres x 15,782 

shareholders= 268,000 acres) it has six times more members than the largest urban corporation Goldbelt 

(2,600) and one hundred and thirty one times more members than the smallest, Kaasan (120). Hence the at-large 

shareholders received overall, less money than village corporation members because of the inunense value of 

village corporation timberland and much smaller numbers of shareholders (Page 81, Table 6.1 ). The enrollees to 

the 5 study communities all received compensation under ANSCA. As at-large shareholders of Sealaska they 

received more money ftom Sealaska than did the village corporation members and continue to do so. 
648 


Insert graphic folio 729 here 22000A.605

11 Inadvertently Overlooked, Unrecognized 

The view that the five study communities, were either inadvertently overlooked or unrecognized is 

completely unfounded. ANSCA is the culmination of 40 plus years of aboriginal claims, litigation, legislation, 

debate and compromise. 

Chapter One of the ISER report is a discussion of the legal basis for congressional authority to settle 

aboriginal land claims (pages l-6). There is a large body oflaw concerned with Indian rights and treatment The 

court bas found that only Congress has the authority to settle aboriginal claims (page 1, para!). Bare aboriginal 

claims to land are not considered permanent property rights protected under the Constitution. Left without legal 

standing to sue for relief, most often claimants seek a legislative solution, choosing a political settlement. 

Congress did not intend to identify or award all lands claimed as aboriginal property. (US Congress 1971, ISER 

pg 2 para2) 

A short list of all the efforts to settle these claims include: 

• 1929 ANB/ANS Convention Haines, Alaska. Election ofdelegates to fonn a committee 

to pursue land claims at the urging of native attorney William Paul and Judge Wickersham 

(page 66, para 3) 

• 1936, May I. The Indian Reorganization Act was amended to allow Alaska natives to 

organize and fonn tribal governments 

• 1946. The Indian Claims Commission Act established a venue to hear aboriginal claims 

• As a result of litigation before the Claims Commission, Congress passed the Tlingit and 

Haida Settlement Acts of 1965, 1968 and 1970 

a Litigation: The Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska vs. United States (pg. 

3, para4) 

b. Award of$7.5 million to be managed by a new entity which became the Tlingit 

and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and established the Tlingit and Haida Central Council 

• Litigation: The Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska and Harry Douglas, et.al. vs. The 

United States (1968). The court found that The Tlingit and Haida Settlement Act did not 

extinguish all claims ofTiingit and Haida Indians of Alaska 

These decisions laid the foundation for Tlingit and Haida participation in ANSCA (pg 5 para 1 ). 

From 1969 to 1971 , a large number of bills were introduced in Congress and debated. There were at 

least six in the House and five in the Senate. Some versions listed the "big four". Some contained language to 

provide all unlisted communities a chance to prove able to meet the eligibility criteria and several did not (page 

17, para 2, page !6, para 2). That language, including Southeast villages was included in Senate Bill 35, the 

Senate ANSCA Bill, but it was not adopted in conference. As a result, Southeast villages had no standing to 

appeal their village status (appeal of Tenakee 1974, appeal of Haines 1974, appeal Ketchikan 1977, to the 

Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board, page 17, para 2). 

The main parties to the settlement, Department of the Interior, State of Alaska, and the Alaska natives 

could not agree on any of the proposed bills. In 1967, Governor Hickel proposed and caused to he created what 

became known as the Governor's Task Force. The Task Force parties eventually agreed to a settlement based on: 

• Fee simple transfer of 40 million acres of land in trust to corporations fanned under the 

laws of the State of Alaska 

• $20 million plus 9".4 state and federal royalties on outer continental shelf and state land 

development 

• Grant of state money based on 5% of revenue earnings from state selected federal lands 

and lifting the land freeze to allow the State to resume state selection of federal land under 

tbe Statehood Act 

• rugbts to use federal land for subsistence hunting and gathering. (Page 12, para 5) 

Congress spent the next four years defining this model (page 13, para one). 
649 


Insert graphic folio 730 here 22000A.606

• Powerful individuals in Congress insisted that natives in modem towns not receive land 

Land would be conveyed only to majority native small communities with subsistence lifestyle, 

HR 3100 (page 15, para one) 

• State concerns were based on fears of the potential divisiveness of conveying all vacant 

public land in and around the cities to a corporation controlled by a racially defined minority 

population (page 15, para three) 

Chapter 2 of the ISER Report, 16 pages, is a review of village eligibility criteria and how they were 

developed. Those criteria are relatively concise, containing three requirements. 

• Have a population greater than 25 on the date of the 1970 census, April I, 1970 

• Native population must be a majority of the community 

Community must be of other than urban or modem character 

The result in Southeast Alaska was a list of I 0 villages. The list could not be appealed or added to. The 

list did not include the "big four", Tenakee, Juneau or Sitka. The final House and Senate bills were refe;red to a 

conference committee for re-conciliation. 

There was a strong lobbying effort on the part of the "big four cities", Juneau, and Sitka for inclusion 

(page XI, criteria for urban corporation, bullet one) Senator Stevens was favorably inclined, but did not 

act. There was more vigorous lobbying of the conference committee, and someone, possibly Senator Stevens, 

introduced a new section to ANSCA. Section 14 created provisions for four new urban corporations that would 

receive land and money. The cities were Juneau, Sitka, Kodiak, and Kenai (page 18, para two). The sense of 

the committee was that there would be not more than these four cities (page XI, bullet 2). The State concerns 

were alleviated by giving Juneau and Sitka land remote from the cities (page 94, para 2, 3). 

The director of the Bureau oflndian affairs office in Juneau was given responsibility for making the 

village eligibility detetminations for tbe entire state, a village would be considered urban and modern and 

character if it possessed all six of these attributes. 

• Population over 600 

• Centralized water and sewer serving a majority of the residents 

• Five or more established businesses 

• Organized police and fire services 

• Private resident medical and dental services 

• Fully maintained streets and sidewalks 

All of the "big four" studies communities had these attributes. The "big four" are urban and modem and 

charncter as are Juneau and Sitka. They were recognized, considered and deliberately eliminated from village 

corporation eligibility. Juneau and Sitka, tben slipped in the back door. 

III. Tenakee Springs. 

Tenakee Springs is a much different community. Currently the population is 93 (State of Alaska 

database). The 1970 census population used for ANSCA was 86. The native population was 6. Table 4.2, pg. 

42, shows that none of those six enrolled to Tenakee. 

61 individuals enrolled to Tenakee. (Page 22, Table 4.2) 61 individuals were not enough to make a 

majority population of natives. Tenakee and Haines filed timely appeals with the Alaska Native Claims Appeal 

Board (page 22, para one). These appeals were denied because the board ruled that the list of lOvil!ages could 

not be added to (page 22,. pam 2). Congress did not include language in ANSCA., Section 16, to allow an 

appeal of village eligibility as it had for the remainder of the State in Section II (page 22, para 2-3). The 

Appeal Board therefore did not rule on the merits. It was the conclusion of the Sealaska attorney representing 

the Tenakee enrollees that if the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board had ruled on the merits, the decision 

would not change. Tenakee would not be eligible, because it was not a majority native community (appendix 

D., volume 2, Sealaska memo, 9/24/74, from D.J. Beighle, attorney to John Borbridge, President, Sealaska, 

page 2, para 2). The Tenakee enrollees accepted the decision as final and Sealaska distributed to the at-large 

shareholders stock and the initial payment on 12/12174, (appendix E volume 2, letter from the Tenakee enrollee, 

John Martin, to John Borbridge, President, Sealaska; Certified list of Tenakee enrollees in Sealaska). Thus 

began the effort, culminating in the ISER report. 
650 


Insert graphic folio 731 here 22000A.607

Chapter 4, 6 pages, compares population and enrollment numbers for the 10 ANSCA villages, two urban 

corporations and the five study communities. There is a rather glaring error in the population figures for 

Saxman. • Table 4.1, gives a total Saxman population as 135, non-native 36, native 99. But thengiv~ the 

percent native population as 27"1. when in fact it is 73%, and 27% non·uative. The error was carried 

through into the text on pages 40, VII, VIII. The error leaves the casual observer to conclude Saxman, 

Tenakee, and Kasaan all had minority native populations. 

• Table 4.2, gives the 1970 native population of Saxman as 135. 135 is the total1970 

population for Saxman from table 4.1. The actual listed native population was 99. 

• A useful statistic would have been the total population including all enrollees compared to the total enrollment, and the percent native population. This would show that of the towns not 

modem and urban and character Tenakee Is the only one with the enrolled native population a minority. Even so, page 44 reaches the conclusion that there is "a significant difference 

between Tenakee and the other small communities which became certified as native villages" 

(page 44, para 4). Population data on native populations for Tenakee is hard to find, little information is fuund in the ISER Report beyond population numbers for 1970. Several generalizations are made about the presence of a native village at the turn of the eentury, the growth of the native population from 1900 to 1930, and it's subsequent decline. In 

Appendix A., the history profiles from which the historical sketc~ in Chapter 5 are drawn, are listed the total 

deceunial populations for Tenakee, 1910 to 1980. But, without the ethnic breakout of native population 

numbers they are oflittle value. The author conflates the population increase and decrease as evidence of aboriginal migration. The population changes however also include whites, Asians, Filipinos and many from 

Scandinavia. (Appendix A., page 54, para 3). He mak~ a statement. "Nativ~ were the majority population 

through mid-century•. The only information backing this assertion is a statement from an unnamed 1950's 

census enumerator, who gives the 1946 population figures from memory. That person recalls a total population 

!53 of which 63% are native or 96 individuals. (96 is my calculation) Data from the archives of the Tenakee 

Historical Collection (THC) do not show a ml\iority native population after 1900. 

Data I could locate follows: 

Total Native % 

Year PoP Pop Native Source 

1900 17 14 82% US Census 

1910 125 17 US Census 

1920 185 16 US Census 

1930 210 !SER Appendix A. oall& 57 

1939 188 ISER Appendix A,oa!:Je 57 

Tenakee Postmaster, Enumeration for the 

1942 138 43 32% National Resources Planning Board 

1946 153 96 63% JSER Aooendix A oaae 57 

1950 140 ISER Aooendix A, oaae 57 

Tenakee Weekly Newsletter Christmas 

1956 149 69 46% Edition 

1958 101 20 20% ISER Appendix A;-Daae 57 

1960 109 ISER Aooendix A. oaae 57 

1967 125 30 24% ISER, oa 17. Footnote 16 Fed. Field reoort 

1970 86 6 7% US Census 

1980 138 ISER Aooendix A, P!l 57 

1990 94 9 10% State of Alaska Website, OCRA 

2000 104 3 5% State of Alaska Website, OCRA 
651 


Insert graphic folio 732 here 22000A.608

The population data show an influx of itinerant people of all sorts to work in businesses (seafood 

processing) established by predominately white males. As those businesses closed, employees and their 

families returned home or moved to the next job. The figures do not show there was ever a substantial (greater 

than 25) pennanent native population. 

Chapter 5 studies the history of occupation and use. Histories of the study communities are reviewed 

and compared to ANSCA communities using l 0 comparison criteria. ANSCA communities of similar size are 

used to demonstrate the similarities and differences. Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg are compared to 

Juneau and Sitka. Haines is compared to Craig, and Tenakee Springs, to Kasaan, population 30. Tenakee, with 

a population in 1970 of 86, is much closer in size to Saxman, population 135 and Klukwan, population 

103. Kasaan is the only ANSCA village with a majority non-native population, until the enrollee population is 

added in and then the Kasaan population is 144 and 84% native. (Table 4.1 and 4.2, page 40, 42) There is no 

doubt that there was early native use of Tenakee. There is no evidence in lSER that there were 25 or more 

people there at contact. The Chapter 5 TSER comparison demonstrates that the level of tribal or organized 

activity in Tenakee never reached the level of Kasaan or Saxman. 

The I 0 criteria comparison: 

• Traditional native settlements before the arrival of whites. 

Ed Snyder bought a load of general merchandise in Juneau 1899. He loaded it in his boat and rowed 

it to Tenakee, where he promptly sold it all. He returned with another loud and bought a piece efland 

from Andrew Jack Sr. head of the extended Tlingit family living near the bot springs. The 1900 Census 

enumerates 17 people in Tenakee. It is likely they are the 14 members of the Jack family, Ed Snyder, 

his partner Charles carlson, and one other white man. There is one traditional Tlingit communal house 

evident in early (1900-1905) photos. (Tenakee and the O'Toole's, US Census, THC; see note at 

end). Kasaan was one of the first Haida communities in Alaska. Perhaps the second-largest Haida 

community in the immediate pre-contact era. Early photos show several traditional communal houses, 

modem constmction houses, and totem poles. Saxman was a "new community" formed through the 

encouragement of the Presbyterian Church and the Territorial School Authorities in 1897. It was 

initially settled by the Cape Fox (Sanya) kwan. (Page 47, para 3) 

Indian occupancy of identifiable areas in early towns 

In Tenakee, there were natives living at the Hot Springs and some near what is now the harbor 

area. The Jacks and Walters eventually sold their holdings at the hot springs and moved to the 

harbor area. The harbor area was outside of the 1922 Town Site Survey, USS 1418. (Appendix A., 

page 53 para 3, pg. 55 para I). 

Old Kasaan was patented to a mining company in 1902. The village moved to nearby "new 

Kasaan." (Page 60, para 2, page 62 para 3. 

• Indian land excluded from the national forest. 

In Tenakee (USS 2459) was eliminated from the national forest by Executive Order of President 

Franklin Roosevelt. September 3, 1935 (Appendix A. page 54). 

In Kasaan USS 1896 was eliminated from the national forest in 1939. 

• Indian pos.~essions and native town site lands. 

In Tenakee, the Harbor area had six dwellings, four outbuildings, and several gardens (pgs 50, 

55). The elimination was never filed upon with the Bureau of Land Management for patent and 

subdivision. (Page 64, para,l,2). The population declined in the 40s and 50s. The last fumily left in 

1968. The ateahas been abandoned since then. {Author's conversation with Tenakee enrollee 

Donald See, early 1970's). 

In 1939, Kasaan's elimination was subdivided into five blocks, 45lots. In February of 1976 

Kasaan incorporated as a second-class city under state law. The last tract was subdivided in 1981, 

26 lots, (page 64, para l, 3) 
652 


Insert graphic folio 733 here 22000A.609

• Federal schools for Indians. 

All ANSCA communities bad federal Bureau of Education/Bureau of Indian Affairs schools as 

well as the "big four" and 13 others. Tenakee had a territorial school attended by all the children 

in town. 

• Church or missions serving Indians. . In Tenakee, native residents build a church on donated land, just east of the town center. Later 1t 

became the Salvation Army church and hall. It was active until 1950 when the Hall burned (pg. 

56). 

Kasaan and Saxman churches or missions are not discussed in ISER. 

• Alaska Native Brotherhood/ Alaska Native Sisterhood. 

Tenakee sent a delegate to the 1929 convention in Haines and had an active chapter Wllil 1950 

when the Salvation Army Hall burned (page 56). 

Kasaan and Saxman bad early active chapters, and still do. 

IRA organizations. 

In 1936, the Indian Reorganization Act was amended to include Alaska Natives. They were 

allowed to form village councils and incorporate. With the exception Yakutat, all the ANSCA 

communities, and the "big four" formed IRA governments. 

Tenakee did not. 

• Recognized in the Tlingit and Haida settlement and membership in the Tiingit and Haida Central 

Council. 

As discussed earlier, the 1968 settlement was the culmination of' almost 40 years effort to gain 

recognition of native claims. The act formed the Tlingit and Haida Central Council and awarded 

$7.5 million in 1971. All of the ANSCA villages, urban towns and the "big four" were Com1cil 

members with local chapters. Tenakee was not recognized and did not participate (page 36, para 

five). 

• Native cemeteries and gravesites, totem poles. 

Tenakee has 2 cemeteries near town and one across the inter on Strawberry Island. 

Kasaan has both gravesites (table 5.1) and totem poles (page 60, para 2). 

Tenakee Springs had some aboriginal use by a small group of natives at the turn of the century, and a 

native population that increased and decreased with rest of the population. If the population was ever a majority 

native, it was for only a few years. They bad a ANB/ANS chapter for a while, but did not 

fom1 a IRA Tribal Council, was not recognized in the Tiingit and Haida Settlement, did not have a Federal BIA 

School, and did not patent and subdivide the 1935 Tongass elimination. The level of organized village life in 

Tenakee Springs never reached the level of any of the recognized villages. Tenakee was recognized, 

considered, and eliminated. The 61 enrollees all received compensation as at-large shareholders ofSealaska 

Corporation. 

The intent of Congress and ANSCA was to fairly and equitably settle and extinguish for all time 

aboriginal land clainJs in Alaska. There was no part of Southeast Alaska that was not the dominion of one tribe 

or kwan or another. Probably the same held for the remainder of Alaska. Clearly, Congress was not going to 

return the entire state to the native population and Congress has broad discretion in how it will award 

compensation. Congress and ANSCA. did not intend that all natives should receive equal compensation. Land 

would be awarded to villages with a historic as well as present use. A majority native population of more than 

25 individuals who were living a Sl!bsistence lifestyle. I 0 villages in Southeast were listed, and many more 

were nol Natives in modern.urban cities, where aboriginal land was taken by those cities would be 

compensated with cash, not land entitlement ANSCA awarded 44 million acres ofland, and $1 billion to 

Alaska's native people. 
653 


Insert graphic folio 734 here 22000A.610

The five communities studied in the ISER report were clearly not inadvertently overlooked, 

unrecognized, nor were they wtcompensated. Natives enrolled to the modern urban "big four", Haines, 

Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan were compensated as at-large shareholders ofSealaska Regional 

Corporation. Tenakee Springs did not have sufficient current use and lacked a majority native population. The 

town was not listed. Those enrollees were also compensated as at-large shareholders of Scalaska. 

Note: 

The Tenakee Historical Collection (THC) is a small nonprofit corporation whose mission is to recover 

and preserve documents, pictuxes, and any information relating to the history of Tenakee Springs, 

Tenakee Inlet, and northeast Chichagoflsland. The collection is currently boxed up and in transition to 

a new facility at the Snyder Mercantile store location. The members hope to organize the records and 

open a small museum soon. It is hoped they will be able to offer for sale the splendid 125 page book of 

local history, Tenakee and the O'Tooles by Earl and Sharon Redman, as well as postcards and other 

souvenirs. Sharon's father was Dermott O'Toole, Ed Snyder's nephew. Dermott and his wife Dorie 

took over the operation of Snyder Mercantile in 1942. Tirey sold it to Sharon's brothers-in-law in 1979 

and the Pegues family operated the properties until2004, when they sold to outside interest From !899 

Ed Snyder and his descendents operated Snyder Mercantile and its associated businesses for 105 years. 

They left a rich legacy of papers, records, journals, and private letters. Many of these are currently held 

by the Tenakee Historical Collection and Earl and Sharon O'Toole Pegues Redman. 
654 


Insert graphic folio 735 here 22000A.611

The Methow Valley Citizens Council 

Board o(Directors 

Maggie Coon 

Chair 

Phi!Millam 

Vice Chair 

DeeAnn Kirkpatrick 

Secretary 

SteveKem 

Treasurer 

KariBown 

BobNaney 

Craig Olson 

John Olson 

Melanie Rowland 

George Wooten 

PO Box 774 

Twisp, WA 98856 

www.mvcitizens.org 

509 997 -0888 

TESTIMONY ON S. 2991- Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 (Senators Murray 

and Cantwell) 

September 21, 2016 

The Methow Valley Citizens Council (MVCC) is a citizen based organization in the 

Methow Valley whose mission is to "raise a strong community voice for protection of 

the Methow Valley's natural environment and rural character." We would like to go on 

record in support of S. 2991, sponsored by Senator Patty Murray and cosponsored by 

Senator Maria Cantwell. The withdrawal of 340,079 acres from mineral entry and 

exploration, as proposed in this bill, is a critically important step to protect the 

headwaters of the Methow River from the potential degradation which would result 

from large scale mining activity. 

MVCC has been deeply engaged in an effort to secure an administrative withdrawal of 

these lands in light of a recent proposal by the Canadian company, Blue River 

Resources, to pursue new exploratory drilling in the upper Methow Valley. An 

administrative mineral withdrawal would prevent establishment of new mining claims 

for up to 20 years. Given the urgency of the situation, we are calling upon the 

administration to take immediate action to initiate the withdrawal. We would like to 

seeS. 2991 advance in the legislative process simultaneously, to secure permanent 

protection for the lands in question. 

The Methow Headwaters Campaign brings together more than 1351ocal Methow Valley 

businesses, and a significant number of area residents, civic leaders and local, regional 

and national organizations concerned about the threat an industrial-scale copper mine poses to the region's 

economy, water resources and rural character. 

Nearly one million visitors come to the Methow Valley annually to enjoy the sun, snow, streams, wildlife and 

rural community, and they contribute more than $150 million annually into Okanogan County's economy. 

The upper Methow is also critical to salmon recovery, and more than $100 million has been invested in 

restoration and conservation efforts in the Methow Valley alone. 

We deeply appreciate the attention of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to this issue and 

look forward to seeing this legislation move forward. 

Maggie B. Coon 

Board Chair, Methow Valley Citizens Council 
655 


Insert graphic folio 736 here 22000A.612

February 14, 2016 

Secretary Sally Jewell 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Jim Peiia, Regional Forester 

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) 

U.S. Forest Service 

1220 SW 3ro Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-3440 

Chief Thomas Tidwell 

U.S. Forest Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-1111 

Mike Williams 

Forest Supervisor 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

215 Melody Lane 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Re: Business Community Support for Withdrawal of Land from Mineral Entry in the 

Headwaters of the Methow River in the North Cascades of Washington State 

Dear Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Peiia, and Supervisor Williams: 

We the undersigned business owners write to express our opposition to the exploratory 

drilling activities proposed on Flagg Mountain in the Methow Valley. We believe exploratory 

drilling and any industrial-scale mining will directly and negatively impact our local businesses 

and the overall economic health and well-being of the Valley. Instead, we urge you to 

immediately commence the process to withdraw this area from any further mineral entry in order 

to protect the many irreplaceable qualities of our Valley. 

Our local economy is dependent on the quality of our natural environment --clean air 

and water, pristine views, quiet sounds of nature, healthy fish and wildlife, and truly wild places. 

Our livelihoods and our families depend on the protection and enhancement of these assets; they 

are what make the Methow unique and worth protecting. 

The prospect of an industrial-scale mine on Flagg Mountain threatens the very values that 

are at the heart of our success as a community, including our economic health. 

Polluted waters, disturbed land, negative impacts on fish and wildlife, and noisy 

industrial activity could literally erase the very reasons many of our customers and employees 

have chosen to visit or relocate to the Methow. It could also threaten the foundation of our 

agricultural economy--clean and abundant water. Destruction of these assets will hurt our 

businesses and reduce the economic viability of our community as a whole. Moreover, these 

losses will extend beyond the Methow, affecting all of Okanogan County by threatening our 

amenity-driven property tax valuations, sales taxes, and hotel/motel taxes. 

As local business owners and citizens, we are very concerned about any action, now or in 

the future, that would negatively affect our natural resources, most notably the Methow River 
656 


Insert graphic folio 737 here 22000A.613

and its tributary streams and creeks. We ask you to protect the economic capital of the Valleyits natural resources and clean water-for current and future generations. 

Specifically, we respectfully ask that you use your administrative authority to 

immediately commence the process to withdraw Flagg Mountain and appropriate surrounding 

national forest lands in the Upper Methow Valley from mineral entry under the general mining 

laws in order to safeguard the natural environment of the Methow and support our strong legacy 

of conservation. 

Thank you for your consideration-and leadership--on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Hannah Cordes 

Aspen Grove 

Winthrop, WA 

Jake and Alexa Whipple 

Beaver Creek Well Services, LLC 

Winthrop, W A 

Sam Lucy 

Bluebird Grain Farms 

Winthrop, W A 

Jeff Brown 

Brown's Farm 

Winthrop, W A 

Brian and Amy Sweet 

Cascades Outdoor Store 

Winthrop, W A 

Katie Bristol 

Cinnamon Twisp Bakery 

Twisp, WA 

Dave Thomsen 

Coldwell Banker Winthrop Realty 

Winthrop, W A 

2 

Cathy Upper 

Backcountry Horsemen, Methow Chapter 

Winthrop, WA 

Larry Miller 

Big Picture Construction 

Winthrop, WA 

Meg and Dan Donohue 

Blue Star Coffee Roasters 

Twisp, WA 

Jeff Lyman 

Carlton General Store 

Carlton, WA 

Kathleen Jardin 

Central Reservations 

Winthrop, W A 

Dan and Sally Kuperberg 

Chewuch Inn 

Winthrop, W A 

Leia Hansen, Shiah Lints, Liam House-Doyle, 

Sol Gutierrez 

Copper Glance Restaurant and Bar 

Winthrop, W A 
657 


Insert graphic folio 738 here 22000A.614

Ann Diamond 

Country Clinic 

Winthrop, W A 

John Willett 

Deer Run Chalet 

Mazama 

Jonathan Baker 

Eqpd 

Twisp, WA 

Charlie Wright 

Freestone Inn 

Mazama, WA 

Garth Mudge and Barri Bernier 

Glassworks Studio and Gallery 

Winthrop, WA 

CB Thomas 

Goat's Beard Mountain Supplies 

Mazama, WA 

Howard Cherrington 

Integrated Design Concepts 

Twisp, WA 

Kellen Northcott 

Java Man Espresso Bar 

Winthrop, WA 

Bob Gamblin and L<>ri Loomis 

Lariat Coffee Roasters 

Winthrop, W A 

John Morgan and Liam Doyle 

Lost River Winery 

Winthrop, W A 

Bill Pope 

Mazama Country Inn 

Mazama, WA 

3 

Sara Ashford 

Culler Studio 

Twisp, WA 

Ryan Clement 

East 20 Pizza 

Winthrop, WA 

Dwight Filer 

Filer Plumbing 

Twisp, WA 

Kary Brennan 

Gathered Boutique 

Winthrop, W A 

Molly Patterson 

Glover Street Market 

Twisp, WA 

Kyle Northcott 

Hypnotherapy KAN 

Twisp, WA 

Katie Tucker 

Katie T's Cleaning 

Winthrop, WA 

Steve Kelly 

Kelly's at Wesola Polana 

Mazama, WA 

Jerry Laverty 

Laverty Construction 

Mazama, WA 

Sam Carlin 

Lucid Glassworks 

Twisp, WA 

Rick and Missy LeDuc 

Mazama Store 

Mazama, WA 
658 


Insert graphic folio 739 here 22000A.615

Joe Brown and Julie Muyllaert 

Methow Cycle and Sport 

Winthrop, W A 

Dolly Stahl 

Methow River Lodge 

Winthrop, WA 

Bill and Sandy Moody 

Methow Suites Bed and Breakfast 

Twisp, WA 

Don Portman 

Methow Valley Ski School 

Winthrop, WA 

Kurt & Melinda Oakley 

Morning Glory Balloons 

Winthrop, W A 

Alison Philbin 

Mt. Gardner Inn 

Winthrop, W A 

Patrick Hannigan 

Nice Nests 

Twisp, WA 

Steve and Kim Bondi 

North Cascades Basecamp 

Mazama, WA 

Rick Mills 

North Cascades Construction 

Mazama, WA 

Larry Goldie 

North Cascades Mountain Guides 

Mazama, WA 

Paul Butler 

North Cascade Heli-Skiing 

Mazama, WA 

4 

Jerry Merz 

Methow Metalworks 

Twisp, WA 

Leia Hansen and Shiah Lints 

Methow River Raft and Kayak 

Winthrop, WA 

Peter Morgan 

Methow Valley Inn 

Twisp, WA 

Rich Milsteadt 

Milsteadt Electric 

Winthrop, WA 

Shannon Fharnham 

Mountain Paws 

Winthrop, W A 

Leslie Lanthorn 

Nectar Skin Bar and Boutique 

Winthrop, W A 

Mark Waechter 

Nordic Ultratune 

Winthrop, W A 

Nick Allgood 

North Cascades Builders Supply 

Winthrop, W A 

Kevin VanBueren 

North Cascades Fly Fishing 

Winthrop, W A 

Audrey Jo Mills 

North Cascades Mountain Hostel 

Winthrop, W A 

PatNorwil 

Norwil Electric 

Twisp, WA 
659 


Insert graphic folio 740 here 22000A.616

Casey Ruud 

Old Schoolhouse Brewery 

Winthrop, W A 

Anna Kominak 

Pine Near RV Park & Campground 

Winthrop, W A 

Olivia Rose 

River Run Inn 

Winthrop, W A 

Michael Friedrich 

Rolling Huts & Methow Tents 

Mazama, WA 

Patrick and Kathryn Heim 

Rover's Ranch Dog Boarding 

Winthrop, W A 

John O'Keefe 

Smokejumper Aviation, LLC 

Winthrop, W A 

Bill Tackman 

Tackman's Surveying 

Winthrop, W A 

Jason Miller 

Tamarack Electric 

Winthrop, W A 

Lance Rider 

The Outdoorsman 

Winthrop, W A 

Dave Swenson 

The Wine Shed 

Winthrop, W A 

Tom and Lori Triplett 

Triple T Roofing 

Winthrop, W A 

5 

Jeff Patterson 

Patterson Company Design Build 

Winthrop, W A 

Ben and Virginia Nelson 

Rendezvous Huts 

Winthrop, W A 

Julianna Owens 

Riverside Ave Barber and Salon 

Winthrop, W A 

Steve Mitchell 

Rocking Horse Bakery 

Winthrop, W A 

John O'Keefe 

Sawtooth Dental 

Twisp, WA 

Brian Charlton 

Sun Mountain Lodge 

Winthrop, W A 

Chris Clark 

Tall Timber Design Build 

Mazama, WA 

Shawn Johnston 

The Iron Horse 

Winthrop, W A 

Anna Kominak 

The Wash Works 

Twisp, WA 

Vicki and Tom Miniajluk 

Timberline Meadows Nightly Rentals 

Mazama 

Denise Tompetrini 

Twisp River Inn 

Twisp, WA 
660 


Insert graphic folio 741 here 22000A.617

Katrina Auburn 

Twisp Feed and Rental 

Twisp, WA 

Aaron Studen 

Twisp River Pub 

Twisp, WA 

Don Auburn 

Twisp Small Engine Repair 

Twisp, WA 

Cathy and Eddy Layne 

Windy Valley Landscaping 

Winthrop, WA 

Jenna & Brett Kokes 

Winthrop Physical Therapy 

Winthrop, WA 

Joe Marver 

Twisp River Suites 

Twisp, WA 

Bob Monetta 

Windermere Realty Methow Valley 

Twisp, WA 

Gene Westlund 

Winthrop Inn 

Winthrop, WA 

Rita Kinney 

Winthrop Mountain Sports 

Winthrop, W A 

Mary Sharman 

Y atta Y atta Y atta Design 

Mazama, WA 

Cc: Senator Patty Murray, United States Senator 

Senator Maria Cantwell, United States Senator 

Representative Dan Newhouse, U.S. House of Representatives 

Tom Vi! sack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture 

Neil Kornze, Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Jerome E. Perez, Washington and Oregon Office, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Michael Liu, Methow Valley District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

6 
661 


Insert graphic folio 742 here 22000A.618

September 28, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear~i. 

1 am wrHing to express my support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

Legislation. I have spent the majority of my career working wHh and for Trust beneficiaries. 

have been a Trustee on the board of The Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority for the past six 

years and can assure you the organization has been working diligently through the process and 

has ensured extensive public participation. The Trust has made a commitment financially and in 

countless hours of personnel time to ensure the lands selected are mutually beneficial to the 

communities as well as to the Trust. I urge to you pass legislation allowing the Trust to fulfill its 

financial responsibility of supporling our most vulnerable populations in Alaska. 

Given that Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in history, legislation is the best option to 

complete the exchange in a timely fashion. In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 

grants to organizations in Southeast, totaling more than $3 million. Another 323 Trust 

beneficiaries in Southeast have been awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over 

$482,000. We need to ensure that the Trust can continue to provide revenue for 

comprehensive, integrated mental hea~h services in Alaska today and into the future. 

The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

• Protects popular trails, viewsheds, and iconic recreational sHes along the Inside 

Passage 

• Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

• Preserves old growth timber stands in the forest 

• Ensures jobs stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber and tourism 

industries 

• Protects mental health services by providing revenue to support the Trust's mission 

Without legislation we are pulling our communities at risk. 

• If the Trust cannot generate revenue in a timely fashion. we jeopardize our mental health 

services. 

I know first hand the importance of the Trust's advocacy efforts and financial support on behalf 

of beneficiaries across the state. I also know how important preserving the beauty and 

economic vitality of Southeast communities. This is a win-win solution that having a lasting I 

impactonAiaska. ,JV' +.if • 

~~tt;r& ~1~/Y)~o~ {o~-~r~ 
662 


Insert graphic folio 743 here 22000A.619

~ MININGMINNESOTK 

September 21 , 20 16 

The Honorable Senator Lisa Murkowski 

laJPON.tW ... OIYILOIItiiiNT I{NATD&AJ.ItPOU&CU 

Chair, U.S. Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Via E-mail: Darla Ripchensky@energv.senate.gov 

RE: Testimony Submitted in Support ofS. 437, "Improved National Monument Designation 

Process Act" 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

MiningMinnesota respectfully submits the following testimony to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee in support ofS. 437, the "Improved National Monument Designation Process Act." 

I request that this testimony and accompanying documents be included in the Committee's record for its 

September 22, 2016, hearing on S. 437. MiningMinnesota is an industrial trade organization made up of 

all nonferrous exploration and mineral development companies in Minnesota, along with approximately 

I 00 supplier and vendor businesses, all committed to sustainable and environmentally responsible coppernickel and PGM mineral development and mining in Minnesota. 

MiningMinnesota applauds your leadership on S. 437 and strongly supports the legislation's common 

sense reforms to the Antiquities Act of 1906. Given the significant impact national monument 

designations can have on the economic futures of states, communities and working families, it only makes 

sense that Congress and affected state legislatures should have greater roles in assessing and approving 

Antiquities Act proposals put forth by a President. Further, requiring Antiquities Act proposals to be 

comprehensively reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), just as is required of all 

other significant federal actions affecting land use, is a long-overdue policy change that would open the 

door to greater transparency in the process of considering monument designations, and provide affected 

communities and citizens greater opportunity for review of such proposals and informed input. 

For nearly two years, the communities and working families of the Iron Range region of northeast 

Minnesota have been facing the threat of an Antiquities Act designation that would be devastating to 

future economic growth, job creation and the development of environmentally-responsible mining 

projects. Anti-mining organizations from outside the region have petitioned the Obama Administration 

seeking a monument designation that would remove all federally-owned minerals within the I 1,000+ 

square mile Rainy River Basin from future exploration and development. The Rainy River Basin contains 

millions of acres of valuable federal, state, and privately-owned minerals, and environmentallyresponsible mining is currently allowed and encouraged in the majority of the Basin area under both state 

and federal law. The withdrawal of federal minerals within the Basin from future leasing and 

development would provide no environmental benefits and would be devastating to the region's and the 

state's economy. To their great credit, your congressional colleagues representing Minnesota- Senator 
663 


Insert graphic folio 744 here 22000A.620

Amy Klobuchar, Senator AI Franken and the region's Congressman Rick Nolan (MN-8'h)- have all 

expressed opposition to withdrawing federal minerals within the Basin from future development 

In closely monitoring this issue, researching documents obtained under FOIA, and discussing with federal 

agencies, it is clear the Obama Administration is giving serious consideration to the Antiquities Act 

request. Unfortunately, the Administration has not provided public information on the status of its 

consideration, nor has the Administration sought the input of affected communities and citizens, elected 

leaders, economic experts, or other key stakeholders. If the reforms contained inS. 437 were in law today, 

the process of considering this Antiquities Act proposal would be far more transparent, and the citizens 

and communities of northeast Minnesota would have greater opportunities to express their opinions on 

their economic future. 

In addition to this testimony, I am submitting three documents for the record related to the Antiquities Act 

issue in Minnesota. (Note: The anti-mining proposal for withdrawal of federal minerals within the Rainy 

River Basin is also embodied in congressional legislation (H.R. 1796 & H.R. 2072) introduced by Cong. 

Betty McCollum (MN-4'h) in early 2015. The submitted documents reference that legislation, but are also 

applicable to an Antiquities Act designation.) 

I. April 2015 letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the Iron Range state legislative delegation 

opposing withdrawal of federal minerals in northeast Minnesota. This letter was also submitted 

to other members of the Minnesota congressional delegation. 

2. April 2015 letter to all members of the Minnesota congressional delegation from Jobs for 

Minnesotans ("Jobs") opposing withdrawal offederal minerals in northeast Minnesota. "Jobs" is 

a coalition of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Building and 

Construction Trades formed to support development of the non-ferrous mining industry in the 

state. 

3. April 2016 letter and resolution submitted to the Minnesota congressional delegation from the 

Range Area Municipalities and Schools (RAMS) opposing withdrawal of federal minerals in 

northeast Minnesota. "RAMS" represents municipalities, school districts and more than 72,000 

residents in northeast Minnesota's "Taconite Assistance Area" where iron ore and taconite 

mining has been occurring since 1884. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this important issue, and for the committee's consideration of this 

testimony. 

Sincerely, ?Pr 

Frank Ongaro 

Executive Director 

MiningMinnesota 

P.O. Box 16666 

Duluth, MN 55816 

Phone: (218) 393-230 I 

fongaro@miningminnesota.com 

www.miningminnesota.com 

2 
664 


Insert graphic folio 745 here 22000A.621

Tom Anzelc State Representative 

District 58 

Cass & Itasca Counties 

April16, 2015 

The Honorable Amy Klobuchar 

U. S. Senator 

302 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

COMMITIEES: EDUCATION FINANCE 

MINING AND OUTDOOR RECREATION POLICY 

TAXES 

Minnesota 

House of 

Representatives 

RE: Federal Mineral Withdrawal and Future Lease Prohibition in Rainy River Watershed 

Dear Senator Klobuchar: 

As members of the Iron Range Delegation (IRD), we are writing to you because anti-mining groups are 

requesting the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Interior to have federally-owned minerals withdrawn 

from lease, exploration and development within the Rainy River Watershed. Any withdrawal of federal 

minerals would he devastating to Minnesota's future economy, and would provide no additional 

protection of water quality in that watershed. While the specific scope of this request is currently 

unknown, it clearly gives us great concern and is something that should be strongly opposed. 

As you know, copper-nickel mining will provide thousands of construction and long-term mining jobs, 

thousands of spin-off jobs, and billions of dollars in new investment and economic growth. This is a 

tremendous opportunity for both the region and the state. A withdrawal of federal minerals will do 

nothing but delay and possibly prevent this economic opportunity from occurring. 

Mining is not new to the Rainy River watershed. There are currently two iron ore mine operations in the 

Minnesota part of the watershed. In addition, the State of Minnesota has over I ,000,000 acres of School 

Trust Fuud lands within the Rainy River Watershed. Included are 100 metallic mineral leases, covering 

over 32,000 acres, a majority of which are School Tmst acres. 

Similar to the recently rejected PElS proposal to evaluate mining in the Superior National Forest, a 

proposal to withdraw federal minerals is not necessary or appropriate, would be an inefficient usc of 

federal resources, does not contribute to the public interest, would be detrimental to bringing jobs to 

Mhmesota, and would not provide any additional protection of water quality in the watershed. 

We support strong environmental standards, and we continue to strongly support the rigorous and 

thorough environmental review of any and all proposed mining projects. All proposed mining projects 

including any that may be proposed in the Rainy River watershed will he subject to this thorough and 

rigorous environmental review under NEP A and associated state processes. Through these processes, 

state and federal regulatory agencies must find that proposed projects can meet stringent and 

comprehensive environmental standards before issuing permits for construction and operation. 

44205 Burrows Lake Lane, Balsam Township, Minnesota 55709 

State Office Building 100 Rey Or Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul Minnesota 55155-1298 651·296-4936 Emaif: repJom.anze1c@house_mn 

@ 1-800-336-9124 
665 


Insert graphic folio 746 here 22000A.622

Aprill6, 2015 

Page Two 

In addition, protections are already in place. The BWCA W is already protected from mining, and the 

State of Minnesota also prohibits mining in certain areas surrounding the BWCA W. 

In conclusion, a withdrawal of federal minerals would be an unnecessary and costly government endeavor 

that would not protect water quality. A withdrawal would, however, negatively impact northern 

Minnesota communities and the entire state. By making it extremely difficult if not impossible to propose 

a mining project, a withdrawal would eliminale the ability to generate more than $2 billion for the 

Permanent School Trust Fund (MN DNR estimate), as well as other economic development in the Region. 

We urge you to work with the US DOl and ask them to reject any call for a withdrawal of federal 

minerals or additional restrictions on current and future federal mineral leases. 

~cerely/J 

/lrh :/h1aiL 

Tom Anzelc, clair,~ State Representative 

~~ State Representative 

~K~ Dale Lueck, IRD 

State Senator 

~~ 

David Dill, IRD 

State Representative 

~.~~ State Representative 

{).rAJ -

~~ State Senator 
666 


Insert graphic folio 747 here 22000A.623

MINNESOTANS 

IIIIA!m OF I!IMCl'OIIII 

Nancyllorr 

Chair 

Minnes.oti!l Paw:er, an 

ALLETtCompa!Tf 

K\!leMaltarlos 

Vit.t'H;hak 

North llenlrol Stoles 

Regional Coo.ndtof 

Carpan!e!$ 

.klnnlferllyers 

S.c"""ry/T""""""" 

Minnes.ota Chamber of 

Commerce 

Harry Molander 

M-innesota Building and 

Construction Trades 

Coundt 

BllllltaZar 

Minnesota Chamber of 

Commerce 

Jason George lnternationat Union of 

Doug connell Barr Engineeri-ng Company 

!Irian HaiiSOII 

Area Partnership for 

Economic Expansion 

LoryFedo 

Hibbing Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

Dave Llsluganl 

CityofAUJ'Otaand 

lakehead Coostruc:tors 

Russell Halls 

labo"'"' Oistrkt Council of Minnesota 

arn:lllorthOaltota 

CQ.flllliii!SI!S 

Da'lidOloon 

Minnesota Chamber of 

Commerce 

Harry Melander Minnesota Building and 

Construction Trades 

Council 

April17, 2015 

To the Minnesota Delegation: 

I am writing on behalf of Jobs for Minnesotans, a coalition co-founded by the Minnesota Building 

and Construction Trades Council and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, and strengthened 

by community leaders and businesses from across the state. Together we represent 55,000 

men and women of the trades, 2,300 businesses and hundreds more mayors, local chambers of 

commerce and citizens who support Minnesota's mining future. 

Collectively, from the Iron Range communities around Ely to the southern reaches of Austin and 

Fairmont, our coalition speaks for the thousands of people who believe in the opportunity to 

mine minerals and produce the materials essential to our quality of life. We are proud of the iron 

mining heritage that has supported generations of families and produced hundreds of millions of 

tax revenue dollars and generated billions of dollars of economic activity for this great state. 

Jobs for Minnesotans is equally passionate about a new era of mining in copper, nickel and 

other strategic metals that represents an even greater economic opportunity. These metals are 

critical to clean energy technologies, medica! devices, defense industry applications and 

electronic devices- everything we use in our daily Jives. 

Congresswoman Betty McCollum's National Park and Wilderness Waters Protection Act 

presumes state and federal regulations are not sufficient to protect our natural environment It 

implies regulators are not capable of working with industry and the numerous stakeholders to 

thoroughly review mining plans in a fully transparent manner that addresses all environmental 

concerns. This bill in fact concludes that mining will no longer be a lawful activity in a state with 

some of the most stringent environmental protections that exist. Northeastern Minnesota holds 

the greatest promise to provide our nation's domestic supply for metals needed in all areas of 

our economy. Let's stop relying on foreign countries wlth low environmental standards and poor 

labor safety laws to meet our demand. Let's do it here, let's do lt right. 

Jobs for Minnesotans adamantly rejects the false argument that we must choose between jobs 

and the environment. We trust the regulatory process and our state and federal regulators to 

protect everyone who enjoys the beauty of the BWCA and consider it a national treasure, 

including the people who make their living from the mining industry. We applaud Rep. Rick 

Nolan, who is truly the voice of the people who make their homes and livings in northern 

Minnesota, for his long-standing support of mining and the wilderness. Please join him in telling 

your colleagues in Congress and President Obama that the McCollum legislation is 

unwarranted and ultimately destructive to our state and national economy, as well as the 

livelihood of thousands of Minnesotans. 

Sincerely, 

Nancy Norr 

Chair, Jobs for Minnesotans 

Director, Regional Development, Minnesota Power, an ALLETE Company 

nnorr@mnpower.com 

218.723.3905 
667 


Insert graphic folio 748 here 22000A.624

-

range association 

of municipalities and schools 

5525 Emerald Avenue · Mountain Iron, MN 55768 

Phone: 218.780.8877 ·Email: SGiorgi@ramsmn.org 

RAMS (Range Association of Municipalities & Schools) is an organization formed In 1939 to represent and protect the 

assets and integrity of communities, school districts and townships in northeastern Minnesota. Banding together, the 

people of the Iron Range have a stronger voice and presence at the legislature and are more effective combining efforts 

on issues of regional importance. The service area for RAMS is known as the Taconite Assistance Area (TAA) a 

geographical region encompassing approximately 13,000 square miles that stretches from Crosby, Minnesota across the 

state's Cuyuna, Mesabi, and Vermilion iron ranges, along the Duluth Complex to the North Shore of lake Superior. The 

membership of RAMS currently Includes 47 public sector units of government including 9 townships, 23 cities and alllS 

public school districts in the TAA, representing over 72,000 residents. Our motto Is-"One Range -One Voice. • 

ECONOMIC INSTABIUTY AND POTENTIA!.; 

In 13out of the past 15 years, the TAA has endured the highest unemployment rate In all of Minnesota. Since the year 

2000 out of 20 different employment sectors found in the TAA and In all of Minnesota, 14 of those 20 employment 

sectors declined. For the rest of Minnesota only 6 sectors saw a decline. Since the year 2000 employment growth and 

decline were worse In the TAA than the rest of the state. Currently over 4200 mine workers or supplemental mine 

service workers are unemployed and many of them are nearing exhaustion of their unemployment benefits. 

The projected economic impact to northeastern Minnesota from base and precious metal mining projects, based on 

studies conducted by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, indicates the creation of more than SOOO jobs related to 

mining operations,l2,000 jobs related to mining construction, $1.5 billion In annual wages and more than $2.5 billion in 

annual economic production. Any and all of these projects would first have to meet the highest regulatory and 

permitting standards in the world as determined by our state and federal regulatory agencies. Active base and metal 

mining projects have already invested over $500 million during the past 10 years In exploration, mine planning and 

environmental review. in a time when our national security interests are threatened, this region's abundant iron and 

strategic minerals can protect us against foreign governments' control of global suppfles and assure long term access to 

domestic sources. Copper, nickel and iron are not only essential for homeland security, they are the building blocks of a 

clean energy economy, powering hybrid vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels. Our quality of life and national 

economic prosperity depend on economic sources of these metals. 

OPPQSIT!ON TO H.R.1796 I 2072: 

The withdrawal of federal minerals in the Rainy River Watershed Basin (Basin) as proposed in this legislation would 

prohibit the development of nearly all potential mining proposals, circumventing the well-established National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPAl and Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) environmental review and 

public input processes. Mining Is already prohibited within the boundaries and buffers of the Boundary Waters Canoe 

Area and the Voyageurs National Park. No further prohibitions or restriction on granting of state or federal land leases 

are necessary. The Impact on the future economic growth of the TAA would be significantly limited and compound an 

already challenging economy for many Range communities, schools and families. With no environmental benefits, the 

primary Impact of withdrawing the Basin's federal minerals would be to prohibit nearly all potential future mining 

projects within the Basin • whether Involving federal, state or privately-owned minerals - with corresponding devastating 

economic consequences across the Iron Range and throughout northern Minnesota. 

In March of this year Governor Mark Dayton communicated with the Director of the Bureau of land Management (BLM) 

that he was opposed to mineral mining in "close proximity" to the BWCAW. In a meeting with Governor Dayton on April 

1, 2016, he admitted that he had no scientific basis for his position. This area is already protected by a buffer zone 

created by the BWCA Wilderness Act. Federal and state restrictions already are in place to protect and preserve the 

'One Range ... One Voice" 
668 


Insert graphic folio 749 here 22000A.625

area. Hear our voices, those of us who live and work in the TAA, we do not support H.R. 1796 & 2072, and we do not 

support any restriction on issuing federal land leases for the continued exploration of mineral mining in the Basin. 

REGULATORY PROCESSES ALREADY EXIST: 

As already stated, both the United States and the State of Minnesota have the highest environmental standards in place 

for any environmentally sensitive endeavor. These laws address the entire mining process from obtaining exploration 

drilling permits, to mine plan environmental review, through operational phases and ultimately mine closure. Permitting 

and licensing of any mineral mining operations require thousands of hours of rigorous examination to demonstrate the 

technology, finances and processes to meet the standards established by both state and federal regulatory agencies, 

including the US Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Granting state 

and federal land leases to allow companies to explore, develop and determine the feasibility of a potential mine 

operation is necessary and provided for in state and federallaw.(Wildemess Act of 1964) (BWCAW Act of 1978). We 

support the existing regulatory process and believe in its transparency and rigor. 

MINNESOTA PERMANENT SCHOOL TRUST FUND: 

The Minnesota Permanent School Trust Fund established in 1858 by President Abraham Uncoln, entitled the state of 

Minnesota with a large land grant from the federal government. The Intent of this grant and the act was to provide a 

long term source of funds for public education in our state. Today, Minnesota owns 2.5 million acres of school trust land 

of which nearly 1.3 million acres is located within the Rainy River Watershed Basin. Studies have indicated that there is 

a potential of $2.5 billion dollars that would be generated for the Permanent School Trust in a ten year period as a result 

of base and precious metal mining in the TAA. The loss of this revenue and the challenge for the MN Dept. of Natural 

Resources which administers and determines how to best secure" long term economic returns" on the trust fund lands 

would be a catastrophic financial loss to generations of school age children in Minnesota as well as to the University of 

Minnesota. 

RAMS AND RANGE OFFICIALS REQUESI: 

Governor Dayton has publicly stated that he contacted the Director of the Bureau of land Management and voiced his 

request that federal land leases be denied for the purposes of mineral mining in the "close proximity" of the BWCA. The 

people we represent in the I M, in our local communities of the eastern Iron Range, Babbitt, Ely Aurora and Hoyt Lakes 

want our federal delegation and the agencies that are engaged in mineral leases and mining developments to know and 

hear, loud and clear, we do not agree with the Governor. We leave you with our sincere request to follow the process 

that has been afforded other mineral mining explorations and developments on federal land leases and please recogni•e 

the thousands of voices from northeastern Minnesota that stand in support of not changing the rules in midstream on 

current potential mineral mining projects. 

The Governor does not speak for our 72,000 Iron Range citizens on this issue. We ask that any and all precious mineral 

mining companies be given a fair and equal opportunity to secure necessary land leases, submit to the permitting and 

environmental review processes already in place and that a fair and objective assessment be afforded those who apply 

for it. 

Respectfully submitted by: 

Steve Giorgi- Executive Director, RAMS 

Mayor Chuck Novak- City of Ely 

Mayor Mark Skelton - aty of Hoyt Lakes 

Mayor Andrea Zupancich-City of Babbitt 

Nancy Norr, Director- Regional Development, Minnesota Power 

Dave Lislegard - City of Aurora 

Check us out at: http.//lmw.ramsmn.org 
669 


Insert graphic folio 750 here 22000A.626

RESOLUTION 03·2016- OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL BILL H.R. 2072 

CONGRESSWOMAN BETTY MCCOLLUM'S - "NATIONAL PARK & WILDERNESS WATERS 

PROTECTION FOREVER ACT" 

WHEREAS, the Range Association of Municipalities & Schools (RAMS) represents over 72,000 residents who 

cell the Taconite Assistance Area (TAA) their home and where iron ore and taconite mining has been occurring 

since 1884 (Soudan underground mine)without any significant environmental catastrophes, and 

WHEREAS, the families and workers who have mined minerals in this region for over 130 years take great 

pride in our history of mining, technology advancements, and have helped forge an identity as a "global mining 

center of excellence", and 

WHEREAS, Minnesota has some of the most stringent environmental standards, permitting and monitoring 

requirements required of every mining operation regardless of the mineral being mined, and 

WHEREAS, Minnesota has some of the richest mineral deposits found anywhere in the world and those 

minerals have proven to be instrumental in helping our country win two world wars and are still critical to our 

national defense, as well as for uses in the health industry, and technology industries and used in everyday 

applications by millions of people around the globe, and 

WHEREAS, Minnesota has a mineral policy (MN Statute 93.001) that states; "It is the policy of the state to 

provide for the diversification of the state's mineral economy through long-term support of mineral exploration, 

evaluation, environmental research, development production and commercialization", and 

WHEREAS, the Minnesota legislature has adapted the "Goal of the Permanent School Fund" (MN Statute 

127A.31) which states; "The legislature intends that it is the goal of the permanent school fund to secure the 

maximum long-term economic return from the school trust lands consistent with the fiduciary responsibilities 

imposed by the trust relationship established in the Minnesota Constitution, with sound natural resource 

conservation and management principles, and with other specific policy provided in state law", and 

WHEREAS, H.R. 2072 requires the Federal government to withdraw all Federal land within the Rainy River 

Drainage Basin in Minnesota from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, 

location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and operation of the mineral leasing laws, and for other 

purposes, and 

WHEREAS, the Rainy River Drainage Basin encompasses 11 ,244 square miles in Minnesota that includes an 

estimated 1.3 million acres of state School Trust Fund minerals, and 

WHEREAS, studies conducted by the University of Minnesota Duluth has projected that mineral mining in the 

Rainy River Drainage Basin could contribute upwards of $2.5 billion dollars after 1 o years of mining operations 

to the stale School Trust Fund, thereby providing an incredible increase in the fund and annual allotments to 

our school districts and the University of Minnesota, and 
670 


Insert graphic folio 751 here 22000A.627

WHEREAS, the economic impact to the Iron Range has been estimated at $1.5 billion in annual wages with 

nearly 5 .ooo jobs created and over 1 2 ,ooo construction jobs provided prior to mining operations, and 

WHEREAS, science and technology are constantly improving the mining of base and precious metals and all 

environmental standards, permits, and quality control as well as mine reclamation and performance bonds will 

be adhered to by any and all new mining operations in the Rainy River Drainage Basin, therefore 

BE IT RESOLVED, the RAMS board of directors does not support the passage of H.R. 2072 as written, and 

does stand in support of the allowance of base mineral mining in the Rainy River Drainage Basin in conjunction 

with existing permitting, environmental review processes, operation mine monitoring and compliance as well as 

the issuance of reclamation and performance bonds that will assure the protection of our precious natural 

resources as well as the back yards of the residents of this remarkable region known as northeastern 

Minnesota. 

Paul Kess, President Pat Medure, Secretary - Treasurer 

Approved by the board on a unanimous vote April 28, 2016 
671 


Insert graphic folio 004 here 22000A.628

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: 53004/3273 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act; 9/22/2016 -

From: Stan 

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:48 PM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <f,>ritL~f!~'9'IftJil'9n!2IKV'''Jc'\5?"gp•p 

Subject: S3004/3273 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act; 9/22/2016-

I Jive in Tenakee Springs, Alaska and I oppose the transfer of any of our public lands to the for-profit 

corporations S3004/3273 would provide. 

S3004/3273, Section I 0, would allow a for-profit corporation to select lands anywhere in Tenakee Inlet, even 

watersheds (Kadashan and Trap Bay) that were guaranteed permanent protection by the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act of 1990. 

Our community's stability and health depends on the salmon that spawn and rear in Tongass watersheds- for 

food for those that subsistence fish, for the livelihood of the numerous commercial fishermen that live here, and 

for the tourists and sportsmen drawn here by the abundant fishing, viewing and hunting opportunities.-the City 

of Tenakee Springs, CCC, and Tenakee Springs residents have called for watershed -scale protection of these 

irreplaceable salmons streams for more than 40 years. 

Tenakee is classified as "rural" for subsistence purposes, but this bill would establish an "urban" 

corporation. Tenakee Springs can not be rural and urban at the same time, and we oppose anything that would 

cloud our community's subsistence standing. 

I acknowledge & respect the connection of Alaska Native people to their regional home, it is not appropriate or 

desirable to establish a new corporation in Tenakee Springs or to withdraw lands from the Tongass National 

Forest whereupon much of it would be clearcut. Opposition to establishing a new corporation in Tenakee 

Springs ,or any attempt to privatize the Tongass Forest, does not diminish my respect and admiration for 

traditional Native cultnre and values. 

I am also concerned that the bill, Section I 0, does not provide any maps showing potential areas to be 

transferred. Nor does not identify the beneficiaries of the proposed new corporations. And it does not provide 

for any public process in land selection or transfer. 

This legislation should not pass! 

Sincerely, 

Stan Moberly 

606 E. Tenakee Ave. 

Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 USA 
672 


Insert graphic folio 754 here 22000A.630

September 21, 2016 

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Chairman Murkowski 

Ranking Member Cantwell 

Testimony of Peter Wallstrom, Owner of Momentum River Expeditions 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

S. 346 Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this letter of support for S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon 

Protection Act of 2015. This bill would protect nearly 100 miles of pristine streams and rivers from the potential impacts of 

industrial strip mining. My business, based in southwest Oregon, depends on healthy rivers in this region. 

Over the past year, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management sought input on a temporary administrative 

withdrawal for this area. My business joined with over 160 other local and regional businesses that endorsed the 

administrative effort to protect the Smith and Illinois Rivers and Hunter Creek from the proposed nickel strip mining. These 

businesses include many guides and outfitters, but also farms, local retailers, and breweries. 

Tourism, recreation and related business ventures are a growing industry and asset to the Southern Oregon and Northern 

California Coast, as well as the interior Illinois and Rogue River Valleys. Businesses, like mine, depend on clean water 

and the scenery that draw people to the region. The communities that surround the Smith and Illinois Rivers and Hunter 

Creek have so much to gain from healthy, protected waters. Investment in sustainable industries and community 

infrastructure will add to the attractiveness of the region bringing new businesses and residents alike. With repeated threat 

of destructive nickel strip mining, these natural treasures and related local industries of southwest Oregon are 

endangered. 

The high quality of life attracts new residents, and creates jobs that strengthen our small businesses and local 

communities. Please protect the headwaters of the Smith and Illinois Rivers and Hunter Creek and support the 

community's efforts in promoting sustainable economic development in Southwest Oregon's Wild Rivers Country. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Wallstrom 

Digita11y>ignedbyPeterWall>trom 

, DN:.cnoePeterWall>trom,o.ou, 

emailoopptewalistrom@yahoo.com, 

<±1/S 

Date:2016.09.2016:18:14·07'00' 
673 


Insert graphic folio 755 here 22000A.631

December 7, 2015 

Secretary Sally Jewell 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Jim Peiia, Regional Forester 

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) 

U.S. Forest Service 

1220 SW 3'd Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-3440 

Robert Monetta and Delene Monetta 

Windermere Real Estate- Methow Valley 

313 E. Highway20Box 1088 

Twisp, W A 98856 

Chief Thomas Tidwell 

U.S. Forest Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-1111 

Mike Williams 

Forest Supervisor 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

215 Melody Lane 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Re: Letter of Support to Withdrawal Lands from Mineral Entry in the Headwaters of the 

Methow River in the North Cascades of Washington State 

Dear Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Pefia, and Supervisor Williams: 

As residents and business owner in the Methow Valley, we are writing to express our 

support for protecting the Upper Methow Valley in the North Cascades from industrial-scale 

mining by withdrawing the lands in the upper valley from mineral entry and exploration. Bob has 

lived and worked in the Methow for more than 30 years. He moved here at the age of 19, in 

search for recreation opportunities and a high quality oflife. Since then he has lived everywhere 

from the orchards of Squaw Creek near Pateros to the recreation mecca of Mazama. Delene is a 

lifelong residence of Mazama, returning back to the Methow Valley after College, where 

together they have raised their family to appreciate the beauty and recreation of the Methow 

Valley. 

As Realtors in the Methow Valley, we enjoy showing the wonderful places here to clients 

that will move to and invest in the Methow. Because of the high quality of life here, the Methow 

sells itself-people want to move here because of the sense of community, the natural beauty of 

the landscape, the close-to-home recreational opportunities, and more. Over the years, there has 

been a monumental effort by new and old residents to maintain the high quality experience 

through well thought out land use planning and environmental engineering that represent the 

cutting edge of environmentally minded mountain communities. 

The number one reason our clients invest here is the high quality environment, an 

industrial-scale mine will threaten this, and there is no doubt. Mining on Flagg Mountain would 

certainly threaten the entire Methow Valley. It would also threaten the water, wildlife, access to 

recreation, scenic views, and more--these natural assets .are the foundation of our local 
674 


Insert graphic folio 756 here 22000A.632

economy. Destruction of these assets will hurt our businesses and reduce the economic viability 

of our community as a whole. Moreover, these losses will extend beyond the Methow, affecting 

all of Okanogan County by threatening our amenity-driven property tax valuations, sales taxes, 

and hotel/motel taxes. 

The prospect of an industrial-scale mine on Flagg Mountain threatens the very values that 

are at the heart of our success as a community, including our economic health. This activity is 

simply incompatible with the economic well-being of our valley and our community. It would 

directly and negatively impact business interests which are strongly oriented toward sustaining 

our local population and welcoming visitors from far and wide to enjoy the natural beauty of this 

place. 

We ask you, Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Pefia, and Supervisor 

Williams, to work together and move quickly and initiate the process to administratively 

withdraw Flagg Mountain and appropriate surrounding national forest lands in the Upper 

Methow Valley from mineral exploration and entry for as long as possible, and to secure any 

funding that may be necessary to complete the withdrawal process. This action is critical to 

protecting one of the most visited and beloved valleys in Washington State and an integral 

economic engine of north central Washington. Thank you for your consideration and leadership 

on this important issue. 

obert Monetta Delene Monetta 

Windermere Real Estate Methow Valley Windermere Real Estate Methow Valley 

Cc: Senator Patty Murray, United States Senator 

Senator Maria Cantwell, United States Senator 

Representative Dan Newhouse, U.S. House of Representatives 

Tom Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture 

Neil Komze, Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Acting Director, Washington and Oregon Office, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Michael Liu, Methow Valley District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 
675 


Insert graphic folio 757 here 22000A.633

fl ' 7700 Sand Pomt Way N E 

M The seattle WA 98115 

Mountaineers www mountam••" orq 

Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

September 21, 2016 

On behalf of The Mountaineers' 12,000 members, we write to submit testimony in strong support of the 

Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 (S. 2991). We appreciate your willingness to give this bill 

the opportunity for a hearing. 

The Mountaineers, based in Seattle, Washington and founded in 1906, is a nonprofit outdoor education, 

conservation, and recreation organization whose mission is "to enrich the community by helping people 

explore, conserve, learn about and enjoy the lands and waters of the Pacific Northwest and beyond." 

1,800 skilled Mountaineers volunteers lead 3,200 outdoor education courses and activities annually for 

15,500 members and guests. Our youth programs provide over 6,000 opportunities each year for 

children to get outside. The Mountaineers Books publishing division expands the mission internationally 

through award·winning publications including instructional guides, adventure narratives, and 

conservation photography. We are a passionate, engaged, and knowledgeable community that cares 

deeply about protecting the outdoor experience for current and future generations. 

We strongly supportS. 2291, as it would help protect the pristine and unique natural areas and 

ecosystems in the Methow Valley and the recreational experiences this landscape provides. 

The national significance of the Methow Valley for outdoor recreation ls due to the myriad of high 

quality recreational opportunities that attract visitors from around the world to the area. The outdoor 

recreation opportunities in the Methow Valley are diverse and available throughout the year, in contrast 

to other outdoor recreation destinations that are more seasonal. They include activities such as cross· 

country skiing, hiking, mountain biking, fly fishing and hunting, just to name a few. 

An additional contributing factor to the national significance is the broad range of available experiences, 

with some destinations challenging the nation's top experts, while others are suitable for families and 

serve as perfect teaching venues for those just learning the activities we enjoy. The local community, 

including many of the members we represent, has successfully built a vibrant outdoor recreation 

economy around these experiences that would be threatened by the development of a large scale mine 

on Flagg Mountain at the headwaters of the Methow watershed. 
676 


Insert graphic folio 758 here 22000A.634

1;1, : M The 7700 s;~~~~~~~n~:~~~~ 

Mountaineers www mount•m••rs oro 

Dozens of Forest Service trails and the Pacific Crest Trail pass through the valley, providing hiking and 

backpacking opportunities. Climbers have easy access to Goat Wall, Fun Rock, and Prospector Walt 

while winter adventures can include ice climbing at Goat Wall and Gate Creek. For mountaineers, 

Golden Horn is a trip deep in a Forest Service road less area that provides spectacular views of the North 

Cascades. Some of the best alpine climbing in the United States is a short drive up Highway 20 to the 

iconic liberty Bell Group and Burgundy Spires at Washington Pass. These alpine destinations also include 

classic backcountry ski terrain such as Silver star, Backcountry skiers explore nearly endless terrain on 

the east slope of the Cascades. Nordic skiers have access to the most extensive network of groomed 

trails in North America with over 120 miles to choose from. The area also boasts many other 

recreational resources for paddling, biking, and fishing and hunting. 

Industrial scale mining in the headwaters is simply incompatible with the recreational activities our 

members enjoy and the signlficant local economic benefits they provide. Polluted waters, disturbed 

lands and viewsheds, lost recreational access, and noisy industrial activity would erase the very reasons 

our members choose the Methow Valley as a recreation destination. large-scale surface mining would 

drastically alter this landscape forever through impacts to water quality and the health of the 

surrounding landscape. According to reports compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

metal mining industry is the largest toxic polluter in the nation.1 

We enthusiastically support this proposal that would protect the nationally-significant recreational 

opportunities and the unique quality of life in the Upper Methow area that is characterized by stunning 

peaks, pastoral lands, beautiful riparian corridor, and undeveloped viewsheds. 

Chairman Murkowski and members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, thank you again 

for giving the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 ($.2201) a hearing and for the opportunity to 

provide testimony, The Mountaineers strongly supports this bill. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TomVogl 

CEO, The Mountaineers 

Katherine Hollis 

Conservation and Advocacy Director, The Mountaineers 

1 http:/ jwww.epa.gov /toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/2013-trl-natlona!-ana!ysis-comparing-industry-sectors 
677 


Insert graphic folio 759 here 22000A.635

Testimony by U.S. Senator Patty Murray on S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection 

Actof2016 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you, Chairman Murkowski. I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Cantwell for 

including the Methow Headwaters Protection Act as part oftoday's hearing. 

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in my home state of Washington is an important part 

of our nation's heritage, and is a key driver in the local economy. The headwaters of the Methow 

River, in the North Cascades, play an important role in the ecological and economic health of 

Washington state. Several times over the last decade, proposals to develop a large-scale copper 

mine on Flagg Mountain have been made. 

On May 25,2016, I introduced the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of2016, with Senator 

Cantwell as an original cosponsor. The bill would permanently protect the headwaters of the 

Methow River from the threat of industrial scale mining by withdrawing these lands from 

consideration under U.S. mining laws, subject to valid existing rights. Prohibiting industrial 

mining would protect nationally significant qualities, including conservation and recreational 

values. The headwaters of the Methow River plays a critically important role in the local 

community, the economy, and the rural character of the Methow Valley. 

I wish to acknowledge my colleague and partner on this bill, Senator Maria Cantwell. 

Throughout this process, Senator Cantwell has been a champion ofthe effort to protect this 

special place. 

The Methow Headwaters Protection Act reflects the broad consensus in the community of the 

need to extinguish the risk of a copper mine or other large-scale extraction effort. Prohibiting 

mining activities in the upper reaches of the watershed ensures clean, cold, abundant water will 

be available for downstream uses, including as habitat for endangered salmon, steelhead, and 

bull trout populations. The withdrawal of 340,079 acres of existing federal land would also 

preserve high-quality habitat for the seven federally-protected fish and wildlife species in the 

Upper Methow Valley, including the Northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, spring 

Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The proposal area is also home to bald and golden 

eagles, martens, mountain goats, mule and white-tail deer, and wolves. Permanent protection 

would protect landscapes and habitats essential to many native plants and animals, as well as the 

ancestral homeland and cultural resources of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. 

Like many proposals to protect public lands in Washington state, the Methow Headwaters 

proposal came together at the local level, the product of community members rallying around a 

vision of protecting the world-class resources of the Methow Valley, famous for its outdoor 

recreation opportunities and habitat and wildlife. My work with local citizens, businesses, and 

community-based organizations resulted in the introduction ofS. 2991, as I understand that 

industrial-scale mining is incompatible with the Methow Valley's future and could result in 

irreparable harm to the values upon which the local economy is built, clean air and water, 

pristine views, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and wild places. I worked with community 
678 


Insert graphic folio 760 here 22000A.636

leaders to craft legislation that would protect these values without impacting other uses of the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest or reducing opportunities for hobby mining. 

The Methow Headwaters Protection Act will benefit the local environment and the economy of 

Okanogan County, which is why the list of supporters continues to grow. Today, over 135 

business owners in Okanogan County, from lodging establishments to guides and outfitters to 

realtors to landscapers, oppose industrial mining in the Valley. Elected officials, federallyrecognized tribes with ceded territory in Okanogan County, and over 1,000 private citizens 

support the proposal. The Methow Headwaters Protection Act will support economic 

opportunities for the region and will ensure the outdoor recreation industry will continue to 

thrive. Today, nearly one million tourists visit the Methow Valley each year to enjoy the sun, 

snow, streams, wildlife, and rural communities, contributing more than $150 million annually to 

the Okanogan County economy. The proposal ensures the world-class recreation opportunities of 

the Methow Valley are protected for future generations, and industry leaders such as the Outdoor 

Industry Alliance and The Conservation Alliance support the withdrawal. 

Permanent withdrawal from mineral consideration of these lands is a sound fiscal decision and 

will ensure that the federal, state, local, private, and tribal investments made in land protection, 

restoration, and habitat improvements across the Methow River watershed, will not be 

squandered. Almost a quarter of a billion dollars has already been invested in outdoor recreation 

enhancements, farmland preservation, and salmon and wildlife habitat enhancement and 

restoration activities, and a large-scale mine has the potential to derail those efforts. As we face 

constrained federal budgets, it is even more important to protect existing investments. 

I appreciate that Deputy Chief Leslie Weldon from the U.S. Forest Service is here today to 

testifY, and I look forward to working with her and the Forest Service on this legislation. 

Preservation of our most special places reflects the values I grew up with in Washington state. S. 

299 I ensures the Methow Valley's pristine habitat and world-class recreation opportunities are 

preserved for our children and grandchildren, and protects the thriving outdoor economy of the 

region. I appreciate your time today and I look forward to working with you and the Committee 

to move forward on this legislation. 
679 


Insert graphic folio 761 here 22000A.637

KATIE SWEENEY 

General Counsel 

October 12, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

NMA. 

The National Mining Association (NMA) appreciates the opportunity to submit a comment for 

the hearing record on S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources 

Act. NMA is a national trade association that includes the producers of most of the nation's 

coal, metals and industrial and agricultural minerals; the manufacturers of mining and mineral 

processing machinery, equipment and supplies; and the engineering and consulting firms, 

financial institutions and other firms serving the mining industry. 

I write today in support of the general mining and claim validity provisions included in the 

Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. These provisions allow for 

U.S. Department of Energy grants to develop domestic sources of rare earth elements -

which are critical to U.S. manufacturing processes- and ensures that valid existing mining 

claims are not improperly extinguished by withdrawals of federal lands. Valid existing claims 

are generally afforded such protection but often times, claimants are subject to years of 

uncertainty after federal lands are segregated or withdrawn while they wait for the federal 

land management agency to determine whether the claims meet the tests to be excluded 

from the withdrawal. While they wait, they must continue to pay claims maintenance fees 

even though they are not currently developing their claims. By treating any mining claim that 

predates a withdrawal as valid, unless and until it is successfully contested by the federal 

government, the legislation protects the claimants' ability to exercise their rights to conduct 

mining activities. Furthermore, the legislation equitably assigns the burden of proof and costs 

associated with claim validity determinations on the federal government. NMA would be 

supportive of expanding this approach to apply to all federal lands. 

Few countries can rival our abundance of mineral resources. However, our nation's import 

dependence for key mineral commodities has doubled over the past two decades. The 

provisions found in S. 3203 will go a long way in helping to create a secure and reliable 

domestic supply of metals and minerals critical to serving the nation's key economic sectors. 

National Mining Association 101 Constitution Avenue, NW 1 Suite 500 East 1 Washington, DC 20001 1 (202) 463-2600 
680 


Insert graphic folio 762 here 22000A.638

October 12, 2016 

Page Two 

I would like to thank you for introducing the Alaska Economic Development and Access to 

Resources Act and for your continued support on these important issues. NMA looks forward 

to continuing a productive dialogue on minerals policies that will allow the U.S. economy to 

meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

Sincerely, 

Katie Sweeney 

National Mining Association 101 Constitution Avenue, NW 1 Suite 500 East l Washington, DC 20001 I (202) 463-2600 
681 


Insert graphic folio 763 here 22000A.639

NATIONAL 

OCEAN 

INDUSTRIES 

ASSOCIATION 

1120 G Street, NW 

Suite900 

Washinaton. DC 20005 

Tol202-347·6900 

Fax 202-347-8650 

www.noia.orJ 

September 28, 2016 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

The National Ocean Industries Association (NOlA) writes in strong 

support of your legislation, S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and 

Access to Resources Act. By recognizing the value of responsible prOduction of 

Alaska's abundant natural resources, the bill not only benefits Alaskans but 

continues our Nation along the path of energy independence. 

NOlA is the only national trade association representing all segments of 

the offshore industry with an interest in the exploration and production of both 

traditional and renewable energy resources on the U.S. OCS. The NOlA 

membership comprises some 300 companies engaged in a variety of business 

activities, including production, drilling, engineering, marine and air transport, 

offshore construction, equipment manufacture and supply, telecommunications, 

finance and insurance, and renewable energy. 

As such, NOlA strongly supports S. 3203, particularly the provisions 

under Title II regarding the federal Outer Continental Shelf offshore Alaska. It is 

estimated that the Arctic holds approximately 30% of the world's undiscovered 

natural gas and 13% of its undiscovered oil. This amounts to roughly 400 billion 

barrels of oil equivalent, or I 0 times the total oil and gas produced to date in the 

North Sea. Other Arctic nations such as Russia, Canada, Norway, and Greenland 

are leasing and moving toward exploration of their Arctic resources. Developing 

the U.S. Arctic could be essential to securing domestic energy supplies for the 

future, and it will require balancing economic, environmental and social 

challenges. S. 3202 takes a major step toward achieving this harmony. 

Thank you for your continued leadership and support of America's critical 

need to maintain abundant, affordable and reliable domestic energy sources for our 

citizens' homes and businesses. 

~ticK Jeffrey L. Vorberger 

Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs 
682 


Insert graphic folio 764 here 22000A.640

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

COMMITTEE, CONCERNING S. 3167, TO ESTABLISH THE APPALACHIAN 

FOREST NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on S. 3167, a bill 

to establish the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of S. 3167, as the proposed Appalachian Forest National 

Heritage Area has been found to meet the National Park Service's interim criteria for designation 

as a national heritage area. 

However, along with designating any new national heritage areas, the Department recommends 

that Congress pass national heritage area program legislation. There are currently 49 designated 

national heritage areas, yet there is no authority in law that guides the designation and 

administration of these areas. Program legislation that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially 

qualified national heritage areas and a process for the designation, funding, and administration of 

these areas would provide a much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage 

areas. It would offer guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying the roles 

and responsibilities of all parties, and standardize timeframes and funding for designated areas. 

The Department also notes that newly-authorized national heritage areas will compete for limited 

resources in the Heritage Partnership Program. The President's FY17 Budget proposes $9.4 

million for the current 49 areas. The authorization of additional national heritage areas will leave 

less funding for each individual national heritage area. 

S. 3167 would establish the Appalachian Forest National Heritage Area encompassing 16 

counties in northeastern West Virginia and two counties in western Maryland, a region that has a 

rich history of human activity shaped by the geography of the forested central Appalachian 

Mountains. The proposed local coordinating entity would be the Appalachian Forest Heritage 

Area, Inc., a non-profit organization that currently coordinates forest-related heritage tourism 

activities in this region. The provisions in this bill are similar to provisions in most of the other 

national heritage area designation bills that have been enacted in recent years, including a total 

authorization of $10 million and a sunset date for the authorization of funding 15 years after the 

date of enactment. 

The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc. prepared a feasibility study for designation of the 

area as a national heritage area several years ago. The National Park Service (NPS) reviewed the 

study and found that it met the NPS interim criteria contained in National Heritage Area 

Feasibility Study Guidelines. The Appalachian Forest Heritage Area, Inc. was informed of this 

finding in a letter dated August 16, 2007. 

The area encompassed by the proposed national heritage area is a significant part of the central 

Appalachian highlands that has a long history of timber harvesting, forest management, and the 
683 


Insert graphic folio 765 here 22000A.641

production of forest products. The forests provided resources for industrial expansion in the late 

I9'h and early 20'h Centuries, but large portions of the forests have regrown. Areas within the 

proposed national heritage area include the Monongahela National Forest, portions of the George 

Washington National Forest, the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Seneca 

Rocks-Spruce Knob National Recreation Area, along with a large number of state forests and 

parks and areas protected by nonprofit conservation organizations. The extensive hardwood 

forests and undeveloped rural character of the area provide scenic vistas and opportunities for 

nature observation and outdoor recreation. 

There are also numerous historic and cultural resources within the area, such as sites from the 

logging era and Civilian Conservation Corps structures. It is a place well-suited to demonstrate 

the connection between forest and forest products, and the folklife, music, dance, crafts, and 

traditions of central Appalachia. Designation as a national heritage area would help the region 

realize the full potential of the cultural, natural, historic, and recreational resources of the region. 

2 
684 


Insert graphic folio 766 here 22000A.642

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING S. 3315, TO AUTHORIZE THE 

MODIFICATION OR AUGMENTATION OF THE SECOND DIVISION MEMORIAL. 

September 22, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views ofthe Department of the Interior on S. 3315, 

a bill to authorize the modification or augmentation of the Second Division Memorial. 

The Department understands the effort to recognize the service men and women who gave their 

lives while serving with the Second Infantry Division during the Cold War in Korea, the War in 

Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan, but we do not supportS. 3315 because it would alter the 

character of the existing Second Division Memorial and the Ellipse, and it is inconsistent with 

several elements of the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C Chapter 89). 

S. 3315 would authorize the Second Indianhead Division Association, Inc. Scholarships and 

Memorials Foundation to add new subjects for commemoration to the existing Second Division 

Memorial, located in President's Park, by placing three benches honoring the members of the 

Second Infantry Division killed in the Cold War in Korea, the War in Iraq, and the War in 

Afghanistan. 

The Second Division Memorial was authorized on March 3, 1931, and was dedicated by 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on July 18, 1936, to commemorate the members of the 

division who served in the American Expeditionary Forces in the First World War. The original 

design by noted sculptor James Fraser was amended in 1962 to add the flanking wings, in 

recognition of the Division's achievements during World War II and the Korean War. 

The Second Division Memorial is in President's Park, adjacent to the National Mall in 

Washington, D.C., in an area designated by Congress in the Commemorative Works Act as the 

Reserve - an area in which no new commemorative works shall be located. As Congress noted 

in the law creating the Reserve, " ... the great cross-axis of the Mall in the District of 

Columbia .. .is a substantially completed work of civic art; and ... to preserve the integrity of the 

Mall, a reserve area should be designated ... where the siting of new commemorative works is 

prohibited." The Second Division Memorial is a completed work of civic art in this special 

landscape of the Reserve and under the Commemorative Works Act, the addition of these new 

features would be a new commemoration within the Reserve. Also, these new features would be 

inconsistent with the Commemorative Works Act prohibition on interfering or encroaching on an 

existing memorial. 

In addition, Section 8903 (b) of the Commemorative Works Act sets forth additional restrictions 

for military commemorative works. Memorials to an individual unit of an armed force may not 

be authorized, and are limited to those that commemorate a branch of the armed forces. 

Although the Second Division Memorial was established prior to the Commemorative Works 

Act, the additional unit-specific features authorized in this legislation would not comply with the 
685 


Insert graphic folio 767 here 22000A.643

Act. Finally, commemorative works to a war or similar major military conflict may not be 

authorized until at least 10 years after the officially designated end of such war or conflict. As 

the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have not yet reached this designation, their 

commemoration through the features authorized by this legislation is inconsistent with the 

Commemorative Works Act. 

In closing, the Department appreciates the desire to honor and memorialize the members of the 

Second Infantry Division who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country. However, the Second 

Division Memorial, as originally designed, was to commemorate members of the American 

Expeditionary Force who died during the First World War. The Department is concerned that 

continued additions to the memorial are counter to the Commemorative Works Act. It is 

probable that there will be future conflicts and wars, and thus proposals for numerous additions 

will further infringe upon the original design and intent of this completed commemorative work, 

as well as upon the significant historic landscape of the Ellipse. 

2 
686 


Insert graphic folio 770 here 22000A.646

NATIVE FISH SOCIETY 

Advancing the Recovery of Native, Wild Fish in Their Homewaters 

September 22,2016 

Chair Lisa M urkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

303 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Southwest Oregon \'(:' atershed and Salmon Protection Act (S. 346) 

Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments from Native Fish Society in support of the 

Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act (S. 346). 

Southwest Oregon is home to some of the most unique, ecologically important habitat in the world, 

and boasts strong populations of wild, native salmon and steclhead. Our grassroots, volunteer River 

Stewards and their local communities are grateful for the leadership of Senators Merkley and \Vyden 

in introducing SB. 346, and we appreciate the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee for 

giving this bill a hearing to help permanently protect this important area in southwest Oregon 

through a mineral withdrawal on federal lands. 

\X1itbin the boundaries of S. 346 arc the headwaters of several nationally recognized wild rivers 

inclnding Bald face Creek, a tributary to the National \'IV'ild and Scenic North Fork Smith River; 

Rough and Ready Creek, a tributary to the National Wild and Scenic Illinois River that t1ows into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rogue River; Hunter Creek and Pistol River, which How into the Pacific 

Ocean in tbe center of the \Vild Rivers Coast; and the National \X'ild and Scenic Chetco River, 

t1owing through the heart of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness into the Pacific Ocean. 

Our communities care deeply about ensuring the abundant populations of wild salmon and 

steelhead, clean drinking water, and diverse recreational opportunities contained within the 

boundaries of S. 346 remain available for future generations. Without the protections afforded 

through S. 346, we are concerned that this area is subject to irreversible environmental degradation 

from metal mining, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has labeled the most polluting 

industry in the country. 

813 7"' ST. SUITE 200A OREGON CITY, OR 97045 • (503) 344 • 4218 • NATIVEFISHSOCIETY.ORG 

TAX ID 93·1187474 
687 


Insert graphic folio 771 here 22000A.647

Support for withdrawing this area from mining has received overwhelming support from a broad 

community of individuals, businesses, tribes, local civic organizations and cities who have 

commented during a related effort for an administrative mineral withdrawal. Together, our diverse 

coalition of stakeholders has come together in support of permanent protection for this area, and we 

greatly appreciate this effort to protect more than 100,000 acres in southwest Oregon from mining. 

We encourage you and all the members of the Senate Natural Resource Committee to join with us in 

supporting the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act, and help protect these 

biologically unique lands home to exceptional populations of wild salmon and steelhead, clean 

drinking water, and world-class recreational opportunities. 

Respectfully, 

Sunny Bourdon, Chetco and Smith River Steward 

Dave Lacey, Hunter Creek River Steward 

James Smith, Hunter Creek River Steward 

Mark Sherwood, Communications Director 

Jake Crawford, Southern Regional Manager 

About Native Fish Society: Founded in 1995, the Native Fish Society utilizes the best-available 

science and our grassroots network of River Stewards to conserve and restore the Northwest's wild, 

native fish and safeguard their freshwater habitats. The Native Fish Society has 3,000 members and 

supports 85 volunteer River Stewards in Oregon, Washington, western Idaho and northern 

California 

813 7"' ST. SUITE 200A OREGON CITY, OR 97045 • (503) 344- 4218 • NATIVEFISHSOCIETY.ORG 2 

TAX ID 93-1187474 
688 


Insert graphic folio 772 here 22000A.648

FW: AMHT Land Exchange 

From: Graham Neale [mllllp:GrabamNeille@l!dlmlnlna coml 

Sent: Thunlday, OdDber 06, 2016 7:15PM 

To: l<leesc:lu.dm, OIIICk (Energy) 

Cc: Slenkllmp, Paul E (DNR) 

Subjed: AMHT Land ExdvJnge 

October 6, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowslcl 

709 Han Senate Office Bu1ldlns 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Mul'kowskl, 

1 write to you In support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Legislation. Heatherdale Resources Ltd, 100% 

owner of the Niblack Project on Prince of Wales ISland, has worked closely with the Trust Land Office and US Forest 

Service on deflnlns portions of the exchanse parcels. I urae to you pass legislation, as there would be an overall benefit 

to Southeast Alaska, allowing the Trust to fulfiH its financial responslbUity to the region. 

I understand this exchange has been over a decade in the making, with Alaska Mental Health Trust seeking to exchange 

17,341 acres of Trust lands near downtown Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg. Wrangell, Sitka. and Myers Chuck in 

exchange for up to 20,580 acres of US Forest Service timber lands of equal value In the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and 

on Prince of Wales ISland. A portion of the proposed exchange, on Gravina Island within the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borouch, is of hi8h Importance to the Gravina Island Industrial Complex. GIIC is seen as the preferred location for an offsite ore Processllll facility for the proposed Niblack mine. With access to hydro power and a local workforce, the 

benefits from this facility to local communities would be signifiCant. 

Given that Alaska Is facing current economic hardship, a divemfication of resource development is critical to the state's 

future and this Exchange 8lU Is critical to maintain the current timber Industry In Southeast Aleska. It provides the Trust 

the abillty to offer sufficient timber supply untH other lands owners can place enough timber on the market during the 

transition to VOU!IIIrowth harvest. Trust timber sales wHI provide required timber for the lest medium-sized sawmill on 

Prince of Wales. This represents a slt!nlflcant portion of the local workforce, with potential impacts to employees at the 

mHI, along with others who work in the timber Industry In the community. 

The exchange provides, but is not exclusive to, the following benefits: 

• Sustains the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by providing more timber lands 

• Ensures jobs stay In the Southeast communities by protectins local industries and economies 

• Protects popular trails, view-sheds, and Iconic recreational sites along the Inside Passage 

• Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

It behooves all of us to do what is rllht for the Southeast community and economies, and for all of the people that 

benefit from the Trust. LesiSiation Is the best option to complete the exchanse In a timely fashion and I encourage swift 

passage. 

Sincerely, 

Graham Neale l'nljKt M......,. 
689 


Insert graphic folio 773 here 22000A.649

'iiDIHERTHERDRL~ 

Heatherdale Resources ltd. i 15th floor ·1040 W. Georgia St. Vancouver 8C VSE 4Hl Canada 

Operating In Alaska as Niblack Project lLC I PO Box 8295 Ketchikan AK 99901 

C +1-604-551-0875 Dir +1·778-373·6743 TF SD0-667-2114 F+l-604-639-9210 

E GrspamNea!e@hdlmining.com Web heatherdaleresources.com 

"Nottce Regan:ting Transmission 

This rmJ$Sagel& intended onty kH lhe person{s} to whom it is addre&Sed and may cootaln infonnation that is privileged and conndentiat If you are not the intended 

m(;jpiettt you are hareby noti:lied that any dtss.emination or copying of this communbtioo is prohibited- Please notify us of the error in communication by 

tefephone (504-684·6365} or by return e-mail and destroy aft copies ofthis communication. Please note that any viel.w or opinions prosenled In this Gmail are 

solety those of the atahor and do not necessarily repre&ent those of H.mter Dickinson Inc.. or any affiliated or ~oclated compsny. Tho naciplont should cheek this 

emaif and any altadtmenls for the presence of viruses. Neither Hunter Ofctdnson lru;;:, nor any affiliated or associated- company accepts any liability for any damage 

cat.llled by any V!ru& transmUted by this email. Thank you." 
690 


Insert graphic folio 774 here 22000A.650

March 28, 2016 

Honorable Dean Heller 

United States Senate 

324 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Heller, 

The Nevada Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (NVBHA) is pleased to offer 

our support for the discussion draft of the Pershing County Economic Development 

and Conservation Act. NV BHA has a keen interest in issues concerning our public 

lands and wildlife habitat and has played a role in working with interested 

stakeholders on a number of previous public lands legislative efforts, including the 

recently passed Pine Forest Wilderness in Humboldt County. 

The proposed Pershing County effort is a great example of ground-up collaboration. 

The comprehensive proposal builds on the efforts of the Pershing County 

Checkerboard Lands Committee, which was a community-driven process to solve 

complicated land management issues. The proposal today makes several changes to 

existing Wilderness Study Areas while including Lands with Wilderness Character 

as permanent Wilderness. Protections for these lands will safeguard important 

wildlife habitat for native Great Basin species such as the Greater Sage-Grouse in the 

Tobin Range and the Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Bluewing Mountains. 

The legislation also outlines a process to deal with the complicated land 

management issue of checkerboard lands. A remnant of railroad construction in the 

1800s, checkerboard lands now present a land management problem and often 

results in confusion for sportsmen and other outdoor recreationalists. We are 

optimistic that the process outlined in this draft legislation could result in a more 

logical land management paradigm, with large chunks of key wildlife habitat being 

placed in public hands while lands with economic development potential could be 

put into private hands, creating tax revenue to benefit Pershing County. 

Our organization stands ready to assist with the passage of this important 

legislation. NV BHA believes in the importance of our public lands and applauds the 

efforts of the Pershing County Commission and your offices in working to solve 

these issues. 

Sincerely, 

Larry McKurtis 

Chairman 

Nevada Chapter, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers 
691 


Insert graphic folio 775 here 22000A.651

·-

Nevada Farm Bureau Federation 

2165 Green Vista Dr., Suite 205, Sparks, NV 894 31 

HOO- 992-1106 I www.nvfb.org 

Nevada Farm Bureau Written Testimony On 

Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act- S.3102 

Presented To U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

September 22, 2016 

Chairman Murkowski and members of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 

Nevada Farm Bureau wishes to include these comments into the record of this hearing on S. 3102, the 

Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act. 

Nevada Farm Bureau is a general farm organization representing all segments ofNevada's 

agricultural industry. Our interest in this lands bill is especially focused on the ranching community 

of the area and livestock grazing enterprises who depend on access to use federally-managed lands. 

Nevada Farm Bureau's public policy activities are guided by our organizational policy, developed and 

determined on an annual basis by our engaged farmer/rancher members. A couple of key points of 

our policy statement on Wilderness (one of the major elements contained inS. 31 02) state: 

• We seek Wilderness Study Areas, not suited as Wilderness to be returned to multiple use. 

• Any Wilderness proposal should consider the views ofthe residents in the affected locality 

and State, therefore we believe hearings concerning Wilderness legislation should be held 

in affected communities of the state. 

Our views on this proposal are heavily weighted by the public involvement process that created this 

legislative proposal. A number of local citizens, including Farm Bureau members, working 

collaboratively with fellow stakeholders and lead by Pershing County Commissioners, crafted a 

workable proposal that you now have for consideration. 

While we might wish to promote different language provisions to offer greater certainty for the future 

of livestock grazing within designated Wilderness areas, we recognize that local, grassroots 

involvement came to consensus agreements in providing for this proposal. 

Our respect for that process and outcome causes us to support this proposal. We hope that it will be a 

model considered as the standard for similar legislative proposals in the future. 

For further information- Please Contact: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President 

Nevada Farm Bureau 

2165 Green Vista Dr, Suite 205 

Sparks, NV 89431 

Phone- 775-674-4000 

Email- doug@nvfb.org 
692 


Insert graphic folio 776 here 22000A.652

The Champion of the 

21" Century Mining Industry 201 West Liberty Street Suite 300 Reno, NV 89501 Mining Association Tel: 775 829 2121 www.NevadaMining.org 

OFFICERS 

Mich~l nrown, (hijirman 

BarrkkGo!d 

Tim Oyhr, Chair Elt-ct 

NevadaCoppeT 

JerryP'farr,V!teChair 

Newmont 

DanaR.Bennett,Presklent 

DIRECTORS 

TrentArulerwn 

Graymont Western 

SteveAntooini 

Sandvlk Equipment 

Andy Britton 

GR:PPAN,LL<: 

RandySurggraff 

KG Mln!ng(Batd Mountain) 

MaryKaye (ashman 

Ca~hman Equipment 

CHntChapman 

Granite Construction 

Andy Cole 

Barrtd< 

JeffDavls 

CyallCO 

OavidDeak 

Uthlum Nevada Corp. 

Alex Deeds 

Al'f1(!rkanMinlng& 

TUI'If'lei!Jtg 

Mary Beth Donnelly 

Newmont 

Randy Griffin 

Lholst North Amerka 

Bruce Hansen 

General Moly 

WilHam Hofer 

Jenltt Canyon Gold 

J.-ffJenkimi 

franw-Nevada 

Gregg Jones EPMlnerals 

Jack McMahon 

Elko Mlolng Group 

RandyMHler 

Broadbent 

leeMorri~on 

J(!ondexGold&SI!ver 

Joe! Murphy 

Rye Patch Mlnlng us, Inc. 

OuanePe(k 

Silver Standard 

Robby Ruesch 

KGHM International 

Tony Sanchez 

NV Energy 

Robert Stepper 

Coeur Ro<hesterMlne 

.kffTtwmpson 

Un!versltyofNevada 

Stefan Wenger 

Royal Gold 

September 20,2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, 

United States Senator 

709 Hart senate Office Bnilding 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

I write today to urge your passage of S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic Development 

and Conservation Act, a bill currently in your committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

This bill will be a boon not only for the mining and mineral exploration community, but for 

Pershing County and the State ofNevada. 

This bill is the result of significant input from community stakeholders, from the local 

government, and from industry representatives. We believe the end result is a fair deal for 

our State, and for all Nevadans. The entire Nevada delegation should be applauded for this 

inclusive and productive process. 

The measure before you begins to unwind the complex and often confusing "checkerboard 

lands" issue. It reverts thousands of acres of wilderness study areas back to multiple use, 

opening the land up to its full potential. These actions will facilitate the expansion of 

existing mining projects and simplify development of future mineral activity while 

maintaining our collective responsibility to preserve the Nevada outdoors. 

For more than 100 years, the Nevada Mining Association has partnered with local, state, and 

federal governments in the creation of sensible, balanced public policy. Our 400 members 

represent all aspects of the mining industry- from mineral exploration to mine operation, to 

closure and enviromnental reclamation, and the entire supply chain in between. As such, in 

recognition of that partnership and ou behalf of our members, we are pleased to offer our 

support for S. 3102. 
693 


Insert graphic folio 777 here 22000A.653

Thank you for your consideration. 

~-DanaR. Bennett, Ph.D. 

President 

cc: Senator Dean Heller 

Senator Harry Reid 

Congressman Mark Amodei 

Congressman Cresent Hardy 

Congressman Joe Heck 

Congresswoman Dina Titus 

September 20, 2016 

Page2 
694 


Insert graphic folio 778 here 22000A.654

10/3/2016 

The Honorable lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

As a Trustee for the Alaska Mental Trust, I am in support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

land Exchange Legislation. The Alaska Mental Health Trust and the Trust Land Office (TLO) 

have been working toward a land exchange for more than 10 years with extensive public 

participation while defining the exchange parcels. I urge to you pass legislation allowing the 

Trust to fulfill its financial responsibility of supporting our most vulnerable populations in Alaska. 

Given that Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in history, legislation is the best option to 

complete the exchange in a timely fashion. In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 

grants to organizations in Southeast, totaling more than $3 million. Another 323 Trust 

beneficiaries in Southeast have been awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over 

$482,000. We need to ensure that the Trust can continue to provide revenue for 

comprehensive, integrated mental health services in Alaska today and into the future. 

The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

• Protects popular trails, viewsheds, and iconic recreational sites along the Inside 

Passage 

• Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

• Preserves old growth timber stands in the forest 

• Ensures jobs stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber and tourism 

industries 

• Protects mental health services by providing revenue to support the Trust's mission 

Without legislation we are putting our communities at risk. 

• If the Trust cannot generate revenue in a timely fashion, we jeopardize our mental health 

services. 

I want to do what is right for the Southeast community and economy, and for all of the people 

that benefit from the Trust. It's time to let the Alaska Mental Health Trust continue its critical 

work for those who experiencing mental illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism, 

and Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. I encourage you to pass this legislation with 

appropriate modifications that have been negotiated by the TLO and the USFS. 

Sincerely, 

64~ 1 0938 Suneagle Cir 

Eagle River AK 99577 
695 


Insert graphic folio 779 here 22000A.655

September 21, 2016 

David K. Norman, Washington State Geologist 

Washington Department of Natural Resources 

Testimony on S.2056 

Bill Title: To provide for the establishment of the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring 

System. 

The Washington State Depattment of Natural Resources urges support of Senate Bill 2056 to establish the 

National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System. This program will be an important contribution 

to public safety by monitoring, identifying, and addressing volcano hazards. 

As our state saw first-hand from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, volcanic hazards can wreak 

wide-spread tolls on lives, infrastructure and the economy. The Mount St. Helens eruption inflicted 

damages across our state and the Pacific Northwest region as a whole. Many millions more face greater 

risks from volcanic hazards presented by Mount Rainier, which is much nearer to the populous and 

growing Seatte-Tacoma metropolitan area. 

I urge passage of this vital public safety measure. Senate Bill2056 would give our state and region a 

head start toward a resilient economy and secure citizenry. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 
696 


Insert graphic folio 780 here 22000A.656

.. NORTHWEST RAFTING CQ Award Winning Global Adventures 

Testimony for Public Hearing 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

September 19,2016 

My name is Zachary Collier and I am the owner of Northwest Rafting Company, a river outfitter 

offering trips in Oregon, Idaho, and a few international destinations. In addition to running rivers 

for work I am an avid whitewater rafter and kayaker. 

I fully support the Southwest Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015. 

I have backpacked along and kayaked Rough and Ready Creek, Baldface Creek, and the 

Chetco River and can attest to their beauty and unique character. The unique serpentine 

geology of this area allows these rivers and creeks to run clean and clear even during high 

water events. This geology also leads to more rare and endangered plants in these watersheds 

than anywhere in Oregon. 

Mining near these uniquely special creeks would cause irreversible damage to it's fragile 

ecosystem. I am particularly concerned about the spread of the Port Orford Root Disease. 

These watersheds are a few of the last remaining places where this disease has not been 

introduced and the rare Port Orford Cedar thrives. If mining is allowed then this disease which 

kills these rare trees will be spread by mining trucks. 

I am most concerned about the effects of mining on the Illinois River and North Fork of the 

Smith River which these creeks flow into. These two rivers are among the most beautiful in the 

world and two of my favorite places to raft and kayak. These rivers also provide clean drinking 

water for fish and communities downstream. 

The rivers in and around the Kalmiopsis Wilderness are uniquely special and deserve 

permanent protection. They are special to me and many others in the whitewater community. 

Sin~ 

aryCollier 

er/Outfitter 

west Rafting Company 

913 HULL STREET, HOOD RIVER, ORB. 97031 
697 


Insert graphic folio 781 here 22000A.657

Fleurant, SUAn (Energy) 

Subject FW: S 3004/3273 ANCSA IMPROVEMENT ACT 9/22/2016 

From: Nick Olmsted [mailto:olmstedkemo@vahoo.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:32 PM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <fortherecord @enerxv.senate.gov> 

Subject: S 3004/3273 ANCSA IMPROVEMENT ACT 9/22/2016 

Dear Members of the Senate Energy Committee, 

Please record our opposition to Section I 0 of S 3004/3273, the "ANCSA Improvement Act" in the hearing 

record of September 22, 2016. 

We are long term residents of the community ofTenakee Springs in the heart of the Tongass National Forest, 

with combined residency of over 70 years. We oppose the privatization of public lands and 

support permanent protection at the watershed level of all intact and irreplaceable Tongass salmon 

streams. Thus far, only two areas in Tenakee Inlet have been protected with LUD II designations--and under 

this legislation, even these areas would be open to selection and potential road building and timber harvest by 

privately owned corporations.All the magnificent intact watersheds of Tenakee are critical to our community's 

stability and prosperity, for those harvesting fisb and wildlife for subsistence, and for commercial fishers, sport 

fishing and wildlife guides, and for non-consumptive tourism. 

Please permanently delete this piece of legislation, and keep public lands in public hands. 

Sincerely, 

Nicholas Olmsted 

Molly Kemp 
698 


Insert graphic folio 782 here 22000A.658

September 21, 2016 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: September 22"d Energy and Natural Resources Hearing 

Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of seven member-based organizations representing the 

human powered outdoor recreation community, including Access Fund, American 

Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, 

Winter Wildlands Alliance, the Mountaineers, and the American Alpine Club. Outdoor 

Industry Association is the national trade association for suppliers, manufacturers and 

retailers in the $646 billion outdoor recreation industry, with more than 1200 members 

nationwide. The Conservation Alliance is an organization of outdoor businesses whose 

collective contributions support grassroots environmental organizations and their efforts 

to protect wild places where outdoor enthusiasts recreate. We work together to ensure 

that wild lands and rivers are preserved for recreation and conservation. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer the perspective of the outdoor recreation 

community and industry regarding several of the bills currently being heard by the 

committee. In summary, we: 

• Strongly oppose measures to undercut the President's ability to protect public 

lands using the Antiquities Act, including S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317; 

• Support protecting conservation and recreation values in Southwest Oregon 

through S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act 

of 2015; 

• Support S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016, which would 

protect areas of spectacular recreation and conservation value from mining 

threats; and 

• Support S. 3049, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act, which 

would protect the Organ Mountains region and allow wilderness climbing areas to 

be managed in accordance with best climbing practices. 

m~untalneers 1~.=] 
699 


Insert graphic folio 783 here 22000A.659

Assaults on the Antiquities Act (S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317) 

Our organizations strongly opposeS. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317, all of which undercut 

the ability of the President to protect American public lands through the Antiquities Act. 

Over the course of more than a century, nearly every president from each political party 

has employed the Antiquities Act to protect treasured places on America's public lands. 

While the Act is dedicated to protection of areas of historic or scientific significance, 

protection of outdoor recreation opportunities has been among the Act's invaluable 

additional benefits. While our preference is to protect recreation assets through 

legislation, when that pathway no longer becomes viable, we need a tool in place to 

ensure these important places are being protected for the next generation of outdoor 

enthusiasts. 

Recent use of the Antiquities Act has helped to ensure access to outdoor recreation for 

a diversity of Americans, including those who live in big cities, through designation of 

the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument in Southern California and the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in Southern New Mexico (see testimony 

on S. 3049 below), and to protect and advance the outdoor recreation economy and 

important conservation values in Colorado through designation of the Browns Canyon 

National Monument. The San Juan Islands National Monument in Washington, 

designated in 2013, is another iconic designation, which offers one of the most 

outstanding sea kayaking experiences in the world. These designations reflect the 

culmination of years of painstaking work by local communities to protect the myriad 

values provided by these landscapes. 

Far from taking lands out of productive economic use, designations under the 

Antiquities Act are a proven economic driver for nearby communities. Studies 

repeatedly demonstrate that outdoor recreation opportunities, parks, and open space 

increase the value of nearby residential and commercial property, and that counties in 

the West with protected public lands like National Monuments are more successful at 

attracting fast-growing economic sectors and grow more quickly than counties without 

public lands. A recent series of studies analyzing the economies of communities 

adjacent to 17 National Monuments designated since 1982 found that key economic 

indicators all improved or maintained following designation, and in no case did 

designation lead to or coincide with an economic downturn. 1 

1 Headwaters Economics, National Monuments: Economic Performance Before and Alter Designation. 

Available at http://headwaterseconomics.org/dataviz/national-monuments/, last visited Sept. 21, 2016. 

lli~untalneers ~~~ 
700 


Insert graphic folio 784 here 22000A.660

We oppose efforts to undercut the efficacy of this bedrock conservation mechanism; at 

the same time look forward to working with Congress to protect the places and 

experiences that benefit outdoor recreation and local communities and economies. 

S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act 

Outdoor Alliance, the Conservation Alliance, and Outdoor Industry Association support 

S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015. The 

bill will permanently protect the pristine and wild rivers in Southwestern Oregon by 

withdrawing approximately 106,000 acres of national public lands from new mining 

claims. These rivers include Hunter Creek, Pistol River, Rough and Ready Creek (a 

tributary to the Wild and Scenic Illinois River), Baldface Creek (tributary to the Wild and 

Scenic North Fork Smith River), and 17 miles of the Wild and Scenic Chetco River. The 

Act allows valid existing mining claims and existing uses to continue. 

There is overwhelming local and regional support for protecting this landscape and 

these rivers from mining. Currently, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management are pursuing a temporary mineral withdrawal in aid of S. 346. During the 

comment period for the NEPA process for this action, the public submitted over 35,000 

comments in favor of withdrawing the area from new mining claims. According to the 

Forest Service, 23,000 of these comments were submitted during the Environmental 

Assessment phase and 99.9 percent of them were in support of protecting the area from 

mining. Additionally, on September 91

h, 2015, nearly 300 local residents attended a 

public meeting in Gold Beach, Oregon, and every speaker who testified supported the 

action. A second public hearing was held the following night in Grants Pass, Oregon, 

and approximately 90 percent of the speakers testified in favor of the withdrawal. 

There is such strong support for protecting these rivers because they provide clean 

drinking water for downstream communities and hold pristine habitat that supports 

world-class fisheries. They form the backbone of the local recreation economy by 

providing outstanding recreational opportunities-including fishing, hiking, camping and 

whitewater boating-that attract outdoor enthusiasts from around the world who provide 

millions of dollars in revenue for the local tourism-based economy. The sport-fishing 

industry of the Rogue River alone contributes $16 million annually to the local 

economy.2 

The Wild and Scenic Chetco, North Fork Smith, Illinois, and Rogue Rivers in particular 

flow through rugged landscapes and have been known as whitewater boating classics 

for decades for their outstanding whitewater, exceptionally pure water quality, and 

2 ECONorthwest. The Economic Value of Rogue River Salmon, p. 1 (January 2009). Available at 

http://kswild.org/what-we·do·2/WildlandProtection/RogueSalmonFinaiReport.pdf, last visited September 

20,2016. 

~~~ountalneers ~~~ 
701 


Insert graphic folio 785 here 22000A.661

salmon runs. Whitewater paddlers also value their tributaries, including Baldface and 

Rough and Ready Creeks. Protecting these values is incredibly important to our 

members. 

Congress recognized the value of part of this landscape by designating the Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness in 1964 and the Chetco, North Fork Smith, Illinois, and Rogue Rivers as 

Wild and Scenic.3 The Forest Service has recognized these values as well, and found 

Baldface and Rough and Ready Creeks eligible for inclusion in the national Wild and 

Scenic system. These designations, however, do not protect this special place from the 

real threat of mining, which, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is 

the largest source of toxic pollution in the country. 4 Our organizations strongly support 

permanently protecting the rivers in the region and the robust and sustainable economic 

activities they support from mining threats via S. 346. 

S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 

Outdoor Alliance, the Conservation Alliance, and Outdoor Industry Association fully 

supportS. 2291, which would help to protect the pristine and unique natural areas and 

ecosystems in the Methow Valley and the experiences this landscape provides. 

Dozens of Forest Service trails and the Pacific Crest Trail pass through the Methow 

Valley, providing hiking and backpacking opportunities. Mountain bikers ride trails that 

include Slate Peak, Rendezvous Loop, West Fork Methow, Yellow Jacket, Cutthroat, 

and Cedar Falls, as well as the Methow Community trail which connects to other riding 

areas and the communities of Mazama and Winthrop. Nordic skiers have access to the 

most extensive network of groomed trails in North America, with over 120 miles to 

choose from. Backcountry skiers explore nearly endless terrain on the east slope of the 

Cascades. Whitewater boaters enjoy the experiences on the Methow River and 

Chewuch, which have easy access for day trips, while the Lost River offers one of the 

finest backcountry whitewater adventures in the North Cascades. Climbers have easy 

access to Goat Wall, Fun Rock, and Prospector Wall, while winter adventures can 

include ice climbing at Goat Wall and Gate Creek. For mountaineers, Golden Horn is a 

trip deep in a Forest Service roadless area that provides spectacular views of the North 

Cascades. Some of the best alpine climbing in the United States is a short drive up 

Highway 20 to the iconic Liberty Bell Group and Burgundy Spires at Washington Pass. 

These alpine destinations also include classic backcountry ski terrain such as Silver 

Star. 

3 These rivers were designated in the following years: Chetco-1988, North Fork Smith-1988, lllinois-1984, 

and Rogue-1968 and 1988. 4 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014 Toxic Release Inventory at 

https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/comparing-industry-sectors-2014-tri-national-analysis, last visited 

September 20,2016. 

e fi1 m '-~-' wlll. 11.1 Mountaineers 
702 


Insert graphic folio 786 here 22000A.662

The national significance of the Methow Valley for outdoor recreation is due to the 

quality of all the opportunities described above that attract visitors from across the 

country and around the world. These high quality experiences for outdoor recreation are 

available throughout the year, in contrast to other outdoor recreation destinations that 

are more seasonal. An additional contributing factor to the national significance is the 

range of difficulty, with some destinations challenging the nation's top experts, while 

others are suitable for families and serve as perfect teaching venues for those just 

learning the activities we enjoy. The local community, including many of the members 

we represent, has successfully built an outdoor recreation economy around these 

experiences that would be threatened by the development of a large scale mine on 

Flagg Mountain at the headwaters of the Methow watershed. 

Industrial scale mining in the headwaters is simply incompatible with the recreational 

activities our members enjoy and the significant local economic benefits they provide. 

Polluted waters, disturbed lands and viewsheds, lost recreational access, and noisy 

industrial activity would erase the very reasons that make the Methow Valley so iconic. 

Large-scale surface mining would drastically alter this landscape forever through 

impacts to water quality and the health of the surrounding landscape, and according to 

reports compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency, the metal mining industry is 

the largest toxic polluter in the nation. 5 

Our organizations strongly support permanent protection from mining threats for this 

landscape through S. 2991. 

S. 3049, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act 

Outdoor Alliance, the Conservation Alliance, and Outdoor Industry Association fully 

support S. 3049, which would protect the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks region and 

convert key Wilderness Study Areas into designated Wilderness areas. The bill is a 

product of a robust, community-driven process that determined appropriate Wilderness 

areas and associated provisions for those areas. 

Rock climbing is a key cog in New Mexico's outdoor recreation economy, and the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument includes nationally-renowned climbing. 

The National Monument provides outstanding recreation and natural experiences for the 

local community as well as visitors to the region. Outdoor Industry Association reports 

that in New Mexico the outdoor recreation economy supports over 47,000 jobs and 

generates $184 million in annual state tax revenue. Climbing in Organ Mountains5 http://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/2013-tri-national-analysis-comparing-industrysectors. 

li:Ountaineers ~~-~ 
703 


Insert graphic folio 787 here 22000A.663

Desert Peaks National Monument certainly enhances the local recreation economy and 

helps to create more jobs for New Mexico's second largest city, Las Cruces. 

We believe that Wilderness designation for the Wilderness Study Areas within the 

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument is a necessary step toward 

enhancing the climbing opportunities. Bureau of Land Management policy for climbing in 

Wilderness Study Areas is actually much more restrictive than for Wilderness Areas. 6 

Wilderness designation will legalize new backcountry climbing opportunities and allow 

the Bureau of Land Management to align their climbing management strategies with 

current, best climbing practices. 

Thank you for considering the perspective of the outdoor recreation community and 

industry on these important pieces of legislation. 

Best regards, 

Adam Cramer 

Executive Director 

Outdoor Alliance 

Amy Roberts 

Executive Director 

Outdoor Industry Association 

John Sterling 

Executive Director 

The Conservation Alliance 

cc: Brady Robinson, Executive Director, Access Fund 

Wade Blackwood, Executive Director, American Canoe Association 

Mark Singleton, Executive Director, American Whitewater 

Bruce Alt, VP Government Relations, International Mountain Bicycling Association 

Mark Menlove, Executive Director, Winter Wildlands Alliance 

Tom Vogl, Chief Executive Officer, The Mountaineers 

Phil Powers, Executive Director, American Alpine Club 

6 BLM Manual 6330 prohibits fixed anchors (bolts) in Wilderness Study Areas, while BLM Manual 6340 

allows fixed anchors in designated Wilderness Areas. Fixed anchors are a critical tool for the climbing 

safety system. 

~'" iii .@1!1 '-~.! ~'Ill. Ill Mountaineers 
704 


Insert graphic folio 788 here 22000A.664

David Bim 

Pmidmt 

Duncan ?\.facLean 

PACIFIC Gi'5~~; of FISHER~1E .. 

;\fikc 

Trea.rurer 

Please Respond to: 

l j California Office 

P.O. Box 29370 

San Francisco~ CA 94129-0370 

Tel: (415) 561-5080 

Fax: (415) 561-5464 

Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

21 September, 2016 

In response: fish lifr@aol.com 

Senate Energy & Natural Resourc.es Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Tim Sloane 

Yivian 

rt7atershed Conservation Direc!or 

In Memoriam: 

Nathaniel S. Bingham 

Harold C. Christensen 

\X'. F. "Zcke" Grader, Jr. 

[X] Northwest Office 

P.O. Box 11170 

Eugene, OR 97440-3370 

Tel: (541) 689-2000 

Fax: (541) 689-2500 

RE: Support for the Soutllwestern Oregon Waterslled and Salmon 

Protection Act of 2015 (S. 346) 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

As you know, PCFFA is the largest organization of commercial fishing families on the West 

Coast, representing the economic interests of the multi-billion dollar commercial salmon fishery 

and the tens of thousands of coastal fishing jobs that our industry supports in California, Oregon 

and Washington. 

We are writing to express our strong support for the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and 

Salmon Protection Act of2015 (S. 346). We especially would like to thank Senators Wyden and 

Merkley for introducing Senate Bill 346 and also Representatives Peter DeFazio (OR) and Jared 

Huffman (CA), who have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives 

(H.R. 682) in support of these protections. 

Senate Bill 346 would help protect against new mining claims being lodged in some of the most 

pristine and biologically valuable rivers still on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest, including 
705 


Insert graphic folio 789 here 22000A.665

PCFF A Support for S. 346 21 September 20 16 

three outstanding watersheds which are also the site of some of the most important salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat still left intact in Southern Oregon and northern California. 

This legislation would preserve key salmon habitat alongside the Wild and Scenic North Fork 

Smith River in Oregon, the watershed of Rough and Ready Creek (an eligible Wild and Scenic 

River and tributary to the Wild and Scenic Illinois and Rogue rivers), as well as 17 miles of the 

Wild and Scenic Chetco River. Also protected from new mining claims would be the headwaters 

of Hunter Creek and the Pistol River-two prized native salmon and steelhead rivers and the 

sources for clean drinking water for several southern Oregon communities. 

As you know, the federal government and state governments of California, Oregon and 

Washington now collectively spend millions of dollars each year in efforts to protect and restore 

vitally important and economically irreplaceable salmon habitat. It makes absolutely no sense to 

simultaneously leave in place Mining Act of 1872 "loopholes" that would expose many of these 

very same watersheds to further damage from planned large-scale corporate mining operations 

that are now being proposed. Immediately closing those mining claim "loopholes," and 

protecting many tens of millions of dollars in salmon habitat restoration money already invested 

in those key watersheds, is precisely what S. 346 would do. 

The bill covers approximately I 06,000 acres, lands located Q!l!y on either National Forest or 

BLM lands, that have exceptionally clean rivers that provide excellent habitat for spawning 

steelhead and salmon as well as drinking water to residents in Josephine and Curry Counties in 

Oregon and Crescent City, California. This vibrant river system remains one of the few 

remaining strongholds for abundant wild salmon and steelhead in the continental United States. 

Salmon from these rivers support major regional commercial and sport-fishing industries. The 

Wild and Scenic Rogue River alone contributes an estimated $16 million every year into the 

economy of southwest Oregon. 

It is important to note that no private lands would be affected by S. 346, only existing federal 

public lands. The legislation also protects all current mining claims, as the bill is subject to all 

"valid existing rights." Only new claims would be barred. 

There are thousands of other places in the country where large-scale corporate mining operations 

could be profitably located. They do not have to be allowed in the middle of some of the last, 

best and most pristine salmon habitat still left on the Pacific Coast, jeopardizing thousands of 

salmon-dependent jobs! 

On behalf of the hundreds of commercial fishing families and businesses we represent, we thank 

you for this opportunity to testifY in support ofS. 346. 

Sincerely, 

!f~enx. $r 

Glen H. Spain 

Northwest Regional Director, PCFF A 

PCFFA·S346(09·21·16) 

2 
706 


Insert graphic folio 790 here 22000A.666

October 4, 2016 

Chairman Lisa Murkowski 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell! I 

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346) 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

I am writing in support of the Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 

346). I deeply appreciate the leadership of Senators Wyden and Merkley in introducing this 

important legislation to protect the headwaters of several outstanding National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers in Southwestern Oregon from strip mining. 

I've spent a career traveling, photographing, researching, and writing about wild rivers all across 

the nation, which has given me a unique perspective on the rivers in Southwest Oregon. I've 

paddled on more than 300 rivers and have written more than 25 books about rivers, forests, 

conservation and adventure travel all across America, including 5 books that are particularly 

germane to consideration of the proposed legislation-A Field Guide to Oregon Rivers, A Field 

Guide to California Rivers, The Wild and Scenic Rivers of America, and two forthcoming photo 

books Oregon's Rivers, and America's Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Working on these books has revealed to me just how extraordinary our collection of rivers in 

Southwest Oregon truly is. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers (Rogue, Illinois, Chetco, North 

Fork Smith, Smith), eligible rivers, and other free-flowing streams in the withdrawal area 

exemplify extremely high water quality and clarity, sustain robust salmon and steelhead runs, and 

offer world-class recreational opportunities for boating, fishing, and hiking. 

This superb set of rivers is the best not just in the Pacific Northwest region or in Oregon or 

California, but also throughout the west coast and our nation -so if protection from mining 

makes any sense anywhere in America, it makes sense here. 

As a resident in this region, I can tell you that the communities of southwest Oregon have been 

transitioning toward a recreational economy that depends on clean water and rivers and have selfidentified as "America's Wild Rivers Coast." Allowing mineral exploration at the headwaters of 

our prime rivers -with the aim of ultimately developing nickel strip mines -puts decades of 

significant investments in salmon habitat restoration, clean drinking water for many towns, and 

sustainable businesses at unacceptable risk. For these reasons, local citizens and municipalities in 

both southern Oregon and northern California overwhelmingly support protection for the 

headwaters of these rivers. 
707 


Insert graphic folio 791 here 22000A.667

Over the past few years, news headlines about mine spill disasters have become troublingly 

routine and have made clear that the mining industry cannot be entrusted with the fate of our 

nation's finest rivers. 

To protect these exemplary and nationally significant rivers for future generations, I strongly urge 

you to support the Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Palmer 

Author/ Photographer 

P.O. Box 1286 

Port Orford, OR 97465 
708 


Insert graphic folio 792 here 22000A.668

Olympia Office; 

305 Legislative Building 

PO Box 40412 

Olympia, WA 98504-4012 

Phone' (360) 786-7622 

Fax' (360) 786-1189 

July 8, 2016 

To whom it may concern, 

Washington State Senate 

Senator Linda Evans Parlette 

Senate Majority Caucus Chair 

12th Legislative District 

District Office: 

625 Okanogan, Suite 301 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Phone' (509) 663-9702 

E~mail: Linda.Parlette@leg. wa.gov 

Hotline, 1-800-562-6000 

I am writing to express my support for the proposed permanent mineral withdrawal oflands in 

the Methow Headwaters. The Methow Valley is an important and vital contributor to the 

economy of Okanogan County. Its waters are critical to farming, ranching, and salmon. The 

area's aquifer supplies communities including Winthrop and Twisp. Its lands are home to 

important and diverse wildlife populations. The Methow Valley provides recreational and scenic 

qualities that attract visitors, as well as support the livelihoods of a large number of full-time 

residents. 

Development of a large-scale mine in the headwaters is misplaced and threatens the qualities that 

define the Methow Valley, its economy and the rural character of Okanogan County. Further, 

opposition to large-scale mining has unified the community. Concern over a potential industrial 

mine in the Methow Headwaters has continued to grow; today, that includes more than 135 

diverse businesses, community leaders and organizations, the Okanogan Farm Bureau, and many 

concerned citizens. 

Withdrawing these lands so that a legislative solution can be pursued is important and urgent. I 

support immediate action by the Forest Service to initiate the withdrawal process "in aide of 

legislation." In doing so I support the desires of our community, the continued growth of the 

regional economy, and the precious water supplies that are the region's most important resource. 

With warmest regards, 

LINDA EVANS PARLETTE 

Washington State Senator 

12'h Legislative District 

''''''''''" _______ _ Committees: Health Care • Rules • Ways & Means 
709 


Insert graphic folio 005 here 22000A.669

Subject: 

From: Don Perkison 

Sent: Wednesday, 

To: Lane, Michelle (Energy) 

FW: Testimony 5.3315, 2d lD Memorial Modification 

Subject: Testimony 53315, 2d ID Memorial Modification 

Subject: Testimony S3315, 2d lD Memorial Modification 

Senator Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Senate Energy and Resources Committee 

Re: S,3315, Second Division Memorial Modification Act 

Dear Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, 

The 2nd Indianhead Division Association Scholarship and Memorials Foundation (Foundation) seeks to 

rededicate the 2ndDivision Memorial on Constitution Avenue ncar 17th Street in the President's Park on the 

National Mall in Washington, DC., by making a small but important modification 10 the MemoriaL 

The Memorial was initially erected and dedicated in 1936 to honor the 2ndDivision soldiers killed in World 

War I and rededicated in 1962 by adding two wings to the Memorial to honor the 2nd Division dead in World 

War II and the Korean War. Unfortunately, the Memorial no longer reflects all members of the 2nd Division 

who have given their life in service of their cow1try, specifically those who have fallen on or near the Korean 

Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea, as well as those who have fallen in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. 

S. 3315, has been introduced to allow for the addition of three small benches commemorating the fallen 2nd 

Division soldiers in service on and near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between South and North Korea 

and the fallen soldiers of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Legislation is necessary, as the National Park Service has 

denied moditication ofthe Memorial based on current law (40 USC Section 8903(b). 

We ask for your assistance in changing the law to allow this small but important modification. 

I urge you to support this legislation. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully, 

Donald Perkison 

Veteran 

2nd Division 

2nd Engineers 

3403 Livingston Lane 

Carrollton, TX 75007-3212 
710 


Insert graphic folio 795 here 22000A.671

BoARD oF CouNTY CoMMISSIONERS 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

United States Senate 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

PERSHING COUNTY 

PO DRAWERE 

LOVELOCK NEVADA 89419 

77&-273·2342 • FAX 17&-273-5078 

June 28.2016 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

United States Senate 

Washington. D.C. 20510 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

RE: Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act 

Dear Senators Reid and Heller. and Congressman Amodei: 

As you know. for the past year. Pershing County has been working with various 

stakeholders to develop a public lands proposal that addresses economic development. 

conservation, and recreation. 

On June 1. after multiple public hearings and opportunities for public input, the Pershing 

County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to support the Pershing County Economic 

Development and Conservation Act 

We respectfully request that you introduce this legislation in Congress, and do all that 

you can to see it signed into law as soon as possible. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely. 

;:b evr.; 1S~ ....!/ 

Darin Bloyed, Chair 

Pershing County Board of Commissioners 
711 


Insert graphic folio 798 here 22000A.674

TH. 

PEW 

CHARI'TAU£ TRUs-tS 

September 16, 2016 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

United States Senate 

522 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

200& Market Street, Sutte 1700 

Philadelphia, PA 19103· 7077 

901 E Stfeet NW, 10th Floor 

Washington, DC 20004 

215.575.9050 Phone 

H~U·tlSA939 Fax 

202: 55Z 20:00 Phone 

202 552.2299 fax 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

324 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

United States House of Representatives 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Senator Reid, Senator Heller, and Congressman Amodei: 

For more than a decade, Pershing County has sought to resolve the status of checkerboard land 

ownership, wilderness study areas, and other public lands issues in order to provide new 

opportunities for economic development while protecting areas of significant ecological value. 

The Pew Charitable Trusts supports these goals. The Pershing County Economic Development 

and Conservation Act (S.31 02 and H.R.5752) will designate new wilderness areas, consolidate 

checkerboard lands, and resolve other longstanding public lands issues in Pershing County. This 

introduction is an important step forward toward achieving important conservation gains with 

comprehensive and balanced legislation at a county-wide scale. 

Nevada's Great Basin desert is a magnificent high desert with pinyon-juniper forests, sagebrush 

valleys, rugged canyons and dramatic mountains. It is home to wildlife species such as sage 

grouse, pronghorn, mule deer, and bighorn sheep. S.31 02 and H.R.5752 would protect lands 

which are some of the State's most remote and wild places. This bill would provide wilderness 

designations for 136,000 acres of land, permanently preserving critical wildlife habitat, dramatic 

landscapes, geologic wonders, and magnificent outdoor recreation opportunities. 

While we are supportive of the conservation gains in this legislation, we have concerns with 

some of its other provisions. Section 304 would release 48,600 acres of wilderness study areas so 

that they would no longer be managed for their wilderness character. Section I 03(1)(1 )(B) would 

make 150,000 acres ofland available for sale or exchange, and the land conveyed under section 

201 would likely result in an increase in industrial development. We would not support these 

changes in land management or ownership on their own merits, but we recognize and appreciate 

that they are balanced by the significant conservation gains in the rest of Title III. 

We have additional concerns with section 103, which permits land exchanges on an acre-to-acre 

basis rather than a value-to-value basis. Pew recognizes the need to resolve the long-standing 

checkerboard ownership pattern ofland in Pershing County, and we appreciate the work that 

went into the exchange mechanism in the bill, which protects taxpayer interests with a value cap 

on exchanged land, and includes additional restrictions to help ensure that the federal 
712 


Insert graphic folio 799 here 22000A.675

government receives land that will assist the BLM in implementing public-interest management 

goals, including conservation and recreation. However, we think this section could be improved 

with modest changes. We recommend that the bill prohibit the Secretary from disposing ofland 

via exchange if that land would otherwise qualify for inclusion in a management priority area as 

described in section 103(d)(4). We also recommend that the bill direct the Secretary to perform 

additional analysis to determine if the $500/acre value cap for exchanged land in section 

103(d)(3)(A) is consistent with the average value of agricultural land in the county, and, if the 

average valuation of such land is lower, adjust the cap accordingly. 

We are sincerely grateful for the effort you and your staff have put into this bill, and we look 

forward to working with you on this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Matz, Director 

U.S. Public Lands 

The Pew Charitable Trusts 

2 
713 


Insert graphic folio 800 here 22000A.676

THE 

PEW 2005 Market Street, SUite 1700 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7077 

(KARITAIU TRU:Sl"S 901 E Sttt'mt NW, 10th Ftoor 

Washmgtof!, DC 20004 

Statement of John Seebach, Project Director, U.S. Public lands 

The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Regarding S. 346, S. 3049, s. 3102, s. 3203, s. 437, S.1416, and S. 3317 

Submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

For the Record of the hearing held on September 22, 2016 

21~_;p;, 9050 Phone 

21!i575.49-39 Fax 

2:02 5522:000 Phone 

202 552,2299 Fax 

The U.S. Public Lands program at The Pew Charitable Trusts seeks to preserve ecologically and 

culturally diverse U.S. public lands through congressionally designated wilderness, the establishment of 

national monuments, and administrative protections. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these 

comments for the record. 

S. 3049- The Oregon Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act 

The Pew Charitable Trusts supports S. 3049, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act, 

sponsored by Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich. This legislation would designate approximately 

241,000 acres of wilderness within the Organ-Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument. This 

legislation further protects some of southern New Mexico's most iconic vistas and preserves important 

landmarks and archeological and cultural resources. It will allow local families and visitors for 

generations to continue to hike, hunt, and learn from the thousands of significant historic sites 

throughout the area. 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act is the result of years of on-the-ground 

collaboration among a wide variety of stakeholders, including Hispanic leaders, veterans, Native 

Americans, sportsmen, small business owners, border security experts, ranchers, faith leaders, 

historians, and conservationists. 

S. 346- The Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act 

The Pew Charitable Trusts also stands in support of S. S.346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and 

Salmon Protection Act of 2015, sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. This legislation 

would withdraw more than 100,000 acres of land and waterways in an area commonly referred to as 

the Kalmiopsis from new mining or geothermal energy leasing. 

The Kalmiopsis is recognized for its wide diversity of wildlife and plants and its clean, cold rivers, which 

provide drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people. This area is a one-of-a kind collection of 
714 


Insert graphic folio 801 here 22000A.677

wild rivers, Jeffrey pine savannas, and rare plant species, some found nowhere else on the planet. It is 

also one of the last wild salmon strongholds in the continental United States. S. 346 would protect the 

place from the deleterious effects of mining and energy development, safeguard local communities' 

clean drinking water supplies, uphold tribal treaty rights, enhance revenues for local businesses, and 

preserve a priceless one-of-a-kind landscape for future generations. 

S. 3102 -The Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act 

The Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act (S.3102), introduced by Senators 

Dean Heller and Harry Reid, will designate 136,000 acres of new wilderness in the magnificent high 

desert of Nevada's great basin while resolving checkerboard land ownership and other longstanding 

public lands issues in Pershing County. This legislation is an important step forward toward achieving 

important conservation gains with comprehensive and balanced legislation at a county-wide scale. 

While we have expressed concerns with some provisions in the bill, the Pew Charitable Trusts supports 

the conservation gains in this bill and we look forward to working with the committee and its sponsors 

to improve this legislation and see it enacted into law. 

S. 2681- The San Juan Countv Settlement Implementation Act 

The San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act (S. 2681), introduced by Senators Tom Udall and 

Martin Heinrich, would create nearly 10,000 acres of new wilderness in the badlands of San Juan 

county. This legislation will permanently protect a scenic area rich in dinosaur fossils in the new Ah-shisle-pah Wilderness area and expand the Bisti and De-Na-Zin wilderness areas, which are home to 

unique rock formations. 

S. 3203- The Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

If enacted, section 403 of S. 3203 would amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) to revoke all areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) in Alaska, based on a faulty 

premise that ACECs violate ANILCA's prohibition against new withdrawals. ACECs do not remove those 

lands from the operation of public land laws and therefore by definition are not withdrawals. The 

Gwich'in people of Alaska have spent nearly a decade advocating for the protection of critical 

watersheds supporting subsistence resources in the region. The bill would eliminate many of the 

protections that they have achieved through many years of negotiations. 

Section 403 would nullify any executive agency action that "limits, or has the effect of limiting or 

impeding, activities and uses allowed" on more than 5,000 acres of public lands unless Congress 

approves the action via a joint resolution within one year of the action being noticed. The provision 

would apply to ACECs, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act, or "any similar land use designation or management of public lands" under 

any Federal land use law. This would in effect give Congress veto authority over nearly every land 

management decision made in Alaska by the federal government pursuant to authorities already 

granted them by Congress. 

2 
715 


Insert graphic folio 802 here 22000A.678

We opposeS. 3203 and ask that you do not move this bill forward; if the committee decides to act on 

the bill, we urge you to strike Section 403 in its entirety. 

S. 437, S.l416, and S. 3317 

The Pew Charitable Trusts opposes S. 437, S. 1416, and S. 3317. Each of these bills would, in different 

ways, curtail Presidential authority to designate and manage National Monuments granted by 

Congress under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Since President Theodore Roosevelt first used this 

authority to designate Devils Tower in Wyoming, sixteen Presidents of both political parties have used 

the Antiquities Act to protect historic landscapes and cultural icons, including the Grand Canyon and 

the Statue of Liberty. Congress should not weaken the President's authority to safeguard America's 

public lands. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these views for the Committee's consideration. For 

additional information, please contact me at (202) 540-6509 or jseebach@pewtrusts.org. 

3 
716 


Insert graphic folio 007 here 22000A.679

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: S3204-22September2016 

From: Christopher Preston [mj1Jii;<?;£llf:.i;;.m£•)1_,;mn~mJl?;iJJ!gm£iL•;£W] 

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:26 AM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <!JC>.rtbi€Il'£'l.r>L.@l':ng,:!W,:C~'l<!1!~,g:&> 

Subject: S3204-22September2016 

Dear Committee 

I have lived in King Cove, worked in the fisheries there, taken the air taxi to Cold Bay airport, and enjoying the 

natural bounty of the region. 

The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is literally priceless. Cutting it up with a road would be a tragedy that 

will span the generations. It is not clear that the road is essential to the community at King Cove. Some would 

say it is. Others would be appalled hy the whole idea. 

American icon Henry David Thoreau declared "We are rich in proportion to the amount of things we can leave 

alone." Please leave the Jzembek Refuge alone. Once these things are destroyed they are gone forever. This 

ecosystem deserves to stay intact forever. 

Please bear this in mind as you learn about the issue today. 

Sincerley, Christopher Preston 

Christopher J.Preston 

745 South 4th St. W. 

Missoula, MT 59801 

(406) 543-3868 
717 


Insert graphic folio 008 here 22000A.680

Statement by 

EMMETT J. STURGILL 

RAFTERS CATTLE COMPANY 

KINGMAN, ARIZONA 

CHAIRMAN OF FEDERAL LANDS/BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

COMMITTEE FOR THE ARIZONA CATTLE GROWERS' 

ASSOCIATION 

With regard to 

Congressman Paul Gosar's 

Public Listening Session: 

"Government Land Grabs- Exposing the Truth" 

Aprilll, 2016 

Kingman, Arizona 

For the record, my name is Emmett J. Sturgill and I have been a lifelong resident 

of Northern Arizona and involved in managing lands and livestock here since 

1974. In addition to my experience in the cattle business in this area - I was 

employed for 35 years with the Arizona Department of Public Safety. These 

experiences have provided me with the knowledge and understanding of lands, 

animals, laws and government agency operations. 

We stand in opposition to the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National 

Monument. This proposed National Monument - with the stroke of a pen will 

dramatically damage our economy in Northern Arizona and will forever destroy 

economically viable ranching families, sportsmen opporttmities, mineral 

exploration, energy opportunities and the general welfare of the areas in and 

around this 1.7 million acre proposed National Monument. 

This proposed expansion of added regulatory jurisdiction - on such a broad 

landscape of Northern Arizona is a covert attack on land access, viable natural 

resource production and the opportunity for us in Northern Arizona to live on, care 

for and produce food for our great nation and state in this area. The process for 

this proposed National Monument is devoid of local input from the communities, 

leaders, citizens and businesses in this area. 
718 


Insert graphic folio 805 here 22000A.681

The proposed National Monument is following a disturbing trend that has emerged 

over recent years in land designations: It circumvents the usual route of involving 

our elected officials in the U.S. Congress and at our State Legislature; and it 

advances without the consent of our elected legislators or consultation with our 

state and local governments. While the Property Clause in our U.S. Constitution 

grants Congress the authority to make the bulk of land designations - by statutory 

provisions for forest designations, federal wilderness areas and the establishment 

of National Parks the authority to designate national monuments has been 

delegated to the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906. This must change. 

The Antiquities Act lacks significant standards for size, creating a high potential 

for abuse. Although Congress retains the ability to designate national monuments 

through statute, it principally relies on monument designations put forward by the 

Executive Branch. Between 1906 and 1999, Presidents designated 118 national 

monuments. Although Congress has limited the Act's reach in some respects, the 

federal courts have expanded and upheld every exercise of the Antiquities Act. 

President Clinton took the Antiquities Act to new heights with the designation and 

expansion of more than 20 national monuments, many of which were opposed by 

local residents and landowners. The current administration is continuing this trend 

with nearly 20 monument designations, closing off millions of acres of in the west. 

In order to prevent this abuse of power, Congress should take steps to curb the 

President's ability to arbitrarily designate national monuments, and create a 

mechanism for congressional review of proclamations. Congress should also 

provide for state and local input before the designation takes place. 

It is disturbing to us in Northern Arizona that the President is denying Arizona 

citizens a voice in the proposed designation of a national monument in our own 

backyard. Such a designation will have real impacts on the livelihoods of us 

citizens who actually live near and work on these lands. It will have a tremendous 

impact on outdoor sporting opportunities like hunting and target shooting as we 

have an example in central Arizona where the BLM has proposed to place an area 

within the Sonoran National Monument off limits to target shooting. The wishes 

of the people most affected by these types of designations are once again - being 

ignored. 

We are disappointed in the Executive Branch's inability to use the Antiquities Act 

in a transparent and reasonable fashion. This proposed designation serves as the 
719 


Insert graphic folio 806 here 22000A.682

latest example of why the Antiquities Act, first passed in 1906, is in serious need 

of updating. 

These types of designations are top-down, big government land grabs that 

disenfranchise the concerned citizens that live, work and recreate in these areas. 

When we look at prior designated areas we see - the elimination and drastic 

reduction in livestock production, reduced opportunities for sportsmen and outdoor 

recreation, impacts on water rights and the overall reduction of our ability to 

manage challenges like wildfire limiting the ability of our first responders to react 

to these challenges. They become underfunded and neglected properties - this is 

the opposite of what we seek for these lands in Northern Arizona. 

In closing, Congressman Gosar we implore you to carry forward with our message 

and we thank you for conducting this listening session as: When these areas are 

created without normal Congressional and local consensus, when they rob the 

people of a fair and open process stifling the input of the community - they 

become orphans once the Administration that designated them changes. 

Note: 

Attached are four slides which illuminate: 1) The vast area of federally controlled 

lands already in Arizona (and the west) in red; 2) A Map of Arizona demonstrating 

the location of an already existing 18 National Monuments and 2.5 million acres in 

Arizona; 3) Points highlighting the lack of transparency and resulting management 

impacts; and 4) a Conclusion of three key points. 
720 


Insert graphic folio 807 here 22000A.683

September 21, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Testimony for the record for the September 22, 2016 Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee Hearing: S. 3203, S. 3204, S. 3273 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) is writing to provide a 

written statement for the record in advance of the September 22, 2016 Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee Hearing, which will include Senate bills S. 3203, S. 

3204, s. 3273. 

RDC is an Alaska-based business association comprised of individuals and companies 

from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, forest products, tourism and fisheries industries. 

RDC's membership includes Alaska Native Corporations, local communities, organized 

labor, and industry support firms. RDC's purpose is to encourage a strong, diversified 

private sector in Alaska and expand the state's economic base through the responsible 

development of our natural resources. 

RDC writes to comment on the following legislation: 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

RDC thanks you for the introduction of S. 3203, Title 1- Fill TAPS, Title II- Outer 

Continental Shelf, Title Ill- Federal Onshore, Title IV- Mining, and Title V- Forestry, 

and is on the record in support of sections of the bill already. 

TITLE 1- FILL TAPS 

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) has played a critical role in our nation's 

energy security, carrying more than 17 billion barrels of oil to West Coast markets. It is 

the economic lifeblood of Alaska's economy and a critical link to the nation's long-term 

energy security. One cannot overstate the importance of oil and gas to Alaska. Oil 

production and the spending of the state's oil revenues account for up to one half of the 

economic activity in Alaska. Oil revenues provide and fund thousands of private and 

public sector jobs, as well as critical public services and infrastructure. It's clear that 

Alaskans and our state's economy would benefit significantly from increased oil 

production. In fact, the very concept of Alaska's statehood is predicated on the 

development of natural resources. 

121 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 250, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

907~276·0700 • resources@akrdc.org • akrdc.org 
721 


Insert graphic folio 808 here 22000A.684

RDC Re: Testimony for the record: S. 3203, S. 3204, S. 3273 Page 2 of3 

More than five decades ago when Alaska statehood was debated, many politicians in Washington, D.C. 

doubted this northern territory could build an economy and contribute to the union. Alaskans joined together 

to convince Congress that development of Alaska's vast resources could establish and sustain a strong 

private sector economy. Ultimately Congress admitted Alaska to the Union. We remind federal policy 

makers that Alaska was allowed to join the union because of the expectation that the development of our 

natural resources would sustain the economy. Now, Alaska's economic lifeline, TAPS, is starved for oil. It's 

not because Alaska has depleted its natural resources. In fact, there is more oil in place onshore and 

offshore the North Slope than what has been developed since statehood. The challenge is achieving access 

to the resource. 

TITLE II- OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

The federal government estimates there are 23.6 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and about 

104.4 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas in the Chukchi and Beaufort sea planning 

areas. The Chukchi Sea itself is considered the most promising undeveloped energy basin in America with 

only several areas in the world that may offer higher potential. The Alaska Arctic Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) likely constitutes the eighth largest oil reserve in the world, putting it above Nigeria, Libya, Russia, 

and Norway. In addition, it is estimated that economic activity from the development of conventional energy 

reserves beneath the Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs 

nationwide (35,000 in Alaska) with a cumulative payroll of $154 billion over the next 50 years. Moreover, 

government revenues generated from Alaska OCS production cculd reach nearly $200 billion. It is 

imperative to move forward with exploration activities in the Alaska OCS. Development and production of 

Arctic energy resources will be needed to offset declining Lower 48 production projected to begin in the 

coming decades. 

TITLE Ill -FEDERAL ONSHORE 

The Federal onshore oil and gas resources will be vital to refilling TAPS and increasing our nation's energy 

security. The U.S. Geological Service estimates the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska (NPR-A) contains 

896 million barrels of oil, and 53 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered conventional natural gas within NPR-A 

and adjacent state waters. 

Moreover, the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is estimated to contain about 10.5 

billion barrels of oil. 

TITLE IV- MINING 

Previously, ROC went on the record expressing concerns with an often ignored provision of the Alaska 

National Interest Land Claims Act (ANILCA), the "no more" clause. 

RDC is concerned Federal land managers have routinely ignored Section 1326(b), a key provision of 

ANILCA which states that "no further studies of federal lands in the State of Alaska for the single purpose of 

considering the establishment of a conservation system unit ... or for related or similar purposes shall be 

conducted unless authorized by this Act or further Act of Congress." RDC believes S. 3203 TITLE IVMINING, Section 403 ANILCA clarification: Limitation on land use designations, provides clarification and an 

expressed definition. 

TITLE V - FORESTRY 

RDC is also on record opposing the Roadless Rule in Alaska and encouraging a revitalized forest industry 

in the Southeast Alaska, including the establishment of a Tongass State Forest. 
722 


Insert graphic folio 809 here 22000A.685

RDC Re: Testimony for the record: S. 3203, S. 3204, S. 3273 Page 3 of3 

Specific to TITLE V- FORESTRY, Section 502. Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange, RDC urges 

prompt passage. 

For nearly a decade, the Alaska Mental Health Trust has been seeking to exchange with the U.S. Forest 

Service 17,341 acres afforested Trust lands near Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Sitka in 

exchange for Forest Service lands of equal value in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and on Prince of 

Wales Island. 

The exchange would minimize or avoid potential impacts to nearby communities while helping to sustain what 

remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by providing more timber lands that could be managed on a 

sustained yield basis. This timber is critical to providing industry a bridge in transitioning to young growth timber. 

S. 3204, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act 

RDC joins the Alaska delegation, thousands of Alaskans, and many business and trade associations, 

including the ANCSA Regional Corporation CEO's Association in support of the King Cove Road exchange. 

For more than 15 years RDC has urged approval of the King Cove land exchange. RDC strongly believes 

that a road corridor from King Cove to the all-weather airport at Cold Bay is in the public interest. This is a 

public safety and human rights issue, which should be given the highest priority. 

S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

RDC is compelled to support this bill as it contains provisions and policies that will benefit village and 

Regional Native corporations, and thousands of Alaska Native shareholders. It also enforces benefits and 

entitlements to Alaska Native Corporations expressly contained in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

when it was passed in 1971. 

Conclusion 

RDC applauds the introduction of S. 3203, S. 3204, and S. 3272 as key legislation to improve and enhance 

economic and community opportunities for Alaska and the nation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

~...wt.> ~\.l- Marleanna Hall 

Executive Director 
723 


Insert graphic folio 810 here 22000A.686

September 22, 2016 

The Honorable Usa Murkowski, Chairman 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Senate Bill 3203, Title V- Forestry, Section 502, the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

land exchange 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

As a follow-up to written testimony on S. 3203, the Resource Development Council for 

Alaska. Inc. (RDC) is writing to provide additional comments urging the Senate to pass the 

Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange. 

RDC is an Alaska-based non-profit business association comprised of individuals and 

companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, forest products, fisheries and tourism 

industries. ROC's membership also includes Alaska Native corporations, local 

communities, organized labor and industry-support firms. ROC's purpose is to encourage a 

strong, diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the state's economic base through 

the responsible development of our natural resources. 

In 1956, Congress passed the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. granting an entitlement 

of one million acres of federal land to the Territory of Alaska to generate revenues for the 

benefit of Alaskans with mental illness and other disorders. The Alaska Mental Health Trust 

Board has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize long-term revenue from Trust land and 

manage its lands prudently to support its programs and services on behalf of its clients. 

For nearly a decade, the Trust has been seeking to exchange with the U.S. Forest Service 

17,341 acres of forested Trust lands near Ketchikan, Juneau, Petersburg, Wrangell, and 

Sitka in exchange for Forest Service lands of equal value in the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borough and on Prince of Wales Island. From the perspective of Trust beneficiaries, the 

highest and best use of the 17,341 of Trust lands may be to harvest high-value timber lands 

and develop other lands for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. 

The exchange of the 17,341 acres of Trust lands for up to 20,580 acres of Forest Service 

lands would minimize or avoid potential impacts to nearby communities while helping to 

sustain what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska by providing more timber 

lands that could be managed on a sustained yield basis. 

Delays in the Forest Service timber sale planning efforts have caused serious concerns that 

there will not be enough timber available to support the timber industry in Southeast Alaska 

to allow it to transition to young-growth timber unless the State of Alaska and the Trust can 

provide bridge timber sales in the interim. 

121 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 250, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

907-276-0700 • resources@akrdc.org • akrdc.org 
724 


Insert graphic folio 811 here 22000A.687

Page 2/RDC comments on Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

The proposed legislation would provide Congressional authorization and direction for the exchange, which 

should expedite completion of the transfer so that timber lands could be transferred to the Trust within a year. 

Further, the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange is fair and responsible. It requires the 

exchange to be of equal value and directs environmental reviews to protect all species, cultural and historic 

resources, wetlands, and floodplains. 

The Trust has worked with the affected municipal governments, communities, local environmental groups, the 

Tongass Futures Roundtable, the Nature Conservancy, and others to select lands with the least environmental 

impacts and to design the exchange to mitigate impacts to wildlife. The proposed exchange is clearly in the 

interest of Trust beneficiaries, local communities, and the Southeast Alaska economy. 

RDC appreciates your support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange and strongly urges its timely 

enactment. 

Sincerely, 

Carl Portman 

Deputy Director 
725 


Insert graphic folio 812 here 22000A.688

Doug Rhodes 

Box 268 

Craig, Alaska 99921 

Dear Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: 

Reference: Senate Bill # 3203 and 3273 heard on 9/22/16 

I am a commercial fisherman that lives on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska on the 

Tongass National Forest. I have been a commercial fisherman in Southeast Alaska for almost 50 

years and have just learned about this Senate hearing on many bills regarding the area in which 

I live. I was told that I was supposed to have comments in by last Friday, but this is difficult for 

me as I am still fishing salmon, and have been out of town working for the past several months. 

I am very concerned about a couple of pieces of legislation that your committee has been 

debating but am also concerned with any legislation that takes public National Forest land and 

puts it in private hands. That includes legislation that trades smaller tracts of private lands back 

to the Forest Service on Admiralty Island for larger tracts of National Forest lands on Prince of 

Wales Island. 

As a resident of Prince of Wales Island, I am fed up with all of the logging, land trades and 

everything else that always affects us on this island. If the mental health lands or University of 

Alaska Land or State of Alaska land that has been selected near other communities in Southeast 

Alaska receive any opposition from those communities, then the compromise is always to trade 

that land for land on Prince of Wales Island. ALWAYS!!!! I am fed up with being the scapegoat 

island! 

If this is all about keeping our relatively small timber industry alive, and keeping the one mill 

still active (which is on Prince of Wales Island), then All communities in Southeast Alaska 

should take a share of the timber harvest. Where is the land selected near Sitka or Juneau? 

grew up in Sitka and it was a pulp mill town. Now you would never select lands for timber 

harvest near Sitka or you would raise the ire of the community. The same is true around 

Juneau, but we all keep selecting lands on Prince of Wales. 

The Forest Service made timber plans and cuts over the years on Prince of Wales that allowed 

for wildlife corridors and had winter range areas for deer. These areas are now being selected 

by the state for timber harvest, and some may also be selected by native corporations as a 

result of some of the land trades that have been made or proposed. I am concerned that we 

are heading towards a habitat nightmare on this Island as we keep harvesting areas that were 

not intended to be harvested. 

I could carry on for ever on this subject, but suffice it to say that I am unhappy with all of this 

legislation that is before your committee, and urge members to not give in to the timber 
726 


Insert graphic folio 813 here 22000A.689

industry that says that we need all of this timber in order to keep our mill running. If you want 

to keep the mill running, the first step would be to eliminate the exportation of round logs and 

mill every stick of wood that comes out of the Tongass. 

Thank you for listening to my input. 

Respectfully. 

Doug Rhodes 

Craig, Alaska 
727 


Insert graphic folio 814 here 22000A.690

Statement 

U.S. Senator James E. Risch 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

366 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

September 22, 2016 

9:30AM 

Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, I speak today in opposition to a national 

monument designation in Idaho. No one understands the value oflocalland better than those in 

the communities surrounding it. The great majority of people in Idaho do not support a new 

national monument at this time, but the process for designation provides no method for them to 

voice those concerns. One-size-fits-all approaches from the federal government do a disservice 

to the communities they actually affect. National monuments need local input and buy in. 

Withdrawing land without consulting those that will be affected shows the clear lack of 

transparency in the designation process and only serves to foster resentment. 

There are three bills before the committee today regarding monument designation. Idahoans are 

not alone in their concern about new monuments; it spreads across western states. Senator 

Murkowski's bill concentrates on many of the same issues addressed in similar legislation I have 

supported in the past. Including local officials in monument designations ensures the affected 

communities have the ability to comment. By also requiring Congressional approval, we prevent 

executive action that is more focused on creating a legacy than the affect it will have on the 

region the monument will actually be located. 

This needs to be a collaborative process involving public input from communities, action by 

local officials, and limits on executive power. Gaining support on the local level is the only way 

to ensure action on public lands will be in the best interest for everyone. 
728 


Insert graphic folio 815 here 22000A.691

Ry~.r:~~~ 220 SOUTH ROCK BLVD., SUITE 9, RENO, NV 89502 

Tel (775) 856-4900 Fax (775)856-4911 bill@ryepatchgold.com 

June 25, 2016 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-2803 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 201510-2805 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

322 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-2802 

RE: Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act 

Dear Nevada Members of Congress: 

As President of one of the largest mining interests in Pershing County, I am writing on 

behalf of Rye Patch Mining US Inc. to pledge its support for the Pershing County 

Development and Conservation Act The enactment of this legislative Bill will help the 

economic development of Pershing County by allowing Rye Patch and others to 

successfully advance their mining projects faster, cheaper and with more certainty than 

under the current system. 

Rye Patch has recently purchased the Florida Canyon and Standard gold mines, has 

two resource projects heading toward feasibility, and has an additional two advanced 

projects working toward resource development The Pershing County Development and 

Conservation Act will allow these projects to move forward at an expedited pace, thus 

creating additional high-paying mining jobs, ancillary support service jobs and increased 

tax revenue. 

In addition to the benefits to mining and ranching industries, the Pershing County 

Development and Conservation Act provides for wilderness areas that protect lands that 

will be preserved for future generations. The Pershing County Development and 

Conservation Act shows the power of working together to complete legislation that 

captures the needs of all Nevadans. 

I would like to thank you and your respective staffs for helping to make the Pershing 

County Development and Conservation Act a reality and for your service to the great 

State of Nevada and our Country. 

Sincerely, 

RYE PATCH MINING US 
729 


Insert graphic folio 816 here 22000A.692

,., 

~LUES IN ACTION 

SEALASKA 

October 5, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

U.S. Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: September 22, 2016 Hearing on Various Bills, Including S. 3273, the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016, and S. 3203, the Alaska 

Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On behalf of Sealaska Corporation, I am pleased to submit comments on the subject of 

the Committee's September 22, 2016 hearing on various bills, including S. 3273, the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of2016, and S. 3203, the Alaska 

Economic Development and Access to Resources Act of2016. 

Sealaska Corporation is one of 12 Alaska Native Regional Corporations established 

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Our shareholders are 

descendants of the original inhabitants of Southeast Alaska- the Tiingit, Haida and 

Tsimshian people. 

S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of :Z016 

Section 5 - Shee Atiki lncomorated 

Sealaska understands that Section 5 of the bill permits consideration received by Shee 

Atika Incorporated for the purchase of Cube Cove land by the United States to be treated 

as the receipt ofland or interest in land within the meaning of section 21 (c) of ANCSA 

(43 U.S.C. 1620(c)) or as cash in order to equalize the values of properties exchanged 

under section 22(f) of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1621(f)). 

The U.S. Forest Service and Shee Atilci Incorporated have entered into an agreement 

which allows the United States to purchase approximately 23,000 acres of surface estate 

in Cube Cove from Shee Atika Incorporated. Sealaska Corporation is the subsurface 

owner of the Shee Atika estate. However, Sealaska has not been directly involved in the 

negotiations between the Forest Service and Shee Atika and Sealaska has a policy 

prohibiting the sale of ANCSA land. 

Sealaska • OneSealaska Plaza. Suile400, Juneau, Alalka 99801-1276 • Tel: 907.588.1512 • Fax: 907.588.2304 
730 


Insert graphic folio 817 here 22000A.693

When the United States acquires Shee Atika's surface estate interest on Admiralty Island, 

Sealaska will retain its rights to full enjoyment of the subsurface, including the right to 

develop rock and gravel and other mineral resources and the right to use the surface 

estate as necessary for the use of the subsurface. Sealaska would, however, prefer to 

avoid future conflicts in which Sealaska's legitimate interest in developing its subsurface 

resources interferes with the Forest Service's objectives in the purchase of this property, 

which we assume is for the purposes of conservation and public use and enjoyment. 

Sealaska's Board policy is not to sell land that it has acquired for the benefit of Alaska 

Natives under ANCSA. For this reason, Sealaska seeks to exchange its subsurface lands 

under Shee Atika's surface estate interest on Admiralty Island for suitable lands 

elsewhere in Southeast Alaska. The proposed exchange is set forth in Section 6 ofS. 

3273. 

Section 6 - Admiralty Island National Monument Land Exchange 

For the reasons stated above, Sealaska seeks to exchange its subsurface lands under Shee 

Atika's surface estate interest on Admiralty Island for suitable lands elsewhere in 

Southeast Alaska. 

Our view is that ANCSA lands are an integral part of our tribal member shareholders' 

cultural and Native identity. Sealaska is not interested in selling the subsurface estate on 

Admiralty Island. Sealaska is willing to consider substituting subsurface interest on 

Admiralty Island for land elsewhere within the Tongass National Forest. 

Section 6 would facilitate the exchange of the approximately 23,000 acres ofSealaska 

subsurface estate on Admiralty Island for approximately 8,872.5 acres of federal surface 

and subsurface estate as well as approximately 5,145 of federal surface estate located 

above Sealaska subsurface estate on Prince ofWales Island; This exchange would 

eliminate split-estates associated with the Sealaska lands on Prince of Wales Island, an 

objective the Forest Service has sought to achieve in the past. 

The proposed exchange is consistent with the exchange mechanism set forth in Public 

Law 102-415, Section 17, which codified the Sealaska Corporation/United States Forest 

Service Split Estate Exchange Agreement of 1991 ("1991 Agreement"), wherein 

Sealaska transferred its interest in subsurface estate for other subsurface in the Tongass 

National Forest, as part of a transaction in which ANCSA surface estate held by another 

Alaska Native corporation was acquired by the United States. Pursuant to the 1991 

Agreement, Sealaska received a "floating" subsurface entitlement to several thousand 

acres, which Sealaska has selected from within existing Forest Service designated and 

congressionally-approved, withdrawal areas on Prince of Wales Island. However, 

because the areas withdrawn for Sealaska floating subsurface selections are not large 

enough to facilitate the transfer of Sealaska's 23,000 acres of subsurface estate on 

Admiralty Island, additional lands are required to complete new selections. The U.S. 

Forest Service has expressed its desire to avoid "split" estate situations within the 

Tongass National Forest. 

2 
731 


Insert graphic folio 818 here 22000A.694

For this reason, Section 6 allows Sealaska to exchange its subsurface estate within 

Admiralty Island National Monument to acquire the surface estate above Sealaska 

subsurface estate that has been acquired pursuant to the 1991 Agreement with the Forest 

Service, and also to acquire surface and subsurface estate on lands adjacent to lands 

acquired by Sealaska pursuant to the 1991 Agreement, which would result in the 

elimination of split-estates and the conveyance of contiguous parcels ofland to Sealaska. 

The Forest Service testified that it "agrees with the goals of this legislation,'' but also 

suggested ''this exchange should be completed using an equal value exchange." 

However, as the Forest Service is well aware, Section 1302(h) of ANILCA gives broad 

authority to the Secretary of Agriculture, "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,'' 

to exchange lands or interests therein with Alaska Native corporations for conservation 

purposes. 

Section 22(f) of ANCSA, too, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands 

or interests therein with Alaska Native corporations for the purpose of effecting land 

consolidations or to facilitate the management or development of the land, or for other 

public purposes. 

Under both of these provisions, a land exchange may be completed on a basis other than 

equal value if the exchange is in the public interest. 

Sealaska's subsurface estate within Admiralty Island National Monument has never been 

subject to extensive exploration for locatable minerals. However, the Greens Creek 

deposit, just 8 miles north ofSealaska subsurface estate, is one of the largest and lowestcost primary silver mines in the world. The Greens Creek ore body also contains 

significant deposits of zinc, gold and lead. 

Without significant exploratory work, an appraisal of the mineral potential of Sealaska's 

Admiralty Island subsurface estate will not provide the fair market value of the property. 

On the other hand, it is clear that the Forest Service has prioritized the acquisition of 

Native lands on Admiralty Island- currently, through the purchase of Shee Atika 's 

surface estate interest on Admiralty Island - for conservation purposes. 

Our objective is to complete an exchange of lands that that will enable the Forest Service 

to successfully acquire full fee ownership of the 23,000 acres ofland within Admiralty 

Island National Monument, while avoiding split estates and minimizing the conveyance 

of isolated tracts ofland to Sealaska. Section 6 ofS. 3273 achieves this outcome. We 

strongly support enactment of this provision or similar language to accomplish the goals 

of this provision. 

Section 9-Alaska Native Corporation Authorizations 

Section 9 amends the National Historic Preservation Act (NHP A), Tribal Forest 

Protection Act (TFP A), and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) to ensure that programs under these federal statutes benefit the Alaska Native 

community. 

3 
732 


Insert graphic folio 819 here 22000A.695

Multiple federal statutes define the term "Indian tribe" to include Alaska Native regional, 

village, urban and group corporations established pursuant to ANCSA. Such broad 

definitions are not used in federal statutes that narrowly regulate the government-togovernment relationship of Indian tribes to the Federal Government. However, when the 

federal statute at issue addresses the treatment by the Federal Government of Native 

American lands and/or.resources, Congress often extends the benefits or protections of 

the statute to Native corporations, including lands owned by Alaska Native corporations, 

which were designated by Congress to receive title to land-including sacred sites - in 

Alaska in settlement of Alaska Native land claims. In these circumstances, using a 

broader definition of the tenn "Indian tribe" or "Indian lands" empowers the Alaska 

Native community as a whole. These statutes do not undennine the role of Indian tribes 

as sovereigns; rather, they are designed to best serve the entire American Indian and 

Alaska Native community. 

The amendments proposed in Section 9 of S. 3273 extend to Alaska Native corporations 

certain benefits offederal programs that are intended to benefit the entire American 

Indian and Alaska Native community. Alaska and our Native Land Claims and Tribal 

structures are unique. We have tribes that currently have minimal land holdings and 

Alaska Native Corporations that have significant land holdings through ANCSA. When 

laws and regulations are established for the benefit of Native people, they typically do not 

take into consideration the unique situation in Alaska, where our tribes are not generally 

within reservations and Native lands are held by the Native Corporations established 

under ANCSA. When a law or regulation is not useable or workable for Alaska because 

of our structure, we have asked for Alaska Native Corporations to be defined as "tribes" 

for a specific law or regulation. The provisions here again seek to ensure full Alaska 

Native participation and utilization of programs that are intended to benefit American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. 

NAGPRA 

NAGPRA requires that, upon the request of an Indian tribe, all human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony be retUrned to the applicable 

Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization expeditiously. 

NAGPRA defines the term "Indian tnbe" to mean "any tnbe, band, nation, or other 

organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as 

defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ 43 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.]), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and 

services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians." 

In 1995, the Department of the Interior (DOn adopted regulations for NAGPRA that 

defined Indian tribe to include, in addition to any Alaska Native village, any Alaska 

Native Corporation. Thus, Native Corporations were for many years treated as Indian 

tribes for purposes ofNAGPRA implementation, and Native corporations (including 

Sealaska, through the Sealaska Heritage Institute) invested in and developed the 

4 
733 


Insert graphic folio 820 here 22000A.696

institutional capacity to effectively seek the return of cultural items to the appropriate 

tribe or clan. 

In 2009 and 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a 

performance audit ofNAGPRA implementation among federal agencies. In its July 2010 

report, the GAO recommended, among other things, that the NAGPRA Program, in 

conjunction with DOl's Office of the Solicitor, reassess whether any Native corporations 

should be considered as "eligible entities for purposes of carrying out NAGPRA ... " 

Following on the GAO report'; DOl's Office of the Solicitor examined the legal basis for 

the regulations that included Native corporations as Indian tribes under NAGPRA. The 

Solicitor's Office found that in the Act, Congress did not adopt the same definition of 

Indian tribe as is used in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA), which defines the tenn "Indian tribe" to include Alaska Native regional and 

village corporations. Accordingly, the Solicitor's Office recommended that the 

regulatory definition of Indian tribe be changed to conform to the statutory definition. 

On June 11, 2014, DOl published a final rule eliminating Native corporations from the 

definition of Indian tribe in NAGPRA regulations. 

The proposed legislative amendment to NAGPRA S. 3273 would allow Native 

corporations to once again participate in NAGPRA repatriation program with tribes and 

Native Hawaiian organizations. It does not displace the role of tribes under NAGPRA, 

but aims to support tribal efforts and to increase the resources available to pursue 

NAGPRA efforts so that more benefits can accrue to our clans, tribes and villages 

through the repatriation of sacred objects. Sealaska, through its cultural affiliate Sealaska 

Heritage Institute, hopes to utilize this provision only in cooperation with the tribes and 

clans in our region. Moreover, Sealaska supports this amendment only so long as there is 

tribal support for its enactment. 

TFPA and NHPA 

The TFP A and NHP A pose a somewhat different challenge, because both statutes already 

clearly define the term "Indian tribe" to include Alaska Native corporations. 

The NHPA defines the tenn "Indian tribe" or "tribe" to mean "an Indian tribe, band, 

nation, or other organized group or community, including a Native village, Regional 

Corporation or Village Corporation, as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1602] which is recognized as eligible for the 

special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their 

status as Indians." 

The TFP A defines the tenn "Indian tribe" to have ''the meaning given the tenn in section 

450b of[title 25 of the U.S. Code] [the Indian Self Determination and Education 

Assistance Act], which also includes Alaska Native regional and village corporations. 

Notwithstanding the definitions above, Alaska Native corporations generally cannot 

participate in federal programs under the NHP A and the TFP A because those statutes 

5 
734 


Insert graphic folio 821 here 22000A.697

limit the scope of the terms "tribal lands" and "Indian forest land or rangeland," 

respectively, to "Indian country". ANCSA lands do not qualify as Indian country, and 

therefore are not eligible to benefit from programs under either statute. We believe this 

makes no sense in Alaska, particularly given the broad objectives of the NHP A and 

TFPA to serve American Indian and Alaska Native landowners. 

For example, the purpose of the TFP A was to direct the Departments of Agriculture and 

the Interior to work in partnership with Indian tribes to improve forest health on both 

agency and tribal lands. The TFP A authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the 

Interior to give special consideration to tribally-proposed projects on agency lands 

bordering or adjacent to Indian forest lands. IfSealaska lands qualified as "Indian forest 

land" under the TFP A, Sealaska and the Forest Service would be able to work together 

under the TFP A to treat or remove diseased trees on Forest Service lands adjacent to 

Sealaska lands, which in turn would protect Sealaska lands surrounding Alaska Native 

villages in the region. ANCSA lands should be included under the TFP A because-in 

Alaska-it is the Alaska Native corporations, not our tribes that generally own large 

tracts of Native forestlands adjacent to Forest Service lands. The proposed amendment 

does not otherwise displace the role of tribal governments under the TFP A. 

The NHP A, too, defines the term "Indian tribe" to include Native corporations, but, under 

the NHP A, the term ''tribal lands" does not include ANCSA lands. However, Native 

corporations own vast tracts of Alaska Native lands, often surrounding Alaska Native 

villages, which are deserving of the considerations given to tribal governments under the 

Act, including the ability to assume certain functions aimed at the preservation of historic 

properties. For example, under Section 14(h)(l) of ANCSA, Native corporations were 

pennitted to select and receive conveyance of cemetery sites and historical places. Under 

the NHP A, these Alaska Native cemetery sites and historical places are not considered 

tribal lands, and Native corporations cannot participate in programs under the NHP A 

designed to help tribes protect such lands. A simple legislative amendment would enable 

Alaska Native corporations to participate in programs under the NHP A. The amendment 

does not undermine the role of tribal governments; rather, it recognizes that Alaska 

Native corporations play a unique role in Alaska as Native landowners. 

The Department of the Interior, in testimony submitted to this Committee, states that it 

has "significant concerns with this legislated equivalency." These amendments do not in 

any way make Native corporations "equivalent" to Indian tribes as sovereign 

governments. The legislation simply establishes that Native corporations, as Alaska 

Native landowners, can participate is programs that designated by Congress to benefit the 

American Indian and Alaska Native community, including Native-owned lands. This is 

also nothing new, as many federal statutes related to American Indians have the same or 

similar provisions related to Alaska Native corporations. 

Section 10- Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 

and Compensation 

Section 10 ofS. 3273 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

(ANCSA) to authorize the five Southeast Alaska Native communities of Haines, 

6 
735 


Insert graphic folio 822 here 22000A.698

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as urban corporations, 

entitling each, upon incorporation, to receive one township of land (23,040 acres) in 

Southeast Alaska from local areas ofhistorical, cultural, traditional and economic 

importance. 

We strongly support Section 10 ofS. 3273. We also appreciate that the Committee's 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining held a hearing on October 8, 2015 

regarding S. 872, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 

and Compensation Act, which, like S. 3273, would amend ANCSA to authorize the five 

landless Southeast Alaska Native communities to organize as urban corporations. More 

than forty years after the enactment of ANCSA, it is time to redress the inequity endured 

by the five unrecognized communities of Southeast Alaska. 

Alaska Natives from each of the five unrecognized villages have strong historic, cultural 

and familial ties to their traditional homelands. As such, the five unrecognized villages 

are no different from other villages recognized in ANCSA, as was illustrated in a 1994 

Report prepared at the direction of Congress by the Institute of Social and Economic 

Research at the University of Alaska - Anchorage. 

The 3,425 Alaska Natives who originally enrolled to Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee, and Wrangell comprised over 20 percent of the Native shareholders ofSealaska 

Corporation when Sealaska incorporated in 1972. Although these Sealaska shareholders 

have received revenue-sharing distributions from Sealaska pursuant to section 7(j) of 

ANCSA, they have not had the opportunity to enjoy the social, economic and cultural 

benefits ofbeing shareholders in a Village, Urban, or Group Corporation, as did 

Sealaska' s other shareholders. The Village and Urban Corporations in our region provide 

additional local economic development, employment and cultural benefits beyond that 

which Sealaska alone can provide. More importantly, Alaska Natives from the five 

villages have been wrongfully deprived of the significant cultural benefits of owning an 

interest in lands located within and around their traditional homelands. 

Congress in 1971 gave no reason whatsoever for excluding the five Native villages listed 

in S. 872, which share the same histories and characteristics as the other Native villages 

in Southeast Alaska that were recognized. However, we think the exclusion of the five 

Native villages can be explained by reviewing literature that describes the economic and 

political realities of that time, as documented by Dr. Charles W. Smythe in, "A New 

Frontier: Managing the National Forests in Alaska, 1970-1995" (1995). Dr. Smythe 

describes the Tongass National Forest in the decades prior to the passage of ANCSA. 

Simply put, the Forest Service opposed the recognition of traditional Indian use and 

aboriginal title in much of the Tongass National Forest out of concern that Native land 

ownership would upset the timber industry in Southeast Alaska. 

Whatever the reason that Congress excluded our villages from ANCSA in 1971, whether 

purposeful but undisclosed, or unintentional, Congress today can remedy the wrong. 

Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National Forest since time 

immemorial. The Tongass is the heart and soul of our history and culture. This 

7 
736 


Insert graphic folio 823 here 22000A.699

important legislation will finalize the aboriginal land claims of the five unrecognized 

Native villages in our region. 

Section 11 -Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment EQuity 

Sealaska strongly supports Section 11 ofS. 3273, which would amend ANCSA to 

provide for equitable allotment ofland to Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans. 

Unfortunately, due to their service to the United States, many Native veterans did not 

have the opportunity to apply for a 160-acre allotment prior to the enactment of ANCSA, 

which repealed the Native Allotment Act. One of our Sealaska Board members, William 

"Bill" Thomas is a Vietnam Veteran, and we stand behind him and other Alaska Native 

veterans on this issue. 

In 1998, Congress amended ANCSA to provide many Alaska Native Vietnam era 

veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment of up to 160 acres ofland under the Native 

Allotment Act. Unfortunately, several obstacles emerged that prevented many Native 

veterans from selecting and obtaining their allotments, including: 1) the land applied for 

must be "vacant, unappropriated and unreserved" when the applicant first began using the 

land; 2) an applicant could only apply if in active military duty between January 1, 1969 

- December 31, 1971; and 3) the applicant must demonstrate continuous and independent 

use of the site for five or more years, which was not required for any other Alaska Native 

allotment applicants. 

The first obstacle prohibited Native Veterans allotment selections in much of Alaska, and 

ALL of Southeast Alaska because of the creation of the Tongass National Forest in 1907. 

Thus, the 1998 amendment essentially created an empty right for Native veterans in many 

instances. 

S. 3273 attempts to address two of those primary obstacles for potential Alaska Native 

Veteran allotment applicants. First, the bill aims to increase the available land for 

allotments by authorizing selection of any federally-owned vacant land. While there 

continues to be some limitations to protect conservation areas, this new language 

certainly provides more flexibility. Second, the legislation expands the military service 

dates to coincide with the entire Vietnam conflict, August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975. 

We appreciate your commitment to advancing this legislation, which addresses those 

issues left unresolved in the 1998 amendment to ANCSA and provides redress for a 

legislative oversight that unfairly marginalized our Alaska Native veterans. These Alaska 

Native veterans at least deserve this consideration for their tremendous service to this 

country. 

Section 12 - 13th Regional Corporation 

Sealaska supports Section 12 of S. 3273, which authorizes the establishment of a new 

13th Regional Corporation under ANCSA for non-resident Alaska Natives. Previously, a 

8 
737 


Insert graphic folio 824 here 22000A.700

13th Regional Corporation was created under Alaska law, but that corporation no longer 

exists. 

S. 3203. the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

Sealaska also generally supports the provisions of S. 3203, which do not directly affect 

Sealaska, but are intended to facilitate resource development in the State of Alaska. In 

particular, some of these provisions attempt to ensure a viable timber industry in our 

home region. S. 3203 contains provisions to carry out a land exchange in Southeast 

Alaska to aid the Alaska Mental Health Trust and its timber program, to grant an 

exemption from the Inventoried Roadless Area rule for Alaska, to authorize a future state 

forest in Alaska, and to clarify limitations on the Executive Branch's authority to 

withdraw lands in Alaska as set forth within the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act. We applaud Senator Murk:owski's efforts to advance these important 

objectives to strengthen economic development opportunities in Southeast Alaska and 

throughout the State of Alaska. 

Closing Remarks 

On behalf of Sealaska Corporation and our more than 22,000 shareholders, we greatly 

appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony into the Record for S. 3273 and 3203. We 

would be open to further dialogue on any of the provisions identified above. If you have 

any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Respectfully, 

Sealaska Corporation 

Anthony 

~~ Mallot.t 

President & CEO 

Cc: Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Senator Dan Sullivan 

Congressman Don Young 

Governor Bill Walker 

9 
738 


Insert graphic folio 825 here 22000A.701

Shell Oil Company 

September 26, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowslci 

Chairman of the Energy Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski, 

150 N Dairy Ashford 

Houston, TX 77079 

USA 

On behalf of Shell, I am writing in strong supp01t of your bill S. 3203, the Alaska Economic 

Development and Access to Resources Act. The bill includes a number of provisions that will 

promote the development of Alaska's oil and gas resources. Development of those resources would 

be an economic engine for Alaska and for the nation. 

Oil and gas will remain critical sources of energy for decades to come. This is fact, because global 

energy demand, which is projected to double by 2050, cannot be met \vithout oil and gas. In fact, we 

will need all sources of energy: hydrocarbons, alternatives, renewables, as well as significant progress 

in efficiency. Further, developing our own domestic resources is a \vin-win. It creates jobs, powers 

the economy, puts billions of dollars of royalties and tax revenue into dwindling government coffers, 

provides energy security, reduces imports and reduces our trade deficit. Further, by generating this 

economic value, the investment climate is better able to foster the next generation of technologies 

and energy solutions that will power the future. 

The future of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (rAPS) also depends on developing additional 

resources in Alaska. TAPS is a critical national infrastructure. Since 1977, tens of billions of barrels 

of Alaska-produced oil has been transported through TAPS to the US and US refineries. At its 

height, TAPS supplied the nation with 2.1 million barrels of oil per day or about one-thu:d of the 

nation's oil production. Today TAPS supplies 600,000 ha1Tels per day, still a significant percentage 

of our domestic supply. The importance of the TAPS supply-line cannot be overstated. A 

temporary shutdown of TAPS in 2011 had an immediate impact on crude prices, jeopardized the 

continuity of the US West Coast refinery infrastructure, and resulted in a spike in US reliance on 

foreign crude supplies. Without new production, throughput in the pipeline will continue to decline; 

and TAPS will eventually be shut down. l'olicics to prevent this should be a priority. 

Thank you for your leadership on these important energy policy matters. Please do not hesitate to 

contact me if I can be of assistance on this or other issues. 

Bruce Culpepper 

President, Shell Oil Company 
739 


Insert graphic folio 826 here 22000A.702

Fleurant, Susan (Energy) 

Subject: FW: 53004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/22/2016 

From: andrew thoms !mailto:andrew@sitkawild.org! 

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 20161:06 PM 

To: fortherecord (Energy) <fortherecord @enersv.senate.gov> 

Subject: 53004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/22/2016 

To Whom It May Concern, 

On behalf of the 1000 members of the Sitka Conservation Society from Southeast Alaska, I would like to make 

the following comments on 53203 and 53273. 

We oppose most of the elements of these bills. The elements of this legislation are unknown to most 

Southeast Alaskan residents because there have been no field hearings for this legislation in Southeast Alaskan 

communities. The elements In the legislation seem to be focused on the timber industry and corporations and generally 

are eroding the integrity of public lands. For us, it is obvious that field hearings have not been held regarding this 

legislation because the overwhelming opposition to the elements outlined in the legislation would show that the 

legislation has no place in Congress and should be withdrawn. 

Some of our specific concems regarding this legislation include: 

Section 501: The Roadless rule in the Tongass is being implemented and is considered the law of the land in 

Southeast Alaska. It is working well and supported. In Sitka, Alaska, a hydroelectric project was successfully expanding 

in a roadless area demonstrating that the rule can be used to support development initiatives. This legislative effort is 

not needed and is detrimental. 

Section 502: We do not support this legislation because the administrative process for this exchange is already 

underway. We have special concems about legislating this exchange because it appears that the appraisal process does 

not account for the value of timber. As we understand it, the timber land is appraised for a set value as "timber-lands" 

without considering the value of timber in those lands or investments made in timber management such as road 

maintenance or pre-commercial thinning. In many cases, tens of thousands of dollars of tax-payer dollars were invested 

in some of the young growth stands that the Mental Health land Trust seeks. The Mental Health Land Trust does not 

make this investment in their own lands. Further, some of the timber lands contain timber stands of exceptional 

value. In Southeast Alaska, timber stands vary from having virtually no timber value to having trees that have an 

extremely high value. This depends on specific landscape features such as soil types, geology, slope, etc. The appraisal 

system for ensuring a fair exchange needs to take into account the timber value of the stand and the investments made 

in the stands. We are also concerned about the removal of these timber stands from the Forest Service timber pool and 

Its ability to supply timber. Much as was done in the Sealaska lands legislation, this exchange takes key Young Growth 

stands and Old Growth timber out of the Forest Service land holdings which then takes away their ability to offer timber 

sales. We are seeing a very disturbing trend where the Senator from Alaska that has introduced this legislation has long 

criticized the agency's ability to get out timber supply but at the same time is taking away their prime timber stands 

where they have Invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in stand treatments and road maintenance. It seems that 

she is setting them up for failure to bolster her criticisms or worse. 

Section 503: We oppose creating a 2 million acre state forest. This proposal is an affront to all the Americans 

who are owners of this land and trust the US Congress to be the stewards of public resources and public lands. This 

proposal would negatively affect the business interests of many of our members and should be considered an insult to 

Congress and the American public that it was even introduced to the Senate. 
740 


Insert graphic folio 827 here 22000A.703

S3Z73: We oppose this legislation. There are so many problems with this legislation that it is hard for us to 

understand that we have to outline them and that everyone has to waste their time dealing with it. This committee 

should be taking on the issue of climate change and providing leadership for the American people rather than hearing 

legislation that is obviously meant to enrich corporate interests··· especially because the impacts of climate change ore 

disproportionately affecting Native Alaskans. We are very concerned that issues of Native Alaskan land rights Is cynically 

being used as a ploy to privatize public lands. It is an insult to Native Alaskans and seems to us as a tactic to silence 

opposition to initiatives that threatens public use and access to public lands. We know that the larger public is very 

hesitant to speak up because accusations of anti-native sentiment have been used to silence opposition to this type of 

legislation in the past. Here are some of our specific comments: 

Section 6: we oppose a trade of subsurface lands from Admiralty Island for subsurface and surface land on 

Prince of Wales. If Shee Atika sells its surface lands for fair market value, then the subsurface lands should also be paid 

for at fair market value. The trade that Sealaska is looking for would trade subsurface land rights that have no value for 

high value timber lands and high value sub-surface rights in other places. This is a tenribly unfair deal for the American 

public and represents a corporate give-amy that hints at shady dealings that one would typically associate with some 

Banana Republic that is not a democracy and doesn't have checks and balances. The subsurface lands in this part of 

Admiralty Island are rock that has no value. There are not mining prospects there as evidenced by the lack of any 

exploration or development in the 30-plus years that Sea Iaska has owned the land. The lands they want to select for 

surface rights have high volume timber stands that have a high-proportion of Red Cedar trees which are market drivers 

for timber and are also exceedingly rare across the Tongass. This trade is like trading a bottle of dirty mud-puddle water 

for a bottle of the rarest and most expensive wine. The committee would have to be the world's greatest dupe to 

consider this a fair exchange. We feel insulted at our organization that this is even proposed. 

Section 9: Native Corporations are corporations, not tribes. There is a very big difference with serious 

accountability issues (tribes are democracies with elected governing boards; corporations have boards with internal 

rules that keep board members in their seats for extended periods of time). It is an affront to tribal government and 

sovereignty to make corporations exist at the same status as tribes. 

Section 10: We are opposed to the creation of 5 new native corporations. We are very uncertain a boot tile 

validity of these claims-especially for the community of Tenakee. We are opposed to the conveyance of 23,040 acres 

of lands to each of these corporations because this same legislation has shown that this is a badly flawed tool and does 

not work: the fact that we are dealing with a Native Corporation selling their land jn Section 6 and Section 5 after 

initially clear-cutting their lands and subsequently making no investment in the care for these lands or the timber they 

contain in long-term management but rather using them a as a tool for tax-write-offs clearly shows us that granting 

corporations land and asking them to make profit from those lands does not work and rather is an unfair scheme from 

the beginning. From the first round of native corporation experience it Is clear that the benefits of native corporations 

does not trickle down and that the beneficiaries are a select few and not always native Alaskans. In the case of the 

corporation selling their lands back In Section 5 and Section 6 there is no land management activities but rather mutual 

fund investments overseen by a highly paid executive. If It is found that there is cause for new native corporations, we 

should not make the same mistakes of the past by giving lands but rather capitalize their formation with money and 

leave the public lands intact. We oppose this section because no hearings have been held in Southeast Alaska and it is 

unclear what lands they would be granted in this legislation and how that would affect existing communities, businesses, 

penmittees, and other user groups. 

We urge the committee lo break up each of these sections and deal with them as separate legislation and also 

to hold hearings in the places that are most affected by this legislation in Alaska to allow for public input and comment. 

Thank you, 

Andrew Thoms 
741 


Insert graphic folio 828 here 22000A.704

Executive Director 

Sitka Conservation Society 

Andrew Thoms 

Executive Director 

Sitka Conservation society 

Box 6533 Sitka, Alaska 99835 

scs Office: Phone:(907)747 7509 Fax: (907)747 6105 

email: !!!~~"!!Ji!!S.!';awild. O£S Web: ~:!~t1<a,11J:'clc:J_,_c>£S 

ij !.Ike !IS 01! Facebool!l 

Please,l(!in or rell!!W your membership today. 

For over 4S years, Sitka Conservation Society has been protecting the Tongass and building more sustainable 

communities with the support of members like you. 

D This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 

www.avast.com 

3 
742 


Insert graphic folio 829 here 22000A.705

s LIDUS 

RESOURCES LLC 

June 20, 2016 

The Honorable Dean Heller 

324 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2805 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

522 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510-2803 

The Honorable Mark Amodei 

332 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-2802 

Dear Nevada Members of Congress: 

We are writing to express our support for the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation 

Act (the "Proposed Act") and to urge you to utilize all efforts possible to pass this Proposed Act into law. 

As you are aware, the Proposed Act was unanimously recommended by the Pershing County Commission 

to ensure the future of the County's economic well-being while protecting vital wilderness areas in the 

region. 

In addition, the Proposed Act is absolutely critical to the future of mining in Pershing County. The Proposed 

Act will give mining companies in the County, including Solidus Resources, LLC, the opportunity to 

purchase, at fair market value, the lands they currently hold under federal mining claims. 

Privatization of mining lands will provide mining companies with increased ownership and regulatory 

certainty that will lead to greater investments, additional development and production from these lands. For 

Pershing County, the foregoing will translate into much needed economic development and employment 

creation in the region. 

The State of Nevada, a national leader in mining regulation, will regulate and oversee the development and 

reclamation of these lands in the future, providing confidence to Nevadans that the lands will be developed 

and reclaimed in a responsible manner. 

The proceeds from the privatization of the lands outlined for disposal in the Proposed Act will be distributed 

as follows: 

• 10% of the proceeds will go directly back to the County and can be utilized for critical public 

functions-which are desperately needed; 

• 5% of the proceeds will go back to the State of Nevada to be utilized for public education purposes 

across the State: and 
743 


Insert graphic folio 830 here 22000A.706

• The remaining proceeds will be utilized by the Nevada BLM to mitigate for wild fire, sage grouse 

habitat restoration and drought mitigation. These revenues will also ensure both economic wellbeing and the future of conservation in Pershing County. 

Lastly, we support the designation of public lands as wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act to protect 

Pershing County's most important wild places. This wilderness proposal is truly a grass roots effort that 

has considered all users of these public lands with great attention given to grazing, mining, recreation, and 

conservation interests. Unprecedented cooperation among often-competing interests has produced a 

County lands bill that enjoys broad support from the citizens of Pershing County and unanimous support 

by the Pershing County Commissioners. 

We appreciate your public service and look forward to working with you to enact the Pershing County 

Economic Development and Conservation Act. 

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact the 

undersigned at jack.mcmahon@elkomininggroup.com. 

Respectfully, 

~~~-

Solidus Resources, LLC 

Jack McMahon 

Authorized Signatory 
744 


Insert graphic folio 831 here 22000A.707

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent 

To: 

Subject: 

goldy@sourdoughdru.com 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 7:17 AM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

LISA DOES NOT REPRESENT ME OR MY POSSE 

"I STRONGLY OPPOSE ALL THE TONGASS-RELATED PROVISIONS- SENATOR MURKOWSKI ONLY LISTENS 

TO A FEW OF HER CONSTITUENTS. HER ACTIONS IGNORE WHAT MOST SOUTHEAST AND OTHER 

ALASKANS WANT AND NEED! 

THE BILLS SHE IS PROPOSING FOR THIS AREA ARE BAD, BAD, BAD FOR ALASKA!" 

DRU SORENSON 

BOX 109 

HOPE, AK. 99605 
745 


Insert graphic folio 863 here 22000A.739

September 19, 2016 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

DEPARTMENT OF 

AND PARKS 523 EAST CAPITOLA VENUE I PIERRE, SD 57501 

I am writing in support of S. 3254, the Spearfish canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange Act. In January 2016, 

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard announced a plan to provide for the establishment of a new state park 

in Spearfosh canyon. Governor Daugaard recognized the area's significance to South Dakota's heritage and saw 

the need and opportunity for future generations to have a memorable and quality experience in this part of the 

state. The legislation you introduced and cosponsored with Senator Mike Rounds, facilitating a federal-state land 

exchange, will be instrumental in providing access to the wonders of Spearfish Canyon, while preserving its 

natural, cultural and scenic qualities. likewise, the incorporation of Bismarck Lake into the Custer State Park 

system will streamline operations and provide additional opportunities for visitors to this area. We sincerely 

thank you for your efforts in this matter. 

The Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) fully supports this land exchange and embraces the opportunity 

to provide effective and responsive management for some of the most renowned natural resources in the 

country. Both the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake areas are home to many South Dakotans, provide 

economic development to businesses and deliver memories to visitors from across the country and around the 

globe. We look forward to new and continued partnerships with local residents and business owners, working 

together to manage the resources for improved access and recreational opportunities for all visitors to the area. 

The completion of this land exchange and the establishment of Spearfish Canyon State Park will be a signiflcant 

success for residents of South Dakota, providing long term enjoyment and preservation of one of our most 

cherished natural resources. This part of the Black Hills can become both a true destination for visitors and a 

recreation center for local residents, while expanding and diversifying our tourism base. Incorporating both 

Spearfish canyon and Bismarck Lake into the State Park system is an efficient and effective way to manage the 

resources, placed in the public trust, for maximum benefit. 

Your proposed legislation aligns with the Department's strategic pian resources goal, with objectives focusing on 

managing park lands and facilities to optimize outdoor opportunities within social, fiscal and biological 

constraints; as well as managing GFP lands to preserve and protect cultural and historic resources. We would be 

happy to provide any additional support for this legislation and thank you for your continued leadership on these 

issues of importance to South Dakotans and our state's resources. 

( 

~ll~ 1

R.Hepler 

~net Secretary 

605.773.3718 I GFP.SD.GOV 

WILDINFO@STATE.SD.US I PARKSINFO@STATE.SD.US 
746 


Insert graphic folio 832 here 22000A.708

Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Council 

Sent via email (fortherecord@energy.senate.gov) 

224 Gold Street 

juneau, AK 99801 

www.seacc.org 

907 586-6942 

September 30,2016 

The Honorable Lisa A. Murkowski 

Chairwoman 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-0203 

re: Opposition to S. 3203 and S. 3273 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-4705 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On September 22, 2016, the Committee scheduled a hearing related to twenty-one proposed bills, 

including the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act (S.3203) and the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of2016 (S.3273). The Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Council (SEACC) strongly opposes numerous provisions contained in both of these 

bills. We understand that typical Committee practice is to leave the hearing record open for at least 

10 days following the hearing. We respectfully request you accept this testimony, add it to the 

official Committee record for S.3203 and S.3273, and share with all Committee members. 

S.3203 - The Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

This far-reaching bill poses serious threats to Alaska's lands, resources, and the Alaskans 

that depend upon their sustainable use, particularly our two largest National Forests, the Tongass 

and Chugach National Forests. Below, we identifY the most alarming sections of this bill. 

Section 402 -- Valid Existing Claims 

We oppose this provision because it elevates mining above all uses of the forest by 

exempting all mining claims from existing Forest Service authority to regulate the surface use of 

National Forest lands. 

Section 50 I - Roadless Area Conservation Exemption 

This section exempts both the Tongass and Chugach National Forests from Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. We object to this provision because it is unnecessary and ignores the growing 

consensus across Southeast Alaska that roadless-area logging is economically impracticable and 

ecologically damaging. 

Section 502 -Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

This section authorizes the exchange of about 20,000 acres ofTongass National Forest 

lands for timber development on Prince of Wales and Revilla Islands for over 18,000 acres of 
747 


Insert graphic folio 833 here 22000A.709

Trust lands with substantial public safety concerns and high community use values. We oppose the 

Senator's fast-track approach because it substitutes a distant Congressional review process for the 

more broadly accessible and better-informed public NEPA review process. 

Section 503- Tongass State Forest Facilitation 

First proposed in 1994, this ill-conceived scheme would give the State of Alaska 2 million 

acres of the Tongass National Forest for a state forest. The bill precludes the State from selecting 

land within Wilderness, Monuments, or National Parks but leaves all Legislated LUD II lands (like 

Naha, Anan, Kadashan & Trap Bay, Point Adolphus/Mud Bay, Upper Hoonah Sound, Salmon 

Bay, Calder-Holbrook, Nutkwa, and the Outside Islands) on the chopping block. 1 We strongly 

oppose any attempt to remove these valuable lands from the Tongass National Forest. 

In 2003, the Alaska Legislature changed the primary purpose for state lands designated as 

"state forests" from "multiple use" to "timber management that provides for the production, 

utilization, and replenishment of timber resources while allowing other beneficial uses." See § II 

ch 153 SLA 2003, codified at AS 41.17 .200(a). This statutory amendment further emphasized an 

unsustainable timber-first paradigm by directing state land managers "to provide for multiple uses 

[t]o the extent they are found to be compatible with the primary purpose of state forests [timber] 

under AS 4!.17.200 .... "See § 13, ch 153, SLA 2003 codified at AS 41.17.230(a) (2009). This 

timber-first mandate under state law contrasts sharply with the balanced multiple use mandate 

imposed by Congress for the Tongass National Forest in the landmark Tongass Timber Reform 

Act of 1990. See Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, Pub. L. 101-626, I 04 STAT. 

4426 (Nov. 28, 1990). 

S. 2073 --The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

Section 5 Reacquiring Cube Cove Surface Lands 

This provision permits Shee Atika to receive payment in cash or bid credits for acquiring 

federal surplus property from federal agencies for about 23,000 acres of land it clearcut on 

Admiralty Island. Twenty-five years ago, Congress encouraged the Forest Service to engage in 

negotiations aimed at completion of a voluntary exchange agreement between Shee Atika, Inc. and 

Sealaska Corporation in lands in the Lake Florence, Lake Kathleen, and Wards Creek drainages of 

Admiralty Island National Monument (the so-called "Cube Cove" lands). 2 Unfortunately, those 

efforts proved unsuccessful and these spectacular lands were clearcut. There are unquestionable 

benefits from returning these lands to Admiralty Island National Monument and letting the 

devastation heal. We also hope Congress recognizes the substantial cultural loss that resulted from 

the unsustainable wreckage of productive fish and wildlife habitat at Cube Cove and does not 

repeat the mistake by mandating for-profit development by corporations oflands historically, 

culturally, and traditionally important to the five communities identified in Section I 0. See infra at 

3-4. 

1 See supra, text accompanying note 4 at p. 3. 

'See Section 502 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. Pub. L. 101-626, 104 Stat. 4426.4434-35 (Nov. 28, 1990). 

SEACC Testimony in Opposition to 

S. 3203 and S.3273, Sept. 30, 2016 Page 2 of4 
748 


Insert graphic folio 834 here 22000A.710

Section 6 - Sealaska Subsurface Lands Exchange 

This provision authorizes the USFS to obtain Sealaska's subsurface estate at Cube Cove in 

exchange for the surface and subsurface estate to about 8,872.5 acre and the surface estate to 

another 5,145 acres ofTongass lands on Prince of Wales Island. We oppose this proposed 

exchange because it is of unequal value. 

We asked the Forest Service for the information it used to value Sealaska's subsurface 

estate at Cube Cove and the proposed lands Sealaska sought on Prince of Wales Island in 

exchange. In response, we learned that "[it] was not involved in and is not aware of any valuation 

work performed on these lands and does not know the basis for equivalency of the land and estates 

referenced in the proposed legislation.''3 

As we understand it, the rule of thumb for exchange of subsurface property, without other 

evidence, is I 0% of the value of the surface estate. In this case, the surface estate at Cube Cove 

should get less than 500 acres of old-growth forest in exchange for about 23,000 acres of 

subsurface estate at Cube Cove. 

Section 7 -- CIRI Land Entitlement 

This section allows the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. to select up to 43,000 acres from any 

federal lands outside the Cook Inlet Region, except National Monuments, National Parks, or 

Wilderness in Alaska. Inexplicably, Senator Murkowski exempts some congressionally designated 

lands from selection but leaves others at risk of destruction. Specifically, like Sections I 0 and II 

below, this section lacks ironclad protection for the nearly 900,000 acres ofTongass Legislated 

LUD II roadless wildlands unanimously designated for perpetual protection by the U.S. Senate in 

the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act and the 2014 Sealaska Lands Bill. 4 

Section I 0- New Native Corporations 

This section recognizes five new, urban Native Corporations for the communities of 

Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Tenakee and Haines, and grants over 115,000 acres of public 

Tongass National Forest lands to for-profit Native Corporations. At a hearing before the SENR's 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining on October 6, 2015, SEACC testified in 

opposition to an earlier version of this bill, S. 872. By this reference, we incorporate that 

testimony into the record for this hearing. Although Senator Murkowski introduced later versions 

of this legislation on May 26, 2016 (S.3004), and again on July 14,2016 (S.3072), the only 

substantive change offered by the Senator was to make lands within Conservation System Units on 

3 See Regional Forester Pendleton's Response to SEACC's FOIA Request (July 5, 2016)(submitted with this 

testimony for incorporation into the committee record for the September 22, 2016 SENR Hearing). 4 See Section 201 ofTongass Timber Reform Act, P.L. 101-626, 104 STAT. 4426, 4428-29 (Nov. 28, 

1990)(conference report agreed to by a Voice Vote of the Senate, 136 Cong. Rec. S 17995-999 (Oct. 24 1990)); 

Section 3002 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015, Public Law 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292, 3730-31 (Dec. 12, 2014). 

SEACC Testimony in Opposition to 

S. 3203 and 8.3273, Sept. 30, 2016 Page 3 of4 
749 


Insert graphic folio 835 here 22000A.711

the Tongass ineligible for selection by the new corporations. Unfortunately, such lands do not 

encompass roadless wildlands designated by Congress for protection in perpetuity as Legislated 

LUD II conservation lands in 1990 or 2014. 5 Senator Murkowski continues to refuse to provide 

ironclad protection for Legislated LUD II Tongass Wildlands. 

This section creates more problems than it solves. First, it mandates economic 

development of lands no matter their importance for customary and traditional or historical uses. 

Second, history shows us that existing ANCSA corporations were unsuccessful in balancing 

revenue production for shareholders with those shareholders' desire to maintain long-established, 

place-based traditions and cultures. Third, by splitting ownership of surface and subsurface 

estates, local Native communities lose control over mining, drilling, and other subsurface 

development to the Regional Corporation, Sealaska. 

Section II -Native Veteran Allotments 

We find the reasons for this proposal puzzling. In both 1989 and 2000, Congress adopted 

bipartisan solutions for this issue. The proposed section does not explain why Congress must 

intervene today. Further, while we support excluding selections in units of the National Park 

System, National Preserves, or National Monuments, we object to leaving designated units of 

National Wilderness Preservation System and Legislated Land Use Designation II wildlands 

eligible for selection. 

Conclusion 

For all the above reasons, we oppose S. 3203 and S. 3273. We urge Senator Murkowski to 

withdraw these bills and schedule field hearings in Southeast Alaska this winter before taking any 

further legislative action that threatens Tongass National Forest lands. 

Respectfully, 

~~ 

Meredith Trainor 

Executive Director 

5 See supra text. accompanying note 4. 

SEACC Testimony in Opposition to 

S. 3203 and 8.3273, Sept. 30, 2016 Page 4 of4 
750 


Insert graphic folio 836 here 22000A.712

USDA United Slates ..,,.,:: 3E Department of 

Forest 

Servi~e 

Alaska Region P.O. Box 21628 

Juneau, AK 99802-1628 

· Agrlenlture 

Mr. Buck Lindekugel 

SEACC 

224 Gold Street 

Juneau, AK 99801 

Dear Mr. Lindekugel: 

File Code: 

Date: 

Southeast Alaakl 

Conservation Cou~toU 

JUL 08 2018 234 GoldSL 

Junou.AK 89801 

6270 

July 5, 2016 

This letter is in response to your request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). You 

requested d1e formal appraisal for Shee Atika's surface lands at Cube Cove. 

Under the provisions ofS U.S.C. §S52(b) (S) (deliberative process privilege), the Shee Atika appraisal is 

exempt from disclosure and is not provided. I have determined that the premature disclosure of the 

government's appraisal report may jeopardize the government's bargaining position with the surface 

landowner during the current, on-going negotiations. As the acquisition process is still on-going, the 

appraisal remains vital to the Agency's decisions relating to the potential acquisition of both the surface 

and subsurface estates. 

In your FOIA request, you referred to Sections 5 and 6 of Senate Bill 3004, introduced by Senator 

Murkowski on May 26,2016, and asked, "what basis did the USFS use to estimate the value of that estate 

and determine that it was equivalent to the value of approximately 8,972.5 acres of surface and subsurface 

estate and the surface estate of another parcel of about 5,145 acres surface acres (sic) on Pl'ince of 

Wales?" 

The Forest Service was not involved in and is not aware of any valuation work performed on these lands 

and does not know the basis for equivalency of the lands and estates referenced in the proposed 

legislation. 

The FOIA provides you the right to appeal my decision to withhold information responsive to your 

request. Any appeal must be made in writing, within 45 days from the date of this letter, to the Chief, 

USDA's Forest Service: 

I) by email to wo _foia@fS.fed.us; 

2) by regular mail to Mail Stop 1143, 1401Hndependence Avenue, sw, 

Washington, DC 20250·1143; 

3) by Fed Ex or UPS to 1621 N Kent Street, ORMS-6th Floor RPE, 

Rosslyn, VA 22209 and telephone (202) 205-1542; or 

4) by fax to (202) 260-3245. 

The term "FOIA APPEAL" should be placed in capital letters on the subject line of the email or on the 

front of the envelope. 

Caring for the Land and Serving People PrinldOl'IRecyc:!edPaper 0 
751 


Insert graphic folio 837 here 22000A.713

Mr. Buck Lindekugel 

If you have any questions about your FOIA request, please contact William Crawford, Regional 

Appraiser, at (907) 743-9580. 

Sincerely, 

BETH 

~t.~ G. PENDLETON 

Regional Forester 

cc: James King, Connie J Adams Johnson, William Crawford 

2 
752 


Insert graphic folio 838 here 22000A.714

ln<plrlng Pem>nallndependenoo -:-111. - j!iiiii+M@i$1111iQi§iiifiiihiije -~ E. 3225 Hospital Dr, Suite 300, Juneau, Alaska 99801, HIOD-478-SAil, ph/tty: 907-586-4920, fx: 907-586-4980 

October 5, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

First, on behalf of the Southeast Alaska Independent Living (SAIL) staff and board, thanks again for the 

visit in September of your staff Chelsea, Annie and Silver. We very much appreciated the opportunity to 

discuss our work. our mission, the people we serve, and legislation that effects the lives of seniors and 

people with disabilities here in Southeast Alaska. 

I am writing to you today to urge your support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

Legislation. As you know, the Alaska Mental Health Trust and the Trust Land Office have been working 

toward a land exchange for more than a decade. The process has included extensive public participation to 

identify the parcels proposed for exchange. This land swap will provide much needed resources to meet the 

obligation and fiscal responsibility of the Trust to support some of our most vulnerable populations in 

Alaska: Trust Beneficiaries. SAIL serves more than 1000 people with disabilities scattered in eighteen 

communities throughout the southeast region. Of these, more than 400 individuals are Trust beneficiaries. 

Over the past two decades, SAIL has worked closely with the Alaska Mental Health Trust on a v.ide array of 

projects and initiatives. In just the last two years the Trust has provided 59 grants to organizations in 

Southeast, totaling more than $3 million. SAIL is proud to be one of these grantees. Beneficiaries in 

Southeast have been awarded mini grants from the Trust totaling over $482,000. SAIL and the Trust have 

also partnered on a number of initiatives such as the development of a comprehensive home assessment, 

Home Modifications for Aging in Place (HomeMAP), pre-employment supports for transition aged youth, 

and in the Haines Wellness Center, support for our new office, a roll-in shower, and an accessible kitchen 

with adjoining clas.~room. 

As Alaska is facing our worst fiscal crisis in history, legislation is the best option to complete the exchange 

in a timely fashion. We need to ensure that the Trust can continue to provide revenue for comprehensive, 

integrated mental health services today and into the future. Without legislation we are putting our 

communities at risk. The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

Protects popular trails, view sheds, and iconic recreational sites along the Inside Passage 

Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

Preserves old growth timber stands in the forest 

Ensures jobs stay in the SE communities by protecting the timber and tourism industries 

Protects mental health services by providing revenue to support the Trust's mission 

In closing, please pass legislation in support of A1aska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange. 

We here at SAIL truly want to do what is right for the Southeast community and economy, and for all of the 

people that benefit from the Trust including those experiencing mental illness, developmental disabilities, 

chronic alcoholism, and Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. 

Joan 

~ O'Keefe, Executive Director 

An Aging and Disability Resource Center and Partner Agency of United Way of Southeast Alaska 

Information and Referral · Advocacy · Peer Support · Independent living Skills Training 

De-lnstitutionaliation ·Outdoor Recreation and Community Access (ORCA) 

www .sailinc.org 
753 


Insert graphic folio 839 here 22000A.715

October 5, 2016 

Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation (SALC) 

Ketchikan-Petenburg-WrangeD-Haines-Tenakee 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowslri 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

U.S. Senate 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: September 22, 2016 Hearing on Various Bills, Including S. 3273, the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

Dear Chairman Murkowslri and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

On behalf of the Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation (SALC), I am pleased to submit 

comments on the subject of the Committee's September 22,2016 hearing on various 

bills, including S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of2016. 

Section 10 ofS. 3273 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

(ANCSA) to authorize the five Southeast Alaska Native communities of Haines, 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to organize as urban corporations, 

entitling each, upon incorporation, to receive one township ofland (23,040 acres) in 

southeastern Alaska from local areas ofhistorical, cultural, traditional and economic 

importance. 

I have also attached a copy of testimony SALC submitted to this Committee as part of the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining October 8, 2015 hearing regarding S. 

872, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and 

Compensation Act, which, like S. 3273, would amend ANCSA to authorize the five 

landless Southeast Alaska Native communities to organize as urban corporations. 

SALC represents Alaska Natives enrolled through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act of 1971 (ANCSA) to the Native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee 

and Wrangell. ANCSA was designed to settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives 

and authorized the transfer of roughly 45 million acres of land to twelve for-profit 

regional corporations and more than two hundred village corporations in the state. The 

legislation extinguished Alaska Native aboriginal land rights and, in doing so, sought to 

provide a "fair and just settlement of all claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska, 

based on aboriginal land claims." 
754 


Insert graphic folio 840 here 22000A.716

While many villages throughout Alaska and Southeast Alaska were recognized and 

afforded the opportunity to establish Village or Urban Corporations and secure a Native 

land settlement, our five communities were uniquely denied these benefits of ANCSA. 

We have been fighting this injustice since ANCSA's passage. 

The U.S. Forest Service, in its testimony regarding S. 3273, observes that "Congress 

specifically named the villages in the southeast that were to be recognized in ANCSA; 

these five communities were not among those named." The Forest Service also observes, 

without providing any context, that "[t}he five communities applied to receive benefits 

under ANCSA and were determined to be ineligible. Three of the five appealed their 

status and were denied." 

In Section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general process for determining eligibility 

for each ''Native village" in Alaska. Native villages throughout each region within the 

State of Alaska except for Southeast Alaska were listed in this section, and the Secretary 

of the Interior was charged with making determinations as to whether the listed villages 

met the eligibility requirements. The Southeast Alaska villages were afforded different 

treatment under ANCSA, due in part to a prior settlement between the Tiingit and Haida 

Indians of Alaska and the United States. Thus, Section 16 of ANCSA separately listed 

villages in Southeast Alaska, and authorized the conveyance of just one township ofland 

to each Southeast Alaska Native village. Although Section 11 of ANCSA provided an 

appeal right for the non-Southeast Alaska villages left off of the list of eligible villages, 

Section 16 of ANCSA failed to provide any mechanism for Southeast villages to 

similarly appeal their eligibility. Thus, while three of our villages (Ketchikan, Haines 

and Tenakee) did appeal their eligibility to the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, the appeals were rejected because Section 16 made no 

provision for administrative reconsideration of the eligibility of these villages. Thus, we 

must appeal directly to Congress for help. 

As a matter oflegislative history, this Committee must take into account that possibility 

that Southeast Alaska villages did not have an appeal right by virtue of a simple drafting 

error on the part of Congress. Congress clearly intended to treat Southeast Alaska 

differently than the rest of Alaska, but there's nothing in the legislative history that 

suggests Congress actually intended to deny the appeal right to the five Southeast Alaska 

villages. Some of the reasons for the different approach in Southeast Alaska were: 

• A prior federal settlement with the Tlingit-Haida pursuant to a Court of Claims 

judgment. As noted above, Southeast villages received just one township of land 

in Southeast Alaska due to a prior settlement between the Tlingit and Haida 

Indians of Alaska and the United States. Also, Sealaska, the Native regional 

corporation, received only a small amount ofland compared to other regional 

corporations, notwithstanding the fact that it had the largest shareholder base. 

Although Southeast Alaska Natives certainly received different treatment by 

Congress, nothing within the legislative history justifies a conclusion that 

Congress intended to leave out the five landless Native villages. 

2 
755 


Insert graphic folio 841 here 22000A.717

• A conflict between industry and Alaska Native interests in Tongass National 

Forest Two large, 50-year contracts were in place for pulp mills at the time, and 

there were mills in most of the landless Native villages left out of ANCSA. The 

reality is that the forest industry at the time did not want Native land claims to 

hurt the industry. Again, however, nothing within the legislative history justifies 

a conclusion that Congress intended to leave out the five landless Native villages 

or prevent villages from appealing their eligibility under ANCSA. 

• The significant non-Native populations of certain villages and ''urban" areas. 

Alaska Natives have lived at Wrangell for as long as 10,000 years. However, 

Wrangell was settled early on by the Russians and then by Americans. Congress 

didn't give a reason for leaving Wrangell or any other landless Native village out 

of ANCSA. While it is certainly true that the landless villages each had 

significant non-Native populations in 1971, the urban nature of a town, or 

presence of non-Native residents, does not eviscerate the aboriginal claims of the 

Native peoples who have lived in this place for 10,000 years. And Congress did 

establish Native corporations for other urban areas, like Sitka and Juneau. 

In short, S. 3273 would put our five villages on equal footing with every other Alaska 

Native village in the state with respect to the settlement of aboriginal title. Villages in 

every other region of the state were given the opportunity to appeal a failure by Congress 

to list them in ANCSA, and in fact several did successfully appeal. 

The U.S. Forest Service also points out that "[m]embers of these five communities are atlarge shareholders in Sealaska Regional Corporation ... and as such, have received 

benefits from the original ANCSA settlement." This observation misses the point 

entirely. Over the years we have received revenue-sharing distributions from Sealaska 

pursuant to Section 70) of ANCSA, but have not enjoyed the social, economic and 

cultural benefits of owning shares in a Village, Urban, or Group Corporation. 

In fact, many of the Village and Urban Corporations in the Southeast Alaska region have 

brought significant economic benefits to their communities. More to the point, the 

connection to our land is what defines us as Native people -not revenue "distributions". 

Our communities have been deprived of the significant cultural benefit of owning an 

interest in lands located within and around our traditional homelands. 

Finally, the U.S. Forest Service claims that "[r]ecognition of these five communities as 

provided in the bill, despite the history and requirements of ANCSA, risks setting a 

precedent for other similar communities to seek to overturn administrative finality and reopen their status determinations." 

In reality, this Administration has fully supported recognizing American Indian and 

Alaska Native communities, including tribes that were terminated during the so-called 

termination era, when this Nation ended the special relationship between many tribes and 

the federal government. In Alaska, Congress settled the land claims of Alaska Natives by 

allowing Alaska Natives to establish Native corporations. Congress has full authority to 

3 
756 


Insert graphic folio 842 here 22000A.718

recognize that our five landless Native communities also are eligible to establish Native 

corporations, just as Congress did for more than 200 other Alaska Native villages in 

1971. Congress has on many occasions deemed it appropriate to amend ANCSA to 

address in an equitable manner mistakes and/or issues that were not anticipated by 

Congress when ANCSA passed in 1971. Congress, and no one else, has this plenary 

authority over Indian affairs, and the responsibility to right a clear wrong. 

Fortunately, research has confirmed that the populations and percentage of Alaska 

Natives in each of our communities, as well as the historic use and occupation of our 

lands, were comparable to those Southeast Alaska Native villages recognized under 

ANCSA's original language. In 1993, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

prepare a report examining the reasons why the Unrecognized Communities had been 

denied eligibility to form Native Corporations under the Act. This report -- A Study of 

Five Southeast Alaska Communities (the ISER Report) -- strongly supports the 

conclusion that requirements for villages eligible to form Native Corporations were met 

by the Native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. 

In summary, we are asking that Congress recognize our Alaska Native communities and 

give us a chance to form Native corporations for our people and for future generations. If 

you have any questions, please contact: Cecilia Tavoliero (cecitavoliero@gmail.com) or 

Leo Barlow (lhbarlow@aol.com). 

Sincerely, 

s&W~ 

Cecilia Tavoliero 

President 

cc: Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Senator Dan Sullivan 

Congressman Don Young 

Governor Bill Walker 

4 
757 


Insert graphic folio 843 here 22000A.719

TESTIMONY OF 

LEO BARLOW 

REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA LANDLESS CORPORATION 

Before the 

SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS AND MINING 

Regarding S. 872 

The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 

Recognition and Compensation Act 

October 8, 2015 

Good aftemoon Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden, Senator 

Murkowski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I have traveled here today 

from Alaska to provide testimony regarding S. 872, a bill to provide for the 

recognition of five communities in Southeast Alaska in the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Thank you for this opportunity to testify on 

this important issue to several thousand Alaska Natives; and a special thank 

you to Chairwoman Murkowski and Senator Sullivan for introducing this much 

needed legislation, and for taking on our worthy cause. 

My name is Leo Barlow, and I have the great honor and responsibility of 

serving as a representative for the community of Wrangell on the Southeast 

Alaska Landless Corporation (SALC), which represents Alaska Natives enrolled 

through ANCSA to the Native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

Tenakee and Wrangell. The people I represent today have suffered an injustice 

for more than 40 years; an injustice the legislation currently before this 

Subcommittee would address. 

In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the aboriginal 

claims of Alaska Natives to their traditional homelands. ANCSA provided for 

establishment of Native Corporations to receive and manage funds and lands 

awarded in settlement of the claims of all Alaska Natives. While many villages 

throughout Alaska and Southeast Alaska were recognized and afforded the 

opportunity to establish Village or Urban Corporations and secure a Native 

land settlement, our five communities were denied these benefits of ANCSA. 

We have been fighting this injustice since ANCSA's passage. 

Under ANCSA, as Alaska Natives we enrolled to one of thirteen Regional 

Corporations and also to the villages where we lived or to which we had a 
758 


Insert graphic folio 844 here 22000A.720

historic, cultural and familial tie. For example, I enrolled to the region for 

Southeast Alaska, and also to the village of Wrangell, my home town, where my 

ancestors have lived for many generations. A total of 7 4 7 Alaska Natives 

enrolled to the Native village of Wrangell. Other members of our Landless 

Corporation enrolled to the four villages of Haines, Petersburg, Tenakee and 

Ketchikan. Those of us who enrolled to these five communities during the 

ANCSA process did so because these are our homelands and places of 

origin. Our families and clans originated in these communities. 

In section 11 of ANCSA, Congress set forth a general process for 

determining eligibility for each "Native village" in Alaska. Native villages 

throughout the State of Alaska were listed in this section, and the Secretary of 

the Interior was charged with making determinations as to whether the listed 

villages met the eligibility requirements. For a number of reasons, however, 

there was a different process created for determining eligibility of Southeast 

Alaska Native villages in section 16 of ANCSA. These reasons included the 

previous Tlingit and Haida Indian Claims cash settlement, the existence of the 

Tongass National Forest, the existence of large timber contracts secured by 

powerful pulp companies, and the significant non-Native populations of certain 

communities. I would note that at least one of our communities - Tenakee 

was at one time excluded from the Tongass National Forest through an 

Executive Order by President Roosevelt for purposes of an Indian Settlement. 

Therefore, the differing treatment due to creation of the Tongass National 

Forest was not justified in all circumstances. 

Another significant difference between Southeast and non-Southeast 

Alaska communities in ANCSA was the fact that Section 11 of ANCSA provided 

an appeal right for non-Southeast communities left off of the list of eligible 

villages, while Section 16 of ANCSA failed to provide the same appeal right to 

Southeast villages. Three of our Coalition's villages (Ketchikan, Haines and 

Tenakee) brought protests against this inequitable treatment to the Alaska 

Native Claims Appeal Board of the U.S. Department of the Interior through 

appeals in 1974 and 1977. The Appeals were rejected because Section 16 

made no provision for administrative reconsideration of the eligibility of villages 

in Southeast Alaska. Thus, we must appeal directly to Congress for help. You 

are our only recourse. 

Southeast Alaska was the first area of Alaska with significant settlement 

by non-Natives because of the inviting climate and abundant resources in our 

homelands. Although we welcome non-Natives who have chosen to live in 

Southeast Alaska, their presence does not make our homes any less "Native" 

than other villages in Southeast Alaska. Nonetheless, this was a significant 

factor in the exclusion of our five communities from the list of eligible 

Southeast Native villages in ANCSA. This occurred despite the clear evidence 

that each of these Communities has historic, cultural, and traditional Alaska 

Native characteristics. 

2 
759 


Insert graphic folio 845 here 22000A.721

The 3,425 Natives who originally enrolled to Haines, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell comprised over 20 percent of the 

shareholders of Sealaska Corporation -- our Regional Corporation for 

Southeast Alaska -- in 1972. Over the years we have received revenue-sharing 

distributions from Sealaska pursuant to section 7(j) of ANCSA, but have not 

enjoyed the social, economic and cultural benefits of owning shares in a 

Village, Urban, or Group Corporation. Many of the Village or Urban 

Corporations in our Region have brought significant economic benefits to their 

communities. Additionally, we have been deprived of the significant cultural 

benefit of owning an interest in lands located within and around our traditional 

homelands. 

Some opponents argue that we have already seen the benefits of ANCSA 

due to "at-large" distributions through section 7(j) of ANCSA, and, therefore, 

have been treated fairly in ANCSA. These arguments clearly do not understand 

or comprehend the value of Native land ownership to our Native people. The 

connection to our land is what defines us as Native people not the 

distributions. Establishment of these new ANCSA Corporations and 

conveyance of Native lands will truly provide us with the benefits of ANCSA 

that we have been deprived of for so long. 

The history I am telling today is not based only on the opinions and 

conclusions made by Landless Natives. In 1993, Congress directed the 

Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report examining the reasons why the 

Unrecognized Communities had been denied eligibility to form Native 

Corporations under the Act. This report -- A Study of Five Southeast Alaska 

Communities (the ISER Report) -- strongly supports the conclusion that 

requirements for villages eligible to form Native Corporations were met by the 

Native villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. The 

ISER Report noted that, with the exception of Tenakee, our communities 

appeared on early versions of Native village lists, and the subsequent omission 

was never clearly explained in any provision of ANCSA or in the accompanying 

conference report. 

The ISER Report also indicated that the populations and percentage of 

Natives in each of our communities, as well as the historic use and occupation 

of the lands, were comparable to those Southeast Alaska communities 

recognized under ANCSA's original language. Prior to passage of ANCSA, each 

of the Unrecognized Communities had been involved in advocating for the 

settlement of the aboriginal claims of that community. 

In short, the ISER Report found no meaningful distinction between the 

Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell 

and other communities listed in sections 14 or 16 of ANCSA, and thus no 

3 
760 


Insert graphic folio 846 here 22000A.722

justification for omission from the list of communities eligible to form Urban or 

Group Corporations under ANCSA. 

Based on the history set forth above, it is clear that those of us who 

enrolled to the five Unrecognized Communities-- and our heirs-- have been 

unjustly denied the financial and cultural benefits of enrollment in a Village, 

Urban or Group Corporation. The legislation before this Subcommittee today 

proposes simply to correct a forty-four year wrong, and grant rights that we, 

the Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and 

Wrangell, should have been given in 1971. 

In summary, we are Southeast Alaska Natives. These villages identified 

in S. 872 are our traditional homelands. All we are asking is that Congress 

recognize that fact and provide us with what we deserve under law and equity: 

a chance to form ANCSA Corporations for our people and for future generation 

with ties to our traditional communities. Sadly, many of the original 

shareholders enrolled to these five communities have passed on and will never 

see this injustice resolved. I hope that you will help those of us original 

landless shareholders and our descendants finally secure recognition under 

ANCSA. It is long overdue. 

In closing, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members 

of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Southeast Alaska villages of Haines, 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell, I want to once again express our 

extreme gratitude for your consideration of this important legislation and we 

urge you to support our efforts to be included in the benefits that ANCSA has 

brought to other Alaska Natives. I hope that this Subcommittee and the 

Senate will act quickly to ensure that we finally receive the recognition we have 

deserved for more than forty-four years. 

Gunalcheesh (Thank You). 

4 
761 


Insert graphic folio 009 here 22000A.723

Southeast Conference 

Resolution 13-03 

A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE IN SUPPORT OF ALASKA MENTAL 

HEALTH TRUST- U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND EXCHANGE 

WHEREAS, in 1956, Congress passed the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, entitling the 

Territory of Alaska to one million acres of federal land to be used for revenue generation to 

support mental health services in Alaska The Territory and State of Alaska selected land 

throughout the state under this entitlement, and 

WHEREAS, the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority is a state corporation that administers the 

Alaska Mental Health Trust, a perpetual trust established for the benefit of Alaskans with mental 

illness, developmental disabilities, chronic alcoholism, and Alzheimer's disease and related 

dementia. The Trust operates much like a private foundation, using its resources to team with the 

Alaska Legislature in funding the state's mental health program, and 

WHEREAS, the Trust owns about 18,000 acres ofland that are primarily timber lands in and 

around the Southeast Alaska cities, towns and villages of, juneau, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka, 

Meyers Chuck and Ketchikan, and 

WHEREAS, the Southeast Conference is aware of known conflicts between residents of said 

Southeast Alaska communities and the Trust's need to harvest timber on their land for revenue 

generation, and 

WHEREAS, the Alaska Mental Health Trust is proposing a value for value land exchange with the 

U.S. Forest Service The Trust, Forest Service and other parties have identified approximately 2,000 

acres of timber lands in the Tongass National Forest (TNF) near Naukati, and Hollis on Prince of 

Wales Island and Shelter Cove and Gravina Island near Ketchikan, and 

WHEREAS, the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust- U.S. Forest Service- Alaska Mental Health 

Trust Land Exchange, if successful will aid in the stable supply of timber to the Alaska Timber 

Industry, 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Southeast Conference supports the proposed land exchange 

between the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Mental Health Trust as presented at the packet 

dated September 4, 2012. 

ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON March 18, 2013 and 

sunsets on March 18,2014 

Witness: 

Tim Rooney 

President 

Attest: 

Shelly Wright 

Executive Director 
762 


Insert graphic folio 862 here 22000A.738

September 20, 2016 

Snear1ish cany()n f'()undati()n 

I}()X ti12 

Snear1ish. S() ti77S3 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20?10 

Dear Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

On behalf of the Spearfish Canyon Foundation, I am writing in support of S. 3254, the 

Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange Act. 

The proposed land exchange between the State of South Dakota and the U.S. Forest 

Service will improve public use and enjoyment of our natural environment, preserve the 

scenic properties of Spearfish Canyon and serve the best interests of the general 

public. 

The proposed land transfer will establish Spearfish Canyon State Park in one of the 

most beautiful natural areas in the country. South Dakota's state park system is among 

the finest in the country. 

Along with preserving these natural wonders, the land exchange will allow for improved 

roads and campgrounds, new hiking trails and picnic areas, and more opportunities for 

families to spend time outdoors. 

On behalf of the board of directors, this letter is in support of the proposed land 

exchange. We encoura~ your support as well. 

Sincer<=•l<'/--;- // !>"'Y' I ' /' I ;· 

"' I 

t_i ; I 

Jo~o I; President 

i ) 

\_/ 

Spearfish Canyon Foundation Board of Directors: Susan Johnson, President; 

Karl Burke, Vice President; Myles Kennedy, Treasurer; Dr. Robert Roberts, Secretary. 

Board Members: Jerry Krambeck and Brooks Hannah. 
763 


Insert graphic folio 848 here 22000A.724

=rsrk 

21 September 2016 

Attention: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

Subject: S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski, 

Please accept this letter in support of S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic Development and 

Conservation Act (the "Act"). 

SRK provides focused advice and solutions to mining clients world-wide. We have a strong 

presence in the State of Nevada, including Pershing County where we provide consulting services 

to several mining companies in the area. Our services extend from exploration to mine closure and 

we have extensive experience working with both federal and state processes. 

The enactment of the Act would be beneficial for the mining industry generally because it would 

allow mining companies in Pershing County to transition from the federal to the state regulatory 

system. This change would also promote quicker economic growth and generate significant 

employment opportunities in the region and beyond. 

I encourage the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to support the passing of this Act. 

Sincerely, 

SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. 

f!P1 PG •• CPG"'.~. C"'".-E.-M-.------

Group Chairman and Corporate Consultant 

U.S. Offices: 

JVP 

Cnnadian Offices Group Offices-
764 


Insert graphic folio 849 here 22000A.725

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Brooke Elgie <sterngie@hotmail.com> 

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:21 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

53004/3273 ANCSA Improvement Act 9/23/2016 

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about S3004/3273. 

Before coming to live in Alaska 14 years ago I worked in Barrow for a short time. It was at that time that I 

learned of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and its pivotal importance to the First Nations people of 

this state. Since those early years I have always, without question, supported this effort. It was a way of at 

least partially righting a great wrong; yet never did I imagine that in 2016 we would still be having the debate 

over land claims that would create new native corporations. 

I now live full time in Tenakee Springs. This is a 22-mile inlet mostly intact wilderness that includes more than 

a dozen salmon bearing streams. This precious habitat supports subsistence and commercial use and should 

never be turned over to any for-profit corporation. Hundreds of people, native and non-native alike, fish and 

hunt for their food and work to harvest the resource for their income. This is a place to protect for everyone. 

Please withdraw 53004/3273. 

Sincerely, 

Wendy Stern 

PO Box 36 

Tenakee Springs, AK 99841 

Tenakee 
765 


Insert graphic folio 850 here 22000A.726

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: Sarah Stewart <sarahbstewart@yahoo.com> 

Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:21 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: Comments on S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

(hearing date 9/22/2016) 

We are writing to comment on both on specific provisions to the different Tongassrelated bills introduced by Senator Murkowski. But overall my family and I would like the 

Tongass National Forest lands to remain in public hands and be managed in the best 

interests of all Americans. 

Specific Comments are as below: 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act 

• Sec. 402 - Valid Existing Claims - Elevates mining above all uses of the forest by 

restricting the USFS's authority to regulate surface use of National Forest lands. 

Our national forests must be managed for all users. 

• Sec. 503 -- Roadless Area Conservation Rule Exemption - Exempts both the 

Tongass and Chugach National Forests from Road less Rule. The Roadless Rule 

makes sense fiscally and ecologically and should continue to be 

implemented in Alaska. 

• Sec. 502 Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange -- Authorizes the exchange 

of about 20,000 acres of Tongass National Forest lands for timber development on 

Prince of Wales and Revilla Islands for over 18,000 acres of existing Mental Health 

Trust lands near Ketchikan and Petersburg. No logging should occur on the 

steep hillsides and popular recreation areas that the Alaska Mental Health 

Trust currently owns, but this issue can be resolved in Alaska; legislation 

is unnecessary. 

• Sec. 503 -- Tongass State Forest Facilitation - Allows selection of two million acres 

of the Tong ass National Forest by the State of Alaska for a state forest, which 

would be managed for timber production first, not "multiple use." Alaska Fish 

and Wildlife habitat standards are less protective than federal standards. 

Thank you for your attention to our comments. 

Sincerely, The Stewart Family. 1045 Highway 89 South, Gardiner, MT 59030 
766 


Insert graphic folio 851 here 22000A.727

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: Sarah Stewart <sarahbstewart@yahoo.com> 

Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:22PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: Comments of S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

(hearing date 9/22/2016) 

We are writing to comment on both on specific provisions to the different Tongassrelated bills introduced by Senator MurkowskL But overall my family and I would like the 

Tongass National Forest lands to remain in public hands and be managed in the best 

interests of all Americans. 

Specific Comments are as below: 

S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

• Sec. 5 - Reacquiring Cube Cove Surface Lands -- permits Shee Atika to elect to 

receive payment in cash or bid credits for acquiring federal surplus property from 

federal agencies for about 23,000 acres of land it clearcut on Admiralty Island. 

This is actually a little bit of good news; it would eventually make 

Admiralty Island National Monument "whole". 

• Sec. 6 -- Admiralty Island National Monument Land Exchange -- authorizes the 

USFS to obtain Sealaska's subsurface estate at Cube Cove in exchange for surface 

and subsurface estate to about 8,872 acres and the surface estate to 

approximately 5,145 acres of Tongass lands on Prince of Wales Island. This 

exchange is not for equal value. In a real "value for value" exchange, 

Sealaska would get less than 500 acres of old-growth forest in exchange 

for its 23,000 acres of subsurface estate at Cube Cove. 

• Sec. 10 - New Native Corporations -- authorizes Native residents of Haines, 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell to organize Urban Corporations and 

receive 23,040 acres of Tongass lands each. Fails to provide protection for 

Tongass Legislated LUD II wildlands and perpetuates all the flaws of the 

ANCSA corporate model. 

• Sec. 11 -- Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Equity - reverses key compromises 

reached in 1998 and disrupts efforts to finalize entitlements under existing laws. 

This section causes more problems than it solves. 

Thank you for your attention to our comments. 

Sincerely, The Stewart Family. 1045 Highway 89 South, Gardiner, MT 59030 
767 


Insert graphic folio 852 here 22000A.728

Sl.JBREGJONS 

UPPER 

KUSKOKWIM 

McGrath 

Medfra 

Nikolai 

Takotna 

Te!k:la 

LOWER YUKON 

Anvik 

Grayling 

HolyCross 

Shageluk 

UPPER TANANA 

Dot Lake 

Eagle 

Heat'{ lake 

Northway 

Tanacross 

Tetlin 

lok 

YUKON FLATS 

Arctic Village 

Beaver 

Birch Creek 

Canyon Village 

Chalkyitsik 

Clrc!e 

Fort Yukon 

Venetie 

YUKON 

KOYUKUK 

Goena 

HUSlia 

Kaltag 

Koyukuk 

r-Julafo 

Ruby 

YUKON TANANA 

Alotno 

Allakaket 

Evar,sville 

Fairbanks 

Hughes 

Lake 

Minchumina 

Mon!eyHot 

Springs 

Minto 

Nenana 

Rampart 

Stevens V11lage 

Tanana 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Chief Peter John Tribal Building 

122 First Avenue, Suite 600 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4897 

(907) 452-8251 Fax: (907) 459-38.50 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairwoman 

Committee on Energy & Natural Res. 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington. DC 20510-0203 

September 20, 2016 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy & Natural Res. 

511 Hmt Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-4705 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

We respectti.tlly request that these written comments be included as pmt of the 

September 22, 2016 hearing record to voice our opposition to S. 3203. Our comments today 

are in opposition of S. 3203 and we ask that you do not move this bill forward, and if it does 

move forward that you strike Section 403 in its entirety. 

The Salmon Fork ACEC was proposed by Alaska Native Tribes and Alaskan 

residents and was not imposed by the BLM. It is the fmit of a tme grass roots effort, 

democracy in action. The Salmon Fork ACEC is result of a near-decade long effort of 

advocacy, cooperation. and resources that Tribes in Alaska devoted to the process in an effort 

to protect traditional homelands, clean drinking water, and invaluable subsistence resources. 

We have learned that in yonr position as Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee (ENR) you have scheduled a Committee hearing that will include bill 

S. 3203- Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. The witness list has 

not been released yet and we respectfully request that you include a tribally elected leader to 

testify on S. 3203. We believe it is imperative that a tribally-elected leader from our region to 

voice concerns in person regarding a bill that many tribal leaders believe would be 

detrimental to the health and welfare of tribal citizens and traditional tribal homelands. If 

requested. we would be happy to suggest to the ENR committee the names of a few wellinformed Alaska Native tribally-elected leaders who would gladly offer in-person testimony. 

Two provisions inS. 3203 arc especially concerning to Tribal leadership. Section 403 

would amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANlLCA) to severely 

limit agencies' ability to manage public lands and protect tribal and subsistence resources. It 

states "(c) Limitation on land use designations"' that designation of an area of critical 

environmental concern shall not be effective unless notice is provided to 

Tanana Chiefs Conference is a unified Yoicc advancing 'friba! governments, economic and social development, promoting physkal 

and mental wellness, educational opportunities and prote<·ting language, traditional and cultural values. 
768 


Insert graphic folio 853 here 22000A.729

SUBREGIONS 

UPP1iR 

KUSKOKWIM 

McGrath 

Medfra 

Nikolai 

lal<olna 

!elida 

lOWER YUKON 

Anvik 

Groy1ing 

HotyCross 

Shag€luk 

UP!'ERTANANA 

Dot lake 

Eagle 

Healy lake 

Northway 

Tanacross 

Tetlin 

Tok 

YUKON FlATS 

Arctic Village 

Beaver 

Birch Creek 

Canyon Village 

Chalkyitsik 

Circle 

FortYt.;kon 

Venetie 

YUKON 

KOYUKUK 

Galena 

Huslia 

Kattog 

Koyukuk 

Nulato 

Ruby 

YUKON TANANA 

Alaina 

Allakaket 

Evansville 

Fairbanks 

liughes 

Lake 

Minchumiflo 

rvlon!ey Hot 

Springs 

Minto 

Nenana 

Rampart 

Stevens Village 

Tanana 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Chief Peter Jolm Tribal Building 

122 First Avenue, Suite 600 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4897 

(907) 452-8251 Fax: (907) 459-3850 

Congress as well as in the Federal Register. and the designation would terminate unless, not 

later than 1 year after the date on which notice of the action has been submitted to Congress, 

Congress passes a joint resolution of approval of the executive branch action. Additional! y, 

subsection "(d) Revocation of designations of areas of critical environmental concern" 

would revoke any area of critical environmental concern in the State in effect on the date of 

enactment of this subsection. 

An Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is currently defined in section 

103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. 1702) as 

an area "within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such 

areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife 

resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural 

hazards." 

The ACEC is used as an important planning tool by the BLM to ensure that 

protections for critical areas are given priority. FLPMA section 202, 43 U.S.C. 1712 

requires BLM give priority to identifying and designating ACECs in the course of 

developing a resource management plan. During the public scoping process the Chalkyitsik 

tribal government and others nominated 1,577,752 acres of the Draanjik River watershed 

(Salmon Fork) as an ACEC, encompassing 66% of BLM managed land within the Upper 

Draanjik River Subunit. The purpose of this nomination was to protect clean drinking water 

and unique and irreplaceable resources that are critical to our traditional and customary land 

use. 

The BLM evaluated the proposal and determined that a portion of the area met the 

importance and relevance criteria ( 43 CFR 1610.7-2) that require special management 

attention. The BLM included 623,000 acres in the Salmon Fork ACEC in Alternative E of 

the recently published plan, a compromise from the nearly 1.6 million acres originally 

nominated. Chalkyitsik Village Council and the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal 

Government, as cooperating agencies in the planning process, support this compromise and 

regard the designation of the Salmon Fork ACEC to be in the best interests of the Tribes. It 

is imperative that these special management corbidcrations for this important area not 

removed, 

The BLM is currently working on three different resource management plans as well 

as amendments to plans and sub-plans across Alaska. Numerous Tribes have nominated 

ACECs in their regions to protect unique and important natural resources. The management 

plans combined will impact nearly 100 Alaska Native Tribes. The needs of rural tribal 

communities must be considered. An ACEC is a necessary tool, not only for the BLM but 

also for citizens and Tribes to he meaningfully engaged in the planning 

2 

Tanana Chief., Conference is a unified mice a!h<mcing Tribal govemments, economic and ~ocial development. promoting physical 

and mental wellness, edu('ational opportunities and protecting language, traditional and cultural values, 
769 


Insert graphic folio 854 here 22000A.730

SUBREGIONS 

UP!'ER 

KUSKOKWIM 

McGrath 

Medfra 

Nikolai 

Takotna 

!elida 

lOWER YUKON 

Anvik 

Groyting 

HolyCross 

Shageluk 

UPPfR TANANA 

Dot lake 

Eagle 

Healy Lake 

Northway 

Tanacross 

Teffin 

Tok 

YUKON FlATS 

ArctlcVllioge 

Beaver 

Birch Creek 

Canyon Village 

Chalkyitsik 

Circle 

Fort Yukon 

Venetie 

YUKON 

KOYUKUK 

Galena 

Huslia 

Kaltag 

Koyukuk 

Nulato 

Ruby 

YUKON TANANA 

Alo!no 

Allakaket 

Evansville 

Fairtx.mks 

Hughes 

Lake 

Minchurniro 

Manley Hot 

Springs 

Minto 

Nenana 

Rampart 

Stevens Village 

Tanana 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Chief Peter John Tribal Building 

122 First Avenue, Suite 600 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4897 

(907) 452-8251 Fax: (907) 459-3850 

process for land management decisions that will impact Alaska Native traditional homelands 

for many years to come. 

We recognize that through S. 3203 you hope to create opportunities for resource 

development in Alaska and we understand that the ACEC revocation was included to 

prevent the BLM from using the designation as a management tool to create more 

wilderness in Alaska in contravention to ANILCA's "no more" clause. However, the ACEC 

designation is not in violation of the "no more" clause because it does not operate to 

withdraw public lands and should not be equated with Conservation System Units and 

Wilderness Areas and it does not designate wilderness. 

The Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of !976 (FLPMA 102(j), 43 U.S.C. 

1702(j)) defines the tenn "withdrawal" to mean "withholding an area of Federal land from 

settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the 

purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the 

area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring 

jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than "property" governed by the Federal 

Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended from one depmtment, bureau or 

agency to another department, bureau or agency." In applying the statute, the ACEC 

designation in itself does not trigger the ANILCA clause because it does not remove lands 

from the operation of public land laws. It simply allows BLM the ability to manage areas to 

protect specific values, like cultural and subsistence uses. 

The BLM may recommend withdrawal by the Secretary of the Interior of lands 

within an ACEC from mineral entry. Simply making a recommendation in a Resource 

Management Plan doesn't trigger ANILCA's provision. The AN!LCA provision would not 

be triggered until the Secretary acted on the recommendation and withdrew the land. 

Neither the designation of an ACEC by itself nor the recommendation for a withdrawal 

triggers ANILCA's clause because the BLM's associated management prescriptions do not 

remove lands from the operation of some or all public land Jaws. Applying the definition of 

"withdrawal" from FLPMA to trigger ANILCA's no-more provision, the agency must make 

land unavailable to private appropriation by removing it from operation of some or all of the 

general public and laws. Neither an ACEC designation nor a recommendation to withdraw 

land takes land out of the operation of public land laws. Neither action is a withdrawal; 

neither action triggers ANILCA' s no-more provision. 

S. 3203's Section 403 (c) amends ANILC.J\ and puts ACECs into the "no more" 

category, which effectively removes ACEC nomination from the toolkit Tribes may use to 

participate in land management actions affecting them. The result will be to disempower 

Tribes by weakening their ability to protect traditional resources. Our Tribes have worked 

extremely hard over the past eight years to gain protection for the Salmon Fork through 

ACEC designation in the Eastern Interior plan. We have expended scarce 

3 

Tanana Chiefs Conference is a unified voir~ advancing Tribal government._, economic and social de\·elopment, promoting physical 

and rnemal wellness, educational opportunities and protecting languagt·~ traditional and cultural values. 
770 


Insert graphic folio 855 here 22000A.731

SUBREGIONS 

UPPER 

KUSKOKWIM 

McGraih 

Medfra 

Nikolai 

Takotna 

Telido 

LOWER YUKON 

Anvlk 

Grayling 

Holy Cross 

Shageluk 

UPPER TANANA 

Dot toke 

Eagle 

HeoNLake 

Northway 

Tanacross 

Teffin 

Tok 

YUKON FIATS 

ArcticVl!loge 

Beava 

Birch Creek 

Canyon Village 

Challcyifslk 

Circle 

Fort Yukon 

Venetie 

YUKON 

KOYUKUK 

Galena 

Huslia 

Kaltag 

l(oyukuk. 

Nulato 

Ruby 

YUKON TANANA 

Allakaket 

Evansville 

Fairbanks 

Hughes 

Lake 

Mnchurr.ina 

Manley Hot 

Springs 

Minto 

Nenana 

Rampart 

Stevens Vi!tage 

Tanana 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Chief Peter John Tribal Building 

122 First Avenue, Suite 600 

Fairbanks, Alaska 9970 l-4897 

(907) 4-12-82.51 Fax: (907) 4.19-3850 

resources and considerable staff and volunteer time on education and advocacy efforts. The 

provision in your bill that would strip Alaska of its current ACEC protections, disregards the 

value and work of tribally elected leaders. advocates, elders and traditional chiefs. Many of 

the elders and chiefs who participated in this planning process have dedicated their life's 

work to protecting the Draanjik region and have since passed away. 

In conclusion, we respectfully request that the provision of S 3203 concerning 

ACECs in Alaska be reconsidered and rescinded. At the least, we ask this bill be tabled 

and that you provide an outreach effort to tribes. As written, the bill would usurp the 

government-to-government relationship and dishonor the trust responsibility the 

federal government owes to Tribes. It also directly erodes the Tribe's voice as 

cooperating agencies. Alaska Tribes should be consulted especially as this legislation 

directly impacts Tribes and critical protections needed to avoid exposing sacred 

traditional homelands and clean river water to potential environmental disaster. 

Sincerely, 

for Victor joseph, 

President 

lL->·-..J 

t~., ''--""-'~-··~-~---~'-. 

Tanana Chiefs Conference 

Woodie Salmon, 

First Chief 

/lhry[j?{ J:/t~t'~ Chalkyitsik Village Council 

Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government 

4 

----------~~~~~~~------ Tanana Chiefs Conference is a unified voice advandug Tribal gO\·emmenrs, economic and social development, promoting phrsical 

and mental v.'e!lness, educational opportunities and protecting languagt", traditional and niltur.al values. 
771 


Insert graphic folio 856 here 22000A.732

Statement from Senator Jon Tester 

Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act (S. 3192) 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee Legislative Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

MR. TESTER: Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for including 

the bipartisan Alex Diekmann Peak Desi~,>nation Act (S. 3192) in this legislative hearing. And 

thank you for allowing me this opportunity to make a few remarks on the bill. 

This legislation would name a mountain peak in Montana's Madison Range after renowned 

conservationist Alex Diekmann. Alex passed away in February of this year after a courageous 

battle with cancer, leaving behind a loving wife, Lisa, and two sons, Logan and Liarn. 

Montana is a special place. Although he didn't grow up there, and Alex grasped the importance 

of the places he worked to protect as well as anybody. He is credited with conserving more than 

I 00,000 acres of mountains, river valleys, wetlands, as well as working farms, ranches and forest 

lands in Montana and throughout the Northern Rockies Region. He built partnerships and helped 

protect diverse landscapes across the Crown of the Continent, from the world-famous Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem to Glacier National Park to the Cabinet-Y aak Ecosystem. His efforts 

have left a lasting impact on the landscape and countless people in Montana. 

The peak to be named for Alex overlooks places he worked to protect in Montana's iconic 

Madison Valley. Thanks to his work in the valley, world class world-class fish and wildlife 

habitat will remain unfragmented, our kids and grandkids will have access to prized fly fishing 

spots, and the rural character of the area will be preserved. I can't think of a more fitting way to 

recognize his contribution to Montana than renaming this wild peak in his honor. 

Alex's spirit of partnership brought people together to preserve our western heritage of hunting 

and fishing, farming and ranching, working in the woods, and a deep appreciation for the great 

outdoors. This bill has the support of the full Montana delegation, the Governor of Montana, 

Madison and Gallatin county commissions, numerous sportsmen's and conservation groups, 

individual landowners and many more. 

Thank you again for including the Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act in this hearing. I look 

forward to working with this Committee to advance and ultimately enact this legislation. 
772 


Insert graphic folio 857 here 22000A.733

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

HEARING FOR S. 3254, THE SPEARFISH CANYON AND BISMARCK 

LAKE LAND EXCHANGE ACT 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

SENATOR JOHN THUNE 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding a hearing today on 8.3254 and other bills. I strongly 

support S.3254 which authorizes a land exchange between the State of South Dakota and the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 

I support this exchange because the State of South Dakota has a proven track record to be able to 

provide access and experiences that also preserve and protect these natural, cultural, and 

historical resources. 

For example, South Dakota's Custer State Park in the Black Hills, which borders the Bismarck 

Lake portion of the exchange, is a shining example of how recreational land should be preserved, 

its cultural heritage remain intact, and access provided to the public. The proposed state park at 

Spearfish Canyon and the addition of Bismarck Lake area to Custer State Park will extend 

responsible stewardship to some of South Dakota's most treasured places. 

Spearfish Canyon contains some of the most renowned natural, scenic and cultural resources in 

the country which makes it a scenic destination for recreationists and a valuable part of South 

Dakota's outdoor heritage. However, development has not kept up pace with the thousands of 

people that visit this area every year, and this is bringing problematic issues such as natural 

resource damage, congestion, and trespassing. 

South Dakota will provide access and has the experience to preserve and protect all natural, 

cultural, and historical resources. A state park in Spearfish Canyon will be a popular destination 

for residents and visitors. It also provides the potential to operate a self-supporting unit of the 

state park system. 

South Dakota will also extend responsible stewardship, the same stewardship which took place 

in preserving the natural resources at Roughlock Falls, at Spearfish Canyon. The Roughlock area 

was experiencing severe degradation as a result of increased visitation and lack of effective 

management. Immediately after the state acquired the property, improvements such as viewing 

platforms, connector trails and walkways were put in place to enhance the visitor experience all 

while preserving the natural and scenic properties of the falls. 

South Dakota State Parks are efficient and effective ways to manage resources for long term 

public enjoyment and preservation. The concept of a new state park in Spearfish Canyon will 

achieve the goals of preservation and recreational opportunities. 

Currently, Forest Road 222 is poorly maintained and could be considered a hazard. The state 

would improve the road's grading and asphalt the portion of the road starting at Spearfish 

Canyon and through the park portion of Little Spearfish Canyon. This would be accomplished 
773 


Insert graphic folio 858 here 22000A.734

with consideration to methods of the most minimal impacts to the resources and view shed. 

Keeping travel speeds low and discouraging arterial development of the road will also be of 

primary concern. Master planning efforts include: Savoy Fishing Pond, Spearfish Falls, 

Roughlock Falls, Timon Campground, Rod and Gun Campground, Latchstring Inn and 

Restaurant, and hiking trail facilities. 

Both Rod and Gun and Timon campgrounds could be reasonably expanded to include more sites 

than what exists today. While the opportunity for large scale expansion does not exist, it is 

anticipated that each site could at least be doubled in capacity without substantial impact to the 

resources. 

An expanded trail system could connect Roughlock Falls with the Little Spearfish Trail System. 

This would provide for a trail system that would extend from the far west boundary of the park 

and connect the campgrounds, Roughlock Falls, Spearfish Falls, and Savoy Pond. This trail 

system could also be expanded or connect to other USFS trails outside of the proposed park 

boundary. Additional !railheads could also be considered within the park. 

There is opportunity to provide for picnic areas and day-use areas within the park boundary to 

allow extended stay options and additional services to supplement existing facilities in the 

canyon. And this area has connectivity to the existing 350-mile snowmobile trail system, and 

has potential for expanded services making this a first class winter recreation destination. 

The State of South Dakota would honor all existing contracts with no disruption, including the 

lease of Camp Bob Marshall to the Western Dakota 4-H Camp Association and overnight 

campgrounds that are leased to private entities. 

Camp Bob Marshall which is located in the USFS Bismarck Lake parcel is widely used and 

leased from the USFS by the Western Dakota 4-H Camp Association. The camp has a 

dysfunctional sewer system which the USFS will not commit to repairing which jeopardizes 

future use. The State of South Dakota would repair the sewer system to meet federal and state 

environmental requirements. 

Madam Chairwoman, I also submit several letters of support from state and private entities in 

support of this land exchange, and I look forward to a markup of this S. 3254 in the near future. 
774 


Insert graphic folio 859 here 22000A.735

September 19,2016 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

I am writing in support of S. 3254, the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land 

Exchange Act. 

The prQposed land exchange between the State of South Dakota and the U.S. Forest 

Service will improve public use and enjoyment of our natural environment, preserve the 

scenic properties of Spearfish Canyon and the Bismarck Lake area. and serve the best 

interests of the general public. 

South Dakota's state park system is among the finest in the country, hosting mtltions of 

visitors each year. The proposed land transfer would allow South Dakota to establish 

Spearfish Canyon State Park, whiCh would mean a positive economic impact on the city 

of SpearfiSh, as well as the businesses within Spearfish Canyon. 

The proposed' exchange will iead to many improvements to enhance how our citizens 

interact with nature. while preserving these scenic areas for generations to come. 

Along with preserving these natural wonders, the land exchange witt allow for improved 

roaqs, more ~mpgrounds, new hiking trails and picnic areas. and more opportunities 

for families to spend time outdoors. 

Visit Spearfish strongly supports the proposed land exchange and encourages your 

support as well. 
775 


Insert graphic folio 00026 here 22000A.736
776 


Insert graphic folio 861 here 22000A.737

Executive 

Committee 

President 

Anita Peterson 

First Vice President 

Todd Thoelke 

Second Vice President 

Tom Farrell 

Immediate Past President 

Eric Stroeder 

ASBSD Executive Director 

Dr. Wade Pogany 

Directors 

Central Region 

Melissa Whipple 

Todd County 

Pameta Haukaas 

Colome Consolidated 

Eric Stroeder 

Mobridge-Pollock 

Steve Kubik 

Winner 

Northeast Region 

Duane Aim 

Aberdeen 

Denise Lutkemeler 

Wilmot 

Debbe Koenecke 

Deuel 

Southeast Region 

Todd Thoelke 

Sioux Falls 

Tom Farrell 

Madison Central 

Rick Olson 

Howard 

Afan Van Ruler 

Montrose 

Kathy Greenaway 

Yankton 

Western Region 

Orson Ward 

Lead~Deadwood 

Susan Humiston 

Western Under 265 

Ron Riherd 

Rapid City 

Anita Peterson 

Haakon 

Bryan Bauer 

Douglas 

September 30, 2016 

The Honorable John Thune 

511 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Thune, 

I am writing on behalf of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota to express our 

support for S. 3254 the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange Act. This 

legislation will not only provide South Dakota with another pristine state park but it will also 

improve funding for education. 

State school trust lands comprise 1 ,920 acres of the 1 ,954 acres of state land involved in 

the exchange. These lands were set aside at statehood and placed under the 

Commissioner of School and Public Lands to provide funding for education. However, 

overtime these particular acres have become mostly surrounded and isolated by USDA 

Forest Service National Grasslands. 

The trust lands are leased at public auction but because these acres are in National 

Grasslands permittee allotments there is not any competitive bidding. As a result the 

rental rates are much lower and funding for education is reduced. 

S. 3254 will facilitate an exchange of these lands which fit better under federal 

management. The school trust fund will be compensated through state legislation at the 

appraised value of the land. This money will be invested as part of the school trust and 

generate more income. For example, a conservative earnings rate of just three percent 

will generate ten times the money that is currently generated from grazing leases on these 

parcels. 

This legislation makes sense because it allows the State of South Dakota to transfer 

isolated state parcels and block up existing grasslands by allowing the Forest Service to 

acquire these in-holdings. It does this while increasing funding for education which is why 

we support the proposal. 

Thank you for your support of S. 3254 the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land 

Exchange Act. 

Sincerely~ 

{fffe: 

Executive Director 

Associated School Boards of South Dakota 

WP:kmb 

PO Box 1059 • Pierre, South Dakota 57501 
777 


Insert graphic folio 864 here 22000A.740

September 19,2016 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

I am writing in support ofS. 3254, the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange 

Act. 

The proposed land exchange between the State of South Dakota and the U.S. Forest Service will 

improve public use and enjoyment of our natural environment, preserve the scenic properties of 

Spearfish Canyon and the Bismarck Lake area, and serve the best interests of the general public. 

South Dakota's state park system is among the finest in the country, hosting millions of visitors 

each year. They are significant contributors to tourism in this region which is the State's second 

largest industry. The proposed land transfer would allow South Dakota to improve Custer State 

Park and establish Spearfish Canyon State Park, in one of the most beautiful natural areas in the 

country. 

The proposed exchange will lead to many improvements to enhance how our citizens and visitors 

interact with nature, while preserving these scenic areas for generations to come. Along with 

preserving these natural wonders, the land exchange will allow for improved roads, more 

campgrounds, new hiking trails and picnic areas, and more opportunities for families to spend 

time outdoors. 

The City of Sturgis strongly supports the proposed land exchange and encourages your support 

as well. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel Ainslie 

City Manager, City of Sturgis 

Sturgis City Manager 

1040 Harley-Davidson Way, Sturgis, SD 57785 • (605) 347-4422 • Fax: (605) 347-4861 

dainslie@stursissov.C!llll www.sturgis-sd.gov www.fac®ook.comfcitvqfsturgis "In accordam:e with Federal law and U.S. Department of.4gricufture policy, !his in.vlitulion is prohibited from disctiminaling on 

the basis q{race, colof', national origin. age. disability, religion, sex. familial status, se.\'ual orielllation, and reptisal. 

!Not all prohibited bases opp(v to ol/f}I'Ograms.) 
778 


Insert graphic folio 865 here 22000A.741

School and Public Lands 

Ryan Brunner, State Land Commissioner 

September 19,2016 

The Honorable John Thune 

511 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Thune, 

I am writing to express my support for S. 3254 the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange 

Act. This legislation will not only provide South Dakota with another pristine state park but it will also 

improve funding for education. 

My office is providing 1,920 acres of the 1,954 acres of state land involved in the exchange. These lands 

are state trust lands set aside at statehood and placed under my office to provide funding for education. 

However, overtime these particular acres have become mostly surrounded and isolated by USDA Forest 

Service National Grasslands. 

Our lands are leased at public auction but because these acres are in National Grasslands permittee 

allotments there is not any competitive bidding. As a result our rental rates are much lower and funding 

for education is reduced. 

S. 3254 will facilitate an exchange of these lands which fit better into federal management. The school 

trust fund under my office will be compensated through state legislation the appraised value of the land. 

This money will be invested as part of the school trust and for example a conservative earnings rate of 

just three percent will generate ten times the money that is currently generated from grazing leases. 

This legislation makes sense because it allows the state of South Dakota to acquire and protect pristine 

lands in a state park, transfer isolated state parcels, and block up existing grasslands by allowing the 

forest service to acquire these in-holdings. It does all of this while increasing funding for education. 

Thank you for your support of S. 3254 the Spearfish Canyon and Bismarck Lake Land Exchange Act. 

Sincerely, 

-~ tJ~~ Ryan Brunner 

Commissioner 

State Capitol + 500 East Capitol + Pierre, South Dakota + 57501-5070 

Phone: 605-773-3303 + Fax: 605-773-5520 + www.sdpubliclands.com 

E-mail: spl@state.sd.us 
779 


Insert graphic folio 866 here 22000A.742

KELLY TOWNSEND 1700WESTWASHJNGTON, SUITE H 

PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007-2644 

CAPITOL PHONE: (BQ'J) 926-4467 

CAPITOl FAX: (602}417-3018 

TOLL FREE: 1-800-352-/3404 

ktownsend@azleg:gov 

COMMIITEES; 

~EDERAUSM & STATES' RIGHTS. 

CHAIRMAN 

CHILDREN & FAMJL Y AFFAIRS, 

GOVERNMENT & HIGHER 

EDUCATION 

DISTRICT 16 J\ri;!.nmt ~nuzt nf ~tprtzeututiues b~~~:ir~'~lAnv• Auorr 

Jqrr.enix, J\rhrom 8511117 

Senator Jeff Flake 

Senate Russell Office Building 413 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Flake, 

October 6, 2016 

As the chair of the Arizona House Federalism and States' Rights Committee, I would like to 

thank you for addressing the proposed Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument in 

Arizona. 

Last year, our committee reviewed this issue and with overwhelming sentiment, we agreed that 

the priority should be returning federal lands to the states rather than designating more Arizona 

land as federally controlled areas. Arizona does not enjoy equal footing with the eastern states, 

and this reckless unilateral action will only put us at a further disadvantage. 

Again, I thank you for raising this issue, and for communicating to the Senate Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources that the people of Arizona support the passage of S. 437 and S. 

1416. 

Thank you, 

Representative 

~ Kelly Townsend 

Legislative District 16 

KT:jw 
780 


Insert graphic folio 0010 here 22000A.743

UNLIMITED 

T!R.tJlUT' 

~ 

April 25, 2016 

Secretary Sally Jewell 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Jim Pefia, Regional Forester 

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) 

U.S. Forest Service 

1220 SW 3'd Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-3440 

ChiefThomas Tidwell 

U.S. Forest Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-1111 

Mike Williams 

Forest Supervisor 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

215 Melody Lane 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Re: Letter of Support to Withdrawal Lands from Mineral Entry in the Headwaters of the Methow River in 

the North Cascades of Washington State 

Dear Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Pefia, and Supervisor Williams, 

Thank you for your dedication to responsible management of our National Forest lands and the critical 

fisheries resources that depend on them. Trout Unlimited is North America's largest conservation 

organization dedicated to the conservation, protection, and restoration of coldwater fish and their 

habitats. As such, our 150,000 members across the country-including the more than 4,700 who reside 

in the state of Washington-share your interest in ensuring our National Forest lands continue to 

support robust native fish populations for generations to come. 

In keeping with this mission, we urge your support in protection of the Upper Methow Valley in the 

North Cascades from industrial-scale mining by withdrawing the National Forest lands in the upper 

valley from mineral entry and exploration (see www.methowheadwaters.org for map and details). The 

Methow River watershed provides key habitat for a myriad of native fish species, including three species 

of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-Iisted salmonid species: Upper Columbia spring Chinook, Upper 

Columbia steel head trout, and bull trout. Salmon and steel head must travel over 500 miles from the 

mouth of the Columbia River and navigate 9 dams to reach their spawning grounds in the Methow River 

and its tributaries. 

Large-scale mining on Flagg Mountain and the headwaters of the Methow River watershed poses a 

serious threat to these fish species that are already on the brink of extinction, and it would undermine 

decades' worth of fisheries recovery efforts in this watershed. Tremendous demands on a pre-allocated 

and severely limited water supply; significant risk of ground- and surface-water contamination; and 

erosion and sedimentation impacts are just a few reasons why a large-scale mine in the headwaters of 

the Methow is an extremely risky proposition. Given the critical status of our native fish stocks in the 
781 


Insert graphic folio 868 here 22000A.744

Methow River- not to mention the other ESA-Iisted wildlife species in the area- this is a risk we cannot 

afford to take. 

The Methow River is one of Washington's most iconic rivers for fishing and other outdoor pursuits and it 

continues to be a Pacific Northwest mecca for hunters, anglers, recreationists, and conservationists. The 

Methow Valley's economy is driven by a tourist trade dependent on the preservation of the watershed's 

natural resource assets and intact habitats. The campaign to withdrawal the Upper Methow from 

mineral entry has amassed an impressive coalition- a large and diverse group partners, including over 

100 local businesses and organizations, tribes, local and state elected officials, and numerous sportsmen 

and recreational organizations. The prospect of an industrial-scale mine on Flagg Mountain or anywhere 

else in the Upper Methow Valley represents a direct threat to the very values at the heart of success in 

the community and the quarter-billion-dollar investment private landowners, tribes, and state and 

federal agencies have made in conservation, restoration, and recreation efforts over the years. 

We urge you to work together and move quickly to initiate the process of an administrative withdrawal 

of Flagg Mountain and appropriate surrounding National Forest lands in the Upper Methow Valley from 

mineral exploration and entry for as long as possible. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to 

help facilitate this request, including helping to raise the funding necessary to complete the withdrawal 

process. Thank you for your consideration of our request. 

Sincerely, 

Rosendo Guerrero 

Chairman, Washington State 

Council of Trout Unlimited 

Phone: (253) 861-8964 

Email: rosendo.tu@gmail.com 

~~~ Crystal Elliot-Perez 

Methow Valley Project Manager 

Trout Unlimited 

Phone: (509) 386-7768 

Email: celliot@tu.org 

Cc: Senator Patty Murray, United States Senator 

Senator Maria Cantwell, United States Senator 

Representative Dan Newhouse, U.S. House of Representatives 

Tom Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture 

Neil Kornze, Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Kate Miller 

Government Affairs Director 

Trout Unlimited 

Phone: (703) 284-9426 

Email: kmiller@tu.org 

Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Jerome Perez, Washington and Oregon Office, U.S. Bureau of land Management 

Michaelliu, Methow Valley District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 
782 


Insert graphic folio 869 here 22000A.745

lt================ 

TROUT Steve Moyer 

UNLIMITED Vice President of Government Affairs 

September 22, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 

RE: Senate ENR Committee Hearing to Receive Testimony on Various Bills (9/22/16). 

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, 

I am writing on behalf of Trout Unlimited (TU), and our 160,000 members nationwide, to offer our 

views on the multiple legislative proposals listed for consideration during the Committee's September 

22, 2016 legislative hearing. 

TU Supports: 

• S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 201S. 

• S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016. 

TU Opposes: 

• S. 437, the Improved National Monument Designation Process Act. 

• S. 1416, a bill to limit the authority to reserve water rights in designating a national 

monument. 

• S. 3317, a bill to exempt Utah from the Antiquities Act. 

• S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act. 

• S. 3273, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016. 

We detail our comments in the attached packet of letters. Thank you for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Moyer 

A mission to conserve, protect, & restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. 

National Office: 1777 N Kent St., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209 

T: (703) 284-9406 F: (703) 284-9400 smoyer@tu.org www.tu.org 
783 


Insert graphic folio 870 here 22000A.746

TROUT 

~ UNLIMITED 

September 22, 2016 

Re: S. 346, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015. 

The Smith River stitches its way across rugged country from its headwaters in southwestern Oregon 

to its mouth on the California coastline at Del Norte. Flowing out of our national forest lands, its 

waters are considered some of the cleanest and purest waters anywhere in the United States. 

The cold, clean waters of the Smith's North Fork provide amazing habitat for salmon and 

steel head. These iconic fish drive an economic engine critically important to southwest Oregon, the 

region, and the nation. Guides, hotels, restaurants, commercial fishermen and many other small 

businesses from Port Orford, Oregon, to northern California all depend on these waters being 

protected and used for the recreational values they provide. 

The water quality and clarity of these rivers is exceptional and they're among the best wild salmon 

and steel head strongholds outside Alaska. The river is considered perhaps the best wild steel head 

angling water in California- so good in fact, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife identified 

the Smith one of two "irreplaceable" watersheds for salmonid population resiliency. This very unique 

and special watershed provides Oregonians, Californians and visitors in pursuit of legendary steelhead 

or unparalleled scenery with outstanding recreational opportunities that cannot be found anywhere 

else. 

But the Smith is also a bullseye for foreign mining companies looking to extract nickel using strip 

mining techniques. Large mines have been proposed for years in the Rough and Ready Creek drainage 

and now a foreign mining corporation proposes test-drilling for nickel in the beautiful headwaters of 

Baldface Creek in the North Fork Smith River, and in the North Fork Pistol River and Hunter Creek 

watersheds in the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest. Test-drilling is the first step toward 

production that would include new roads, surface mines and slag heaps. 

A big nickel mine would be an unwelcome game-changer for everyone downstream and would 

greatly imperil this treasured, sustainable natural resource. 

The Smith River is too important as a wild steelhead fishery, and its clean, high-quality waters are too 

important for communities in the lower watershed to allow large-scale strip mining anywhere in this 

watershed. S. 346 I HR 682 will provide long-term protection from large mining projects through 

withdrawal of lands for new mining operations. Neither bill would affect valid existing rights. The bills 

will also provide long-overdue designations for regional rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Sections of the Chetco River would be designated as wild, scenic or recreational under the act, 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: 5. 346 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Pagelof2 
784 


Insert graphic folio 871 here 22000A.747

providing protection from new mining claims and mineral leasing. These bills would ensure that the 

Chetco runs free and clear for all Oregonians to enjoy. 

We thank Senators Wyden and Merkley- and Representatives DeFazio, Huffman and Blumenauerfor introducing legislation to protect the valuable cold, clean waters of the North Fork Smith River 

watershed. We strongly supportS. 346 and stand ready to work with the bill's sponsors and 

members of the committee to help advance this legislation forward. 

For questions related to these comments, please contact the following: 

Dean Finnerty 

SW Oregon Field Rep 

Sportsmen's Conservation Project 

dfinnertv@tu.org 

Steve Moyer 

VP of Government Affairs 

smoyer@tu.org 

Kate Miller 

Director of Government Affairs 

kmiller@tu.org 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: S. 346 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page 2 of 2 
785 


Insert graphic folio 872 here 22000A.748

L TROUT 

UNLIMITED 

September 22, 2016 

Re: Please opposeS. 3317; S. 1416 and S. 437 

On behalf ofT rout Unlimited's 160,000 members, I urge you to opposeS. 3317, S. 1416 and S. 437, 

three pieces of legislation would limit the conservation of public lands by curtailing the designation of 

new national monuments under the Antiquities Act. Thanks to the Antiquities Act, national 

monuments have conserved some of the world's best public hunting and fishing lands by conserving 

large and vitally important landscapes that otherwise may have been lost or diminished. Thanks to 

the Antiquities Act, future generations of hunters, anglers and American outdoorsmen can stalk elk in 

the Missouri Breaks of Montana, hunt blacktails and fish the headwaters of the mighty Eel River in the 

Berryessa Snow Mountain and catch wild trout in the rushing waters of Browns Canyon. These 

experiences are a priceless part of our national heritage- we strongly urge you to oppose these 

efforts to weaken one of America's more successful conservation laws. 

S. 3317 and S. 1416 

The Antiquities Act is unique among our nation's conservation laws in that it allows the president to 

proclaim parts of the public domain "protected," bypassing Congress entirely. 1 This authority is kept 

in check by public opinion and Congress' power to abolish or modify a national monument after 

designation. Congress also has the authority to establish monuments on its own. 

Each Presidential proclamation that designates a national monument is different, and each 

proclamation must be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof with the flexibility to include 

considerations unique to each designation. General legislation should not pre-determine the 

outcome of a particular National monument designation. S.3317 would take any and all alternatives 

off the table for an entire state or region (Utah); and S. 1416 would pre-determine the outcome of 

certain aspects designation, by restricting authority to reserve water rights in the designation even 

where the purpose of a particular National Monument may depend on its associated water resources. 

Both of these proposals would create a dangerous precedent undermining the Antiquities Act by 

preventing the President from considering any designations for an entire state, regardless of merit, or 

from considering location-specifc needs during designation, such as water resources. 

In addition to creating bad precedent, S. 1416 is also unnecessary. S. 1416 proposes to usurp a longstanding way of dealing with water and new federal land designations, replacing that process with a 

1 It is important to note that only existing federal public lands- not state or private property- can be considered for 

monument status. 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: 5. 3317; S. 1416 and S. 437 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page 1 of 2 
786 


Insert graphic folio 873 here 22000A.749

new and untested approach that a state water resource agency may not be equipped to handle, that 

may generate unnecessary burdens on the state agency; and that will no doubt cause unnecessary, 

duplicative work on the part of federal and state agency staff. 

S.437 

While each monument is unique, many share one commonality: Their designations were the result of 

the president using his authority only when faced with Congressional inaction. For example, two 

recent national monument designations, Browns Canyon in New Mexico and Rio Grande del Norte in 

New Mexico, both occurred in response to Congress' failure to act on legislation, despite 

overwhelming local support. 

When Congress is unable or unwilling to take action on conservation initiatives, the Antiquities Act 

provides a vehicle to see these proposals through to fruition. This approach- using the Act to break 

congressional deadlock on conservation efforts- is part of the Act's design. S. 437 would effectively 

eliminate this vehicle by creating two new layers of legislative approval- requiring that, before 

declaring a national monument, both the U.S. Congress and the respective State legislature must 

approve the proposal. 

National Monuments established through the use of the Antiquities Act are public lands that offer all 

Americans world-class fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation opportunities. The Antiquities Act is 

powerful tool for conservation, and it is important to keep this tool available for the right times and 

places for its use. 

We urge you to oppose these bills and future attempts to undercut the Monument designation 

process. 

For questions related to these comments, please contact the following: 

Corey Fisher 

Senior Policy Director 

Sportsmen's Conservation Project 

cfisher@tu.org 

Steve Moyer 

VP of Government Affairs 

smoyer@tu.org 

Kate Miller 

Director of Government Affairs 

kmiller@tu.org 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: S. 3317; 5. 1416 and S. 437 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page 2 of 2 
787 


Insert graphic folio 874 here 22000A.750

j[=============== 

TROUT 

UNLIMITED 

September 22, 2016 

Re: Trout Unlimited Supports S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 

Trout Unlimited strongly supports S. 2991, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016, which 

protects specific lands within the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest from mining development. 

The Methow River, which flows from its headwaters on Flagg Mountain to meet the Columbia 80 

miles later, is one of Washington State's most iconic rivers and serves as a Pacific Northwest mecca 

for hunters, anglers, recreationists, and conservationists. 

The Methow provides key habitat for a myriad of native fish species, including three species of 

Endangered Species Act (ESA)-Iisted salmonid species: Upper Columbia spring Chinook, Upper 

Columbia steelhead trout, and bull trout. The salmon and steel head that return to this river must 

navigate past 9 dams and endure countless impacts through an over-stressed ecosystem in order to 

reach their spawning grounds. Trout Unlimited's Western Water and Habitat Program has invested 

millions of dollars and thousands of staff hours to work hand-in-hand with the community on projects 

to improve trout and salmon habitat throughout the Methow River watershed. On a larger scale, the 

Federal government has also invested hundreds of millions to repair and restore these populationsboth in the Methow, and throughout the Columbia Basin. Protecting the Methow headwaters will 

safeguard these investments prevent the unavoidable damage to water resources associated with 

large-scale mining on Flagg Mountain. 

The Methow Valley has built its economic success upon two main industries: Agriculture and 

Recreation - both of which rely heavily on healthy waters. A large-scale mine in the headwaters of 

the Methow River watershed would (1) pose an unacceptable risk to ESA-Iisted fish species that are 

already on the brink of extinction, (2) undermine millions in taxpayer dollars spent on fisheries 

recovery in this watershed, and (3) devastate the local recreation-based economy, which relies on 

sustained ecosystem health (and fisheries) in the Methow River watershed. 

The campaign to withdrawal the Upper Methow from mineral entry has amassed an impressive 

coalition- a large and diverse group partners, including over 100 local businesses and organizations, 

tribes, local and state elected officials, and numerous sportsmen and recreational organizations. The 

prospect of an industrial-scale mine on Flagg Mountain or anywhere else in the Upper Methow Valley 

represents a direct threat to the very values at the heart of success in the community and the 

quarter-billion-dollar investment private landowners, tribes, and state and federal agencies have 

made in conservation, restoration, and recreation efforts over the years. 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: 5. 2991 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page 1 of 2 
788 


Insert graphic folio 875 here 22000A.751

Simply put, industrial-scale mining would threaten all that is special about the Methow and devastate 

its local economy, natural environment, and quality of life. On behalf of our more than 160,000 

members across the country-including the more than 4,700 who reside in the state of Washingtonwe sincerely thank Senators Murray and Cantwell for introducing this bill. 

For questions related to these comments, please contact the following: 

Crystal Elliot 

Project Manager 

WA Abandoned Mine Restoration 

celliot@tu.org 

Steve Moyer 

VP of Government Affairs 

smoyer@tu.org 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: S. 2991 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Gregg Bafundo 

Washington Field Coordinator 

Sportsmen's Conservation 

Project gbafundo@tu.org 

Kate Miller 

Director of Government Affairs 

kmiller@tu.org 

Page 2 of 2 
789 


Insert graphic folio 876 here 22000A.752

lt================ 

TROUT 

UNLIMITED 

September 22, 2016 

Re: Trout Unlimited Opposes S. 3203 and S. 3273 

Trout Unlimited strongly opposes S. 3203 and S. 3273 because of their potentially severe impact to 

Alaska's world-class fisheries, fish and wildlife heritage, and Alaska's federally-owned public lands. 

Alaska is home to some of the most important and productive fish and wildlife habitat in the world. 

From the vast Tongass and Chugach National Forests to the hugely-popular Kenai National Wildlife 

Refuge to Katmai, lake Clark, Wrangell St. Elias, Denali and beyond, these iconic places and their 

lesser-known counterparts support seemingly limitless populations of wild Pacific salmon, caribou, 

moose, deer, bear, bald eagle, and many, many other species. These fish and wildlife populations and 

the lands they inhabit are the underpinnings of Alaska's communities, economy and cultures, are the 

basis for Alaska's unmatched commercial fishing, tourism, outfitter and guide, and subsistence 

industries, and afford Alaska residents a quality of life that is unmatched around the globe. 

Many of the most valuable and productive landscapes in Alaska remain accessible to a multitude of 

commercial, sport and subsistence users because they are federally owned. Turning Alaska's federal 

lands over to private interests or mandating vastly increased and irresponsible oil, gas, mineral and 

timber exploitation, as these bills would do, would forever alter the landscape, economy and people 

of Alaska, and commit Alaska to repeating many of the same mistakes made the world over. TU has 

the following significant concerns with these bills: 

• Transfers 2 Million Acres to the State for Logging (S. 3203)- Two million acres would transfer 

out the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska to be managed for intensive resource 

development. Federal protections for important fish and wildlife habitat-such as 100-foot 

buffers along salmon streams where logging is prohibited, and requirements for 

environmental review and public notice-would no longer apply. Public access and 

commercial use by existing outfitters and guides or tourism businesses would not be 

guaranteed. The transferred lands could come from Congressionally-designated LUD II lands, 

Inventoried Road less Areas, or nearly any other area outside of Wilderness, National 

Monuments, or National Park System lands. 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: S. 3203 and S. 3273 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page 1 of3 
790 


Insert graphic folio 877 here 22000A.753

• Holds Millions of Acres Hostage to Increased Oil and Gas Production (S. 3203)- This 

legislation would set the unreasonable and impossible-to-meet goal of increasing oil 

production from federal lands in Alaska by 500,000 barrels of oil per day by 2026. If the 

deadline for developing a plan to meet this goal is not met, the State of Alaska would gain 

new entitlements to 1 million acres of federal land for each year the deadline lapses. 

Meanwhile, the bill also eliminates important protections for sensitive fish and wildlife 

habitat, excludes public input from land management decisions, and effectively elevates oil 

and gas production over all other concerns. 

• Expands Mining Activity in Important Areas (S. 3203)- The legislation dramatically expands 

mining rights by limiting federal regulation and allowing mineral activity in protected areas, 

such as National Parks, without environmental review or public participation in decisionmaking. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which are designations made by the Bureau 

of land Management to protect subsistence and ecological values, would be revoked. 

Additionally, any federal designation of more than 5,000 acres of federal lands that in some 

way limits development activities would require approval by a joint resolution from Congress. 

• Circumvents the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (S. 3273)- Just one year after the 

Sealaska Lands Bill was celebrated for "finalizing" all outstanding Alaska Native claims, this 

legislation would unravel the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) by opening 

unprecedented doors for the creation of entirely new for-profit ANCSA corporations, 

increasing the corporate land cap, and expanding corporate selection power. This bill would 

create five new ANCSA corporations with entitlement to more than 115,000 acres of the most 

valuable and productive timber lands in the Tongass. The Cook Inlet Regional Corporation 

could lay claim to 43,000 acres from nearly anywhere in Alaska-including from National 

Wildlife Refuges (all but the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), National Petroleum Reserves, 

and on almost any federal lands in Alaska outside of Wilderness, National Monuments or 

National Parks System lands. Sea Iaska Corporation could trade nearly worthless subsurface 

rights on Admiralty Island for surface rights to lands on Prince of Wales Island with highly 

valuable timber resources. If this legislation passes, it will foreshadow how other ANC5A 

corporations will try to obtain similar sweetheart deals in the future and set the precedent for 

creating an untold number of entirely new ANCSA corporations with claims to federal lands 

throughout Alaska. 

• Reopens the Alaska Native Allotment Act (S. 3273)- This bill reopens the 1906 Alaska Native 

Allotment Act for the third time, after Congress considered the matter final in 2000, and 

allows an estimated 2,800 individuals or their heirs to select and receive 160 acres each, for a 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: S. 3203 and S. 3273 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page 2 of 3 
791 


Insert graphic folio 878 here 22000A.754

total of up to 460,000 acres. This would create a patchwork of in holdings across Alaska where 

the most valuable and important parcels become private and off limits to the public. 

• Exempts the Tongass and Chugach from the Roadless Rule (S. 3203)- The 2001 Roadless 

Rule, which prohibits most commercial logging and road building within inventoried road less 

areas, would no longer apply to National Forests in Alaska. This will put at risk millions of 

acres of important fish and wildlife habitat in the Tongass and Chugach National Forest and 

encourage a new era of highly-subsidized old-growth timber sales that return very little in 

economic gain while jeopardizing Alaska's valuable fishing and tourism economies, which in 

Southeast Alaska account for 24 percent of private-sector employment. 

• Mandates a Land Exchange with the Alaska Mental Health Trust (S. 3203)- An existing and 

ongoing administrative land exchange between the State of Alaska and the U.S. Forest Service 

would be supplanted by a mandate for the U.S. Forest Service to trade valuable timber lands 

and geologically sensitive areas to the State of Alaska without adequate public or 

environmental review. Under this legislation, adjacent landowners and other stakeholders 

would lose the opportunity to participate in a decision that will impact their livelihoods. 

While each of these bills threatens serious and permanent impact to Alaska's important fish and 

wildlife, taken as a whole they represent an attack on Alaska's federal lands and the irreplaceable fish 

and wildlife habitat they support. These bills would trade away the long-term foundation of Alaska's 

communities and economy for short-term gain by favored interests. 

For questions related to these comments, please contact the following: 

Austin Williams 

Alaska Director of law and Policy 

awilliams@tu.org 

Steve Moyer 

VP of Government Affairs 

smoyer@tu.org 

Kate Miller 

Director of Government Affairs 

kmiller@tu.org 

Trout Unlimited Comment re: S. 3203 and S. 3273 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

September 22, 2016 

Page3of3 
792 


Insert graphic folio 879 here 22000A.755

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY 

October 18, 2016 

UIC Response to BLM Testimony on S. 3273, Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Improvement Act 

The Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation ("UIC'') wishes to supplement the testimony it provided to 

the Committee on September 22, 2016 and inform the Committee of VIC's ongoing efforts to 

resolve the concerns raised in the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM") testimony on Section 

3 of S. 3273, the Alaska Claims Settlement Improvement Act, before the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee. 

UIC has long-demonstrated its consistent commitment to conserving the nesting sites and natural 

habitat of the Steller's Eider. The UIC Board of Directors has mandated that UIC take a 

multipronged approach to mitigate any potential impact which gravel extraction and community 

development might have on the Steller's Eider population on UIC lands surrounding Barrow, 

Alaska. Pursuant to this mandate, UIC has for more than a decade worked closely with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Field Office in Fairbanks, Alaska, and with the Interior Department's 

Endangered Species Office in Fairbanks, as partners in protecting the Steller's Eider on VIC's 

lands. 

In February 2004, UIC and Interior Department officials in Fairbanks developed a Draft Steller's 

Eider Conservation Plan ("2004 Draft Plan") that was designed to maintain and increase the 

number of breeding pairs ofSteller's Eider in Barrow and to provide consistency and predictability 

for aspects of federal permitting related to Endangered Species Act ("ESA") when developing 

critical community infrastructure in Barrow. While the U.S. Interior Department never finalized 

and implemented the 2004 Draft Plan, UIC has continued to engage with Fish and Wildlife staff 

to shape more effective Steller's Eider habitat protection measures. 

One of the key components of the 2004 Draft Plan required the Fish and Wildlife Field Office to 

purchase land from UIC to be held in perpetuity for the purpose of conserving the habitat of the 

Steller's Eider. But over time, it has become clear that the migratory nesting and brooding habits 

of the Steller's Eider may not be well-served by a fixed, conservation area. Instead, UIC has reengaged with the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office to update the 2004 Draft Plan to reflect 

VIC's existing multi-pronged approach to conservation. 

To directly mitigate any impacts of its gravel extraction under Section 3 of S. 3273, UIC has 

collaborated with the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office on an enhanced plan involving postextraction gravel pit reclamation efforts that include the construction of a wetlands area designed 

with gradual side slopes and varying reclamation lake bottom depths to increase the functional 

utility of the wetlands and encourage high-use by waterfowl like the Steller's Eider. 

Meanwhile, UIC will continue to ensure that all of its activity on its lands helps conserve the 

natural habitat of the Steller's Eider by embedding principles outlined in the 2004 Draft Plan in all 

of its operational plans. VIC's subsidiary, UMIAQ Environmental, LLC, which develops permit 

packages for development projects, has-

• cultivated positive working relationships with the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office 

regarding Section 7 ESA consultation to conserve endangered and threatened species; 
793 


Insert graphic folio 880 here 22000A.756

• provided the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office a map of all of the potential 

development projects in Barrow in an effort to proactively ensure that the development 

goals of the City do not have an adverse impact on the Steller's Eider population; and 

• developed a mitigation plan involving the removal of abandoned powerlines in the Barrow 

area that threaten the Steller's Eider. This mitigation plan is subject to the U.S. Corps of 

Engineers 404 permit process. 

In addition, UIC is working on a plan to set aside 3,000 acres of its lands for the creation of a 

Wetland Mitigation Bank, which will further support Steller's Eider nesting habitats. UIC 

strategically chose the location of the Wetland Mitigation Bank by working collaboratively with 

the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office to identify land that was near high use Steller's Eider 

nesting and brooding areas. These areas have been continuously dedicated by UIC since the 1940s 

to the long-term scientific study of tundra, soil, animals, and weather that cannot be replicated 

anywhere in the Arctic. UIC is determined to continue to protect these areas for future generations 

with a conservation easement tied to the 404 mitigation program with the Corps of Engineers. 

UIC believes the concern stated in the Department's testimony is an indication of the Department's 

renewed commitment to collaborate with UIC in updating and strengthening UIC's ongoing 

Steller's Eider conservation plans. UIC would have no objection to the addition of Committee 

report language which would require UIC reclamation efforts after the conclusion of sand and 

gravel extraction operations to provide for enhancements to the Steller's Eider habitat. 

Conclusion. UIC is pleased to report that the Interior Department's concerns are being resolved 

through active collaboration between UIC and Interior's field staff. UIC looks forward to working 

with the Department to finalize and implement its Steller's Eider conservation plan. 

2 #48225224 _v6 
794 


Insert graphic folio 881 here 22000A.757

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

United States Senate 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski: 

www.vfw.org 1 info@vfw.org 

September 16, 2016 

On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) 

and our Auxiliaries, I am pleased to offer our support for S. 3315, Second Divi<ion Memorial 

Modification Act. This important legislation would upgrade the Second Division Memorial by 

placing three benches at the memorial which honors those who have served in the Second 

Division. 

The Second Division has a long history of service, and the memorial honors those who were 

killed in combat during the wars in Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Division led the breakout 

from the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War, served alongside the United States Marine 

Corps in Iraq, and was the first to deploy Striker units in Afghanistan. 

Today, the Division continues to serve on the frontlines in one of the most dangerous locations in 

the world. With nearly l 0,000 soldiers serving on the Korean penisula, it conducts joint 

operations with more than 1,000 embedded Republic of Korea soldiers to ensure our strategic 

ally remains ready to maintain peace in the region. 

The VFW applauds your effort to recognize those who have worn our nation's uniform. Your 

leadership on this issue is commendable. We look forward to working with you to pass this 

legislation. 

NO ONE DOES MORE FOR VETERANS. 

National Headquarters I 406 W. 34th Street I Kansas City, MO 64111 I 1.816.756.3390 I Fax: 816.968.1157 

Washington D.C. Office 1 VFW Memorial Bldg. 1 200 Maryland Ave. N.E. 1 Washington, D.C. 20002 I 1.202.543.2239 I Fax: 202.543.6719 
795 


Insert graphic folio 882 here 22000A.758

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Importance: 

5.3203: 

Alex Vollmer <abvo!!mer@expertdvilengineer.com> 

Friday, September 23, 2016 8:32 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

Tongass National Forest: 5.3203 & 5.3273; Hearing date: 9/22/16 

High 

Sect. 402. Our National Forests must be managed for ALL users, and NOT elevate mining interests above all users of the 

Forest 

Sect. 503. The road less Rule makes sense fiscally and ecologically and should continue to be implemented in Alaska. 

Sect. 502. No logging should occur on the steep hillsides and popular recreation areas that the Alaska Mental Health Trust 

currently owns, but this issue can be resolved in Alaska, federal legislation is not necessary. 

Sect. 503. Set-aside of acreage for timber production, not multiple use should not be allowed. Federal standards should 

be followed for a National Forest which belongs to ALL the people. 

5.3273: 

Sect. 6 Admiralty Land Exchange is not of equal value- 500 acres of old growth forest in exchange for 23,00 acres of 

subsurface real estate at Cube Cove is not an equal exchange. 

Sect. 10. The wording in this section fails to provide protection for Tongass Legislated LUD II wildlands and perpetuates 

all the flaws of the ANCSA corporate model. 

Sect 11. This Section causes more problems than it solves by reversing key compromises reached in 1998 and disrupts 

efforts to finalize entitlements under existing laws. 

Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts. 

Alex Vollmer 

26 Narragansett Cove 

San Rafael, CA 94901-4476 

415-785-4949 (h} 

415-454-9970 (c) 

abv5@cornell.edu 

If something's not to your liking, change your liking. R. Steves 
796 


Insert graphic folio 883 here 22000A.759

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Margo Waring <margowaring@gmail.com> 

Friday, September 23, 2016 4:59 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

Protect the Tongass comments on S.3273 and S. 3203 

1 am a resident of Juneau, Alaska, a city within the Tongass National Forest. I have a stake both as an American who 

shares an interest in this forest and as a resident within it. I urge you to keep the Tongass in federal public hands and 

managed in the best interest of all Americans, instead of piecemeal giving it to private and state interests which received 

fair allocations decades ago. 

Logging in the Tongass does not support jobs or communities. Fishing and tourism supports both. Climate disruption 

makes preservation of the Tongass more important than ever as an intact and, therefore, resilient, ecosystem. 

S. 3203. Do not restrict USFS management of mining (Sec. 402) or exempt the Tongass from the Road less Rule (Sec. 503). 

Do not approve a land exchange with the Alaska Mental Health Trust or with state forests as neither protects 

environmental values as well as the USFS. (Sec. 503). 

S. 3273 Stop the transfer of more than 23,000 acres to new Native corporations. (sec. 10). 

Margo Waring 

11380 N. Douglas Hwy. 

Juneau, AK 99801 
797 


Insert graphic folio 884 here 22000A.760

Washington Outdoor Alliance 

Access Fund • American Alpine Club • American Whitewater • El Sendero 

Backcountry Ski and Snowshoe Club • Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance • 

The Mountaineers • Washington Climbers Coalition • Washington Trails Association 

February 22"d, 2016 

Secretary Sally Jewell 

Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Jim Pena, Regional Forester 

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) 

U.S. Forest Service 

1220 SW 3'd Avenue 

Portland, OR 97204-3440 

Chief Thomas Tidwell 

U.S. Forest Service 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-1111 

Mike Williams 

Forest Supervisor 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

215 Melody Lane 

Wenatchee, WA 98801 

Re: Letter of Support for Withdrawal of Lands from Mineral Entry in the 

Headwaters of the Methow River in the North Cascades of Washington State 

Dear Secretary Jewell, Chief Tidwell, Regional Forester Pena, and Supervisor Williams: 

Washington Outdoor Alliance writes in support of protecting the Upper Metl)ow 

Valley in the North Cascades from industrial-scale mining by administratively 

withdrawing the lands in the upper valley from mineral entry and exploration. 

The Access Fund, American Alpine Club, American Whitewater, El Sendero 

Backcountry Ski and Snowshoe Club, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, The 

Mountaineers, Washington Climbers Coalition, and Washington Trails Association-all 

human-powered recreation organizations in Washington State-come together as a 

coalition on issues relating to recreation, access and conservation. As Washington 

Outdoor Alliance, we represent more than 35,000 members who recreate on public 

lands. Many of our members who value the quality of life benefits and access to 

exceptional close-to-home recreation of the Methow Valley live in the communities 

within the Methow valley. For the rest of our members across the state and visitors from 

around the country, the Methow Valley is a popular destination for outdoor recreation of 

national significance. Due to the travel time to reach the Methow Valley, trips of a week 

or more are common with significant economic benefits to the local economy. Many of 

our local members are directly employed in the outdoor recreation industry. 
798 


Insert graphic folio 885 here 22000A.761

The Methow Valley is one of the most important landscapes in the state of 

Washington and of national significance for outdoor recreation with a diversity of 

opportunities for the recreational pursuits our members enjoy. Dozens of Forest Service 

trails and the Pacific Crest Trail pass through the valley providing hiking and 

backpacking opportunities. Mountain bikers ride trails that include Slate Peak, 

Rendezvous Loop, and West Fork Methow, Yellow Jacket, Cutthroat, and Cedar Falls. 

They also ride the Methow Community trail which connects to other riding areas and the 

communities of Mazama and Winthrop. Nordic skiers have access to the most extensive 

network of groomed trails in North America with over 120 miles to choose from. 

Backcountry skiers explore nearly endless terrain on the east slope of the Cascades. 

Whitewater boaters enjoy the experiences on the Methow River and Chewuch that have 

easy access for day trips, while the Lost River offers one of the finest backcountry 

whitewater adventures in the North Cascades. Climbers have easy access to Goat Wall, 

Fun Rock, and Propsector Wall while winter adventures can include ice climbing at Goat 

Wall and Gate Creek. For mountaineers, Golden Horn is a trip deep in a Forest Service 

road less area that provides spectacular views of the North Cascades. Some of the best 

alpine climbing in the United States is a short drive up Highway 20 to the iconic Liberty 

Bell Group and Burgundy Spires at Washington Pass. These alpine destinations, that 

also include classic backcountry ski terrain such as Silver Star, are within the North 

Cascades Scenic Highway Zone that is currently withdrawn from mineral entry. 1 This 

protection needs to be extended to include the rest of the nationally-significant outdoor 

recreation resources in the Methow Valley. 

The national significance of the Methow Valley for outdoor recreation is due to 

the quality of all the opportunities described above that attract visitors from across the 

country and around the world. These high quality experiences for outdoor recreation are 

available throughout the year, in contrast to other outdoor recreation destinations that 

are more seasonal. An additional contributing factor to the national significance is the 

range of difficulty with some destinations challenging the nation's top experts while 

others are suitable for families and serve as perfect teaching venues for those just 

learning the activities we enjoy. The local community, including many of the members 

we represent, has successfully built an outdoor recreation economy around these 

experiences that would be threatened by the development of a large scale mine on 

Flagg Mountain at the headwaters of the Methow watershed. 

Industrial scale mining in the headwaters is simply incompatible with the 

recreational activities our members enjoy and the significant local economic benefits 

they provide. Polluted waters, disturbed lands and viewsheds, lost recreational access, 

and noisy industrial activity would erase the very reasons our members choose the 

Methow Valley as a recreation destination. Large-scale surface mining would drastically 

alter this landscape forever through impacts to water quality and the health of the 

1 75 FR 19999- PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 7739; EXTENSION OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 6776; 

WASHINGTON 
799 


Insert graphic folio 886 here 22000A.762

surrounding landscape. According to reports compiled by the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the metal mining industry is the largest toxic polluter in the nation.2 

Given the mining threats that will undermine the significant community and 

regional investment in outdoor recreation in the Methow Valley, we request that you 

work together and move quickly to initiate the process to administratively withdraw 

Flagg Mountain and appropriate surrounding national forest lands in the Upper Methow 

Valley from mineral exploration and entry for as long as possible, and to secure any 

funding that may be necessary to complete the withdrawal process. This action is 

critical to protecting one of the most visited and beloved valleys in Washington state. 

Thank you for your consideration and leadership on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Sambataro, Northwest Regional Director, Access Fund 

Eddie Espinosa, Northwest Region Manager, American Alpine Club 

Thomas O'Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director, American Whitewater 

Gus Bekker, President, El Sendero Backcountry Ski and Snowshoe Club 

Yvonne Kraus, Executive Director, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance 

Katherine Hollis, Conservation and Recreation Director, The Mountaineers 

Matt Perkins, Washington Climbers Coalition 

Andrea Imler, Advocacy Director, Washington Trails Association 

Cc: Senator Patty Murray, United States Senator 

Senator Maria Cantwell, United States Senator 

Representative Dan Newhouse, U.S. House of Representatives 

Tom Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture 

Neil Kornze, Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Christy Goldfuss, Managing Director, White House Council on Environmental 

Quality 

Jerome Perez, Washington and Oregon Office, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management 

Michael Liu, Methow Valley District Ranger, Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest 

2 http://www.epa.gov/toxics-re!ease-inventory-tri-program/2013-tri-national-analysis-comparing-industrysectors 
800 


Insert graphic folio 887 here 22000A.763

Brent Goodrum 

President, WSLCA 

907-269-8625 

Kathy J Opp 

Executive Director, WSLCA 

208-870-7 407 

Excellence - Collaboration - Integrity- Stewardship 

204 N. Robinson St. 

Suite 900 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

www. wslca.org 

Testimony of the Western States Land Commissioners Association 

Hearing on S. 3316, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

September 22, 2016 

Chairwoman Murkowski, please accept for the official hearing record the written testimony of 

Brent Goodrum, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water, A Iasko Department of Natural 

Resources and President of the Western States Land Commissioners Association in support ofS. 

33 I 6, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act of 2016 (ACE) sponsored by Senators 

Heinrich and Flake. 

The Western States Land Commissioners Association ("WSLCA") is comprised of23 Western, 

and some not so Western, states who share the common mandate of managing trust lands on 

behalf of school children in our states on a bi-partisan basis. Upon statehood, our member states 

were entrusted with hundreds of millions of acres of lands and minerals to be managed 

specifically to provide funding for public education and other state institutions. Today, our 

member states manage over 447 million acres oflands, submerged lands, and minerals. To put 

this in perspective, 447 million acres is roughly two and one halftimes the size of Texas. As a 

group, we are the second largest land manager in the nation, second only to the Federal 

Government. Since 1949, our Association has strived to improve the management of these lands 

on behalf of our beneficiaries. Currently, our combined trusts amount to over 271 billion dollars 

which generate over three billion dollars for public schools annually. Our members manage land 

and minerals for many purposes, including mineral and energy development, timber, agricultural 

production, commercial and residential development, open space, critical wildlife habitat, 

recreation, and a myriad of other uses that generate funds for public schools. 
801 


Insert graphic folio 888 here 22000A.764

Page 2 

RE: S. 3316 

The vast majority of the 44 7 million acres of lands and minerals that our member states currently 

manage by the nature of our statehood acts are interspersed with federal lands throughout the 

West. During early settlement in the Midwest from 1803 to 1858, states were granted one 

section per township. In the arid West, between 1859 and 1890, states were provided with two 

sections per township, and in the really arid West, meaning Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, 

these states were granted four sections per township. Within the II most Western states and 

Alaska where federal ownership is prevalent, these scattered sections are intertwined with lands 

managed by the Department oflnterior and the U.S. Forest Service where land management 

mandates vary drastically from the legal mandates placed upon state land managers. Pursuant to 

our statehood acts and state constitutional mandates, states are obligated to manage these lands 

with a single purpose-to generate revenue for public schools and state institutions. 

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Andrus v. Utah, "the school land grant was a 'solemn 

agreement' which in some ways may be analogized to a contract between private parties. The 

United States agreed to cede some of its land to the State in exchange for a commitment by the 

State to use the revenues derived from the land to educate the citizenry." However, because the 

settlement and privatization of federal lands largely came to an end with the passage of the 

Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, millions of acres of trust lands remain trapped within federal 

ownership. For almost a century, Congress has made decisions to reclassify federal lands with a 

wide range of management and policy prescriptions. As the Park Service celebrates its I OOth 

anniversary and as the country now appreciates over 50 years of designated Wilderness, the 

mandate for school trust lands has remained constant. Congressional actions and policy 

decisions over the decades have trapped millions of acres of school lands and minerals within 

National Parks, Wilderness areas, Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments and other federal 

designations. In order to keep the "solemn promise" to the school children of our states, S. 3316 

represents an effective tool to move these trapped state trust land and minerals from within 

constrictive federal ownership into appropriate locations where the generation of income is 

appropriate and acceptable. 

Existing administrative and legislative solutions are costly, complicated, unpredictable, and 

horribly time consuming. Administrative land exchanges with agencies within the Department 

oflnterior or with the U.S. Forest Service are no longer a feasible tool to complete exchanges 

between states and the Federal Government. The Department oflnterior has implemented 

policies and guidelines that have made administrative exchanges nearly impossible to complete 

in any reasonable time frame. Moreover, the Department has failed make the exchange process a 

priority and therefore funding has been woefully inadequate for years. Many of our member 

states can cite specific examples of administrative exchanges taking over a decade to complete. 

Frustrated with the administrative process, some states have turned to Congress to effectuate 

these exchanges. As the Committee is well aware, the congressional process is unpredictable, 

often expensive, and can still take years to complete even if there is broad support for a proposed 
802 


Insert graphic folio 889 here 22000A.765

Page 3 

RE: S. 3316 

exchange. Lastly, funding to purchase state inholdings within federal conservation areas has 

essentially disappeared as budgets for these purposes have been reduced dramatically over recent 

decades. The bottom line is that our existing options for removing state lands from within 

federal conservation areas just do not work. 

S. 3316 represents several years of work between WSLCA member states, Members of 

Congress, and outside groups to craft a proposal that we believe will be an effective tool to allow 

states to efficiently remove their lands from inside federal conservation areas and relocate these 

values to locations that are more appropriate for the generation of revenue for schools and state 

institutions. Additionally, S. 3316 will enhance federal conservation and management areas by 

eliminating the state owned inholdings. We believe we have built a broad spectrum of support 

for S. 3316 and we are now turning to this Committee to assist in moving this effort forward 

through the legislative process. 

As a supplement to exchanges and purchases, S. 3316 utilizes authorities patterned after similar 

existing federal statutes (43 U.S.C. 851-852) that permit state "in lieu" selections of federal 

public lands. These statutes, originally codified as Revised Statutes 2275-2276, allow Western 

land grant states to select federal lands in lieu of lands originally granted to the states that ended 

up not being available due to preexisting conveyances or federal special purpose designations. 

By way of example, if the federal government had created an Indian reservation or issued a 

homestead patent before a state's title to a particular state parcel had vested, the state was 

entitled to select an equal amount of available federal land in lieu of the lands that were lost (in 

lieu selections are often synonymously referred to as "indemnity" selections). 

By creating new conservation designations that have prevented states from utilizing school lands 

for their intended purposes, the United States has in a very real sense tailed to live up to the 

promise of the statehood land grants. S. 3316 would help rectify this situation by confirming the 

right of the states to relinquish state trust lands within federal conservation designations to the 

United States, and select replacement federal lands outside such areas. This would allow the 

Federal Government to obtain unified ownership and management authority over areas deemed 

important for conservation management. It would also uphold the "bargain" struck by the 

United States and the Western states under which states would be given useable land for the 

support of public schools and other public institutions. 

The mechanism ofrelinquishment and selection has been utilized previously by Congress, and 

should not be difficult to implement. Under S. 3316, individual states with lands within federal 

conservation designations would simply deed the lands back to the United States, subject to any 

valid existing rights. This conveyance would entitle the states to select replacement lands from 

the federal public lands that are not environmentally sensitive or designated lands as identified in 

the legislation. This will insure that economic development of state trust assets will occur in 
803 


Insert graphic folio 890 here 22000A.766

Page 4 

RE:S.3316 

appropriate regions of the state. Furthermore, the legislation insures that the original intent of 

protecting certain lands by Congress or the President is fulfilled. 

S. 3316 guarantees that these transactions will be of equal value, permitting for expedited 

valuation of low value lands. Additionally, the legislation provides for National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance as well as providing the Secretary with sufficient discretion to 

protect against transactions that are not in the public interest. Lastly, the legislation protects 

valid existing rights, including respecting existing mining claims and grazing leases. 

WSLCA has one very technical concern with the language provided for in Section 3(5)(B)(v) 

which indicates per the legislation that a state could not select into lands "within the boundary of 

an Indian reservation, pueblo, or rancheria." Under the terms of S. 3316, the Secretary cannot 

convey lands other than public lands as defined in section l 03 of FLPMA which would not 

include lands within a reservation, pueblo, or Rancheria if they are recognized by the Secretary. 

Moreover, the Secretary cannot convey lands which are held in trust on behalf of a tribe or is 

owned by a tribe under current law. We believe this language is duplicitous and unnecessary. 

The Secretary retains full discretion to reject a state proposal that attempts to select tribal lands. 

We request the language of Section 3(5)(B)(v) be deleted from the draft. 

In conclusion, S. 3316 is a non-partisan effort to provide slate trust managers with an additional 

tool to effectively carry out their fiduciary responsibilities of generating revenue from trust lands 

and minerals for the benefit of public education. We appreciate the hard work of Senators 

Heinrich and Flake, the Department oflnterior, and our member states. We urge the Committee 

to enactS. 3316 as soon as practicable and we stand ready to assist in that effort. 

Sincerely, 

Brent Goodrum, President 

Western States Land Commissioners Association 

\V\\ w. wslca.org 
804 


Insert graphic folio 892 here 22000A.768

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Ted Whitesell <ted.whitesell@gmail.com> 

Friday, September 23, 2016 5:13PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

S. 3203, the Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act, AND S. 3273, 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 

Honorable Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: 

As a former Alaska resident and a current resident of Washington state, I am deeply concerned about the 

referenced legislation. I know the Tongass National Forest very well, having worked professionally on fisheries 

research and forest conservation there for ten years, and I can say that the legislation introduced by Senator 

Murkowski would harm the interests of all U.S. citizens by compromising the multiple use and sustainability 

principles of our national forests. I urge you to vote down these harmful proposals, in the interest of protecting 

our public lands and resources for all current and future citizens of this country. 

Thank you for considering my views. 

Sincerely, 

Edward A. Whitesell, Ph.D. 

816 Plymouth St., SW 

Olympia, W A 98502 
805 


Insert graphic folio 893 here 22000A.769

September 22, 2016 

TESTIMONY from Wild Rivers Wild Brews, Craft Brewers for Clean Water in support of 

the Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346/ H.R. 682) 

We the undersigned breweries of southwest Oregon are writing in support of the 

Southwestern Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346, H.R. 682.), which 

would permanently withdraw approximately 101,000 acres of Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) land at the headwaters of some of the finest rivers in 

southwest Oregon from entry and location on under the mining laws of the United 

States. We make this request for the multitude of benefits that come from protected 

watersheds. 

For starters, clean water is essential for making great tasting beer. Clean water also 

plays a critical role in providing drinking water for healthy communities, providing habitat 

for fish and wildlife and supporting local agriculture. Our coalition of breweries stands 

together to support protections that would keep the crystal clear, salmon-studded waters 

of the Kalmiopsis clean for our communities, fish and wildlife, and local businesses that 

depend on clean water. 

The communities that surround the Smith, Illinois, and Pistol rivers and Hunter Creek 

have so much to gain from healthy, protected watersheds. Investment in sustainable 

industries and community infrastructure will add to the attractiveness of the region, 

bringing new businesses and residents alike. Craft brewing, tourism, and recreation 

based business ventures are growing industries and assets to Curry and Josephine 

counties and the surrounding areas of southwest Oregon. With the threat of destructive 

nickel strip mining, these natural treasures and related local industries of southwest 

Oregon are endangered. 

We believe that clean water, fish and wildlife habitat. and recreational opportunities must 

be protected now, and preserved for future generations. These uses represent the 

highest and best use of our public lands and resources. The high quality of life in 

southwest Oregon attracts new residents and creates jobs that strengthen our small 

businesses and local communities. 

We appreciate that our Senators Wyden and Merkley and Congressman DeFazio have 

introduced this bill that serves our communities so well and also helps to safeguard 

some of our nation's finest rivers and salmon runs in the lower 48, and we urge you to 

join them in supporting our communities' efforts to promote sustainable economic 

development in southwest Oregon's Wild Rivers Country. 

Thank you for considering our testimony. 
806 


Insert graphic folio 894 here 22000A.770

Sincerely, 

James & Kristen Smith, 

Head Brewer & Chief Operating 

Officer, 

Arch Rock Brewing Co. 

Gold Beach, OR 

Mike Frederick & Alex Carr-Frederick 

Owners & Brewers 

Chetco Brewing Co. 

Brookings, OR 

Mark, Hanna and Matt Camarillo 

Owners & Brewers 

Misty Mountain Brewing Co. 

Brookings, OR 

Carmen Matthews & Annie Pollard 

Co-owners & Brewers 

7 Devils Brewing Co. 

Coos Bay, OR 

Jon Conner 

Owner & Brewer 

Conner Fields Brewing Co. 

Grants Pass, OR 

Rachel Koning 

Common Block Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Scott Saulsbury 

Head Brewer 

Southern Oregon Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Nick Ellis 

Owner & Brewer 

Opposition Brewing Co. 

Medford, OR 

Cameron Litton 

Head Brewer 

Walkabout Brewpub 

Medford, OR 

Brandon Overstreet 

Owner & Brewer 

Swingtree Brewing Co. 

Ashland, OR 

Larry Chase 

Head Brewer 

Standing Stone Brewing Co. 

Ashland, OR 

Jim Mills 

Owner 

Caldera Brewing Co. 

Ashland, OR 
807 


Insert graphic folio 895 here 22000A.771

-------THE-------

WILDERNESS 

-S 0 C IE T YSeptember 21, 2016 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Committee: 

On behalf of The Wilderness Society's 700,000 members and supporters from across the country, I 

write to express our views on some of the legislation being heard Thursday by the full Committee. 

Our views are divided into three categories: bills that undermine the Antiquities Act; bills that 

threaten Alaska's public lands and waters; and the remaining, largely place-based bills. I respectfully 

request that the following comments be included in the hearing record for September 22, 2016. 

BillS TO UNDERMINE THE ANTIQUITIES ACT 

TWS is strongly opposed to any bills or amendments that would undermine the Antiquities Act, and 

we regtet that the Committee will be devoting a significant portion of its scarce remaining time this 

session hearing no fewer than three such bills none of which stand any chance of becoming law. 

For over 110 years, the Antiquities Act has proven to be one of our nation's most important and 

bipartisan conservation laws. Since it was first signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, the 

Antiquities Act has been used by 16 Presidents (8 Republicans and 8 Democrats) to protect some of 

our countries most iconic and priceless treasures, including nearly half of our national parks. All 

three of these dangerous bills would undermine this time-tested bi-partisan law. Specifically: 

S. 437 -the Improved National Monument Designation Process Act (Senators Murkowski, 

Sullivan, Flake and McCain) 

S. 437 would effectively render the Antiquities Act meaningless, entirely gutting the Act's intent. 

Congtess originally passed the Antiquities Act to provide the President the authority to act swiftly 

for the public good to protect sensitive natural, historic, cultural, and scientific resources when 

Congtess itself was unwilling or unable to do so. Subjecting Presidential action under the 

Antiquities Act to congressional approval renders the entire purpose of this law meaningless. 

Congtess already retains the ability to act to protect public lands and waters as national parks, 
808 


Insert graphic folio 896 here 22000A.772

monuments or other protective designations without needing to amend the Antiquities Act but time 

has shown the wisdom of providing the President this authority. A number of our most well-known 

places- including the Grand Canyon, Acadia and Olympic National Parks- were protected by 

forward thinking Presidents without clear congressional approval (and in these specific cases, with 

overt opposition). 

In addition to requiring Congressional approval for any monument designation, the bill also requires 

state approval. Allowing a state legislature or Governor to essentially veto a decision that applies 

only to federal public lands is troubling and inappropriate. Granting state and local officials the 

ability to veto designations is entirely different than encouraging local input. Our federal lands are 

shared equally by all Americans and managed for the public good. Shifting the decision making 

authority of these public lands to a single state as proposed in S. 437 is wrong and counter to our 

nation's history of shared public lands. 

S. 1416- to limit the authority to reserve water rights in designating a national monument 

(Senator Flake, McCain, Lee and Hatch) 

S. 1416 would undermine the potential protection of natural resources within future national 

monuments by prohibiting the proclamation from reserving federal water rights. It is exceedingly 

rare for a monument proclamation to reserve water rights. None of the 26 most recent national 

monument designations have reserved a federal water right. The blanket prohibition on reserving 

federal water rights proposed in S. 1416 is an over the top response to a nearly nonexistent issue. 

Recent proclamations have largely mirrored introduced legislation in boundaries and management, 

and of the two monument proposals in Arizona, both have legislative provisions specifically 

clarifYing that the established monuments would not impact federal water rights by either creating or 

expanding new federal water rights. 

While the vast majority of monument proclamations do not reserve water rights as a matter of 

federal law, there are a few instances-such as in Cascade-Siskiyou, Agua Fria and Carrizo Plain 

National Monuments-where a federal water right was reserved within the proclamation and where 

this is necessary for the protection and care of the objects for which the monument was designated. 

For example, providing enough water for protecting riparian habitat relied upon for objects of 

interest listed in the proclamation. While rare, in the cases where it has occurred, the authority to 

reserve water rights has been critical to caring for the resources protected by a national monument. 

Curtailing this authority could tie the hands of land managers to protect these resources and is an 

unnecessary attack on resource protections under the Antiquities Act. 

S. 3317- to exempt Utah from the Antiquities Act (Senators Lee and Hatch) 

S. 3317 would essentially exempt all of the federal lands within one state from one of our nation's 

most important federal lands conservation statutes. Despite the Antiquities Act only applying to 

federal lands, this bill would block all new national monuments within Utah in perpetuity. Of Utah's 

"Mighty 5" National Parks -Arches, Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, Zion and Bryce Canyon- all but 

Canyonlands were originally protected via presidential use of the Antiquities Act. Even though they 

are now central to Utah's tourism industry, these designations weren't always celebrated by Utah's 

politicians. Asserting that there will never again be need for future Presidents to act to protect the 

priceless federal resources owned by all Americans within the boundaries of Utah- as this bill does -
809 


Insert graphic folio 897 here 22000A.773

would rob future generations of Americans and Utahans of one of the best tools available to protect 

special places. 

S. 3317 is not only desit,>ned to undermine one of our nation's most vital conservation tools, it is also 

a direct attack on a historic tribally-led effort to protect sacred and ancestral lands. Five sovereign 

tribal nations- the Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Ute Mountain Ute, and Uintah and Ouray Ute- have 

united to form a historic coalition to protect their sacred ancestral lands in the Bears Ears region of 

southern Utah as a national monument. This coalition and their proposal is further supported by 

another 21 tribes across the country as well as National Congress of American Indians, the largest 

and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization made up of the 250 tribes 

throughout Indian Country. This bill would block their historic efforts to protect their sacred sites 

and ancestral lands and undermine their sovereignty by removing their ability to petition directly to 

the President on a nation-to-nation basis. 

We are disappointed that the Committee has taken up these three bills, and urge Members of the 

Committee to reject them. 

BILLS THAT THREATEN THE INTEGRITY OF PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS IN 

ALASKA 

The Wilderness Society is also disappointed to see the Committee consider a collection of bills that, 

together, represent a frontal attack on Alaska's public lands and waters. Specifically, we urge the 

committee to reject the following legislation: 

S. 3203 - Alaska Economic Development and Access to Resources Act (Senators Murkowski 

and Sullivan) 

S. 3203 is a full assault on Alaska's federal public lands and waters and their conservation values. It 

aims to convert millions of acres of the wildest public lands into development areas for oil and gas, 

logging and mining; transfer millions of acres of federal land to the state of Alaska; and restrict 

future executive action to protect public lands. The impact of this bill touches vitally important 

habitat areas all across the state, from Alaska's Arctic, both on and off-shore, to interior and 

southcentral Alaska, down to the southern-most regions of the state in the Tongass National Forest. 

S. 3203 circumvents public input, undermines historical agreements and years of compromise, and 

ignores the fact that, at statehood, the state of Alaska received more acreage than any other state in 

the Union and benefitted enormously from these lands.' 

1 Congress granted Alaska at statehood the right to select 105 million acres of unreserved federal land to 

benefit the State. This is five times more acreage than any other state in the Union had received. This land 

entitlement provided the State enormous wealth and opportunity for economic development. Alaska chose lands 

that included some of Alaska's largest oil and gas reserves and other natural resource values. Alaska has prospered 

enormously economically as a result. In 1980, Alaska was able to abolish its individual income tax and there is no 

state sales tax in Alaska. Residents have benefitted from the lowest individual tax burden in the nation as well as 

from entitlements established from an oil reserve fund- the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund. 1 Since 

development of the large Prudhoe Bay oil find, the majority of the State's budget has been funded by oil. Because 

oil prices are currently low and the state has not planned sufficiently for lean times, Alaska is struggling under its 

current budget framework. 
810 


Insert graphic folio 898 here 22000A.774

By putting millions of acres of federal public lands on the chopping block, this bill attempts to 

maintain a business-as-usual approach in the state. This will do more harm than good for Alaska by 

compromising some of its greatest resources, namely wilderness and wildlife, that maintain Alaska's 

sustainable and renewable economics. 

Tide I - Fill TAPS 

Title 1 mandates that the Federal government develop a plan to produce 500,000 barrels of oil I day 

from Federal land in Alaska by 2026, regardless of factors outside the federal government's control 

such as oil prices, oil company interest and other market forces, and state policy changes. If the 

production goal is not met, the federal government would be required to give the State of Alaska 1 

million acres per year, starting in 2026, until the goal is met. 

Title 1 is a stealth means to move lands from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National 

Pettoleum Reserve- Alaska (NPR-A) to state control. The 500,000 barrels/ day goal is 

unachievable without opening the Refuge and currently closed parts of the NPR-A to oil drilling and 

production. Each new oil development in the NPR-A currently costs approximately $1 billion to 

complete, and can take roughly ten years until production.' ConocoPhillips' CD-S oil development, 

which began production this year, is expected to produce approximately 16,000 barrels I day at 

peak. Even if one such development opened each year through 2026 on federal lands, a highly 

optimistic assumption given that oil companies operating in Alaska have been cutting staff in recent 

years, oil production would be nowhere close to achieving the 500,000 barrels I day goal in Title 1. 

Since current and future oil production trends on Federal land in Alaska cannot possibly achieve the 

Title I goal, it's clear that the intent of the bill is to open new Federal land to drilling and production 

by transferring Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and NPRA lands to the state. 

Notably, Title l's name, Fill TAPS, is highly misleading. As documented in our submission for the 

record, a state court decision between the pipeline owners and the state involving property taxes 

determined that TAPS is likely to operate 50 more years, i.e., until at least 2065, under current 

production trends and land ownership.3 

Tide II - Outer Continental Shelf 

Title II contains rwo amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). S.3203's two 

amendments to OCSLA should not be considered by Congress in isolation without other potential 

OCSLA amendments. 

The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon These three important recommendations 

for OCSLA changes arc: 

1. "Significantly increase the liability cap and financial responsibility requirements for offshore 

facilities."' Pages 45-47 of the National Commission's Recommendations report provide a 

2 See the ConocoPhillips graphic showing that the CD-5 development had preliminary engineering in 2005 

and beginning production in 2016, http://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/ea/CD5Timeline/. 3 Judge pegs pipeline life at 50 more years, Anchorage Daily News, January 5, 2012, 

htm://www.adn.com/20 12/0 1/04/22460 15/pipeline-life-at-1east-50-more.html 4 National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Deep Water: The Gulf 

Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, Recommendations (January 2011), pp. 45-47. 
811 


Insert graphic folio 899 here 22000A.775

good discussion of this issue including information on why the existing modest liability cap 

and financial responsibility requirements provide little incentive for companies to improve 

safety practices. Additionally, with such low liability and financial responsibility standards, a 

significant number of injuries, natural resource damages and government response costs 

could go uncompensated. 

2. Protection for whistleblowers. The Recommendations report states that Congress should 

"[p]rovide protection for "whistle blowers" who notify authorities about lapses in safety ... [by 

amending] the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or specific statutes to provide the same 

whistleblower protection that workers are guaranteed in other comparable settings."5 The 

offshore industry clearly should have whistleblower protections comparable to those that 

exist in, for example, the pipeline industry. 

3. Oversight funding. The Recommendations report states that Congress should "provide a 

mechanism ... for adequate, stable, and secure funding to the key regulatory agencies -

Interior, Coast Guard, and NOAA"6 The National Commission goes on to say that this 

funding would ensure that agency personnel can perform their duties including expediting 

permits and reviews as needed, and hiring experienced engineers, inspectors, scientists, and 

first responders. 

Congress needs to consider these types of critical amendments to OCSLA, not merely the isolated 

two contained S. 3203. 

Section 201 allows for oil companies to suspend leases held in the Arctic Ocean- in effect 

extending the leases without either producing on them or rebidding on them in future lease sales. As 

required by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, these leases were sold for initial terms of 10 

years. At the end of each term, leases expire and revert back to the federal government, at which 

time a new decision must be made as to whether to lease again in those areas. Under specific 

circumstances, leases can be suspended by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

(BSEE), pushing the expiration date beyond the initiall 0-year term. Between 2003 and 2008, the oil 

and gas industry leased approximately 3.5 million acres in the Arctic's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

Of those leases sold, only 1 current lease in the Chukchi Sea and 37 current leases in the Beaufort 

Sea remain today. Due in large part to self-inflicted mistakes and a lack of preparedness, companies 

that purchased leases in the Arctic Ocean have been unable to safely conduct drilling there, and 

many leaseholders have asked BSEE to exercise its authority and suspend the expiration of their 

leases. Allowing companies to keep leases longer than the standard 10 years is to the detriment of 

both the American taxpayer and the fragile environment of the Arctic, and this section is of 

significant environmental concern. 

Section 202 undermines the well-established OCSLA lease sale process by mandating certain Alaska 

offshore lease sales, thereby undermining OCSLA's public involvement process. Specifically, 

Section 202 mandates two lease sales each in the next 5 year OCS drilling plan for the Beaufort (in 

2017 and 2022), Cook Inlet (2017 and 2019) and Chukchi (2017 and 2019) planning areas. 

Considerable company failures (for example, Shell's disastrous 2012 drilling season), the harshness 

of the Arctic climate, and a 75% chance of a major oil spill in the Chukchi Sea if oil production 

5 Id .• p. 6. 6 Id., p. 8. 
812 


Insert graphic folio 900 here 22000A.776

moves forward underscores why the Arctic is no place to drill. America's Arctic Ocean is also 

ground zero for the devastating impacts of climate change- warming at about twice the rate of the 

rest of the world- and offshore drilling will only exacerbate the problem. Legislating additional lease 

sales in the Arctic outside of the 5-ycar plan process and taking away the public's right to voice its 

concerns about Arctic drilling is of significant environmental concern. 

Title III -Federal Onshore 

Subtitle A- Authorizing Alaska Production 

This Title opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain to the full spectrum of oil and gas 

activities, from leasing, to exploration, to development, and strips the refuge coastal plain from the 

protections and restrictions to oil and gas development applied to the area in section 1003 of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Additionally, this Title deems oil and 

gas activities "compatible" with the purposes of the refuge identified in ANILCA, mandates that a 

future Legislative EIS results in a preferred alternative allowing oil and gas leasing, restricts any 

closures to oil and gas activities in the refuge's coastal plain and does away with restrictions to oil 

and gas activities on private, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

lands within the refuge coastal plain boundary. These lands were acquired by these private Native 

corporations in a former land exchange agreement without public input, and this action would once 

again circumvent public input and a full public process should it become law, allowing oil and gas 

development in the biological heart of refuge. 

Additionally, Section 308 of this subtitle would trade over 500,000 acres of federal land and 

subsurface rights in the Refuge for adjacent state lands. 

Section 309 would unilaterally decide a dispute over the western boundary of the Refuge that the 

BL\1 settled in the 1960s, but that the State has recently tried to revive. This provision would alter 

the western coastal boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and provide to the state of 

Alaska additional lands for leasing and development. 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest national wildlife refuge, which was expanded with 

the passage of ANILCA. The refuge is a vast, wilderness landscape of tundra plains, boreal forests, 

dramatic mountain peaks, and coastal lagoons situated in the nation's wildest, most northern edge. 

At 19.3 million acres, Wilderness opportunities abound, from wildlife watching and photography, to 

hiking, rafting and hunting. For thousands of years the area has been the homeland to Native 

Gwich'in and Inupiat communities and has sustained them physically and culturally. It has also 

provided a safe haven to great snowy owls, polar bears, more than 45 species of mammals, including 

wolves, Dall sheep, grizzly bears, and over 160 species of birds. Continued protection of its 

ecosystems will enable these species to adapt as the Arctic climate warms and will benefit all 

Americans. The Arctic Refuge is a wilderness refuge, and the crown jewel of our nation's National 

Wildlife Refuge System - an important part of our nation's heritage. 

The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is widely recognized as the biological heart of the 19.3 

million-acre refuge. It is also the subject of repeated efforts by oil industry advocates to develop oil 

and gas. No part of ANILCA has been more hotly debated than the provisions of Title X of 

ANILC'\ that pertain to the future of the approximately 1.5 million-acre coastal plain. 

Section 1003 of ANILCA states that, "[p]roduction of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from 
813 


Insert graphic folio 901 here 22000A.777

the range shall be undertaken until authorized by an Act of Congress." In the decades since passage 

of ANILCA and despite repeated attempts, Congress has not yet authorized such development. 

In July of 2015, the U.S. District Court of Alaska affirmed that the coastal plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge is off limits to oil and gas exploration. The litigation was the result of 

repeated decisions by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Department of Interior (DO I) to 

reject an effort by the State of Alaska to conduct seismic exploration in the coastal plain of the 

Arctic Refuge. The State had asked the federal court to overturn the DO I decision. 

In February, 2015, the Obama administration recommended 12.28 million acres of the Arctic 

Refuge be designated wilderness. This recommendation came after a full scientific analysis and 

public process, and underscores the values of the Refuge, the critical role it will continue to play for 

sustaining Native cultures, the important benefits the Refuge provides to all Americans and its 

valuable role for wildlife species adaptation in our changing Arctic climate. The administration's 

wilderness recommendation was transmitted to Congress, emphasizing the need for legislative 

action. Clearly, the unparalleled intrinsic wilderness values of the Arctic Refuge far outweigh any 

short-term gains from oil and gas development within its boundary. 

Subtitle B - National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska 

This provision of S.3203 would mandate one or more area-wide lease sales in the western Arctic's 

National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, removing the discretion and decision-making authority from 

the Interior Secretary regarding when and how to proceed with lease sales. In 2010, the US 

Geological Survey determined that the Reserve contains only about 10 percent of the oil than was 

previously thought Qess than 1 billion barrels), based on an analysis of exploratory drilling, with 

much of the high-potential area in the northeastern corner, including the Teshekpuk Lake Special 

Area. There has been a low level of interest by the industry to purchase leases in the NPR-A in the 

past five years, and this is unlikely to change given the current price of oil and the high cost of 

operating in this remote, northern region. 

In 2013, DOI finalized the first ever comprehensive landscape management plan for the western 

Arctic's 23 million acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), which provides a model for 

planning in other areas where both potential energy leasing and conservation is appropriate. The 

final plan balances the needs of development and conservation in the western Arctic. 

Titled the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan, the plan protects key wildlife, wilderness and subsistence 

habitat in the western Arctic while allowing for potential oil and gas development on 11.8 million 

acres - a little more than half of the NPR-A, containing 72 percent of the NPR-A's economically 

recoverable oil. Remaining lands in the NPR-A (approximately 11 million acres) are "unavailable for 

leasing." The plan is a tremendous step toward ensuring that key ecological areas in the western 

Arctic remain intact and that vital subsistence resources for Alaska Natives are preserved, while also 

providing for the potential of viable oil production. 

During the planning process, the Bureau of Land Management (BLJ\1) collaborated with state, 

federal, borough and Alaska Native entities, and considered thousands of additional comments from 

members of the public, NGO scientists, Alaska tribes and private interests. The public comments 

included resolutions representing approximately 90 subsistence-based communities urging 

protection of important caribou habitat, and scientific data regarding wildlife habitat and potential 

impacts to wildlife habitat from possible oil and gas development. Scientific research from NGOs 

and other governmental entities helped federal officials analyze wildlife distribution and uses of the 
814 


Insert graphic folio 902 here 22000A.778

important habitat within the reserve, particularly caribou and waterfowl in the Teshekpuk Lake area. 

The plan is scientifically based. 

The Reserve is located in the western Arctic - west of Prudhoe Bay - and borders the Arctic Ocean. 

It is an extraordinary and globally recognized ecological resource. BLM lands in the Reserve make 

up the largest single remaining unit of wild, public land in America 10 times larger than 

Yellowstone National Park, and nearly the size of Indiana. 

The Reserve is home to polar bears, caribou, and millions of migratory birds that nest and breed on 

Alaska's northern coast. It also contains the largest wetlands complex in the circumpolar Arctic and 

some of the highest density shorebird nesting habitat known throughout the Arctic. The lakes and 

lagoons of the Reserve, such as iconic Teshekpuk Lake along the northern coast, are the birthplace 

of millions of birds that fly to five continents. The area also provides important calving and insect 

relief habitat for two of Alaska's largest caribou herds, with migrations that are reminiscent of the 

great bison herds. 

Originally established in 1923 as a Naval Petroleum Reserve, Congress recognized the Reserve's 

extraordinary values in 197 6 when it passed the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act and 

transferred management of these lands from the Navy to the BLM, directing BLM to study the 

resources of the area, including wilderness. 

The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act provides for the Secretary of the Interior to 

determine whether and/ or where to lease lands in the NPR-A for oil and gas, while it also directs 

BLM to establish Special Areas, protect special values and ensure the "maximum protection" of 

these areas identified by the Secretary as having "significant subsistence, recreational, fish and 

wildlife, or historical or scenic value." [42 USC § 6504] Since the transfer to BI.J\1, the agency has 

established five Special Areas within the Reserve to protect their high ecological, subsistence and 

wilderness values. These Special Areas include the Teshekpuk Lake, Colville River, Utukok River 

Uplands, Kasegaluk Lagoon and Peard Bay Special Areas. Collectively, these areas include 

unparalleled caribou, waterfowl, shorebird, polar bear and marine mammal habitat and total more 

than 13 million acres. 

This provision of S.3203 would ignore science and public input which favors a balanced 

management approach in the NPR-A, and would mandate one or more area-wide lease sales 

regardless of industry interest or cost to the federal government. 

Title IV- Mining 

Section 401 establishes a grant program within the Department of Energy that encourages the 

development and demonstration of "environmentally benign" rare earth element extraction and 

separation processes, along with techniques that produce rare earth salts. It requires at least $7.5 

million be made available for the testing of green chemistry separation processes, and it also requires 

the construction of a pilot plan that uses molecular recognition technology to provide 'proof of 

concept' for element separation and processing. This section is of no conservation concern as 

written, and pilot projects resulting from the program would need to be evaluated on a case by case 

basis. 

Section 402 would exclude certain mining claims, including unpatented hard rock and placer mining 

claims, located prior to any withdrawal from the scope of that withdrawal. Withdrawal is broadly 
815 


Insert graphic folio 903 here 22000A.779

defined to include statutory and regulatory withdrawals, as well as other actions that withhold federal 

land from mining or mineral activity to protect other values. Section 402 also puts the burden on the 

government to disprove the validity of these mining claims. Perhaps most egregiously, Section 402 

exempts these mining claims from any law or regulation. Tbis provision has the potential to reopen 

protected areas, such as National Parks, to mining activities and to exempt those activities from 

environmental review, public process and agency oversight, and other environmental protections. 

This section is of significant environmental concern. 

Section 403 amends ANILCA Section 1326 (16 U.S.C. 3213) by restricting the federal land 

managing agencies regarding establishing land use designations greater than 5,000 acres in Alaska, 

including designating wilderness study areas, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System units, critical 

habitat under the Endangered Species Act, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or any 

other similar land use designations or management of federal public lands, unless these actions arc 

noticed to Congress and approved by a joint resolution in Congress within one year from the date 

Congress is notified. 

This section of the bill removes powers from the Executive branch to fulfill legal duties to manage 

and conserve federal public lands, removes scientific information and agency experts from 

management decisions, relegates land-management decisions to elected officials who may have no 

relevant expertise and ignores the significant values that land and water conservation provide to the 

American public. 

Section (d) of this title revokes all areas designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) in the state of Alaska. An ACEC is defined as an "area ... where special management 

attention is required ... to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards."? ACEC's are important management tools for BLM to fulfill its legal 

mandate to manage the agency's public lands for multiple uses. In Alaska, BLM manages over 72 

million surface acres and in fulfilling its multiple use mandate, the agency is required to include 

conservation as part of its management framework. 

BLM in Alaska is and has been in the process of revising certain management plans. As part of 

these revisions, the agency has and is properly considering whether to establish Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, as required by FLPMA.8 For example, BLM released the final Eastern 

Interior Resource Management Plan last month and did establish ACEC's as part of that plan. 

These ACEC's received widespread local support and Alaska tribes played a significant role in 

requesting and advocating for designating ACEC's. Lands that are designated as ACEC's within a 

BLM management area are not "withdrawn", do not take away any rights granted under public land 

laws and are not a violation of ANILCA. This section is of significant environmental concern. 

Title V- Forestry 

Section 501 would exempt the Tongass and Chugach national forests in Alaska from the Roadless 

Rule, encouraging increased dearcutting of our nation's largest national forests at a time when the 

U.S. Forest Service is trying to transition away from old-growth logging. Protection of high value 

7 !d. at§ 1702(a). 8 FLPMA directs the Secretary to "give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical 

environmental concern," 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3). 
816 


Insert graphic folio 904 here 22000A.780

roadless areas on both the Tongass and Chugach national forests is of local and national importance, 

particularly for wildlife and biodiversity, wilderness, recreation, and tourism. 

The Tongass National Forest is one of the last remaining intact temperate rainforests on earth. 

Inventoried roadless areas make up 9.5 million acres (57 percent) of the Tongass National Forest 

and 5.4 million acres (99 percent) of the Chugach National Forest. The Roadless Rule prohibits 

most commercial logging and road building within inventoried roadless areas. Exempting the 

Tongass and Chugach National Forests from the Roadless Rule would encourage the forest Service 

to plan and offer new old-growth timber sales in pristine fish and wildlife habitat that is currently 

off-limits to logging. This section is of significant environmental concern. 

Section 502 would override an on-going public process to exchange public lands from the Ton!,taSs 

National Forest for lands currently owned by the Alaska Mental Health Trust (the Trust). The 

exchange could allow up to 21,000 acres of environmentally sensitive National Forest System lands 

to be conveyed to the Trust for clear-cut logging. The public deserves to weigh in on this plan to 

concentrate logging in heavily impacted areas of Revillagigedo Island (Ketchikan) and Prince of 

Wales Island. This section is of significant environmental concern. 

Section 503 would allow the state of Alaska to seize control of more than two million acres of public 

land from the Chugach and Tongass National Forests for clearcutting- equaling an area the size of 

Yellowstone National Park. Alaska already has more than nine times the amount of state-owned 

land than any other U.S. state, with the fourth smallest state population. Alaska's national forests 

provide benefits and resources in their natural state for sustainable industries, communities and the 

public at large. 

Transferring these lands out of federal public management would have far-reaching impacts for the 

region's ecosystem and economy. Encompassing some of the largest remaining tracts of coastal 

temperate rainforest left on earth, the Tongass is a wealth of wildlife and scenic beauty. Handing 

these invaluable lands over to the state for intensive development would hurt the region's existing 

and thriving tourism and commercial fishing industries. These sustainable industries generate around 

$2 billion annually into the southeast Alaska economy, and they continue to grow because of the 

healthy fisheries, iconic American wildlife and scenic beauty of public lands. If enacted, this section 

would put southeast Alaska's remaining pristine old-growth forest, its wildlife and its sustainable 

economy in peril. 

Most all of the provisions of this bill are of significant environmental concern and together 

represent a destructive and comprehensive assault on Alaska's federal public lands and waters. The 

actions proposed in the bill ignore the many benefits public lands and waters provide to the state of 

Alaska, including economic, scientitic, cultural, recreational and subsistence-based. Many provisions 

in the bill have not received sufficient public input or scientific analysis and would circumvent 

environmental laws including ANILCA, NEP A, Wilderness 1\ct, Antiquities Act, FLPMA and 

Refuge Improvement Act, among others. 

Congress should reject this bill in its entirety. 

S. 3204- King Cove Road Land Exchange Act (Senators Murkowski and Sullivan) 
817 


Insert graphic folio 905 here 22000A.781

S. 3204 would exchange congressionally designated wilderness lands in a sensitive wetlands corridor 

in Izembek National Wildlife Refuge with lesser-value state lands outside of the refuge, in order to 

build a road connecting the villages of King Cove and Cold Bay. The purpose of the land exchange 

and road is to provide an on-land transportation route between the villages to address health and 

safety concerns. 

Study after study starting in the 1980s has concluded, however, that a road through Izembek's 

designated wilderness is not in the public's best interest, most recently in a 2013 U.S Fish and 

Wildlife Service environmental review. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report (2015) evaluated 

three alternative modes of emergency medical transportation for King Cove, and clearly 

demonstrated that there are viable alternatives to a road. The report estimated that the reliability of 

a marine ferry would exceed 99 percent. 

The road would be a costly and ineffective use of federal dollars. Taxpayers have already spent more 

than $50 million to address King Cove's transportation needs. Total costs are estimated at more 

than $80 million for a road that would be unsafe or impassable during winter storms. In 1998, 

Congress provided $37.5 million of funding to upgrade the local medical clinic, develop dock 

facilities and a road to a dock, and purchase a $9 million all weather hovercraft. Thus Congress and 

American taxpayers have already provided a solution for King Cove. 

At 417,533 acres, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is Alaska's smallest National Wildlife Refuge, 

but its wildlife and wilderness values are some of the greatest of any refuge in our nation. The 

refuge contains one of the largest eelgrass beds on the globe, making its habitat values some of the 

most significant on the planet. Izembek was the first wetland area in the United States to be 

designated as a Wetland oflnternational Importance under the Ramsar Convention (1986). The 

proposed road would be incompatible with the purposes for which Izembek National Wildlife 

Refuge was established and would fragment the ecological heart of the Refuge. 

Respected individuals and organizations have expressed their opposition to a road. The Association 

of Village Council Presidents, representing 56 Native villages in western Alaska, formally opposes 

the proposed road due to the impacts it would have on subsistence resources that they depend 

upon. The Former U.S. Indian Health Service medical director for the Eastern Aleutian Tribes has 

said the extreme weather, ice and avalanche conditions experienced in this specific area make it, 

"inconceivable that the proposed 27 -mile road could be passable." And, Interior officials from the 

Bush, Clinton, Ford and Nixon administrations have stated their opposition to the proposed road 

noting it is one of the last places in the country that one would ever want to build a road. 

The Wilderness Society testified at an April, 2016 Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing on 

Izembek and provided the attached, comprehensive testimony for the record, which is hereby 

incorporated by reference. 

This bill is of significant environmental concern and should be rejected by Congress. 

S. 3273- Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2016 (Senators Murkowski 

and Sullivan) 

This legislation's title implies that it will facilitate improvements to the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, but instead it circumvents the landmark 1971 law's important checks and balances. 

It opens unprecedented doors to create brand new for-profit Native corporations, expands land 

selections by existing for-profit Native corporations, proposes privatizing thousands of acres of 
818 


Insert graphic folio 906 here 22000A.782

public lands throughout Alaska, and grants corporations unwarranted and new subsurface rights. 

Instead of facilitating the appropriate finalization of outstanding Native corporate land selections 

provided for in ANCSA, this legislation redefines the opportunities originally made available to 

Alaska Native corporations in ANCSA, such as allowing existing Native corporations to transfer 

lands back to the federal government that they have already logged and profited from, in exchange 

for new, unlogged parcels in the Tongass National Forest. This bill seeks to allow many new and 

existing Native corporations to acquire pristine, sensitive federal public lands throughout Alaska, 

including in conservation system units. Alaska Native corporations are designed to provide shares 

to shareholders and have historically sought to develop their lands through natural resource 

exploitation in order to generate profit. Analysis of specitic sections of the bills follows: 

Section 3 - Conveyance to Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation 

Section 3 of S. 3273 would convey all right, title and interest held by the United States to sand and 

gravel deposits underlying the surface estate owned by Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation near the 

Barrow gas tields by circumventing environmental review and consultation or mitigation planning in 

accordance with the Endangered Species Act. This transfer would facilitate road development and 

gravel mining near important nesting habitat for Steller's eiders, a species listed as Threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

1WS is concerned that this provision of the bill includes insufficient information. The provision is 

vague and makes no attempt to ensure that mitigation planning for negative impacts to Steller's 

Eiders will be sufficient. This transfer should be subject to an environmental review process, not 

bypass a public process and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures would be in place that 

would meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Without these assurances, this 

provision may result in significant environmental impacts. 

Section 4 - Shishmaref Easement 

Section 4 of S. 3273 would grant the Shishmaref Native Corporation, an Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act corporation, an easement of approximately 300 feet that crosses the Bering Land 

Bridge National Monument to permit a surface transportation route between the Village of 

Shishmaref and the general area of Ear Mountain, Alaska. This easement would circumvent 

applicable review and requirements as defined in ANILCA Title XI. Section 4 of S. 3273 is lacking 

specific information regarding the easement, including items such as: the purpose of the easement, 

its duration, and/ or any restrictions that would apply to the easement. Additionally, the bill does 

not provide sufficient information to determine whether or not the easement is necessary at this 

time, and if the benefits would outweigh the costs. Without additional detail, it is difficult to 

understand how significant the environmental impacts or costs to the American public might be 

from this proposal. While this easement may be intended to help the community of Shishmaref as it 

addresses impacts to its community from climate change and potential future relocation, without 

additional information it is difficult for 'IWS to take a position or support this provision at this time. 

We recommend that the Committee seek additional clarity on the provision. 

Section 5 - Shee Atika Incorporated 

Section 5 S. 3273 would buy back the surface rights of 23,000 acres on Admiralty Island (referred to 

as Cube Cove Land), which was logged by the existing Shee Atika corporation, in exchange for cash 

payments or credits toward the purchase of other federal property. The U.S. Forest Service 

attempted to re-acquire this land prior to logging activities, but those negotiations failed. 

Section 6- Admiralty Island National Monument Land Exchange 
819 


Insert graphic folio 907 here 22000A.783

Section 6 of S. 3273 would allow the Sealaska Corporation, the existing ANCSA regional 

corporation in southeast Alaska, to relinquish 23,000 acres of subsurface rights for the recendy 

logged parcel of land referenced in Section 5 above on Admiralty Island within Admiralty Island 

National Monument to the federal government, which would buy these rights back and at the same 

time convey rights to both surface and subsurface rights to an 8,872.5 acre parcel and surface estate 

to approximately 5,145 acres of U.S. Forest Service land elsewhere in southeast Alaska. The lands 

Sealaska Corporation would acquire have not been logged. 

In effect, Sections 5 and 6 provide attractive deals for existing Native corporations to divulge 

themselves of lands they no longer want in exchange for new, resource-rich lands or other 

compensation. For example, Sealaska Corporation would be able to trade lower value subsurface 

rights on Admiralty Island for surface rights to lands on Prince of Wales Island with highly valuable 

timber resources, and Shec Atika Corporation could rid itself of its Cube Cove lands on Admiralty 

Island, which it has clearcut logged, in exchange for additional compensation. 

Sections 5 and 6 of the bill would circumvent public input and review of the proposed exchanges. 

These sections are of some environmental concern due to the additional logging within the Tongass 

National Forest that will undoubtedly result from these conveyances. The Tongass National Forest 

is one of the last remaining intact coastal temperate rainforests in the world. 

Section 7 - CIRI Land Entidement 

Section 7 of S. 3273 would allow CIRI- an existing ANCSA regional corporation based in south 

central Alaska the ability to select 43,000 acres of land in Alaska from an exceptionally broad pool 

of public lands across the entire state. All federal land managers except the National Park Service 

could be affected, and no prohibition exists for selecting lands within identified special areas, or 

numerous other areas protected because of historical, cultural, or ecological importance. 

Congressionally designated wilderness areas would be off limits to CIRI selections, however. This 

provision of the bill specifically lists the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska as an area where CIRI 

could make selections, and the provision would not restrict CIRI from selecting lands within NPR-A 

Special Areas, including the sensitive Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, which encompasses the largest 

wedands complex in the entire circumpolar Arctic. Alaska National Wildlife Refuges are also 

identified as appropriate areas for CIRI selections. 

Once conveyed to CIRI, extractive resource development activities would be near certain: This 

section is of significant environmental concern, as it would privatize currently public and protected 

lands- at one or more undisclosed locations, without a public process -and would likely subject 

those lands to extractive resource development. 

Section 8- Canyon Village, Kaktovik and Nagamut 

Section S(A) of S. 3273 would convey to Kian Tr'ee Corporation, for the Native Village of Canyon 

Village, the surface estate of lands not to exceed 6,400 acres within a remote area of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge south of the Brooks Range, and to Doyon Regional Corporation, the 

subsurface estate of the same lands, should Doyon choose to acquire these lands. This provision 

seeks to privatize a remote parcel of land within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that is included 

in a wilderness recommendation by the Obama administration. This land conveyance could result in 

natural resource development in an otherwise unaltered wilderness landscape. This provision is 

controversial and would circumvent public input and environmental review regarding one of the 

most protected and cherished National Wildlife Refuges that is part of our nation's system of public 
820 


Insert graphic folio 908 here 22000A.784

lands. The provision is of environmental concern and should not be acted upon without additional 

information, a full environmental analysis and public review. 

Section S(B) would override Section 1302(h)(2) of ANILCA by requiring the Interior Secretary to 

convey land free of restrictions to Kaktovik within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain 

upon their application for the land. This provision is of significant environmental concern and 

threatens to open the door to oil and gas development in the refuge's sensitive coastal plain. It 

undermines former agreements, circumvents the protections in ANILCA of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge coastal plain, and foregoes the checks and balances established in ANCSA and 

ANILCA. 

Section 8 (C), the bill would convey to Nagamut -lands that were the original townships of the 

Native Village within the National Wildlife Refuge System. This section is in need of more 

specificity and should not be enacted without additional information at this time. 

Section 8 of S. 3273 should not be enacted without a full review and public process of all of the 

provisions included. 

Section 9: Expanded Role of Native Corporations 

This section would expand the role of Alaska Native corporations in the state, placing them on par 

with tribes in certain instances, including within the Forest Protection Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection and Reparation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. This section is 

controversial and should receive additional analysis and input prior to becoming law. 

Section 10- Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and 

Compensation 

Section 10 of S. 3273 establishes five new Alaska Native Corporations (Haines, Ketchikan, 

Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell) that would obtain tide to more than 115,000 acres of the most 

valuable and productive timber lands on the Tongass. If an original offer ofland by the Secretary is 

rejected by one of these corporations, there is no specificity regarding what a revised offer may 

contain. As we've seen in recent years, once transferred out of federal ownership these lands very 

likely would be clearcut logged for short-term gain without regard to long-term consequences. This 

section is of significant environmental concern. 

Section 11- Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity 

Section 11 of S. 3273 reopens the 1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act for the third time, after 

Congress considered the matter final in 2000, and allows an estimated 2,500 + individuals or their 

heirs to select and receive 160 acres each, for a total of up to 460,000 acres. Selections would be 

restricted from units of the National Park System, National Preserves, or National Monuments, but 

would be allowed in designated wilderness and in National Wildlife Refuges. This would create a 

patchwork of inholdings across Alaska where some of the most valuable and important parcels of 

public land become private and off limits to the public. This section is of significant environmental 

concern. 

Section 12 -13"' Regional Corporation 

The 13"' Regional Corporation was established to represent Alaska Natives who didn't reside in 

Alaska when ANCSA passed; it was dissolved in 2013 by the State of Alaska. This section would call 

for a meeting to elect a Board of Directors for the corporation, while providing notice to 
821 


Insert graphic folio 909 here 22000A.785

shareholders. 1bis section is controversial and should include more specificity, additional public 

input and review prior to becoming law. 

Section 13. Chugach Alaska Corporation Land Exchange Pool Study. 

Section 13 ofS. 3273 would require the U.S. Department oflnterior (DOI) to conduct a study to 

identify the impacts that federal law and federal and state land acquisitions since December 1980 

have had on the value of land conveyed to the Chugach Alaska Corporation in south central Alaska. 

DOl would be required to study potential compensation for any land value changes, including 

financial compensation, easements or land exchanges, and then report to the Senate and House 

Natural Resources Committees on its recommendation. This section is of unknown environmental 

concern. 

Many of the provisions of this bill are of significant environmental concern and/ or are controversial 

and seek to privatize sensitive lands within conservation system units or within other federal public 

lands and waters in Alaska. The actions proposed do not allow for analysis of the costs and benefits 

of privatizing these public lands and thereby ignore the many benefits public lands and waters 

provide to the state of Alaska, including those that arc economic, scientific, cultural, recreational and 

subsistence-based. Establishing new Native Corporations and allowing expanded selections by 

already existing ANCSA Corporations sets new and potentially dangerous precedent. The trades 

and proposals in this bill may be the beginning of a new era where other Native corporations could 

work to obtain similar deals in the future. TWS recommends members of the SENR Committee 

proceed cautiously and ensure that the provisions in S. 3273 are fully analyzed and assessed prior to 

becoming law. The provisions in the bill have not received sufficient public input or scientific 

analysis and would circumvent many environmental laws including ANILCA, ANCSA, NEP A, 

Wilderness Act, Antiquities Act, FLPMA and Refuge Improvement Act, among others. 

TWS recommends that the Committee reject this bill in its entirety. 

VIEWS ON OTHER LEGISLATION BEING HEARD 

S. 346 - Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 (Senators 

Wyden and Merkley) 

The Wilderness Society supports S. 346, a bill to withdraw land in Curry County and Josephine 

County, Oregon, from mineral entry and exploration. Withdrawal of this unique, scenic, and 

exceptionally wild area in Southwest Oregon's Kalmiopsis region would protect the clean, freeflowing waters of the region and myriad ecological and recreational values that are the bedrock of 

the quality of life and economy of the region. 

There is broad and diverse support for protecting this area from proposed nickel-strip mining, 

which would have deleterious impacts on the highest concentration of pristine, undeveloped wild 

rivers in the contiguous United States. These wildlands and rivers drive local economies, providing 

unparalleled outdoor experiences and sustaining thriving fisheries. 

We urge the committee to advance this legislation. As the bill makes its way through Congress, 

TWS calls on the Bureau of Land Management to continue to advance an administrative withdrawal. 
822 


Insert graphic folio 910 here 22000A.786

S. 2681 - San Juan County Setdement Implementation Act of 2016 (Senators Heinrich and 

Udall) 

The Wilderness Society supports S. 2681, and urges the committee to advance it. The proposal is a 

win-win-win: protecting important scenic, scientific, and recreation resources as Wilderness, 

providing the Navajo Nation with alternative land selections to make up for cancelled selections, 

and authorizing fair market value for relinquishment of coal preference right leases. By clearing 

conflicting claims, S. 2681 would open the way to designate 7,242 acres of BLM land as the Ah-shisle-pah Wilderness and incorporate approximately 2,250 acres of specified federal land into the 

Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness. These scenic badlands are clearly deserving of protection as 

Wilderness. 

S. 2991- Methow Headwaters Protection Act of2016 (Senators Murray and Cantwell) 

The Wilderness Society supports S. 2991, a bill to withdrawal340,079 acres in the headwaters of the 

Methow watershed in the State of Washington from mineral entry and exploration, sponsored by 

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and co-sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA). The Methow 

watershed is one of the most extraordinary landscapes in the Pacific Northwest. It is an area of 

critical ecological importance, with its pristine headwaters and protected lands supporting a wide 

range of threatened and endangered species. The vast expanse of public lands also supports a strong 

recreation economy that contributes more than $150 million to rural Okanogan County. A current 

proposal to advance an industrial-scale copper mine jeopardizes this outstanding natural 

environment. It would profoundly undermine the quarter-billion-dollar federal and state investment 

made in salmon recovery, land protection, restoration, and recreation projects in this prized 

watershed. 

The Wilderness Society supports S. 2991, and calls on the U.S. Forest Service and Department of 

the Interior to act swifdy to initiate the administrative withdrawal process by issuing a segregation 

notice by the end of this term to secure needed protections in the headwaters of the Methow Valley 

while legislation makes its way through Congress. Time is of the essence, and while we appreciate 

the Committee's work to advance this bill, it is unlikely to be signed into law in time to thwart a 

foreign mining company's pursuit of this mining project. For that reason, we call on the 

Administration to act immediately. 

The Administration and Congress have the opportunity to obviate years of potential conflict and 

environmental degradation in this sensitive and ecologically critical place in the North Cascades. 

Support for this effort is nearly universal, with a broad-based coalition of community leaders, more 

than 135 local businesses, 2,000 citizens, conservation and recreation organizations, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 

Nation, the Washington State Governor, and more standing strongly behind a mineral withdrawal 

for the Methow Headwaters. 

We encourage the Committee to advance this legislation. 

S. 3049 - Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act (Senators Udall and Heinrich) 
823 


Insert graphic folio 911 here 22000A.787

The Wilderness Society supports S. 3049, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act. In 

response to the local community's longstanding support for conservation of the area, President 

Obama designated the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in 2014. However, as 

members of the Committee know, only Congress has the ability to designate wilderness. Doing so 

in these parts of the Monument would add the highest level of protection to places that are 

important to the local communities. 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks region, which encompasses the Organ, Sierra de las Uvas, Dona 

Ana and Potrillo mountain complexes, contains stunning biodiversity and traces of civilizations 

hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of years old. This area is also a treasure for outdoor 

recreationists, containing wildlands perfect for hiking, camping, hunting, wildlife-watching and much 

more. 

The legislation would protect as wilderness the following areas: 

• Aden Lava Flow Wilderness: offers one of the best American opportunities to view lava 

flows and the many unique shapes and structures created by them. Area wildlife is specially 

adapted to the lava. 

• Broad Canyon Wilderness: is home to countless archeological sites and the most extensive 

record of previous Native American habitation within the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks 

region. 

• Cinder Cone Wilderness: features an extremely high concentration of undisturbed cinder 

cone mountains and rich v.r:ildlife habitat prized by hunters and non-hunters alike. 

• Organ Mountains Wilderness: their rugged terrain forms one of the steepest mountain 

ranges in the western United States. They are the picturesque backdrop to New Mexico's 

second largest city, Las Cruces, were mentioned in the earliest Spanish journals, and are a sky 

island with unique biology. 

• Potrillo Mountains Wilderness: Extinct volcanoes, black lava fields, and mile after mile of 

desert grassland combine to give the Potrillo mountains qualities found nowhere else in New 

Mexico. 

• Robledo Mountains Wilderness: Named after Spanish colonist Pedro Robledo, these 

mountains sheltered both Billy the Kid and Geronimo in the late-19th century. They include 

the Paleozoic Trackways National Monument and are potential habitat for desert bighorn 

sheep reintroduction. 

• Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness: This diverse mountain range is a hunting hot spot harboring 

three different quail species, desert mule deer and pronghorn antelope. Cultural riches also 

abound. 

• Whitethorn Wilderness: owes its name to prevalent white-thorn acacia, a key year-round 

food source for quail and a summer food source for desert mule deer. Weathered lava 

shelters small and large wildlife, and views stretch hundreds of miles. 

Hispanic leaders and organizations, small business owners and the Las Cruces Green Chamber of 

Commerce, sportsmen and ranchers, the Y sleta del Sur Pueblo and the All Pueblo Council of 

Governors, and local elected officials all support this legislation. The Wilderness Society adds it 

voice to this choir of support and encourages the Committee to advance this legislation without 

delay. 
824 


Insert graphic folio 912 here 22000A.788

S. 3102 - The Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act (Senators 

Heller and Reid) 

S. 3102, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation act, reflects years of effort 

and is the result of a locally-driven stakeholder process to improve land management in Pershing 

County, Nevada. 

TWS supports Title III, which includes 136,000 acres of additions to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. Cain Mountain, Bluewing, Selenite Peak, Mt. Limbo, North Sahwave, the 

Tobin Crest, and Fencemaker all contain outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values, and 

are worthy additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. These areas were identified 

through a collaborative, stakeholder-driven local process with carefully crafted boundaries that 

respect ongoing activities while preserving deserving lands. 

TWS also supports the public purpose conveyance of the Unionville Cemetery in section 202. This 

conveyance will ensure that the community may continue uninterrupted use of this historic 

cemetery. 

We support the resolution of checkerboard lands by facilitating sales and land exchanges of 

appropriate Federal lands for other lands with higher recreational, cultural, and ecological values. We 

believe that land consolidation will improve conservation and management of Federal lands, 

enhance recreational opportunities, and improve the local economy. However, we do not support 

the language in section 103(d)(1)(B)(ii), which authorizes acre-for-acre exchanges of Federal and 

non-Federal land. We believe that any land exchange authority should ensure that an exchange of 

Federal and non-Federal lands is of equal value. An acre-for-acre exchange risks conveying Federal 

lands for less than it is worth, thus resulting in a loss to the public. 

We also have some concerns regarding the breadth of section 104, particularly the scope of some of 

the eligible uses of proceeds in the proposed Pershing County Special Account. We look forward to 

working with Senators Heller and Reid and the Committee to try to address those concerns as the 

legislation moves forward. 

S. 3192 -Alex Diekmann Peak Designation Act of 2016 (Senators Daines and Tester) 

The Wilderness Society enthusiastically supports the naming of Alex Diekmann Peak, which would 

honor the extraordinary conservation efforts of a man whom T\VS staff held in the highest 

professional and personal regard. Located in the Madison Valley, this peak will provide a lasting 

tribute to Alex's conservation legacy across Montana. Alex passed away earlier this year after a 

heroic battle with cancer. 

Alex's efforts were central to conserving some of the most significant, scenic outdoor recreation 

lands and fish and wildlife habitats in the Rocky Mountain region. Throughout his16-year career 

with the Trust for Public Land, he was a critical partner in the conservation of over SO unique sites 

in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, securing more than 100,000 acres of iconic open spaces for 

future generations. Perhaps nowhere are the results of Alex's efforts to guarantee permanent 

conservation in Montana more evident than the Madison Valley, making the proposal to dedicate a 

currently unnamed mountain (known as Peak 9,765) south of Ennis as Alex Diekmann Peak a fitting 

tribute to his memory and contributions. 
825 


Insert graphic folio 913 here 22000A.789

We urge the Committee to recognize Alex's legacy by advancing this legislation to name the Alex 

Diekmann Peak. 

S. 3316 - The Advancing Conservation and Education Act of 2016 (Senators Heinrich and 

Flake) 

TWS supports S. 3316, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act of2016. S. 3316 is classic 

"win-win" legislation. It will preserve lands with outstanding ecological and recreational values, 

improve local economies, and provide new resources to states for the benefit of public schools. 

TWS supports this legislation and urges the committee to advance it. 

S. 3316 presents a practical approach to expedite the exchange of state inholdings from Federal 

conservation areas for Federal lands with lower conservation value and higher economic 

development potential. By facilitating the exchange of inholdings for lands that have greater 

economic potential and more appropriate for economic development, S. 3316 will provide new 

sources of revenue for states, as well as providing new jobs and revenue to local economies. The 

state revenue will, in turn, benefit public schools and America's schoolkids. 

S. 3316 will help to expedite the elimination of state inholdings in wilderness areas, national parks, 

and other Federal conservation areas. By removing state lands that are managed to maximize 

revenue production-not conservation-S. 3316 will help ensure that America's scenic treasures are 

well-protected and secure. This will benefit the American public who has come to rely on these 

special places for recreation, enjoyment, and relaxation. 

S. 3316 will help prevent incompatible development within these America's parks, wilderness areas, 

and other conservation lands, afford new economic development opportunities for states, and 

provide new sources of revenue for schools. By benefiting conservation, state economies, and public 

schools, the approach is a classic win-win solution. 

Thank you for considering our views on these bills. 

Sincerely, 

Alan Rowsome 

Senior Director for Government Relations, Lands 

The Wilderness Society 
826 


Insert graphic folio 930 here 22000A.806

Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Throughput: Facts, Data, and their Implications 

Throughput 

The 800 mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS, operated by Alyeska Pipeline Service 

Company) began operation in 1977. At peak flow in 1988, the pipeline transported 2.1 million 

barrels of oil a day. Throughput in 2015 averaged approximately 508,000 barrels a day. 

Implication: Pipelines are designed and operated to carry less than peak flow, so the fact that 

TAPS currently moves roughly '!. of its oil capacity does not have great significance. 

Ownership 

The three largest owners ofT APS- BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil- have a combined 

99% ownership interest in TAPS and are expected to produce 88% of the oil in the pipeline 

through 2050. 1 

Implications: Because of the money they have invested in North Slope oil production and in 

keeping it going, BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil each have an interest in TAPS operating 

as long as the production is profitable. Alyeska Pipeline and its owners are exploring multiple 

means to keep TAPS operating including adding heat along the pipeline, utilizing insulation, 

utilizing cleaning pigs more frequently, etc. 

Projected Longevity 

A state court decision between the pipeline owners and the state involving property taxes 

determined that the pipeline is likely to operate 50 more years, i.e., until at least 2065.2 This 

decision was affirmed by the state Supreme Court. Similar arguments were made for later tax 

years, however the approach used by the state court was fully affirmed by the state Supreme 

Court in 2015.3 

According to a study by economic consultants for the Natural Resources Defense Council from 

2011, the life of TAPS can be extended at least three decades through modest improvements 

which would yield profits of over ten times the upgrade costs. The study's authors show the 

improvements would require $539-$721 million in investment but would result in $12 billion in 

additional profits and an equal amount to Alaska's state coffers in the form of added royalties 

and tax revenues.4 

Implications: TAPS is in no danger of imminent operating problems or a shutdown due to low 

throughput. Existing and future production on state lands and waters is likely to keep TAPS 

operating for several decades. To say otherwise is merely a means to advocate for new drilling 

on environmentally-sensitive federal lands and waters in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in 

all portions of the (poorly-named) National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, and in the Arctic 

Ocean. The sky is not falling regarding TAPS throughput. 

Contact: 

Lois Epstein, P.E., Engineer and Arctic Program Director (lois epstein@tws.org, 907.272.9453) 

The Wilderness Society, Anchorage, Alaska 

Board President for the Pipeline Safety Trust (www.pstrust.org) 

1 Case No. 3AN-06-8446 Cl [Consolidated], p. 41. 2 Judge pegs pipeline life a/50 more years, Anchorage Daily News, January 5, 2012, 

http://www .adn.com/20 12/01104/22460 I 5/pipeline-li fe-at-least-50-more.html 3 See htto://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/sp-7039.pdf 4 Is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System in Danger of Being Shut Down?, Innovation & Information Consultants, Inc. 

Concord, MA, Orlando, FL, Sept. 201 I, 30 pp., http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene I 1092001a.pdf. 
827 


Insert graphic folio 914 here 22000A.790

• ---THE---

WILDERNESS 

-SOCIETYStatement of 

Nicole Whittington-Evans 

Alaska Regional Director, The Wilderness Society 

before the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Hearing to conduct oversight on options for addressing the continuing lack of 

reliable emergency medical transportation for the isolated community of King Cove, Alaska 

April 14,2016 

Washington, DC 

Good Morning Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the 

Committee. I am Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska Regional Director of The Wilderness 

Society. I appreciate the opportunity to testifY before the Committee today, April 14'h, 2016, 

regarding options for reliable transportation for the village of King Cove, Alaska and the 

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area. The Wilderness Society has been a 

strong advocate of the National Wildlife Refuge System and Wilderness areas, including the 

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. TWS supports the effort to find transportation solutions that 

meet the needs of King Cove while protecting the internationally significant wildlife and 

wilderness values of the refuge. I appreciate the opportunity to share some of our views with 

you here today. 

I offer this testimony on behalf of The Wilderness Society (fWS), an organization with over 

700,000 members and supporters, including members in Alaska who care deeply about how the 

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area is managed. I have worked for The 

Wilderness Society's Alaska office for over eighteen years, and have been engaged in the 

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge issue since 1998. 

Thirteen conservation organizations sent a letter to this Committee this week stating opposition 

to a road and land exchange for the purposes of building a road between the two small 

communities of King Cove and Cold Bay. The letter has been submitted for the record and is 

attached to this testimony. Such a road would be incompatible with the purposes for which 

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge was established and would fragment the ecological heart of 

the Refuge, violating the very foundation of its congressionally designated Wilderness and 

placing at risk the integrity of its internationally vital wetlands habitat. 

1 
828 


Insert graphic folio 915 here 22000A.791

My testimony addresses the following topics: I) Globally significant wetlands and wilderness 

values ofthe Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, 2) The 1964 Wilderness Act and Izembek's 

Wilderness designation, 3) The impacts of a road through designated Wilderness in the Izembek 

National Wildlife Refuge, and 4) Non- Road Alternatives. 

I. Globally Significant Wetlands and Wilderness Values of the Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Alaska's Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure. Hundreds of thousands of 

migratory birds and waterfowl, seals, sea otters, caribou, wolves and grizzly bears depend on the 

wetlands, tundra, streams, and tidal areas to reproduce and feed. Almost the entire world's 

population of Pacific Black Brant depends on the refuge during their spring and fall migrations 

to rest and feed on the eelgrass beds. 

In 1980, Congress established the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness as part of 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to safeguard the refuge's 

extraordinary value. The Izembek refuge was established to protect the Pacific black brant and 

its habitat along with other migratory waterfowl and other birds. 

At the center of the 417,533-acre Izembek National Wildlife Refuge are two lagoons, the 

lzembek and Kinzarof. These lagoons are separated by a narrow isthmus just three miles wide. 

The lagoons, their immediate watersheds, and the isthmus-the Lagoons Complex-are the 

ecological heart of the refuge. More than 200 species of wildlife and nine species offish are 

found on the Refuge. 

The Izembek/Kinzarof Lagoons Complex has been repeatedly recognized internationally for its 

global significance. Specifically, the refuge was: 

• Identified under the RAMSAR Convention in 1986 and was the first wetlands area in 

North America added to the List of Wetlands of International Importance, 

• Designated a Marine Protected Area in order to provide lasting protection for this Lagoon 

Complex, 

• Recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of global significance in 2001 by Birdlife 

International in partnership with National Audubon Society, 

• Listed as a Sister Refuge with Russia's Kronotskiy State Biosphere Reserve in 1991 

through a U.S.- Russian Governmental Agreement on Cooperation in Environmental 

Protection, and 

• Celebrated as globally significant for its habitat value and role in biodiversity protection 

by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 

2 
829 


Insert graphic folio 916 here 22000A.792

The Refuge also qualifies as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network Site. Izembek 

National Wildlife Refuge is best renowned for its world-class waterfowl and shorebird habitat. 

The Lagoons Complex provides breeding, molting, nesting, refueling, staging and resting 

grounds for: 

• virtually the entire world populations of Pacific black brant ( -1 00,000) and Emperor 

geese (-55,000), 

• a significant portion of the world's Steller's eiders (- 80,00- I 00,000), including 

Alaska's population, estimated to contain 500 breeding adults (listed as threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act in 1997), and 

• many other migratory and resident waterfowl, including Pacific golden plovers, rock 

sandpipers, dunlins, ruddy tumstones, semipalmated plovers, western sandpipers and 

Izembek tundra swans, which is the only essentially non-migratory breeding population 

in North America. 

The Izembek/KinzarofLagoons Complex is important for this large number of bird species due 

to the availability of some of the largest eelgrass beds in the world. More than 98 percent of all 

Pacific black brant converge on Izembek Lagoon each year to feed on the eelgrass in preparation 

for their 3,300-mile, 55-hour non-stop flight to wintering grounds in Mexico. The brant feed on 

eelgrass for approximately eight weeks in order to make their long flight south that usually 

begins in early November. Brant fly back and forth between the lagoons to forage, and they use 

freshwater lakes on the isthmus. Emperor geese use Izembek and KinzarofLagoon while 

foraging in the upland tundra area for crowberries, and the endangered Steller's eiders also use 

KinzarofLagoon. Emperor and Canada geese rely on the eelgrass in the lagoons for nutrients, as 

do invertebrates and marine mammals. The narrow isthmus between Izembek and Kinzarof 

Lagoons is a crucial travel corridor-the only path between the east and west sides of the 

refuge-for wide-ranging species such as bears, caribou, and wolves. The Alaska Peninsula 

Caribou Herd, a population that declined from about I 0,000 to fewer than I ,000 in the last I 0 

years and is now growing, uses the isthmus as the only migration corridor between calving and 

wintering grounds. The isthmus is also an important winter foraging area for these animals. 

Moreover, the caribou are known to spend the entire winter on the isthmus. 

Some of the highest densities of brown bears on the Lower Alaska Peninsula are found in the 

Joshua Green River Valley of the Izembek refuge, an area within three miles of the isthmus and 

the proposed road corridor. Minimal human disturbance has helped maintain the high habitat 

value of this area for brown bears. Bears use the isthmus frequently to forage and roam in their 

search for food, as do other furbearers. Harbor seals, sea otters, Steller's sea lions, and whales 

frequent the productive waters within and surrounding the refuge. Sea otters, seals, and sea lions 

spend time along the coast and in the lagoons. Both sea otters and Steller's sea lions are listed as 

Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

The Lagoon Complex comprises vital, high quality habitat for many species. Degradation or loss 

of this habitat complex cannot be mitigated by offering distant uplands or areas not used by these 

3 
830 


Insert graphic folio 917 here 22000A.793

species. Population declines would likely occur for many species that rely on this habitat 

complex. Such losses may be substantial. 

As a long-time resident of Alaska, I have been fortunate to visit many of the special places that 

characterize the beautiful, wild landscapes and spectacular wildlife habitat of Alaska. I have 

been fortunate enough to spend time at the lzembek Refuge and see firsthand the lands and 

waters of this renowned wilderness landscape and internationally important wetland. I have 

walked in the wilderness and viewed the narrow peninsula where the proposed road would be 

constructed. From this vantage point, I have seen both the Izembek and KinzarofLagoons (the 

Lagoons Complex). Between these lagoons are rolling hills and valleys of soft, spongy and 

fragile tundra dotted by abundant marshes, Jakes and pools of water. I also have been fortunate to 

fly twice over the refuge and the state and King Cove Corporation lands proposed for exchange 

that was analyzed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS). 

While visiting Izembek Refuge, I witnessed the Lagoons crowded with Pacific black brant, 

Emperor geese, and the threatened Steller's eider. I have seen caribou and other wildlife in the 

refuge. A local expert described to me in vivid detail how the wildlife use the isthmus as a travel 

corridor, foraging area, and home. I could visualize the caribou, wolves, grizzly bears, fox, and 

other wildlife using the isthmus as a travel corridor, hunting zone, and home during winter or 

summer. I testify today that the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most vital and 

extraordinary wildlife areas in the world. 

II. The 1964 Wilderness Act and Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Designated 

Wilderness 

The founders of The Wilderness Society came together in the 1930's because of their passion for 

wild landscapes and their growing concern over the potential loss of America's wildlands--

spurred on primarily by road construction and automobiles penetrating frontier country at that 

time. They brought together principles, credible science, bold advocacy and unswerving vision 

to develop conservation policy and in 1935 established a new conservation organization, The 

Wilderness Society. Their foresight, actions and determination launched a land protection 

movement that ultimately led to the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Howard Zahniser, a 

Governing Council member of The Wilderness Society, was the principal author of the 

Wilderness Act. Passage of the Act designated 9 million acres of federal Wilderness and 

initiated a Wilderness Preservation System on federal lands that now encompasses 757 

wilderness areas totaling nearly 110 million acres in 44 states.1 

1 http://www. wildemess.net/N WPS/state ViewStatic?state=ak&map=ak 

4 
831 


Insert graphic folio 918 here 22000A.794

Wilderness protected lands, as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, are afforded the highest level 

of protections of any lands in the nation, as no roads or industrial developments are allowed in 

designated wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act protects lands in their natural state, and the Act 

defines wilderness in the following way: 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal/and 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or 

human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and uncorifined type of recreation; (3) has at 

least jive thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. 2 

The very purpose of Wilderness designation is to ensure that important areas remain wild and 

intact - free of roads and industrial development. 

The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act provided some exceptions to 

designated Wilderness and the Wilderness Act. ANILCA allows for the continuation of human 

presence and certain activities within designated Wilderness Areas in Alaska, including certain 

structures and motorized uses, vital for Alaskan communities that practice a subsistence way of 

life3

. With these exceptions, ANILCA Wilderness lands must comply with the Wilderness Act. 

Therefore, roads and other industrial development are not allowed in ANILCA Wilderness. 

The lzembek National Wildlife Range, which identified the Izembek Lagoons Complex as a 

premier ecological reserve, was first established in 1960. In 1980, ANILCA re-designated it as 

the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and also designated 300,000 acres of the refuge as 

Wilderness. ANILCA established the following purposes of the refuge: 

(i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural 

diversity including, but not limited to, waterfowl, shorebirds and other 

migratory birds, brown bears and salmon ids; 

(ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with 

respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; 

2 http://www.wildemess.net/nwos/legisact#2, section, I.e. 3 https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/39 

5 
832 


Insert graphic folio 919 here 22000A.795

(iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in 

subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by 

local residents, and 

(iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in manner consistent 

with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary 

water quantity within the refuge." (94 Stat. 2391 P.L. 96-487 §303(3)(B)) 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required to manage the Izembek refuge to maintain the fish 

and wildlife populations in their natural diversity, fulfill international fish and wildlife treaty 

obligations, provide for the continuation of subsistence uses by local residents, and ensure water 

quality and quantity within the refuge. 

During one of my visits to the Izembek Refuge, I read the historical files that chronicled the 

extensive outreach during the 1970s to State officials and policymakers, the Alaska media, and 

the public. I reviewed many of the comments submitted regarding what was then proposed 

Wilderness. The files demonstrate overwhelming support for the Wilderness, including a letter 

from the Governor of Alaska. In total, 10 years transpired from the time the Izembek Wilderness 

was proposed to the time Congress granted Wilderness designation to the Refuge. That decadelong process included town meetings, hearings, debates, numerous editorials and opinion pieces, 

outreach to multiple Native organizations, and state, federal, and joint governmental proposals 

spanning several Congressional sessions. This extensive outreach and discussion provided 

ample time and opportunities for public discourse and final decisions that led to the passage of 

ANILCA. The decade of public debate and meetings held prior to the Congressional designation 

of these vital lands as Wilderness, ensured that qualified lands were added to the Wilderness 

Preservation System, important watersheds were permanently protected, and known conflicts 

were addressed and resolved. 

Historical Context and Background: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has continually provided extensive, detailed information 

regarding a proposed road connecting the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay since the 

1 960's4

• However, throughout the decade of public discussion leading up to the passage of 

ANILCA, interest in a road between King Cove and Cold Bay did not surface as a significant 

issue. The record shows that one person posed a question about a road at the Cold Bay 

wilderness hearing in 1970, which was cordially addressed by an official. Throughout the many 

House and Senate hearings leading to the passage of ANILCA, the road issue was not raised nor 

was it advocated by the members of the Alaska Congressional delegation. The first time a road 

was substantively discussed as a possible transportation link between the two towns occurred 

'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Record of Decision, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, Land Exchange/Road 

Corridor, Final Environmentallmpact Statement December 23'd. 2013. 

6 
833 


Insert graphic folio 920 here 22000A.796

during the 1985 Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan studies and planning sessions, circa 

1982-83. The detailed analyses in that plan clearly showed that such a road would be 

incompatible with the purposes for which Izembek NWR had been established, adding that it 

would cause significant, long-term irreparable damage to important fish, wildlife, habitat and 

wilderness values of the refuge. That analysis and discussion was authored by several U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service biologists and approved and supported by the Alaska Regional Director. 

The compatibility determinations, descriptions and conclusions regarding the impacts of building 

a road between the two towns remain essentially unchanged. On many occasions and in many 

published and circulated documents, the FWS has consistently declared that any such road and 

its construction through the refuge is incompatible with the Refuge purposes and would be 

extremely damaging. There has been no change in those findings and conclusions to this day. 

Congress also has directed more than once that a road not be built through the Izembek Lagoons 

Complex. When Congress initially designated Wilderness in the lzembek Refuge, Congress 

directed that the area remain wild and untrammeled. When the road issue was brought before 

Congress in 1997 and 1998, Congress determined that the road was not in the public interest and 

rejected the road. Instead, Congress passed the King Cove Health and Safety Act, which 

addressed King Cove residents' health and safety concerns by providing $37.5 million to 

upgrade King Cove's medical facilities, improve the airstrip in King Cove, purchase a 

hovercraft, construct marine terminals in King Cove and Cold Bay, and build an unpaved road 

between the town of King Cove and the connecting marine terminal. 

The King Cove Health and Safety Act enacted by the Congress specifically disallowed a road 

through the Izembek Wilderness, and clarified this with the following language of the Act: 

(a) .. .In no instance may any part of such road pass over any land within the 

Congressionally-designated wilderness ... 

(d) . .. All actions undertaken pursuant to this section must be in accordance with all 

other applicable laws. 5 

III. The Impacts of a Road Through Designated Wilderness in the Izembek National 

Wildlife Refuge 

A road through lzembek's designated Wilderness is incompatible with the purposes of the 

Izembek Refuge. It would be contrary to the 1964 Wilderness Act; 1980 Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act; 1989 King Cove Health and Safety Act; 1997 National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act,6 which serves as the Organic Act for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Act, which required a detailed analysis and finding 

5 1998 King Cove Health and Safety Act, Section 353. 6 Public Law 105-57 

7 
834 


Insert graphic folio 921 here 22000A.797

of public interest by the Secretary ofthe Interior prior to allowing the road and land exchange to 

move forward. Many Administrations and Congresses have determined that a road would be 

incompatible with the purposes of this unique wildlife refuge and contrary to the public interest. 

Impacts of the Road: 

The proposed road would bisect the heart of the refuge- the Lagoons complex- bifurcate its 

designated Wilderness, and fragmenting habitat that is vitally important for wildlife. The 

proposed road would permanently diminish the value of the congressionally designated 

Wilderness area. Habitat that supports hundreds of thousands of migratory birds and terrestrial 

wildlife, such as brown bear and caribou, would be seriously harmed by a road. Impacts from 

the road would extend well beyond the road and affect the integrity of the entire Refuge. Huge 

numbers of birds and mammals that use the lagoons, isthmus wetlands, tundra, and tidal flats to 

nest, feed, transit, and forage would be hardest hit by road construction, maintenance, and traffic. 

In particular, Pacific brant, Steller's eiders, Emperor geese, caribou, tundra swans, and brown 

bears would be severely harmed from road-related ecological impacts and/or increased human 

access and traffic. Even marine life, such as sea otters, sea lions, seals, and whales could 

experience impacts from a road. A number of these affected species are rare, declining, and even 

listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

In August 1996, the FWS prepared the King Cove Briefing Report. This report affirmed of the 

1980's conclusions of the USFWS in the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan. It 

determined that the road alternative is contrary to the purposes of the Refuge and foresaw 

unacceptable environmental impacts if a road were constructed through the designated 

Wilderness area. The Service supported further study and consideration of other alternatives, 

such as a marine link, which would provide increased travel safety, economic growth and fewer 

ecological impacts. Other State and Federal studies of the same period also documented that the 

road is the most destructive and costly alternative and again favored the marine ferry concept. 7 

A June 2003 draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), conducted by the Army Corps of 

Engineers, examined the potential threats of the proposed road from King Cove to Cold Bay. The 

report stated that there is sufficient information available to conclude that the road alternative, 

"would not qualify as an environmentally preferable alternative."8 The Corps of Engineers noted 

that their determination was based in part on the road having the largest footprint (287.0 acres) 

among all of the alternatives. The report documented the potential scope of the proposed 

construction, noting the need for 36.7 acres of placement of fill material in U.S. waters. These 

included wetlands, of which 2.09 acres are below the High Tide Line, and 254 stream and 

drainage crossings requiring 8 bridges and 19 culverts across fish bearing streams. The document 

indicated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a road on the lands, and on wildlife, citing 

caribou, swans, bears, and wolves. 

7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. lzembek National Wildlife Refuge, King Cove Briefing Report, March, 1996. 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. King Cove Access Project. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, July, 2003, p. 

153. 

8 
835 


Insert graphic folio 922 here 22000A.798

The 2003 draft EIS also noted that of all alternatives evaluated, the proposed road would have 

the greatest potential to adversely affect subsistence harvest due to its potential to displace 

wildlife and would result in competition between sport and subsistence hunters for resources. 

The analysis indicated that increased access could lead to distributional changes in wildlife, such 

as waterfowl, caribou, brown bear, and wolves, which could lead to reduced availability of 

subsistence resources. Specifically, the draft EIS stated regarding the road that," ... due to 

increased competition for resources and potential significant impacts to subsistence resources, 

the impact could be adverse and significant."9

• The final EIS referenced and incorporated the 

analysis and findings of the draft EIS. 10 • 

In 2009, the Omnibus Public Lands Act directed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

undertake a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of a proposed land exchange and road, 

and that in order for the two to move forward, the Secretary of the Interior would have to make a 

determination that the road and land exchange are in the public interest. 11 In 2013, at the 

culmination of a several-year Environmental Impact Statement process, the Secretary made no 

such determination. Rather, the Department of the Interior supported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service's sound science and the professional recommendations of the agency again stating that 

the road would be incompatible with the purposed of the Refuge and Wilderness and would 

cause irreparable harm to sensitive wildlife habitat and important wetlands. 12 The Interior 

Department's final decision was challenged by road proponents in U.S. District Court, but the 

U.S. District Court upheld the Interior Department's decision in September 2015. 13 This court's 

decision has been appealed to the 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The 2013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Land Exchange/Road Corridor, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, 14 concluded that a road would result in significant degradation to irreplaceable 

ecological resources. The Final EIS documented that the uses of the habitat of the Refuge by the 

large number of species that are dependent on the isthmus would be irreversibly and irretrievably 

changed by a road. The Final EIS also concluded that a road would bring increased human 

traffic, noise, hydrological changes, damage to wetlands, run off, introduction of contaminants 

and invasive species to the sensitive wetlands complex. Increased human access and activity 

also would result from the presence of a road, including year-round, increased access radiating 

from the road by pedestrian traffic and all-terrain vehicles. Indeed, increased all-terrain vehicle 

use and habitat damage is already occurring since completion of the 17.2 mile road to the 

9 1bid., p. 454. 10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King Cove Access Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December, 

2003, Executive Summary, p. FES-25 11 ht!ps://www.govtrack.us/congresslbills/111/hrl46, Subtitle E, lzembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange, 

Sec. 6402, (d) (1). 12 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Record of Decision, lzembck National Wildlife 

Refuge, Land Exchange/Road Corridor, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 23,2013. 13 http://www .adn.com/article/20 150908/federal-judge-sides-interior-secretary -dispute-over-road-through-refuge-0 14U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Final Environmental Impact Statement, lzembek National Wildlife Refuge Land 

Exchange/Road Corridor, 2013 

9 
836 


Insert graphic folio 923 here 22000A.799

northeast comer of Cold Bay. The 2013 Final EIS documented that, since the 17.2 mile road to 

the northeast comer of Cold Bay became passable by all-terrain vehicles, increased, new allterrain vehicle use and habitat-damaging trails have developed from the endpoint of that road. 15 

These trails are of concern, and the agency concluded that the physical impacts caused by 

increased all-terrain vehicle use on wet soils will have profound and long-lasting adverse effects 

on wildlife use and habitats of the narrow isthmus. Increased activity associated with the road 

would also place a strain on Refuge management personnel while Refuge budgets and capacity 

are decreasing. 

The 2013 final ElS indicated that a road would have major negative effects to Tundra Swans, 

Brant, Emperor geese, and brown bears. These species depend on the Izembek Lagoons 

complex, which provides critical subsistence resources. The Fish and Wildlife Service's analysis 

also indicated that increased human access, hunting pressure, and disturbance to birds would 

occur as a result of the road, causing displacement from feeding and nesting areas. 16 These 

findings are very significant for the following reasons: I) Virtually the entire population of the 

Pacific brant feed and stage at lzembek before and after their long migrations to and from 

wintering grounds to the south. Brant are also highly sensitive to disturbance; 2) the lzembek 

Tundra swan population is the world's only non-migratory population, and Tundra swans use the 

isthmus for nesting and rearing young. They are also highly sensitive to disturbance; 3) 

Emperor geese, are highly dependent on the Izembek Lagoons complex in winter months, 

particularly when other feeding areas are frozen. Winter is a critical time that challenges their 

limited physical reserves, and disturbance from winter use of a road would significantly impact 

them. Izembek's Joshua Green watershed is an important brown bear natal area and supports the 

highest density of brown bears on the Southern Alaska Peninsula. Both habitat and remoteness 

of the watershed contribute to the high density, and increased access and hunting resulting from 

road access would significantly alter this key brown bear denning and natal area. The analysis 

concluded that the effects of a road to caribou and other large mammals would be at least 

moderate. 

Legislating incompatible development in a refuge would set a negative precedent that 

undermines the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act mandate to: "ensure 

that the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the System are maintained for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." 17 Further,, a road would destroy 

the very premises and values associated with designated Wilderness. Designated Wilderness 

areas are maintained in their natural, untrammeled state. Any road developed that would 

bifurcate, fragment and otherwise harm the designated Wilderness of lzembek Refuge would 

have irreparable and extremely significant impacts to the Wilderness area, effectively destroying 

it and the intent of the Congress when it designated the area as Wilderness. 

15 Ibid., p. 4-137 and 4-205. 16 Ibid. FE!S, p. 2-64 

10 
837 


Insert graphic folio 924 here 22000A.800

Costs of A Road: 

In lieu of building a damaging road across the Izembek Refuge, the King Cove Health and Safety 

Act provided a total of$37.5 million to address King Cove's transportation and health and safety 

needs. It directed $20 million for a one-lane gravel road, a dock and marine facilities, and 

equipment; $15 million to improve the King Cove airport; and $2.5 million to upgrade the 

communities medical facilities. Just prior to the completion of a 2003 U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Environmental Impact Study of non-road transportation alternatives for King Cove, 

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens sponsored a rider on an appropriations bill that directed a 17-mile 

road be built from King Cove to a hovercraft terminal site in the northeast corner of Cold Bay. 18 

Construction of this road began in March, 2004. Nine million of the $20 million dollars 

provided in the King Cove Health and Safety Act was used to purchase the Suna-X, a state-ofthe-art hovercraft, which left $11 million remaining for the dock and one-lane gravel road. This 

amount was not sufficient to complete the 17.2-mile road that Senator Stevens had legislated, so 

the $15 million originally appropriated in the King Cove Health and Safety Act to upgrade the 

King Cove airport was redirected to help fund and build the 17 .2-mile road. This resulted in 

using a total of$26 million of the $37.5 million provided in the King Cove Health Safety Act to 

construct the road. However, this amount was not sufficient to complete the road, and the road 

remained partially built but unfinished for a number of years. Between 20 I 0 -2013, an additional 

$14.5 million was provided to finish the road through the Alaska's State Transportation 

Improvement Project. Thus, 90% ($13 million) ofwhich came from federal funding, with the 

remaining funds coming from the State of Alaska. 19 An additional $2 million was received by 

King Cove for transportation from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.l20 The 

17.2 mile road was finished in 2013. In total, approximately $40 million, or $2.29 million/mile, 

was spent to build the one-lane, 17 .2-mile gravel road to the northeast corner of Cold Bay. 

Extending the road through the Izembek Wilderness would cost many millions more tax dollars. 

Approximately 12.5 miles of new road would need to be built through lzembek Refuge 

designated Wilderness, and an additional6 miles of road would need to be fully reconstructed to 

connect to the Outer Marker road that is maintained to the Cold Bay airport. Building a total of 

18.5 miles of and fully reconstructed road, with the majority traversing challenging wetlands 

terrain with no local gravel source, would be a very significant expenditure for an outcome that 

likely would be dangerous and undependable in inclement weather, especially for transporting an 

ill or injured person requiring emergency treatment. 

18 Section 115 ofPL 108-137 (a 2003 appropriations act) says, "The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 

Chief of Engineers, shall direct construction of Alternative 1 (Northeast Corner) for the project authorized in section 

353 of Public Law 105-277 notwithstanding any other provision of law." 19 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2010-2013 STIP, Revision 27 Incorporated, 

Amendment(Revision 27), Approved by FHWA & FTA, July 28,2011, Alaska, "King Cove to Cold Bay Corridor.·· 

2

'bttp://www.recovery.gov/Transparencv/RecoveryData/oages/RccipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardldSur=95 

169&AwardType~Grants. 

11 
838 


Insert graphic folio 925 here 22000A.801

Congress already helped finance one of the most effective modes of transport between King 

Cove and Cold Bay-a specially designed marine hovercraft-ferry system- and taxpayers have 

already paid over $50 million to resolve King Cove's transportation problems and health and 

safety concerns. This is a considerable and disproportionate investment for a town of 

approximately 938 people21 • If another 18.5 miles of road were built, it certainly would be an 

extraordinary expenditure to accommodate a small community. 

Proposed Land Exchanges: 

After passage of the King Cove Health and Safety Act, in 2006 a proposed land exchange and 

road proposal was presented by the Aleutians East Borough and the State of Alaska . Their 

proposal renewed efforts to construct the road. The proposed land exchange was offered as a 

means to compensate or mitigate for any loss of wetlands habitat and Wilderness resulting from 

the road. However, the lands offered in the exchange did not represent comparable wildlife 

habitat value, and still do not to this day. 

The proposed land exchange would have added acreage to the Refuge, but not wildlife value. 

Further, the value of any exchange lands offered would be diminished if the ecological heart of 

the Refuge were severely degraded. The value of any exchange lands would be made de minimus 

if the negative impacts described by FWS biologists over the last 30 years become reality. The 

road would sever fragile refuge wetlands, and would harm significant ecological habitats. 

Construction, operation and maintenance activities would require filling wetlands, modifYing 

drainages, potential spillages and pollution, dust, noise, on-land barriers and over-land turmoil 

and disruptions. 

The two State townships (approximately 43,000 acres) proposed for exchange in H.R. 4371 for 

acquire land through the Izembek Refuge designated wilderness, were analyzed in the 2013 

agency Final EIS. It concluded that the exchange lands would not provide comparable habitat or 

be able to compensate for the loss or sever degradation of the wetlands in the Lagoons Complex. 

Indeed, no amount of exchange lands can compensate for the irreversible impacts a road would 

have on these globally significant and unique wildlife habitat values. The southernmost state 

township is entirely uplands, with some bear denning habitat, but virtually no value for 

waterfowl. The more northern township has some wetlands with viable caribou and brown bear 

habitat, but is oflittle value for the many species of waterfowl that depend on the lagoons and 

isthmus wetlands complex. The state townships also have no current development threat, and 

offer minimal conservation benefit. They are located entirely outside the watershed of the 

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and would be costly to inventory and administer due to access 

limitations. It appears as though King Cove Corporation owned lands on the east and west side 

of Cold Bay, including Mortensen Lagoon, and lands within the KinzarofLagoon, which were a 

part of the exchange proposal between 2006-2013, but are not included in the text ofH.R. 

21 https://www.google.com/#q~population+of+King+Cove. 2010 U.S. Census data. 

12 
839 


Insert graphic folio 926 here 22000A.802

4371. Submitted along with this testimony is a TWS fact sheet that compares the proposed 

exchange lands offered in the 2009 Omnibus Lands Protection Act. 

Alaska Native Stakeholders Oppose the Road 

The potential damage to subsistence use is a primary reason that the Association of Village 

Council Presidents (A VCP), the recognized tribal organizations and nonprofit Alaska Native 

Regional Corporation for its 56 member indigenous Native villages within Western Alaska, has 

repeatedly opposed the King Cove Road. In 1998, the A VCP passed a resolution opposing the 

road. On October 17, 2007, I received a letter from Myron Naneng, President of the A VCP that 

reaffirmed their opposition and cited their interest and concern for the critical habitat of our 

Pacific black brant that use the area for staging and feeding during their long and treacherous 

spring and fall migrations. The Waterfowl Committee of the A VCP has reaffirmed their 1998 

resolution twice during their spring meetings in 2013 and 2015. The resolution and other letters 

from A VCP regarding the proposed road are submitted with this testimony. 

The A VCP resolution notes that "the people of theY -K Delta are primary stakeholders of 

waterfowl, our customary, and traditional use of birds has long been used as part of our diet and 

culture and because of the destructive development and habitat loss conducted by those areas in 

the Pacific Flyway throughout the 1960's, 70s, and 80's significantly affect waterfowl 

populations resulting in curtailing our subsistence hunters and gatherer's practice." 

In June of2014, Mr. Naneng affirmed the AVCP's opposition to a road in the Alaska Dispatch 

News. That story can be found here, and is submitted with this testimony. Another Alaska 

Native organization, REDOIL (Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands), 

voted to support the AVCP opposition to the Izembek road in 20!4. 

Local Experts Have Opposed the Road Because of Safety and Maintenance Concerns: 

Local experts, including two former Cold Bay Mayors, a former Cold Bay EMT and the former 

Medical Director for the Eastern Aleutians Tribes, have also pointed to maintenance and safety 

concerns that would be associated with the road. These individuals have previously provided 

written testimony to Congress in opposition to the road, citing the dangers of traveling on a road 

during Aleutian winter storm conditions and the challenges of keeping a road open in these 

conditions. The Cold Bay area and the isthmus where the proposed road would be located 

regularly experiences winter storms with gale force winds and ground blizzards. Please refer to 

the photo attached and submitted with this testimony that illustrates the challenges of keeping a 

road open during winter storm conditions. Dr. Peter Mjos wrote in a 2013 letter to the Secretary 

of the Interior about the safety and maintenance challenges of a road in winter storm conditions, 

stating: 

In such storms Cold Bay cannot maintain for even one hour the flat, paved 10,000 foot 

runway, much less the community gravel roads. It is inconceivable that the proposed 27 

13 
840 


Insert graphic folio 927 here 22000A.803

mile road could be passable. Any vehicle or ambulance attempting transit or rescue in 

such conditions could be suicidal, rescue impossible, rescuers gravelly imperiled. 

Submitted with this testimony are some of the letters and testimony from these local experts that 

convey some of the challenges of the proposed road for medical evacuations. 

IV. Non-Road Alternatives 

Marine Transportation Links: 

Nine million dollars of the original37.5 million of taxpayer dollars appropriated for King Cove's 

transportation needs was used to acquire and equip a modern hovercraft, a type of vehicle most 

often used by commercial and military operators in such conditions as ice floes, mudflats, 

beaches, and tundra. Unique to the hovercraft is its ability to land without a traditional dock or 

harbor. 

The hovercraft operated between 2007 and 20 I 0 and successfully performed at least 3022 

medical evacuations helping King Cove residents cross the 20 miles across Cold Bay to reach the 

Cold Bay airport. At that time, the hovercraft, powered by four MTU 2000 diesel engines, was 

the largest hovercraft ever built in the U.S. The craft seated 49 passengers and vehicles, and 

could accommodate a fully staffed ambulance. It traveled from Lenard Harbor on the southeast 

side of Cold Bay to Cold Bay in approximately 17 minutes23• 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Report: 

The transportation options presented in the 2015 report by the Army Corps of Engineers 

demonstrate that there are viable alternatives to constructing a road through the Izembek 

National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness. At the request of the Department of the Interior, the 

Army Corps of Engineers assessed three non-road alternatives for medical evacuation from King 

Cove. These transportation modes include: (1) ice-capable marine vessel, (2) fixed-wing 

aircraft/new airport, and (3) helicopter/heliport. For each transportation mode, the ACOE made 

a high-level assessment of the various locations, type of equipment, and facilities needed, along 

with the costs, risks and dependability of each. Each option was assigned a level of 

dependability, cost, and risk. The report determined that the marine vessel is the most 

dependable of the options (99.2% or better). The ACOE analysis is a high-level assessment that 

did not recommend one alternative over another and did not address many significant details of 

the various options. 

22 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King Cove- Cold Bay: Assessment of Non-Road Alternatives, July 2015, p. 6 23 Ibid., p.6. 

14 
841 


Insert graphic folio 928 here 22000A.804

A summary Table from the ACOE Report tollows, from page ii of the report: 

Notes: 

All costs are shown in 2(}15 dollars. See main document for explanalion of cost estimates. 

Medevac time is lhe elapsed flav<ll time between lhe City of King Cove and Ted Stevens Anchorage lntemationat Airport See main 

doeumenl for lurlher explanation. 

Risk SCOill compiles mullipfe risk factor.~ on a 1-4 scale (1:fow, 2=modera!e, 3=serious, 4=higll) and averages them. Risk 

assessment is qualilative. Scoring allows for OOriving !he average and is not meant to imply precision in quantifying ri!OC See main 

doeumenl for explanation of methods. 

Dependability shown is based largely on wind data thresholds. other faclor.! allecl dependability aod may differ between modes of 

!ravel. See main document for explanalion. 

The alternatives to a road identified in the ACOE report, as well as other non-road alternatives, 

avoid many of the risks and problems associated with a road as discussed above. 

A comparison of the travel times required for a med-evac patient to get from King Cove to Cold 

Bay by road or non-road options is informative. The July 2015 ACOE assessment indicates, that 

a ferry from Lenard Harbor would take approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes to Cold Bay, while 

helicopters and planes take only a matter of minutes. The taxpayer-funded hovercraft that 

operated between the two communities from 2007- 20 I 0 took approximately 17 minutes from 

Lenard Harbor to Cold Bay.Z4 Traveling the entire proposed one-lane gravel road route from 

King Cove to Cold Bay- approximately 40.5 miles would take between 90 minutes and two 

hours in good weather conditions.Z5 In bad weather the road could be impassable or take many 

hours of dangerous travel. For true medical emergencies, safety of the passengers and the fastest 

travel times between the two communities are presumably the most desirable. 

24U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. King Cove- Cold Bay: Assessment of Non-Road Alternatives, July 2015, p. 6 25 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 2003, and King Cove- Cold Bay: Assessment of Non-Road 

Alternatives, July 2015. 

15 
842 


Insert graphic folio 929 here 22000A.805

The analysis conducted by the Anny Corps of Engineers confirms what The Wilderness Society, 

other conservation organizations, local experts and medical professionals familiar with this area 

have stated for decades, namely that there are viable alternatives to a road through the heart of 

fragile, congressionally-designated Wilderness that would provide safe and reliable, and in some 

cases more reliable, and efficient emergency transport for the people of King Cove, while 

maintaining the integrity of the globally significant Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. 

Additional Considerations: 

Many remote communities in Alaska struggle with issues similar to those of King Cove 

regarding transportation and medical services. It is not clear that King Cove residents are in any 

more danger than many other Alaskan communities that rely on air transportation. Additionally, 

King Cove is better equipped than many other remote Alaskan communities to handle medical 

emergencies because of their state-of-the-art-medical clinic and staff. While there has been much 

mention of the tragic fatalities resulting from airplane crashes near King Cove, thankfully there 

have not been any since February, 1990. More than 25 years have passed since the last aircraft 

fatality a situation that TWS and the entire conservation community certainly hope will 

continue forever. The flight safety record of the past 25+ years is no doubt a testament to the 

skilled pilots and technical flight personnel in the region. Further, in reviewing wind and 

weather data from the many documents assembled about this issue, it is not clear that King Cove 

residents are in greater danger than other Alaskan communities that rely on air transportation."26 

While King Cove does not have a full-time physician, it does have a state-of-the-art medical 

clinic with telemedicine capabilities, a result of the King Cove Health and Safety Act. The 

medical clinic has a total of 17 staff, including a physician's assistant, making King Cove's 

clinic better equipped to handle medical emergencies than many of Alaska's remote 

communities, including Cold Bay. 

Conclusion: 

For all of the reasons stated above we appreciate the Department oflnterior's commitment to 

find a non-road alternative, and, and we strongly support the Department's 2013 decision to 

reject a land exchange and road development through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and 

Wilderness area. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers' 2015 Non-Road Assessment indicates that 

there are other viable, safer, more dependable and efficient alternatives for medical evacuation 

transport than the proposed road. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on Energy today. 

26 Wind and weather is available in the following sources: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities, King Cove- Cold Bay Access Assessment ofTransportation Need, !997; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

King Cove Access Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, December, 2003; and U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, King Cove- Cold Bay: Assessment ofNon-Road Alternatives. July 2015. 

16 
843 


Insert graphic folio 931 here 22000A.807

Ripchensl<y. Darla (Energy) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

-----Original Message-----

James Woods <jwoods1945@yahoo.com> 

Friday, September 23, 2016 11:41 PM 

fortherecord (Energy) 

Forwarded Email: SB 3204 Resend after failure notice 

From: James Woods- Email Address: jwoods1945@yahoo.com Sent On: 9/22/2016 21:34 Sent To: 

danaripchensky@energy.senate.gov- Email Address: danaripchensky@energy.senate.gov 

subject: Forwarded Email: SB 3204 Resend after failure notice 

-----Original Message-----

From: James Woods- Email Address: jwoods1945@yahoo.com Sent On: 9/22/201616:23 Sent To: 

fortherecord@senate.energy.gov- Email Address: fortherecord@senate.energy.gov 

subject: SB 3204 

From: 

James Woods 

PO Box 1837 

20 Carrie Ann Lane 

Penn Valley, CA 95946 

jwoods1945@yahoo.com 

Dear Sir: 

Thank you for the chance to comment on the proposed road building project through the lzembek Wilderness Area in 

Alaska. 

I strong request the proposed project be rejected. Dividing a wilderness into two segments separated by paved road 

with year-around twenty-four hour a day traffic will eliminate many wildlife species on a daily basis by inevitable roadkill mishap. Present intact wilderness characteristics will be lost forever. The road will function as a "Berlin Wall" barrier 

insurmountable by many wildlife. Thousands will die crossing it each and every year going forward beginning the 

moment the road is opened to traffic. 

Most important of all ... approving a road where non are allowed by law sets a terrible precedent. If OK to do this in 

Alaska why not everywhere across the nation within every designated wilderness? This highway project will destroy 

much more than this specific wilderness alone. Don't do it. Obey the law and let the lzembek wilderness be true 

wilderness as established under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Thank you for reading my letter and carrying out my request. I appreciate your attention and work. 

Sincerely, 

James Woods 
844 


Insert graphic folio 932 here 22000A.808

5 October 2016 

The Honorable Lise Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Murkowski, 

I am wrHing in support of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Legislation. The 

Alaska Mental Health Trust and the Trust Land Office have been working toward a land 

exchange for more than 1 0 years with extensive public participation while defining the exchange 

parcels. Thank you for your leadership in sponsoring this legislation. 

Given that Alaska is facing the worst fiscal crisis in history, legislation is the best option to 

complete the exchange in a timely fashion. The Trust, on average, provides $20 million in grants 

to organizations across Alaska. We need to ensure that the Trust can continue to provide 

revenue for comprehensive, integrated mental health services in Alaska today and into the 

future. 

The exchange is of great benefit because it: 

• Protects popular trails. vlewsheds, and iconic recreational sites along the Inside 

Passage 

• Ensures watersheds are protected so that Southeast residents receive clean water 

• Preserves old growth timber stands In the forest 

• Ensures jobs stay in the Southeast communities by protecting the timber and tourism 

industries 

• Protects mental health services by providing revenue to support the Trust's mission 

I want to do what is right for the Southeast community and economy, and for all of the people 

that benefit from the Trust. It is not often we as Alaskans get to support something that does 

something good for so many, and I am pleased to provide my personal support of this exchange 

legislation. 

Sincerely, 

Kristina Woolston 

16268 Noble Point Drive 

Anchorage. AK 99516 
845 


Insert graphic folio 933 here 22000A.809

TESTIMONY from Bob and Gloria Ziller, Obrien, Oregon in support of the Southwestern 

Oregon Salmon and Watershed Protection Act (S. 346/ H.R. 682) (Act). 

We're residents of the Illinois River Valley in Southwest Oregon. Our property lies less than a 

mile from one of the areas subject to S. 346, which would permanently withdraw 

approximately 106,000 acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land 

at the headwaters of some of the finest rivers in southwest Oregon from entry and location 

under the mining laws of the United States. 

We live below one of the areas that has been proposed for nickel strip mining in the past and 

very close to where a smelter could be located on the Rough and Ready Creek Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Along with many members of the local community we 

recreate on the ACEC and the adjacent US Forest Service Rough and Ready Creek Botanical 

Area. 

In addition to providing priceless open space, that's available to all, and beloved swimming 

holes, these and surrounding areas within the proposed withdrawal area are host to the 

highest concentration of rare and endemic plants in Oregon. 

In the 1990s, along with many of our neighbors, we formed the ad hoc Rough 'N Ready 

Neighbors to oppose the mining of Rough and Ready Creek and work for a permanent 

solution. 

The sole drinking water source of most residents in the area are wells located on the unique 

and ancient Rough and Ready Creek flood plain. The exceptionally clean, clear water 

provided by Rough and Ready Creek and its tributaries on the federal public lands subject to 

the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Projection Act are priceless. 

Along with many of our neighbors, we live here because of the clean water and air and 

availability of the beautiful open spaces found on the National Forest and BLM-managed land 

to recreate. These uses represent the highest and best use of these public lands and 

resources. The amenities provided by lands subject to S. 346 help attract new residents and 

creates jobs strengthening our small businesses and local communities. 

We appreciate that Senators Wyden and Merkley and Congressman DeFazio have introduced 

this bill, which serves our communities so well and also helps to safeguard some of the finest 

rivers and salmon runs in the lower 48 and the clean drinking water of thousands of residents 

of southwest Oregon and northwest California. 

Thank you lor considering our testimony.in support of S. 346 

Bob and Gloria Ziller- Obrien, Oregon 

Testimony in support of S. 346- October 6, 2016 

0