U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

55–084 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–285 

MISCELLANEOUS LANDS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 522 S. 865 

S. 881 S. 940 

S. 1272 S. 1689 

H.R. 1442 

OCTOBER 8, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming ............................................. 3 

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Alaska .................................................... 6 

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah .............................................. 5 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 2 

Burke, Marcilynn A., Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 9 

Butler, Oscar Vasquez, Vice-Chair, Don ̃ a Ana County Board of Commissioners, Las Cruces, NM ...................................................................................... 32 

Claus, Bob, Community Organizer, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 

Accompanied by Buck Lindekugel, Conservation Director, Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Council, Juneau, AK ..................................................................... 57 

Jensen, Jay, Deputy Under Secretary For Forestry, Natural Resources and 

Environment, Department of Agriculture .......................................................... 19 

Mallott, Byron, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, AK ............................................. 50 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 3 

Schickedanz, Jerry G., Ph.D., Chairman, People for Preserving our Western 

Heritage, Las Cruces, NM ................................................................................... 36 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ............................................... 7 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 73 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 91 

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS LANDS BILLS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. The subcommittee will come to order. The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on several bills pending before the committee. These include: 

S. 522, to resolve the claims of the Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska to land adjacent to the Salmon 

Lake in the State of Alaska and to provide for the conveyance to 

the Bering Straits Native Corporation of certain other public land 

in partial satisfaction of the land entitlement of the corporation 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; 

S. 865 and H.R. 1442, to provide for the sale of the Federal Government’s reversionary interest in approximately 60 acres of land 

in Salt Lake City, Utah, originally conveyed to the Mount Olivet 

Cemetery Association under the Act of January 23, 2000—January 

23, 1909; 

S. 881, to provide for the settlement of certain claims under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; 

S. 940, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Nevada System of Higher Education certain Federal land located in 

Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada, and for other purposes; 

S. 1272, a piece of legislation I introduced, to provide for the designation of the Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Area in my home 

State, and to designate segments of the Wasson and Franklin 

Creeks in the State of Oregon as wild or recreation rivers, and for 

other purposes; amd 

S. 1689, to desingnate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the National Landscape 

Conservation System in the State of New Mexico, and for other 

purposes. 

Before we begin, just a few words about the legislation that I introduced. I am especially pleased that we’re having the hearing on 

the legislation to designate approximately 29,650 acres surrounding the Devil’s Staircase Waterfall in Wasson Creek as wil-
2 

derness. This area personifies what my home State is all about— 

rugged, wild, pristine, and remote. 

The proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Area contains some of 

the finest old growth forests that remain in Oregon’s Coast Range 

and a wealth of threatened and endangered wildlife. Today the 

Devil’s Staircase Waterfall in Wasson Creek is a place that hikers 

are fortunate to find and that has been protected until now by its 

remoteness. The legislation would not only protect this hidden gem, 

but also the forest surrounding it. 

The legislation would also designate approximately 10.1 miles of 

Wasson Creek and 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and related areas 

as wild and scenic rivers. Preserving these majestic forests as wilderness is consistent with the goals of the existing land management plan and will ensure permanent protection. 

So I want to thank all of the Oregon community leaders who 

have come together to pursue protection for this extraordinary 

area, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that this 

treasure is protected for future generations. 

Senator Bingaman, any opening statement at this time? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having 

the hearing. I’m mainly here to support the legislation that Senator 

Udall and I have introduced, which is S. 1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks bill, in southern New Mexico. Obviously, we 

have two witnesses on your hearing list today from New Mexico to 

talk about this: Oscar Butler, who’s Vice Chairman of the Don ̃ a 

Ana Board of Commissioners. Jerry Schickedanz is the Chair of the 

People for Preserving Our Western Heritage. I welcome both of 

them to Washington and to this hearing. 

This is an important piece of legislation for us in southern New 

Mexico and for Don ̃ a Ana County in particular. We’ve tried very 

hard in this legislation to develop a proposal that strikes the right 

balance between development opportunities and protection of the 

environment. While the wilderness proposal will have, any wilderness proposal, will have both supporters and opponents, this one 

generally has broad local support, including: the Don ̃ a Ana County 

Board of Commissioners, that Oscar Butler’s going to speak about 

today, which unanimously endorsed the proposal; the city of Las 

Cruces; and the Town of La Messilla. 

In addition, the Governor of New Mexico has written in support 

of the bill. Many other organizations, including sportsmen’s groups 

and the Hispano Chamber of Commerce, have as well. I would ask 

your consent to include letters and resolutions evidencing this support in the record today. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, that will be ordered. 

The CHAIRMAN. The bill includes protection for the Organ Mountains, which are the majestic backdrop for the city of Las Cruces, 

rise to elevation of 9,000 feet. In addition to their scenic qualities, 

the Organ Mountains provide important wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Across the Rio Grande to the west of Las 

Cruces, the bill would establish the Desert Peaks National Conservation Area to protect the winding canyons of the Robledos and 
3 

the Lewis Mountains and the broad canyon watershed that lies in 

between. 

Finally, the bill would protect the Chihuahua Desert grasslands 

and the volcanic cinder cones in the Potrillo Mountains that are located in the southwestern portion of the county. 

So, again thank you very much for including this bill on the list 

of items being considered today, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman. 

Let’s go to Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

scheduling this hearing. I know that Ranking Member Murkowski 

and Chairman Bingaman, as well as you, Mr. Chairman, have bills 

in today’s hearing that are both significant as well as of personal 

importance. As we consider all the land legislation, we must balance the many needs placed on our lands. Public access and multiple use are critical to achieving that balance. 

Local communities and small businesses all across the West depend on access to and the use of our Federal lands. Jobs and quality of life in these communities are directly affected by actions that 

we take in Congress and the decisions made by managers on the 

ground. It’s important to make the right decisions from the start. 

So I’d like to add my welcome to all my witnesses, to our 2 Senators, and to the others who are here, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Let me just say, you’ve been a pleasure to work with. I know 

we’re going to continue the bipartisan tradition of the subcommittee. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly appreciate the opportunity to have before the subcommittee today two 

bills that I have introduced: the Salmon Lake land conveyance exchange for the Bering Straits Regional Corporation; and then the 

Sealaska land conveyance bill, which involves lands in southeast 

Alaska. 

What these bills at their heart attempt to resolve is issues with 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that this Congress 

passed some 38 years ago. That law intended to promptly settle 

Native land claims in Alaska by setting up corporations to receive 

Federal land, and the goal was to simply let the corporations make 

money off the land to benefit their Native shareholders. 

But in these two cases, both Bering Straits and Sealaska have 

been prevented for almost 4 decades now from taking title to Federal lands that were promised to them back in 1971. To my knowledge, there’s no opposition to the Bering Straits land conveyance 

bill. This resolves to everyone’s apparent satisfaction the land ownership patterns near Salmon Lake, which is outside of Nome. 
4 

So I’d like to focus a couple minutes this afternoon on the Southeast Alaska Land Conveyance Finalization Act, given that the 

lands at stake are in the Nation’s largest forest, the Tongass, 

which is always an area which generates its own level of public interest. But almost everyone agrees that Sealaska should be able to 

gain the last 65,000 to 85,000 acres promised the corporation by 

ANCSA’s terms. 

But in 1971 Sealaska was forced to make its land selections from 

a 327,000–acre selection pool because of the then long-term timber 

sale contracts in the region. The problem with that was that about 

40 percent of this land is areas that were under water. A lot of the 

rest of them were in watershed areas that are vital for local village 

water supplies. So there were some very sound environmental reasons, besides economic ones, why timber development or other economic development should not necessarily take place there. 

So this legislation that we have before us today allows Sealaska 

to pick from additional lands, most all of which are scheduled for 

timber harvest under the existing Federal Tongass forest plan and 

the majority of which have already been logged in the past. The 

plan focuses on allowing selections of second growth timber tracts 

and that will result in far less entry into roadless old growth timber areas, and that’s a policy that I think most environmental 

groups have traditionally favored, and this is a policy that the rest 

of the Alaska timber industry is supporting. 

The bill involves Sealaska giving up the right to harvest timber 

from about 8500 acres of selections, instead proposing to select 

lands for ecotourism or to protect sacred sites, and all those lands 

will have prohibitions against logging. Many will have prohibitions 

against mineral entry. 

As we will likely hear, the question is always about, at least 

within the Tongass, over exactly which tracts will be permitted for 

logging and where they will be located. There’s always going to be 

concern from residents that are closest to potential timber tracts 

about the effects of timber development on hunting and on the 

karst and the cave formations that are under the surface. 

But I’m already supportive of making a change in the bill that 

would remove any provisions that would affect management in Glacier Bay National Park, and I stand ready to support additional 

modifications based on the public comments that we have heard. 

But I do believe that we can negotiate out a settlement after gaining more public input as a result of this hearing and work out a 

collection of lands that Sealaska will be able to select that will satisfy most reasonable local concerns. 

I do hope that we can move ahead quickly with this bill, regardless of what else may be proposed concerning land use allocations 

in the Tongass, because I do believe that it is only just that 

Sealaska and its Native shareholders finally get their lands without having to wait additional years for the conveyances to be finished. 

I do appreciate again the opportunity to address this today 

through this legislation. I have been asked to submit testimony for 

the record and would ask that a letter from the Alaska Department 

of Natural Resources on behalf of Governor Parnell, a statement on 

behalf of the Alaska Professional Hunters Association, a state-
5 

* Document and petition have been retained in subcommittee files. 

ment* on behalf of Jeff Sbonek of Core Protection, including a petition signed by Core Protection Point Baker residents, on S. 881, as 

well as a statement on behalf of the Bering Straits Native Corporation on S. 522, for the hearing record. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, those materials will be added 

to the record at this point. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

Senator Bennett has a great interest in these matters. Senator, 

welcome and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM UTAH 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a very simple matter. To give you a quick history, the 

Mount Olivet Cemetery was established by an Act of Congress in 

1874 when the Federal Government set aside 20 acres that were 

managed by the Secretary of War for the cemetery. It’s right next 

to what was then Fort Douglas and therefore the Secretary of War 

was involved. 

In 1909, just 100 years ago, Congress expanded the cemetery 

through a land exchange and the cemetery association traded land 

that it owned adjacent to the Fort Douglas firing range for military 

land adjacent to the original 20 acres. The only problem with that 

is that the land swap was not of equal value. The cemetery folks 

got more money than the taxpayers did or more value, more land, 

than the taxpayers did. A letter from the Secretary of War to the 

Congress included in the 1909 committee report confirms this. 

So the Congress decided in its wisdom, in order to prevent the 

Mount Olivet Cemetery people from receiving a windfall if they 

ever chose to sell this land, they put in a reversionary clause that 

would take effect if the land ever ceased to be used for cemetery 

purposes; it would revert to the Federal Government, and BLM 

now owns the reversionary clause. 

OK. One hundred years later, life has changed dramatically. Fort 

Douglas has disappeared. There are a variety of more intelligent 

uses for this land and the Mount Olivet Cemetery people want to 

sell it for those purposes. But they can’t because under the law it 

reverts to the Federal Government if they ever decide they’re no 

longer going to bury people there. 

So the purpose of the bill is simply to allow Mount Olivet Cemetery people to buy the reversionary clause from the Federal Government. This is one of the easiest ones we have to deal with in 

this world of trillions. The taxpayers will be made whole after 100 

years of waiting. The cemetery will be able to continue in its normal fashion and the BLM will be relieved of the risk of nominating 

this little tiny inholding right smack in the middle of metropolitan 

Salt Lake City. 

I am delighted by the statement of Marcilynn Burke, the Deputy 

Director of the BLM, whose testimony is before the committee. Bottom line, she says: This bill has passed the House of Representatives 442 to nothing—that can’t be right. There are only 435, so I 
6 

guess it passed 422 to nothing. She says: A number of amendments 

were made to the House bill to address concerns raised by the Department in testimony before the House committee. She says: We 

support the House legislation as amended and encourage the committee to amend the S. accordingly. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Bennett, you’ve done good work as 

usual. Getting more than 400 votes in the House is not something 

that happens every day. So we thank you and look forward to 

working with you. You have secured the BLM’s support. It’s particularly helpful. Thank you. 

Senator Risch, our Northwest neighbor. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. I’ll pass. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Let’s go then to our colleagues who are here 

to testify. We have Senator Udall and Senator Begich who are 

going to offer some remarks. My understanding is that you would 

like to sit with the subcommittee afterwards and you’re welcome 

right after your remarks to come on up and join us this afternoon. 

Why don’t we start with you, Senator Begich. We’ll go just alphabetical. Senator Udall knows what it’s like to be a ‘‘U’’ or a ‘‘W.’’ 

Senator Begich, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden and 

Ranking Member Murkowski. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today on two important bills to Alaska. It’s no 

coincidence that both bills, S. 522, the Salmon Lake Land Exchange, and S. 881, the Sealaska Lands bill, deal with Alaska’s relationship to the land. We believe that Alaskans’ daily connection 

to our lands is more intense than most of America. 

ANCSA, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, was 

a sweeping act that returned 44 million acres out of 360 million 

acres total of Alaska to indigenous peoples of the State, in exchange for surrendering fee simple title. ANCSA may be history for 

many in Congress, but the Act continues to define daily life in my 

State 40 years after its passage. 

I’m a co-sponsor of both of these measures and support your 

speedy passage of both. I realize the path is much more straightforward on one than the other. S. 522, I’m aware of no opposition 

to this three-way land exchange that resolves competing State and 

Native claims for pieces of Federal land. My office has received not 

one single communication opposition this legislation. In conversation between two Alaskans you’re likely to get three more opinions 

on the same subject, so when we see a consensus the deal is obviously a good one. 

Turning to S. 881, the Sealaska Lands bill, again I’m proud to 

be a co-sponsor and hope you will give it your fullest attention, but 

here the landscape is more complex. Sealaska Corporation, the 

ANCSA regional corporation for the Native people of Southeast 

Alaska, has not completed its land claims. In addition to returning 

some land to the Native people of Alaska, ANCSA set up Nativeowned for-profit corporations to hold this land and look after the 

economic wellbeing of their shareholders. This system is the right 

one for our State, but we have to recognize the new construct Con-
7 

gress created instead of a reservation system invites a natural tension. 

In order to do the morally right thing and the thing that Congress charged them to do, look after their people, corporations have 

to engage in commerce with the resources they were given. This is 

primarily the lands that their ancestors relied on for generations. 

With 40 years of hindsight, we can see that a number of restrictions placed on Sealaska’s ability to select lands both increased 

likelihood of community conflict and restrict their ability to engage 

in more sustainable economic development for the region. 

The bill before you is an attempt by Sealaska Corporation to 

achieve a balance in the remaining land selections. It is an attempt 

to better balance their responsibilities as stewards of their lands 

and their economic responsibility to shareholders and the communities of Southeast Alaska where their shareholders live. 

I hope today that you will hear testimony that explains this in 

great detail today and later in less formal briefings. I appreciate 

your patience and your help as we move Alaskans closer together 

in solving this issue. 

As an aside, I know that you’ll hear from a father of one of my 

interns today with some concerns on this bill, Bob Claus, a retired 

State trooper who will speak on behalf of SEACC, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. That demonstrates pretty well the level 

of community discussion and interest in this legislation. 

For Alaskans, it’s critical that we come to agreement on this 

issue of the Sealaska lands bill so we can move forward on the 

larger issues of the future of Tongass. If we don’t they will be dictated to us and likely in unpredictable outcomes of the court system. 

I want to thank you for the interest in this legislation and I hope 

that you will have a positive consideration and conclusion to moving these bills forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Begich. I know you feel 

very strongly about this. You’ve talked with me about it on the 

floor shortly after you came to the Senate. We’ll work very closely 

with you on it. I know it’s important to your region and to you, and 

we will follow up with you promptly. 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Senator Murkowski and other members of the 

subcommittee, for allowing me to speak today about S. 6989, the 

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, and to participate 

in this important hearing. I’d also like to thank Chairman Bingaman for the extensive work he and his staff have done over the 

past several years to prepare this bill for introduction. I think they 

have been painstaking in terms of trying to bring people together 

and find common ground. 

This is a very important bill for New Mexico. The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act celebrates and preserves a portion of the unique and delicate landscape of southern New Mexico. 

Wilderness and conservation areas in Don ̃ a Ana and Luna Coun-
8 

ties will protect a vast number of archaeological sites and riparian 

areas. These protected areas will act to maintain habitat and migration corridors for wildlife and preserve some of the only 

chihuahuan desert in the United States. 

The wilderness and national conservation areas proposed in S. 

1689 surround the growing city of Las Cruces, New Mexico’s second 

largest city. The citizens of Las Cruces and the surrounding communities want to ensure that the area will continue to develop in 

a way that preserves the surrounding pristine landscapes, including the iconic Organ Mountains. 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act is consistent 

with the city and county’s long-term growth plan and will act to 

maintain growth patterns in a way that will allow all citizens to 

enjoy the impressive views and landscapes surrounding Las 

Cruces. Years of negotiation and cooperation have resulted in the 

legislation being introduced today. Nearby military facilities 

worked with the Bureau of Land Management on land exchanges 

that are reflected in the bill and will benefit the public and military entities. Recommendations from the Border Patrol on how to 

ensure that the new wilderness fits into homeland security efforts 

were incorporated into the bill. Conservation groups worked with 

hunting and outdoor recreation organizations to find common 

ground. 

As a result, this bill enjoys the support of numerous local associations and governing bodies. In the past few weeks resolutions 

supporting the bill were passed unanimously by the Don ̃ a Ana 

County, the Town of Messilla, the city of Las Cruces, and, as Senator Bingaman mentioned, Governor Richardson has come out very 

recently in full support of the bill. Several local news agencies have 

published editorial endorsements of the Organ Mountains- Desert 

Peaks Wilderness Act and numerous organizations have shown 

support, including the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las 

Cruces, the High Tech Consortium of Southern New Mexico, the 

Don ̃ a Ana County Associated Sportsmen, and the New Mexico 

Wildlife Federation, among others. 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act will protect 

thousands of acres of desert, riparian, and rugged mountainous 

lands. This area of rare and beautiful landscapes will be valued for 

generations. From the jagged basalt lava flows of the cinder cone 

wilderness to the roaming hawks and scrambling havalinas of the 

Robledo Mountains, this unique piece of southern New Mexico has 

abundant natural value and deserves protection. 

With this legislation we build upon the work of conservation 

greats like Aldo Leopold, a man who saw the beauty of New Mexico’s untamed wilderness lands and sought to preserve them for future generations. It was Mr. Leopold who said: ‘‘Conservation is a 

state of harmony between man and land.’’ With the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, we will move a step closer to 

achieving that state of harmony. 

I thank the subcommittee for taking the time to consider this bill 

and I look forward to hearing from the next two panels of witnesses and, Chairman Wyden, joining you and the other committee 

members up there. 
9 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Udall, thank you for your statement 

and for your good work. I want to know what a havalina is? 

Senator UDALL. A havalina is a wild pig. They’re pretty fierce 

and they have tusks on them right out in front, and you don’t want 

to run into a wild havalina—— 

Senator WYDEN. I’d rather not. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Coming after you or charging you. 

Senator WYDEN. I got the drift. 

Senator UDALL. It’s a wonderful little critter, though. If you’ll 

come to New Mexico, Senator Bingaman and I will take you out 

and introduce you to a havalina. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll give you some barbecued havalina; how’s 

that? 

Senator WYDEN. I’ve gotten havalina 101. 

Come on up and join us, colleagues, and thank you for your fine 

statements. 

At this point we have a number of other materials that need to 

be made part of the record: from the Coalition of National Park 

Service Retirees on S. 881—that’s the matter the Alaskans are interested in—and Senator Reid and Senator Ensign’s statements in 

support of S. 940, the Southern Nevada Higher Education Land 

Act. Without objection, these statements will be included in the 

record as well. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s now move to our Administration witnesses. 

Ms. Burke is here on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management 

and Jay Jensen is here on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. 

We appreciate both of you coming. Ms. Burke, I know this is a fairly new role for you, so welcome to the subcommittee, Mr. Jensen 

as well. We’ll make your prepared statements part of the record in 

their entirety and if you could just summarize your views we can 

speed things along. 

We’ll start with you, Ms. Burke. 

STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, for inviting me and the Department of the Interior to testify on six bills 

of interest to the Department. As requested, I will briefly summarize my prepared testimony this afternoon. 

The BLM is responsible for conveying Federal lands to Native 

corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and 

to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958. The 

Bering Straits Native Corporation and the State of Alaska filed 

overlapping claims to lands in the Salmon Lake area. The Native 

corporation and the State negotiated a resolution of these overlapping claims and brought that tentative resolution to the BLM. All 

three parties signed the Salmon Lake Area Land Ownership Consolidation Agreement on July 18, 2007. 

The BLM supports S. 522 because it would ratify that agreement 

among three parties and allow for a reasonable and practicable 

conveyance of the lands in the Salmon Lake area. 

S. 865 and H.R. 1442 provide for the sale of the Federal Government’s reversionary interest in approximately 60 acres of the 
10 

Mount Olivet Cemetery in Salt Lake City, Utah. We support H.R. 

1442 as passed by the House of Representatives on July 16 of this 

year, which addressed concerns that the BLM raised in earlier testimony. 

The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act established a 

framework under which Alaska Natives formed private corporations to settle their aboriginal claims to lands in Alaska. Sealaska 

is one of those 12 regional corporations formed in ANCSA. S. 881 

would amend the act to allow Native corporations to receive conveyance of lands outside their original withdrawal areas established by the Act. The bill would also create new and unique categories of selections not available to any other regional corporation. 

It would impose time lines for the Secretary of Interior to complete 

the conveyance of lands and remove restrictive covenants on historic and cemetery sites. 

Finally, the bill would require the National Park Service to enter 

into a cooperative management agreement with Sealaska and others with cultural and historical ties to the Glacier Bay National 

Park. 

While the Department appreciates that time has brought the desire for amendments to the original ANCSA settlement, we have a 

number of concerns. We are concerned, for example, that the bill 

would lead other regional corporations to attempt to reopen their 

land claims at this very late stage in the land transfer program. 

If this occurs, it would prolong the process of completing ANCSA 

entitlements rather than accelerate them, as previously directed by 

Congress. 

The Department supports the goal of completing the ANCSA entitlements as soon as possible and is working diligently to maintain 

the accelerated pace of the land transfer programs. We look forward to working with Sealaska, Congress, community partners, 

this committee, and others to find a solution that works. 

S. 940 would convey without consideration three parcels totaling 

approximately 2400 acres to the Nevada System of Higher Education to meet the needs of southern Nevada’s rapidly growing college and university system. As a matter of policy BLM supports 

working with State and local governments to resolve land tenure 

adjustments that advance worthwhile public policy objectives. BLM 

supports S. 940, but would like to work with the sponsors on 

amendments to ensure that the conveyances are consistent with 

the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and also to address the 

management needs associated with conveyance of the parcel located in Nye County, Nevada. 

S. 1272 proposes to designate almost 30,000 acres of Federal 

land near the coast in southwestern Oregon as wilderness, as well 

as portions of both Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek as parts of 

the wild and scenic rivers system. We support these designations 

of BLM lands and recommend minor modifications. 

Finally, the Administration supports S. 1689, which designates 

two new national conservation areas and eight new wilderness 

areas in Don ̃a Ana County, New Mexico. The legislation also expands the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument, releases 

over 16,000 acres from wilderness study area status, and transfers 
11 

2,000 acres of high-resource value lands from the Army to BLM for 

inclusion in the Organ Mountains National Conservation Area. 

Chairman Bingaman has worked for years with user groups, 

local governments, and conservationists to craft this legislation 

that will ensure that generations of New Mexicans and indeed all 

Americans will be able to witness the golden eagle soar over the 

Sierra de las Uvas Mountains, hike the landmark Organ Mountains, or hunt in the volcanic outcroppings of the Potrillo Mountains. 

With that, I would like to conclude and thank you for allowing 

me to testify, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 522

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 522, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act. As a party to the Salmon Lake Area Land Ownership Consolidation Agreement, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has supported efforts 

between the State of Alaska and the Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) to 

resolve overlapping land selections at Salmon Lake. As such, the BLM supports S. 

522 because it will ratify the agreement between the BLM, BSNC, and the State 

of Alaska, and allow for a reasonable and practicable conveyance of lands in the 

Salmon Lake area. 

BACKGROUND

Salmon Lake is located on the Seward Peninsula, approximately 40 miles northeast of Nome. The lake is one of the largest bodies of fresh water on the peninsula, 

and has long been an important source of food and resources for the Native people. 

Because the area contains significant fisheries and other subsistence resources, it 

remains a popular resource and destination for local communities. 

The BLM is responsible for expediting the conveyance of Federal lands to Native 

corporations, including the BSNC, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA), and to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958. 

The BSNC, the Native regional corporation for the Bering Straits area, and the 

State of Alaska each sought to gain title to the Salmon Lake area through selection 

applications filed under respective provisions of ANCSA and the Alaska Statehood 

Act. However, the land addressed by the two applications overlapped. The BSNC 

and the State negotiated a resolution to this issue whereby each entity would receive title to distinct lands. The BLM supported this resolution, and the three parties signed the Salmon Lake Area Land Ownership Consolidation Agreement on 

July 18, 2007. Legislation is now required to ratify the Agreement between the 

United States (acting through the Department of Interior, BLM), the BSNC, and the 

State of Alaska. The Agreement would have expired on January 1, 2009, but its 

term was extended to January 1, 2011 in anticipation of ratifying legislation. 

S. 522

S. 522 represents an opportunity to resolve the overlapping land selections between the BSNC and the State. The bill would ratify the Agreement between the 

BLM, the BSNC, and the State, and allow for finalization of land conveyances in 

the Salmon Lake area. The lands would be transferred in accordance with the terms 

of the signed Agreement. 

As noted, the BLM supported the efforts between the BSNC and State, and signed 

the Agreement to recognize the desires of the entities. The bill would also further 

the intent of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004 (PL 108-452), expediting the transfer of title to federal lands to Native corporations and the State of 

Alaska. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 522. I am happy to answer any questions. 
12 

H.R. 1442 AND S. 865

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 865 and 

H.R. 1442, which provide for the disposal of the Federal government’s interest in 

certain acreage of the Mount Olivet Cemetery in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) supports H.R. 1442 as passed by the House of Representatives. 

BACKGROUND

The Mount Olivet Cemetery, in Salt Lake City, Utah, is owned and managed by 

the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (the Cemetery Association). Located on the 

east side of Salt Lake City, the cemetery consists of approximately 80 acres of land, 

20 acres of which is currently used for burials. 

The Federal government, acting through the Secretary of War, first ‘‘set apart’’ 

20 acres of what was then a military reservation ‘‘to be used as a public cemetery. 

which shall be forever devoted for the purpose of the burial of the dead’’ (Act of May 

16, 1874). Subsequently, in 1909, the Congress provided for the conveyance of an 

adjacent 50 acres to the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association (under the Act of January 23, 1909). The 1909 Act provided that conveyance was contingent upon the Association first conveying to the United States a specified parcel of land, of approximately 150 acres, outside of Salt Lake City. However, the legislation also included 

a reverter clause, requiring that the land conveyed under the 1909 act could be used 

only as a cemetery: 

Said land to be by the said Mount Olivet Cemetery Association permanently used as a cemetery for the burial of the dead: Provided, That when 

it shall cease to be used for such purpose it shall revert to the United 

States. 

The purpose of this reversionary clause is not established in the legislation. 

Whether it was due to an unequal exchange of lands, or for some other reason, is 

not stated, nor has the BLM been able to make any determination through the review of historical records. 

In 1992, Congress took further action regarding Mount Olivet Cemetery with the 

enactment of legislation (Public Law 102-347), which allows the Cemetery Association to lease tracts of the lands conveyed in 1909 for up to 70 years, to the extent 

that such leases would not prevent future use as a cemetery. Public Law 102-347 

speaks only to the possibility of 70-year leases, and the BLM has interpreted the 

1909 reverter clause still to be in effect. Therefore, upon application by the Cemetery Association, in December of 1993, the BLM issued a ‘‘Certificate of Approval’’ 

for the lease of 15 acres to the adjacent East High School for a football field, and 

in January of 1996, an additional certificate was issued for the lease of lands for 

a nursing and retirement facility which was never built. 

In recent years, the Cemetery Association has sought to sell, rather than lease, 

some of the acres conveyed under the 1909 Act to Rowland Hall/St. Mark’s School. 

Because the proposal is for a sale, rather than a lease of up to 70 years, the BLM 

does not have the authority to approve such a conveyance by the Cemetery Association. Specific authority for the BLM to dispose of the reversionary interest, established in 1909, to the Cemetery Association, as well any additional direction respecting valuation of this reversionary interest through appraisal, would facilitate resolution of this adjustment in land tenure. 

S. 865 AND H.R. 1442

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1442 on July 16, 2009; our testimony 

addresses the House-passed bill. 

H.R. 1442 is a reasonable solution to the desire of the Mount Olivet Cemetery Association to be able not only to lease, but also to sell, the cemetery lands. Under 

H.R. 1442, the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Department’s Appraisal 

Service Directorate) will undertake an appraisal of the reverter clause attached to 

the 1909 lands. Upon receiving that appraisal, the Cemetery Association may purchase the reverter, thus owning all right, title, and interest in the land. All costs 

associated with this conveyance, including the appraisal, would be the responsibility 

of the Association. 

A number of amendments were made to H.R. 1442 to address concerns raised by 

the Department in testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee on 

May 14, 2009. We support the House legislation, as amended, and encourage the 

Committee to amend the S. accordingly. 
13 

S. 881

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and provide the Department of Interior’s 

(Department’s) views on S. 881, the Southeast Alaska Land Entitlement Finalization Act. The Department supports the goals of completing Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) entitlements as soon as possible so that Alaska Native corporations, including Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska), may each receive the full economic benefit of land title. However, while the Department appreciates that time 

has brought a desire for amendments to the original ANCSA settlement to light, we 

have a number of concerns. We look forward to working with Sealaska, Congress, 

and other community partners and interests to find a solution that works. My testimony today will focus on outlining those concerns. 

BACKGROUND

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Alaska State Office, is responsible for 

expediting federal land conveyances to individual Alaska Natives, Native corporations, and the State of Alaska under four major statutes: the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906, the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, the Alaska Native Veterans 

Allotment Act of 1998, and ANCSA. When these land conveyances are ultimately 

completed, about 150 million acres, or approximately 42 percent of the land area 

of Alaska, will have been transferred from federal to State and private (Native) ownership. 

ANCSA established a framework under which Alaska Natives could form private 

corporations to select and receive title to 44 million acres of public land in Alaska 

and receive payment of $962.5 million in settlement of aboriginal claims to lands 

in the State. Sealaska is one of twelve regional corporations formed under ANCSA 

to receive land benefits. 

S. 881

S. 881 would amend ANCSA to allow Sealaska to receive conveyance of lands outside of the original withdrawal areas established by the Act in 1971, and would create new and unique categories of selections not available to other regional corporations. Specifically, it would allow Sealaska to select and receive conveyance from 

Forest Service-administered lands in the Tongass National Forest other than those 

that were originally available for selection. The Department defers to the Forest 

Service regarding the effects of the bill on Forest Service-administered lands. However, the Department notes the undesirable precedent of substituting new lands for 

one of the corporations at this stage in the land transfer program. Doing so would 

in effect postpone deadlines and permit new selections. The bill would also impose 

timelines for the Secretary of the Interior to complete the conveyance of land, would 

remove restrictive covenants on historic and cemetery sites, and would require the 

National Park Service (NPS) to enter into a cooperative management agreement 

with Sealaska and others with cultural and historical ties to Glacier Bay National 

Park. 

As noted, the Department supports finalizing entitlements under ANCSA and the 

BLM is maintaining the accelerated pace of the program while ensuring that the 

intent of ANCSA is implemented. By the end of FY 09, BLM has surveyed and patented 58 percent of lands to the native Corporations, and has granted interim conveyance on an additional 34 percent. The Department is concerned that S. 881 

would provide an impetus for other regional corporations to attempt to reopen land 

claims at this critical final stage in the land transfer program. If this occurs, it 

would obstruct the progress of the program, and prolong the process of completing 

ANCSA entitlements. Provisions of S. 881, such as future selections, would also create uncertainty regarding the boundaries of federally-managed public lands in Alaska. 

In addition, the Department is very concerned with the deadlines for conveyance 

set in S. 881. These deadlines would put the completion of Sealaska conveyances 

ahead of all other regional corporations, individual Alaskan Natives, and the State. 

This ‘‘front of the line’’ approach would set a negative precedent of preferential 

treatment and interrupt progress on conveyances to other entities. The BLM has 

made significant progress since the enactment of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004, which gave the BLM the tools it needed to expedite these land 

transfers. An amendment such as S. 881, which would change fundamental provisions of this statute, would serve to reverse much of the progress we have made 

thus far. 

S. 881 would also remove existing covenants on historic and cemetery sites conveyed under ANCSA Section 14(h)(1), which restrict activity that is incompatible 
14 

with these sites’ cultural or historic values. The Department believes this would provide an opportunity for other regional corporations to request removal of similar restrictions from other Native corporation sites, further negatively impacting the land 

transfer program. 

The cooperative management agreement provisions in sections 3(a)(2) and 3(c)(2) 

of the legislation would require the National Park Service (NPS) to offer to enter 

into cooperative management agreements with Sealaska and other corporations for 

activities in Glacier Bay National Park. This could confuse the execution of existing 

memoranda of understanding and concession contracts which are currently working 

well in the park. The NPS maintains a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Hoonah Indian Association, a federally recognized tribe, as well as a cooperative 

agreement with the non-profit Huna Heritage Foundation to provide cultural learning activities in the park. Both entities are also partners in monitoring the condition 

of Tlingit historic sites in the park. 

In addition, requiring cooperative management agreements for such activities 

such as guided tours and establishment of visitor sites with profit-making corporations would be inconsistent with the open, competitive process currently provided 

under concession management law and regulation. Existing practices are already resulting in engaging Native Alaskans in the visitor experience: a subsidiary of Huna 

Totem Corporation has the Glacier Bay lodge and tour contracts with Aramark Leisure Services through 2013, and Goldbelt Inc., a Juneau-based Native corporation, 

had the contracts between 1996 and 2004. 

The Department also has concerns about Section 5(e)(2), which would broaden the 

definition of tribal lands under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to 

include all ANCSA lands in Alaska (approximately 44 million acres). Although this 

provision addresses the definition of tribal lands only with respect to the NHPA, 

granting tribal status to lands owned by for-profit corporations for any purpose 

could have wider implications than what may be intended. The Department would 

like to have more time to assess this potential impact of this provision before the 

committee takes any action on it. 

CONCLUSION

As noted above, the Department supports the goal of completing ANCSA entitlements as soon as possible and is working diligently to maintain the accelerated pace 

of the land transfer program. The Department is committed to working with the 

parties to reach a solution. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this matter. 

I will be glad to answer any questions. 

S. 940

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on S. 940, the Southern Nevada Higher Education Lands Act of 2009. S. 

940 would convey, without consideration, three parcels totaling 2,410 acres to the 

Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) to meet the needs of southern Nevada’s rapidly growing college and university system. The BLM supports the goals 

of S. 940, but would like to work with Senator Reid, the bill’s sponsor, on amendments to ensure the conveyances are consistent with the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP), and to address certain parcel-specific management needs associated with the conveyances. 

BACKGROUND

The Nevada System of Higher Education serves more than 71,000 students in 

southern Nevada, and its enrollment is expected to grow by more than 20 percent 

over the next 10 years. Three institutions of higher education serve southern Nevada residents: the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; the College of Southern Nevada, located in Clark County; and Great Basin College, located in Pahrump in 

rural Nye County. All three of these institutions are operating near capacity. The 

NSHE is seeking to increase their capacities to provide for future growth and improve access to higher education opportunities in southern Nevada. 

The communities of Las Vegas and Pahrump are nearly surrounded by BLM-administered lands. Under the direction of the 1998 Southern Nevada Public Land 

Management Act (SNPLMA), as amended, and through the BLM’s land use planning process, the BLM has identified public lands within and near these communities for potential disposal from public ownership to help meet urban growth needs. 

The three public land parcels proposed for conveyance by S. 940 have been identified for disposal through these processes. 

The R&PP Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey public 

lands at nominal cost for recreational and public purposes, including educational fa-
15 

cilities, municipal buildings, golf courses, campgrounds, and other facilities benefiting the public. Commercial uses may be allowable under the R&PP Act in limited 

circumstances, if revenues from concessions go toward site management and use. 

S. 940

S. 940 proposes to convey to the NSHE, without consideration, all right, title, and 

interest of the United States to three parcels detailed on the maps prepared at the 

request of Senator Reid, dated July 11, 2008. The bill requires the NSHE to pay 

any administrative costs associated with the conveyances. 

The bill requires the conveyed lands to be used for educational and recreational 

purposes related to the NSHE, and it allows residential and commercial development that would generally be associated with an institution of higher education. 

The bill also contains a reversionary clause that provides for the land to revert to 

the United States, at the discretion of the Secretary, if it ceases to be used for the 

higher education system. 

As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with State and local governments to resolve land tenure adjustments that advance worthwhile public policy objectives. In general, the BLM supports conveyances if the lands are to be used for 

purposes consistent with the R&PP Act and includes a reversionary clause to enforce that requirement. It is not clear, however, if the residential or commercial uses 

envisioned by the bill would be consistent with the R&PP Act. The BLM recommends that the legislation be clearly amended to ensure consistency with the 

R&PP Act. 

S. 940 would convey two parcels that are located in urban settings near Las Vegas 

in Clark County. One parcel contains approximately 40 acres and would be utilized 

to meet the expansion needs of the College of Southern Nevada. This parcel is essentially a vacant, weedy field surrounded by major roads near a freeway entrance. 

It contains no significant natural resource values. 

The second parcel contains approximately 2,085 acres and would be used for the 

expansion of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. This parcel is located in a rapidly 

urbanizing area on the northern edge of Las Vegas. Its eastern boundary abuts 

Nellis Air Force Base and its northern boundary abuts the Nevada Desert Wildlife 

Refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Because of their proximity to Nellis Air Force Base, these lands may have been 

impacted by past military training activities and may contain hazardous materials. 

For this reason, S. 940 requires that the Secretary receive a certificate of acceptable 

remediation of environmental conditions on the parcel before initiating the conveyance, and it releases the United States from any liability arising from prior land 

uses. The bill also requires, under Sec. 4(2), that the NSHE enter into a binding 

agreement with Nellis Air Force Base to address any site development issues and 

to preserve the Base’s long-term capability. Because this parcel also borders the Nevada Desert Wildlife Refuge, we would like to work with the sponsor to ensure that 

site development along the shared boundary would be sensitive to and compatible 

with refuge values. 

S. 940 would also convey a parcel of approximately 285 acres, located just outside 

of Pahrump in Nye County, Nevada, which would be utilized for the expansion of 

Great Basin College. This parcel borders an existing BLM fire station and helipad, 

and certain types of adjacent development could affect the safe operation of this facility. This parcel also contains Carpenter Canyon Road, which is heavily utilized 

for recreation activities and provides access to the west side of the Spring Mountain 

National Recreation Area, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The BLM 

would like to work with the sponsor to ensure that the bill provides for the continuation of these existing land uses and access to National Forest System land. We also 

note that this parcel contains desert tortoise habitat. If conveyed, the NSHE would 

need to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan, obtain an incidental take permit, and 

meet other requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before site development could proceed. 

Finally, under S. 940, the NSHE will assist the BLM in sharing information with 

students and Nevada citizens about public land resources and the BLM’s role in 

managing public lands. The BLM looks forward to working with the NSHE on this 

constructive, collaborative effort. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The BLM looks forward to working with 

the bill’s sponsor and the Committee to address the needs of the Nevada System 

of Higher Education. 
16 

S. 1272

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 1272, the 

Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

supports S. 1272 as it applies to lands we manage, and we would like to work with 

the sponsor and the Committee on minor refinements to the bills. 

BACKGROUND

The proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness, near the coast of southwestern Oregon, 

is not for the faint of heart. Mostly wild land and difficult to access, the Devil’s 

Staircase reminds us of what much of this land looked like hundreds of years ago. 

A multi-storied forest of Douglas fir and western hemlock towers over underbrush 

of giant ferns, providing critical habitat for the threatened Northern Spotted Owl 

and Marbled Murrelet. The remote and rugged nature of this area provides a truly 

wild experience for any hiker. 

S. 1272

S. 1272 proposes to designate nearly 30,000 acres as wilderness, as well as portions of both Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The majority of these designations are on lands managed by the 

U.S. Forest Service. The Department of the Interior defers to the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture on those designations. 

Approximately 6,100 acres of the proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness and 4.2 

miles of the Wasson Creek proposed designation are within lands managed by the 

BLM. The Department of the Interior supports these designations and would like 

to work with the sponsor and the Committee on minor boundary modifications to 

improve manageability. 

We note that while the vast majority of the acres proposed for designation are 

Oregon &California (O&C) lands, identified under the 1937 O&C Lands Act for timber production, however, the BLM currently restricts timber production on these 

lands. These lands are administratively withdrawn from timber production by the 

BLM, either through designation as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern or 

through other classifications. Additionally, the BLM estimates that nearly 90 percent of the area proposed for designation is comprised of forest stands that are over 

100 years old, and provides critical habitat for the threatened Marbled Murrelet and 

Northern Spotted Owl. 

The 4.2 miles of Wasson Creek would be designated as a wild river to be managed 

by the BLM under S. 1272. The majority of the acres protected through this designation would be within the proposed Devil’s Staircase wilderness designation, 

though 752 acres would be outside the proposed wilderness on adjacent BLM lands. 

The designations identified on BLM-managed lands under S. 1272 would result 

in only minor modification of current management of the area and would preserve 

these wild lands for future generations. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of these important Oregon designations. The Department of the Interior looks forward to working with the sponsors and the Committee on minor modifications to the legislation and to welcoming 

these units into the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System. 

S. 1689

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 1689, the 

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. The Administration supports S. 

1689, which designates two new National Conservation Areas (NCAs) and eight new 

wilderness areas in Do ̃a Ana County, New Mexico. We welcome this opportunity to 

enhance protection for some of America’s treasured landscapes. 

BACKGROUND

Don ̃ a 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 corner 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 bi-
17 

ological 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 disbursed 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 corner of Don ̃ a Ana County. These lands 

are famous for their abundant wildlife, and contain significant fossil resources. A 

well-preserved giant ground sloth skeleton, now 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. 

Senator Bingaman and a wide range of local governments, communities, user 

groups, conservationists, and Federal agencies have worked collaboratively to develop this consensus proposal to protect all of these special areas. 

S. 1689

S. 1689 proposes to designate two new NCAs and eight wilderness areas in Don ̃ a 

Ana County, New Mexico, which would be included in BLM’s National Landscape 

Conservation System. The legislation also releases over 16,000 acres from wilderness study area (WSA) status, transfers land from the Department of the Defense 

(DOD) to the BLM for inclusion within an NCA, and withdraws certain additional 

lands from disposal, mining, and mineral leasing. 

Section 3 of S. 1689 designates eight wilderness areas totaling approximately 

259,000 acres. The BLM supports the proposed wilderness designations in S. 1689. 

We would like the opportunity to work with the Chairman on minor boundary modifications for manageability, as well as modifications to some minor technical provisions. 

These new wilderness designations are in three distinct areas of the county. First, 

within the proposed Organ Mountains NCA, 19,400 acres would be designated as 

the Organ Mountains Wilderness. 

The second area is within the Desert Peaks National Conservation Area proposed 

in this legislation. The bill proposes three designations in this area: Broad Canyon 

Wilderness (13,900 acres); Robledo Mountains Wilderness (17,000 acres); and Sierra 

de las Uvas Wilderness (11,100 acres). These three areas are within the 33,600-acre 

Desert Peaks NCA. Within the Robledo Mountains Wilderness, a small corridor of 

approximately 100 acres has been designated as ‘‘potential wilderness’’ by section 

3(g) of S. 1689. 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 

Chairman 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, the Potrillo Mountains complex in the southwest corner of Don ̃ a Ana 

County includes: Aden Lava Flow Wilderness (27,650 acres); Cinder Cone Wilderness (16,950 acres); Potrillo Mountains Wilderness (143,450 acres); and Whitethorn 

Wilderness (9,600 acres). Both the Potrillo Mountains Wilderness and Whitethorn 

Wilderness extend into adjacent Luna County. The legislation releases a substantial 

swath of land along the border with Mexico that is currently designated as WSA 

from WSA restrictions. The release contemplated by the legislation would allow 

greater flexibility for law enforcement along the border. We support this WSA release. 
18 

Two National Conservation Areas are established by section 4 of the legislation— 

the Organ Mountains NCA and the Desert Peaks NCA. As noted above, both of 

these NCAs include proposed designated wilderness within their boundaries. Each 

of the NCAs designated by Congress and managed by the BLM is unique. However, 

all NCA designations have certain critical elements in common, including withdrawal from the public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws; off-highway vehicle 

use limitations; and language that charges the Secretary of the Interior with allowing only those uses that further the purposes for which the NCA is established. Furthermore, NCA designations should not diminish the protections that currently 

apply to the lands. Section 4 of the bill honors these principles, and the BLM supports the designation of both of these NCAs. 

Much of the lands proposed for both wilderness and NCA designations have been 

historically grazed by domestic livestock, and grazing continues today. Many of 

BLM’s existing wilderness areas and NCAs throughout the West are host to livestock grazing, which is compatible with these designations. This use will continue 

within the NCAs and wilderness areas designated by S. 1689. 

Section 4(f) of the bill transfers administrative jurisdiction of 2,050 acres from 

DOD to the BLM. These lands, currently part of the Army’s Fort Bliss, would be 

incorporated into the Organ Mountains NCA. The lands to be transferred include 

the dramatic and scenic Fillmore Canyon as well as the western slopes of Organ 

Peak and Ice Canyon. We would welcome these lands into BLM’s National System 

of Public Lands, and we would like to work with the Committee and DOD to ensure 

that the transfer is conducted consistent with other DOD land transfers to BLM. 

Section 6 of S. 1689 concerns the recently established Prehistoric Trackways National Monument, just southeast of the proposed Desert Peaks NCA. The Monument 

was established in Title II, Subtitle B of the Omnibus Public Land Act (Public Law 

111-11) signed by the President on March 30 of this year. Section 6 of S. 1689 addresses recent additional discoveries of 280 million-year old reptile, insect, and plant 

fossils on adjacent BLM-managed lands by adding 170 acres to the Monument. The 

BLM supports this expansion of the Monument. 

Section 5(d) of the legislation provides for the withdrawal of two parcels of BLMmanaged lands from the land, mining, and mineral leasing laws. The parcel designated as ‘‘Parcel A’’ is approximately 1,300 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 Chairman Bingaman’s goal is to ensure that these lands 

are preserved for 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, 6,300 acre parcel, designated as ‘‘Parcel B,’’ lies on the southern end of the proposed Organ Mountains 

NCA. It is our understanding that Chairman Bingaman considered adding this parcel to the NCA because of important resource values. However, a multitude of current uses make inclusion of this parcel in the NCA inconsistent with the purposes 

established for the NCA. 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. 

Finally, the BLM, along with many partners, has undertaken restoration efforts 

on more than one million acres of degraded landscapes in New Mexico, with the goal 

of returning grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas to their original healthy conditions. We would like to work with the Chairman to develop language to support 

the BLM in implementing appropriate land restoration activities that will benefit 

watershed and wildlife health within these designated areas. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1689. Both the BLM and 

the Department welcome opportunities to engage in important discussions such as 

this that advance the protection of treasured American landscapes. Passage of this 

legislation will ensure that generations of New Mexicans and all Americans will be 

able to witness a golden eagle soar over the Sierra de las Uvas, hike the landmark 

Organ Mountains, or hunt in the volcanic outcroppings of the Potrillo Mountains. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Ms. Burke. I know we’ll have some 

in just a few minutes. 

Mr. Jensen. 
19 

STATEMENT OF JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR FORESTRY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. JENSEN. Thank you. It’s good to be back in front of the committee again. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the subcommittee: Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to 

you today about bills that address wilderness designations in the 

coastal Douglas fir forest of Oregon and Native land claims in Alaska. My remarks will address the designation of the Devil’s Staircase and then the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Act. 

Devil’s Staircase. The proposed designations would enhance the 

national wilderness preservation system and our national wild and 

scenic rivers system while preserving a unique landscape feature, 

the Devil’s Staircase, a stairstep waterfall on Wasson Creek. The 

Department and the United States Forest Service support these 

designations of the national forest system lands. All these national 

forest system lands would be designated as wilderness and classified as late successional reserves, meaning they provide for the 

preservation of old growth habitat. 

The forest has older stands of doug fir and western hemlock, 

with red alder in riparian areas. All three of these tree species are 

underrepresented in the national wilderness preservation system 

relative to their abundance in the national forest lands in Washington and Oregon. The proposed Devil’s Staircase wilderness and 

wild and scenic river designation for Wasson and Franklin Creeks 

preserve an untrammeled representation of the Oregon Coast 

Range and we support those designations—as you said, Mr. Chairman, the perfect representation of the rugged, pristine, and wild 

characterization of Oregon. 

Moving on, I’d like to open my testimony about the Southeast 

Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act by stating the 

Department and the agency approach regarding decisions about the 

Tongass National Forest, mindful of the Native Alaskan way of life, 

cognizant of the rich and deep tribal history, traditions, and rights 

on the Tongass landscape. 

We support the timely and equitable distribution of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. We are also very focused on the Department and agency’s role in providing sustainable support for diversity of economic opportunities for Alaskan communities and Native Alaskans. I recently got to visit Southeast Alaska with my 

rural development counterpart, Deputy Under Secretary Victor 

Vasquez in Rural Development. While there, we co-hosted two economic diversity workshops in Sitka and Ketchikan to hear directly 

from members of the community about how USDA can support the 

people of Southeast Alaska. Similar workshops are now being held 

in every southeastern community, 32 in all. 

We want to convey our commitment to working with the citizens 

of the region to find solutions that they want to pursue. The Department views this legislation within the broader context of the 

challenges facing the Tongass National Forest and Southeast Alaska. We support many of the goals of S. 881 and are committed to 

working collaboratively with Congress, Sealaska, and other community partners to find a solution that works. 
20 

As we step into this process, we are mindful of how complicated 

Tongass National Forest issues can be, how one issue, if not addressed in the context of the broader landscape, can have significant implications and repercussions. I will turn to my written testimony for further details speaking to our concerns with the bill, but 

I will end my comments here by sharing a little further, that recently I got a chance to attend the Tongass Future roundtable 

meeting that was held last week up in Anchorage. This dedicated 

collaborative group is dedicated to forging a comprehensive vision 

for the Tongass National Forest. While we know that that process 

has its challenges, the USDA supports this roundtable as the kind 

of forum needed to develop a shared vision for these lands. 

In our brief time so far in this administration, we believe it 

would be difficult to extract the lands identified in S. 881 from the 

broader attempt to achieve a comprehensive and equitable solution 

for all those who have rights, interests, and investments in their 

use and management. 

With that, I will conclude my remarks and look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FORESTRY, 

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

S. 1272 AND S. 881

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Ranking Member and distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about bills that 

address Wilderness designations in the coastal Douglas-fir forests of Oregon and 

Native land claims in Alaska. I will open my testimony by addressing the designation of Devil’s Staircase and followed by the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. 

S. 1272 would designate an area known as the Devil’s Staircase as Wilderness 

under the National Wilderness Preservation System. In addition, S. 1272 would designate segments of Wasson and Franklin Creeks in the State of Oregon as wild rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Department supports the designation 

of the Devil’s Staircase Wilderness as well as the Wild and Scenic River designations on National Forest System lands. We would like to offer minor modifications 

to S. 1272 that would enhance wilderness values and improve our ability to manage 

resources in the area. 

Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Designation 

The Devil’s Staircase area lies in the central Oregon Coast Range, north of the 

Umpqua River and south of the Smith River. Elevations in the area range from near 

sea level to about 1,600 feet. The area is characterized by steep, highly dissected 

terrain. It is quite remote and difficult to access. A stair step waterfall on Wasson 

Creek is the source of the name Devil’s Staircase. 

The proposed Wilderness encompasses approximately 29,600 acres of National 

Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. NFS lands are 

approximately 23,500 acres, and BLM lands are approximately 6,100 acres. Approximately 7,800 acres of the NFS lands are within the Wasson Creek Undeveloped 

Area under the Forest Plan for the Siuslaw National Forest and were evaluated for 

wilderness characteristics in the 1990 Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. While the Forest Service remains committed to the forest planning process, the agency did not have the opportunity to recommend wilderness during the development of the 1990 Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Congress passed Public Law 98-328, the Oregon Wilderness Act of 

1984. That Act provided specific language regarding the wilderness recommendation 

process that exempted the Forest Service from having to further review a wilderness 

option for unroaded lands in the forest planning process since Congress had just 

acted on the matter. The Act does specify that during a forest plan revision the 

agency be required to revisit the wilderness options. For this reason, the Siuslaw 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan did not include a wilderness 
21 

recommendation. The 1990 Record of Decision determined that the Wasson Creek 

inventoried Roadless Area would be managed for undeveloped recreation opportunities. 

All NFS lands that would be designated as Wilderness are classified as Late Successional Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan, which amended the Siuslaw 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan in 1994. This land allocation 

provides for the preservation of old growth (late successional) habitat. There are no 

planned resource management or developed recreation projects within the NFS portion of the lands to be designated as Wilderness. 

Most of the area is forested with older stands of Douglas-fir and western hemlock, 

and red alder in riparian areas. All three tree species are under-represented in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, relative to their abundance on NFS lands 

in Washington and Oregon. These older stands provide critical habitat and support 

nesting pairs of the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, which are listed 

as Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. 

The proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness provides an outstanding representation 

of the Oregon Coast Range and would enhance the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Oregon Coast Range has been largely modified with development, 

roads, and logging. Three small wilderness areas currently exist along the Oregon 

portion of the Pacific Coast Range, and the proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness 

would more than double the acres of old-growth coastal rainforest in a preservation 

status. Wilderness designation would also preserve the Devil’s Staircase, which is 

a unique landscape feature. 

Road and Road Decommissioning 

There are approximately 24 miles of National Forest System roads within the proposal boundary, 10.5 miles of which are not needed for administrative use and 

would be decommissioned or obliterated. 

The remaining 13.5 miles of road comprise Forest Service Road 4100, which bisects the proposed wilderness. The Department recommends the Committee consider including in the Wilderness designation Forest Service Road 4100 to be managed as a non-motorized, foot and/or horse trail compatible with wilderness uses. 

Removing the road would result in the Department being able to manage the wilderness as a whole rather than two halves. The road is currently brushy and difficult to travel, making restoration of a wilderness setting a viable option. The Forest Service would use a minimum-tool analysis to determine the appropriate tools 

necessary to complete activities associated with the road. 

Wild and Scenic River Designations 

S. 1272 would also designate approximately 10.4 miles of streams on National 

Forest System lands as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: 5.9 

miles of Wasson Creek and 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek, both on the Siuslaw National Forest. Both Wasson and Franklin Creeks have been identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as critical habitat for coho salmon (Oregon 

Coast ESU [Evolutionarily Significant Unit] of coho salmon), a Threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

The Department defers to the Department of the Interior concerning the proposal 

to designate the 4.2-mile segment of Wasson Creek flowing on lands administered 

by BLM. 

The Forest Service conducted an evaluation of the Wasson and Franklin Creeks 

to determine their eligibility for wild and scenic rivers designation as part of the 

forest planning process for the Siuslaw National Forest. However, the agency has 

not conducted a wild and scenic river suitability study, which provides the basis for 

determining whether to recommend a river as an addition to the National System. 

Wasson Creek was found eligible as it is both free-flowing and possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational and ecological values. The Department supports designation of the 5.9 miles of the Wasson Creek on NFS lands based on the 

segment’s eligibility. 

At the time of the evaluation in 1990, Franklin Creek, although free flowing, was 

found not to possess river-related values significant at a regional or national scale 

and was therefore determined ineligible for designation. Subsequent to the 1990 eligibility study, the Forest Service has found that Franklin Creek provides critical 

habitat for coho salmon, currently listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and also serves as a reference stream for research because of its relatively 

pristine character, which is extremely rare in the Oregon Coast Range. The Department does not oppose its designation. Designation of the proposed segments of both 

Wasson and Franklin Creeks is consistent with the proposed designation of the area 

as wilderness. The actual Devil’s Staircase landmark is located on Wasson Creek. 
22 

We would like to work with the bill sponsors and the committee on several 

amendments and map revisions that we believe would enhance wilderness values 

and improve the bill. 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION ACT

I will now discuss the Department of Agriculture’s views on and approach to 

S.881, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. We recognize and support the timely and equitable distribution of land to Alaska Native Corporations, including Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska), under the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). USDA also understands and supports Sealaska’s 

interest in acquiring lands that have economic and cultural value. We defer to the 

Department of the Interior for an analysis of this bill as it relates to ANCSA implementation as it affects the Department of the Interior. 

The Department views this legislation in the broader context of the challenges 

facing the Tongass National Forest (Tongass) and Southeast Alaska, which include 

issues facing Native Alaskans and Sealaska Corporation. Recently, I joined my rural 

development counterpart, USDA Deputy Under Secretary Victor Vasquez, on a visit 

to the region. While there, we co-hosted two economic diversity workshops to better 

understand how USDA can support a diversified economy and range of opportunities for Southeast Alaskans. USDA regional staff, led by the Forest Service, committed at the close of those workshops to hold similar workshops in every community in Southeast Alaska; those sessions are happening now. We are focused on developing USDA’s role in providing long-term, sustainable support for a diversity of 

economic opportunities for Alaskan communities and Native Alaskans. 

While the USDA supports a number of the goals of this legislation and is committed to working collaboratively with Sealaska, Congress, and other community 

partners and interests to find a solution that works, we have a number of concerns 

that we want to work through with the parties. My testimony today will focus on 

outlining those concerns. 

Background 

By enacting ANCSA, Congress balanced the need for a fair and just settlement 

of Alaska Native aboriginal land claims with the needs for use of the public lands 

in Alaska. Congress’ approach to resolving Alaska Native land claims in ANCSA is 

unique in its reliance on the formulation of native corporations. To manage the federal land entitlement conveyed to Alaska Natives, ANCSA created two tiers of native corporations: village corporations, of which there are over 200, and the larger 

regional corporations, of which there are thirteen, with twelve holding title to land. 

Federal lands were withdrawn to allow village corporations to select lands traditionally used by Alaska Native villagers. The twelve regional corporations were composed, as far as practicable, of Native shareholders having a common heritage who 

shared common interests within certain geographic regions. As the regional corporation representing Southeast Alaska Natives, Sealaska is required to fulfill its land 

entitlement from within the ten Southeast Alaska village withdrawal areas that 

represent the lands traditionally used by Southeast villagers and Sealaska’s current 

Native shareholders. 

Congress generally defined the land entitlements of both village and regional corporations, but provided for some differentiation among corporations to consider individual village or regional circumstances. One such consideration was the reduction 

of land entitlement to Sealaska to reflect a previous award of damages granted to 

Sealaska’s primary shareholders, the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Southeast Alaska. 

Those tribes brought early suit against the United States to recover the value of 

land and property rights appropriated by the United States in Southeast Alaska. 

The suit was settled before the passage of ANCSA by a 1968 U.S. Court of Claims 

decision awarding damages of $7.5 million dollars to the Tlingit and Haida Indians 

of Alaska. The Court of Claims decision is based on the fair market value of the 

land expropriated by the United States at the time the lands were taken, as determined by valuing the highest and best use of the land and resources. Congress recognized this prior settlement in ANCSA and limited Sealaska’s entitlement. 

Sealaska is entitled to receive lands under Section 14(h)(8) of ANCSA, which allocates and provides for conveyance of land from the remaining portion of two million 

acres that is not otherwise conveyed as entitlement under the other subsections of 

14(h) to be allocated among the twelve regional corporations on the basis of population. The BLM is responsible for determining Sealaska’s final allocation under 

Section 14(h)(8). However, until other all other 14(h) entitlements are completely allocated, the BLM can only estimate what Sealaska’s final entitlement will be. Based 

on the most recent information provided to the Forest Service from the BLM (October, 2008), Sealaska has been conveyed approximately 290,774 acres under Section 
23 

14(h)(8). Its remaining 14(h)(8) entitlement is63,535 acres plus 21.85% of any future 

allocation pursuant to this section. Thus, Sealaska has received more than 80% of 

its Section 14(h)(8) entitlement. These lands have been selected from the original 

federal land base withdrawn for selection pursuant to ANCSA. Currently, Sealaska 

has selected 170,000 acres from within the ANCSA withdrawal area, from which 

Sealaska has prioritized its remaining to 78,898-acre entitlement pursuant to Section 403 of the Alaska Transfer Acceleration Act. Indeed, Sealaska can fulfill all of 

its remaining actual, and potential, entitlement from the 170,000 plus acres of currently selected lands. 

S.881

S.881 would amend ANCSA to allow Sealaska to select and receive conveyance 

from lands administered by the Forest Service that are outside of the original withdrawal areas established by the Act in 1971, and that would create new and unique 

categories of selections not available to other regional corporations. Specifically, 

S.881directs directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Sealaska three categories of lands from within the Tongass: economic development lands, sacred site 

lands, and Native futures sites. None of these categories of land selections currently 

appear in ANCSA and other Native Corporations are not entitled to make such selections. The Department is concerned that S.881 would provide an impetus for 

other regional corporations to reopen land claims at this critical final stage in the 

land transfer program. 

The pool of lands identified in S.881 from which Sealaska would select its economic development lands includes significant areas of productive old-growth timber 

and major areas of young-growth timber. While the specific lands Sealaska will select as economic development lands from this pool are not known, we have a number 

of concerns regarding potential consequences these selections would have on USDA’s 

efforts to develop a long-term, sustainable plan for supporting a diversity of economic opportunities for Alaskan communities and Native Alaskans. These concerns 

reflect the interconnected nature of the problems facing Southeast Alaskans: legislation that pulls out one piece of the puzzle makes it more challenging to find a comprehensive solution that is responsive to the concerns of local communities and conservation groups while also working for Sealaska. 

In previous years, the Tongass National Forest has supported communities in 

Southeast Alaska through its timber program. In exploring a diversity of opportunities to support the communities and people of Southeast Alaska, the Forest Service 

is seeking to expeditiously transition that program away from reliance on sales of 

old-growth timber in roadless areas to an integrated program of work focused on 

restoration, development of biomass opportunities, and sales of young-growth timber 

in roaded areas. Indeed, the Tongass Futures Roundtable, a Southeast Alaska collaborative group that includes villages, industry, native corporations, the Forest 

Service and the State of Alaska, is addressing the integration of forest restoration 

and broad economic development during the transition from old-growth timber 

sales. 

This shift will allow stakeholders in the region to come together to support 

healthy, vibrant communities and forested lands, and sustain the ability of Native 

Alaskans to pursue their way of life, communities, and culture, as they have for over 

10,000 years. However, this transition will require a reliable supply of young-growth 

timber from lands having the infrastructure (e.g., roads, proximity to mills) to support an economically viable industry. 

The lands identified in S.881 for selection by Sealaska are largely found on Prince 

of Wales Island. These lands represent a significant part of the Forest Service’s 

roaded land base identified in the Tongass Land Management Plan as open to timber harvest. This land base is also closest to one of the few remaining large mills 

in the Tongass National Forest, as well as other smaller mills. 

The lands involved in this legislation, therefore, are central to the Forest Service’s 

ability to provide a sustainable supply of young-growth timber to facilitate transition of its timber program from old-growth timber harvest to restoration work, biomass, and young-growth harvest. 

Another concern is that the old-growth reserves found within the land pool identified in S.881 are central to the Tongass National Forest’s conservation strategy as 

outlined in its Land Management Plan. The amended TLMP established a comprehensive, science-based conservation strategy to address wildlife sustainability 

and viability. This strategy includes a network of interconnected, variably sized oldgrowth reserves across the forest designed to maintain the composition, structure 

and function of the old-growth ecosystem. Conveyance of economic development 

lands as proposed in S.881 would likely decrease the Tongass’ ability to meet the 
24 

TLMP conservation strategy due to the likely inability to replace key lands associated with old-growth habitats. 

It is also important to note that these lands overlap those of interest to the State 

of Alaska’s Mental Health Trust, as well as to the ‘‘landless tribes’’ who did not receive an original land entitlement in ANCSA. It may be difficult to extract these 

lands while providing a comprehensive and equitable solution for all who are interested or invested in their use and management. 

Although the proposed legislation states that implementation of the bill and conveyance of lands to Sealaska would not require an amendment or revision of TLMP, 

this language does not resolve land management issues that likely will arise regarding TLMP implementation. Regardless of whether an amendment or revision of 

TLMP is required, if the significant management strategies that form the basis of 

the current plan are modified through enactment of S.881, TLMP cannot be implemented as currently intended. 

Enacting S.881 could also affect the ability to provide for continuous public access 

for recreation and subsistence uses on the Tongass. Among other things, the legislation provides that Sealaska has the right to regulate access on certain lands where 

the public use is incompatible with Sealaska’s natural resource development, as determined by Sealaska. The Native futures sites identified for conveyance in the legislation include some of the most significant recreation sites that are critical to both 

commercial outfitter and guide use and public recreational use. The ability of the 

Tongass to provide for public and commercial recreation and tourism activities 

would be limited by enactment of the legislation. S.881 would also remove covenants 

on historic and cemetery sites conveyed under ANCSA Section 14(h)(1), which restrict activity that is incompatible with these sites’ cultural or historic values. The 

Department believes this would provide an opportunity for other regional corporations to request removal of similar restrictions from other Native corporation sites, 

further negatively affecting the land transfer program. Similarly, the legislation 

does not provide for the ability to protect significant karst and cave resources that 

may be located on lands conveyed under S.881 to Sealaska. 

AMENDMENTS TO THE TRIBAL FOREST PROTECTION ACT AND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC

PRESERVATION ACT

Finally, the legislation includes amendments to the Tribal Forest Protection Act 

(TFPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to consider lands owned 

by any Alaska Native Corporation as tribal-owned lands for the purposes of these 

Acts, the implications of which are described below. The Department would be willing to discuss ANCSA; however, we view the amendments to the TFPA and NHPA 

as unrelated to fulfilling the remaining acres of the ANSCA entitlement. 

The TFPA is intended to strengthen Forest Service relationships with federally 

recognized Tribes and to restore forested lands by authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts and agreements with Tribes to carry out certain 

projects on the National Forests to reduce threats to adjacent or bordering lands 

owned by Tribes. The bill would extend the benefits of TFPA beyond those Tribes 

currently listed on the official list of federally acknowledged tribes in the contiguous 

48 states and in Alaska: Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Alaska Native Corporations are not Tribal Governments as recognized by the BIA, and they do not have 

the capability of having the Federal government hold their lands in trust. 

S.881 would amend the National Historic Preservation Act to include Alaska Native Corporations. Tribal lands as now defined in the NHPA include those within 

the boundaries of American Indian Reservations, which are governed by a Tribal 

Council duly elected by the Tribal members. These lands are managed for the benefit of Tribal members. Alaska Native Corporation lands, however, are managed by 

a corporate board of directors to provide a profit for the benefit of its shareholders. 

The inclusion of Alaska Native Corporations as parties entitled to the benefits 

prescribed under both the TFPA and NHPA is at odds with the intent to provide 

tribes with certain benefits prescribed by these Acts. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND INCENTIVES

With respect to Section 5(b) of S.881 expressly authorizing environmental mitigation and incentives, we support the provisions that would allow any land conveyed 

to be eligible for participation in carbon markets or other similar programs, incentives, or markets established by USDA. 
25 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I want to note comments we have received from local residents and 

Alaska Natives regarding enactment of this legislation. Residents are concerned 

that the legislation will affect subsistence use and will affect public access for recreation, hunting, fishing, and gathering. Residents in communities throughout Southeast Alaska are surrounded by, and dependent upon, the Tongass for their livelihood 

and well-being and they seek ‘‘closure’’ to the decades-long forest planning process. 

Many are concerned the legislation will disrupt implementation of the amended 

TLMP. Some are concerned with the environmental consequences of the legislation, 

especially related to sustainable timber harvest and management and to the implementation of the Forest Service’s conservation strategy. Finally, a number of comments reflect the interconnected nature of the problems facing Southeast Alaskans: 

legislation that pulls out one piece of the puzzle makes it more challenging to find 

a comprehensive solution that is responsive to the concerns of local communities 

and conservation groups while also working for Sealaska. Last week I attended a 

meeting of the Tongass Futures Roundtable, the collaborative group dedicated to 

forging a comprehensive vision for the Tongass National Forest. While that collaborative process presents its own challenges, USDA supports the Tongass Futures 

Roundtable and its efforts to find a shared vision for the land that we all love. 

USDA and the Forest Service are prepared and eager to work with all parties to 

find a solution that works. 

This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions that you may 

have on Devil’s Staircase Wilderness Act or the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Act. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. 

I know many of my colleagues have questions for you, Ms. Burke, 

and you, Mr. Jensen. It sounds like it’s a pretty good afternoon for 

the forests and the hikers and all those who are enjoying the Devil’s Staircase area and the wilderness that we’re proposing. 

Mr. Jensen, you’re for the legislation that Senator Merkley has 

introduced, 1272. Ms. Burke, you seem to be for it. You said something about minor modifications. Is it fair to say that as far as the 

administration is concerned there’s no reason why the bill shouldn’t 

be reported by the committee and approved by the Senate? 

Ms. BURKE. That’s correct. It’s just that we would like to work 

with the committee with some minor modifications. 

Senator WYDEN. I think I ought to quit while I’m ahead. That’s 

some good news for Oregonians. These are special treasures that 

we feel strongly about. 

Both your agencies have cooperated fully with us. I’d have more 

questions under normal circumstances, but I know a lot of colleagues have interests that are very important to them. So we’ll 

start with Senator Bingaman, I think, and then we’ll go to Senator 

Barrasso. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask Ms. Burke just a few questions about the legislation 

that Senator Udall and I are proposing there in southern New 

Mexico, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. One of 

the issues that’s often raised with new conservation proposals is 

what effect the designation will have on energy development. Are 

you aware of any applications for renewable energy development in 

these areas? 

Ms. BURKE. The BLM in New Mexico informs me that they have 

not received any applications for renewable energy in this area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us what the potential is for oil and 

gas development within the proposed wilderness and national conservation areas covered by the act? 
26 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. The BLM in New Mexico informs me that the 

areas that are designated by this bill have very low potential for 

oil and gas development. There are currently three existing oil and 

gas leases within the Desert Peaks National Conservation Area 

and those valid existing rights will be protected, but currently 

there is no oil on those leases. 

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, can you tell me whether there are any 

West-side energy corridors that run through the areas that are proposed for designation? 

Ms. BURKE. BLM recently completed work on a series of these 

corridors and, no, they do not conflict with the designations in this 

bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. As a general matter, can you tell us the experiences that the BLM has had with managing the grazing in areas 

that have been designated as national conservation areas? Does the 

designation of an area as a national conservation area significantly 

affect the existing grazing activities based on the experience of the 

BLM? 

Ms. BURKE. Most of the NCAs managed by the BLM had livestock grazing on them before designation and that grazing continues today. Grazing is managed in the national conservation 

areas under the same rules and regulations as on other BLM 

lands. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Bingaman. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jensen, several of these bills are going to set aside large 

areas and put them off limits to motorized recreation. I understand 

that there is quite a large off-road recreation community often 

within or near many of these areas. So for each of these areas, can 

you give me some understanding or bring me some information on 

how much we’re talking about and the impact to those people who 

use off-road vehicles? 

Mr. JENSEN. I believe in the wilderness designation case that I 

believe you’re referring to in Oregon my briefing is that there is 

one road that goes through the area, but it’s not heavily used. It’s 

a fairly rugged road that is being looked at potentially being decommissioned as part of this. But the larger approach of the NCUs 

is to look at these sort of designations in relation to recreation and 

to the tribal management system and plans. Currently right now, 

all national forests are going through this process to catalogue, 

identify shared resources in forests, so that these sorts of designations and other uses are done in a way that doesn’t impact, severely impact, user groups and is done in a way that’s environmentally sensitive. 

Senator BARRASSO. Ms. Burke, S. 940, the Southern Nevada 

Higher Education Land Act. I read that and I think that it may 

be vague in the restrictions on how the three colleges may use the 

conveyed lands. The proposed legislation could be interpreted to 

mean that these colleges could put commercial or private development on the land. So I’m just curious if there is any precedent for 

this type of provision in other laws when we do these kind of exchanges. Anything that you’re aware of? 
27 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. Last year in S. 2324, which was in Twin Falls, 

Idaho, that the BLM supported, which was the transfer of land for 

recreational purposes and for a waste water treatment facility. This 

year we supported S. 1140, which was in Oregon. That was for 

rodeo grants and also for a wastewater treatment facility. 

Senator BARRASSO. I’m wondering if it’s an open-ended conveyance, because you said it sounds like that was a clearly designated 

issue. Is it the policy of the administration to support open-ended 

conveyances of Federal lands? 

Ms. BURKE. It’s the policy of the Administration to support conveyances that are consistent with the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. So as I said in my testimony, the BLM would welcome 

the opportunity the work with the sponsor of the bill and the committee to make sure that the conveyances are consistent with that 

act. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

To both of you: This spring Senator Murkowski sent a letter to 

the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture requesting information 

be made available by the administration on energy potential and 

renewable energy potential, as to mineral availability for all areas 

that are proposed for set-asides in legislation before this committee. I don’t know if you know what the status might be of any 

maps or any information regarding these bills that we’re considering today. 

Mr. JENSEN. My understanding is that efforts are under way, if 

not have already been transmitted to the committee, related to that 

request. I hope that they are indeed already there. 

Senator BARRASSO. If not, can you work more closely with the 

committee so we would have these before we make final consideration of the legislation. 

Mr. JENSEN. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. That would be for both of your agencies. 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t we go next to Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First to you, Ms. Burke. I appreciate the administration’s statement of support for S. 522. I want to address or discuss with you 

a couple of the concerns that you have raised, and Mr. Jensen as 

well, regarding the Sealaska legislation. You have suggested, Ms. 

Burke, that we may see a delay in conveyances despite the legislation that we were successful in introducing and getting passed 

some years ago, the Alaska Lands Acceleration Act. But under the 

terms of that act what we provided for was that these conveyances 

would be complete by the anniversary, the fiftieth anniversary of 

statehood, which we are celebrating this year. 

We are not going to meet that deadline. Your suggestion is that 

somehow or other this delays conveyances. I might suggest to you 

that part of the problem with accomplishing what we set out in 

that Acceleration Act was that there hasn’t been sufficient funding. 

We have not been able to get the survey that we have needed. 

It seems to me that the appropriate response here is to say that 

we’ve got to do more within the budget to allow for these convey-
28 

ances to move forward, rather than to suggest that Sealaska should 

just wait longer for its conveyances. I think 40 years or 38 years 

is long enough. So I would hope that as we look to this issue we 

recognize that it is a bigger picture in terms of the conveyances 

that are due the State under the ANCSA Act. 

Let me ask a question about the precedent-setting. You have suggested this, Ms. Burke, and I understand, Mr. Jensen, in your written testimony that I only received this morning that you both are 

concerned about this somehow being precedent-setting. I would like 

to point out a couple facts. First, ANCSA’s has already been 

amended. It has been amended about 40 different times, so this is 

hardly going to be a first. 

Given the unique circumstances that we have with Sealaska, 

dating back to 1971 they were the largest block of shareholders of 

the Native corporations and they received the smallest amount of 

land, largely because at that time the land, a large portion of 

southeastern land was locked up or encumbered by these long-term 

timber sales contracts. 

Now, all those contracts have been canceled and they were canceled by your Department, about 25 years after ANCSA went into 

effect. Now you have literally hundreds of thousands of acres that 

are now available for selection in the mid-1990s. 

I look at this situation and say it is very unique within ANCSA 

and can hardly be construed as precedent-setting. I don’t see any 

other entity that will be able to make this claim. Would you agree 

with me? I’d ask this of both of you. 

Ms. BURKE. I will. It is true that Alaska has some unique circumstances. Sealaska has had sufficient land selections on file in 

order to satisfy their entitlements. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Would you agree that about 40 percent of 

those are under water and that a considerable number of those 

were also locked up or encumbered with these long-term timber 

contracts until the mid-1990s? 

Ms. BURKE. Well, I’m not aware of how much of that might be 

tied up today. But Sealaska has selected over 170,000 acres and its 

remaining allocation is about 63, 64,000. So we think that’s more 

than adequate to satisfy that entitlement. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I’m not sure that I understand. There’s 

somewhere between 65 and 85,000 that Sealaska is yet eligible to 

claim. You’re not suggesting that they are not entitled to that? 

Ms. BURKE. No, not at all. I’m saying that they’ve selected, 

Sealaska has selected, over 170,000 acres. The remaining entitlement as far as we can determine as of today is about 64,000. So 

within that 177,000 we should be more than able to satisfy the entitlement of 64,000. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Again, I would take you back to my point 

that if you look at the maps, which I’m sure you have given great 

consideration, you have a great portion of this that is not viable. 

However, when you have 40 percent of your available areas that 

would be under water, to me that’s not a viable selection. 

What we’re trying to provide here is equity to the Sealaska 

shareholders. The whole purpose under ANCSA was to allow for 

economic opportunities to proceed and that, as Senator Begich has 

mentioned, is so integrated to the land. 
29 

Mr. Jensen, I haven’t given you an opportunity to answer. My 

time has expired, but if you could just briefly address it. 

Mr. JENSEN. There many different precedential components to 

this exchange. The key part of the context for us is some of the 

court claim settlements that occurred even before ANCSA around 

Southeast Alaska Corporation. I think that those agreements that 

went in before the agreements that were laid out for the corporation to this day relate a lot to how we view the issue. 

My understanding is that the corporation did submit its selection 

of those lands some years ago, but has not moved forward. I’m not 

fully briefed on that and will commit to working with you to find 

out how that currently stands. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. We can certainly help you with better 

information. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank my colleague. 

Let’s go next to Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Wyden, I believe Senator Begich has 

an appointment that’s more urgent than I do. So I would defer to 

him at this point. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s recognize Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. I’ll be brief. I do have a 

3:30. 

I’m going to try to follow what Senator Murkowski laid out there, 

Ms. Burke. That is, I understand the mathematical issue of how 

much acres is available, how much they selected and what is left 

to select, but the question is the quality of the land. We can debate 

if 30 percent or 40 percent or whatever that percent is is under 

water or on mountaintops. It’s very difficult to do what Sealaska 

is required to do under ANCSA, which is to manage the lands for 

their people, which is not only economically but also for subsistence 

or utilization within that corporation. So there’s multiple reasons. 

Do you see that as an important factor in this, that the lands 

that may be available do not meet those needs? I have to warn you 

that I can only speak to this from my knowledge of this bill because my dad wrote the bill, because I want you to be prepared for 

that as you answer this. 

Ms. BURKE. I don’t know that I can comment on fairness per se, 

but I can say that the BLM is committed to working with Sealaska 

and with the other interested parties in the State of Alaska to 

come to a solution that works. Our concern with this particular bill, 

as we said, is just the precedent that it would set and that we 

think there are other ways to work with Sealaska that we have yet 

to explore fully, but that this is not—this is not the way to go, 

given our interest in accelerating completion of the entitlement 

process. 

Senator BEGICH. I understand that. But I’m new around here, 

but I will tell you when I hear ‘‘precedent-setting,’’ there’s nothing 

in this body that I’ve ever seen that stays the course, that’s always 

the same year in and year out. One thing I have noticed around 

here is there’s always tweaks and turns from the administration as 

well as from Congress, because things change. Conditions change. 

I think Senator Murkowski laid out an interesting comment in 

regards to the lands that suddenly became available. I use the 
30 

word ‘‘suddenly.’’ 25 years is not really suddenly. But still, in fact 

they became available, which changed the dynamics. In 1971 there 

was a certain parameter that you looked at. In the 1990’s that enlarged. 

So I guess I want to stress the point. I think there is a way to 

resolve this issue. What I guess I’m looking for from both of you 

actually, that you don’t have the narrow window of a bureaucracy 

that says we can’t set a precedent, because everything we do in 

Congress is setting a new precedent about everything. So I don’t 

want you—if that’s the answer, obviously that doesn’t get to what 

the core issue of ANCSA was, which was all about management of 

lands for the people, and therefore the people need to be heard. 

I know there’s conflict within our community and we’re working 

through that. But I hope that the Departments don’t use precedentsetting as the only reason. At the end of the day I’m looking for 

an answer from both of you on that, because that doesn’t really cut 

it. 

Mr. JENSEN. If I might jump in, I think your question is a perfect 

example of what it is the position of both the Department of the 

Interior and the Department of Agriculture we need to sit down 

and talk about these issues a little more and look into the circumstances of how those designations were put out when the law 

first passed and look at the situation that we have right now. We 

do have other cases that this may be precedent-setting for, but 

that’s a consideration. 

So we really do look forward to sitting down and talking with 

you to figure out how we might come together in agreement on 

this. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s a fair statement. I’ll leave it at that. 

The only other thing I would ask—and I don’t recall because I 

don’t have the budget information here, but on the accelerated land 

transfers can you say, Ms. Burke, that the dollars you need—every 

dollar you need you’ve asked for to accelerate that? 

Ms. BURKE. I would have to get back to you on that question. I 

cannot say whether or not without our past budget requests. 

Senator BEGICH. Can you do that for the record, not only from 

the past, but what you’re preparing now for the next budget cycle? 

Because if you’re not asking for the money you’ll never accelerate. 

So you can’t use that argument because that just goes around in 

circles. So I want to make sure that the resources are available. 

Senator Murkowski laid it out very well that if you’re going to accelerate you need the funding. But you need to ask for it. If you’re 

not asking for it, we can’t accelerate. 

So if you could do that for the record. Mr. Chairman, if that’s OK 

I’d appreciate it. 

Senator WYDEN. We will hold the record open for it. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to testify and also to ask questions. 

To the Alaskans here, I apologize, but I have to take care of some 

other business. But I know Senator Murkowski will be the lead and 

be aggressive in making sure all the good facts that you have are 

presented. 

Thank you very much. 
31 

Senator WYDEN. Glad to have you here. You are welcome. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Wyden. 

Ms. Burke, the New Mexico wilderness areas included in this bill 

under consideration today are in close proximity to the MexicoUnited States border, and as we consider the merits of land preservation it’s important to take into consideration the impact that 

land designations may have on homeland security efforts. 

Can you describe the working relationship between the BLM and 

the Border Patrol in areas such as Don ̃ a Ana County, and do you 

think we’ve made the changes we need to make to protect border 

security? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. The Department has a memorandum of understanding from 2006 to work cooperatively along the border with respect to areas that we manage. This bill actually would release 

16,000 acres that are under the wilderness study area designation, 

so it would move the boundary line from where it is currently to 

about a half mile from the Mexican border to 3 miles back. So we 

think that is sufficient space for the Border Patrol and other law 

enforcement agencies to do their important work. 

Senator UDALL. I assume you would also work with them in 

terms of ecological value of the land and in whatever activities they 

have to carry out there also? 

Ms. BURKE. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL. You have done that in the past? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. One other question I have regards taking on the 

issue of invasive species. I know you’ve been doing that in southern 

New Mexico on your lands. Does changing the designation here 

hurt your efforts in any way to continue those kinds of efforts? 

Ms. BURKE. Senator Udall, I have to get back to the committee 

on that question. 

Senator UDALL. OK, that would be great. That would be great, 

if our chairman and ranking member would let us supplement the 

record on that. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your testimony. 

Senator WYDEN. We will—we thank you. 

I think we’re prepared to excuse you both at this time. Senator 

Murkowski, additional questions? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the opportunity and I will try 

to be very quick. 

Mr. Jensen, you mentioned the Tongass Futures Roundtable. We 

too have been very hopeful that good things will materialize from 

the dialog and the talks that have been going on for several years. 

I am a little concerned, though, that you may be suggesting that 

we can’t resolve Sealaska without the Tongass Futures’ blessing. 

There currently has been a new proposal that has just been put out 

on the table in the past week. Are you suggesting that we should 

put a hold on the Sealaska measure in anticipation of something 

from the roundtable? 

Mr. JENSEN. I’m glad you’ve given me a chance to clarify. Not at 

all. The Department’s interest in the Tongass Futures roundtable 

is grounded in a place where people come together to talk about 

these issues and find if there is some common ground to work for-
32 

ward on. That’s where it focuses our attention. It gives us an idea 

of some of the places where there are some ideas and some solutions. So we don’t just look at the roundtable as one place to deal 

with Sealaska. We look at that as a place to deal with some of the 

larger issues that are impacting the region and the forests there 

and as one example of the collaborative type efforts that we view 

as potentially methods to have us work through these very troublesome and difficult issues all across the country. 

So particularly with this case here, we’re simply looking to the 

roundtable for an expression from a multiple set of stakeholders on 

how they view the various issues around the Tongass National Forest. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate you saying that, because I 

don’t want this to be a situation where this legislation that would 

bring, equity to the Sealaska people would be held hostage to a 

process that is certainly important, but it’s also one that is very 

complicated, takes a great deal of time, and takes years. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has said repeatedly that one of his 

initiatives or priorities is to make sure that American Indians, 

Alaska Natives, or indigenous peoples are treated fairly. I would 

suggest to you that 38 years for the Sealaska people to wait for 

their lands is not treating them fairly. 

Mr. JENSEN. I can assure you that Secretary Vilsack feels the 

same way. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I know we’ll be 

following up with you on a number of the issues raised today. I will 

excuse you at this time. 

Our next panel: the Honorable Oscar Vasquez Butler of Las 

Cruces, New Mexico; and Dr. Jerry G. Schickedanz, also of Las 

Cruces; Byron Mallott, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau; and Bob 

Claus, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, also of Alaska. 

All right, let’s proceed. We’ll start with Mr. Butler, Mr. 

Schickedanz, Mr. Mallott, and Mr. Claus. All right, please proceed, 

Mr. Butler. 

STATEMENT OF OSCAR VAS ́ QUEZ BUTLER, VICE-CHAIR, DON ̃ A 

ANA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LAS CRUCES, NM 

Mr. BUTLER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. It is my great privilege to be here at Senator Bingaman’s invitation to testify before the Subcommittee on Public 

Lands and Forests. 

The CHAIRMAN. I do think you need to push the button once 

more, Oscar. Thank you. 

Mr. BUTLER. I’m sorry. 

I am honored to represent the 2,000-plus residents that we represent in New Mexico. There are few issues in Don ̃ a Ana County 

that have received as much attention since 2005 as the potential 

for significant public lands conservation through wilderness and 

national conservation area designations. Local stakeholders have 

dedicated long hours to realize the benefits that conservation can 

bring and have worked hard to address the issues and concerns. 

I am here to endorse S. 1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks 

Wilderness Act, jointly introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman and 
33 

Senator Tom Udall. This legislation meets the hopes of almost everyone involved. It assures our children and grandchildren will be 

able to enjoy these designated wilderness areas as have their parents and ancestors. 

From the Organ Peaks to those rare desert grasslands in the 

Potrillo and Uvas Mountains, to Broad Canyon’s hidden riparian 

areas and beyond, this legislation would protect the natural marvels of Don ̃ a Ana County and the diversity and rich culture of its 

residents and visitors. This legislation has earned has earned buyin from nearly every sector of the community that will be affected 

by its passage. That buy-in entails significant compromises forged 

by multiple groups, none of whom received all that they wanted, 

but the vast majority of whom received substantially what they 

needed to support the end result. 

Three times, in 2006, 2008, and 2009, the Don ̃ a Ana County 

Commissioners supported both the process and promise of wilderness and NCA designation for important lands in the county. The 

acreage to be protected as wilderness in this bill is lower than 

originally envisioned, but it remains impressive. The legislation 

does represent a broad consensus. Protecting our wilderness is securing our community’s future. 

One area it will benefit is economic growth and opportunity. If 

you ever come to Las Cruces, you will see the Organ Mountains on 

many business marquees from land developers to local auto mechanics. Our magnificent mountains are a strong signature for the 

entire valley. Our robust growth is fueled largely by the attraction 

these natural areas provide. I believe businesses are increasingly 

concerned about the quality of life and view favorably the nearness 

of the protected public lands when siting operations. This is especially true of the high tech industry. These businesses are looking 

for an environment that will help them attract and maintain a motivated, energized work force, a place where they can raise their 

families. Knowing that the public lands and landscapes they treasure will be protected, this is the promise that wilderness and national conservation area designation holds to our community. That 

is why the High Tech Consortium of Southern New Mexico and the 

Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces have thrown their 

support behind Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall’s efforts. 

The other benefit of this legislation for our community is increased ability to plan, ability and clarity to plan. For decades now 

the lands in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness have 

been in limbo. That makes it difficult to plan for the future growth 

from multiple standpoints. In 2007 Don ̃ a Ana County and the city 

of Las Cruces jointly entered into a planning process known as Vision 2040. This process, with dozens of public meetings and other 

opportunities for public input, will help set community priorities 

for the next 3 decades. Knowing that some lands will be permanently protected makes our job much easier. 

Support for this legislation is widespread and prevalent throughout Don ̃ a Ana County. I do take strong exception to the statement 

made by opponents of this act that wilderness is primarily used by 

affluent Anglos. As an Hispanic American representing a community whose Hispanic population nears 50 percent in the most Hispanic State in our country, this assertion by local wilderness oppo-
34 

nents is factually incorrect. Hispanics enjoy strong traditions of 

family, community, love of the land, and environment. We are 

sportsmen and conservationists, businessmen and leaders who 

enjoy our public lands and New Mexico wilderness areas as much, 

if not more, than anyone else. Upon passage of S. 1689, we will all 

enjoy these wilderness areas right in our own backyards. 

I’m getting short on time, so thank you again for the opportunity 

to speak to you today on behalf of this incredible legislation, and 

I stand ready for any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OSCAR VA ́SQUEZ BUTLER, VICE-CHAIR, DON ̃ A NA COUNTY

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LAS CRUCES, NM 

S. 1689

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today to speak in favor of S. 1689, The Organ Mountains— 

Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, introduced by Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom 

Udall. My testimony represents my own personal strong support for this important 

conservation initiative, as well as that of the entire Board of the County Commission for Don ̃ a Ana County, which unanimously passed a resolution in support of The 

Organ Mountains—Desert Peaks legislation on September 22, 2009. 

Mr. Chairman, I highly commend Senator Bingaman and his colleague Senator 

Udall for their good work, diligence and dedication in developing this far-reaching, 

well-thought-out proposal to protect forever some of the most scenic and environmentally important lands in Don ̃ a Ana County and, indeed, the entire State of New 

Mexico. Senator Bingaman has championed this proposal over many years, taking 

his time to ensure he reached out to all interested parties, listened to their concerns 

and recommendations, and developed a broad-based piece of legislation that represents a very reasonable compromise that will protect our cherished lands and the 

rights of the people to enjoy them. 

Senator Bingaman listened to his constituents—those who love and cherish these 

lands—and developed, through a collaborative process, a solid piece of conservation 

legislation. Adjustments were made in both the scope and policies contained within 

the proposal and, while not everyone is 100 percent satisfied, I believe everyone was 

heard by the Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before the Subcommittee today represents what can 

be accomplished through the true spirit of cooperation and compromise. I can assure 

you that the vast, vast majority of the citizens of Don ̃ a Ana County and the State 

of New Mexico support Senator Bingaman and Udall’s efforts. From sportsmen to 

local businesses, horsemen to hikers, there is a consensus that these special lands 

deserve the protection this legislation will provide. 

Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to tell you a little about my background and the great County I have the privilege to represent. 

I currently serve as the Vice-Chair of the Don ̃ a Ana County Board of Country 

Commissioners, having been first elected to the Board in 2002. I have also served 

my community in many other capacities, including: President of the New Mexico Association of Counties; board member of the New Mexico Water Dialogue Board and 

the Lower Rio Grande Water Users’ Organization; past chairman and current board 

member of the South Central Solid Waste Authority and the Don ̃ a Ana County 

Extra Territorial Authority; and past president of the Don ̃ a Ana County Water Association. 

Don ̃ a Ana County is the second-largest populated county of the state’s 33 counties, and comprises some 3,800 square miles of territory. I have the great honor to 

represent the largest commission district, District 1. The County has a population 

of just over 200,000, but is expected to continue to grow to over 300,000 by 2015. 

The county seat, Las Cruces, is considered to be one of the fastest growing communities in the United States. 

As a result Mr. Chairman, our communities know full-well the difficulties involved in managing development and growth, and we are particularly aware of the 

importance of protecting open space. In fact, it is these very lands that have rooted 

our ancestors to this area and serve to draw new citizens every day. Our way of 

life is tied to the majestic landscapes and way of life that this legislation seeks to 

protect. 
35 

Mr. Chairman, pristine natural areas provide unique opportunities for recreation 

and tourism that contribute to the local economy. Additionally, I believe businesses 

are increasingly concerned about quality of life, and view favorably the nearness of 

protected public lands when siting operations. That is why over 200 local businesses, along with the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces, and the High 

Tech Consortium of Southern New Mexico have endorsed this conservation effort. 

The areas offer excellent opportunities for hiking, hunting, camping, climbing, 

horseback riding and, perhaps most important, quiet solitude for our citizens to 

enjoy and relax in when the work day is done. 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act will promote future growth by 

securing the special quality of life our County has to offer. Don ̃ a Ana County and 

the City of Las Cruces are cooperatively working together on a joint plan known 

as Vision 2040. This comprehensive analysis of our future needs as our population 

continues to grow will inform many facets of our land-use planning processes, including transportation options and economic development. Senator Bingaman and 

Senator Udall’s legislation provides us with much needed clarity on public lands 

conservation and will help the Vision 2040 process, ensuring our community’s 

growth is well planned and prepared for. 

In fact, Don ̃ a Ana County has long recognized the important opportunities protecting our local wilderness areas offers. In February of 2006, we passed a resolution supporting protection of regional wilderness study areas and additional public 

lands prized by our community. In 2008, we again passed a similar resolution in 

support of preserving our most sensitive public lands. And, throughout the development of this legislation, we have worked closely with Senator Bingaman and now 

Senator Udall. Thus, our unanimous resolution passed on September 22, 2009, in 

support of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act was the culmination 

of years of effort. 

The nearly 359,850 acres of public land the bill will protect (259,000 acres as wilderness and over 100,000 acres as a National Conservation Area) includes rich 

grasslands in the Potrillo and Uvas Mountains, petroglyph sites and riparian areas 

in Broad Canyon, crucial watersheds, and the iconic spires of Las Cruces’ signature 

scenic attraction—the Organ Mountains. These lands also possess great ecological 

value, with the Organ Mountains perhaps being the most botanically diverse mountain range in New Mexico, with approximately 870 plant species. The area is rich 

with wildlife, including pronghorn antelope, mule deer, mountain lions, quail, and 

numerous other bird species. 

Perhaps Senator Bingaman said it best when he noted that, ‘‘The Organ Mountains are among the many scenic landscapes in Don ̃ a Ana County that define Southern New Mexico and the rich culture of its people.’’ That is why I am here today 

to testify before the Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman—-to ensure that these majestic, 

culturally important, environmentally sensitive lands that make up our community 

will be protected and properly managed for this and future generations to enjoy in 

all their splendor. 

Again, I offer my deep appreciation to Senators Bingaman and Udall for their outstanding work on behalf of this fine effort to protect an area very dear to me and 

the citizens of Don ̃ a Ana County. And, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members 

of the Subcommittee, for your attention to my statement in Support of the Organ 

Mountains—Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. 

Mr. Chairman, I am also submitting several documents for the record, including 

three different resolutions passed by the Don ̃ a Ana County Commission supporting 

protection of regional wilderness areas, a list of supporters of this Act, opinion editorials from the Mayors of Las Cruces and Mesilla and the Chair of the Don ̃ a Ana 

County Commission, as well as from local sportsman leaders, and editorials from 

the Las Cruces Sun News and Albuquerque Journal endorsing the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. This concludes my written testimony. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Butler. 

We’re running into a little bit of a logistics challenge with some 

votes coming up at 4 p.m. So in the great bipartisan tradition of 

this committee, we have worked it out so that when you have completed, Dr. Schickedanz, your testimony, Senator Bingaman and 

Senator Udall would like to ask you some questions briefly, and the 

New Mexico Senators and I will have to leave. We’re going to turn 

this over to Senator Murkowski to run the rest of the hearing. 
36 

I just want all of you to know that the subcommittee chair will 

be following up closely on all your views. We feel badly. This time 

of year things get a little hectic. 

So we’ll go now to you, Dr. Schickedanz, and the questions from 

Senator Bingaman and Senator Udall. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY G. SCHICKEDANZ, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, 

PEOPLE FOR PRESERVING OUR WESTERN HERITAGE, LAS 

CRUCES, NM 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve practiced my 

5 minutes and, unless I get scared and revert back to my Okie 

drawl, I should be done in time. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Jerry 

Schickedanz. I am Chairman of the People for Preserving our Western Heritage, a coalition of 791 businesses and organizations in 

Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico. The organization was formed in 

November 2006 after a series of meetings among Federal lands 

stakeholders organized by the county of Don ̃ a Ana and the city of 

Las Cruces to establish a consensus on proposed wilderness designations for ten local areas. 

The mission of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage is to 

preserve, promote, and protect farming and ranching and the rural 

heritage of our western lands. We support permanently preserving 

and protecting the Organ Mountains and the other special areas of 

our county. 

We believe there are viable alternatives to Federal wilderness 

designations that can be used to protect our land, our natural resources, and our open space. We encourage and believe in beneficial and balanced stewardship of our Federal lands, which requires an accurate understanding of the facts. 

Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced S. 1689, the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. Upon reviewing it, we feel 

there are some issues that were overlooked. We believe: One, that 

not all the lands proposed for wilderness designation meet the wilderness standard; 

Two, there is a need to develop new land protection designations; 

Three, that border security needs to be considered very carefully; 

and 

Four, that language concerning grazing needs to be placed in a 

higher level in the bill. 

Don ̃ a Ana County in the Southwest has been used for food production since the earliest record of man in the valley. There has 

been livestock in the area since 1598, when Onate crossed into now 

present day New Mexico. These lands have been used for the continuous production of primary wealth. Wildlife has been set aside 

since the 1920s and inventoried and protected under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Initially, these lands met the strict interpretation of the Wilderness Act that included 5,000 acres of roadless area free of sight and 

sound of man, and were essentially untrammelled. Currently there 

is over 100 million acres of land protected in Federal wilderness in 

the United States 

Lands being considered now don’t meet those criteria. We’re trying to protect lands under the Wilderness Act with the gold stand-
37 

ard of protection. However, these lands don’t meet the gold standard of wilderness character. 

There are other ways to protect lands. Citizens of Don ̃ a Ana 

County and the People for Preserving Our Western Heritage agree 

on the need for protection. We just don’t agree on the method. We 

have suggested a rangeland protection area designation as an alternate method of land protection. We feel it is time to develop a 

new land protection designation that is not as restrictive as the 

wilderness designation, to correspond with lands that are not meeting the gold standard of wilderness. 

We have grave concerns about giving wilderness designation to 

lands adjacent to the border, with all the inherent security issues 

such as illegal trespass, illegal transport of drugs and of people, 

land desecration, while putting life and limb in serious jeopardy. 

We have outlined in detail problems in Arizona with wilderness 

designation and the problems that law enforcement and border control encounter and the unfortunate situation that has evolved. 

We feel that grazing needs to be elevated in the bill to the same 

level of purpose as is given to other protected designations, such as 

cultural, geological, historical, etcetera. 

For these and many other concerns listed in my written testimony, we feel there needs to be further dialog and negotiation between Don ̃ a Ana County citizens and this committee. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members of this committee, this legislation will have a major impact on 560 square miles of Don ̃ a Ana 

County and on the over 200,000 citizens who reside there. We 

strongly suggest this committee hold a field hearing where the land 

and the people exist so that all issues and interests can be fully 

aired and discussed with the folks most affected. 

I brought with me signatures of 15 ranchers who ranch on 80 

percent of the lands slated for wilderness and NCA, who object to 

the bill as it’s currently written. I also have a list of 791 business 

organizations in Don ̃ a Ana County and adjacent counties who also 

object to the bill as being currently too restrictive. I would like to 

place those into the record if I might. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, it will be done. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schickedanz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY G. SCHICKEDANZ, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, PEOPLE FOR

PRESERVING OUR WESTERN HERITAGE, LAS CRUCES, NM 

S. 1689

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

I am Jerry G. Schickedanz, Chairman of People For Preserving Our Western Heritage (PFPOWH), a coalition of 791 businesses and organizations in Don ̃ a Ana 

County, New Mexico. The organization was formed in November of 2006, after a series of meetings among federal lands stakeholders organized by the County of Don ̃ a 

Ana and the City of Las Cruces to establish consensus on proposed wilderness designations for ten local areas. 

The mission of PFPOWH is ‘‘To preserve, promote and protect the farming, ranching and rural heritage of our western lands.’’ 

We support permanently preserving and protecting the Organ Mountains and the 

other special areas in our county. We believe there are viable alternatives to federal 

‘‘Wilderness’’ designation that can be used to protect our land, our natural resources 

and our open space. We encourage and believe in beneficial and balanced stewardship of federal lands which requires an accurate understanding of the facts. 
38 

* All exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files. 

COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS

As the result of the many meetings with the stakeholder groups, PFPOWH concluded that no existing land use designations in use by the federal government provides for protection of the land while meeting the concerns and expectations of our 

community. Community expectations for the management of our public lands are as 

follows: 

1. Retention of open space. 

Almost everyone is committed to the preservation of our open space. 

2. Provision for planned economic and population growth. 

The population of Don ̃ a Ana County is going to grow. That growth will require 

some federal and state lands to be included within the scope of land use planning. 

Prohibiting the sale of public lands cannot be used as a tool to restrict the growth 

of local communities. FLPMA promises that to us. 

3. Unrestricted application of Homeland Security and law enforcement activities. 

No prudent leader should tie the hands of law enforcement on or near the Mexican border. 

4. Prevention of unlawful use of off road vehicles. 

The ranchers were the first and foremost advocates of this, but they were not 

alone. Every group and every stakeholder representative supported the prevention 

of unlawful off-road vehicular traffic. 

5. Continued access for all segments of the public. 

The USDA’s 2007 Forest Service ‘‘National Visitor Use Monitoring Report’’ indicates a continued decline in visits to Wilderness areas by members of the general 

population. Currently only 3.1% of visits to our national forests are into Wilderness 

areas, and 94.5% of those visitors are white. In other words, Wilderness is for rich, 

white people. 

6. Perpetuation of traditional ranching operations. 

There is a growing understanding that intact ranch operations are the best mechanism to maintain the viability of open space in the West. 

7. Access for flood control and water capture projects. 

Don ̃ a Ana County is part of a desert ecosystem. Most of our annual rainfall occurs 

during the months of July, August and September. Sudden flood causing downpours 

are common. Our local Elephant Butte Irrigation District has initiated innovative 

measures to control those flood waters, protecting the populated areas from damaging floods by directing the runoff into the irrigation distribution and drain canal 

system where it recharges the Rio Grande aquifer and supplements irrigation water 

under the Rio Grande Compact. Those initiatives are at risk by overly restrictive 

federal lands legislation. 

8. Enhancement of wildlife and rangeland health. 

Scientific study has confirmed the improvements to plant and wildlife communities that result from prudently managed livestock grazing programs. Virtually all 

of the permanent water sources available to wildlife in Don ̃ a Ana County, other 

than the Rio Grande, are the result of livestock water facilities developed and paid 

for by livestock operators. 

9. Fidelity of Wilderness. 

Most of the proposed Don ̃ a Ana County Wilderness areas do not meet the fidelity 

standards of wilderness. William L. Rice, Deputy Chief of the Forest Service and 

NRCS (retired), wrote a column in which, he says, ‘‘In order for Wilderness designations to remain significant, the original premise of Wilderness must be held inviolate (Exhibit B)* 

PROPOSED NEW LAND DESIGNATION

RANGELAND PRESERVATON AREA

National Conservation Area Revealed as Rangeland Preservation Area 

Implicit in this testimony is a process that developed extensive discovery of facts 

and also educated and built a coalition that recognized a wide variety of factors 

which impact the area today as well as the future. In building the near 800 business 

and organization pledges of support, a land designation was sought to provide the 

long term protection of wilderness, but to also elevate into the designation factors 

of human involvement with the land. There was no federal designation of land that 

accomplished that. As such, the idea of Rangeland Preservation Area (RPA) was 

conceived. 
39 

Under the RPA concept, the lands would be withdrawn from all forms of disposal, 

the mineral leasing laws and the mining laws, just as they are in wilderness. Off 

highway vehicle traffic would be prevented, with certain exceptions made for law 

enforcement, flood control projects and range improvement projects. Surface management would be based on multiple use principles with an emphasis on retaining 

open space. 

PFPOWH heard from Senator Bingaman that it would be hard to pass any new 

land designation. This meant that if any alternative designation was to be considered it would most likely be a National Conservation Area (NCA) designation. This 

testimony may not alter that realization, but, it does honor the position and the 

commitment of a coalition that remains adamant that there is a local aspect of this 

process that needs to be recognized as legitimate. As such, the NCA approach will 

be couched in terms that inspired and grew from a group of stakeholders that allows 

productive utilization of lands with appropriate limitation and the recognition that 

it is time to elevate the presence of human stewards to laws that affect communities 

and industries across this country. It prescribes the allowable uses at a local level, 

which may be modified from ecosystem science discovery. It differs from Wilderness 

by recognizing the presence of human activities, past, present, and future, in a resourceful and positive manner. 

Why Rangeland Preservation Areas Versus National Conservation Areas 

There are a number of reasons that PFPOWH vigorously recommend a new land 

designation, but two reasons stand apart. 

The first is rangeland health and the need to acknowledge and benefit from the 

advancement of range stewardship and science. There is not a federal designation, 

administrative or legislative, that elevates ‘‘rangeland’’ health and improvement to 

the wording in the law. For too long, the antagonistic assault on the grazing of livestock and ‘‘extractive industry’’ endeavors on western lands has been unchecked and 

even advanced by Congressional action. Our country is on the threshold of a series 

of shortages promulgated by actions that threaten our security and our liberty. We 

must adopt a different approach. Rangeland health issues must be elevated to a new 

level of importance that preserves and enhances the natural health of the land. 

The second point is the fact that there is not a single purpose or point of recognition in federal land management procedures and policies that relates to the social 

fabric of human endeavors. Humans have been tied to the stewardship of livestock 

in this county since 1598, when Onate crossed the river at what is now El Paso with 

several thousand head of domestic livestock. The West needs a land designation that 

engages rather than disengages stakeholder relationships with federal land management agencies. Social fabric issues must be elevated to points of the law. A new, 

different approach must be conceptualized and implemented. 

It has been argued that BLM will not accept and Congress will not enact a new 

and unique land management designation such as RPA. That argument denies the 

fact that Congress has already created four unique land management designations 

that are a part of the National Conservation Area (NCA) category within the National Land Conservation System. Congress has developed new and innovative ways 

to assist the automobile, banking and housing industries, why not the livestock industry? 

Why Rangeland Preservation Areas Here and Why Now 

Perhaps for the first time, a stakeholder group has conceptualized an idea that 

would engage and enhance federal land user relationships in the West. That idea 

of RPA responds to the plea that is coming from every corner of the West . . . to 

find some means to engage, rather than destroy, historic stakeholder relationships 

with federal land management agencies. 

At the local level in Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico, we believe it is possible to 

create a relationship among New Mexico State University, the United States Department of Agriculture (Jornada Range), the Bureau of Land Management, Homeland Security, New Mexico Game and Fish, the Department of Defense, the ranching community, and the conservation community with the specific intent of creating 

a model that can serve as a world standard for sustainable rangeland health and 

productivity. The pieces are all in place. The results could be techniques and practices that improve native ranges in a way that allows for utilization of our natural 

resources while protecting our environment and the fabric of our culture. We have 

a rare opportunity to create a model the West and the world can emulate. Through 

this effort, our county could become one of the foremost destinations in the world 

to study and learn of substantive measures to maintain a robust and healthy balance in RPA ecosystems. 
40 

More than 790 organizations and businesses in Don ̃ a Ana County have joined a 

coalition of PFPOWH supporters who recognize the potential benefits of the RPA 

proposal as a viable alternative to Wilderness designations to preserve the federal 

lands in Don ̃ a Ana County. They recognize that the wholesale designation of Wilderness areas in this county would be dangerous, ill conceived, and not in the best interest of our citizens. 

Neither multiple use nor Wilderness designation can satisfy all nine expectations 

that came from this process. No existing federal land designation can satisfy all the 

expectations. RPA designation would exceed any other designation in meeting these 

expectations. 

EXPANSION OF OTHER FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE LEGISLATION

The summary of community expectations that was presented above was derived 

from an extended process. There were specific factors that were considered in each 

expectation. Among the most important factors were the following: 

• Border and Homeland Security • Range Improvements • Water Projects • Energy Corridors • Rail Line Access • Renewable Energy Projects • Mines • Oil and Gas Leases • Rights-of-Way • Grazing • Wilderness Degrading Infrastructure • Renew New Mexico and Stewardship Projects-Current • Renew New Mexico and Stewardship Projects-Future 

BORDER AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Border and Homeland Security is the most important aspect of all discussion of 

the proposed legislation. Wilderness on or near the Mexican border is dangerous, 

it is illogical and it affects every American. 

MOU Discussion 

In 2006, the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Interior signed 

a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that set out the process for the Border Patrol to access federal lands for the purposes of tracking, surveillance, interdiction, 

establishment of observation points, and installation of remote detection systems 

along the United States border with Mexico. For something as important as national 

security, why would the Border Patrol be constrained beyond the 60 foot ‘‘Roosevelt 

Reservation’’ directly adjacent to the border and be under the oversight and control 

of Federal land managers within the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs? The answer was that, when Border Patrol activities impacted designated federal wilderness where mechanized entry was not allowed by the Wilderness Act of 1964, land management goals and missions between the Border Patrol 

and the federal land management agencies were at full odds and the conflict escalated dramatically. 

The problem became so intense that in 2003 Senator Kyl (R-AZ) demanded that 

‘‘unnecessary restrictions’’ be ‘‘dumped’’ from national park land along the MexicanArizona border. Finally, in March of 2006, the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Interior and Agriculture signed the agreement. The question is did it work? 

In a 2009 document submitted by the Park Service to Congress, there is a paragraph on page 15 which addresses that question directly. It reads, ‘‘With the increase in Border Patrol agents in the monument, there is a direct correlation to 

more impacts on resources from enforcement operations since under the 2006 MOU 

they have access under specific situations with mechanical means to the monument 

to include wilderness areas. These events lead to enormous challenges between 

agencies as we attempt to manage these resources.’’ 

Repeated questions by Don ̃ a Ana County citizens to Senator Bingaman’s staff 

about the assurances that the Arizona conditions will not be repeated in New Mexico brought repeated references to Border Patrol responses that there is an MOU 

in place to deal with access. PFPOWH is convinced by the exhaustive research that 

such an expectation is erroneous and dismissive of the facts in Arizona. In no case 

will an MOU supercede legislation. In no case will the Border Patrol be effective 

if it has to submit written requests for access for issues other than hot pursuit, and 
41 

in no case will local law enforcement agencies even have access to request allowances. On page 9 of the MOU, Section V.F. reminds all that the MOU is only an 

agreement among the agreeing agencies. 

Moreover, the MOU is symbolic of the dilemma that all agencies have faced with 

border wilderness. It came into being because of conflict, and the conflict in missions 

continues between Border Patrol and the Park Service resulting with a flow of illegal drug and human smuggling on federal lands adjacent to the Mexican border in 

Arizona. 

Finally, the MOU has never been tested in New Mexico. Poll any Border Patrol 

agent who has ever been on the New Mexico border and not a single one will say 

that he or she has had a incident whereby a Wilderness Study Area has restricted 

any activity relating to interdiction or apprehension, especially any situation that 

was policed or prohibited by a BLM ranger. Such an incident simply doesn’t exist, 

and, therefore, never has the MOU been forced into action. So, asking a New Mexico 

Border Patrol representative if he has a problem with the MOU is meaningless. 

They have never had a problem so how can they respond to a question of whether 

the MOU causes them any concern. A similar question posed to a Border Patrolman 

on the Arizona Border in 1990 before the onslaught of human tidal wave action 

began about wilderness would have yielded exactly the same answer. Those that 

were there had no idea what a buzz saw it would become. 

The Arizona Experience 

For hundreds of years the desert of what is now Arizona has been the route of 

goods coming north from Mexico. The flow of merchandise was created by demand 

from citizens and settlers of del Norte, the expanse of territory generally north of 

the 54th Parallel. Over time, the goods became as often illegal as they were legal. 

Today, the goods passing through the rural, isolated expanse of sand, rock and heat 

are more often than not, illegal. The circumstances and conditions surrounding the 

flow are dangerous, and the consequences of stemming the tide must be a national 

priority. 

In the early 1990’s human and drug smuggling got so intense in the urban centers 

of southern California and places like El Paso, Texas, that American citizens demanded that something be done. The Border Patrol responded with a series of operations intending to pinch off the flow of illegal entry in the urban areas and force 

that flow out into rural areas where interdiction and apprehensions could be done 

more effectively. Starting in El Paso in 1993 with Operation ‘‘Hold the Line,’’ followed by Operation ‘‘Gate Keeper’’ in San Diego in 1994, and concluding with Operation ‘‘Safeguard’’ in Nogales in 1995, the Border Patrol turned up the heat. What 

they found in El Paso was that apprehensions went down in the city and in the sector as a whole. What they did was working. In San Diego, there was a brief lag 

followed by the same pattern of decline in apprehensions and interdiction that El 

Paso experienced. 

Where the San Diego and El Paso operations were successful, the Nogales operation failed. What developed was that apprehensions and interdiction sky rocketed 

as the hordes of illegal immigrants that were turned away in San Diego came to 

the deserts. Something happened and it happened in a big and unexpected way. 

Border Patrol retired officials will admit that they were ready for the wild land on 

the Arizona border, but they were completely blindsided by the restrictions of the 

federal designated Wilderness that was being administered by the DOI through its 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service. While the federal land agencies dug in to enforce wilderness access issues with the Border Patrol, the illegal 

immigrants found a haven of entry that has become the dominant feature in the 

movement of human and drug smuggling on the border. 

Data will show that all categories of crime not only went up, they exploded. 

Deaths in Organ Pipe went from only occasional deaths to over 200 per year. Deaths 

are currently estimated to be 300-500 per year. Where there were no roads, drug 

cartels made roads. Where there were no trails, human masses trekking northward 

made trails. National Geographic named Organ Pipe National Monument the most 

dangerous park in the American system. It got so bad that signs are posted warning 

travelers not to stop for dead bodies! One retired Border Patrol agent talked about 

being involved in an operation whereby 19 bodies were recovered in one operation 

out on the western boundary of the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge in designated wilderness. The Border Patrol was not allowed to drive to the bodies. They flew, and 

even then there were ramifications and threats. The agent talked with trepidation 

of the smell in the helicopter for months following that harrowing event. 

Whole industries have grown up opposite the expanse of national park lands supporting the flow of illegal immigrants northward. Buses run around the clock on 

Mexican Highway 2. Videos are played educating illegal immigrants how to avoid 
42 

American Border Patrol activities, how to survive in the wilderness and what to expect. Passengers can halt the buses at any point and commence their treks northward. By Park Service estimates, illegal immigrants outnumber paid park visitors 

at least ten to one. Border Patrol officials believe that number is at least half of 

the actual. 

Park Service officials at Organ Pipe did a study to quantify the impact on the 

monument. In a representative one square kilometer area out in the designated Wilderness of the Valley of the Ajos, an unsuspecting family taking an afternoon hike 

would encounter the following: 

• seven illegal rest sites 

• 15 sets of illegal vehicle tracks 

• 40 sites of illegal trash disposal 

• 48 discarded water bottles 

• one set of illegal bicycle tracks 

• one set of illegal horse tracks 

• three illegal abandoned camp fires 

• 254 illegal foot trails 

The foregoing was all on designated wilderness where mechanized entry is not allowed and where, to this day, the ability of the Border Patrol is constrained by wilderness policy. 

The Texas Phenomena 

While investigating the Arizona border threat, a High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area (HIDTA) report was found. It revealed information that PFPOWH believes has 

never been exposed to Congress or the American people. Data from Aerostat summaries was analyzed and set forth in a manner that attempted to quantify radar 

and drug interdiction events by mile of border. The result of the analysis is as follows: 

CARTEL RADAR CONTACTS DRUG SEIZURES 

TEXAS 06 .02 

NEW MEXICO .11 .30 

ARIZONA .60 .53 

(per mile of border) 

Why do cartel aircraft radar contacts run one contact per nearly 20 miles of border in Texas while in Arizona they run one per less than two miles of border a rate 

that is ten times higher than Texas? Likewise, why do drug seizures run one per 

50 miles of Texas border while seizures in Arizona run one in less than two miles 

of border? Three retired Border Patrol officials were asked that question. 

The first, Gene Wood, former chief of the McAllen (Texas) sector said, ‘‘You’ve got 

private ownership of land with a very aggressive citizenry in Texas protecting their 

property rights. They interact immediately and continuously with the Border Patrol 

and the Border Patrol has full and unencumbered access to everything, at any time, 

(and) for any reason.’’ 

Next, Richard Hays, former Chief of Flight Operations, United States Border Patrol, responded to why the New Mexico result is intermediate between the Texas 

and Arizona results. He said, ‘‘Like Arizona, there is a domination of federal lands 

along the border, but New Mexico still has a resident ranching community. Go over 

into Arizona and nearly the entire border is federally controlled land. The ranchers 

have been eliminated or so decimated that they can no longer maintain a dominant 

presence. They are gone from the monuments and the wildlife refuges, and the infrastructure that they built and maintained is gone as well. The Forest Service allotments are so gutted that those folks are in a precarious position, and the Tohono 

O’odon Reservation and the BIA has no idea how to control the situation. 

The third official, Jim Switzer, former Yuma Sector Chief and current chair of the 

National Association of Retired Border Patrol Officers said, ‘‘New Mexico and Texas 

still have a vested, engaged, and resident population of citizens who will protect 

their private property rights. Their Arizona counterparts have been largely eliminated. Where there are resident Americans who have property rights at risk, there 

remains a working relationship with the Border Patrol. If there is activity, the Bor-
43 

der Patrol will be contacted and welcomed. That is not the case where only federal 

(land) agencies are present. 

The Mirror Effect 

Mr. Wood, former McAllen Sector chief, prompted a further investigation into 

something that had started to appear in the investigative process. He said, ‘‘In 

Texas, there is a united front that is committed to protecting the border and eliminating drug running. Interestingly, there is also a strong influence adjacent to the 

border. Where there is long standing American (land) ownership there is normally 

a strong Mexican counterpart.’’ 

Two issues stand out in that statement. The first is whether or not there is a mirror effect of activity adjacent to the maize of free flowing corridors running north 

from the border on park lands. The study from Organ Pipe describes that phenomenon exactly. On lands of Organ Pipe’s sister park, the Mexican El Pinacate 

Biosphere Reserve where once pristine lands spread for miles across the desert, a 

whole infrastructure of businesses has grown up supporting the migration of drugs 

and humans northward. Colonias, illegal roads, bus stops, filling stations, barber 

shops, tire shops and trash and destruction of the natural environment have spread 

across the entire area. American policies have extended the environmental destruction across the border. 

As for the issue of mirror images of land ownership, Mr. Wood’s comments become 

even more intriguing. Could it be possible that social implications of the mirror effect exist? The argument that evolved from Mr. Wood’s comments has huge implications. It is this. Where a strong American exists on the border normally a strong 

counterpart exists. The American, protecting his property rights, is a formidable foe. 

He will not put up with nonsense and the Mexican counterpart knows that. The 

Mexican (or the American in a reverse situation) is put in a situation whereby he 

is less willing or inclined to do something that will breach that unwritten relationship. If one of them is removed, however, a new relationship is without boundaries. 

Time and a personal relationship have not cemented any demand on etiquette or 

standards. If there is a new party that is inclined to do something illegal or is inclined to submit to a bribe, then all bets are off and a breach in security is at hand. 

That is exactly what has happened in Arizona. Drug cartels can simply buy out 

unopposed, unsupported property owners. The internal policing action is eliminated. 

Think of the implications. Where there are strong relationships in Texas that exist 

without additional cost to the American tax payer, they, in large part, no longer 

exist in Arizona. How expensive is the dismantling of that relationship mechanism? 

Who knows what the cost to society is, but we do know that the cost of policing action on the 30 miles of Organ Pipe boundary it is now running $1,922 million a year 

(and that does not include Border Patrol costs on the same 30 miles of border). In 

the 2009 Park Service document cited herein, that sum appears to be in jeopardy 

of increasing. The report notes that ‘‘in the last six months, the park has seen a 

significant increase in vehicle based smuggling.’’ 

The committee is asked to consider that land agencies and conservation groups 

alike have waged a war against grazing on public lands. For the first time, there 

is evidence to show that there are large opportunity costs in removing federal lands 

ranchers. In Texas, the ranching community continues to provide a costless buffer 

for American security interests. In Arizona, those folks have been decimated, and 

the flood gates of human and drug smuggling has been opened without hope of nearby recovery. 

The Road and the Railroad Track 

In explanations from Senator Bingaman’s staff as to the assurances of absolving 

security risks, the MOU (described herein) and the issue of a buffer added to the 

south side of the Potrillo Mountain complex for Border Patrol access and interdiction efforts are repeated. Again, retired Border Patrol officials who are not afraid 

of career issues step forth and talk. It is not the proximity of the border itself to 

the border wilderness boundary that poses the greatest risk to this nation. It is the 

proximity of the nearest east west road to the border wilderness boundary that is 

the danger. 

In the Arizona situation, Mexican Highway 2 played an immense role in moving 

the soft point of entry from urban centers to the desolate wilderness areas of national park lands. The path of that parallel highway to the border varies, but it 

ranges up to several miles from the border fence itself. Data from the Park Service 

data indicates that entry points are continuous along the boundary; hence, illegal 

immigrants are walking north from the highway in a myriad of places and from a 

large variation in distances. Retired officials remind us that New Mexico Highway 

9, the nearest east west road adjacent to the Potrillos is the real risk factor, not 
44 

the border. Cartels will probe, and move, and jockey, and adjust and they will find 

the soft points. On the whole, they will not be sending dope north from Mexico by 

human transportation. Rather, they will stage the dope and deliver it by vehicle to 

points along Highway 9. They will then run it north, either by vehicle where a 1.5 

to 3 mile buffer is eaten up in less than three minutes, or by starting simultaneously a number of runners going north through the proposed wilderness to points 

along I10 or to the next stage from I10 north through more proposed wilderness in 

the Uvas or Broad Canyon areas to stage termination points along Highway 26. Remember, Organ Pipe cannot control mechanized access with 28 law enforcement 

agents dedicated to law enforcement and an unknown number of Border Patrol officials all protecting 30 miles of wilderness border with Mexico, so how can anyone 

think that a single BLM ranger and an unknown number of Border Patrol agents 

halt all entry along the a similar expanse of land with 23 miles of boundary exposure? 

Finally, the modernized Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad line forms a portion of the Potrillo Mountain complex on the northeast side of the proposed plan. 

Ask any national security expert what that rail line poses in terms of a national 

security risk, especially the issue of weapons of mass destruction and there will be 

a single, united response. 

RANGE IMPROVEMENTS

The Don ̃ a Ana County wilderness proposal is hard pressed to maintain the fidelity 

of the original standards of 1964. It would be difficult for anyone to find 5,000 acres 

of contiguous lands that are largely untrammeled by man. In fact, there four wells, 

16 improved springs, one building, 11 corrals, 60 earthen reservoirs, 13 water storage tanks, 31 troughs, and three windmills within the footprint of the proposal (Exhibit C). 

In discussions with the BLM in the summer of 2008, two of the permittees asked 

for preliminary consideration for a series of pipelines and troughs from existing 

water sources to better utilize lands where cattle must walk three miles to water. 

The response was inconclusive because the location of the troughs would be within 

a mile of the footprint of a Wilderness Study Area (WSA). If BLM administration 

concludes that improvements within a mile of a WSA are going to be subject to 

stricter wilderness management demands, ranchers affected by Wilderness designation are concerned that the footprint of the designated land affects improvements 

out to a mile buffer of the boundary. If that is the case, the impacted improvement 

inventory expands to 20 wells, 19 springs, 11 buildings, 34 corrals, 116 earthen 

dams, 35 water storage tanks, 85 troughs and 10 windmills. 

Data from New Mexico State University and elsewhere confirm that when the 

temperature reaches 103 F, a cow and her calf, a pair, will drink upwards of 32 

gallons of water per day. In this desert environment, such a day is expected. Any 

steward of the range has nightmares of finding cattle that are standing in front of 

an empty trough bawling in desperation. Experiencing this event one time will forever impact your tolerance for constraints that limit the ability to maintain adequate water supplies. Every one of those same stewards knows that when such a 

condition is impacting cattle it is impacting wildlife as well. Monitoring water and 

water supplies is a daily demand in this desert country. Any limitation of not doing 

so is not just an economic hardship, it has inhumane consequences. 

Using our model prompted by the BLM wilderness buffer management expectation, there are 60 miles of underground pipeline affected by this proposal. If those 

pipelines cannot be checked by mechanized vehicle, those inhumane consequences 

are expected. There is no way those miles of pipeline can be checked and serviced 

by horseback. 

In the modern West, labor has been replaced by fewer people constantly in motion. Cattle are driven fewer miles. Calves that were once weaned and driven from 

their mothers are now hauled. Cattle slated for market are now penned and sorted 

in distant pastures and hauled to markets from those locations. Water sources are 

checked and maintained from pickups and ATVs. Roads have become vital to the 

ranch operations and it is no longer possible to get by with unimproved two tracked 

roads. In this model there are 481 miles of roads. This is not a rancher driven number. It is from the Don ̃ a Ana County census data. When the S.1689 maps are analyzed, the sum of the road mileage is only a fraction of the U.S. census records. 

These roads are not just a part of the infrastructure of the ranches. They have 

become multigenerational access routes for citizens who have deep ties to the land 

for a variety of wholesome and simple uses. Taking those few freedoms from a county resident is not the blissful salvation that is being advertised. The great majority 

of the users of these roads are fully in agreement that off-road activities are not 
45 

right and they will defend that position. Ranchers find few examples of blatant offroad use by law abiding citizens. Drug runners are another story, and, rest assured, 

the Arizona experience has demonstrated that drug runners could care less about 

wilderness constraints. 

In addition to the data provided heretofore, the remaining improvements on these 

lands included 297 miles of fence line, 67 miles of electric transmission lines, and 

61 miles of commercial pipelines (gas and oil). From an objective thinker, reading 

the Wilderness Act and digesting these improvement totals, the true fidelity of wilderness in Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico, is being stretched beyond measure. 

WATER PROJECTS

Elephant Butte Irrigation District is one of the most unique water districts in the 

nation. The district management and users have not only paid for the district, they 

have accomplished some very interesting undertakings. They now have the right to 

capture and reuse storm water within the confines of their district watershed. This 

greater project requires some very sophisticated flood monitoring equipment that 

prompts district personnel to prepare facilities to capture and reroute flood waters 

into their system. The flood monitoring equipment must be installed in areas impacted by wilderness consideration. 

Likewise, the system of flood control dams installed many years ago by the Bureau of Reclamation has been turned over to the district for management. These facilities and similar future opportunities must not be constrained by wilderness or 

NCA constraints for repairs or expansion. 

Don ̃ a Ana County is a desert. There is no magical source of water. There is no 

Lake Shasta to drain into an aqueduct to enhance the limited supply of Rio Grande 

drainage and underground water sources. This is an area that has some distinct relative agronomical advantages and people are going to continue to want to come to 

the area for all of the reasons it is so popular. As such, water and the supply of 

water must be one of the two or three most important things in the vision of any 

leader. Water is vital and every opportunity to enhance the supply of water is not 

just prudent, it is imperative. No wilderness bill should be used to limit that most 

important resource. 

The Broad Canyon area is the most significant watershed in the county. It is not 

only important for flood water capture and reuse, it is the most logical area to plan 

for future water supply impoundment. Off-basin storage has been the option most 

used in the storage of water sourced from nontraditional sources, when closed, underground basins are not suitable for storage. In Don ̃a Ana County, this might not 

happen in the next generation, but it will happen. It is not prudent to disallow future citizens the opportunity to pursue projects that will be possible. Broad Canyon 

is the major, and perhaps the only, area where such undertakings are possible. 

ENERGY CORRIDORS

The SunZia energy transmission concept that is envisioned to provide enhanced 

energy transmission capability from renewable energy projects in New Mexico has 

huge implications to this county and state. The preferred route from Hatch to 

Deming, New Mexico passes north of the area impacted by the wilderness proposal, 

but the alternate route runs right through the Broad Canyon area. If the solar energy studies areas being evaluated by Argonne National Laboratory in conjunction 

with the BLM determine that the two major areas in southern New Mexico are candidates for solar generation consideration, the routing of that power line will be altered. If wilderness legislation precludes the use of the energy corridor, Don ̃ a Ana 

County runs the risk of being dropped from conceptual projects. That must be avoided. 

Likewise, any likelihood of a natural gas pipeline from the Belen area into the 

southland would come through that same corridor. Altering the routing would push 

the pipeline at least to the county line. That would have huge implications in the 

cost structure of the project. Wilderness and NCA designations affect that planning. 

RAIL LINE ACCESS

The congestion of the interior of the Mesilla Valley grows every year. There is a 

matter of safety and traffic flow enhancement centers around the rerouting of the 

north/ south rail line that currently runs parallel to New Mexico Highway 28 as far 

north as Rincon, New Mexico Plans to move that line out of the valley feature the 

Broad Canyon area. This is a simple and necessary adjustment for surface and rail 

line flows through the area. Wilderness and or NCA designation impact that planning. 
46 

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS

Currently, there is a solar energy project underway in the Santa Teresa area. Additionally, there are two large solar study areas (noted above in the energy corridor 

section) that might be future sites of solar generation. These areas combine to form 

a footprint of 73,794 acres. If the study is positive any project will necessarily be 

impacted on transmission line capacity. It is imperative that wilderness and or NCA 

consideration in the Broad Canyon not impact negatively on such a concept. Such 

an eventuality would impact Don ̃ a Ana County dramatically. 

Likewise, the BLM has served notice that a wind energy study will be done on 

the western edges of the Goodnight Mountains just west of the county. If that study 

proves successful the same conditions are likely to occur on the west side of the 

Rough and Ready Hills and other portions of the Broad Canyon area. Wilderness 

and or NCA designation would stand to impact that result. 

MINES

There are a total of 23 mines in the footprint of the wilderness and NCA proposals. Most of those mines are not active, but all of those mines are subject to safety and mitigation laws and requirements. Like all mines, they also represent increased risk to Superfund findings. Not wanting to run the risk of redundancy, it 

seems confounding to elevate any land into wilderness status when such a stretch 

from ‘‘lands largely untrammeled by man’’ must be accompanied by gimmicks to 

mitigate the impact of man in order to force the designation. If a superfund site is 

ever found, the prospect of a contractor who still has knowledge and possession of 

mule teams and Fresno scrapers is likely to be hard to find. 

OIL AND GAS LEASES

The 1995 National Oil and Gas Assessment of the South-Central New Mexico 

Province, prepared by W. C. Butler, discusses hypothetical oil and gas potential. 

There have been very few wells drilled in the province, so the report is based on 

the geological history of the area. The report does state ‘‘the number and excellent 

quality of hydrocarbon shows in the few Pennsylvanian and Permian penetrations 

indicate the probable existence of commercial hydrocarbons’’ (Pyron and Gray, 

1985). The report also states, ‘‘The shelf strata of the Orogrande Basin,’’ an area 

within the province, ‘‘have been compared to the contemporaneous highly productive 

reservoirs of the Delaware Basin of west Texas. Mississippian through Permian formations of the Delaware Basin has a cumulative production of more than 3 BBO 

and 5.0 TCF of nonassociated gas’’ (Robertson and Broadhead, 1993). 

According to information obtained from the National Integrated Land System, 

Don ̃ a Ana County has had a long history of oil and gas leases on public lands. Most 

of these leases have never been developed and, as a result, have expired. oil and 

gas companies have to make decisions on which leases to explore and develop based 

on various logistical and economic criteria. As the price of oil and gas increase and 

as technology advances make evaluation and development more cost effective, development of these energy resources may occur. Currently, there are ten authorized oil 

and gas leases which are partially or wholly contained in the proposed Wilderness 

and NCA boundaries. These leases cover over 15,000 acres. As we have discussed 

in other areas of this testimony covering energy development, designation of Wilderness and NCA would significantly affect the exploration and development of these 

important and much needed potential oil and gas reserves. 

RIGHTS OF WAY

According to the National Integrated Land System, the BLM has entered into 

rights of way agreements for one pending solar energy project, 36 road and utility 

and 12 oil and gas pipeline projects which are included in the areas in the proposed 

Wilderness and NCA boundaries. The National Integrated Land System has a disclaimer which indicates for various reasons the system does not contain all agreements. Maps which have been produced which include both line data and agreement 

data indicate that there should be many more agreements, but the data that is 

available clearly shows that there are a significant number of pre-existing rights 

created under these agreements which will be impacted by the designation of Wilderness and NCA. The Wilderness Act includes language that precludes the use of 

any mechanical equipment. How will any maintenance or replacement of equipment 

under these agreements occur? These pre-existing rights need to be included in the 

purposes section of the NCA legislation, as litigation or adjudication will be required 

every time someone wants to exercise their rights. 
47 

GRAZING

We have concerns on the ability of ranchers to continue their family operations 

should this bill become law. Those concerns apply to both proposed designations: 

wilderness and national conservation area. With respect to wilderness, much is 

made of the Grazing Guidelines (House report No. 101-405). When Congress had the 

foresight to adopt those provisions, most wildernesses were in the high country. In 

many instances, those high country allotments had natural water, natural boundaries and were seasonal operations only. The allotments addressed in this legislation occur in the desert. There are no natural waters or boundaries and the operations are year round. Based on these factors and discussions with BLM, we have 

no confidence the guidelines as they exist will be sufficient and the ranching community will suffer the consequences. 

With respect to national conservation areas, our concerns are equal footing for 

grazing, the consistency language, the ‘‘where established’’ limitation and the ability 

to maintain range improvements and standard ranching operations. For further discussion of these issues, see Exhibit D. 

WILDERNESS DEGRADING INFRASTRUCTURE

The proposed wilderness areas included in S. 1689 are not free of the noticeable 

imprint of man which the Wilderness Act of 1964 required. These areas have been 

inhabited by man since recorded history and have been heavily impacted since 

Onate came to the territory in 1589. These impacts have been discussed under the 

above sections: range improvements, water projects, energy corridors, rail line access, renewable energy projects, mines, oil and gas leases and rights of way. Each 

of these impacts degrades wilderness characters to different levels in each of the 

proposed wilderness and NCA areas. The impacts show up dramatically in the series of maps in Exhibit E—Desert Peaks Wilderness Area Evaluation. The maps 

show the impacts as each type of infrastructure is overlaid on the footprint of the 

proposed wilderness areas. The last map in each set show the cumulative impact 

of these improvements and infrastructure and demonstrates what we feel are over 

whelming reasons to protects these lands with a designation other than wilderness. 

They are worthy of protection, but don’t fit the gold standard of wilderness. Exhibit 

F is the Potrillo Mountains Wilderness Area Evaluation and Exhibit G is the Organ 

Mountains Wilderness Area Evaluation. 

RENEW NEW MEXICO AND STEWARDSHIP PROJECTS, CURRENT

The Renew New Mexico undertaking, largely promoted through the guidance of 

BLM State Director, Linda Rundell, is finding a very positive acceptance by a large 

cross section of stakeholders. This partnership project is an aggressive plan to restore our state’s grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas to healthy and productive conditions. Since its inception in 2005, Restore New Mexico has become the 

model for rangeland conservation in the western United States. This year, 2009, the 

project will reach the 1,000,000th acre in partnership activities. 

One of the most apparent components of the project is the eradication of creosote. 

Creosote is the equivalent of sage brush to the southern tier states and it is found 

in large reaches of Don ̃ a Ana County. It can only be eliminated by stewardship 

projects that include herbicide and then a regimen of fire. By strict measure of the 

Wilderness Act, such activities are not allowed in wilderness. 

In conjunction with brush control, water projects that serve to better utilize range 

for both livestock and wildlife are being undertaken. These complimentary projects 

are being driven largely by EQIP partnership contracts. Such projects installed by 

mechanized means will not be allowed in wilderness. 

As a matter of interest, there are over 200 water installations on federal lands 

ranches on the west side of Don ̃ a Ana County from the Mesilla Valley to the county 

line where the majority of S.1689 is centered. Only one (1) of those water sources 

is a permanent, natural source of water. The remainder are there because of cattle. 

Wildlife are impacted every bit as much as cattle in this dry environment. If those 

waters and projects that enhance the supply and distribution of those water sources 

are negatively impacted by wilderness, inhumane consequences can be expected. 

RENEW NEW MEXICO AND STEWARDSHIP PROJECTS, FUTURE

The guiding factor in the Restore New Mexico brush control planning is slope. 

Creosote grows naturally on shallow soils overlaying caliche deposits. Where Creosote stands have expanded into deeper soils is the primary target area for control 

measures. Slope is a defining factor in whether or not projects can be expected to 

work. Most of the areas being considered for wilderness are good candidates for 
48 

brush control, but some are not. As such, there is less likelihood that future projects 

can or will be undertaken. Likewise, water distribution supporting the outcome of 

the brush control measures will be limited on more severe slopes. In fairness to wilderness consideration, this factor must be considered. 

STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

From the stakeholder meeting process (Exhibit A) that took place in 2006/2007, 

the recommendations from the position papers written by the eight stakeholder 

groups can be summarized as follows: 

3 Organ Mountain WSA’s—Received a near unanimous vote for wilderness 

Mt. Riley and Aden Lava Flow WSA’s—Received 5 votes (slight majority) for wilderness 

West Potrillo Mountains WSA—Received 4 votes against wilderness 

Robledo Mountains WSA—Received 5 votes against wilderness 

Broad Canyon (currently under Multiple Use Management)—Received 6 votes 

against wilderness 

East Potrillo Mountains (currently under Multiple Use Management)—Received 6 

votes against wilderness 

Organ Mountains South unit (currently proposed for NCA)—Received 4 votes for 

NCA 

Organ Mountains North unit (currently proposed for NCA)—Received 3 votes for 

NCA 

It can be concluded from this citizen input that there was strong support for wilderness in the Organ Mountains. The rest of the lands were not strong candidates 

for wilderness and a preference for returning the majority of the land back to multiple use management or National Conservation area management was prevalent. 

SUMMARY

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to present to the Committee information 

and concerns on behalf of People For Preserving Our Western Heritage. I trust that 

the Committee will consider the need for an alternative land protection designation, 

seriously evaluate the real border security threats to the local ranch families and 

the communities in southern New Mexico and recognize the value of having productive ranch enterprises contributing to the first line of defense in rural America. 

We strongly believe in protection of the Organ Mountains and surrounding desert 

peaks. We do not believe that all of the areas proposed should be wilderness; they 

should be protected with another designation. We feel that Senator Bingaman and 

the Committee have an opportunity to protect lands and at the same time recognize 

the importance of history that has become part of the landscape in Don ̃ a Ana County. 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee and I stand ready to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, doctor. 

Senator BINGAMAN. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for accommodating our schedule. 

Let me thank both Commissioner Butler and Dr. Schickedanz for 

taking the time to come and talk to us about this bill. 

Commissioner Butler, let me ask you first of all whether the designation of new wilderness and national conservation areas as we 

contemplate in this bill would in any way in your view limit or impede the city of Las Cruces or the county’s ability to develop and 

grow as they intend to over the coming years? 

Mr. BUTLER. Senator, members, of this committee, no, it won’t. 

Actually these designation areas, wilderness areas, are the magnet, 

are the attraction to Las Cruces. No more than the Lincoln Memorial or the Washington Monument, These particular designated 

areas are the very thing that attract business, attract tourists, attract residents and retirees to the area. 
49 

So this is a big plus for Las Cruces. In fact, it will help motivate 

growth and development of the area. It will be an economic stimulus package for us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Schickedanz, let me ask you. Your group has proposed a new 

rangeland preservation area designation. You testified about that 

as an alternative to the new wilderness and national conservation 

area designations that we have in this bill. There seems to be 

agreement—your group seems to agree that the areas should be 

withdrawn from mining and oil and gas development and that offroad vehicle use should be limited, just as we proposed. The main 

difference seems to be related to surface lands, use of the surface, 

especially grazing. Am I accurate in that description so far? 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, yes. I 

think we disagree probably on the access or the timing of access. 

The grazing standards that were developed in I think 1990 or 1994 

as a supplement to the Wilderness Act provide for occasional use, 

but we have not found anybody that will describe what ‘‘occasional’’ 

is. The local and State director don’t want to make a statement on 

what ‘‘occasional’’ is. So in the desert Southwest, where water is 

very important to livestock operations, being able to check those 

waters, to check pipelines, becomes very important. If ‘‘occasional’’ 

is going to be a year, that’s too long. Many times daily checking 

of some of those pipelines so that livestock do have water—so the 

‘‘occasional’’ is what we’re interested in. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you would like it clarified that the occasional 

use that you would be permitted under this legislation would be as 

required in order to ensure that there’s adequate water for livestock? 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me stop with that. I know Senator Udall also 

has questions. Again, thank you both for being here. 

Senator WYDEN. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. 

Thank you both for being here. Commissioner Butler, you’ve been 

in public service a while. I talked about in my testimony, Senator 

Bingaman talked about in his, about the coalition that backs this. 

I only mentioned a few of the groups, but there is extensive and 

widespread support, with the Southwest chapter of New Mexico 

Quail, Don ̃ a Ana County Associated Sportsmen, Back Country 

Horsemen, League of Women Voters. The list goes on and on. 

Have you ever seen in your public service such a broad support 

for this piece of legislation or any other piece of legislation down 

there? 

Mr. BUTLER. Senator Udall and members of this committee, no, 

I haven’t. In fact, I really take my hat off to your staff, Senator 

Bingaman, who walked through this community, walked through 

our rural areas, had these meetings, had extensive meetings, hundreds of meetings with these various groups. 

I can assure you that even the groups mentioned by Mr. 

Schickedanz—that there are many individuals within those organizations that support wilderness. That’s what I’ve seen to date and 

that’s why I’m here to date, that when they see the consensus that 

has been built—and I’m sure that there are some concerns with the 
50 

opponents. But the consensus that has been built in Don ̃ a Ana 

County regarding wilderness and the NCAs, it’s unbelievable. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Schickedanz, this issue of occasional use in grazing. These 

areas, a significant part of this area has been managed as wilderness study for over 25 years. It’s been in wilderness study. Have 

you found that working with BLM and interpreting that term ‘‘occasional,’’ has it worked out? Have there been problems? 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. OK. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, the 

areas have been managed under wilderness study areas. 

Senator UDALL. Which is treated just like a wilderness. 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. Almost, except the access. Under the wilderness study areas they’re able to use some of the roads and trail 

that goes to the various improvements. When it becomes wilderness those will no longer be available unless they’re specifically 

identified and allowed. So that’s where we differ on what ‘‘occasional’’ use becomes under the Wilderness Act. 

So again, I think that raises the issue that we would like to see 

the lands protected, but under a less restrictive utilization of access. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. I know you’ve given extensive testimony here and I look forward to working with Senator Bingaman 

and the committee to see if it’s possible to resolve some of your concerns. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank both of my colleagues. With apologies 

to Mr. Mallott and Mr. Claus, we will follow up on your views. 

With that, we’re going to turn it over to Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Murkowski, you proceed as you would like with the vote 

coming up and what you can get in before the vote and what you 

feel is necessary, if it’s required afterwards. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t we also excuse our 2 New Mexico witnesses. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have no questions of the New Mexico witnesses. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Thank you all. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Gentlemen, what we can do, I’ll 

just keep an eye on the vote. But I’d like to try to get comments 

from both of you before I have to go off. I understand that there 

will be two votes, so I’m going to try and time it so that we can 

do two for one and I’m not gone from the hearing room for too long. 

But with that, Mr. Mallott, if you want to lead off. 

STATEMENT OF BYRON MALLOTT, BOARD MEMBER, 

SEALASKA CORPORATION, JUNEAU, AK 

Mr. MALLOTT. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

With reference to the comments that were made by the administration witnesses and their desire that the Tongass Futures process 

continue and that it will be important in their deliberations on an 

ongoing basis, I just want to mention for the record that I am a 

member of the Tongass Futures roundtable and I have participated 

in most all of the meetings that have taken place. 

I have submitted for the record detailed testimony on the 

Sealaska land entitlement legislation. I’m prepared to answer any 
51 

questions that you may have. I want to spend a few moments talking about ANCSA because that is key to the purpose and the philosophy of the legislation before us. ANCSA, the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act, its policy action of Congress kept us on and 

gave Alaska’s Native peoples some of their own lands to retain. 

The focused public policy imperative at the time, which I believe 

has been amply met, was on economic development. The lands will 

allow us to continue that public policy. It also gave us an opportunity to pursue a larger, a more whole future tied to that land and 

its seamless connection to the other lands in the Tongass Forest. 

It has been said often that every acre in the Tongass is precious 

to someone. Every acre to Native peoples in the Tongass is our 

homeland. No matter what else happens, no matter how that acre 

is treated, it is our homeland. 

There are some 20,000 descendants today of the historical traditional people of the Tongass—Tlingits, Haidas, and more recently 

Tsimshians. One of the things that I think and I’m pursuing in the 

Tongass Futures roundtable process is that public policy should acknowledge that the Tongass is a Native homeland, that simple 

statement with no strings attached. 

When I think about it, Senator, the Tongass National Forest was 

created in 1906. So in 2056 there will be the 100th anniversary. At 

that time it would seem to me that we’ll either have a forest that 

is recognized for its environmental circumstance, its sensitivity, the 

accomplishments that have been made there—that will be possibly 

sufficient. But I think that when we look back at the Tongass at 

its centennial to be able to say that this is a Native place, that it 

is the homeland of the first peoples, that their efforts to share and 

be part of all of those that came later were done in good will on 

the basis of respect and a desire to come and to work together 

would be the best kind of way to celebrate this incredible national 

vision. 

I think it would also, looking at this piece of legislation which finalizes our land entitlements, also be able to be pointed to as an 

example at that time in our history that ANCSA itself was also a 

success. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BYRON MALLOTT, BOARD MEMBER SEALASKA, 

CORPORATION, JUNEAU, AK 

S. 881

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee and Committee: 

My name is Byron Mallott, and I am a Board Member for Sealaska Corporation, 

as well as a former President and CEO. I am from Yakutat, Alaska, and I am Shaadei-ha-ni (Clan Leader) of the Kwaashk’i Kwa ́an. My Tlingit name is K’oo deel taa.a. 

Accompanying me today in the hearing room is Chair Albert Kookesh, Vice Chair 

Rosita Worl, Director Clarence Jackson, President and CEO Chris McNeil, and 

other executives of Sealaska. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Sealaska Corporation regarding S. 881, the ‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act,’’ or 

what we refer to as Haa Aanı ́ in Tlingit, which in English roughly translates into 

‘‘Our Land’’. Haa Aanı ́ is the Tlingit way of referring to our ancestral and traditional homeland, the place of our ancestors, the foundation of our history and culture, and the way that we identify where we are from. Sealaska is the Alaska Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska—one of 12 Regional Corporations es-
52 

tablished pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (‘‘ANCSA’’). Our 

shareholders are descendants of the original Native inhabitants of Southeast Alaska—the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people. Our ancestors once used and occupied 

every corner of Southeast Alaska and our cultural and burial sites can be found 

throughout the region. This legislation is a reflection of the significance of Our Land 

to our people and its importance in meeting our cultural, social and economic needs. 

We consider this legislation to be the most important and immediate ‘‘economic 

stimulus package’’ that Congress can implement for Southeast Alaska. Sealaska provides significant economic opportunities for our tribal member shareholders and for 

residents of all of Southeast Alaska through the development of our primary natural 

resource—timber. Sealaska and its subsidiaries and affiliates expended over $45 

million in 2008 in Southeast Alaska. Over 350 businesses and organizations in 16 

Southeast communities benefited from spending resulting from Sealaska activities. 

We provide over 363 full and part-time jobs with a payroll of over $15 million. Including direct and indirect employment and payroll, Sealaska contributed 490 jobs 

and approximately $21 million in payroll. 

We are proud of our collaborative efforts to build and support sustainable and viable communities and cultures in our region. We face continuing economic challenges 

with commercial electricity rates reaching $0.61/kwh and heating fuel costs sometimes ranging above $6.00 per gallon. To help offset these extraordinary costs, we 

work with our logging contractors and seven of our local communities to run a community firewood program. We are also the primary contributor of cedar logs for the 

carving of totems and are now working with the communities to provide cedar carving planks to schools and tribal organizations. We are collaborating with our village 

corporations and villages to develop hydroelectric projects. 

The profits from our timber program support causes that strengthen Native pride 

and awareness of who we are as Native people and where we came from, and further our contribution in a positive way to the cultural richness of American society. 

The proceeds from timber operations on our lands have allowed us to make substantial investments in cultural preservation, educational scholarships, and internships 

for our shareholders and shareholder descendants. Through these efforts we have 

seen a resurgence of Native pride in our culture and language, most noticeably in 

our youth, who are constantly exploring what it means to be Native today. Our 

scholarships, internships and mentoring efforts have been successful beyond our 

wildest dreams, with our corporate shareholder employment above 80% and shareholders filling the most senior positions in our corporation. None of this would have 

been possible without the passage of ANCSA, which, in some ways, remains a promise unfulfilled. 

Congress enacted ANCSA in 1971 to recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of 

Alaska Natives to the lands that we have used historically for traditional, cultural, 

and spiritual purposes. ANCSA allocated 44 million acres of land to Alaska’s Native 

people, to be allocated among and managed by 12 Alaska Native Regional Corporations and more than 200 Village Corporations. Although ANCSA declared that the 

land settlement ‘‘should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty [and] conformity 

with the real economic and social needs of [Alaska] Natives,’’ it has now been more 

than 35 years since the passage of ANCSA and Sealaska has not yet received conveyance of its full land entitlement. 

Sealaska asks your support for the enactment of S. 881 because it: 

• allows Sealaska to finalize its ANCSA land entitlement in a meaningful way 

that fulfills the purposes of ANCSA; 

• will redress inequitable limitations on Sealaska’s land selections by allowing it 

to select its remaining land entitlement from designated federal land outside of 

the original and inadequate designated withdrawal areas; 

• allows for Alaska Native ownership of sites with sacred, cultural, traditional 

and historic significance to the Alaska Natives of Southeast Alaska; 

• creates the opportunity for Sealaska to support a sustainable rural economy and 

to further economic and employment opportunities for Sealaska shareholders 

and other rural residents; 

• provides a platform for Sealaska to contribute to the Southeast Alaska economy, 

a region that is struggling overall, especially in our rural Native villages; and 

• provides real conservation benefits in the region. 

In sum, this legislation resolves the long-outstanding Sealaska entitlement in a 

manner consistent with Congress’s stated objective to act through ANCSA to promote economic development, and enables the federal government to complete its 

statutory obligation to the Natives of Southeast Alaska. In fact, completion of 

ANCSA conveyances was recently recognized by Congress as a priority through the 

enactment in 2004 of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (P.L. 108-452). 
53 

There is a compelling, equitable basis for supporting passage of this legislation. 

First, the original ANCSA withdrawals demonstrated a lack of understanding of the 

geography of the region, and a series of later congressional actions further undermined the quality of the lands that were available for selection by Sealaska. As just 

one example, over 44% of the area within the withdrawal areas is covered with saltwater. Other factors that have severely limited the availability of lands to Sealaska 

are discussed in the ‘‘findings’’ section of our legislation. Second, there is no dispute 

that Sealaska has a remaining land entitlement. This legislation does not give 

Sealaska a single acre of land beyond that already promised by Congress. Third and 

finally, Sealaska has attempted to work closely with industrial users, conservation 

organizations, Native institutions, and local communities to craft legislation that 

provides the best possible result for the people, communities and environment of 

Southeastern Alaska. One thing has become extremely clear in our effort to resolve 

Sealaska’s land entitlement—that every acre of Southeast Alaska is precious to 

someone. Moreover, what is important or valuable to one group may not be important or valuable to another. Simply put, with the vast array of interests in Southeast Alaska, there is no way to achieve an absolute consensus on where and how 

Sealaska should select its remaining entitlement. However, we truly believe that 

this legislation offers a good solution that builds on our engagement with all regional stakeholders, and we remain committed to work with everyone to refine the 

selections and the terms of the legislation. 

OUR ANCSA LAND ENTITLEMENT AND SELECTION LIMITATIONS

ANCSA provides a land allocation to Sealaska pursuant to Section 14(h)(8) of the 

Act. Our right to this land entitlement is undisputed. The only remaining issue is 

‘‘where’’ this land will come from. Based on Bureau of Land Management projections 

for completion of the 14(h)(8) selections, as well as our own estimates, the total entitlement could be up to 85,000 acres of land remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska. 

Uniquely, ANCSA limited Sealaska land selections to withdrawal areas surrounding 

certain Native villages in Southeast Alaska. The problem is that the ability to select 

land from the withdrawal areas that meets Sealaska’s traditional, cultural, historic 

or economic needs is limited, and certain of those lands now available to Sealaska 

would more appropriately remain in public ownership. In fact, the remaining valuable timber areas within the selection areas are predominantly old growth and 

roadless areas with important public interest values. 

ANCSA selection limitations preclude Sealaska from using any of its remaining 

ANCSA entitlement to select from outside of current withdrawal areas places of sacred, cultural, traditional, and historic significance that are critical to facilitating 

the perpetuation and preservation of Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian culture and history. Our Native Places are not simply ‘‘real estate’’ we would like to own. These 

are places that are important for the perpetuation of our cultures and the preservation of our stories and histories and that we intend to protect, in collaboration with 

the local tribes, in perpetuity. 

In sum, selection from the withdrawal areas would limit Sealaska’s ability to meet 

the purposes of ANCSA—to create continued economic opportunities for the Native 

people of Southeast Alaska—or to gain ownership of our Native Places. 

LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION PROVIDED BY S. 881

While original withdrawal limitations make it difficult for Sealaska to meet its 

traditional, cultural, historic and socioeconomic needs, these original withdrawn 

lands are not without significant and important public interest value. For example, 

approximately 85 percent of those lands now designated for withdrawal by Sealaska 

are classified by the U.S. Forest Service as designated roadless areas. A significant 

portion is Productive Old-Growth forest (some 112,000 acres), with over half of that 

being Old Growth Reserves as classified in the Tongass Land Use Management 

Plan. This legislation would allow these lands to remain in public ownership to be 

managed consistent with the Tongass Land Use Management Plan. 

The legislation would allow Sealaska to: 

• Select a majority of its remaining entitlement from an alternative pool of land, 

which is largely second-growth forest, and 71 percent of which is already roaded 

as a result of previous Forest Service timber development; 

• Use a portion of its entitlement to gain title to important sacred, cultural, traditional and historic sites that are critical to the preservation of Native history 

and culture, and to advance Native social and cultural programs. These sacred, 

cultural, traditional and historic sites are relatively small in size, but are invaluable to our people; 
54 

• Select certain lands for purposes of Native enterprise that are primarily for activities with limited land use impacts and would include cultural programs, 

small-scale tourism/eco-tourism, and alternative renewable energy development, 

which would allow Sealaska to diversify its economic activities in the region and 

provide job opportunities for its tribal member shareholders and other residents 

of Southeast Alaska. Sites developed for green energy would help to relieve the 

villages of the crushing burden of high-cost diesel generated electrical power. 

This bill does not establish the final entitlement acreage for Sealaska, leaving the 

final determination to the iterative process established under Section 14(h) of 

ANCSA. However, this Administration does have the authority to work with 

Sealaska to settle the final acreage, and Sealaska is willing to engage in that discussion prior to final enactment of the legislation. 

BENEFITS OF THE LEGISLATION TO OTHERS

The benefits of this legislation extend far beyond Sealaska and its shareholders. 

Despite Sealaska’s small land base in comparison to all other Regional Corporations, 

Sealaska has historically provided significant economic benefits to not only Sealaska 

Native shareholders, but also to the other Native Corporations throughout Alaska. 

Pursuant to a revenue sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes more than 

half of all revenues derived from the development of its timber resources—more 

than $315 million between 1971 and 2007—to the other Native Corporations. By 

making selections outside of the designated withdrawal areas, Sealaska will be able 

to sustain its resource development operations by acquiring a mix of old growth and 

mature and advanced second growth, enabling it to provide continued economic opportunities for the Native people of Southeast Alaska and economic benefits to the 

broader Alaska Native community through revenue sharing. Sealaska’s timber business provides critical support to the broader Alaska Native community, and for that 

reason, Sealaska has the strong support of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the 

Regional Corporation CEOs, and the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, among other 

important Native entities. 

The role of Sealaska in the Southeast Alaska economy is undisputed. Sealaska’s 

timber operations provide significant positive economic impact to the region, including continued utilization of the timber harvesting sector and creation of jobs in some 

of the poorest rural Native communities in our region. For that reason, Sealaska 

has the support of the Alaska Forest Association and many Native villages in its 

efforts to complete its ANCSA land entitlement. 

We also see a benefit to the conservation community; in fact, Sealaska’s land legislation strategy was in part driven by national and local conservation organizations’ 

stated public goals of ‘‘protecting roadless areas’’, ‘‘protecting old growth reserves’’ 

and creating alternate economies for Southeast Alaska. Instead of taking old 

growth, roadless areas in the original withdrawal areas, Sealaska would commit 

through this legislation to taking a majority of its remaining entitlement from areas 

that are already roaded, encompassing significant second-growth timber. Moreover, 

Sealaska would use nearly 9,000 acres of its remaining entitlement to gain title to 

sacred, historic, traditional and cultural sites, and Native futures sites, on which 

commercial timber harvest or mineral development would be prohibited. Southeast 

Alaska tribes and Native Village and Urban Corporations have passed resolutions 

in support of this legislation because they recognize the need to preserve our sacred 

areas and culture, and to create local, sustainable, diversified economies. This legislation gives them the opportunity to join with Sealaska to do both. 

Lastly, movement toward completion of Sealaska’s ANCSA land entitlement conveyances will benefit the federal government. This legislation allows Sealaska to 

move forward with its selections, which will ultimately give the Bureau of Land 

Management some finality and closure in the region. Completion of Sealaska’s 

ANCSA conveyances will also give the U.S. Forest Service some finality with respect 

to land ownership and management in the Tongass National Forest because there 

will no longer be large portions of the forest encumbered by Sealaska’s land selection rights. 

HAA AANI ́ SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Sealaska has a responsibility as a Regional Corporation to ensure the cultural and 

economic survival of our communities, shareholders and future generations of shareholders. Sealaska also remains fully committed to responsible management of the 

forestlands for their value as part of the larger forest ecosystem. At the core of 

Sealaska’s land management ethic is the perpetuation of a sustainable, well-managed forest to produce timber and to maintain forest ecological functions. Significant 

portions of Sealaska’s classified forest lands are set aside for the protection of fish 
55 

habitat and water quality; entire watersheds are designated for protection to provide municipal drinking water; and zones for the protection of bald eagle nesting 

habitat are established for every nesting tree. 

Sealaska re-plants, thins and prunes native spruce and hemlock trees on its 

lands, thereby maintaining a new-growth environment that better sustains plant 

and wildlife populations, and better serves the subsistence needs of our communities. In fact, Sealaska has invested a great deal of resources in improving its forest sustainability program, including investing in ongoing silviculture research, and 

reaching out to organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council to ensure best 

possible management practices. Our harvest to date is a combination of approximately 60% selective harvest and 40% even aged management. All of Sealaska’s 

even aged second-growth forest that is ripe for precommercial thinning is managed 

accordingly, thereby creating healthy young forests that provide substantial wildlife 

habitat for deer and other animals. Sealaska maintains a silviculture program that 

rivals the best of programs implemented by the U.S. Forest Service or private landowners. 

Our sustainable harvesting program will continue into the future through implementation of good forest management practices and completion of our Haa Aanφ 

land selections, which will provide Sealaska with a mix of old growth and more mature second growth timber. Our harvesting program and investment in good forest 

management provides jobs for our shareholders and others in the region, and helps 

maintain the ecological value of our forests. 

In asking for your support for this legislation, we implicitly agree to assume a 

major economic risk by foregoing assured revenue from the harvesting of old growth 

timber on original withdrawal lands. We are also removing nearly 9,000 acres from 

our timber base by selecting Cultural sites and Native Futures sites subject to timber harvest restrictions. Lands available to us under this legislation (upon which 

timber harvest would be allowed) are largely second-growth forest stands, development of which would require Sealaska to enter riskier, emerging markets. We are, 

however, committed to investing the time, money and hard work in progressive 

management of second growth stands, to capture alternative economies from forest 

management and to ensure that our place in the timber industry remains a sustainable, although realigned, component of the region’s economy. 

Finally, Sealaska is committed to using its land base to create alternative economies, revenues, and jobs through forest management strategies that include engagement in markets for the purchase of ecological services. To that end, we are monitoring developments related to climate change and carbon sequestration and incorporating this effort into our forest management and strategic plans. 

DIVERSIFIED ECONOMIES

The proposed conveyance of sacred and cultural sites and the Native Futures sites 

offers new economic, cultural, and educational opportunities for our region. Our legislation would allow Sealaska to pursue a more diversified economic strategy and 

would support new jobs by empowering Sealaska to preserve and share with others 

the richness of Southeast Alaska’s natural and cultural history. Both the forest ecosystem and the people it nourishes define the Tongass, which has supported the Native people for 10,000 years. By declaring that Southeast Alaska is both a ‘‘Native’’ 

place—a place that protects and supports Native communities and cultures—as well 

as a ‘‘scenic’’ place, we protect it and we proclaim its value to the world. 

Sealaska is embracing a healthy, alternative paradigm for the cultural and economic revitalization of our Native and rural communities by selecting sacred and 

cultural and Native Futures sites as part of this legislation. As part of our commitment, Sealaska has established the following principles for the use and management 

of these sites: 

• Sacred sites. These sites will be selected and managed to ensure an active Native role in the preservation and celebration of the rich Native fabric and history of Southeast Alaska. The sites are purely for sacred, cultural, historic and 

anthropologic preservation, research and education. Any site improvements 

would be in alignment with the historic and cultural purpose for which a site 

was selected. 

• Native Futures sites. These sites will be selected and managed to promote recreational tourism activities with minimal land use impacts. A few of these sites 

could be developed for their tidal or small hydroelectric potential, as sources of 

much needed alternative energy for the region. 
56 

GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK

Legislation introduced on Sealaska’s behalf during the 110th Congress proposed 

the conveyance to Sealaska of a handful of sacred, cultural, traditional and historic 

sites in Glacier Bay National Park, based on precedent for such transfers to Indian 

Tribes in National Parks in the lower 48 states. As a result of concerns expressed 

regarding these potential conveyances, Sealaska asked the Alaska Congressional 

delegation to adjust the legislation to provide merely for ‘‘cooperative management’’ 

of the sacred and cultural sites located within Glacier Bay. Cooperative management would ensure Native use and management of this handful of very significant 

sacred and cultural sites within Glacier Bay, regardless of future changes in Park 

management. This language does not propose to negate the existing Memorandum 

of Understanding between the Park and the Huna Indian Association. As with all 

elements of this legislation, Sealaska remains open to a continued dialogue on this 

matter to address any remaining concerns. 

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

Timing is critical to the success of the legislative proposal before you today. Without a legislative solution, we are faced with choosing between two scenarios that ultimately will result in dire public policy consequences for our region. If S. 881 is 

stalled during the 111th Congress, Sealaska will be forced to either terminate all 

of its timber operations within approximately two years for lack of timber availability, resulting in job losses in an area experiencing severe economic depression, 

or else Sealaska must select lands that are currently available to it in existing withdrawal areas. If forced to select within the existing boxes, development will inevitably occur in many undisturbed intact watersheds and ‘‘inventoried roadless’’ areas 

replete with old growth forests. We believe that Sealaska’s land entitlement legislation is more consistent with President Obama’s commitment to preserving more 

roadless areas, while immediately stimulating rural economies. 

If Sealaska were to terminate all timber operations, this Native business, which 

serves as the largest regional private employer in Southeast Alaska, would be forced 

to eliminate jobs that are critical to Alaska’s village economy, and this in the middle 

of the greatest recession since the Great Depression. This result would be in exactly 

the opposite direction that President Obama and the Congress seeks to move the 

national economy. 

OUR FUTURE IN THE REGION

Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National Forest since 

time immemorial. We will continue to live in this region because it is the heart of 

our history and culture. The Tongass is rich and diverse in cultural history, and 

there continue to be Native people here trying to live and survive in a subsistence 

and cash economy. We agree that areas of the region should be preserved, but we 

also believe that our people have a right to reasonably pursue economic opportunity 

to survive in the world as it is today. This legislation represents a sincere and open 

effort to meet both the interests of Alaska Native shareholders and the public. 

Sealaska believes that after full debate and close scrutiny, its aspirations to meet 

both its rightful land selection rights under ANCSA and the public interest in the 

Tongass will be recognized as both forward thinking and positive. 

Lastly, it is important for all of us who live in the Tongass, as well as those who 

cherish the Tongass from afar, to recognize that the First Peoples of the Tongass— 

Tlingits, Haidas and Tsimshians—are committed to maintaining not just the flora, 

fauna and biological ecology of the Tongass, but to preserving this place as the land 

of our ancestors, with all that means in spirituality, values and beliefs. We have 

nowhere else to go and wish for no other place. The Tongass is our home. We, therefore, look forward to a reasoned, open, and respectful process as we attempt to finalize our ANCSA land entitlement. 

Gunalcheesh. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Mallott. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

Mr. CLAUS. 
57 

STATEMENT OF BOB CLAUS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY 

BUCK LINDEKUGEL, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, JUNEAU, AK 

Mr. CLAUS. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the chance to be 

able to speak in front of the committee. Thank you. 

I have a strong personal commitment to the people and the 

places of Southeast Alaska. I have served as an Alaska State trooper for over 15 years in the island and I continue to work with the 

people of the island. I’ve built strong relationships with many of 

the 5,000 people who live in the Native villages, the fishing towns, 

and the former logging camps who would be most impacted by Senator bill 881. 

This bill is a lands bill, but it’s really about all of the people in 

Southeast Alaska. In this part of America all of us depend on the 

public forest lands for work, play, and food. The lifestyle of rural 

Southeast Alaska is incomprehensible to most Americans. There 

are no stoplights, McDonalds, or Walmarts. People build and heat 

their homes with wood they take from the forest. They eat berries 

and deer from the woods and they fish in the stream and the 

oceans. Some of my friends have been living like this for 10,000 

years and others for only decades. 

This bill would turn the areas around their homes over to the 

Sealaska Corporation. As I talked to people on the island about 

this bill, I met no one, not one person, who was in favor of this legislation who is not directly employed or a contractor of the 

Sealaska Corporation. I cannot speak strongly enough to convey 

the level of emotion expressed in opposition to this bill. 

I spoke to a Sealaska shareholder from Hydaburg who told me 

that as island residents he and I shared a common way of life 

based on hunting, fishing, and gathering. He said Sealaska Corporation had devastated his island lifestyle by clearcutting and 

that the corporation does not care about us, the people who still 

live close to the land. 

The costs of this bill outweigh the public benefit and the people 

of Prince of Wales recognize that. The small communities closest to 

the lands selected in this bill have written formal letters or resolutions opposing the bill. 98 percent of the people in Point Baker and 

Point Protection signed a petition opposing the bill. A shopkeeper 

asked me: How can we continue as a community if Sealaska takes 

our forest? 

SEACC supports Alaska Natives getting the lands rightfully 

owed to them. But we question the fairness of the bill. One way 

to measure fairness is through the resource value as measured by 

timber and existing infrastructure. This is not a value for value exchange. Over 70 percent of the selection area is cave and karst 

land, a wonder of the world. This land, currently protected by the 

Federal Caves Resource Protection Act, contains thousands of caves 

that remain largely unexplored. These caves were discovered only 

in the 1990s by crews of volunteer adventurers. They found unique 

sites, which changed the way that we understand the peopling of 

the Americas. 
58 

Clearcut logging as practiced by Sealaska damages karsts and 

caves and State regulations governing private logging offer no protection. These world treasures should remain federally protected. 

This bill allows Sealaska to cherrypick the best of the Tongass, 

to the detriment of all other users. Sealaska has chosen the most 

productive, easily accessible timber stands. SEACC supports the 

microsale timber program on Prince of Wales Island and a responsible level of timber harvest to support the small mills there. This 

bill threatens the ability of those programs to continue. The Native 

future sites represent the very best sites in all of Southeast Alaska 

for tourism and energy-related development. Some are in direct 

conflict with existing small businesses and all of them block future 

investment by any other party, tribes, village corporations, or private businesses. 

One small cove selected by Sealaska is the site of a fully permitted floating lodge, family owned and operated for over 30 years. 

This existing lodge brings millions of dollars into the local economy 

and this family business is threatened by this bill. 

SEACC and other conservation organizations, timber operators, 

government officials, community members, and the Sealaska Corporation have been working together toward a comprehensive solution for the Tongass National Forest that could finalize Sealaska’s 

entitlements while respecting the other shareholders in the region. 

SEACC remains committed to a bigger, broader solution that addresses the interests of Sealaska, respects the cultural as well as 

the economic needs of all of the people of Southeast Alaska. 

We look forward to working with members of the committee, 

Sealaska, and all the other stakeholders to promptly achieve a solution that benefits all of us. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Claus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB CLAUS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, SOUTHEAST ALASKA

CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY BUCK LINDEKUGEL, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, JUNEAU, AK 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee: 

My name is Bob Claus and I am a community organizer for SEACC based on 

Prince of Wales Island. With me today is Buck Lindekugel, our Conservation Director who can help answer any detailed questions you may have. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today and I respectfully request that my written 

testimony and accompanying materials be entered into the official record for this 

Subcommittee hearing. 

Founded in 1970, today SEACC is a coalition of fourteen local citizen volunteer 

conservation groups in twelve Southeast Alaska communities, from Craig on Prince 

of Wales Island to Yakutat. SEACC’s individual members include commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, small timber operators and value-added wood manufacturers, tourism and recreation business owners, hunters and guides, and Alaskans from 

all walks of life. 

SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of Southeast Alaska’s unsurpassed 

natural environment while providing for balanced, sustainable use of our region’s 

resources. Southeast Alaska contains magnificent old-growth forests, outstanding 

fish and wildlife habitat, important ‘‘customary and traditional’’ or subsistence use 

areas, excellent water and air quality, unsurpassed outdoor recreation opportunities, 

world class scenery, internationally and nationally significant cave and karst resources, and provides a unique way of life for hardy, independent people who choose 

to call it home. 

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) set up a framework for settling the aboriginal claims to land of Alaska Natives by establishing village and regional corporations with the right to select and receive title to 44 million acres of 
59 

1See Bluemink, Sealaska to reduce logging by 25 percent, Juneau Empire (Nov. 15, 2005). 

The story reveals that 20 years after it started its intensive logging program the corporation 

realized its ‘‘timber resources are much smaller than previously thought,’’ and intended ‘‘to petition federal officials to provide it with more valuable timber land than it is currently entitled 

to.’’ Attached to this testimony as Exhibit 1; see also, Exhibit 2 (a photo of Sealaska Corporation 

lands on Dalt Island near the Hydaburg). 2See Sealaska’s corporate history on the web at http://www.fimdinitnniverse.corn/companvhistories/SealaskaCorporation. 3 A copy of these preliminary comments was submitted to Committee staff for inclusion in the 

record for this hearing. These comments are referred to hereinafter as ‘‘SEACC’s Preliminary 

Comments to Senator Murkowski on S.3651.’’ 

land and receive payment of nearly one billion dollars. Sealaska is one of 12 regional corporations formed under ANCSA to receive land and money. 

SEACC supports completion of Sealaska Corporation’s remaining land entitlement 

under ANCSA. We respect the history and traditions of the Tlingit, Haida, and 

Tsimshian people who are Sealaska Corporation’s shareholders. It is not necessary, 

however, for Congress to take any action for Sealaska to complete its remaining 

ANCSA land entitlement. We oppose S.881 as introduced because of the significant 

changes to ANCSA and other federal laws it proposes and its impact to the Tongass 

National Forest and the communities and residents that depend on it. We fear that 

S.881 will not redress any inequities but create new ones among forest users and 

communities within Southeast Alaska and with other regional corporations across 

Alaska. 

Neither can we ignore the significant social, economic, and ecological impacts 

caused by intensive and unsustainable logging of old-growth lands currently owned 

by village corporations and Sealaska and surrounding Native villages.1 Nothing in 

S.881 binds Sealaska to adopt and follow balanced and sustainable logging practices 

on the economic development parcels in the future. We have heard eloquent statements from Sealaska directors and officers of the importance of the corporation to 

the regional economy and its desire to provide good jobs for shareholders. Yet, 

Sealaska’s interest today in investing in the rural economy seems to nm counter to 

its practice over the past twenty-five years of promoting the export of logs, and jobs, 

from Native corporate lands in Southeast Alaska.2

In our testimony opposing Congressman Young’s initial legislative proposal on 

this issue in November 2007, H.R. 3560, we promised to maintain open communication with Sealaska. When we submitted comments to Senator Murkowski on 5.3651, 

the precursor to S.881 that she had introduced in September 2008, we reaffirmed 

this commitment.3 We have since worked directly with Sealaska and others to reach 

a fair resolution of this matter and to identify a pool of possible lands for conveyance to the corporation that maintains the integrity of the Tongass National Forest. 

While we have made some progress, we have more hard work in front of us. 

Changing the way Sealaska’s lands entitlements are completed should be done in 

a manner that maintains the integrity of the Tongass National Forest and all it 

stands for—multiple use and sustained yield, the commercial, recreational, customary and traditional use of fish and wildlife, recreation, and tourism. Whether 

you view this legislations a controversial reformulation of long-settled ANCSA settlements or a more benign exchange of lands, a fair and equitable resolution should 

also ensure that the ecological integrity of our nation’s largest National Forest remains intact. Any bill relating to the Tongass National Forest should include durable protections for key lands for salmon production, wildlife habitat, and community 

uses. Such an approach would complete Sealaska’s remaining land entitlement, address the interests of all Americans in securing the long-term integrity of the entire 

Tongass, and make Southeast Alaska a model of sustainable fisheries, natural abundance, and community health in the 21st century. 

S.881 DOES NOT ‘‘FINALIZE’’ SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS TO THE TONGASS NA- TIONAL FOREST BUT STARTS A CHAIN OF FUTURE EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY UNRAVEL

LONG SETTLED ALASKA NATIVE LAND CLAIMS. 

S. 881’s sponsors entitled this bill the ‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement 

Finalization Act.’’ While a worthwhile goal, this bill does not and will not ‘‘finalize’’ 

Native land claims on the Tongass National Forest. 

On April 2, 2009, three weeks before introduction of S.881, Senator Murkowski 

introduced S.784, a bill to recognize and settle ‘‘certain claims’’ under ANCSA. See 

155 CoNG. REC. 54315 (daily ed. Apr. 2, 2009) (statement of Senator Murkowski). 

This bill would allow five (5) communities in Southeast Alaska that failed to meet 

one or more of the criteria set by Congress for a community to qualify for village 

status under ANCSA to form ‘‘urban’’ corporations. The bill would further grant 
60 

4 Although S.784 was referred to this Subcommittee, it is not a subject at today’s hearing. We 

therefore reserve the opportunity to comment further on this proposed legislation at this time. 

We provided the Subcommittee with materials from the Department of Interior and Department 

of Agriculture on similar legislation that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 

1997 for the record. 5Our most recent correspondence with representatives from these communities was in 2005. 

Although we advised them of our continuing commitment to further discussions, we did not receive any response from them. A copy of this correspondence has been provided to the Subcommittee for the record. 6See Letter from Anderson, SEACC Executive Director to Harris, Sealaska Vice-President, 

Resources (May 22, 2003). A copy of this correspondence has been provided to the Subcommittee 

for the record. 7Possible conflicts between this legislative effort and the Alaska Lands Transfer Acceleration 

Act were noted in our H.R. 3560 testimony and in SEACC’s Preliminary Comments to Senator 

Murkowski on S. 3651, supra note 3, at 7. 8See Letter from Lloyd, BLM’s Alaska State Office to USDA Forest Service, Alaska Regional 

Office at 2 (Oct. 9, 2008). A copy of this letter has been provided to the Subcommittee for the 

record. 9 In 1988, six regional corporations, including Sealaska, chose to relinquish some of the acres 

previously allocated for cemetery and historical sites to increase the separate allocation for lands 

under Section 14(h)(8). See supra note 3, SEACC’s Preliminary Comments to Senator Murkowski on S. 3651 at 2. Sealaska Corporation Resolution No. 84-87 (June 20-21, 1984) referenced in those comments was submitted to the Subcommittee for the record. 

each corporation 23,040 acres of land from anywhere in the Tongass National Forest, including designated Wilderness and Legislated LUD 11 lands; nearly 180 

square miles of public lands.4

We recognize that the Native people who are asking for recognition via S. 784 

have long histories and traditions in this region. We are sensitive to their concerns, 

but we must vigorously oppose proposals which attack the Tongass as a result. We 

have directly expressed our willingness to work with these groups, if they are recognized, to develop settlement options that would not sacrifice a sustainable future for 

the entire region, and we remain committed to doing so.5

If these communities become eligible, then Sealaska’s remaining entitlement 

under Section 14(h) of ANCSA would be reduced by approximately 25,000 acres. We 

have previously shared our position on this issue with Sealaska.6

Lastly, in 2004, Congress enacted a law to facilitate completion of the transfer of 

lands in Alaska pursuant to ANCSA, the Alaska Statehood Act, and other laws. See 

Alaska Lands Transfer Acceleration Act (ALTAA), Pub. Law 108-452, 118 STAT. 

3575 (Dec. 10, 2004). Why was the issue about whether it was appropriate for 

Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement outside of the existing ANCSA withdrawals on the Tongass National Forest addressed during Congressional deliberations over ALTAA?7

S.881 CHANGES THE RULES FOR CONVEYANCE OF ANCSA ENTITLEMENT LANDS TO

REGIONAL CORPORATIONS

As of nearly a year ago, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) has conveyed approximately 291,000 acres of Sealaska Corporation’s share 

of the Section 14(h)(8) allocations, which is 354,389.33 acres. This leaves a remaining entitlement of approximately 63,615 acres.8 BLM has also conveyed an additional 560,000 acres of subsurface rights to Sealaska. These conveyances have made 

Sealaska the largest private landholder in Southeast Alaska. 

Today, about 3 decades after selecting available lands within the areas withdrawn 

by Congress, Sealaska wants to change the rules set by Congress. 

S. 881 DROPS THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS ON WHERE REGIONAL CORPORATIONS MAY SELECT THEIR LANDS UNDER SECTION 

14(H)(8) 

Section 14(h) of ANCSA set aside 2 million acres for 5 types of Native claims; 

cemetery sites and historical places, Native groups, ‘‘urban’’ corporations formed by 

Native residents of Sitka, Kenai, Juneau, and Kodiak, for primary places of residence, and for certain Native allotments.9 Any of the 2 million acres not needed for 

those specific claims was to be divided among the 12 regional corporations on the 

basis of population under Section 14(h)(8) as a land-base for economic development 

and benefit to all the regional shareholders. 

S.881 authorizes Sealaska to select its remaining ‘‘economic development’’ land 

under Section 14(h)(8) from a pool of approximately 79,000 acres located outside the 

withdrawal areas identified in ANCSA. Specifically, Section 3 removes the requirement in ANCSA that Sealaska select its land entitlement from lands withdrawn for, 

but not selected by, village corporations in Southeast Alaska under Section 16 of 
61 

10Section 14(h)(8)(B) of ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)(B); see also 43 C.F.R. § 

2653.9(a)(limiting lands available for Sealaska’s selection to those originally withdrawn by Section 16 of ANCSA but unconveyed.). 11The former designation was chosen by Congress in the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act, 

Pub.L. 101-626, to assure that lands with high value fish and wildlife habitat were managed 

in perpetuity to retain their wildland character 12See 43 C.F.R. § 2653.0-5, 2653.5 (2008). 13See Letter from Lindekugel, SEACC to Elton, Dept. of Interior’s Senior Advisor for Alaska 

Affairs (August 12, 2009). A copy of this letter has been provided to the Subcommittee for the 

record. 

ANCSA.10 In S.881, Sealaska has targeted some of the most productive forest land 

remaining on the Tongass National Forest from which to select these lands. The 

charts below, infra at p.7, show how Sealaska has cherry-picked some of the best 

lands on the Tongass for selection, under S.881. 

PARCELS OF LAND IDENTIFIED BY SEALASKA DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULE FOR REASONABLY COMPACT TRACTS APPLIED TO PREVIOUS REGIONAL CORPORATION LAND SELECTIONS

While the number of acres identified for selection and conveyance under S.881 appears small compared to the size of the Tongass National Forest, the hundreds of 

parcels of varying sizes identified by Sealaska for conveyance are spread out across 

the entire Tongass National Forest. The lands Sealaska seeks conveyance of are 

made up of a number of individual small parcels, as opposed to the larger blocks 

of reasonably compact tracts applicable to previous selections by all the regional corporations under ANCSA. See 43 C.F.R. § 2653.9(a). Many of the sacred, cultural, 

and historical sites identified by Sealaska for conveyance in Section 3(b)(2) of S.881 

are located within designated Wilderness and Legislated LUD II lands.11 With very 

few exceptions, the proposed Native future sites under Section 3(b)(3) of S.881 are 

located adjacent to highly popular areas used by local community members for recreational, commercial and subsistence purposes. 

S.881 CREATES A NEW CATEGORY OF OUT-OF-THE-BOX WITHDRAWAL SELECTION’S NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER REGIONAL CORPORATIONS 

As noted above, Section 14(h) of ANCSA provided a total of 2 million acres to be 

selected by the regional corporations from specified categories. Section 3 of S.881, 

however, creates new categories of land selections not available to the other regional 

corporations. These include ‘‘Places of Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, and Historic 

Significance,’’ ‘‘Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes,’’ and ‘‘Native Future Sites,’’ identified by Sealaska on maps it prepared, dated March 9, 2009, 

and respectively entitled Attachments B, C, and D to S.881. 

Unlike cemetery sites and historical places conveyed to Sealaska under Section 

14(h)(1), no definitions or criteria have been adopted or proposed for sacred, cultural 

or traditional sites.12 Nor does S.881 define what qualifies as a Trade and Migration 

Route or Native Future Site. Will authorizing Sealaska to select from new categories 

of lands not available for selection by other regional corporations, increase pressure 

for similar treatment by other regional corporations? Will these new circumstances 

slow down the prompt resolution of land selections for all regional corporations? 

S. 881 ALLOWS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL SITES WITHIN 

GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK 

Under ANCSA, Congress did not allow for the selection and conveyance of culture 

sites within National Park System units. See Section 11(a)(1), Pub. L. 92-203, 85 

Stat. 696, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 1610(a)(1). While Section 3(c) of S.881 prohibits 

conveyance of any of the 12 sites identified by Sealaska in the Glacier Bay National 

Park, it requires the National Park Service to manage all Park resources cooperatively with Sealaska. This new requirement opens Park resources to economic development in a manner inconsistent with maintaining park values.13 By giving such 

rights to Sealaska, S.881 opens the door wide to requests from other Regional Corporations asking for the same prerogatives in other National Park units in Alaska. 

S. 881 REMOVES EXISTING PROTECTION FOR CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL 

SITES AFFORDED UNDER EXISTING LAW 

Section 4(g) of S.881 terminates the restrictive covenants regarding cultural or 

historical values imposed on lands previously conveyed to Sealaska by BLIVI. These 

covenants prevent a regional corporation from authorizing mining or mineral activity of any type or ‘‘any use which is incompatible with or is in derogation of the 

values of the area as a cemetery site or historical place.’’ See 43 C.F.R. § 2653.11(b). 
62 

14Schoen, John and Erin Dovichin, eds. 2007. The coastal forests and mountain ecoregion of 

southeastern Alaska and the Toneass National Forest. Audubon Alaska and The Nature Conservancy, 715 L Street, Anchorage, Alaska. This complete report is available online at: 

httpliconserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm. See also Exhibit 3, a map comparing Landscape 

Scale Density of Oldgrowth Forests 1950’s—2005 on the southern portion of the Tongass National Forests with the land pool proposed for selection by Sealaska in S.881. 

* All exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files. 

15This story can be found on the web at http://www.juneauempire.cordstories/102107/loc 

20071021021.shtml. 

Section 4(e) of S.881 subjects sacred, cultural, and historic sites conveyed to 

Sealaska to a covenant prohibiting any commercial harvest or mineral development. 

While these restrictions are necessary and appropriate, they are by their terms narrower than existing covenants imposed to protect the values of the area as a cemetery site or historical place. As written, the restrictions may not prevent development or uses of the land may degrade the values of the areas. Will treating 

Sealaska differently, both in the future and retroactively, result in other regional 

corporations seeking the same treatment? 

HOW WILL SEALASKA OBTAIN AND MANAGE ACCESS TO SACRED, CULTURAL AND

HISTORICAL SITES IN DESIGNATED WILDERNESS?

Sealaska wishes conveyance of numerous sites it has identified on lands previously designated by Congress as Wilderness. Given the scale of the maps prepared 

by Sealaska identifying these sites, it is impossible to determine how near these 

sites are to shoreline, or how easily the sites can be accessed. Will the means and 

level of access sought by Sealaska, as well as the uses permitted under Section 4(f) 

of S.881, protect the natural and other values of these lands? 

SEALASKA’S OUT-OF-WITHDRAWAL SELECTIONS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LANDS

DISPROPORTIONATELY TARGET THE MOST ECOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE LANDS IN

SOUTHEAST ALASKA

The pool of lands from which Sealaska is seeking for timber development possess 

some of the highest biological values represented by salmon, deer, black bears, bigtree old-growth, and estuaries on the Tongass National Forest.14

The total number of acres in the pool of lands identified by Sealaska shrunk from 

over 95,000 acres initially proposed in 2007 under H.R. 3560 to just under 79,000 

acres in S.881. Despite this reduction in total acres, the ecological productivity of 

the lands sought by Sealaska for intensive clearcut logging is proportionally higher 

in 2009, with nearly 47,000 (59.2%) of the acres inventoried as big tree forest. See 

Exhibit 2* (attached). This is illustrated in the charts below, created using existing 

Forest Service data for Prince of Wales Island. 

A substantial majority of the lands target by Sealaska on North Prince of Wales, 

Kosciusko, and Tuxekan Islands also contain world-class karst and cave resources. 

See Exhibit 4, attached. Karst terrain occurs on water-soluble bedrock such as limestone, dolomite, or gypsum. It is characterized by underground water drainage, sinkholes, pits, and caves. These well-drained soils support some of the most majestic 

old-growth forest on the Tongass. As it turns out, approximately 71 % of the lands 

identified for conveyance by Sealaska are underlain by karst. The forest canopy protects the thin soils atop karst from eroding directly into the soluble rock below. Past 

and proposed clearcut logging on these fragile soils disrupt the natural hydrology, 

harm cave formations that hold information of thousands of years of climate change, 

and alter sediments that hold keys to understanding patterns of human migration 

into the Americas as well as paleontological clues to our past. Eleven (11) years ago, 

the Forest Service discovered human remains in On Your Knees cave on North 

Prince of Wales Island. DNA testing determined that these human remains were 

10,300 years old. The oldest human remains in Alaska have been found in this cave 

system, and it has not yet been fully explored or mapped. See FOREST SERVICE 

RETURNS ANCIENT HUMAN REMAINS TO TLINGIT TRIBES, Juneau Empire 

(Oct. 21, 2007).15

LANDS IDENTIFIED BY SEALASKA FOR LOGGING DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE DEVASTATING

IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND FOREST USERS

One of our proudest national heritages is the freedom that Americans enjoy to access and use our public lands, anyplace and anytime. The lands sought by Sealaska 

will curtail public access and use of public lands and resources. The uncertain scope 

of the permitted activities and location of the easements proposed in S.881 raises 
63 

16For additional questions concerning the easements proposed in Section 4 of S.881, see 

supra, note 3, SEACC’s Preliminary Comments to Senator Murkowski on S.3651 at 3-5. 17See S. Rep. No. 101-30, Pt.1, at 3 (1989)(text of S.346); see also 136 Cong. Rec. S7740— 

S7744 (daily ed. June 12, 1990)(statement of Senator Tim Wirth in support of ‘‘the Johnston 

compromise’’ between S.346 and H.R.987, the House-passed Tongass Timber Reform Act of 

1989). 

concerns, as does the unfettered authority given Sealaska to control access and use 

of the easements and adjacent lands.16

Prince of Wales Island is populated by about 5,000 people, spread out among 11 

communities. Some of these settlements are Native villages, some fishing towns, 

and some former logging camps rebuilding themselves into viable communities. 

Residents of Prince of Wales Island are heavily dependent on the Tongass National 

Forest and its abundant resources for work, play, and food. 

Many residents of these communities closest to the lands threatened by S.881 

question how they can continue their shared way of living close to the land if 

Sealaska takes their forest. This feeling of ownership of our national forests is one 

of the greatest freedoms enjoyed by Americans. Many wonder if the existing timber 

industry will be able to transition away from old-growth logging if Sealaska receives 

the oldest young-growth on the forest. 

The small communities of Edna Bay, Naukati, Thorne Bay, Point Baker and Port 

Protection have written formal letters or resolutions opposing this bill, and these 

are the communities closest to the transfer areas. Hundreds of island residents have 

signed petitions opposing the bill. 

Residents of the rural communities on Prince of Wales have long used all the 

lands proposed for selection by Sealaska on North Prince of Wales Island and Kosciusko Islands for subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering. Without the legal requirements for public oversight and involved participation provided these rural residents under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act on 

public lands, they will have no voice on how these ‘‘private’’ lands are managed by 

Sealaska nor will Sealaska be obligated to minimize impacts to subsistence resources and uses from its management. 

The community of Hydaburg has long fought to safeguard lands surrounding 

Keete/Nutkwa and Kassa Inlets and Mabel Bay. Sealaska has targeted these traditional lands for the short-term economic benefits associated with clearcut logging 

and round log export to Asian markets. Former Senator Tim Wirth’s 1989 Tongass 

Timber Reform Act, S.346, prohibited logging on these lands, but they were ultimately left unprotected in the final compromise legislation in1990.17 Hydaburg and 

SEACC have consistently advocated for long-term protection for these lands ever 

since. 

IS THE EXCHANGE OF 327,000 ACRES OF LAND AVAILABLE FOR CONVEYANCE TO

SEALASKA FOR ABOUT 60,000 ACRES OF PUBLIC LANDS A FAIR DEAL?

As noted above, some characterize S.881 as a simple exchange of lands. ANCSA 

allows for such exchanges but with an important caveat; exchanges ‘‘shall be on the 

basis of equal value . . . ’’ 43 U.S.C. § 1621(h). Under Section 4(b) of S.881, 

Sealaska will relinquish all the lands remaining available for selection and conveyance within the Congressional withdrawal areas upon completion of the conveyances 

under the bill. In terms of mere numbers, the 327,000 acres that will be returned 

to Forest Service management far exceeds the amount of land Sealaska will receive 

under S.881. In terms of value, however, the relinquished lands do not hold a candle 

to the lands Sealaska will receive. 

The accounting provided by S.881 does not consider the value of the public-financed infrastructure on the lands Sealaska seeks. These parcels contain approximately 200 miles of roads. These roads provide vital all-weather access for subsistence activities, as well as basic services like emergency healthcare and law enforcement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these preliminary comments on this proposed legislation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Claus. 

They have called the roll, but I think I’ve got some time. So I’m 

going to start with some questions, and then we’ll have to take a 

short break. 

Mr. Mallott, I would like you to address the issue of the Tongass 

Futures Roundtables. You indicated as you began your testimony 
64 

here today that you are a participant and have been since the outset. Mr. Jensen’s comments are that the administration is clearly 

looking to what is taking place or the dialog that is in process and 

perhaps this proposal that was placed out there this past week. 

How do you see Sealaska’s entitlement legislation, the bill before 

us, fitting in with the Tongass Futures roundtable consensus-building process? How does this fit together? 

Mr. MALLOTT. After 3 years of effort, at its last meeting just in 

the last week the Tongass Futures roundtable had presented to it 

by a working committee the conceptual draft of what is called the 

grand solution. The Tongass has had several grand solutions, as 

you know, in its history. I can’t comment on the details, but among 

its provisions would be a transfer of land by some mechanism to 

the State of Alaska. There would be the addition of significant wilderness. There would be at least one or more new classifications of 

land within the Tongass. 

I think that any thinking person would recognize that this is a 

multi-year process, that if it were to be approved by the Tongass 

Futures roundtable at its next meeting, which it surely would not, 

that it would take probably 5 or 6 years for us to get to a point 

where some or all of it were to be made into law, because almost 

all of it would require action by this Congress. 

The Sealaska Land Selections Act, as you pointed out, is ready 

now. We have had some 150 meetings with communities, institutions, significantly affected individuals within the Tongass. For example, contrary to a comment just made which would leave a different implication, the principle organizations in the community of 

Hydaburg have acted to support this legislation. 

We have made clear in the Tongass process that we very much 

desire and will act as aggressively as possible to make sure that 

our bill, which is significantly different from what the Tongass is 

trying to achieve in that it is a settlement of our land claims and 

that it is based upon prior existing obligations—in spite of that, 

Sealaska has continued to work very extensively with every interest, both at the table and in the communities of Southeast, and will 

continue to do so. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. The question some have asked me is, well, 

if Sealaska has waited for 38 years to get their final conveyance 

and if in fact there is this process under way through the Tongass 

Futures Roundtable, what is another few years of waiting? Can you 

describe for the record what the economic situation is in the region 

and address why it doesn’t make sense to wait multiple years for 

resolution of this issue? 

Mr. MALLOTT. A significant reality that Sealaska faces and the 

overall timber industry within the Tongass has faced is that the 

available marketable timber to us and to the industry is fast declining, that the overall timber industry in Southeast is already 

only a shadow of its former self and at a point where, if it is to 

be sustained, additional harvestable, marketable timber needs to 

be made available to the overall industry. Sealaska is impacted by 

that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is it not also accurate that it’s not just 

Sealaska, but through the 7 [i] distributions other Alaska Native 
65 

corporations throughout the State would also be impacted through 

that loss of revenue source? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes, Senator. I was going to end by saying that 

Sealaska itself in about 2 years would have to begin winding down 

its timber operations. That would end, amongst other things, the 

7 [I] payments which have been made to the 12 other corporations 

under that section of ANCSA, which obligates us to share 70 percent of the revenues from the development of ANCSA resources. 

Sealaska since its inception of harvest on ANCSA lands has dis- tributed some $300 million to the other regional corporations and 

its loss would be a significant matter both to our survival and to 

theirs long-term. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate you saying that. 

I do need to excuse myself, so we will take a brief at-ease. Hopefully we’ll be back in 5 minutes. 

[Recess from 4:14 p.m. to 4:33 p.m.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We seem to be losing some of our crowd, 

but not the interest. I appreciate your indulgence as we accommodated the vote. The good news for me is that we are finished voting, so I can stay with you for the rest of the afternoon. 

Mr. Mallott, I have a whole series of questions, but I don’t want 

Mr. Claus to feel like I’m not giving equal time. 

Before we broke I asked about the economic impact and why it 

doesn’t make sense to delay beyond the 38 years that Sealaska has 

already gone through. Mr. Claus, you have indicated that you live 

there as part of the island community, have a great understanding 

of the region and the local economies. If we’re unable to pass the 

legislation with Sealaska and to do so in a timely manner, Mr. 

Mallott has indicated what the economic impact to Sealaska would 

be. But I think we also appreciate that to the Southeast economy, 

the timber aspect is something that is of great import. 

Can you tell me if in fact we aren’t able to resolve this, if in fact 

Sealaska sees the decline, as Mr. Mallott has suggested, what then 

becomes of an already shrinking and struggling southeastern economy? 

Mr. CLAUS. First off, Senator, I very much appreciate your sense 

of urgency and understand that this is an important issue and that 

it does have to be addressed in a timely fashion. SEACC and the 

other people that we know are willing and able to talk about these 

issues in virtually any venue, whether that’s the roundtable or in 

discussions with Sealaska itself or other small groups that are 

working on this issue. We also feel that this is an urgent issue. 

As far as the economy goes, Mr. Mallott was eloquent in his description of the move toward a second growth industry . This will 

take time as far as retooling. There’s other legislation pending for 

those kind of activities. I think all the stakeholders need to be represented to address both that economic move toward a second 

growth industry and to address Sealaska’s entitlements. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I recognize your point, but I think we also 

understand that moving to this second growth transition, the proposal that Sealaska has advanced is one that, lays out how they 

accomplish that transition there. 

Let me ask, Mr. Mallott, because it’s been suggested by Mr. 

Claus and certainly the administration witnesses that everyone is 
66 

willing to sit down and have further negotiations. In my opening 

comments, I suggested that there might be some movement or 

some removal of the bill as it relates to Glacier Bay National Park. 

How willing is Sealaska to sit down, not only with our staff, but 

with others, to work out whatever modifications may be needed to 

settle some of the remaining concerns? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Speaking as a board member and having worked 

closely with our management during this entire process, I believe 

Sealaska has already demonstrated that it is willing to be responsive to both the folks who live in the forests, our shareholders, who 

also have raised issues with portions of this bill, with environmental organizations. We’ve briefed the Tongass Futures roundtable twice on the legislation, as I’ve mentioned, have had some 

150 meetings throughout the course of the past several years. 

This bill is a very different bill than it was when it was introduced in the last Congress, and Sealaska is committed to continuing to work with all the parties to try to expeditiously as possible resolve issues with the bill so that ultimately it can be expeditiously resolved also by Congress. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have heard nothing but statements of 

goodwill about working towards final resolution and it is certainly 

my intention to push us all in that direction so that we do have 

a final, expeditious result and it is one that has a level of equity 

to the shareholders and does take into account a struggling economy. 

I wanted you to respond, Mr. Mallott, to the issue that was 

raised by both of the administration witnesses that somehow this 

sets a precedent. I told them that this was in fact a unique circumstance here with Sealaska. But can you elaborate further? Are 

there any differences between the Sealaska circumstances and 

those of other ANCSA corporations? Do we need to be fearful that 

all the others are going to be coming back and saying that in fact 

they should be able to seek further redress? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Senator Murkowski, the legislation has been 

briefed with the regional corporation CEOs group, which meets on 

a regular basis to discuss a full range of ANCSA issues, including, 

and they’re hugely sensitive to this, issues that might create precedent. 

We also know that ANCSA is very much a living document. It 

has been amended many, many times. In those meetings that I just 

mentioned, there has been no inkling of opposition. Every Native 

corporation or Native institution that we have asked for the opportunity to both explain and then to seek their support for this bill, 

that support has been provided. 

In the Act itself, Sealaska selections come from a different and 

almost technical administrative section of the Act, which is completely separate from those sections of the Act from which all other 

ANCSA corporations make their selections. 

I have heard absolutely nothing from within the Native community and those interests who might otherwise raise these issues of 

possible precedent other than what I heard today by the government witnesses. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask about another suggestion that 

came up during the commentary. This undercurrent that if 
67 

Sealaska gets to pick timber lands from this proposed selection pool 

that somehow you’re able to cherrypick, and that it somehow negative for the rest of those who are in the timber industry in Southeast. Can you speak to that as an issue? Is this something that the 

timber industry are opposing in Sealaska’s proposal? 

Mr. MALLOTT. The principal organizations that represent the 

timber industry in Southeastern Alaska support this legislation 

and I believe they are formally on record as doing so. 

The notion of cherrypicking is one that surprises me. Quite 

frankly, Senator, it is Tongass Futures roundtable and the discussions that took place there that led us to take the actions at the 

board level which set internal policy for Sealaska to seek this legislation. The notion that the industry itself should move to building 

a long-term sustainable industry built around no more old growth, 

but the harvest of second and renewable growth timber, the areas 

that Sealaska as a consequence has included in our bill are lands 

that have already been harvested or almost all of which has been 

previously harvested by the United States Forest Service. 

The issues of karsts and some other environmental issues are 

there and we would have to deal with those and are willing again 

to work with agencies and with other institutions in order to make 

the right decisions. In our legislation, for example, both in partial 

response to this question and to one you asked just prior, this bill 

contains very significant public access provisions, which was quite 

frankly hard for the board to make when we look at these as Native homelands. But in recognition of the issues that were raised, 

public access is included around and within these selection areas 

where local communities and individuals have indicated their importance. 

Sealaska also felt that it was incredibly important and necessary 

to move out of our existing withdrawal areas in order to protect sacred sites. If we stay within our withdrawal areas only and finalize 

our entitlements through existing administrative processes, as 

you’ve indicated, that will take some time, even in spite of the legislation that was passed several years ago to accelerate the process. 

But more than anything else, it would place in jeopardy in our 

judgment collectively as a board many, many sites that are sacred 

to our people and that we believe at this time and place are appropriate to be made available for selection, because the Tongass 

today is a very different place than it was 40 years ago, at a time 

then that we thought that the Federal protection would be sufficient; that the growing impact and utilization and recreation and 

tourism and other uses of the forest have made clear to us that 

somehow we need to have a significant voice and hopefully ownership of those sites which are most important to us, and we cannot 

do that if we stay within our withdrawal areas. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you that, Mr. Claus, because it 

appears that SEACC is taking a position in opposition of these Native sacred sites. Is that correct? 

Mr. CLAUS. We believe that there’s a conflict. From just talking 

to tribal members of the four tribes on Prince of Wales Island—and 

I in no way can speak for the tribes or don’t intend to—but I think 

there is an issue to be resolved between the tribes and the ANCSA 
68 

corporations as to who should have control over those issues or 

those particular sites. 

The objection that some have to the cultural sites is development 

of them and the removal of the covenants, as the administration 

witnesses testified to earlier. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask the question about the environmental impacts, because I believe it was Ms. Burke, and also Mr. 

Jensen, but I believe that Ms. Burke spoke to the fact that 

Sealaska, they can always select from the remaining acres of the 

original selection pool. Her comment was there was essentially sufficient land to select from. 

My point, and Senator Begich made it as well, within that area 

there’s a significant percentage that may be under water. There’s 

a significant percentage that is located in municipal watersheds 

and that are in areas where there is productive old growth. 

The fact is that you could select in those areas, but wouldn’t 

there be greater environmental impact, to wildlife, within those 

areas? Why not encourage a better pool of economic lands to select 

from? That’s where Sealaska has gone with this. By saying we’re 

not going to allow for an expansion, you must select from within, 

you are essentially going counter to the initiative certainly of 

SEACC, which is enhanced protection of the environment. 

Let me ask Mr. Claus to answer and then I’ll let you jump in, 

Byron. 

Mr. CLAUS. Thank you. As far as the specific environmental impact to areas inside the box, for lack of a better term, I would have 

to get back to you or back to the committee on those in specific. 

In general, I’m not sure that’s a fair question, either inside the box 

or outside the box. 

We’ve been working with, for the past 6 months or so, in direct 

negotiations with the Sealaska Corporation about moving these 

areas, potential areas, around so they have less impact on the 

other communities of Prince of Wales Island and talking very specifically about where those areas ought to be. Many of those are 

outside of the existing ANCSA areas. 

So yes, we have been working on thinking about moving to places 

that will minimize impacts to communities and maximize environmental protections for old growth in sensitive areas. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Mallott, if you can speak to that, because from all that we can discern with the expansion of the selection pool what is happening is a greater facilitation of lands that 

have already been harvested. So we’re talking about second growth. 

We are not in fact going after some of the more environmentally 

sensitive areas with this expanded selection. 

In fact, it is probably more environmentally balanced than if you 

were to select within the box. Is that correct? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes, it is. If the board had not begun the discussion of a powerful desire to protect sacred sites, the discussion of 

moving outside existing withdrawal areas might not have resulted. 

That would likely not have taken place also if not for the Tongass 

Futures roundtable process, where long-term harvest of already 

roaded and accessed and harvested areas by the Forest Service 

might be made available to be responsive to the Tongass Futures’ 
69 

almost consensus aspiration that that be the future of the timber 

industry. 

In our withdrawal areas are some of the last remaining significantly unroaded and old growth watersheds in the Tongass. In the 

Tongass land use management plan—my numbers may be off, but 

some 60,000 acres of our withdrawn old growth able to be selected 

by Sealaska is identified as important to the overall balance of timber stand futures in the Tongass. 

We thought, quite frankly, Senator, we were doing everybody a 

favor. We could have stayed within our boxes and had significant 

old growth harvest, for which we have the ability, as you know, in 

law to market. We are not prohibited from doing that. We could 

sustain on an ongoing basis without having to diminish our current 

harvest levels to any consequence. We could work with the Forest 

Service to use that old growth availability to help create a sustainable timber industry for a longer term future. 

But we also agree as Native peoples who are stewards of our 

lands and of future lands that it makes sense to avoid continuing 

clearcut harvesting of old growth timber. But there needs to be an 

alternative both for the existing non-Native timber industry as well 

as for our industry. We believe that what we have identified and 

include in our bill is both responsible to the environment and it is 

responsive to the needs of the long-term timber industry. 

It is, quite frankly, both the choice and the gamble that Sealaska 

is willing to take. We will have to diminish our timber harvest very 

significantly even to sustain it and then ramp up at a period longer 

in the future than would otherwise be the case if we selected within the withdrawal areas. 

Also, within the withdrawal areas are a number of community 

intact watersheds which Sealaska would not select in any case, 

which would impact negatively our ability to create the kinds of 

blocks and rational selections that would allow us to sustain any 

kind of timber industry into the future. We could select those watersheds and plan to harvest them, but that would just create another Tongass crisis. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the explanation because I 

think it goes to the heart of what we’re doing here today. Sealaska 

within the ANCSA provisions, within the law, has the ability to be 

more aggressive from an economic development perspective. But I 

think out of respect for the land and out of respect for finding that 

balance, this is why you are looking outside of the withdrawal 

areas to provide for a level of protection, as stewards. 

That’s the last question that I want to ask you, Mr. Mallott, and 

that is the issue of stewardship. There has been a little bit of undercurrent that perhaps in the past Sealaska has not been the best 

managers in previously selected lands. I would just ask you for the 

record to tell us about Sealaska’s commitment to sustainable forest 

stewardship. You have given us a little information, but if you 

could just describe further and how you’ll work to ensure that the 

Native subsistence needs are also met through that. 

Mr. MALLOTT. Thank you for a meaningful opportunity, because 

Sealaska and other Native corporations who have engaged in timber harvests over the years in the Tongass have had to deal with 

those accusations. When we began harvests some 25 and more 
70 

years ago now, there were no meaningful standards either for the 

Forest Service or for ourselves for the kind of timber harvests that 

would be required into the longer term future. That is, forest management practices that were more nuanced than that necessary for 

large-scale harvest of pulpwood, for example, which was the reality 

at the time with the two long-term contracts. 

It was Sealaska as much as any other institution or person who 

advanced the idea of developing forest harvest practice standards 

that the legislature of Alaska could adopt, which would help guide 

our harvest practices. Sealaska has, at least for the past 20 years 

and very significantly in the past 15 years, engaged in very considerable silvaculture on those lands that we’ve harvested, not just in 

thinning and pruning and other kinds of practices, but even in 

planting new trees in order to expedite and to ensure growth on 

steep slopes or steeper slopes than would otherwise allow for reasonable growth in our areas. 

Sealaska has spent literally millions on silvaculture, has contracts with leading forestry experts at universities, for example Oregon State, which has one of the best forestry programs in the 

country. The board and management are absolutely committed to 

the idea and practice it on the ground of being very, very responsible stewards. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the comments from both of 

you. I will conclude by asking either of you if there’s anything that 

you would like to add that I haven’t addressed, or if you feel there 

needs to be a rebuttal, Mr. Claus. I haven’t peppered you with as 

many questions, but I will give both of you an opportunity to provide some final comments if you would like. Mr. Claus? 

Mr. CLAUS. Thank you. The concerns that I hear from the people 

who are living on Prince of Wales Island is primarily about past 

practice and what they see out their front windows, what they see 

when they go boating, what they see when they drive the roads is 

shocking and disturbing to people. 

I can take Mr. Mallott at his word. I can take the Sealaska Corporation at their policy today that they intend to do better in the 

future with these lands that would be transferred. But that’s not 

in this legislation. They can change that. They could have another 

board meeting in another 5 years and change that again. 

If there were a way to make this part of the legislation, then 

maybe we should be discussing how that goes on. Right now we 

have their assertion, which I believe that they will follow through 

on, and I certainly appreciate that their practices will change. But 

the concerns in the community is about what they see every day, 

about how Sealaska operates. These are ongoing timber operations. 

They’re not necessarily all historical. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are you suggesting, Mr. Claus, that Sealaska has 

been engaging in any violations of either Federal or State laws or 

regulations? 

Mr. CLAUS. No, Ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Mallott, did you care to follow up? 

Mr. MALLOTT. Yes. I think it’s important to note that, particularly on Prince of Wales Island, which is really the significant portion of the Tongass Forest that we are speaking of, that much of 
71 

* Additional letters and documents can be found in Appendix II. 

Sealaska’s harvest areas are not visible from most view planes; 

that those harvests near communities are either United States Forest Service or some other entity. 

That’s not to say that Sealaska did not engage in clearcutting. 

In order to be profitable and to really in many instances practice 

the best silvaculture in the Tongass National Forest, clearcutting 

has been an important methodology. But at the levels and on old 

growth that have been the practice in the past, we fully agree that 

we are moving away from that paradigm. That is one of the principal reasons for this legislation. 

I would just like to say, Senator Murkowski, that we very much 

appreciate your leadership and your interest in this legislation. 

Finally, I was handed to me this afternoon a number of additional letters and documents* in support of this legislation. I’d like 

to be able to submit them for the record also. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We will include them as part of the record. 

I thank both of you. I wish that the chairman and the ranking 

member of this subcommittee had been able to hear your testimony 

and the responses to the questions. I think it was extremely helpful 

in just laying out why we are here. I think it was very helpful in 

hearing the comments that there is a genuine effort on the parts 

of all the stakeholders that in fact we finally, after close to 4 decades, resolve this issue of land conveyance for the Sealaska shareholders. 

So I will be working with Senator Wyden, Senator Barrasso, and 

Senator Bingaman to ensure that we are able to reach a resolution. 

I would encourage those of you with Sealaska, I know that there’s 

been a great deal of reach-out and I appreciate that. When we first 

had discussions about this, we said you’re going to have to do a lot 

more communication in the smaller communities. It’s important 

that we continue with a high level of dialog even as we move 

through this process. 

But I thank you for taking the time to travel long distances to 

be here, all of you, because I noted there are those behind you that 

are not local residents as well, and I appreciate your input, and we 

will be working with you. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(73) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF BYRON MALLOTT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Does Sealaska have a duty as a corporation to generate a profit from 

the lands it would receive under ANCSA or this bill? Please explain. 

Answer. Sealaska Corporation was created as authorized by Congress under 

ANCSA, and ANCSA’s Declaration of Policy at Section 2(b) of the Act stated that 

‘‘the settlement should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty, in conformity with 

the real economic and social needs of Natives... ’’. Further, in Section 7(d) of 

ANCSA, Congress declared that incorporators for each of the specified geographic 

regions, ‘‘shall incorporate under the laws of Alaska a Regional Corporation to conduct business for profit, which shall be eligible for the benefits of this Act so long 

as it is organized and functions in accordance with this Act.’’ This language and the 

corporate structure specified in ANCSA have been interpreted to require economic 

development and initiative for the purposes of earning a profit for the benefit of the 

Native shareholders and the regions in which they live. 

Sealaska is organized under the laws of the State of Alaska as a for-profit corporation and does, in fact, pursue opportunities to develop natural resources on 

many of the lands it owns. The development of natural resources was contemplated 

in ANCSA, as evidenced by Section 7(i) of ANCSA (requiring the sharing of revenues from natural resource development). Moreover, one of the areas in which the 

Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska, as established in 

Section 17 of ANCSA, was directed to make recommendations was in the area of 

‘‘economic growth and development’’ to ensure compatibility with other land management interests. See Section 17(a)(7) of ANCSA. 

Sealaska profits are distributed to tribal member shareholders and many shareholders also benefit from Sealaska’s economic development activities through jobs, 

subcontracting opportunities and scholarships. Sealaska, and many other regional 

corporations, have also moved beyond the congressional mandate by establishing a 

non-profit arm to pursue social and cultural missions. The Sealaska Heritage Institute is funded from the profitable activities of Sealaska Corporation, and its mission 

is to save and revive our Native languages, arts, and to further educational initiatives. Sealaska supports the Native community in many ways, providing scholarships to our Native youth and delivering firewood to our elders. While we are a forprofit entity, as Congress mandated, to simply characterize Sealaska, or any other 

Alaska Native Corporation, as just another for-profit corporation, as some have, constitutes a near dismissal of one of the support systems created by Congress for Alaska’s Native community. 

Some of the lands received by Sealaska under S. 881 would be developed for their 

timber potential. The timber would be sold in U.S. and international markets, creating profits that would ultimately benefit our Native community, and through the 

provisions of 7(i) and 7(j) of ANCSA, 100,000 Alaska Natives throughout our state. 

Many from our communities consider this legislation to be the most important and 

immediate ‘‘economic stimulus package’’ that Congress can implement for Southeast 

Alaska. Sealaska and its subsidiaries and affiliates expended over $45 million in 

2008 in Southeast Alaska. Revenues from timber harvest are reinvested in our forests through our silviculture program so area forests will be sustainable for not only 

timber, but for wildlife, subsistence and other non-timber forest dependant resources. Over 350 businesses and organizations in 16 Southeast communities benefited from spending resulting from Sealaska activities. We provided over 363 full 
74 

and part-time jobs with a payroll of over $15 million. Including direct and indirect 

employment and payroll, Sealaska created 490 jobs and $21 million in payroll. 

We are proud of our collaborative efforts to build and support sustainable and viable communities and cultures in our region. We face continuing economic challenges 

with commercial electricity rates reaching $0.61/kwh and heating fuel costs sometimes ranging above $6.00 per gallon. To help offset these extraordinary costs, we 

work with our logging contractors and seven of our local communities to operate a 

community firewood program for the benefit of all community members, and special 

efforts are made to deliver split wood for the needy. We are also the primary contributor of cedar logs for the carving of totems and are now working with the communities to provide cedar carving planks to schools and tribal organizations. We are 

collaborating with our village corporations and villages to develop hydroelectric 

projects. 

Question 2. Section 22(f) of ANCSA authorizes the Secretary [of the Interior] and 

the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into exchanges with the 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.’’ Has Sealaska 

considered finalizing its selections and then using this exchange [authority] under 

ANCSA to address some of the concerns raised in your testimony? 

Answer. The committee references 22(f) of ANCSA; however, there are two provisions authorizing land exchanges—section 22(f) of ANCSA and section 1302(h) of 

ANILCA. Both have nearly identical language and allow for exchange of Native 

lands, interests therein or Native selection rights. An abbreviated description of the 

language follows: 

The Secretary, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture, and 

the State of Alaska are authorized to exchange lands or interests therein, 

including Native selection rights . . . for the purpose of effecting land consolidations or to facilitate the management or development of the land, or 

for other public purposes. Exchanges shall be on the basis of equal value, 

and either party to the exchange may pay or accept cash in order to equalize the value of the property exchanged: Provided, that when the parties 

agree to an exchange and the appropriate Secretary determines it is in the 

public interest, such exchanges may be made for other than equal value. 

The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act, S. 881, does not 

propose a land exchange. The legislation proposes only to designate an alternative 

pool of land from which Sealaska would select its remaining entitlement under 

ANCSA. The Sealaska bill conforms to the directive of ANCSA to provide an equitable entitlement to Alaska Native people. For the reasons set forth below, a fair, 

equitable and timely solution is not likely to be reached by forcing Sealaska to complete its ANCSA selections inside the existing withdrawals and then engage in an 

administrative exchange. 

In fact, for many years Sealaska did pursue options to complete an administrative 

exchange of lands that the Native Corporation had already received pursuant to 

ANCSA, including lands deemed by many to have significant national interest values, and concluded that a fair and adequate exchange of current land holdings could 

not be achieved. Sealaska does not wish to take title, under the current provisions 

of ANCSA, to additional ANCSA lands that have significant public interest and environmental value on the chance that it might complete a fair and equitable solution 

through the administrative process. 

Moreover, even when Sealaska pursued an administrative land exchange with the 

Forest Service, Sealaska still expected that any exchange would necessitate the concurrence of the Congress, both to ensure continuing congressional oversight over the 

implementation of ANCSA and to avoid litigation that has historically frustrated administrative exchange efforts. 

Our efforts to implement an administrative exchange (with expectation of ultimately pursuing congressional ratification) began in 1998. For various reasons, 

Sealaska’s efforts to pursue an administrative land exchange failed, largely for the 

following reasons: 

1) Differences in the national policy priorities among federal agencies and between national, regional and local level offices; 

2) Differences in policy objectives between Sealaska and the Forest Services— 

for example, Sealaska hoped to exchange municipal watersheds back to the Forest Service to be protected. Under the Federal Land Management and Policy 

Act of 1976, the Forest Service is charged with ensuring the provision of water 

from national forests to meet municipal water needs. Under the Tongass Land 

Management Plan (TLMP), however, the Forest Service included a provision es-
75 

tablishing that exchanges to acquire municipal watersheds are inconsistent 

with the TLMP; 

3) The continuous revolving door of Forest supervisors and staff who made 

supportive statements about reaching a fair and equitable settlement through 

a proposed land exchange, but were unable to pursue resolution during their 

time at the agency; 

4) Concerns about the litigation related to land exchanges, including a lawsuit 

against a forest supervisor (in the southwest) for an administrative land exchange; 

5) The USDA prerequisite that any exchange must follow the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) procedures for 

appraisal of withdrawn and selected lands. The Yellow Book process is so difficult that, to our knowledge, no exchanges of the order of magnitude of what 

we are trying to accomplish has occurred under the Yellow Book rules; and 

6) Many of the lands that Sealaska currently owns (or could own), and has 

expressed a willingness to exchange, have exceptional ‘‘public interest values’’— 

such as fishery and spawning habitat, municipal watersheds, and old growth 

roadless areas—but these values are not considered under the existing land exchange appraisal process. 

The administrative process for completing exchanges for even smaller land exchanges can require several years and formidable transactional costs. For land adjustments of the scale needed to properly fulfill Sealaska’s ANCSA entitlement, the 

time and costs required are prohibitive. 

Nearly all sizable land exchanges that have been successfully completed between 

federal agencies and Alaska Native Corporations have been completed through the 

legislative process. There is nothing unique or precedent-setting about adjustments 

of provisions regarding Sealaska’s land entitlement to fulfill ANCSA purposes. 

There have been at least 25 ANCSA land adjustments for several Native corporations, all of which were completed through the legislative, not administrative, process, including: 

• Klukwan Village Corporation, Pub. L. 94-456, 90 Stat. 1934 (1976). 

• Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Pub. L. 95-178, 91 Stat. 1369 (1977). 

• Shee Atika, Inc., Goldbelt, Inc. and Kootznoowoo, Inc. (Admiralty Island), 

among several other Corporations, Pub. L. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2409 (1980). 

• Haida Village Corporation, Pub. L. 99-669 (1986), as amended by Pub. L. 101- 

626 (1990) and Pub. L. 102-415 (1992). 

• Sealaska Split Estate Exchange, Pub. L. 102-415 (1992). 

• Kake Tribal Corporation, Pub. L. 106-283. 

A legislative solution will save millions of dollars that would be expended in an 

attempt to complete the proposed adjustments administratively. The Forest Service 

administrative land exchange process incorporates approximately 70 steps, including a feasibility analysis; a NEPA process; land appraisals according to Yellow Book 

standards; and many other cumbersome procedures. The appraisal process required 

for an administrative land exchange is particularly cost-prohibitive and unreliable 

for Southeast Alaska lands: 

• Alaska land sales available for use in comparative sales are restricted to size 

and quality. 

• Market data is limited or non-existent 

• There are a limited number of sales in Alaska 

• Supply limitation of available land in market place prohibits evaluation of demand. 

• Cost of timber and mineral appraisals for large tracts is prohibitive and time 

sensitive. 

Just the feasibility report, required to initiate the administrative exchange process, includes the following elements: 

1. Discussion of the exchange proposal 

2. Forest Plan Compliance Review/Public Benefits Summary 

3. Title Evidence 

4. Boundary Management Review 

5. Federal Land Status Report 

6. Water Rights Analysis 

7. Valuation Discussion 

8. Identification of Issues and Public Support 
76 

The administrative exchange process is sufficiently cumbersome and—as a practical matter—dysfunctional that we are not aware of more than a few large land 

exchanges being completed in the western U.S. in recent years without legislation 

to ratify or implement them. Those exchanges that have been legislated have received ample, adequate review and stakeholder participation through the legislative 

process to be successful. Such exchanges are implemented without the impracticable 

delays and costs associated with the administrative process and any subsequent administrative appeals and litigation that are often generated by small groups of activists even for smaller exchanges, despite majority consensus that the exchange is in 

the public interest. The agencies are not adequately staffed to properly process exchanges in a timely and adequate manner, in Alaska or elsewhere. 

Thirty years ago Congress stated that, 

. . . It is imperative that the Natives receive their land as quickly as 

possible. Time is of the essence. Preparation of an environmental impact 

statement under the NEPA is unnecessary and not warranted where implementation of the ANCSA of this Title is involved. 

S. Rep. No. 96-413, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (November 14, 1979) at 292. Despite this 

command, the administrative regulations encumber the administrative land exchange process with a plethora of lengthy, costly NEPA and other bureaucratic requirements that hinder any sizable land exchange effort and result in a prohibitively prolonged and expensive process, with small likelihood for success. 

RESPONSES OF BYRON MALLOTT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. There has been some suggestion in the testimony that the selection 

of additional sacred and cultural and Native Futures sites by Sealaska Corp. could 

increase the cost of Forest Service land management in the Tongass by fracturing 

land management patterns. How would Sealaska address this issue to prevent that 

from happening? 

Answer. Your question requires a brief explanation of the dilemma that forced 

Sealaska to seek this legislation—without legislation, Sealaska would be forced either to select timber lands from within the original ANCSA withdrawal areas, causing significant environmental and community impacts, or, shut down all timber operations and negatively impact rural communities and the economy of Southeast 

Alaska. 

Sealaska has an unfettered right to select its remaining approximately 75,000 

acres of ANCSA lands to which it is entitled from within the original ANCSA boxes. 

It is undisputed that Sealaska Corporation has an unfettered right to select 

forestland that is virtually all roadless and old growth from within the withdrawal 

boxes. These selections would have negative impacts on local communities, including 

their watersheds and recreational and subsistence use areas. 

The Sealaska bill proposes an alternative: the legislation would permit Sealaska 

to select its remaining entitlement lands from outside of the ANCSA withdrawal 

boxes. The proposed alternative land pool from which Sealaska could select under 

the proposed legislation does in fact include forestland suitable for timber development. However, the bill commits Sealaska to selecting a great deal of second growth, 

instead of old growth. In fact, the legislation ultimately would preserve 30,000 acres 

of roadless old growth timber. 

The Sealaska bill would permit Sealaska to select 3,600 acres of land as sacred 

and cultural sites, and 5,000 acres of land as Native futures sites. Specifically, 

Sealaska would select 206 sacred sites and more than 40 ‘‘Native futures sites’’. No 

timber development would be permitted on sacred sites and Native futures sites. Because Sealaska would be permitted to select these sites in lieu of timberlands, the 

legislation reduces overall timber development by 8,600 acres. 

Your question addresses the cost to the Forest Service of the provisions in the 

Sealaska bill that would permit Sealaska to select sacred and futures sites in lieu 

of land for timber development. The 5,000 acres designated by the proposed legislation as Native futures sites would be utilized for ecotourism, cultural activities, and 

renewable energy sites. By selecting these sites, Sealaska bill preserves old growth 

roadless forestland while helping to strengthen the economies of rural villages (by 

locating futures sites near rural Native communities). For this reason, Sealaska believes there is a significant public benefit to conveying the Native futures sites to 

the Alaska Native community, despite the fact that the Forest Service would have 

to account for the 5,000 acres of Native futures sites its management of the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest. 

Sealaska would also receive 206 sites that represent the some of the most important sacred sites recognized by Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people of Southeast 
77 

Alaska. It is worth noting here that Congress tasked the regional Alaska Native 

Corporation in 1971 with identifying, selecting, and preserving sacred and cultural 

sites under ANCSA; in that sense, Sealaska is fulfilling the mandate of Congress, 

and ANCSA, in this legislation. However, again, it is true that the Forest Service 

would need to account for these sites in their management of the Tongass. 

Notably, regardless of whether Sealaska selects within the existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes or outside of those boxes, Sealaska will select its remaining entitlement lands from within the Tongass National Forest. In other words, by selecting 

Native entitlement lands, whether under existing law (ANCSA) or the proposed legislation, Sealaska’s land selections will require the Forest Service to adjust the implementation of the land use plan for the Tongass to account for such selections. 

However, under the proposed legislation, the Alaska Native community will benefit 

because 206 sacred sites will be returned to the Native community. Under the proposed legislation, the Alaska Native community will benefit because 40+ Native futures sites will be made available to the Alaska Native community for development 

as ecotourism sites and renewable energy sites, or simply to have the sites (some 

of which are traditional village areas) under Native ownership. Under the proposed 

legislation, the Alaska Native community will benefit because Sealaska will select 

forestland on the road system, lowering timber harvest costs, benefiting Sealaska’s 

Native shareholders and employees, and substantially benefiting the Alaska Native 

economy. Finally, under the proposed legislation, the public will benefit, because 

more than 30,000 acres of roadless old growth forestland will be preserved. We are 

more than happy to provide you with additional maps and background that confirm 

these conclusions. 

We would also note that Sealaska is committed to working with the Forest Service 

to ensure that management issues or concerns between and among the two entities 

are limited. Moreover, we are committed to maintaining dialogue or developing 

agreements to ensure there are few, if any, management conflicts for our respective 

lands and shared boundaries. 

Question 2. Mr. Mallott, if this land bill does not go forward, what will your corporation do to complete the selections are you permitted to make under the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act? What would be the impact on the region of those 

actions? 

Answer. Sealaska harvests timber on some of the land to which it has received 

title under ANCSA. However, Sealaska has avoided harvesting tens of thousands of 

acres of forestland now under Sealaska ownership because those lands have significant public interest values. 

Sealaska is now at the end of availability of timber on existing Native lands previously designated by the Corporation as appropriate for timber harvest. If Sealaska 

is to maintain its timber rotation—that is, if Sealaska is to continue to provide timber jobs in rural Alaska Native communities with unemployment ranging well above 

20-30 percent—Sealaska must either: (1) receive those lands designated under the 

proposed legislation for transfer to Sealaska; (2) select and harvest roadless old 

growth lands from within the existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes, which would require expensive road building and reduced economic benefit to the Alaska Native 

and Southeast community, as well as more roads in the forest; (3) shut down all 

timber operations on Sealaska lands, with grave impacts to the local economy; or 

(4) harvest environmentally sensitive lands already under Sealaska ownership. The 

last three alternatives are bad alternatives. However, the economic situation in 

Southeast Alaska is dire. Sealaska cannot wait for a legislative solution that may 

come in 2, 5, or 10 years; Sealaska is faced with real world constraints that demand 

a solution by the end of the 111th Congress. Sealaska seeks a solution through this 

legislation that will result in social, cultural, economic, and environmental benefits 

to the Alaska Native community and to the Southeast Alaska region. 

We are more than happy to provide additional details regarding the Sealaska legislation that support these conclusions. 

RESPONSES OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Section 403 of Public Law 108-452, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (‘‘ALTAA’’), was required the Alaska Native Corporations to submit priorities for finalizing land conveyances within three and a half years of the date the 

legislation was enacted. Did Sealaska Corporation submit its priorities for selection 

as required by that law? 

Answer. Yes. On June 10, 2008, Sealaska submitted priorities for approximately 

140,000 acres of selections to comply with the deadline to file final land selection 

priorities under Section 403(a)(2) of ALTAA. 
78 

Question 2. Can you please provide the Committee with a map that illustrates the 

existing ANCSA withdrawal areas in Southeast Alaska, the 170,000 acres within 

those areas that have been selected by Sealaska for possible conveyance, and any 

lands that Sealaska has prioritized for conveyance pursuant to section 403 of 

ALTAA? 

Answer. Yes. The map has been sent to the Committee. 

Question 3. Can you explain the remaining process for finalizing Sealaska conveyances in accordance with ANCSA and ALTAA? Please specify which party is responsible for each action that remains in that process and whether any actions are dependent on an earlier action in order to proceed. 

Answer. To complete the process for finalizing Sealaska conveyances, Sealaska 

would need to inform the BLM that it would like conveyance to its prioritized Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) selections currently on file with the 

BLM. This notification is necessary due to Sealaska’s June 10, 2008, letter requesting that conveyance work be held in abeyance pending the outcome of S. 881. 

Once Sealaska notifies the BLM that it would like to proceed with the conveyances, the agency would initiate the 90-day public process to identify public easements to be reserved pursuant to Section 17(b) of ANCSA. The BLM would request 

from the U.S. Forest Service (FS) a list of any third party interests the FS created 

to ensure that the title BLM prepares would be subject to such interests for the life 

of the interest. 

Once the 90-day public process is completed, the BLM would issue an administrative decision to convey the lands that would contain a 45-day appeal/grace period. 

The decision would be published in the Federal Register and in the local newspaper 

nearest the lands for four consecutive weeks. 

At the end of the 45-day appeal period, the BLM would then issue a title document in the form of an Interim Conveyance (IC) for the un-surveyed lands in the 

absence of an appeal. The IC would transfer all of the Federal government’s right, 

title, and interest in the described real property to Sealaska. 

To finalize Sealaska’s conveyance, the BLM would complete surveys and issue 

confirmatory patents for the lands previously conveyed by ICs, thus fully transferring Federal lands out of Federal ownership. 

Question 4. It is my understanding that Sealaska has chosen not to proceed to 

finalize its entitlement under ANCSA, resulting in the process being indefinitely 

postponed. Is that correct? If so, how long has the Sealaska conveyance process been 

on-hold as a result of Sealaska’s choice not to proceed? 

Answer. Yes. On June 10, 2008, Sealaska submitted priorities for approximately 

140,000 acres of selections to comply with the deadline to file final land selection 

priorities under Section 403(a)(2) of ALTAA. Sealaska stated in the incoming document filed with the BLM that the corporation was pursuing Federal legislation that 

would allow it to receive its unfilled 14(h)(8) land entitlement from vacant, unappropriated, out-of-withdrawal Federal lands in Southeast Alaska. The letter further indicated that if the legislation were successful, the prioritized land selection would 

no longer be necessary. Thus, BLM will not proceed until notified by Sealaska. 

Question 5. Approximately how long would it take from the date that BLM received a request from Sealaska to proceed with the conveyance process for the BLM 

to convey the land under ANCSA to Sealaska for economic use? 

Answer. It would take approximately nine months for the BLM to issue a title 

document in the form of an IC for the un-surveyed lands in the absence of an appeal. This form of title would allow Sealaska to use the land for economic use. This 

process is described in more detail in the response to question number 3, above. 

Question 6. Did Sealaska ever submit an application under section 14(h) of 

ANCSA (regarding conveyance of existing cemetery sites and historical places) for 

any of the land identified by S. 881 for conveyance to Sealaska? 

Answer. All but five of Sealaska’s Sec. 14(h)(1) cemetery/historical sites originally 

filed under ANCSA have been adjudicated and closed. It is unclear whether any of 

the five remaining parcels are identified in S. 881. 

Question 7. Would any of the sites identified for conveyance to Sealaska pursuant 

to S. 881 qualify as existing cemetery sites or historical places under section 14(h) 

of ANCSA? 

Answer. To our knowledge, examinations of the sites in S. 881 have not been conducted, so we do not know whether or not they meet the regulatory criteria. 

Question 8. ALTAA established a schedule to finalize cemetery and historical site 

selections, and mandated that any applications for such sites that were submitted 

after the close of that process were to be invalid and must be rejected. Did Sealaska 

Corporation submit an application for the historical and cultural sites it is seeking 

through this bill in accordance with ALTAA? 
79 

Answer. No, Sealaska did not file any requests pursuant to Sec. 204 of ALTAA. 

Sealaska filed selections for cemetery and historical sites before the ANCSA regulatory deadline of December 31, 1976, in 43 CFR 2653.4(b). The ALTAA provided 

that eligible applications-of-record at the time ALTAA was enacted on December 10, 

2004, could be conveyed notwithstanding acreage allocations. The provision also applied to any of the 188 closed applications that were determined to be eligible and 

reinstated under Secretarial Order (SO) No. 3220. Sealaska applications were not 

part of the list of 188 in the SO, so the corporation did not need to file an application. 

Question 9. How many of the 170,000 acres selected by Sealaska for possible conveyance from within the ANCSA withdrawal areas are under salt water? 

Answer. None of the 170,000 acres of land selections is under salt water because 

Sealaska selected lands, not water. Sealaska’s land selections included both upland 

and coastline areas. However, Sealaska has expressed concern over their selections 

since all of the land is not prime upland that meets their socio-economic, cultural, 

sacred, traditional and historical criteria. 

Question 10. How many of the acres prioritized by Sealaska pursuant to section 

403 of ALTAA are under salt water? 

Answer. None. 

Question 11. Section 22(f) of ANCSA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and 

the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into exchanges with the 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.’’ Has the Department used this authority to exchange land or selection rights with any Native Corporations? 

Answer. Yes, the Secretary of the Interior has entered into exchanges and agreements, many of which had enabling legislation and parties in support of them. 

Question 12. Would an exchange pursuant to section 22(f) resolve any of the precedential concerns raised by the Department? 

Answer. Yes, but only if a mutual agreeable exchange could be reached. We defer 

to the Department of Agriculture Forest Service on matters related to FS lands. 

RESPONSES OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

ON S. 881

Question 1. Could you explain your testimony that allowing Sealaska Corporation 

to accept National Historic Preservation Act funding would have ‘‘wider’’ implications. Since Native corporations already are treated as tribes for program funding 

purposes under the definitions in Section 4 of the Indian Self Determination and 

Education Assistance Act, can you be specific as to BLM’s concerns over the act? 

Answer. Section 5(e)(2) of S. 881 would confer status to Alaska Native Corporations under the National Historic Preservation Act that Native Alaskan tribes would 

not have. The Department has concerns about the inequity that would create. 

Question 2. You speak in your testimony to the ‘‘undesirable precedent’’ of allowing Sealaska to substitute new lands for past selections. But Sealaska’s areas for 

selection were unique in Alaska in 1971 because so much of the land was tied up 

by long-term timber sale contract areas. Could you explain what other Native corporation has equal selection problems, except perhaps Cook Inlet that has already 

remedied its selection issues? 

Answer. The BLM is not aware of equal selection problems for other Native corporations wherein there is sufficient acreage that was prioritized by the ALTAA 

deadline, but a corporation now asserts the available land is not suitable to meet 

its entitlement. In addition, every Native corporation, with the exception of the two 

inland Native corporations, Doyon Ltd. and Ahtna, Inc., have significant amounts 

of water within many of their withdrawal areas. All Native corporations have lands 

within their withdrawal areas that have limited economic development potential. 

S. 940

Question 1. What is the total value of land and shared receipts that have been 

given to Nevada or other political divisions of that state by the BLM over the last 

decade? 

Answer. The BLM has conveyed approximately 53,271 acres over the last decade 

to the State of Nevada or its political divisions. The table below shows these conveyances in four categories, and the approximate acres and revenue received for each 

category of conveyance. 
80 

Conveyance Category Approximate Acres Approximate Revenue 

Received 

1) Administrative conveyances at Fair 

Market Value (FMV) 604 acres $3,558,500 

2) Lands conveyed under Recreation & 

Public Purposes Act 5,517 acres $22,125 

3) Legislative conveyances at FMV 13,980 acres $44,849,700 

4) Legislative conveyances at no cost, 

or at less than FMV 33,173 acres $475,000 

Total 53,271 acres $48,905,325 

The BLM did not conduct appraisals and has not estimated the value of the lands 

conveyed at no cost or at less than fair market value (FMV), in accordance with legislation (conveyance type (4) in the table above). These conveyances occurred over 

a ten-year period during which real estate values fluctuated widely, and the FMV 

at the time of conveyance would be difficult to reconstruct. The value of $475,000, 

shown in the right-hand column, reflects the approximate revenue received for the 

legislated conveyances that were directed to occur at less than FMV. 

The following are the shared receipts under the Southern Nevada Public Land 

Management Act from enactment (October, 1998) though October, 2009 

State of Nevada (for Education) $151,755,825.45 

Southern Nevada Water Authority $287,635,953.50 

Clark County Department of Aviation $ 9,225,695.45 

TOTAL $448,617,475.50 

Question 2. What is the estimated value of the lands to be conveyed by S. 940 

if it were to be signed into law? 

Answer. The BLM has not conducted appraisals of the lands that would be conveyed under S. 940. The following estimates are based on a cursory review of current comparable land values in these general areas. 

• The present estimated value of the proposed transfer of approximately 40 acres 

for the College of Southern Nevada is $4 million ($100,000 per acre). 

• he present estimated value of the proposed transfer of approximately 2,085 

acres for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas is $166.8 million ($80,000 per 

acre). 

• The present estimated value of the proposed transfer of approximately 256 

acres for Great Basin College is unknown due to the lack of readily-available 

comparables. 

Question 3. If the Committee amended the bill to: 1) remove the ability of the colleges to put commercial and private buildings on the land; 2) cherry-stemmed the 

carpenters canyon road out of the conveyance; and 3) removed the area around the 

BLM fire station and helipad, would that make this bill acceptable to the BLM? 

Answer. In general, there are several options for addressing the BLM’s concerns 

with S. 940, and we would like to work with the sponsor to identify the best solutions. In accordance with our testimony, an amended bill should consider the following: 

1) Because S. 940 would convey public lands at no cost, the BLM testified 

that S. 940 should be amended to ensure the land uses allowed under the bill 

are consistent with the uses allowed under the Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act (R&PP). The BLM’s regulations, found at 43 CFR 2740, define the uses that 

may occur on lands conveyed or leased under the R&PP. The regulations state 

that ‘‘use of lands or facilities for habitation, cultivation, trade, or manufacturing is permissible only when necessary for and integral to, i.e., an essential 
81 

part of, the public purpose.’’ The BLM recommends that Sections 4 (c)(1) and 

4 (d)(1) of the bill be amended to be consistent with these regulations and the 

R&PP. Please see the response to Question 5, below, for suggested legislative 

language. 

2) Carpenter Canyon Road provides important public access to FS and BLMmanaged lands. Several options exist for maintaining public access on Carpenter Canyon Road. These options include removing the road from the conveyance or rerouting the road as part of a development plan for the parcel. The 

BLM would like to work with the sponsor to determine the best option for retaining public access on Carpenter Canyon Road. 

3) Federal safety regulations require a minimum of 500 feet on all sides of 

the BLM Helipad to remain clear of any obstacles over six feet high. This safety 

requirement could be met through careful site planning and development on the 

conveyed parcel, or by removing this area from the proposed conveyance. 

Question 4. How many acres should be removed from the 256 acre Great Basin 

College to provide an adequate safety-zone buffer at the BLM helipad located within 

the lands S. 940 would convey? 

Answer. Removing 20 acres immediately adjacent to the Helipad would provide 

a needed 500-foot safety buffer. 

Question 5. Finally please provide maps and any ‘‘minor boundary changes’’ or 

language modifications you desire to be made to boundaries to the Committee within two weeks. 

Answer. The BLM has not identified any boundary changes for the parcels that 

would be conveyed under S. 940. 

While BLM notes the conveyance occurs under its administrative process, the 

Committee could consider amending Sections 4 (c)(1) and 4 (d)(1) of the bill as follows to ensure consistency with the R&PP Act and BLM’s regulations. 

SEC. 4 

(c) USE OF CONVEYED LAND.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The land conveyed under subsection (a) shall be used 

for educational or other public purpose consistent with the uses allowed 

under the Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ‘‘Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act’’) (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), and the regulations found at 

43 CFR 2740. 

(d) REVERSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the land conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to 

be used for the public purpose for which the land was conveyed, the land 

shall, at the discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States. 

S. 1272

Question 1a. Given that the majority of the BLM lands within this proposed legislation are within the Oregon & California Grant Lands and that law requires the 

BLM to share 50% of the receipts from management with the O&C counties; Despite 

the current district land management plan that puts this area off limits to timber 

management, what is the current inventory of timber volume and its current value 

estimated to be? 

Answer. The current standing inventory of timber volume within the 6,104 acres 

proposed for wilderness designation on BLM-administered lands is estimated to be 

approximately 340 million board feet. None of these areas has been included within 

planned timber sales of the next 4-5 years, so determining the current value of the 

timber that could be harvested sustainably from these stands would require the 

evaluation of various factors, including logging costs and fluctuating market conditions that are not present at this time. 

Question 1b. Does the BLM remain committed to share 50% of any receipts it receives from wilderness related activities from this land with the county if this legislation is signed into law? 

Answer. At present, no leases exist in this area that would generate fee receipts 

after designation. Overall, the potential for Federal fee revenue generation within 

the area proposed for wilderness is very limited. 

Question 1c. In your testimony you mentioned that 752 acres of the S. 1272 proposal are outside the wilderness on adjacent BLM lands. How are those acres managed at this time? Are they designated for timber harvesting and if so, what is the 

average annual volume that could be removed and what is its estimated value? 

Answer. The 752 acres that are outside of the proposed wilderness boundary, but 

within the corridor of the proposed Wasson Creek Wild and Scenic River, are managed under the Northwest Forest Plan as Late Successional Reserves and are des-
82 

ignated as critical habitat for the threatened and endangered northern spotted owl 

and marbled murrelet. Under such designations, the area is managed for conservation values rather than commercial timber production. Total standing volume within 

these 752 acres is estimated at approximately 28 million board feet. 

Question 2. Finally please provide maps and any ‘‘minor boundary changes’’ or 

language modifications you desire to be made to boundaries to the Committee within two weeks. 

Answer. The BLM provided a map to Committee staff with the BLM’s minor 

boundary modification recommendations. The BLM has no language modification 

recommendations. 

S. 1689 

Question 1. Will you assure us that any existing utility corridors will be available 

for future utility lines in the NCA’s and Wilderness Areas included in this bill in 

such a manner that the process will be no more difficult than existed prior to the 

designation of the NCA? 

Answer. There are no utility corridors within the wilderness areas proposed for 

designation under the bill, and no utility corridors within the Desert Peaks NCA. 

There are several existing utility corridors within the proposed Organ Mountains 

NCA, and under section 4(c)(2)(D) of S. 1689 the right-of-ways within these corridors 

may be renewed, upgraded, and widened. While there may be increased public scrutiny of processing right-of-ways within existing utility corridors within an NCA, the 

BLM would process any applications for utility corridors in the same manner as 

would occur if the area were not a NCA. This process would include NEPA analysis 

exploring alternatives for other locations, and identifying the impact to other resources. 

Question 2. Will you assure us that any existing water developments and pipelines will be available for future water developments and pipelines in the NCAs and 

Wilderness Areas included in this bill in such a manner that the process will be 

no more difficult than existed prior to the designation of the NCA? 

Answer. Under S. 1689, grazing would continue within the two NCAs and newly 

designated wilderness. Within the NCA, grazing and grazing developments, including water developments and pipelines, would be administered in the same manner 

as non-designated BLM lands consistent with the purposes of the NCA. Within the 

wilderness areas, grazing would be administered under Appendix A of the Report 

of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to accompany H.R. 2570 of the 

101st Congress (H. Rept. 101-405). The maintenance of facilities existing prior to 

designation as wilderness (including water developments and pipelines) is allowed. 

The construction of new water developments and pipelines may be authorized for 

the primary purpose of wilderness resource enhancement or protection. Such a determination would be made through the NEPA process. 

Question 3. Will you assure us that any existing road and transportation corridors 

will be available for future road and transportation corridors in the NCAs and Wilderness Areas included in this bill in such a manner that the process will be no 

more difficult than existed prior to the designation of the NCA? 

Answer. Any valid existing rights would continue after designation. No new roads 

are permissible within wilderness areas. The BLM will approve the use of routes 

to access inholdings within wilderness where they existed at the time of designation, 

and by the means that were used by the inholder at the time of designation. The 

routes may not be improved to a condition more highly developed than existed at 

the time of designation. Within the NCAs, the bill directs the BLM to designate 

roads for motorized vehicle use which have been determined necessary as part of 

a management plan. Under the provisions of section 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of S. 1689, new 

roads may be established in the NCAs only for public safety or natural resource protection. 

Question 4. Will you assure us that any existing communications corridors will be 

available for future communications corridors in the NCAs included in this bill in 

such a manner that the process will be no more difficult than existed prior to the 

designation of the NCA? 

Answer. Right-of-ways for communication sites may be renewed in both NCAs, 

and upgraded or widened in the Organ Mountains NCA under the provisions of the 

bill, as noted in the answer to question #1. While there may be increased public 

scrutiny of any new communication site proposals within an NCA, the BLM would 

process any applications for communications sites in the same manner as would 

occur if the area were not a NCA. This process would include NEPA analysis exploring alternatives for other locations, and identifying the impact to other resources. 

There is one existing communication site within the Desert Peaks NCA, and one ex-
83 

isting communication site on the north end of the proposed Organ Mountains NCA. 

These sites represent valid existing rights. 

Question 5. In April of this year, I requested information from the Secretary on 

all wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers and other land set-asides like National Conservation Areas that display both mineral and energy resources. Jerry Schickedanz’s 

testimony displays information similar to what we expect in the maps we requested 

for the Desert Peaks and Organ Mountains wilderness proposals. 

Would you provide the Committee maps for the NCA’s proposed in S. 1689 that 

show all existing roads, water developments, utility corridors, and stock developments? 

Answer. The BLM provided these maps to the Committee on November 13, 2009. 

Question 6. Many of the areas slated for protected status in this bill are roaded 

and have a history of wildland fires, particularly much of the Organ Mountain proposals. 

a. Please describe the fires that have occurred within any of the areas proposed 

for Wilderness or NCA status in this bill that occurred in the last decade. 

Answer. Over the last decade, there have been several small fires within the 

Organ Mountains. In 2008 there was a 2,800-acre fire, known as the ‘‘Dripping 

Springs Fire’’ within the Organ Mountains that was caused by human activity. 

b. Please also describe the cost of fighting each of those fires and estimate what 

they would have cost to fight given what is normally allowed to be used in fire suppression in a Wilderness Area or an NCA. 

Answer. Firefighting costs for the ‘‘Dripping Springs Fire’’ were approximately $700,000. Our best estimate is that there would have been no cost differential under 

S. 1689. 

Question 7. Finally please provide maps and any ‘‘minor boundary changes’’ or 

language modifications you desire to be made to boundaries to the Committee within two weeks. 

Answer. As noted in our testimony, the BLM would like to continue its successful 

restoration efforts in the areas identified for designation. The following language 

would provide additional clarity: ‘‘Consistent with the Bureau of Land Management’s wilderness policy, habitat manipulation by chemical or mechanical means 

may be approved on a project-by-project basis where necessary to correct unnatural 

conditions resulting from human influence, where such manipulation would enhance 

the wilderness resource and where natural processes have been unsuccessful.’’ 

The BLM is not recommending any additional boundary modifications. 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, 

Juneau, AK, March 4, 2010. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Questions for Bob Claus, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council 

DEAR SENATOR BARRASSO: On February 25, 2010, staff for the U.S. Senate Energy 

and Natural Resource Committee forwarded to us your question below and requested our response so that both could be added to the hearing record for the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee hearing on October 8, 2009. That hearing related to S.881, The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. 

Your question reads: 

Mr. Claus, The Tongass used to produce about 450 million board feet of 

timber a year, but last year produced less than 30 million board feet from 

federal lands. Is SEACC’s concerns with this Sealaska conveyance bill that 

it will lead to larger total timber harvests in the forest, or is the concern 

solely that the areas proposed for harvest—the same areas proposed by the 

Forest Service’s most recent land management plan for harvest—are in 

some way objectionable from an environmental standpoint? 

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this important question and clarify 

SEACC’s concerns regarding S.881. We request that this response and the accompanying report be included in official Subcommittee hearing record for S.881. 

Senator, there is no simple ‘‘either-or’’ answer to your question. Our concerns are 

much broader than whether S.881 will increase total logging levels on the forest. 

These concerns center on the ecological, economic and social impacts from conveying 

these particular public lands from the Tongass to Sealaska Corporation. First, management of the subject lands is complicated by the legacy of unsustainable, industrial-scale logging on Prince of Wales Island on both federal and private lands. Second, far weaker management standards apply to logging development on private 
84 

1See, Albert 2010, infra note 5 at p.6 (Figure). A slightly enlarged version of this same figure 

was attached as Exhibit 3 to the Statement of Bob Claus, SEACC Community Organizer on S. 

881 (Oct. 8, 2009). Traditionally, the Forest Service uses volume per acre or volume strata to 

evaluate timber volume for forest planning purposes. The ‘‘forest dentisty’’ approach considers 

the volume of trees available per square mile. Since logging was the primary justification for 

nearly all road construction on the Tongass over the last 60 years, a comparison of timber density to road miles provides a useful index for timber quality independent of the tree size. 2 USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment at p. 3–138 (2008) (hereinafter ‘‘2008 

Tongass Forest Plan Amendment’’). 3 Id. at 3–150. 

4See Sealaska Corporation’s website (http://www.sealaska.com/page/ 

mapsllandllmaterials.html): ‘‘On the map, the yellow areas represent 327,000 acres from 

which Sealaska must currently select its remaining 85,000 acre entitlement. Haa Aani proposes 

that Sealaska instead withdraw from the green areas on the map--95,000 total acres from which 

Sealaska will select 77,000.’’ Sealaska has already selected about 171,000 of the 327,000 acres 

it proposed to relinquish. See 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment, supra note 2, at p. 3–301. 

lands in Alaska than those adopted for the Tongass National Forest. Finally, removing lands designated for logging on the Tongass from the timber base, increases resource extraction pressures on other public lands because local manufacturers will 

lose access to any of the timber logged by Sealaska, all of which is exported in the 

round. 

THE LEGACY OF TIMBER-FIRST MANAGEMENT ON THE TONGASS

Industrial-scale logging on the Tongass National Forest began in the 1950’s when 

the Forest Service signed 50-year contracts with the Ketchikan Pulp Company 

(KPC) and the foreign-owned Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC). The contract gave the 

corporations public timber in exchange for building and operating pulp mills in 

Ketchikan and Sitka. These two 50-year contracts-the only ones of their kind in the 

National Forest System-meant that clearcut logging and road building took priority 

over all other uses and resources of the forest. Although only a small fraction of the 

all the forested lands in Southeast Alaska have been cut, intensive logging has systematically targeted the biggest and best trees, and the most productive forest 

lands, the biological heart of America’s temperate rainforest.1

The 450 million board feet (MMBF) your question references is from an era long 

gone, when the Tongass was dominated by the two exclusive, 50-year pulp contracts. 

In the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. 96-487, 

§705a, 94 Stat. 2371, 2420 (ANILCA), Congress accepted the premise of the Forest 

Service’s 1979 Tongass Land Management Plan that the commercial forest land 

made available under that forest plan would support a timber supply of 450 MMBF 

annually. When the Forest Service’s timber supply assumptions proved 

unsustainable, Congress amended ANILCA in the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act, 

PL 101-626, to enhance the balanced use of all renewable Tongass forest resources. 

After decades of logging on the Tongass National Forest, and the loss of a substantial amount of its most intact, contiguous big-tree forest, maintaining the ecological integrity of the Tongass requires a far different management approach, a 

lighter touch, if you will, on the all pieces remaining. Unfortunately, the most recent 

Tongass Land Management Plan (2008) missed a key opportunity to tackle the timber development legacy on the Tongass. Instead of addressing the challenging economic transition facing local Southeast Alaska communities in the 21st century, the 

2008 Tongass Forest Plan continues to rely on an archaic 20th century management 

model. 

Since 1952, approximately 455,000 acres of productive old-growth forest has been 

cut on the Tongass National Forest.2 Together, the Alaska Native corporations, including Sealaska, the regional corporation, and 10 village and 2 urban corporations, 

own and manage nearly 580,000 acres of land within the boundaries of the Tongass 

National Forest under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. About 301,000 

acres of these lands have been clearcut.3 Nearly 40 percent of all the cut-over lands 

in Southeast Alaska are on Prince of Wales Island; the same island where 

Sealaska’s has chosen a selection pool of about 95,000 acres from which it hopes to 

select its remaining timber development lands from.4

In our view, the majority of the national forest lands that Sealaska wishes conveyed to it are more important to local communities for the fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values they support than for timber values, particularly those lands 

close to the communities of Hydaburg, Port Protection, Point Baker and Edna Bay. 

The best way to support these uses over the long term is to manage these lands 

primarily for conservation, restoration, and stewardship purposes. 
85 

5 Albert, David M., The Nature Conservancy, Juneau AK, A preliminary comparison of ecological values associated with Economic Development and Native Future sites proposed under the 

Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act (S. 811) and other lands on the 

Tongass National Forest (March 1, 2010) (Albert 2010). Please include the accompanying report 

into the official Subcommittee hearing record for S. 881. 6See supra note 4. 

7See Albert 2008, supra note 5 at p.4. 

Another way of looking at S.881 is to compare the ecological values associated 

with the ‘‘economic development’’ lands Sealaska seeks and the lands previously selected by Sealaska within the withdrawal areas set aside by Congress in the 1971 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that it proposes to relinquish if this bill is enacted into law. A recent report prepared by The Nature Conservancy helps provide 

an ecological basis for this comparison.5 As the report’s summary notes: 

This comparison illustrated exceptionally high ecological value within 

Economic Development lands for large-tree old growth forests, karst forests 

and deer habitat in comparison with Tongass-wide averages. In the context 

of current forest condition on Prince of Wales Island, these lands provide 

significant value for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity in the 

southern Tongass. In contrast, lands currently withdrawn for selection 

under ANCSA were comparable with average values throughout the 

Tongass National Forest (NF). 

Sealaska has identified a selection pool of about 95,000 acres that the corporation 

hopes to select its remaining entitlement from.6 Nearly half of these acres, however, 

are located within watersheds that rank in the top 25 percent of ecological values 

in all Southeast Alaska and within the top 10 percent of forested lands on the 

Tongass.7 The report identifies these highest ranked watersheds as including 

McKenzie Inlet, Calder Bay, Trout Creek, Red Lake, Nutkwa Inlet, Port Protection, 

Kassa Inlet, Mt. Francis, Mabel Creek and Flicker Creek. 

Once conveyed to Sealaska Corporation, these lands will no longer be subject to 

balanced multiple use management. In the past Southeast Alaska Native corporations have chosen rapid, large-scale clearcut logging and the export of all, or nearly 

all, of the timber from their commercial forest lands over other options. 

The impact from this change in ownership will be felt most dramatically by the 

people who use these public lands day after day to supply their families with food, 

make a living, and enjoy a way of life no longer possible anywhere else in America. 

Lands in this selection pool that should not be conveyed to Sealaska include those 

parcels on North Prince of Wales, Kosciusko Island, and south of Hydaburg. There 

are other lands in the pool identified by Sealaska that can provide Sealaska with 

what they need but also cause the least amount of damage to the lands important 

to local communities on Prince of Wales for their high value fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values. SEACC remains committed to finding a solution that works 

for Sealaska and all the communities on Prince of Wales Island. 

Weak Protections for Fish & Wildlife on Private Lands 

Logging under the Amended Tongass Forest Plan (2008) is not the same as logging on private lands under the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act, AS 

41.17.010—.950. Many of the most significant management standards designed to 

safeguard valuable fish and wildlife habitat, or internationally significant cave and 

karst lands, are lost once if these lands are conveyed to Sealaska. For example, in 

order to provide long-term protection for salmon habitat, Congress imposed mandatory 100-foot no-cut buffers on all salmon and resident fish streams. In response to 

a request from Congress in 1994, scientists from the USFS’ Pacific Northwest Research Station led a federal and state scientific assessment of salmon habitat protection measures on the Tongass. The Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment concluded 

that even the mandatory minimum buffers imposed in the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act would not protect salmon and fish habitat over the long term. In response, the 

Forest Service adopted standards and guidelines that significantly expanded the 

minimum size of the no-cut stream buffers in the Tongass Forest Plan. In contrast, 

under state law, only a variable 66-foot buffer is required, AS 41.17.116(a). High 

winds routinely result in these small buffers blowing down, resulting in the loss of 

long-term riparian habitat values. 

Unlike the requirements under federal law to maintain biological diversity and 

viable, well-distributed populations of wildlife, the Alaska Forest Resources and 

Practices Act lacks any requirement that private landowners take into account the 

impacts to wildlife from logging those lands. Finally, unlike the Federal Cave Re-
86 

8Pub. L. 100-691, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4546 (16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.). 

source Protection Act of 1988,8 no measures exist under state law to ensure the perpetual protection of significant cave and karst systems from the effects of logging. 

Given Sealaska’s past land management track record, these national and international treasures will be irrevocably damaged and what we can learn from them 

lost. 

Thank you for your careful attention to our response and careful review of the 

accompanying comparison of the ecological values at stake if S.881 becomes law. 

Best Regards, 

BOB CLAUS, 

Community Organizer on Prince of Wales Island. 

BUCK LINDEKUGEL, 

Grassroots Attorney. 

RESPONSES OF JAY JENSEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Section 22(f) of ANCSA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

enter into exchanges with the 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.’’ Has the Department used this authority to exchange 

land or selection rights with any Native Corporations? 

Answer. The Department of Agriculture can cite two uses of Section 22(f) of 

ANCSA, along with Section 1302(h) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), as authority to enter into land exchanges with Alaska Native Corporations. The authority has been used with Goldbelt, Inc. and Sealaska 

Corporation to resolve access and split estate issues utilizing Section 22(f). 

Question 2. Could the Secretary use the exchange authority in section 22(f) of 

ANCSA to convey land to Sealaska that is outside of the ANCSA withdrawal boundaries and, if so, have the federal agencies discussed this option with Sealaska? 

Answer. Section 22(f) of ANCSA provides, in part, that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to exchange lands or interests therein, including Native selection rights, with Village and Regional Corporations for the purpose of effecting land 

consolidations or to facilitate the management or development of the land, or for 

other public purposes. Section 22(f) (43 U.S.C. § 1621) could therefore be utilized 

as authority to exchange land interests with Sealaska that are outside of Sealaska’s 

ANCSA withdrawal boundaries for the purposes stated in the statute. 

The Forest Service has consideredan exchange of land interests with Sealaska to 

address, in part, the conveyance of Sealaska’s final entitlement. In August 2002, 

Sealaska submitted a land exchange proposal to the Forest Service. Sealaska identified a pool of approximately 225,000 acres of federal land to consider as part of an 

exchange. Sealaska identified approximately 50,000 acres of its selected lands (lands 

still owned by the United States, but selected by Sealaska under ANCSA) and 

48,000 acres of land already conveyed to Sealaska under ANCSA (lands owned by 

Sealaska). In return for federal lands, Sealaska proposed to: 1) negotiate an agreement regarding its final land entitlement with the Bureau of Land Management; 

2) exchange certain conveyed lands and selection rights to the United States; and 

3) relinquish its remaining selections within the withdrawal areas. 

In April 2003, the Forest Service completed a feasibility analysis regarding the 

Sealaska proposal. The report found although portions of the proposal were in the 

public interest, further negotiations would be necessary regarding the specific parcels to be exchanged. Negotiations continued between the Forest Service and 

Sealaska to address issues, public concerns and modifications identified in the feasibility analysis. Identified in the feasibility analysis were public and community concerns regarding the potential loss of public access, including access for subsistence 

use; effects on karst and cave resources; the potential reduction in the supply of timber from the forest; loss of old growth reserves and inventoried roadless areas; and 

the future management of the lands conveyed to Sealaska. The Forest Service and 

Sealaska negotiated for 14 months over the exchange parcels and the terms of community and public access before negotiations ended in mid-2005. 

Question 3. Would an exchange pursuant to section 22(f) resolve any of the precedential concerns raised by the Department? 

Answer. S.881 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Sealaska three 

new categories of lands from the Tongass National Forest: 1) economic development 

lands, 2) sacred site lands, and 3) Native futures sites. None of these categories of 

land selections currently appear in ANCSA. Additionally, other Native Corporations 
87 

are not entitled to make such selections. The Department of Interior is concerned, 

that if S. 881 is enacted, that it may provide an impetus for other regional corporations to reopen land claims at this final stage in the land transfer program. Section 

22(f) could be used as authority for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to negotiate a land exchange with Sealaska for the purposes stated in the statute. If such 

a land exchange with the USDA was found feasible and in the public interest, the 

creation of these new categories of ANCSA selections that others could use as an 

impetus to change existing selections and entitlements could be avoided. However, 

discussions with Sealaska regarding its previous land exchange proposal did not result in a successful exchange. 

RESPONSES OF JAY JENSEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In your testimony you state that the new selection pool for Sealaska 

will affect your forest planning process and make it harder for the Forest Service 

to transition from an old growth to young-growth timber model. 

a. Since the Sealaska initial 197,000 acre selection pool was modeled in the recently revised Tongass Land Management Act and since all of the economic development lands are proposed for timber harvest, how will the bill negatively affect 

TLMP’s implementation? 

Answer. Under the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), lands identified in 

the legislation for possible conveyance to Sealaska contribute to the land base and 

the scientific assumptions on which the TLMP conservation strategy is premised. If 

the underlying land base changes significantly, then the assumptions, analysis, and 

strategies included in the plan may no longer be valid. The determinations related 

to land use designations, adaptive management strategy for timber sales, allowable 

sale quantity (ASQ), conservation strategy, and standards and guidelines included 

in the TLMP could all be significantly affected by a conveyance to Sealaska. Even 

though timber harvest activities on the lands identified as Sealaska’s economic development lands were considered in TLMP, the management prescriptions applicable to such activities on private lands are significantly different from TLMP management prescriptions. Consequently, TLMP must account for these differences and 

consider the cumulative environmental effects from these activities on private lands. 

If the underlying land base changes significantly, affecting the assumptions of the 

land management plan, there would likely be a need to amend the plan accompanied by compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the 

proposed legislation states implementation of the bill and the conveyance of lands 

to Sealaska will not require an amendment or revision of TLMP, this language does 

not resolve the land management issues that likely will arise regarding TLMP implementation. Regardless of whether an amendment or revision of TLMP is legally 

required, the significant management assumptions and strategies that form the 

basis of the current plan would need to be modified if enactment of S.881 occurs, 

and therefore TLMP could not be implemented as currently intended. If TLMP cannot be implemented as intended, a plan amendment will be needed. 

b. Since there are about 277,000 acres of second growth timber in the Tongass 

greater than 45 years of age and the proposed new Sealaska selection pool contains 

about 20,000 such acres, how will the bill affect your ‘‘young-growth’’ forestry process? 

Answer. Historically, the forest products industry in and around the Tongass was 

developed and sustained on producing high quality products from old growth timber 

with the intention of transitioning to young-growth forest products once timber in 

previously harvested areas was mature, around approximately age 90-100. Recently, 

there has been interest in the feasibility and financial costs of transitioning the industry to young-growth based production as soon as possible rather than wait for 

the young-growth to reach maturity. Forest management in young growth to date 

has consisted of thinning young growth to improve wood quality, growth, stand resilience, and habitat quality. These intermediate treatments represent a significant 

investment in the forest, as well as providing an opportunity to enter young-growth 

stands earlier than stands without treatment. 

The oldest stands thinned on the Tongass represent the best and earliest opportunity to begin a transition to a young growth industry. The Tongass currently has 

approximately 135,000 acres of young growth which is greater than 40 years old 

(Tongass Young Growth Management Strategy, March 2008). There are 51,569 

acres young-growth located within Phase 1 of the TLMP Timber Sale Adaptive Management Strategy. In Phase 1, the timber program is restricted to a portion of the 

suitable land base which excludes moderate and higher value roadless areas. 

The proposed Sealaska selection pool targets 44,565 acres of young-growth, with 

19,343 acres originating in 1969 or earlier. Of the 19,343 acres, 13,319 lie within 
88 

Phase 1 suitable land base. Sealaska’s proposed selection of these acres constitutes 

about 25% of the oldest young-growth within the Phase 1 suitable land base. The 

proposed selection of these young-growth lands by Sealaska will remove the oldest 

and most available young-growth acreages within the Tongass. These acres are considered ‘‘available’’ because the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan only allows 

commercial harvest to occur in the Phase 1 land base until certain volumes have 

been harvested for two consecutive years. Because the acres Sealaska has targeted 

are in Phase 1 and are some of the oldest young growth, they are the same stands 

the Tongass plans to use to begin the transition and eventual conversion to a younggrowth industry. Removing these stands from federal ownership will delay the 

Tongass’ ability to begin this transition. 

The investment made by the Tongass in intermediate silvicultural treatments, 

primarily thinning, has been significant. About 20,721 acres out of the proposed 

Sealaska selection pool of 44,565 acres of young-growth (approximately 46%) have 

been thinned at an approximate cost of $500 dollars per acre. Thus, more than $10 

million has been invested by the U.S. Government in silvicultural treatments on 

lands in the proposed Sealaska selection pool. 

Additionally, the Forest Service has a long investment in various research projects 

located within some of the young-growth stands within the proposed Sealaska selection pool. There are approximately eight sites, totaling about 184 acres with established, long term research plots. Most sites were established in the 1970s and are 

planned for continued monitoring activities into the future. These sites provide significant young-growth data necessary for transition to a young growth industry. 

Question 2. In your testimony you state that the new selection pool would harm 

old-growth habitats. Given that Sealaska returns all of its current 327,000 acre selection pool in return for the 63,000 to 85,000 acres it would receive, and given that 

Sealaska has 112,000 acres of old-growth in its current pool, compared to just 

48,000 acres of old growth in its potential new selection pool, the bill would seem 

to potentially increase the amount of old-growth in the forest by about 60,000 acres. 

Could you explain your position further? 

Answer. Although the Forest Service has not been able to validate the acreage figures utilized in this question, it recognizes old-growth structural stages have value 

for many forest attributes which add to the overall landscape diversity for the 

Tongass National Forest. 

The question appears to assume lands in the withdrawal area, selected by 

Sealaska, but not yet conveyed, will return to Federal ownership under the proposed 

legislation thereby adding benefits not currently considered. This is not the case. 

There are no lands for Sealaska to ‘‘return’’ because the lands selected by Sealaska 

have not left Federal ownership. As such, any benefits from old growth habitat contained in these acres have already been considered under the TLMP and continue 

to be managed as part of the national forest. 

The question also appears to assume more valuable old growth exists on the lands 

within the withdrawal area than the lands identified for Sealaska selection in the 

proposed legislation. The lands currently selected by Sealaska in the withdrawal 

areas generally do not contain significant amounts of economically viable oldgrowth. These lands are managed primarily for their scenic and recreation values, 

with fewer acres managed for timber production as allocated under TLMP. Some of 

the lands identified as economic development lands in the legislation are allocated 

to timber production in the TLMP. The proposed selection areas also include lands 

currently managed for scenic view shed, recreation, and old-growth habitat. The proposed selection areas on Prince of Wales, Tuxekan, and Kosciusko Islands include 

approximately 55,000 acres of productive old-growth. They are within the Phase 1 

lands of the 2008 TLMP Timber Sale Adaptive Management Plan and are suitable 

for harvest, with the exception of portions currently designated as old growth reserves. There are 12 old growth reserves within the above mentioned proposed selection areas. All or part of three of the four old growth reserves on Kosciusko Island 

would be removed from federal ownership, as would two of the three on Tuxekan 

Island. These lands represent a significant component of the TLMP conservation 

strategy area for wildlife. Loss of these old-growth areas would likely undermine the 

conservation strategy in TLMP and potentially lead to threatened and endangered 

species listings. Even though timber harvest in the proposed selection areas may 

have been considered in TLMP, the Forest Service is required to mitigate effects 

from such activities to avoid species listings, whereas private landowners do not 

have similar requirements. 
89 

RESPONSES OF JAY JENSEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. In your testimony you say the Department supports completion of the 

entitlement due Sealaska in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Given that 

it’s been nearly four decades since the act passed, doesn’t it make sense to alter the 

selection pool to speed selection and conveyance of the final acreage under the 1971 

Act? Isn’t that especially the case since the original pool was so impacted by the 

long-term timber contracts in the Tongass National Forest that were in effect then, 

but which since have been cancelled by your Department? 

Answer. The 2004 Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, P.L. 108-452, (the Acceleration Act), addressed issues such as final prioritization of selected lands that 

hindered timely conveyance. It is important to note that sufficient uplands exist 

within Sealaska’s existing selections to convey its full entitlements under ANCSA 

and that the BLM is prepared to convey lands to bring Sealaska significantly closer 

to its full entitlements. It is equally important to note that BLM needs to survey 

lands in order to convey very close to entitlement so that over-conveyance does not 

occur; therefore some acreage must be held back for final survey calculations. Any 

holdback acreage would be done in cooperation with Sealaska and according to priorities on file. 

Another factor affecting Sealaska’s receipt of its final entitlement under Section 

14(h)(8) is the complicated Section 14(h)formula. The total acres remaining under 

the Section 14(h)(8) pool of lands available to the ten remaining eligible regional corporations cannot be determined until after patents to other subsections in the formula have been completed statewide unless a statutory amendment sets the remaining acreage in the pool and breaks the formula whereby each subsection of the 

14(h) formula can be accelerated. Title II of the Acceleration Act addressed certain 

issues to assist in determining Sealaska’s final 14(h) (8) entitlement, but stopped 

short of setting a remaining acreage; thus adjudication and patent of all the subsections still must occur. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been willing 

to convey lands to Sealaska based on its projection of final entitlement, but Sealaska 

requested the BLM wait while Sealaska is advocating for legislation or considering 

a land exchange with the Forest Service. Sealaska has been advocating for legislation or considering a land exchange with the Forest Service the last ten years. 

Most recently, Sealaska and other Regional Corporations were given 42 months 

from enactment of the Acceleration Act to identify final, prioritized selections. 

Sealaska identified its final, irrevocable priorities on the last day, June 10, 2008, 

and in that same transmittal requested its prioritized selections not be conveyed because the corporation was pursuing federal legislation. Sealaska’s projected entitlement, based on the BLM’s most recent 14(h)(8) estimates, can be conveyed to 

Sealaska, but the Corporation has asked for delay because the prioritized original 

selections inside the withdrawal areas would no longer be necessary if legislation 

is enacted. 

Many factors have affected the timely conveyance of ANCSA entitlement, but the 

existence of the now cancelled long-term timber sale contracts is not one of the factors. Lands subject to timber sale activities were not eliminated from the withdrawal areas from which Sealaska made its selections. 

Additionally, ANCSA was enacted in 1971, and the first major amendments were 

enacted in 1976, including Section 2 of P.L. 94-204. Section 2 requires proceeds derived from contracts, leases, permits, rights-of-way, or easements pertaining to lands 

withdrawn for selection under ANCSA to be set aside for payment to Native Corporations as the lands are conveyed. The Forest Service set aside proceeds from the 

timber sales. The original deadline for Sealaska to make its ANCSA Section 14(h) 

(8) selections was September 18, 1978. The selection deadline occurred two years 

after enactment of the requirement to set aside proceeds. Proceeds are released after 

BLM conveys the land. Thus far, Sealaska has received more than $2 million in escrow proceeds from timber sales occurring on lands eventually conveyed to Sealaska. 

It was not until the Acceleration Act of 2004, that Sealaska was required to file final 

selection priorities, and when it did, it requested further delay because of proposed 

legislation. 

Question 2. Mr. Jensen, concerning land planning in Southeast Alaska, doesn’t 

most all of the land proposed for timber selection by Sealaska in S. 881 overlap 

areas proposed for harvesting already in your revision last year of the Tongass Land 

Management Plan? How will that harm the environment if the areas for ultimate 

harvest are identical? 

Answer. The Forest Service estimates that the breakdown of the broad vegetation 

types of the economic development land identified on Attachment A to the legislation includes a total of about 107,000 acres of productive old growth, with about 

72,000 acres of high volume-old growth. The proposed selection areas on Prince of 
90 

Wales, Tuxekan and Kosciusko Islands include approximately 55,000 acres of productive old-growth. These lands represent a significant component of our conservation strategy area for wildlife. Prince of Wales Island has been identified as a biodiversity hotspot by The Nature Conservancy. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has 

raised significant concerns regarding goshawk endemism (indigenousness) and viability, endemic wolf viability, and viability for other endemic species and lineages. 

Loss of these old-growth areas will likely affect our conservation strategy in TLMP 

and potentially result in threatened and endangered species listings. 

The selections proposed in this legislation will be managed under the standards 

and guidelines in TLMP until or unless they are conveyed to Sealaska. Private 

lands are managed under the Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Act (AFRPA). 

The AFRPA standards and guidelines used to mitigate impacts to salmon streams, 

soils, water, wildlife, scenery, karst and other natural resources are less stringent 

than those found in the TLMP. Consequently, the environmental effects on lands 

harvested by Sealaska are likely to be greater than the environmental effects from 

timber harvest activities occurring pursuant to TLMP. 
(91) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF THE ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE, ON S. 881 

Whenever swaths of federal lands are slated to leave the public rolls, there must 

be a commonsense accounting of the transaction All parties involved in the matter 

must be getting the fairest, most evenhanded deal possible. Before the ledger can 

be balanced, it must be made clear precisely what the public is getting in return 

for what it is surrendering. In the case of the Sealaska land transfers, this means 

considering the impacts their actions would have on the land that will be removed 

from federal ownership, as well as the impacts their actions would have on adjacent 

lands and waters, nearby communities, and existing public uses. Providing durable 

conservation protections for important areas outside of the Sealaska solution space 

will begin to provide the fairness the public requires for carrying out this transaction. 

A coalition of conservation organizations has developed a Tongass-wide Framework of Conservation Priorities to serve as a blueprint for efforts to build a comprehensive plan for the Tongass, aiming to achieve proper balance while meeting 

the needs of the resource, and of a variety of users. The framework is based on a 

set of community and ecological values. In particular, the framework is founded on 

a conservation assessment of the Tongass completed in 2007 by Audubon Alaska 

and The Nature Conservancy. The assessment identified the biological values of watersheds across the 22 bio-regional provinces in Southeast Alaska based on the 

abundance of winter deer habitat, summer bear habitat, nesting habitat for marbled 

murrelets, spawning and rearing habitat for all 5 species of salmon plus steelhead, 

large-tree old growth, and estuaries. The analysis and assessment included input 

from many of Southeast Alaska’s and the nation’s top biologists and ecologists as 

well as information and data from scores of agency reports and peer reviewed literature. 

Through the extensive study and analysis, the group of scientists and analysts 

generated a ‘‘conservation target’’ map that identifies the highest ranked watersheds 

in each region of the Southeast Alaskan coastal temperate rainforest. These target 

watersheds as well as areas identified as high-value community use areas are the 

basis of the Framework of Conservation Priorities. 

The Framework highlights the fact that many of the Sealaska Corporation’s ‘‘out 

of the box’’ selections occur in areas that are of the highest conservation value. The 

fact that some of the most productive timber acres on the forest are also some of 

the highest value in ecological terms has long been a source of contention amongst 

the various interest groups. If the land transfers in S. 881 were to become law, the 

lands in question would depart federal ownership, and management would be subject to the regulations of the Alaska Forest Practices Act as applied to private lands. 

Existing state law simply does not offer the level of protection these most ecologically valuable acres require to remain intact and maintain the productivity that 

makes them so important in the first place. 

While it is clear that the economic zones in S. 881 would be subject to clear cut 

logging, which certainly presents its own set of challenges, the legislation as currently written says frustratingly little about specifically how the native future sites 

and cultural sites are to be managed by the Sealaska Corporation. It appears that 

Sealaska will have near complete autonomy over these transferred lands, without 

regard to the impacts their management decisions will have on the nearby communities, transferred lands, adjacent lands or existing public uses of these lands. 

Yet the problems do not begin and end with the obvious negative environmental 

impacts. There are also cultural and economic conflicts inherent in the legislation 

before the Committee. The legislation fails to consider the needs of small, forest-dependent communities all across the region, as well as the needs of the timber industry, the commercial and recreational fishing industries and Southeast Alaska’s lead-
92 

ing economic engine, tourism. Failing to take advantage of this opportunity to engage all user groups in the legislative process, passage of S. 881 would only serve 

to codify conflict. 

While the conservation community is seeking to protect the most valuable conservation areas on the Tongass National Forest, we are also not the only stakeholder with something to gain, or subsequently lose. The timber industry is attempting to gain certainty that they will have a supply of suitable wood for the long term. 

Southeast Alaska’s commercial and recreational fishermen are working tirelessly to 

make sure that the Tongass remains a salmon factory. Subsistence users want to 

see to it that their backyard grocery store remains open for business. Sealaska 

wants finally to resolve its entitlements and provide a benefit to its native shareholders. 

History cautions against another single-stakeholder answer to the questions facing the management of America’s largest national forest. The long-term timber contracts that dominated the landscape of the Tongass for nearly half a century ending 

in 1997 serve as an important lesson in the future management of the forest. The 

long-term timber contracts represented a single-stakeholder arrangement that 

served to leave many on the outside of the Tongass management process looking in. 

There was no aspect of the forest that the timber contracts didn’t touch in a significant way. The implications of those contracts: environmental, cultural, and economic, are still being dealt with today. 

With S. 881, the stakeholder has changed, but the legislation will inevitably repeat the same mistakes, creating new conflict and further narrowing the solution 

space for resolving that conflict. Simply put, equity for all the forest users cannot 

be created in a vacuum. 

S. 881 resolves one set of issues, only to plant the saplings of new problems in 

fertile soil. This nearly intractable tug of war over areas of common concern requires 

not another round of ill-suited legislation, but rather what is instead needed is a 

robust public process that builds ground-up momentum and serves as a legitimate 

forum for all stakeholders to share in the development of a common solution, suitable to as many as possible. This process is already underway, and it is in this established forum that a workable concept, with broad based regional buy-in may be 

in the offing. 

In this web of bottom lines, consensus may be impossible; but that is not to say 

a healthy balance is out of reach. No single party will likely ever be entirely satisfied; this is the reality of modern public lands management; but any legislation that 

moves forward must be crafted in the best interests of, not at great cost to, the collective community of the Tongass. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. FOWLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

S. 881

SUMMARY STATEMENT

S.881 includes amendments that would add lands held by an incorporated Alaska 

Native group, a Regional Corporation, or a Village Corporation established under 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) definition of ‘‘tribal lands,’’ and therefore have a direct bearing 

on the review process under Section 106 of the NHPA regarding undertakings in 

Alaska. These effects may include changes to the review and consultation process 

on any federal undertaking in Alaska and the role of all ANCSA entities in the 

broader preservation program. 

The ACHP recommends that the committee give further consideration to these effects and solicit an analysis from affected agencies within the Administration regarding the anticipated impacts of these amendments on the role of ANCSA entities, 

the State of Alaska, federal agencies, and the public in the NHPA; and the role of 

‘‘Native villages’’ in the Section 106 process. 

BACKGROUND

Title II of the NHPA established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

as an independent federal agency. The NHPA charges the ACHP with advising the 

President and the Congress on historic preservation matters and entrusts the ACHP 

with the unique mission of advancing historic preservation within the Federal Government and the national historic preservation program. The ACHP’s authority and 
93 

responsibilities are derived from the NHPA. General duties of the ACHP are detailed in Section 202 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470j) and include: 

• Advising the President and Congress on matters relating to historic preservation; 

• Encouraging public interest and participation in historic preservation; 

• Recommending policy and tax studies as they affect historic preservation; 

• Advising State and local governments on historic preservation legislation; 

• Encouraging training and education in historic preservation; 

• Reviewing federal policies and programs and recommending improvements; and 

• Informing and educating others about the ACHP’s activities. 

Under Section 106 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of undertakings, carried out by them or subject to their assistance 

or approval, on historic properties and provide the ACHP an opportunity to comment on them. Pursuant to rulemaking authority under Section 211 of the NHPA 

(16 U.S.C. 470s), the ACHP has issued the regulations that implement Section 106 

(36 C.F.R. part 800). The ACHP plays an oversight role in the Section 106 process, 

ensuring that historic preservation needs are considered in light of project requirements. The Section 106 process guarantees that State and local governments, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, businesses and organizations, and private citizens will have an effective opportunity to participate in project planning affecting historic properties. Through its administration of Section 106, the ACHP 

works with these parties to ensure that their historic preservation interests are considered in the process. It helps parties reach agreement on measures to avoid or resolve conflicts that may arise between development needs and preservation objectives, including mitigation of harmful impacts. 

S.881 AND THE SECTION 106 REVIEW PROCESS

The ACHP’s comments are focused specifically on Section 5(e)(2) of the S. 881 bill 

that would expand the definition of ‘‘tribal lands’’ under the NHPA. Amendments 

to the NHPA in 1992 specified that federal agencies must consult with ‘‘Indian 

tribes’’ in the Section 106 process when the undertaking may affect historic properties of cultural and religious significance to them. 16 U.S.C. 470a(d)(6)(B). The 

term ‘‘Indian tribe’’ in the NHPA includes Native villages, Regional Corporations 

and Village Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

16 U.S.C. 470w(4). 

The regulations implementing Section 106, 36 C.F.R. Part 800, were amended to 

incorporate the requirement of consultation with ‘‘Indian tribes.’’ Some of these regulatory amendments are directly related to whether an undertaking takes place on 

‘‘tribal lands’’ as currently defined in the NHPA. Those regulatory amendments, 

among other things, set forth that a Section 106 agreement involving an undertaking that takes place in ‘‘tribal lands’’ is invalid unless signed by the relevant ‘‘Indian tribe.’’ They also require federal agencies to consult with ‘‘Indian tribes’’ on the 

same basis, or in lieu of, the State Historic Preservation Officer, when the undertaking takes place on ‘‘tribal lands.’’ The basis behind providing such consultative 

rights is the federal government-to-government relationship with, and respect for 

the sovereignty of, Federally recognized tribes, the only entities that have lands 

under the scope of the current definition of ‘‘tribal lands’’ (i.e., all lands within the 

exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation, and all dependent Indian communities). Our understanding is that, presently, the only the lands within Alaska that 

qualify as such ‘‘tribal lands’’ are those within the Annette Island Reserve. It is also 

our understanding that, while the federal government has a government-to-government relationship with Alaska Native Villages, it does not have such a relationship 

with ANCSA corporate entities. 

The S. 881 amendment to the definition of ‘‘tribal lands’’ would increase such 

lands in Alaska by millions of acres and add consultative rights to corporate ANCSA 

entities in the Section 106 process. 

In this regard, we note that there is an apparent discrepancy between the NHPA 

definition of ‘‘Indian tribes’’ and the proposed amendment to ‘‘tribal lands’’ in S. 881. 

While the NHPA definition of ‘‘Indian tribes’’ includes ‘‘Native villages’’ under 

ANCSA, the amended ‘‘tribal land’’ definition under S. 881 removes any mention of 

Native villages, and replaces them with incorporated Alaska Native groups. We believe further consideration should be given to how this could affect the role of Native 

villages in the Section 106 process, in comparison with that of the corporate ANCSA 

entities, were these amendments to take effect. 
94 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ACHP encourages the active participation of Indian tribes, including Native 

Villages, Regional Corporations, and Village Corporations under ANCSA in the federal preservation program in general and the Section 106 process in particular. 

S.881 has the potential to expand the effective participation of Indian tribes even 

further in Alaska. 

We recognize, however, that under the S. 881 amendments, a key entity—Native 

villages—would effectively lack certain Section 106 consultation rights that would 

now be given to ANCSA corporate entities. The ACHP recommends that the Committee clarify its intent in removing these Native villages from the definition of 

‘‘tribal lands,’’ but including incorporated Alaska Native groups, so that their respective roles in the Section 106 process may be accurately defined if S. 881 becomes 

law. 

More importantly, the ACHP asks that the Committee allow federal agencies to 

further study the effects of the mentioned S. 881 amendments to the NHPA and 

consult with other stakeholders, so that we can more properly advise the Committee 

on these issues. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN STEIN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE SALMON BAY PROTECTIVE

ASSOCIATION AND PRESIDENT OF THE POINT BAKER ASSOCIATION, ON S. 881 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for placing this statement into the record for this hearing on S 881. 

Many important legal events surround the area that is the subject of this bill and 

with your indulgence, I am going to provide you with that context, the better to inform your deliberations, so you can see what protections this bill could remove and 

what injustices would occur. 

For it is this area on northern Prince of Wales Island that has spawned two major 

forest lawsuit battles and the National Forest Management Act of 1976. 

In 1793,the British explorer George Vancouver, on board the Royal Navy’s Discovery, named the islands you see before you after the first son of King George who 

was the Prince of Wales. The early explorers called it the Prince of Wales Archipelago and it was for a time the intention of Spain to develop a large harbor on 

its west coast more expansive than San Francisco Bay. 

The island is huge. It takes more than an hour to fly from its southern border 

at 54 degrees 40 minutes North latitude to Point Baker on its north end at 56 degrees and 20 minutes. It’s about a 120-mile trip across our nation’s third largest 

island. 

When I first flew over it in 1971, I saw huge tracks of denuded mountain slopes, 

some over a thousand acres in size. There was no NEPA or any other environmental 

law to protect these trees save one: the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. The emphasis was on Use and not Sustainability however. 

When the tiny plane carrying my bride and me to our new homestead flew over 

the mountains near Salmon Bay Lake we saw a remarkable sight, for our eyes were 

used to seeing Chicago skyscrapers, not a wilderness forest stretching away to Point 

Baker across fifteen miles of mountain ranges-about the size of the lakefront of Chicago at the time. 

Shortly after I built a cabin, with my own two hands, a decision by the US Forest 

Service was made to log much of this wilderness. The Point Baker Association 

formed to oppose the logging. I was sent to Juneau to do something to stop it. I 

organized a lawsuit and became one of three plaintiffs. Our suit in 1975, Zieske v 

Butz-a landmark environmental case-resulted in an Alaska Federal Judge issuing 

an injunction against clear-cutting anywhere on the roughly 400,000 acres of the 

north end of the island from Red Bay to Calder Bay, roughly the northern area that 

Sealaska now wants to grab from the public trust, excluding mountain tops and 

other areas that do not grow trees. 

Within that 400,000 acres, the 80,000 acres Sealaska wants now is most of the 

accessible land, excluding the areas Congress has already designated LUD II in the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990-Salmon Bay on the East (20,000 acres) and 

Mount Calder on the West. These two borders should be expanded to include all the 

area Sealaska now wants to ravish. 

Because they thought Zieske threatened to halt clear-cutting throughout the 

United States, the timber industry created a hysteria that this would happen, Congress met three months after the injunction was issued, and overturned a statute 

that had been in effect since 1898 and upon which the injunction was based. 

In place of the Organic Act, Congress passed the National Forest Management 

Act. This despite considerable support from Governor Hammond in his statements 
95 

* Image has been retained in subcommittee files. 

to Congress to protect Point Baker and its surroundings from industrial logging. I 

testified before this committee then for the creation of buffer strips to protect salmon streams from logging. Congress chose not to create them, despite considerable 

scientific support. Congress also lifted the injunction and allowed the US Forest 

Service to cut about half of the marketable timber on the north end. 

Thirteen years passed. Industrial clear-cut logging removed about half of the marketable timber, placing clear-cuts so large and numerous that passing satellites recorded this image* in the late 1980s: 

TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE

Meanwhile taxpayers subsidized the building of what I would estimate at 150 

miles of roads in the area that is subject to this bill. The cost of these roads per 

mile was between $500,000 to $1,000,000 in 1980s dollars. Expensive bridges were 

constructed, again subsidized by taxpayers. A logging camp the size of a small town 

was constructed. All of these taxpayer-paid-for items were made under the assumption that taxpayers would reap the benefits of future development in the form of 

revenue of future timber sales. In today’s dollars, the value of this infrastructure 

is probably 200 to 300 million dollars. This does not include the millions of dollars 

in the US Forest Service budget that planned for the infrastructure. 

EXISTING CLEAR-CUTS NOW THREATEN WILDLIFE

The effect that 25 years of commercial clear-cuttinghad upon wildlife populations 

in this area was a 50% reduction of prime deer habitat. Half the trees were cut. 

This was an unsustainable practice. 

In short, because of 25 years of past logging, existing clear-cuts already pose a 

severe threat to wildlife in the area Sealaska wants to log. 

This bill would do nothing but seal their doom. The deer are the soul of this place, 

the American eagle its spirit, and the raven its voice. Passing this bill will silence 

the raven, down the eagle, and bring the demise of the deer. 

SECOND LAWSUIT OVER LOGGING THIS AREA

In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez went on the rocks. It affected me and almost 

all Alaskan fishermen like me very deeply. I read an EIS about further clear-cutting 

in this area and became so angry that I vowed to again take action. I organized 

the Salmon Bay Protection Association to stop the abuses of clear-cutting near salmon streams and to save the beautiful watershed of Salmon Bay. 

The SBPA was the largest organization of commercial fishermen and canneries 

ever to unite on one environmental endeavor in Alaska. I was voted its director and 

hired the lawyer who is sitting before you today, Buck Lindekugel, fresh out of law 

school and ready for his first big case. He got it. 

I found new scientific evidence that clear-cutting next to salmon streams causes 

irreparable harm next to the streams. Irreparable harm is of course the legal standard for an injunction. 

Sworn statements of fish scientists were entered into the record of the court case 

and presented to Congress. 

Later in 1989, the Federal District Court in Alaska issued an injunction against 

logging within 100 feet of salmon streams on the north end of Prince of Wales Island or logging within Salmon Bay. The Forest Service extended the protective injunction to all 2000-plus salmon streams in the Tongass National Forest. 

We had proved irreparable harm to salmon streams. We had saved part of a 

major watershed important to our commercial fleet and to recreational steelhead 

fishermen. 

This second landmark decision, Stein v Barton, became the justification for Congress passing a buffer strip provision in the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990, 

the first federalFederal recognition of the scientific benefits of not cutting timber 

next to fish streams. Our case had proved the argument. The 100-foot buffer, applied to either side of creek, protects fish from cold and heat, prevents erosion of 

banks, catches sediment, and most importantly creates the infrastructure of downed 

trunks that form pools, riffles, and insect density vital for fish survival. Big 150- 

200 high trees are the architecture of the stream. They are as valuable to the 

stream when they fall as they are when they provide shade and insects standing. 

Sealaska was not happy about the precedent Stein v Barton established, because 

a State Forest Practices Act being considered by the State of Alaska legislature, 

which would regulate their logging on their private lands, could have contained the 
96 

same 100-foot protection. Under the State Forest Practices Act which would govern 

if this bill is passed, the limited protections of the NFMA would be watered down 

even more. 

SEALASKA LANDS NOT REGULATED BY FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PROTECTIONS— 

WEAKER ALASKA LAWS APPLY TO SEALASKA LANDS

The same year that Congress created buffer strips, the Alaska legislature, heavily 

lobbied by the Sealaska Corporation, enacted a buffer strip provision considerably 

smaller than the 100-foot minimum that scientists had stated, under oath, were necessary, a conclusion which the Federal Court in Alaska accepted when issuing its 

100-foot minimum order. 

Many in Alaska, including my nonprofit corporation of commercial fishermen, 

wanted the federal Federal buffer strip size applied to private lands. Sealaska opposed. Sealaska is by far the largest private timber land operator in Alaska. 

Sealaska’s promotion of less-than-minimum buffer strips under State law is emblematic of how they maltreated their land. 

The results of Sealaska’s promotion of less-than-necessary stream protections left 

fish and habitat more vulnerable, in my opinion, to damage. 

As a result of Stein v Barton, generations of salmon and trout have had a better 

chance of survival throughout the Tongass National Forest’s more than 2,000 fish 

streams. 

Conversely, generations of fish in creeks flowing on land that Sea Alaska cut 

ruthlessly have had, again in my opinion, less chance of survival. 

REASONS S 881 SHOULD BE KILLED IN COMMITTEE

Compensation to Alaska Natives in ANCSA in 1971 was fair. Natives never occupied all of Prince of Wales Island. They had fish camps in the summer on some 

streams and hunted. They occupied small villages. ANCSA recognized this by allocating land around the villages. Moreover Natives got one billion dollars in 1971. 

Sealaska should log these lands they agreed to accept in 1971 and stop coming back 

to Congress to break a 38 year old deal. 

S 881 is a land grab 

What is fair is often determined between parties negotiating. The head of the 

Alaska Federation recently wrote that ANCSA was not fair and indeed Natives considered it their Holocaust. Really.See Juneau Empire 2009. 

In 1970, Alaska’s Native leaders struck a deal. 

It was a fair and just deal then and it is a fair and just deal now. 

S. 811 is nothing but a land grab wrapped in an imaginary injustice. 

The wealth of lands claimed by Alaskan Natives in 1970 was estimated in the 

tens of billions of dollars by the Memorandum submitted to Congress on behalf of 

the Alaska Federation of Natives by Paul Weiss Goldberg Rifkin Warton and Garrison. (See http://www.sealaskaheritage.org/collection/CurrylW/afnlletter.htm). 

In 1969, Alaskan Natives were willing to settle for $500,000,000 and 2% royalties 

on all federalFederal lands. See the 1967 position paper of the AFN on http:// 

www.sealaskaheritage.org/collection/CurrylW/currylwebsite/17l8l2/002.pdf 

Yet ultimately Alaska’s Natives settled for one billion dollars and over one hundred million acres of land. It appears the changes in amounts of cash and land bargained for from the late 1960s to 1971 reflect a meeting of the minds through negotiations. 

Let us not forget that prior to ANCSA 1971 a federal court extinguished natives 

claims to aboriginal rights to the land in the Tongass National Forest and damages 

limited to compensation in money. Seven million dollars in compensation was suggested. Given the one billion ANCSA allocated the examination of the historical 

record prior to ANCSA shows SE Alaska Native Corporations got a rich deal indeed. 

Regardless, it is clear that the Tlingit and the Haida obtained the benefits of the 

bargain struck in ANCSA and should not now be allowed to alter its terms. 

ANCSA specifically set forth the area in which Sea Alaska was to select its land 

on central portions of Prince of Wales Island. I do not know why Tlingits and Haida 

wanted to cut the heart out of this one island and this island primarily. But concentrate the cutting they did. 

The Tlingit and Haida who had been living in these areas for at least two hundred years (the Kaigani Haida arrived on Dall Island from Canada after the America Revolution partly to trade with sea otter traders and within 30 years just about 

exterminated all the sea otter in southeast Alaska) well knew how much timber was 

on that land and accepted the selection areas specified in ANCSA. Byron Mallot 
97 

himself was an aide to Senator Stevens around that era. So there was no fraudulent 

concealment which could serve as a grounds for breaking this deal. 

The need to extinguish the protective covenant established in section (h)(1) of 

ANCSA sought in Section 18 of S 881 is specious and bad precedent for the rest 

of Alaska. The resources are already protected under Federal law and indeed the 

Natives were able to cooperative with the excavation of the 9,200-year old human 

being found in a cave on the northern end of Prince of Wales Island near Pt Baker, 

even though the connection to living Tlingits has not been established scientifically. 

Far from being motivated by a desire to protect their cultural heritage, Sealaska is 

using this grounds as ploy at best to obtain the best fishing and anchorage sites 

in Alaska perhaps to further efforts to establish tourist lodges or stopovers for the 

many cruise ships that ply the waters of Alaska. An alternative use would be large 

land sales for recreational usage now prohibited on national forest lands. The loss 

of public benefits will at any rate far outstrip any gains in protection of Native cultural sites which are already protected. The balance tips in leaving the lands in 

public ownership. 

ANCSA was embraced and endorsed by almost all of Alaska’s Natives. It is not 

fair 36 years later to claim this deal was not fair, because over those years Congress 

has made numerous corrections to adjust small problems. But this bill is not just 

a small adjustment. It is breaking the deal reached in ANCSA and can be seen as 

nothing but a bald-faced land grab. 

FIRST WAVE OF CLEAR-CUTTING BY SEALASKA

Under the leadership of Bryon Mallot, Sealaska and/or eleven Native village corporations clear-cut vast swaths of mountains to generate the revenue for the ‘‘renewal’’ of Alaskan Natives. The great majority of cuts, even for those villages like 

Angoon and Kluckwan which are over a hundred miles away, were on the Prince 

of Wales Archipelago. 

Under ANCSA each tiny village gained titled to 23,040 acres, more than a quarter 

of a million acres. Most of this has been clear-cut. Sealaska, which represented the 

people in the same tiny villages, got an amount which I am sure others at this hearing will represent accurately-a very large amount. 

The cost of this renewal was steep for the environment. 

About 12 years ago, I flew over the gargantuan clear-cut made by the Gold Belt 

Village Corporation, on Admiralty Island. 

I was aghast. Because although I had logged myself for a short time and flown 

extensively over the Tongass and spent decades plying the waters, nothing came 

close to this clear-cut I saw. 

It runs from near the top of a glacial carved valley on one mountain down to the 

creek and high up the side of another mountain. 

I wondered at the time if greed knows no shame. This cut is far worse than anything I had seen done and many times larger than 1,000 acres. It would not have 

been tolerated even before the NFMA passed. 

As far as I know, that was the only clear-cut done by Natives on Admiralty. 

On Prince of Wales Island, the same sort of mega-clear-cutting occurred many 

times over, I ran my boat past the huge clear-cuts of the Kassan Village Corporation 

off east central Prince of Wales. With major disgust, I saw from the air, water, or 

road the steep sloped cuts of the Village Corporations of Craig, Klawock, Angoon, 

and Kluckwan, all on the Prince of Wales Archipelago. 

I have yet to see and do not look forward to seeing the massive cutting in 

Chomley Sound on the east side of Prince of Wales. 

Even though the majority of Native villages and Sealaska all concentrated their 

cuts on Prince of Wales Island, this was the deal made in ANCSA. 

Sealaska was to make all its cuts in the middle section of Prince of Wales Island 

and nowhere else on the island-certainly not on the north end. 

Now the line created by the 36-year-old law that kept Sealaska from expanding 

past its allocation area has been crossed by this appeal to Congress to grant one 

more special interest a turn at the barrel of pork. 

Whatever judgment I make of how deplorable it was to cut almost all the trees 

on the 24,000-acre allotments of the eleven Native villages, many times from the 

tops of mountains almost down to the shore of the sea-I must acknowledge that 

Byron had the heavy weight and fiduciary duty of a corporate executive to generate 

revenue during the first decade of his corporation’s existence. Byron Mallot created 

success financially. 

He generated lots of revenue during the first wave of cutting between the 1970s 

and 1990s. Sealaska then also diversified into other ventures outside of the state, 
98 

including casinos in Southern California and one planned North of San Francisco. 

It was becoming a mature corporation. 

Even if Sealaska were to falter, let us not forget what the Alaska Native Federation wanted out of this lands claim was to get away from dependency on the government. That goal was clearly articulated by its lawyers who testified before Congress 

and is reflected in the statement by their lawyers to Congress long ago. 

They wanted a ‘‘bold and imaginative approach which fully and finally resolves 

all claims.’’ See Page 4 of the Paul Weiss memo to Congress. See the document at: 

http://www.sealaskaheritage.org/collection/CurrylW/afnlletter.htm and attached. 

Finality 

If only if Sealaska would now honor the pledges its leaders made in 1971 to make 

a final settlement, this bill would not be before Congress. 

SECOND WAVE OF CLEAR-CUTTING MORE DEPLORABLE THAN THE FIRST

SEALASKA WANTS TO BREAK THE DEAL IN ANCSA 36 YEARS AFTERWARDS

To come back to Congress crying that the deal Sealaska made 36 years ago was 

not fair is absurd. 

It’s like saying the Strip in Las Vegas and all the casinos on it should move to 

New York, because Bugsy Segal didn’t know what he was doing in the 1940s. 

Breaking the deal 36 years later is not only absurd, it is also unfair. 

Prior to ANCSA, the Federal Government paid Sealaska for all the timber taken 

by the creation of the Tongass National Forest. See Tlingit and Haida Indians of 

Alaska v US 177 F Supp 452 (1959). 

Then after ANCSA in 1971, Sealaska and/or its constituent villages cut the same 

timber . 

That’s double-dipping. First they got paid for the taking of timber in the entire 

Tongass National Forest and next they got some land to cut timber that had not 

been cut. 

ANCSA requires Sealaska to select their land from the area marked out on central Prince of Wales Island, and only in that area. ANCSA is clear on this issue. 

Only Congress can change this scheme and Congress should not change it. 

Sealaska has two choices. If they do not want to further soil the nest of the villages of Kassan and Craig and Hydaburg and Klawock, all on central Prince of 

Wales, they could turn their uncut land into a recreational area or a subsistence 

hunting area. Alternatively, they could cut all their remaining land within their designated area. 

In neither case should they be allowed to select any land at all on the northern 

end of Prince of Wales Island. I believe the attached pictures from Google Earth will 

make abundantly clear how much land has been cut on northern Prince of Walesabout 50% of marketable timber. 

By the way, Sealaska ships almost all its timber to Asia without hiring American 

workers to process it further. Federal law does not allow the same to occur in the 

Tongass National Forest. This is another reason American taxpayers are going to 

be shortchanged by this bill. 

NORTHERN PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED

Long ago as a young man, I sat on the banks of the great Chilkoot River listening 

to Chief Donowack, Austin Hammond. Austin was telling me how his people were 

buried in the caves above us, which was the traditional place for catching and preparing sockeye salmon for the winter. 

We sat on a great rock. It was here, he told me, that long ago, one of his successors made two disputing heads of clan houses sit on this rock until they could resolve the conflict. 

If the dispute could not be resolved, one of the clans could mock the other party 

by carving a totem for, say, not honoring a bargain. 

Austin then told me that his people came north from what is today Sumner 

Strait, the northern border of Prince of Wales Island, because of a dispute with a 

tribe from the south of Prince of Wales. It would be great if Congress could sit on 

a rock now and then, but I am afraid that it is time to create a virtual totem, one 

that shows that Sealaska’s leadership abandoned the teachings of the elders who 

always told them to honor the land and its creatures. 

I am afraid Byron and his fellow leaders, in their sincere quest to follow the ways 

of the five chiefs of Yakutat, and renew the people, have allowed greed to harm the 

wildlife that inhabited the forests and for millennia sustained the people. 

About a decade ago, Byron gave two huge trees from Sealaska’s holdings to a 

group of Hawaiians who carved them into a catamaran, which they used to renew 
99 

the hopes of many Native peoples from San Diego to the shores of the Chilkoot and 

all the way over to Japan. 

Byron was sitting in the catamaran when, it was reported, he cried out in a loud 

voice, ‘‘These trees are alive.’’ Quite an epiphany. 

If Byron also acknowledged that the Eagle, Raven, Wolf, and Bear-the names of 

the clans and moieties of the Tlingit and Haida-actually need to survive on the 

north end of Prince of Wales Island in large tracts of old-growth forest, he would 

not be asking to log the small remaining stands of oldgrowth forest left that are 

necessary to sustain these creatures. 

I hope Byron and the other elders of Sealaska, for alas now we are elders too, 

will leave the land on northern Prince of Wales Island alone for all the generations 

yet to be born. Let them experience, as I have over the decades, their wonders. Let 

us fish there for steelhead together. 

When Vancouver first passed Salmon Bay on the east side of northern Prince of 

Wales, Natives came out in canoes throwing white feathers of peace into the air. 

When he entered Port Protection on the western side, more canoes came out and 

welcomed him. 

Congress voted in 1990 to protect both parts of Salmon Bay on the east and the 

western slope of Mount Calder on the west. These two areas, the parts of them not 

logged at least, are like the guardian totems at the mouth of the long house that 

welcome both the clan and visitors alike. What an irony it would be to maintain 

the entrance but soil the interior of northern Prince of Wales Island. 

On the Board of Directors of the Salmon Bay Protective Association with me was 

Edward Churchill, a chief of the Stikine clan of Tlingits, the clan which by tradition 

had rights to the northeast of Prince of Wales Island. 

During a year and a half on the board with him, I got to know why Ed wanted 

to save Salmon Bay. He wanted to hunt at Salmon Bay for the rest of his days. 

This place held a spiritual significance to him. The act of hunting was walking in 

the footsteps of his ancestors who had also hunted and fished there. It was equally 

important for him to be there as it is for me to worship in a temple. In both places, 

we experience much more than we are. This bill would authorize Sealaska to desecrate the sacred forests Ed loved. 

Unfortunately, Congress, when it drew its map of Salmon Bay, let the logging 

companies into the upper reaches where the big timber was. Only two thirds of the 

watershed was preserved by Congress, mostly the muskeg parts that did not have 

commercial trees. 

And so Ed left this earth disappointed that the land his people wanted to hunt 

in, the land he wanted undisturbed for his great-grandchildren, was taken for commercial logging. This was despite my best efforts to keep his subsistence hopes alive. 

I know the sadness Ed must have felt when the logging companies succeeded in 

entering into Salmon Bay. I too have hunted there, climbed its mountains, and 

gazed down, with dismay, at the land I first saw as wilderness from a sea plane, 

now clear-cuts stretching all the way to the west to Mount Calder. 

But now there is an opportunity to change. 

Byron Mallot has the power to make that change. 

Can Byron Mallot at the Sealaska headquarters, whose offices have the relics of 

his people, totem poles and masks, displayed prominently-can Byron tell Congress 

that the Stikine clan and all the other non-Natives in southeast Alaska should not 

have what Ed wanted? 

Can Byron tell Congress-in good conscience-that between the majestic Salmon Bay 

on the east and Mount Calder on the west, he wants the descendants of Ed to walk 

on the northern shores of Prince of Wales where the deer do not have enough food 

to eat and the wolf is near extinction and the bear hard to find and the eagle not 

in the sky and the goshawks extinguised? 

These animals are carved on the totems of the Tlingit and Haida. The elders’ creation of the great totems now in the Museum of Natural History and the Peabody 

was undertaken with a deep regard for the living creatures who dwelled in the forest. And that value for the life of those creatures was part of a great legacy they 

transmitted in their wall murals, masks, and totem poles. 

Sealaska’s logging of this area will throw mud on their great totems. 

If Byron can answer that he still wants this area, then the five chiefs of Yakutat, 

I believe, will abandon him-and Austin and Ed and I, in my turn, will turn our 

backs to him too. 

It is time for Byron to sit on the rock near the Chilkoot and talk. 

It is time once and for all to allow northern Prince of Wales to recover from the 

rapacious over-logging that devoured it between 1975 and 1995. 
100 

Leaving the ancestral home of the Stikine and Kuiu Tlingit alone would be a final 

step in the spiritual restoration of the Tlingit to the proud tradition their ancestors 

left for them, a comeback to which Byron Mallot has dedicated his life. 

STATEMENT OF THE ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS ASSOCIATION, ON S. 881 

Mr. Chairman: The Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA) submits the 

following statement regarding S. 881, the ‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act.’’ APHA supports amending the legislation to ensure that access for hunting and current hunting guiding permits are not encumbered. 

The bill would enable Sealaska Corporation to select and take title to substantial 

additional acreage in Southeast Alaska, now held as public lands as part of the 

Tongass National Forest, for private economic development and cultural site preservation. It would also authorize the Corporation to acquire these now public lands 

outside of the 10 village withdrawal land selection areas established nearly three 

decades ago pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The measure 

does not prescribe precisely which lands may be transferred from public to private 

ownership nor does it make clear the aggregate amount of acreage to be transferred. 

Throughout Tongass many APHA members hold special use permits to provide 

guided hunting and other recreational services to the public on these public lands. 

If guides are forced off of lands converted to private ownership, there are insufficient alternative lands available to accommodate these long established operations. 

Many existing guides operate in areas providing high quality hunting, and substitute areas of comparable quality simply do not exist to handle displaced guides. 

APHA is strongly opposed to any legislation which would force guides out of their 

permitted areas. 

APHA is persuaded, however, that the bill can be amended to treat special use 

permits as valid existing rights that must be honored by Sealaska Corporation or 

its successors or assigns. We appreciate that the language in section 5(d) is a good 

faith effort to address this concern. Unfortunately, the language does not provide 

sufficient protection for existing permittees. It would protect existing permits for 

only the remaining term of that permit and provides no assurance that such permits 

can, or will be, renewed or extended. Since most of these permits carry only five 

or 10 year terms, the absence of any guarantees regarding extension or renewal ensures that any impacted guides will be out of business in a relatively short period 

of time. That is unacceptable. 

Additionally, APHA seeks language that Sealaska could not authorize new or additional guide operations on lands already subject to an existing operation. The effects of additional pressure in an area could destroy the efficacy of the present guide 

service. Consequently, the bill needs to include language ensuring that lands transferred to Sealaska’s private ownership include limitations on the ability of the Corporation to impose fees, restrict access or otherwise regulate the operator/permittee. 

Such language would genuinely ensure the protection of existing valid existing 

rights for more than a short time period. 

APHA is prepared to work with the bill’s sponsors and the Committee to craft appropriate protective provisions for existing guide operations that might be impacted 

by the land transfers authorized by this bill. Absent such provisions, APHA would 

be compelled to oppose the measure. Thank you. 

AUDUBON ALASKA, 

Anchorage, AK, October 8, 2009. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 223 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR WYDEN: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the ‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act’’ (S. 881) proposed on behalf 

of Sealaska Corporation. Audubon Alaska urges that action by the Subcommittee on 

Public Lands and Forests on this measure be deferred. 

Audubon Alaska fully supports Sealaska Corporation’s right to select its remaining land entitlement consistent with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA). Provisions in S. 881 would, however, greatly expand the boundaries of the 

areas from which Sealaska could select land and would result in significant conflicts 

with other important Tongass National Forest values and uses. Before enactment 

of S. 881, or another measure that would modify the ANCSA selection area boundaries, these conflicts should be reconciled. 
101 

Some of the lands that Sealaska proposes to select in S. 881, which are outside 

of its current withdrawal area, are located within watersheds that have extremely 

important fishery and wildlife habitat values that could be substantially compromised by the intensive logging practices permitted on privately owned lands. In 

addition, the proposed legislation includes the transfer of dozens of small parcels 

scattered throughout the region with little or no restriction on how they could be 

used or developed. These additional land transfers could potentially compromise the 

ecological integrity of many areas of the forest, as well as result in a variety of user 

conflicts. 

It should be noted that an alternative legislative proposal pending before Congress (S. 1738/H.R. 3692 ‘‘The National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act of 

2009’’) would provide permanent conservation protection for some of the same lands 

that Sealaska proposes to select for logging and/or other development. 

Audubon Alaska again recognizes and respects the importance of addressing 

Sealaska’s unsatisfied land entitlement. Changes to the ANCSA selection boundaries as proposed by Sealaska, however, should be deferred until such time as the 

modified selection process can be reconciled with other important public interests 

including fish and wildlife conservation and recreational uses of the Tongass National Forest. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN W. SCHOEN, 

Interim Executive Director and Senior Scientist. 

ERIC F. MYERS, 

Senior Policy Representative. 

STATEMENT OF TIM TOWARAK, PRESIDENT, BERING STRAITS NATIVE CORPORATION, ON S. 522 

Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, for the record I am Tim Towarak, President of the Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC), a regional Alaska Native corporation authorized by the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Thank you for taking up S. 522 and considering it today. This bill would resolve several outstanding land issues involving our 

Native corporation’s land entitlement under ANCSA, as well as several involving 

the State of Alaska (State) by ratifying an agreement between the United States, 

the State, and BSNC. 

As a regional Native Corporation, BSNC received entitlement to 145,728 acres of 

land under Section 14(h)(8) under ANCSA. The bill S. 522 will fulfill a critical component of that entitlement by conveying 1,009 acres in the Salmon Lake area, 6,132 

acres of land at Windy Cove and 7,504 acres of land at Imuruk Basin to BSNC. The 

bill would also convey 3,084 acres in the Salmon Lake area to the State of Alaska. 

BSNC will relinquish 3,084 acres of land from its original Salmon Lake selection. 

Passage of the bill would avoid further costly and counterproductive administrative 

appeals or litigation and is a sensible, fair and amicable resolution to some difficult 

land issues that have faced the parties for many years caused in part by the competing land selections of the State and BSNC. 

Two important purposes would be served by Congressional approval, through S. 

522, of the Salmon Lake Land Ownership Consolidation Agreement. The first is that 

it will allow BLM to finalize the conveyance of Native lands within the Bering 

Straits region using the mechanism of direct negotiation afforded by the Alaska 

Lands Transfer Acceleration Act. Should Congress approve S. 522, such action will 

be consistent with ANCSA and it will also highlight the importance of cooperatively 

resolving potentially litigious disputes over competing land selections by the State 

of Alaska, the Native Corporations and the United States. The second purpose 

served is the transfer of lands to those whose history and culture are deeply rooted 

there and whose dependence on those lands for subsistence and identity continue 

to this day. 

By way of background, our Native region encompasses a large geographic region 

around Nome, Alaska, Norton Sound, and the Bering Straits, which is located between the United States and Russia. Maps and other detailed information relevant 

to the legislation is contained in a Briefing Booklet, entitled, ‘‘Salmon Lake Area 

Land Ownership and Consolidation Agreement,’’ provided to the Subcommittee previously. 

Our region historically is icebound for seven months of the year. What few local 

roads that have been built over time are not connected to the state highway system 

whose closest point is approximately 400 miles away. In the summer, rivers and the 

ocean are prime means of transport for the people of our villages. In the winter, 
102 

once these water bodies are frozen, they become transportation links for people to 

travel to various villages in the region by snowmachine or dogsled. Travel to the 

larger cities in the state requires travel by air. 

The BSNC region is an area typified by rolling tundra, alpine tundra, and mountain ranges, as well as small spruce forests at its eastern limit. Reaching toward 

eastern Eurasia, the Seward Peninsula is the westernmost extension of the North 

American continent. Residents of the region have lived off the land for millennia, 

and while the modern era has brought significant change to this way of life, the 

lands are still the basis for BSNC’s shareholders identity as they continue to use 

the lands for subsistence purposes as well as for recreation. It is the importance of 

these lands, both in the past and for the future, that guided BSNC in its original 

ANCSA land selections during the 1970’s. 

BSNC, established as the regional Native Corporation for the communities of the 

Seward Peninsula, Bering Strait, and Norton Sound, is seeking to finalize all land 

entitlements granted through ANCSA. The process of land selection, prioritization, 

adjudication by BLM, and finally, the transfer of land to the Alaska Native Corporations has taken over 30 years. This process is still ongoing, though the 2004 Alaska 

Lands Transfer Acceleration Act (P.L. 108-452) reported to the Senate by your Committee provided the impetus and tools for resolving regulatory bottlenecks in 

ANCSA and expediting transfers to the State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations. 

The history of BSNC’s ANCSA 14(h)(8) selection of Salmon Lake began in 1977 

when BSNC filed selection number F-33819. In 1997, BLM determined that the application would be rejected because the lands were not withdrawn under Section 

11(a)(1) of ANCSA. BSNC appealed this decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, and the decision was remanded back to BLM. By this point in time, BSNC 

had already spent well over $100,000 in legal fees related to the Salmon Lake appeal. Additional 14(h)(8) selections at Windy Cove (F-33833) and Imuruk Basin (F33834) were to be similarly adjudicated and further appeals could need to be pursued resulting in additional legal and litigation costs. In short, there was an acute 

need for a resolution to be negotiated that would deal with the respective interests 

of all parties equitably. 

With the passage by Congress of The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (P.L. 

108-452) in 2004, the mechanisms for negotiating land selection conflicts were 

streamlined. The Act also provided the opportunity for Native corporations to negotiate directly with the BLM for final settlement. As a result of a pending decision 

on these land issues by the BLM, BSNC requested that BLM withhold the final decision for F-33819 until such time as BSNC could meet with BLM and the State 

to discuss the possibility of resolving the conflict. 

In 2004, representatives from BSNC, BLM, and the State met to discuss the possibility of resolving the issues through a negotiated settlement. Over the course of 

the next three years the parties met on an annual or semi-annual basis and were 

eventually able to reach an agreement that served all of their interests. Through 

the agreement, titled the ‘‘Salmon Lake Area Land Ownership Consolidation Agreement,’’ the State and BSNC each receive a portion of Salmon Lake. The lands BSNC 

would receive are contiguous with and adjacent to lands previously conveyed to the 

Native corporation. Likewise, the lands the State would receive are immediately adjacent to other State-selected lands. Access to State waters and other public lands 

has been assured through the reservation of public easements over the lands to be 

conveyed. All lands granted to the parties through the Agreement will be counted 

against their remaining entitlements. Regarding the lands BSNC would receive, the 

total acreage subsumed under the Agreement would be subtracted from BSNC’s remaining ANCSA 14(h)(8) entitlement. For the State of Alaska the lands would be 

counted against the State’s entitlement under 6(a) of the Alaska Statehood Act. 

BSNC and its member villages are positioned to be the first region in the State 

to receive all of the land entitlements allocated by ANCSA. However, without the 

Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act, the achievement would be delayed further. BSNC seeks to avoid further delays caused by litigation and/or the need for 

reselection of 14(h)(8) lands. This Agreement forged between the parties is not a 

land exchange nor does it modify or waive any section or regulatory mandate of the 

ANCSA. 

Salmon Lake is one of the westernmost red (sockeye) salmon spawning lakes in 

North America. The lake is surrounded by a landscape of glacial moraines which 

contain evidence of use that spans countless generations. At the east of the lake is 

a small, ancient settlement of two or three house pits while along the shore near 

the center of the lake is an old village site of perhaps twenty semi-subterranean 

houses remains. Old burial sites are located between the Nome-Taylor road and the 

lakeshore, and stretched along Fox Creek, which empties into the lake on its north 
103 

1 BSNC has worked cooperatively for years with Alaska Department of Fish and Game and 

Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation to allow access across BSNC lands to the east 

of the lake for the purposes of salmon studies and enhancement programs in the Pilgrim River/ 

Salmon Lake drainage. 2The Seward Peninsula caribou herd disappeared between 1850 and 1970, causing a significant shift in land use and settlement for the Native residents of region. 

shore, is a caribou drive line and stone tents rings and shooting blinds left by hunters over two centuries ago. 

Today, residents of the region and BSNC shareholders visit the lake for the same 

reasons our ancestors did. The rich salmon resource is harvested along the Pilgrim 

River, just below the eastern outlet to the lake.1 Caribou returned to the Seward 

Peninsula in 1996 after a hiatus of well over 100 years,2 and the people have camps 

near the lake that they use to access the herd when it crosses or is near the NomeTaylor road. Clearly this area has been and remains important to our shareholders 

as a place for securing subsistence resources and will continue to be an important 

place in the history and lives of the people of the region. 

The other lands subject to this Agreement lie on the north and south shores of 

Imuruk Basin. Windy Cove lies at the base of the north flank of the Kigluaik Mountains. It is in this mountain range where an ancestor to our shareholders encountered a giant eagle that taught him the songs, dances, and ceremonies that have 

come to be known throughout the region as the Eagle-Wolf messenger feast. In the 

past this ceremony brought villages together to trade, feast, and perform the necessary rituals that ensured the return of the spirits of the animals they hunted to 

insure a balance was maintained between the human and animal worlds. 

The lands called the Imuruk Basin lands in the Agreement encompass the delta 

of the Agiapuk River on the north shore of Imuruk Basin. This area contains old 

camps and village sites, some dating back 2000 years. One village on the Agiapuk 

River was virtually wiped out by the 1918 influenza epidemic, a tragedy that nearly 

halved the Native population of the region stretching from Unalakleet to 

Shishmaref because indigenous people living there did not have immune systems 

that could deal with such diseases from outside of their world. 

The Imuruk Basin lands are essential resource procurement/subsistence use areas 

to this day. Salmon are harvested as they return to the Agiapuk River, moose are 

taken for winter supplies on the lands, and the area swarms with waterfowl in the 

spring and fall of every year. Situated between the lands of the villages of Mary’s 

Igloo, Teller, and Brevig Mission, this land is of central importance for the continuation of our peoples’ culture, history, and ongoing subsistence lifestyle. 

The people of the Bering Straits region will be deeply grateful to this Subcommittee and to the Congress for ratifying the Salmon Lake Area Land Ownership 

and Consolidation agreement thereby sensibly resolving some of the critical remaining lands issues in our region. Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our views on this important piece of legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW

INDIANS, ON S. 1272 

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (referred 

to here as ‘‘the Tribe’’) provides this testimony for the October 8, 2009 legislative 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests Hearing on S.1272 

(Wyden and Merkley). 

The Tribe is pleased that it is able to offer testimony in its capacity as a federally 

recognized Indian tribe. Exactly 25 years ago, almost to the day, on October 17, 

1984, through the enactment of Public Law 98-482, the United States Congress took 

definitive action to restore the Tribe to its rightful place as a sovereign government. 

By doing so, Congress repudiated the ‘‘termination era’’ that reached its peak in the 

1950’s and that resulted in the severing of the federal government’s political relationship with our Tribe and dozens of other Indian tribal governments. Public Law 

98-482 (1984) restored the Tribe’s government-to-government relationship with the 

United States. 

In 1984 there was also an effort to secure a federal wilderness protection for this 

area. Despite tireless efforts, this proposal was not included final version of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, Public Law 98-328 (1984). The case for such protection 

has grown only more compelling since then. Accordingly, the Tribe supports the efforts of Oregon’s Congressional delegation to provide statutory wilderness designation through S. 1272 and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 2888. This legislation will accord these forest lands with the highest level of protection available 

under federal law. But we also take this opportunity to ask for consideration and 
104 

fairness in addressing an injustice of error or omission that has deprived our Tribe 

of any portion of our ancestral forest for more than 150 years. 

The Tribe certainly shares the widely-held sentiment that the Wasson Creek and 

Franklin Creek watershed area satisfies the applicable Wilderness Act requirements 

and standards. Most notably, these lands provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined forms of recreation. The Tribe has an innate connection to these lands because this is the forest that substantiated the Tribe’s ancestors for thousands of years before European colonists arrived. The proposed Devils 

Staircase Wilderness Area is in the Ancestral Territory of the Confederated Tribes 

of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, in particular the Lower Umpqua 

Tribe. Lower Umpqua Tribal Elders recall, as children, hearing from their Elders 

of hunting parties and camps in the mountains between the Umpqua and Siuslaw 

Rivers. Both Golden Ridge—which is in the proposed wilderness area—and the ridge 

to the southeast included hunting, resource gathering, and spiritual sites associated 

with the Lower Umpqua village of Ts’alila located along the river near Scottsburg. 

For these reasons, the Tribe’s greatest aspiration today is to secure a forest land 

base that reflects our unique inter-Tribal union of three distinct, but now confederated tribes. It would be a disservice to our Tribal ancestors if we falter in our effort to reclaim a small fraction of our Tribal heritage and patrimony. We have 

worked exhaustively to develop our forest restoration proposals within the complex 

and sometimes acrimonious northwest forest policy arena. 

Our message is as simple as is our goal. We ask only that the various interests— 

private, public, governmental, and non-governmental participants in this process— 

commit to work with the Tribe in good faith to help us achieve our goal of regaining 

a meaningful and manageable Tribal forest land base. We trust that each of the entities that are working to establish the Devil’s Staircase Wilderness will recognize 

that the righteousness our forest restoration cause is incontestable. And all we ask 

from the other participants in this process is fairness. For our part, the Tribe commits to continue to work—as we have for the past decade and more—as diligently 

as possible with the various interests and stakeholders to address any questions and 

resolve any issues that may arise in crafting a Tribal forest restoration proposal. 

It is quite possible that our Tribal forest restoration objective can be accomplished 

on a land base that is smaller than the amount of land covered by this legislation, 

possibly even an amount of land that is equal to half amount of the amount of land 

covered by the proposed wilderness designation—and obviously involving different 

acreage entirely. 

Since re-gaining recognition in 1984, the Tribe has worked persistently to secure 

legislation to restore a small fraction of our ancestral lands. For the Congress to 

designate some of our ancestral lands as wilderness, as in S. 1272 and its companion bill in the House, H.R. 2888, is not inherently inconsistent with the Tribal 

vision for this area as described in the various iterations of our Tribal forest restoration proposal. Indeed, some of our Tribal forest restoration proposals would have imposed wilderness-like restrictions on some of the very same lands that are covered 

by this legislation. For example, in these proposals the Tribe proposed to thin stunted stands to accelerate the development of late-successional forests, then leave these 

stands to nature’s management in perpetuity with the exception of the gathering 

of traditional plant materials for cultural uses. One recent iteration of the Tribe’s 

proposal from June 2006 included approximately 6,000 acres of the proposed wilderness area (centered around Otter Creek) now managed by the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Tribe has no interest in impeding the effort to secure wilderness status for 

some of our ancestral homelands as proposed by S. 1272 and its companion bill in 

the House, H.R. 2888. While once seemingly endless, however, federal forest land 

is increasingly becoming a finite and scarce resource. Designation of any federal 

land as wilderness in the Ancestral Territory of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians effectively removes that acreage from the 

dwindling amount of federal lands that are available for restoration to our Tribe. 

The 

Tribe is mindful that wilderness designation via the proposed legislation could 

heighten the competition over sometimes-conflicting resource priorities on the remaining lands retained by the federal government, thereby making our future task 

even more difficult after this bill’s enactment. 

In the recent past, the Congress has ensured that land restoration efforts of other 

tribes are not placed at such a disadvantage by legislation establishing national 

parks or monuments or similar designations. For example, the Timbisha Shoshone 

Tribe faced this concern when Congress enacted the California Desert Protection 

Act, Public law 100-433. Congress address this by including a provision in that law, 

Section 705, that directed the Secretary of Interior to identify an area within this 

relatively small tribe’s aboriginal homeland that would be suitable for a reservation. 
105 

Congress subsequently transferred approximately 8,000 acres of federal land to the 

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe and provided for the additional acquisition of more than 

2,000 acres of fee (privately owned) lands to this newly-established reservation. 

Timbisha Shoshone Homeland Act, Public Law 106-423. Timbisha Shoshone was 

recognized at about the same time that our Tribe was re-recognized. As the legislative history for the Homeland Act notes: ‘‘Authorities available [to federal land management agencies]... under existing law, such as to grant special use permits or 

enter into a memorandum of understanding, cannot provide the permanence, security, and economic opportunity that a trust land base affords a Tribe.’’ This is exactly why our Tribal forest restoration effort has included two components. First, 

as described above, a suitable forest land base that reflects our inter-Tribal union. 

And secondly, trust status protection for the relatively small but culturally significant sites located on federal lands, most notably these are the following Bureau of 

Land Management tracts: Takimiya (Umpqua Eden) (128 acres) and the Coos Head 

tract (60 acres). 

In closing, the Tribe greatly appreciates the opportunity to participate in this discussion of how to protect the Devil’s Staircase in our government-to-government capacity. The injustice of error or omission that has deprived our Tribe of any portion 

of our forest for more than 150 years must be remedied. We simply want to ensure 

that the next seven generations of our membership will have the opportunity to 

achieve the permanence, security, and opportunity afforded by creation of a Tribal 

forest and the protection of our special sites. The Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians is committed to achieving this vision in a way 

that does not impede the efforts of others to assure that the next seven generations 

of Americans, of both Native and non-Native ancestry, will be able to appreciate the 

proposed Devil’s Staircase Wilderness, as we and our Ancestors have for thousands 

of years. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS ASSOCIATION, ON S. 881 

Mr. Chairman: The Alaska Professional Hunters Association (APHA) submits the 

following statement regarding S. 881, the ‘‘Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act.’’ APHA supports amending the legislation to ensure that access for hunting and current hunting guiding permits are not encumbered. 

The bill would enable Sealaska Corporation to select and take title to substantial 

additional acreage in Southeast Alaska, now held as public lands as part of the 

Tongass National Forest, for private economic development and cultural site preservation. It would also authorize the Corporation to acquire these now public lands 

outside of the 10 village withdrawal land selection areas established nearly three 

decades ago pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The measure 

does not prescribe precisely which lands may be transferred from public to private 

ownership nor does it make clear the aggregate amount of acreage to be transferred. 

Throughout Tongass many APHA members hold special use permits to provide 

guided hunting and other recreational services to the public on these public lands. 

If guides are forced off of lands converted to private ownership, there are insufficient alternative lands available to accommodate these long established operations. 

Many existing guides operate in areas providing high quality hunting, and substitute areas of comparable quality simply do not exist to handle displaced guides. 

APHA is strongly opposed to any legislation which would force guides out of their 

permitted areas. 

APHA is persuaded, however, that the bill can be amended to treat special use 

permits as valid existing rights that must be honored by Sealaska Corporation or 

its successors or assigns. We appreciate that the language in section 5(d) is a good 

faith effort to address this concern. Unfortunately, the language does not provide 

sufficient protection for existing permittees. It would protect existing permits for 

only the remaining term of that permit and provides no assurance that such permits 

can, or will be, renewed or extended. Since most of these permits carry only five 

or 10 year terms, the absence of any guarantees regarding extension or renewal ensures that any impacted guides will be out of business in a relatively short period 

of time. That is unacceptable. 

Additionally, APHA seeks language that Sealaska could not authorize new or additional guide operations on lands already subject to an existing operation. The effects of additional pressure in an area could destroy the efficacy of the present guide 

service. Consequently, the bill needs to include language ensuring that lands transferred to Sealaska’s private ownership include limitations on the ability of the Corporation to impose fees, restrict access or otherwise regulate the operator/permittee. 
106 

Such language would genuinely ensure the protection of existing valid existing 

rights for more than a short time period. 

APHA is prepared to work with the bill’s sponsors and the Committee to craft appropriate protective provisions for existing guide operations that might be impacted 

by the land transfers authorized by this bill. Absent such provisions, APHA would 

be compelled to oppose the measure. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE COALITION OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RETIREES, ON S. 881 

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) is a non-profit National 

Park advocacy organization comprised of nearly 750 former National Park Service 

employees who, collectively, have served almost 20,000 years within the agency in 

every capacity and at all grades, including former Directors and Deputy Directors, 

former regional Directors or Deputy Regional Directors, former Associate or Assistant Directors at the national or regional office level, former Division Chiefs at the 

national or regional office level, and former Superintendents or Assistant Superintendents. In our personal lives, we come from the broad spectrum of political affiliations. As park managers, rangers and employees in the National Park Service’s 

many disciplines, however, we devoted our professional lives to a common goal— 

maintaining and protecting our national parks for the benefit of all Americans, both 

living and those yet to be born. We remain committed to that goal. 

Our organization is pleased to provide testimony for the written record on S.881, 

Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act to be heard before the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests of the United States Senate. Our primary 

interest lies in one narrow segment of the bill that speaks to Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve. In general CNPSR supports the language found in Section 

3(b)(2)(B)(ii) and Section 4(c)(1) which clearly articulates that Sealaska shall not select or receive any conveyance of land located within any conservation system unit 

under this Act. 

We do not support the language or intent in Section 2(a)(17)(E) & Section 

3(a)(2)(c) giving specific direction for the development of a special cooperative agreement between Sealaska and the National Park Service. We do not agree that more 

direction is required than what already exists in law and existing agreements and 

do not see any enhancement to the existing protection provided by the National 

Park Service in their mission to protect sacred, cultural, and traditional and historic 

sites within the park. We remain opposed to all language in this bill that directs 

the National Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with Sealaska Corporation because of its obvious redundancy and potential for conflict with the existing Memorandum of Understanding with the Hoonah Indian Association, the locally 

federally recognized tribe, their traditional territory encompassing the vast majority 

of lands within Glacier Bay. The relationship with the Hoonah Indian Association, 

predicated on an existing agreement has been very successful and does not need to 

be complemented by a second agreement. We would note the plethora of already existing federal legislation which requires consultation and cooperation to facilitate 

traditional cultural activities of federally recognized tribal governments. We would 

suggest that another agreement might even work at cross purposes to existing law 

and agreements creating potential conflict and confusion. 

The areas of concern articulated in the bill that a cooperative agreement with 

Sealaska would supposedly solve have long been appropriately and successfully 

managed with the Hoonah elders and tribal members including cooperative research 

partnerships, presentation of interpretive themes, and integration of traditional 

Tlingit knowledge into park planning and management focus since at least 1995. 

The success with the Hoonah Indian Association has led to other similar successful 

endeavors with other Hoonah entities, including Hoonah City Schools and the 

Hoonah Heritage Foundation. Planning is currently underway for the development 

of a ‘‘tribal house’’ at Bartlett Cove in Glacier Bay involving all these entities including the Sealaska Heritage Institute who has also been invited. In short, it is unnecessary to compel any further cooperative agreement to encourage partnership between the entities than what already successfully exists. 

Proposed language in the bill (section 3(c)(2)(B)(ii)) regards to this agreement 

seems to go further than just cooperating on cultural aspects giving a broader authority to Sealaska to oversee all ‘‘the resources within the Park’’ and certainly represents an overly aggressive extension of authority of Sealaska within Glacier Bay. 

Indeed, in section 3(c)(2)(B) there is the clear authority for the ‘‘establishment of 

culturally relevant sites’’ implying that development on these cultural, sacred, traditional and historic sites would be allowed in obvious contradiction to existing law 
107 

and the purposes for which the park was established. CNPSR cannot support these 

proposals in any manner. 

In addition, we are very concerned about the ‘‘technical correction’’ found in Section 5(e)(2) that exempts Sealaska from oversight under the National Historic Preservation Act and amends the Act to say that all native corporation land is now tribal land with regard to NHPA. This proposal is far from a ‘‘technical correction’’ and 

it is not limited to just lands of interest to Sealaska. This proposal for all ANCSA 

corporate lands across Alaska would take away the protections provided for by the 

state of Alaska and its State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Establishing the 

opportunity for a for-profit corporation to assume responsibility for protecting historic and cultural sites when that very same corporation may wish to develop a site 

for profit motives creates creating an inherent conflict of interest and the potential 

loss of historic or cultural sites in favor of the profit motive by the very same corporation. CNPSR is concerned that this significant change could impact millions of 

acres of corporate held lands within or adjacent to the boundaries of existing national park units in Alaska where continued involvement and oversight of the SHPO 

is essential to protecting park resources. 

As author of this written testimony on behalf of the Coalition of National Park 

Retirees it should be noted that I served as the National Park Service Regional Director for Alaska from 2000 to 2003. Further, there are at least four previous superintendents of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve that are members of this organization whom are obviously very familiar with the implications this Senate Bill 

might have on Glacier Bay and share our concerns. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 881 and hope our concerns will 

be noted. 

STATEMENT OF JIM STRATTON, ALASKA REGIONAL DIRECTOR—NATIONAL PARKS

CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, ON S. 881 

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) works to protect, preserve, 

and enhance America’s national parks for present and future generations. On behalf 

of NPCA’s 325,000 members, and especially the national parks in Alaska, we appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments for the record. 

As an organization focused solely on national park lands, NPCA takes no position 

on the vast majority of the proposed language found in S.881. Our interest is that 

small slice of the bill that speaks to Glacier Bay—principally Section 2 (a)(17)(E), 

Section 3 (a)(2) and (b)(2)(B)(ii) and (c), Section 4(c)(1) and Section 5(e)(2). 

NPCA supports the language found in Section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) and Section 4(c)(1) 

which makes it very clear that ‘‘Sealaska shall not select or receive under this Act 

any conveyance of land .located within any conservation system unit.’’ This bill is 

very clear that conveyance of lands within Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve 

to Sealaska is not considered or anticipated and we find this language both satisfactory and comforting. 

It is the intent for a cooperative agreement found in Section 2 (a)(17)(E) and the 

specific direction for such an agreement between Sealaska and the National Park 

Service found in Section 3 (a)(2) and (c) that causes us heartache. In addition, we 

are very concerned about the ‘‘technical correction’’ found in Section 5(e)(2) that exempts Sealaska from oversight under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The Organic Act of 1916 charges the National Park Service with protecting in perpetuity America’s natural and cultural treasures. There is no higher level of protection available for natural or cultural resources found in the United States than designation as a unit of the national park system. Our national treasures are held in 

trust by the Park Service for all Americans and are both preserved and interpreted 

for present and future generations. In reading the proposed legislation, we fail to 

see how protection of Glacier Bay’s identified sacred, cultural, traditional and historic sites are enhanced by the directed Cooperative Agreement found in Section 

3(a)(2). 

We have expressed our concern about the cooperative agreement language on numerous occasions to Sealaska and to both Senators Murkowski and Begich and appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns with other members of the U. S. Senate at this hearing. NPCA is opposed to all language in this bill that directs the 

National Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with Sealaska Corporation, or any other Village or Urban Corporation. This proposed directive is redundant because the Park Service already has an existing cooperative agreement which 

establishes a solid working partnership for the park’s traditional and cultural resources with the Hoonah Indian Association, the local federally recognized tribe, 
108 

whose traditional territory includes the vast majority of the lands now part of Glacier Bay National Park. 

Furthermore, the Park Service is charged to cooperate with and facilitate the traditional cultural activities of federally recognized tribal governments under the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1980, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, the President’s Federal Indian 

Policy signed on January 24, 1983, Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) and 

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Native American Tribal 

Governments). 

In addition to being redundant, any additional agreements directed by Congress 

between the Park Service and Regional or Village Corporations organized under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, we fear, would lead to conflict and confusion. 

The Park Service already has a solid working relationship, formalized in a Government to Government relation, with the Hoonah Indian Association in a Memorandum of Understanding initially signed in 1995 and renewed in both 2000 and 

2005. 

Specifically, the National Park Service agrees to recognize the contributions of 

Hoonah elders and tribal members to the history, culture and ecology of Glacier Bay 

and sets forth the relationship for cooperative activities and partnerships for research, education, interpretation and integration of traditional Tlingit knowledge 

into the park’s planning, management and interpretive regimes. These are the very 

same areas of concern used to justify the need for an additional cooperative management agreement with Sealaska. In reality, they are already being addressed and 

have formally been so since 1995. 

Building on the partnership with the Hoonah Indian Association, the Park Service 

has broadened its relationships with other entities in Hoonah to include the Huna 

Heritage Foundation (HTC) and Hoonah City Schools (HCS). Together they have 

created multiple opportunities to annually bring tribal youth and elders together at 

cultural sites in the park for deep lessons in clan and tribal history. Currently, this 

partnership is developing plans to construct a traditional tribal house at Bartlett 

Cove that will be the centerpiece of a cultural preservation program. In addition to 

being the cornerstone of the park’s cultural interpretation program, the tribal house 

will also be a facility where workshops will be held to teach a variety of Tlingit cultural traditions, such as carving, basket weaving, language, song, dance and more. 

The partnership has extended an invitation to Sealaska Heritage Institute to become a partner in development of this facility and program. We don’t understand 

how adding additional entities to this already existing formally recognized relationship improves the current situation and we remain concerned that it could create 

conflict between competing interests. 

We are also concerned that the language of the bill could be interpreted to elevate 

Sealaska into a full cooperative management partnership with NPS on ALL park 

management issues. Language in Section 3 (c)(2)(B)(ii) says that the agreement 

shall ‘‘ensure that the resources within the Park are protected and enhanced by cooperative activities and partnerships among federally recognized Indian Tribes, Village Corporations and Urban Corporations, Sealaska, and the National Park Service.’’ Our interpretation is that it is NOT limited to just the cultural sites suggested 

in the bill’s findings in Section 2 (a)(17)(E). The language says ‘‘the resources within 

the Park,’’ which is a broader authority than merely the resources associated with 

indentified cultural sites. This is a significant shift in the role of any cooperating 

partner with the National Park Service and one that NPCA is opposed to. 

Furthermore, we are concerned that the specific directive for a cooperative agreement found in Section 3(c)(2)(B) that provides for the ‘‘establishment of culturally 

relevant visitor sites’’ could be interpreted as allowing development at these cultural, sacred, traditional and historic sites—an activity we feel is contrary to the 

purpose for which the park was established. 

Our final park-related concern with this bill is that the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is amended to say that all native corporation land is now tribal 

land with regard to NHPA. That is NOT a technical correction and it is not limited 

to just lands of interest to Sealaska. This is a change for all ANCSA corporate lands 

across Alaska and it takes away the protections provided for by the state of Alaska 

and its State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The scenario we fear is that a 

for-profit corporation would assume responsibility for protecting historic and cultural sites when that very same site is impeding a development opportunity of the 

very same corporation. With this change to the NHPA, Native corporations operating logging and mining operations on their land, for example, would now make 

their own determinations about how best to protect cultural sites where logging and 
109 

mining is occurring. This is classic fox guarding the henhouse and we don’t find that 

very comforting. NPCA is concerned about this significant change because there are 

millions of acres of corporate held lands within the boundaries of existing national 

park units in Alaska and the continued involvement of the SHPO in all proposed 

developments on those lands is necessary to protect the values of adjacent park resources. 

In summary, we feel the existing MOU between the Park Service and the Hoonah 

Indian Association already addresses the needs and concerns set out in the Sealaska 

Bill for ‘‘Sacred, Cultural, Traditional and Historic Sites’’ that may be found in Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve. An additional cooperative agreement would be 

redundant and could confuse the situation should the Park Service find itself pulled 

between contradictory approaches of two different Native Alaska entities. 

Should this bill move forward, we would request that those sections of S.881 that 

speak to Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve and the technical correction relating 

to the SHPO be dropped from the bill’s language. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA, ON S. 940 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing a hearing on this important legislation. 

This bill would direct the Bureau of Land Management to convey approximately 

2,400 acres of land that they currently manage to the Nevada System of Higher 

Education. This transfer will allow for development of three new higher education 

campuses: one for the College of Southern Nevada; one for the University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas; and one for Great Basin College. 

Currently, the Nevada System of Higher Education campuses in southern Nevada 

comprise just 1,200 acres. This is one of the smallest footprints of any major higher 

education system in the western United States. In fact, the University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas has less than half the land base of comparably enrolled western universities such as the University of Utah, the University of Colorado, or the University 

of California at San Diego. The College of Southern Nevada is similarly short on 

space, having been already near capacity at each of its three campuses before a 15 

percent spike in enrollment over the last 3 years. Further, the small branch campus 

of Great Basin College in Pahrump, which currently holds its classes in high school 

classrooms at night, has seen a phenomenal 160 percent increase in full-time enrollment this fall. Each of these institutions of higher education has a pressing need 

for space in order to continue to provide the high quality of education that Nevadans 

and all Americans expect and deserve. 

My legislation provides for conveyance of approximately 40 acres for the College 

of Southern Nevada and 285 acres for Great Basin College. 2,085 acres would also 

be conveyed for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas after remediation of a World 

War II small arms range on portions of the land. This future north campus for the 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas abuts Nellis Air Force Base, and the legislation 

contains a provision that requires a binding interlocal agreement between the Nevada System of Higher Education and the base prior to conveyance. This agreement 

will ensure that both the mission of the base and our national security interests are 

protected. 

This legislation has the support of the entire Nevada congressional delegation and 

has been welcomed by area leaders. The Nevada System of Higher Education has 

worked closely with city and county officials to plan the development of world-class 

facilities in their communities, and with the Air Force to address the needs of Nellis 

Air Force Base. It is important to note that each of the three parcels designated 

for transfer has been designated by the Bureau of Land Management for disposal 

because they are surrounded by development and are difficult to manage. Additionally, the key language in this legislation regarding the activities allowed on these 

school lands was unanimously approved by this committee in 2002. 

One of our great responsibilities as a Congress and as a people is to provide our 

citizens with the opportunity to take part in the American dream. And we all know 

that education is the key to that dream. By working together to make these new 

campuses a reality we will turn these lands into the literal foundation of opportunity for generations to come. 

I greatly appreciate the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member making 

time for this hearing and I look forward to working with the Committee to advance 

this bill. 
110 

STATEMENT OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ON S. 940 

The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) would like to thank Senator 

Harry Reid and the Nevada delegation and their staffs for their work on this legislation. We also appreciate the subcommittee for scheduling this hearing and for the 

opportunity to introduce a statement into the record. 

The Southern Nevada Higher Education Land Act of 2009 is of great importance 

to the Nevada System of Higher Education. Our university and college campuses 

in southern Nevada currently serve 70,000 students, and that number is expected 

to grow by 21% over the next ten years. When compared to other western colleges 

and universities, campuses in Southern Nevada have less land to meet the needs 

of our students. We need additional space to meet our current needs, as well as the 

demand future growth will place on our institutions. 

The campuses affected by this legislation, the University of Nevada Las Vegas 

(UNLV), the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Great Basin College (GBC), 

under the direction of the Nevada Board of Regents, have worked diligently with 

the respective local governments to identify areas that will be of most benefit to the 

institutions and the communities they serve. The local governments of North Las 

Vegas, Las Vegas, and Pahrump and Nye County have enthusiastically supported 

this legislation and the opportunity to partner with the Nevada System of Higher 

Education. These partnerships and the legislation before you today will allow for 

smart growth in mainly urban areas that will enhance the educational experience 

for students and improve the quality of life for residents of the local communities. 

As UNLV compares its current land holdings with institutions of similar size, 

there are huge discrepancies, most of which are related to the age of those other 

institutions and their ability, many decades ago, to secure land in order to support 

the developing needs of higher education in their communities. The ability of these 

research institutions to have access to such land has helped them, in many areas 

in the United States, to become vibrant centers of economic development activities, 

helping their communities, the state and even the region. 

The value of this land conveyance will benefit all of higher education in Southern 

Nevada, and will allow the state’s largest university, UNLV, to further support 

graduate education and research needs. It is also important to note that the use of 

this land has been closely planned with two other main partners: the City of North 

Las Vegas (CNLV) and Nellis Air Force Base (NAFB). We currently have Board of 

Regents approved interlocal agreements in place with both these partners that define our cooperation and use of this land, should the final transfer become law. 

As unemployment in Las Vegas has reached more than 13 percent and the Las 

Vegas valley has continued to lead the nation in foreclosures, enrollment at the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) has soared and expanded by more than 15 percent 

over the past three years. CSN is the largest and most ethnically diverse institution 

of higher education in Nevada and charges the most affordable tuition in Southern 

Nevada. CSN serves approximately 43,000 students this fall semester. However, at 

about 40 square-feet per student, CSN has some of the most cramped college campuses in the United States. 

Furthermore, the area surrounding the property has experienced explosive 

growth. Over the past two decades, this area has seen the addition of 70,000 homes 

and hundreds of thousands of residents. Currently, these families have no access to 

a Nevada higher education facility within a half-hour commute. 

The college specializes in providing job training and general education credits that 

accommodate the scheduling needs of a diverse community, operating on a 24-hour 

day. CSN plans to move forward with the NW campus as a traditional community 

college campus focusing on the provision of educational learning space supplemented 

by the necessary day-to-day services required by the students while they are on 

campus. 

CSN and the City of Las Vegas have entered into an agreement to establish innovative design standards for the development of the CSN campus, roads, and infrastructure improvements on the Property. Expanding services to this area of Southern Nevada is a natural fit for CSN’s mission as an open-access institution that is 

responsive to the community’s ever-changing needs. 

Likewise, the opportunity for Great Basin College (GBC) to expand in Pahrump 

and Nye County will provide a much needed service to residents of this area. The 

population of Nye County is approximately 40,000 and growing. It is the only community of that size in Nevada that is not served by a community college with a permanent, dedicated campus. Economic and workforce development in Pahrump and 

Nye County is essential to local residents and those residing in southern Nevada. 

With a campus located on this site, the college’s strategic master plan for Pahrump 

and Nye County can move forward. Education and training programs in green tech-
111 

nology, renewable energy, health, education, and business are already in college offerings or being planned for the near future. 

This legislation provides the means for Great Basin College to provide an opportunity for all Nevadans to participate and succeed in higher education; to provide 

academic and technical programs that address the unique education needs of a highly diverse and non-traditional population; and build on the quality of life of all Nevadans by advancing and enriching lives in Nye County. 

The transfer of the three parcels of land as provided by this legislation will benefit 

the long term needs of public higher education in southern Nevada and represents 

a once in a life-time opportunity. In many ways this is a modern day version of the 

land grant act that will greatly help support public higher education institutions in 

Southern Nevada. The Nevada System of Education asks that you support this legislation and give us the opportunity to provide the highest quality of education for 

our students now and long into the future. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA, ON S. 940 

I want to thank Senator Reid for his work on this important legislation that will 

launch a new chapter in higher education expansion in southern Nevada. 

With more than 85% of our great state’s land under federal control, we have long 

relied on federal legislation to allow for growth, including the beginning of our system of higher education. It was the federal Morrill Land-Grant Legislation that 

brought a new era in our system of higher education with the much lauded Desert 

Research Institute and medical school. 

Today, we again turn to federal legislation to convey land from the Bureau of 

Land Management to our growing universities. The Southern Nevada Higher Education Lands Act allows for federal land to be transferred to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV); the College of Southern Nevada (CSN); and Great Basin 

College. 

These are all worthy institutes of learning that, with this additional la‘nd, will 

be able to meet the needs of Nevada students for many years to come. 

UNLV, also a land-grant university, is looking to expand its campus near Nellis 

Air Force Base. While there are always concerns about encroaching on the space 

and mission of Nellis, I am confident that all sides will cooperate and work together 

to ensure the safety and success of all neighbors. 

CSN is the fourth largest two-year college of its kind in the United States and 

Nevada’s largest institution of higher learning. With three main campuses and eleven academic centers, the school continues to grow in facilities and reach, and we 

are fortunate that with this legislation, even more southern Nevadans will benefit. 

Great Basin College in Elko, Nevada, wants to expand to Pahrump to impact the 

lives of even more students-a goal that promotes education for all of southern Nevada, including in more rural areas. 

I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation and voice my support for the expansion 

of southern Nevada higher education. The investment we make in education will 

provide great dividends in the future. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE CASABONNE, PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO FEDERAL LANDS COUNCIL; JIM COOPER, PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO WOOL GROWERS, INC.; AND ALISA

OGDEN, PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION, ON S. 1689 

My name is Mike Casabonne and I’m President of the New Mexico Federal Lands 

Council. The New Mexico Federal Lands Council represents thousands of federal 

and state trust lands grazing operations. 

I will confine my comments today to livestock grazing in wilderness, grazing language in S. 1689 with respect to National Conservation Areas, the need for a wilderness ‘‘light’’ designation and a request for local field hearings. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN WILDERNESS

The problems with livestock grazing in wilderness areas have been well documented, leading to Congress issuing the Grazing Guidelines (House report No. 101- 

405). Our concern is that these guidelines were written when most wilderness areas 

existed in the high country. The lands affected by this legislation occur in a desert 

ecosystem where the resource and ranching needs are far different. For instance, 

the ‘‘occasional use’’ of motorized vehicles may be sufficient for high country, seasonally grazed allotments. It is not sufficient for desert, year around grazed allotments 

where pipelines and other water facilities must be checked on a regular basis. We 
112 

suggest that Congress or an independent entity conduct a thorough review of the 

guidelines applicability to desert allotments and make recommendations for any 

warranted changes. We further request Congress refrain from designating any 

desert ecosystems where livestock grazing occurs as wilderness until such time as 

the review is completed and revisions considered. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS

The grazing language in Section 4 of S.1689 places the grazing allotment owner 

at a distinct disadvantage. The consistency language puts in jeopardy existing grazing practices and will place severe limitations on any future range improvements 

or other rangeland management practices. We strongly recommend the consistency 

language be dropped and that livestock grazing be managed according to FLPMA 

and other applicable laws. We have reviewed the proposed language submitted by 

People For Preserving Our Western Heritage as part of their testimony and endorse 

its contents. 

In addition we have some questions on the ‘‘where established’’ language in Section 4. Is this applied on an allotment by allotment basis, on an acreage basis or 

some other criteria? What impact does the ‘‘where established’’ language have on 

permitted numbers of livestock? Can permitted numbers be increased in a National 

Conservation Area under this language? In other words, we are seeking a clear 

enunciation of Congressional intent with respect to the ‘‘where established’’ language and we hope the Committee will provide that. 

A DESIGNATION OTHER THAN WILDERNESS

The land use pattern in Don ̃ a Ana County, a valley floor of private lands surrounded by various types of Federal land, is not unique to the west. Population 

growth combined with public pressure to retain privately held farmland and other 

open spaces and the public desire for additional recreational opportunities will continue to impact Federal land. Clearly a new land use designation is needed which 

will protect certain lands from development, but still allow for public access and enjoyment. Some have called this wilderness ‘‘light’’, others wilderness ‘‘without the 

big ‘W’ ‘‘. The Rangeland Preservation Area as proposed by People For Preserving 

Our Western Heritage meets this criteria and we believe is appropriate for the lands 

in Don ̃ a Ana County under consideration. This or some other similar designation 

should be considered by the Committee for S. 1689 and for other legislation which 

may impact such land use patterns in our western communities. The time has come 

for Congress to step forward with a new land use designation that responds to both 

national concerns for protecting Federal lands and local concerns for development, 

recreation and traditional uses. 

FIELD HEARING

The issues we’ve raised, combined with such other issues as boundary adjustments, range improvements, homeland security, energy corridors and other right of 

ways, flood control projects, Renew New Mexico projects, and so on necessitate a 

field hearing to fully air and adequately address the complex issues involved. Allowing two witnesses five minutes each to testify two thousand miles away from the 

land and the people involved is simply not a reasonable or appropriate legislative 

approach. We strongly recommend a field hearing be held in Don ̃ a Ana County on 

S. 1689 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this written testimony. 

STATEMENT OF KEN MIYAGISHIMA, MAYOR OF LAS CRUCES, LETICIA BENAVIDEZ, 

CHAIRWOMAN, DON ̃ A ANA COUNTY COMMISSION, MICHAEL CADENA, MAYOR OF

MESILLA, ON S. 1689 

There are few times in a person’s life were one is able to be a part of something 

truly historic. Today we have such a moment for our communities in Don ̃ a Ana 

County. On September 17th, Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced legislation 

called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act in Congress to forever 

protect some of the most important natural areas in our county—including our 

iconic Organ Mountains—as new wilderness areas. The time has come to take the 

next step in securing this natural legacy for our region’s future generations. 

For years, Las Crucens and residents of Don ̃ a Ana County have sought balance 

between rapid growth and protecting some of the beautiful open space and mountains that give us our identity. Citizens have wondered if the quality of life that 

brought them here or kept them here was going to stay that way or if instead, we 
113 

would we go the way of some other high growth communities and lose these important natural resources to sprawl and development. 

Thanks to the visionary leadership of Senators Bingaman and Udall, we are closer 

to an answer. The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act will protect many 

of Don ̃ a Ana County’s most beloved natural treasures, including much of the Organ 

Mountains, the Robledos, the Sierra Las Uvas Mountains, the West and East 

Potrillos, Broad Canyon, and Mount Riley as new federal Wilderness Areas. Some 

of these lands were given interim protection almost 30 years ago, but lacking wilderness designation, remain at risk until Congress gives them this ‘‘gold standard’’ of 

protection. 

This important conservation legislation will also protect nearly 100,000 acres 

buffering the front of the Organ Mountains as a National Conservation Area, and 

would include part of the Don ̃ a Ana Mountains. The legislation will allow a full 

range of recreational and traditional activities to continue, including hunting, hiking 

and ranching, while preventing further development in this area. 

Protecting these vital natural areas will boost our economies, as visitors come to 

enjoy the beauty of the landscapes and employers can attract workers looking for 

the high quality of life our open spaces contribute to. A 2006 study of the economies 

of many western United States cities by the non-profit Sonoran Institute found that 

communities with nearby protected lands had faster than average personal income 

growth. When good employers and high-tech entrepreneurs can locate anywhere 

they want, areas with high quality protected public lands are an added incentive.Wilderness designation of our area’s natural gems will help our communities 

enjoy this competitive advantage and long lasting economic benefits. 

Wilderness and National Conservation Areas are considered the ‘‘crown jewels’’ of 

America’s protected public lands, and designation here could help attract federal 

dollars to showcase them. Simply put, Wilderness will provide a huge long term economic benefit to Don ̃ a Ana County and its communities. 

Today we have the chance to choose a direction that will have significant impacts 

for our region and our way of life. At a time when we continue to lose 6,000 acres 

of open space each day in America—2 million acres a year, we believe Senators 

Bingaman and Udall have taken a laudable step toward ensuring that more of what 

makes New Mexico the land of enchantment will be here for us and our grandchildren. We encourage Congress to take up the legislation and pass it quickly. It 

will continue to give back for generations to come. 

STATEMENT OF SANFORD SCHEMNITZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE SOUTHWEST CONSOLIDATED

SPORTSMEN; JOHN MOEN, PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHWEST NM CHAPTER OF QUAIL

UNLIMITED; NOEL COOLEY, PAST PRESIDENT OF THE DON ̃ A ANA COUNTY ASSOCIATED SPORTSMEN; AND JOHN CORNELL, NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Our canyons, grasslands, and mountains are tough, rugged, and spectacular. It 

takes time to get to know them-hours spent afield watching quail, deer, or just a 

beautiful landscape view. As sportsmen, we’ve spent many years appreciating and 

utilizing both the beauty and the bounty of local lands like the Organ Mountains, 

Broad Canyon, and the West Potrillo Mountains. 

Yet while these mountains and grasslands surrounding our ever-enlarging city are 

rugged, they are also very fragile. Those of us that have spent years—indeed, decades—exploring the vast expanses of our open spaces surrounding the sister cities 

of Las Cruces and El Paso, are very much aware of that fragility. Many different 

users, including sportsmen, have appreciated the bounty that exists here. We have 

also realized that the well-being of these same areas is not guaranteed. 

As recently as the 1980s, there were no houses, other than a couple of ranches, 

between A-Mountain and the Organs. So much has changed in the last three decades. The same fate has occurred in the valley between Las Cruces and Hatch and 

between Las Cruces and El Paso. Human civilization, and the stresses that it brings 

to other life that share this landscape, slowly creeps toward and encroaches upon 

them. 

So four years ago, when we heard that a group of folks -including conservationists—wanted to designate wilderness in these local areas to ensure they would stay 

as they were, we were interested, but also skeptical. Similar efforts in the 1980s 

and 1990s had not met with success. Some sportsmen were concerned about how 

the plans would be crafted and what their effects would be. 

But our years afield convinced us of the urgent need to protect good quality habitat and preserve our natural lands for current and future generations. 

We believed that in the fight to preserve these special places, this time would be 

different—largely because Senator Jeff Bingaman and his staff stepped up to the 
114 

plate. They came to our community and listened. They started out with open minds, 

eager to hear local ideas and opinions. With an eye for balance, many local groups 

collectively went to work with the Senator’s staff to look for real and lasting solutions to protect our natural public lands. Land conservation is complex, and requires 

leadership at all levels. Senator Bingaman, through time consuming and thoughtful 

work found real compromise and balance. Several years of give and take and field 

trips out on the land produced an important milestone: a proposal to protect many 

of our most important lands in Don ̃ a Ana County. We are proud to have been a part 

of this process. 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, introduced by New Mexico 

Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, will protect these areas and their natural 

habitats and resources in perpetuity-essentially ‘‘locking in’’ such activities as hunting, hiking, horseback riding, camping, and basic family recreation, for all time. 

That protection will serve the greater good of those of us that wish to enjoy these 

places and pass them down to our children’s children. That is the key to the puzzle—finding a balance between providing opportunity for us, as citizens, to seek 

recreation within these areas but, at the same time, conserving them as reservoirs 

of clean water and air and as habitat for wildlife. 

While the new bill does not include all of our suggestions, nor one hundred percent of any other group’s requests, we believe it is balanced. Senator Bingaman, 

Senator Udall and their staffs did tremendous work in reaching out to the many 

varied interests and stakeholders. We feel fortunate to have had their leadership 

at the helm steering this historic legislation and making this long sought after goal 

of protection possible. 

As sportsmen, we join with many other members of the larger community to encourage the New Mexico delegation to get behind this important conservation bill. 

Move the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act through Congress and to 

the President’s desk with good speed. 

JOINT STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. HAYS AND STEPHEN L. WILMETH, ON S. 1689 

For hundreds of years the desert of what is now Arizona has been the route of 

goods coming north from Mexico. The flow of merchandise was created by demand 

from citizens and settlers of del Norte, the expanse of territory generally north of 

the 54th Parallel. Over time, the goods became as often illegal as they were legal. 

Today, the goods passing through the rural, isolated expanse of sand, rock, and heat 

are more often than not, illegal. The circumstances and conditions surrounding the 

flow are dangerous, and the consequences of stemming the tide must be a national 

priority. 

Since 911, the emphasis of border security has become a national debate. In fact, 

recent polls in Arizona indicate that 51% of residents believe that border security 

is more important than the national health care debate. In a margin of 65% to 20%, 

those same residents believe enforcing border security is more important than dealing with the legalization of aliens already in the United States. As distance from 

the border increases, these same questions don’t stimulate the same responses. The 

phenomenon of changing priorities as the distance from ground zero increases is 

clearly in play on the Mexican border. 

Through time, the economics and the conditions of illegal entry have resulted in 

the evolution of dominant entry points along the border. Due to the ease of entry 

within or adjacent to urban centers during the late 80s and 90s, those areas became 

focal points for entry. Pressed by American citizenry who were tired of being overrun with illegals, the Border Patrol responded with organized enforcement tactics 

that concentrated activities at those points. Examples of this were El Paso, Nogales, 

and in the expanded urban area at Tijuana. When the El Paso operation was instituted the data was very clear. The incidence of illegal entry was reduced. 

In 1994, Operation Gate Keeper was undertaken along the California urban border areas. In a curiously delayed response, the entry of illegals was reduced at the 

point of asset concentration, but a far different result occurred elsewhere. The success of halting entry in the urban areas was mirrored by the expansion of entry in 

the desert areas to the east. It was what the Border Patrol expected and wanted. 

Illegals would be easier to catch in open rural areas than they had been in the congestion of the urban centers in southern California. 

Several conditions existed to support this reaction to Gate Keeper. First, the economic conditions north and south of the border only expanded the flow of illegal 

entry. Jobs were available north of the border. Second, Mexican Highway 2 ran adjacent to the border for miles into vast and isolated expanses. Third, the American 

invention of designated wilderness areas stretched for miles east/ west and north/ 
115 

south along that boundary in national wildlife refuges and monuments managed by 

the Department of Interior (DOI). The soft underbelly of the American border was 

discovered. 

THE WILDERNESS BECOMES A DANGEROUS PLACE

By 1998, visitors entering Organ Pipe National Monument with back country permits were estimated to be outnumbered by illegal aliens trekking north by a two 

to one ratio. By the following year, the permits issued to park visitors had dropped 

in half and the number of illegal nightly visitors had nearly tripled. The monument 

had become a place to be avoided by American citizens. 

The increased illegal entry also meant there was no longer a safe place for the 

illegals. The Border Patrol recorded five deaths in what they describe as the ‘‘West 

Desert Corridor’’ in 1998. By 2002, there were more than 130 deaths in the same 

corridor. This count is particularly alarming in that the deaths were occurring in 

the face of declining apprehensions after 2000 in the Border Patrol sector as a 

whole. Deaths were running at the rate of about 40 per 100,000 apprehensions 

whereas five years earlier there had only been four deaths per 100,000 apprehensions . . . a tenfold increase! 

Other statistics tied to crime were no different. Organ Pipe statistics indicated 

that finding abandoned vehicles in the monument in 1994 was unusual. By 2001, 

they had reached nearly 150 per year. Number of high speed pursuits, tons of marijuana captured, and illegal apprehensions in the park all reflected similarly alarming trends. In 2003, National Geographic declared that Organ Pipe Monument was 

the most dangerous park in the United States. It got so bad that signs were posted 

in the park not to stop for dead bodies. It could be a trap set to lure unsuspecting 

park visitors! 

ORGAN PIPE STAFF QUANTIFIES DAMAGE LEFT BY ILLEGALS

In the midst of the chaos the National Park Service, the managing agency of the 

Organ Pipe National Monument, embarked on an effort to quantify the damage 

being done to the monument. Their approach and their findings were interesting. 

They mapped transects across the monument on predominately east/west directions 

rather than north/ south. Their logic was simple. They would be able to observe the 

north/ south illegal traffic more dynamically. 

What they found was more impact on the monument in the designated wilderness 

areas than in the nonwilderness, fully accessible areas. Why... because Border 

Patrol and Park Service officials were limited in their ability to access the wilderness areas on a continuous basis. They didn’t have full and unrestricted access. Motorized access in wilderness areas is not allowed. The illegals were taking full advantage of easy access through areas preserved for posterity. 

In an internal report done by the ‘‘Resource Management Staff’’ at Organ Pipe, 

very alarming results were presented. The most glaring example pertained to a representative one square kilometer parcel of designated wilderness in the Valley of the 

Ajo. The following was quoted. ‘‘Results of a GIS model, based on transect data, of 

what a ‘‘typical’’ square km of valley floor habitat might look like to a monument 

visitor taking a hike.’’ The one square kilometer, slightly more than one quarter section of land, had data extrapolated and mapped presenting the following illegal impact on the monument: 

1. Seven rest sites 

2. 15 incidences of vehicle tracks 

3. 40 sites of trash disposal 

4. 48 discarded water bottles 

5. one set of bicycle tracks 

6. one set of horse tracks 

7. three abandoned camp fire sites 

8. 254 foot trails! 

The report went on to quantify the establishment of ‘‘wild cat’’ roads which serve 

as access for drug runners. On a map in the presentation, 35 such illegal roads can 

be counted. That compares to 13 legal, established roads in the monument. 

THE RECIPROCAL OR MIRROR EFFECT

As the data was analyzed something very interesting began to emerge. The damage was not confined to designated wilderness areas managed by United States 

agencies on the north side of the border. What was occurring was that similar damage was occurring in desert areas adjacent to the international border to the south 

and southwest. 
116 

El Pinacate, the ‘‘sister park’’ to Organ Pipe had become a staging area for illegal 

entry into the United States. In a aerial survey done for the purposes of mapping 

air strips used by drug runners, not only illegal airstrips were found, but roads and 

trenching done by the Mexican military to dissuade the establishment of the airstrips were being created in the fragile cinder landscape of the Pinacate Biosphere 

Reserve. 

Twenty two airstrips were found that had been trenched by the Mexican military. 

Twelve other trenching sites were found that were intended to prevent the establishment of airstrips. Five illegal, ‘‘wildcat’’ roads were mapped, and six fully operational illegal strips were being used for loading and flying drugs north. 

In addition, ‘‘colonias’’ continue to sprawl out along Highway 2 as the infrastructure is built in response to the business of moving goods and services north. Mountains of trash, extensive wood cutting, and vandalism to border fencing and facilities 

lead the Organ Pipe staff to write that the activity will ‘‘impact natural and cultural 

resources along the border’’. Pictures of such activity lead any observer to surmise 

that the statement was understated at best. 

THE GREATER PICTURE

Land agencies of the United States are charged with managing massive stretches 

of lands that lie near and adjacent to the Mexican border. The DOI, through its various agencies, manages about 47% of those lands in Arizona and 48% of the lands 

adjacent to the border in New Mexico. Every stretch of that land today is under assault from illegal entry with many areas that reflect conditions similar to those in 

Organ Pipe. If Department of Agriculture lands (Forest Service) are added, the list 

is expanded. 

Two additional examples include the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation and the 

Coronado National Memorial. The Tohono O’odham, administered by DOI’s Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) is a reservation with a native Indian population that has 

an historical homeland extension into Mexico. In that expanse of land, Tohono 

O’odham people do not have allegiance to powers north or south of the border. The 

native Indian population, originally known as Papagos, move back and forth across 

the border. Drug cartels have made permanent inroads into the area with cash and 

the promise of greater wealth. The BIA, has little ability to deal substantively with 

the issues. 

Further east, the Coronado National Memorial magnifies the risk that roadless 

border areas pose to the entire nation. In a 3 by 3.5 mile corridor, the Yolanda 

Molina de Hernandez Organization runs drugs like greyhounds on a racetrack. Once 

inside the monument, runners either go north or northeast into USFS lands and the 

Huachuca Mountains where there are over 70 miles of trails. Citizens who enjoy the 

adventures of an outdoor excursion know what this area has become. It is not for 

the faint of heart and it gives a new meaning to the Wild West. 

In both of these cases, the mirrored effect of infrastructure expansion seen at 

Organ Pipe has occurred. Where roads are absent and railroads are present, the 

drug cartels have established facilities and or terminals for staging and running 

drugs and humans north. The build up of infrastructure is continuing. Airstrips are 

established, colonias are expanding, more roads into DOI and USDA managed lands 

have been made, and degradation of fauna and flora continues. 

THE EL PASO EXPERIENCE

In the first major effort aimed at reducing illegal entry in urban areas, Operation 

Hold the Line, was started in El Paso in1993. Data from that operation indicates 

that apprehensions fell quickly from about 22,000 per annum to about 7,000 and 

stabilized near 9,000. What was not seen was the wholesale displacement to entry 

elsewhere as seen in the desert corridor of Arizona. What was occurring? 

One prevailing expert theory is that at the time the illegals didn’t have the soft 

entry points through federal wilderness areas to fall back to. All New Mexico areas 

allowed fully motorized access by the Border Patrol and had ‘‘engaged resident 

ranchers’’ that lived and were constantly present on the expanse of border running 

west from El Paso. East from El Paso was even less accessible. Those lands are 

dominated by private land holdings with residents who constantly patrol and communicate with the Border Patrol and local law enforcement. Illegals were being 

monitored and constantly ran the risk of being in the path of American citizens who 

would and will report their presence. 

Further evidence of this phenomenon was found in radar records of drug flights 

from Mexico’s interior to the border. In Texas, the concentration of such flights and 

corresponding apprehensions of drugs adjacent to the border is relatively sparse considering the expansive landscape across south Texas. New Mexico shows similar and 
117 

even less concentrated results. On the other hand, the Arizona situation is staggering. The situation there is akin to a full scale invasion by a foreign power. There, 

isolated federal lands made worse by wilderness designation are an outright threat 

to American security and well being. 

THE THEORY TESTED

In the Boot Heel of New Mexico, the Border Patrol installed a communication device on Big Hatchet Mountain. The facility handled sensor signals from the entire 

eastern half of the Boot Heel area. The device was placed without the consent of 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). When word spread of the device’s presence, 

environmental groups demanded that the device be removed claiming that it would 

interfere with desert bighorn and the lesser and Mexican long nosed bats’ breeding 

and life cycles. The BLM, under pressure because the area is a wilderness study 

area, pressed the issue and the Border Patrol capitulated and removed the device. 

For several years, the eastern half of the Boot Heel adjacent to a very dangerous 

Mexican border was without this device! When the Border Patrol finally got approval to put the device back into service some astounding data was found. From 

2006 records, it was found that mechanical traffic had increased by 671% and foot 

traffic had increased by 348% from the same period the year before. Soft entry 

points are sought and found by illegal operatives along the border. When they are 

found the cartels take full advantage of them! In the case of Big Hatchet, the Border 

Patrol was denied full access and was operating with diminished ability because of 

environmental demands. American security and American people were put at risk. 

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW TERRITORY

Today, there is a continuing effort to designate wilderness on federal lands along 

the Mexican border. The Wilderness Society through its affiliated groups, the Sky 

Island Alliance and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, has proposed huge areas 

on and or near the border for wilderness legislation. Two of these areas, the 

Tumacacori Highlands of southern Arizona and the Potrillos Mountain complex in 

Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico are large isolated areas that pose the same risks 

to the United States as the Arizona lands already under siege. 

The question becomes what will happen if wilderness designation is successfully 

legislated. In Arizona, an expansion of what is going on all around the Tumacacori 

Highlands will expand. In New Mexico, the outright risk of duplicating the Arizona 

is fully in play. The American people must remember that the Wilderness Act of 

1964 prohibits motorized access and man made facilities. Notwithstanding the 

promises of bastardizing that wilderness standard with ‘‘cherry stem’’ roads providing limited access, locals fear what will happen when the legislation reaches the 

committee hearings and horse trading in Congress. Any agreements made conditionally with local needs in mind will likely be altered, more roads will be closed, 

the Border Patrol will fight for access, and the drug cartels will find a new soft underbelly of access into the United States. The protection in play with the combination of resident ranchers, state and local law enforcement, and the Border Patrol 

will become constrained and conditional. What is arguably the sole reason the Arizona experience hasn’t been duplicated in New Mexico will be forever altered. 

The New Mexico component even has some of the characteristics of the Arizona 

model. In addition to the vast areas of federal lands, Highway 9 runs parallel to 

the border. Experience with trucks being loaded at staging areas in Mexico and 

crossed to be unloaded at points along that road becomes the same kind of opportunity. What makes matters even more dangerous is that a portion of the northern 

boundary of the proposed Potrillo Mountain Wilderness area is formed by an ultramodern east west transcontinental rail line just 24 miles from the border. The specter of accessing that major east west transportation line with a weapon of mass destruction provides a heightened security risk. 

THE LESSONS UNLEARNED

When legislation designating more wildernesses on the U.S. border is heralded by 

environmental groups and Mexican drug cartels alike, American leaders need to reassess their thinking. It isn’t the casual visitor to Organ Pipe, Cabeza Prieta, or the 

segments of the Coronado National Forest making new roads, trashing the travel 

corridors, setting fires, poisoning water holes, and carrying AK-47s. The American 

visitors are the only people who will follow the rules and honor the spirit of wilderness as it was intended. Those big, blacked out Jeep Gladiators that are running 

across desert wilderness areas at night are not occupied by folks who are maintaining a bird identification list nor do they care in the least about any fragile cinder 

cone formation. They are just glad that the chances of encountering a Border Patrol 
118 

agent or any other American who has a vested interest in maintaining the integrity 

of the lands are limited because of the restrictions placed upon that agent or that 

citizen. 

What is more insidious is the manifestation of our actions on like areas to the 

south of the border. The El Pinacate phenomenon needs to be reviewed. When our 

lands are being ravaged by an onslaught of humanity and our actions have unwittingly created the same devastation across our borders because of the infrastructure 

and policing actions that are taking place to combat it, shame on us for our idealism. In this case, we run the risk of having met the true enemy, and . . . he is 

in our midst. 

SIDE BAR I—THE BORDER PATROL BECAME THE BOOGIE MAN

The dust swirled around the Hughes 500 as the Park Superintendent leaned in 

and admonished and berated the Border Patrol pilot. The pilot had landed the helicopter on designated wilderness in a rescue operation that would save the lives of 

several illegal aliens that were simply not prepared to endure the heat and the conditions of crossing Organ Pipe National Monument. Threats were countered back, 

and, ultimately, nothing was done and no charges were filed... this time. 

When Operations Hold the Line, Safeguard, and Gatekeeper were undertaken, the 

Border Patrol knowingly pursued a plan that would force illegals crossing the Mexican border to avoid the urban areas and venture into the remoteness of the border 

expanses. It was expected that the hordes of illegals crossing in the urban areas 

would be easier to apprehend if they were forced out into open country where technology and open space would allow observation and interdiction. The plan worked. 

It can now be observed, however, that the Border Patrol was actually unprepared 

for the conditions that they had to encounter to apprehend the diverted illegals. The 

federal land designation, wilderness, became a most confounding constraint. In Border Patrol writings and reports from the 90s there were numbers of references to 

‘‘wilderness.’’ Based on retired agent correspondence and interviews, however, it becomes apparent that the interpretation of the reference was more of a generality of 

remoteness and isolation than it was a land designation. The real culprit was a land 

designation with restrictions that handcuffed enforcement activities. The Border Patrol was ready and capable of handling real wilderness. It simply wasn’t ready for 

the realities of designated Wilderness! 

In a metaphorical comparison, the conflicts between DOI land agencies and the 

Border Patrol increased proportionally to deaths in the Desert Corridor of Arizona’s 

border lands as illegal entry accelerated. Tension was apparent on both sides. In 

a report by Park Service staff, the activities of the Border Patrol on the desert environment of Organ Pipe contributed to the degradation of the fragile environment. 

The accusation was actually listed in an array of such threats alongside the same 

comparison to drug runners! 

What the Border Patrol interpreted to be Park Service mentality was actually the 

federal land designation that the Park Service had a vested interest in administering. As noted in the Wilderness Act of 1964, wilderness was a land largely 

untrammeled by man. Motorized vehicle access was not allowed. Neither permanent 

roads nor temporary roads were allowed. Even overflight of aircraft in a designated 

wilderness was conditional in the original concepts of the law. When legal actions 

were filed by environmental groups against the Border Patrol, the Marine Corps, 

and the Air Force for overflight of designated border wilderness, the hostility level 

was elevated yet more. 

The Border Patrol finally sought Congressional help and Arizona’s Senator Kyl 

(R-AZ) stepped into the fray and demanded less conditional access and more Border 

Patrol freedom to respond and patrol. Time and unrelenting tides of illegals have 

forced a pragmatic, albeit tentative relationship with the sides as both agencies attempt to maintain their mission commitments. Where expansion of designated wilderness has occurred, though, the same conflicts time and again arise between the 

agencies and from environmental special interest groups. When this reoccurs, the 

premise of the prevailing Border Patrol interpretation of the underlying intent of 

the land agencies comes back into focus. What should be agreed upon, however, is 

that the Mexican border, with all the large expanse of arid, isolated, and soft points 

of entry, is a very dangerous place. It is dangerous to every American and the danger isn’t just the flow of immigrant laborers. The real danger lies where the most 

radical ideology collides with the most money. 

SIDE BAR II—THE DOI INTERNAL AGENDA MUST BE QUESTIONED

Although, the data that the Park Service staff collected at Organ Pipe was astounding, no underlying report was written. Nothing was brought officially to the 
119 

attention of Congress. There was a 2004 report of the information presented at a 

‘‘Border Lands Manager’’ group, but why something as important as the facts in the 

report were not widely distributed is a matter of concern. It leaves interpretation 

to such an oversight to criticism, suspicion, and speculation. 

In the report, the Park Service noted that mitigation alternatives were as follows: 

1. Educate the public 

2. Monitor resource damage 

3. Demand a political solution 

Each of these alternatives needs clarification and explanation by the Park Service. 

Taken in order, educate whom and what? Is the suggestion that education is in 

order referring to the need to forewarn the public of the danger of any and all activities in border wilderness areas or is the reference aimed at educating the Drug Cartels of the damage they are causing those wilderness areas? If it is the former, a 

more honest and frank assessment to park visitors would have been appropriate. 

‘‘You are endangering your life and the lives of your loved ones by visiting this border wilderness. Contact your Congressman and demand immediate and full access 

to the border so the Border Patrol and Homeland Security forces can act and this 

degradation can be stopped!’’ If it is the latter, a worldlier Park Service negotiator 

had better be at the table when the Carrillo-Fuentes Cartel leadership settles into 

a seat around the table. It is highly unlikely they would readily agree to alter their 

routes for the benefit of 21 Sonoran antelope. 

As for the need to monitor the resource damage, how much damage does it take 

to decide that something is grossly wrong with the system? It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that evidence of 254 foot trails in a quarter section of designated 

wilderness is not what the original framers of the wilderness act had envisioned. 

Perhaps the superintendent of the monument should try to personally apprehend 

and ticket one of the Jeeps crossing the desert at night. After all, that is exactly 

what he tried to do to United States Border Patrol agents when they landed a helicopter on wilderness land in a normal operation. 

As for the demand for a political solution, why not ask Congress to pass legislation making it a federal crime for illegal aliens to enter the wilderness areas, damage natural resources, leave mountains of trash, and poison existing and rare water 

holes? Certainly such legislation would be possible, but that outcome is as ludicrous 

as placing constraints and barriers upon Homeland Security activities. As for calling 

up the Mexican president and demanding that he conceptualize and implement an 

acceptable solution could be done as well, but the fallacy of that ‘‘political’’ solution 

is not even worthy of debate. This snake’s head must be cut off. 

The underlying risk that DOI faces is that, in the internal environment of its operations, a different agenda is in play. Unless a different attitude is demonstrated, 

the agency runs the heightened risk of being accused of allowing wilderness, the environmental movement, and certain segments of their administration to be so 

interlocked and intertwined that each component is indistinguishable. Crafting and 

growing land preservation for rewilding schemes is one thing, but jeopardizing 

American national security is something quite different. 

The whole Arizona border phenomenon should elevate the wilderness movement 

to the status of national debate. The degradation of the border environment is so 

blatant and widespread, that the keen observer must question the real intent. If it 

was truly a debate about stewardship of natural resources, the steward would have 

long ago cried for substantive assistance and put aside any philosophical debates. 

Perhaps the truth is that the whole affair is a matter of control and power. The 

environment just happens to be a convenient vehicle to camouflage the truth. 

IMPLICATIONS OF THE BIG HATCHET MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS PROSPECT

The view from Big Hatchet Peak at night is something to behold. At least 125 

miles of isolation and ‘‘big lonesome’’ dominate and reduce all civilized things across 

the vast radius of this vista. To the south is Mexico. Pin points of lights from villages and widely scattered ranches can be seen. The glow of larger towns and cities 

like Agua Prieta and Janos reflect on distant cloud cover, but mostly, the shear immensity of this isolated land in darkness resonates into your senses. To the north, 

lights of New Mexico towns Silver City, Deming, and Lordsburg can be seen. To the 

east, lights from El Paso and Las Cruces glow. As daylight advances, the view alters 

and physical features become prominent. Animas Mountain to the west reaches into 

the same rarified air as Big Hatchet. The bluffs and points of Big Hatchet disappear 

vertically away from the summit. If you are inclined to feel faint at the prospect 

of hanging out into space to look over the edge, this is not the place for the weak 

of heart. This is nature at its rawest, and the physical demands and dangers are 
120 

matched only by the illicit human activities going on around the clock in this big 

isolated country. This is one of the most active corridors of human and dope smuggling along the U.S. and Mexican border. This is the ‘‘Boot Heel’’ of New Mexico. 

The international border surrounds you on the south and the east. 

In the midst of this isolation is a man made device that could be compared to 

something as out of place as a contraption placed from a space vehicle on the surface of Mars or Venus. It is a communications device placed by Customs and Border 

Protection-Office of Border Patrol (CBP-BP) under a permit from the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), the agency charged with administering the federal lands 

dominating the entire region. It is there to receive and relay electronic signals from 

across the eastern half of the entire Boot Heel area. Such devices are a vital tool 

in monitoring and controlling illegal entry from Mexico in this immense area. They 

meet the technological need to have line of sight contact with a receiver that can 

relay readings to a Border Patrol monitoring center. Big Hatchet is the dominating 

physical feature that both creates the need for such a collector and provides the location from which the signals are relayed. It would seem to the uninformed that 

the CBP-BP and BLM would be united in the need for placement and operation of 

a device with such importance in the National Security effort. The truth is they 

don’t share the same missions and are both influenced and administered by federal 

government bureaucracies dominated by very different political agendas. 

For several recent years this relay was not operational. It had been placed on the 

mountain by the BP without official BLM approval. Why such an important link in 

communication was not authorized can be explained in part by the nature of the 

service it provided. The BP is not in the business of announcing to the world where 

and when monitoring devices are placed. If such information is made known, it is 

not just the good guys who will be aware of such placement. The bad guys are the 

individuals making their living running dope and human delivery services, and 

their success depends on their ability to avoid detection. If an important piece of 

detection equipment is taken out, it makes their job much easier to accomplish. 

Conflict concerning placement of the repeater arose when environmental groups 

demanded its removal from Big Hatchet, which lies within a Wilderness Study Area 

(WSA), and must be managed under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 

and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976. As a man made technical device (there without a permit), the sensor repeater was not allowed. The environmentalists claimed it would interfere with lambing of the resident big horn sheep 

and existence of lesser and Mexican long nose bats found in abundance in a large 

cave in the area. The BP complied with the BLM order, and the repeater was shut 

down. 

As time passed and illegal activities increased, pressure and criticism arose calling for reinstallation of the repeater. The public was not aware that the entire east 

half of the Boot Heel was without a repeater. A huge, dangerous, black hole existed 

on the American border. Retired Border Patrol Sector Chief Gene Wood has repeatedly called attention to how corridors of entry into the United States develop. He 

describes active entry points as ‘‘soft points’’, and they become more active based 

on the inability of the BP to monitor, patrol, and interdict traffic. A growing number 

of folks are now aware that the intensity of activity in this isolated area is the culmination of conditions that have contributed to this ‘‘soft point’’ of entry. The absence of the repeater on Big Hatchet Mountain was a primary, contributing factor. 

How big did the problem become? In the BLM’s Environmental Assessment completed in 2006 and allowing the reinstallation of the repeater, it was noted that illegal mechanical traffic increased by 671% and foot traffic increased by 348% during 

the first six months of fiscal year 2006 compared to the same period the previous 

year. The report stated that ‘‘the danger posed to the families of the people who are 

perceived to assist the Border Patrol by calling in illegal traffic is potentially devastating.’’ In the absence of the repeater, local input was limited to that form of 

communication. The U.S., through political jousting, put local residents and BP 

agents alike in a difficult and dangerous position. 

In 2008, the repeater was reinstalled. It is there by the authority of a Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and the CBP-BP, but it is a conditional 

allowance. The condition is that if the U.S. Congress changes the current land designation from WSA to Wilderness, ‘‘the CBP-BP must remove all communication site 

equipment from the Big Hatchet Wilderness as soon as possible.’’ It is obvious how 

that will impact illegal activity and national security. The question of how such a 

demand impacts other areas and issues must be asked. 

To the east of Hidalgo County where Big Hatchet lies, there is an active proposal 

to designate 358,000 acres of Luna and Don ̃ a Ana Counties as wilderness. Over 

150,000 acres of that proposal lie in the Potrillo Mountains just north of the border 

between Columbus and Santa Teresa, NM. The same condition of WSA designation 
121 

exists in that proposed area. If wilderness designation is passed by Congress, residents are worried that environmentalists’ demands for the removal of all technical 

monitoring gear along with elimination of mechanical access will be imposed on the 

operation of the CBP-BP, which stands between residents and the drug lords and 

coyotes of the smuggling rings in Mexico. ‘‘All we know and see on a piece of paper 

is the demand for the Border Patrol to remove their monitoring gear from Big 

Hatchet Mountain if wilderness designation occurs on that WSA. How can we possibly believe that the same thing wouldn’t be repeated here in Luna County,’’ stated 

rancher Bill Smyer. ‘‘Push comes to shove, we will bear the burden of any downside. 

Our government constantly elevates environmentalists’ demands above the concerns 

and safety of anyone gainfully employed and trying to stay in business! We have 

no champion.’’ 

It is ironic that the only legal agreements in place on this and other WSAs are 

grazing permits between agencies of the U.S. government and local ranchers. The 

primary burden of performance is placed solely on the agency trying to maintain national security, CBP-BP. They can have their repeater in place only on a conditional 

basis, and they cannot rely on having helicopter access on an ongoing basis. From 

January through April and from June through October 15 they have to make the 

half day climb up Big Hatchet Mountain on foot to service their facility. The BLM, 

under demand by several environmental groups, won’t allow helicopter disturbance 

that may affect the big horns and the bats. If wilderness is declared here or elsewhere on the border, the conditions will only get more stringent and limiting. The 

question needs to be asked, ‘‘How can any national leader support a process that 

inhibits or destroys the ability of a U.S. agency and local residents to control, protect, and enhance their lives and livelihoods with a satisfactory degree of safety and 

efficiency?’’ An observation made by a resident who would be affected by wilderness 

designation in Don ̃ a Ana County provides significant insight. He said, ‘‘There is a 

big difference between being in the crowd cheering and being in the arena fighting 

for your life. We must find leaders who have at least visited the floor of the arena, 

or we will not prevail. Remember, if we rely on the crowd, they will only cheer when 

we are killed.’’ 

Editor’s note: This article is one in a series written by members and friends of 

People for Preserving Our Western Heritage. www.peopleforwesternheritage.com 

CATTLE AND NATIONAL SECURITY BY STEPHEN L. WILMETH

Cattle free by 93! Cattle free by ’03! Remember those battle cries? There is little 

doubt that too many have heard those same words even in recent days. 

The assault on the federal lands rancher started longer ago than most realize. It 

was started at least by 1944 when the Forest Service in the Gila National Forest 

sent the first notice to destock the Gila Wilderness. It was done under the guise 

of failure to make adequate progress in range improvements and the resulting deterioration of range on the Mogollon Front in Grant County, New Mexico. The Forest 

Service followed by evicting cattle from the major allotment in what is now known 

as the Gila Wilderness and leaving the same allotment holder on the very range 

that was purported to be in poor condition! 

The Gila Wilderness was established not by Congress but by Forest Service in an 

administrative directive 20 years prior to that first eviction of cattle. It was not 

until 1964 when the Wilderness Act was passed and signed by the president that 

the wilderness was officially a federal land designation. By that time, the seeds 

were sown to press forward administratively to circumvent what the law of 1964 

had promised. Cattle grazing would be allowed to continue where it existed in federal wilderness at the time of the signing of the act. 

At the time of the passage of the Wilderness Act, there were 24 active allotments 

within or directly adjacent to the Wilderness core of the Gila. By 2000, fully half 

of those allotments had been fully destocked and the other 12 had been destocked 

87% from 1960 numbers. Values of permits used to secure operating loans plummeted. Few comparable sales to establish value were even available as permits were 

simply dropped or reassigned to neighboring ranches with the approval to run only 

the cattle allowed on the neighboring allotment. Other than fellow ranchers, few 

people recognized the travesty of the implicit penalties that eliminated half or more 

of the value of those investments. An analogy would be for homeowners in any subdivision suddenly finding their home less than half of its value overnight because 

of a zoning ordinance change. 

The trend was not limited to the Gila. In the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 

and again in the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, Congress demanded that the 

federal grazing guidelines be rewritten to clearly demonstrate that the administration of any wilderness legislation wouldn’t be used to eliminate grazing. Stakeholder 
122 

unrest existed all across the West, the cries from the environmental camp echoed 

ever more loudly, and cattle numbers continued to decline. 

In southern Arizona, the cry for wilderness was particularly active, and it was 

there that over 1,000,000 acres of border wilderness was designated since 1978. 

What Americans should be aware of is the cost of that legislation in terms of moral 

decay and national security interests to this country. Moreover, for the first time, 

the penalty for the pervasive removal of cattle from federal lands may start to be 

quantified. 

More than 50% of the American side of the New Mexico and Arizona border with 

Mexico is made up of Department of Interior (DOI) lands. These lands are administered by the Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM, and the BIA. 

The Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service administers yet more lands made 

up of national forests and the Department of Defense has yet more of the border 

at the Barry Goldwater Bombing Range. 

In studies uncovered recently, data reveals that the management of the border 

wilderness areas of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Organ Pipe National Monument contributed to the establishment of free flowing corridors of 

human and drug related smuggling activities. From those corridors the expansion 

of similar activity has spread like wild fire into the Tohono O’odam Indian Reservation, the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, the Coronado National Monument, 

and the various parcels of the Coronado National Forest. 

The problems began when the Border Patrol instituted operations to stem the tide 

of illegal entry in urban centers. Their idea was simple. If such efforts could reduce 

the flow of illegal entry into populated centers and push it into rural areas, interdiction and apprehensions could be done easier. The campaigns worked well in 

Mexicali, Tijuana, and El Paso, but failed miserably in Nogales. What was found 

was that illegals from the Nogales operation found another soft point of entry. The 

designated federal wilderness at Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta was an immense opportunity for entry. As the Border Patrol and the Park Service or Fish and Wildlife 

Service fought over jurisdiction, the illegal flow of drugs and humans moved across 

the protected wilderness in growing numbers. 

Where there were no roads, the cartels and human smugglers made roads. Where 

there were no trails, they made trails. Where there were 17 legal permanent roads 

in Organ Pipe there became 35 wildcat roads where blacked out Jeeps ran north 

during the night. The Park Service itself estimated that, in a representative one 

square kilometer out in the Valley of the Ajos, an unsuspecting American family on 

a hike would encounter 254 illegal foot trails that didn’t exist when wilderness was 

first established in the monument! 

Until recently, the Border Patrol viewed the conflict as a turf dispute with the 

Park Service. It was politics, and the demand by the Park Service to stay out of 

wilderness areas was simply countered by Border Patrol demands and threats for 

unrestricted and unconditional access. What wasn’t recognized was that the federal 

designation of wilderness was the true culprit. The Park Service and the Border Patrol were trying to accomplish their agency mission requirements while the illegal 

hordes going north grew ever more confident and dangerous. 

Word spread quickly. Mexican Highway 2 became the artery bringing the armies 

of illegals to the wilderness border. A whole infrastructure of supporting businesses 

sprung up to support the business of staging and sending illegals north into the 

United States. Buses showed in route videos preparing the illegals for desert survival and strategies of evading American authorities. Runways for cartel aircraft 

ferrying drugs to the border were established. Illegals at any given time in Organ 

Pipe topped 20,000 individuals. Whole areas of the monument were closed. It got 

so bad that signs were posted warning visitors to not stop for dead bodies because 

they may be booby traps or decoys for robbery. 

While the wilderness experience in Arizona was being hailed by drug cartels and 

American conservation groups, a different story was occurring in Texas. Although 

Texans may not agree that they are exempt from border violence and drug related 

activities, there is a difference in the intensity of what is going on there as opposed 

to Arizona. The data comes from Aerostat summaries. The Aerostat system provides 

radar assistance for tracking cartel aircraft approaching the border from the Mexican interior. The system uses a series of tethered blimps strategically positioned to 

monitor the border. 

Aerostat records in a representative time frame indicate that cartel aircraft approach Texas about once every 17 miles of border. In New Mexico, the rate is almost 

twice the Texas rate at once per nine miles of border. In Arizona, the records run 

at least 10 times that of Texas or once every mile and a half of border. 

The drug seizure trend is similar. In Texas, the rate runs about one incident in 

every 50 miles of border. In New Mexico, it is about once every 3.5 miles of border 
123 

and in Arizona the rate is once in less than two miles of border. The latter represents a density of drug seizures 25 times that of Texas and it isn’t because the 

drugs in Texas are not being interdicted. It is because the density of activity in Arizona is just that much more intense and dangerous. 

A question must be asked. What is happening in Texas that isn’t happening in 

Arizona? Three retired Border Patrol officials were posed that question (current 

agents will not comment publicly on this question without reciting policy). 

Gene Wood, former sector chief at McAllen (Texas) said, ‘‘You’ve got private ownership of lands with a very aggressive citizenry in Texas protecting their private 

property rights. They interact immediately and continuously with the Border Patrol 

and the Border Patrol has full and unencumbered access to everything, at any time, 

and for any reason.’’ 

When asked why the New Mexico results are intermediate between the Texas and 

Arizona data, former Chief of Border Patrol Flight Operations, Richard Hays, said, 

‘‘Like Arizona, there is a domination of federal lands along the New Mexico border, 

but New Mexico still has a residual population of a resident ranching community. 

Go on over into Arizona and nearly the entire border is federally controlled land. 

The ranchers have been eliminated or so decimated that they no longer can maintain a dominant posture. They are gone in the monuments and the wildlife refuges 

and the infrastructure that they built and maintained is gone as well. The forest 

allotments are so gutted and reduced that those folks are in a very precarious position. And, at the Tohono O’odham (Reservation), the BIA has no idea how to control 

that deal. You come to you own conclusions of what has happened in Arizona.’’ 

When asked, retired Yuma Sector Chief and new Chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, Jim Switzer, said, ‘‘New Mexico and Texas 

still have a vested, engaged, and resident population of citizens who will protect 

their private property rights. The Arizona counterparts have been largely eliminated.’’ Asked to clarify his remarks, he continued, ‘‘Look at the data. Where there 

are resident Americans who have private property rights at risk there remains a 

working relationship with the Border Patrol. If there is activity, the Border Patrol 

will be contacted and welcomed. That is not the case where federal land agencies 

are present.’’ 

The cost to America of removing cattle and ranchers from border wilderness can 

start to be quantified by reviewing relative costs. Without considering the Border 

Patrol budget or budget increases, what are security expenses in a representative 

border wilderness? In fiscal year 2009, the budget for the Organ Pipe’s law enforcement component for a park that shares 30 miles of Mexican border was $1.922 million. In 2000, there was no such component of that budget. 

With such a budget and 28 approved officers how is Organ Pipe handling the illegal traffic? In another report, Organ Pipe management commented on the fact that 

in the last six months, the mechanized drug traffic had ‘‘increased dramatically.’’ 

With dramatic increases in drug trafficking in a six month period in 2009 (when 

illegal human smuggling was down dramatically) it would follow that the Park 

Service will ask for and receive additional funding for 2010 and beyond. 

Meanwhile, over in Texas the buffer created by ranchers who actively defend their 

property rights provides a version of national security that costs American tax payers nothing. What is now being revealed is that if the same buffer had always been 

allowed to continue uninterrupted in Arizona, the problem of illegal entry into the 

United States would not be the problem it is today. 

So, cattle free by ’93, eh? The environmental movement succeeded in reaching 

that goal on most of the Arizona border. This understanding of border events should 

lead objective thinkers to want to investigate what the expanded cost to America 

has been for such an idealistic and reckless attack on American private property 

rights. On the American border, the cost has been accumulated in terms of moral 

decay, loss of American jobs, and national security breaches. The next big question 

is what and how has it affected the American heartland? 

STATEMENT OF BUTCH BORASKY, NYE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 4, PAHRUMP, 

NV, ON S. 940 

Please support S 940 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Nevada System of Higher Education, certain Federal land located in Clark and Nye 

Counties, Nevada. 

Great Basin College in Pahrump would like to place a campus on said land. Local 

developers here in Pahrump have pledged to help by way of infrastructure to the 

property. 
124 

It would be really beneficial for Nye County to have a campus locally. This would 

allow young people to stay in the community to atend college and not have to commute or move out of the County to get an higher education. 

This will also greatly benefit the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) fire station adjacent to this property. We have been patiently waiting for the past 4 years 

to see this happen. 

Your help on this will be greatly appreciated. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE SHUPP, PAHRUMP TOWN CHAIRMAN, PAHRUMP, NV, ON S. 940 

This letter serves as strong support for the passage of s. 940. This land upon conveyance will allow Great Basin College to expand and create a college campus in 

our town, which will bring jobs to Pahrump and give students another option for 

obtaining a higher education. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not 

hesitate to contact me. 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 

Santa Fe, NM, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

U.S., Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Building,Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: I am honored to support a historic land conservation 

measure that has been many years in the making: the Organ Mountains-Desert 

Peaks Wilderness Act. I appreciate the leadership that you and Senator Udall demonstrated by introducing this important legislation to protect many of the most important public lands in Southern New Mexico. From the jagged spires of the Organ 

Mountains to the petroglyphs in Broad Canyon, the Act will protect approximately 

259,000 acres of wilderness, and an additional 100,000 acres as two new National 

Conservation Areas. When enacted, these protected lands will showcase some of the 

finest ecosystems and vistas that New Mexico’s Chihuahuan Desert has to offer, 

while making an important contribution to our country’s wilderness and National 

Landscape Conservation System.This legislation has also brought together an impressive and diverse group of citizens to help develop this proposal, with organizations such as the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces, Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen, and the League of Woman Voters working hand in hand to push 

for its development. Through a multi-year process, important agreements and compromises have been made to facilitate border security, flood control, and access for 

all citizens. The end result, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, 

truly represents the best of community cooperation and legislative leadership. As 

Governor of New Mexico, I am honored to lend my strong support for the Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act, and encourage Congress to support its passage into law. 

Sincerely, 

BILL RICHARDSON, 

Governor. 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICES, 

Brunswick, GA, October 22, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources, Committee, 304 Dirksen Office Bldg., 

Washington, DC. 

Re:S. 1689 

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: The issue of the designation of Wilderness Areas as 

addressed by the subject bill is of great concern to the National Association of 

Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO). As the name indicates, we represent a 

group which has several thousand years of cumulative experience protecting our 

borders spread over more than 50 years. We know from that experience that designating a particular area as a Wilderness has no impact at all on those who intend 

to violate of border’s security. Prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles within such 

border areas without permitting the necessary law enforcement agencies, including 

the Border Patrol, to carry out their sworn duties, is tantamount to permitting a 

corridor for illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and potential terrorists to exploit. We 
125 

foresee this same situation may be duplicated in the areas being proposed for wilderness in S. 1689, Organ Mountains-Desert Peak Wilderness Act. 

Information that we have points to the fact that there has not been a public hearing scheduled to get input on this issue, nor has there been an explanation of the 

anticipated impacts that wilderness designations will have on border security. We 

feel the importance of border security should be fully discussed with local communities so that they are aware of the implications of wilderness designation. Our organizations strongly suggests that a field hearing be held in Don ̃ a Ana County, New 

Mexico, to fully develop final recommendations relative to border security on lands 

proposed for wilderness protection. 

Respectfully, 

JAMES S. SWITZER, 

Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF BOB REICH, CEO, LASEN AIR

I am speaking from the ranks of the nearly 800 member coalition that opposes 

your legislation intending to designate wilderness on over a quarter of a million 

acres of Don ̃ a Ana County lands. Please be cognizant of the fact that this coalition 

of citizens, local businesses and organizations, and is not a group of fringe radicals 

or overfunded ‘‘environmental’’ organizations. If you will observe the membership, 

this group is arguably the very core of businesses and organizational leadership that 

makes Las Cruces, Deming and this region of the state work. In my opinion, this 

coalition has been minimized, and any assumption that you have that it isn’t observing what is going on is strictly in error. 

These cities and this region of the state cannot be hamstrung by an environmental movement that has an agenda that is not being honestly portrayed. At a 

minimum, your legislation eliminates the majority of community access to the remaining points of higher elevation in the county. Already, the various branches of 

the DOD, Fish and Wildlife, and NMSU have a lock on the remainder of the Organs, the San Andres, and points east. As the legislation stands your actions will 

place unnecessary pressures on lands outside the withdrawn areas that will receive 

the diverted traffic. As a concerned leader, please recognize the hypocrisy of land 

stewardship that creates enforcement free corridors for drug runners and illegals. 

Throughout this debate, the press and others have continued to refer to the objection to this plan as the ‘‘ranchers’ stand’’ or the ‘‘ranchers’ plan’’. That will lose its 

validity as this process concludes. This is a Don ̃ a Ana County citizen’s coalition and 

the number of ranchers is a small percentage of the opposition. Your actions, however, will ultimately contribute to the reduction of the already small number of 

ranchers and the loss of a major portion of our New Mexico heritage. 

Instead of total withdrawal and locking most of the citizens of Don ̃ a Ana county 

(and state and federal law enforcement officials) out, we have continually proposed 

responsible joint use that will preserve the cultural, historic, and natural features 

of the area and allow use of the area by the majority of the people. I stand perplexed as to your insistence to appeal to a network of organizations and people who 

have ties to such radical ideology and one sided agendas. This will ultimately be 

an issue that will be exposed and understood. Our group may not stand with signs 

in front of your office in opposition, but our group will eventually be heard in more 

basic forms of due process. 

In the past you have consistently stood up for the people of New Mexico and the 

United States of America, we are hoping that you will reconsider your position on 

this vital issue and create a 11win-win’’ situation for all of us. You still have an 

opportunity to make positive political strides by recognizing and coming forth with 

modifications that allow for responsible joint use of the areas rather than wilderness 

that effectively shuts the American people out, and creates clear corridors for 

illegals and drug runners. 

Thank you for Your time and consideration, 
126 

STATE OF ALASKA, 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Anchorage, AK, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington, 

DC. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS WYDEN AND BARRASSO: The State of Alaska provides the following comments on S 522, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act and S 

881, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. Both bills are 

scheduled for a hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests on 

October 8, 2009. 

S 522—Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act.—The state supports passage 

of this important legislation that will equitably resolve competing land selections 

surrounding Salmon Lake on the Seward Peninsula in Alaska. The legislation ratifies an agreement between the Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC), the US 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the State of Alaska to resolve land selected under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska 

Statehood Act. The three parties signed the agreement on July 18, 2007 after several years of negotiation. Under the agreement, the state and BSNC will acquire 

land adjacent to Salmon Lake and the BLM will retain land important for public 

access and a campground. The agreement recognizes both the lake’s importance to 

the public for recreation and its importance to BSNC shareholders for subsistence, 

cultural and recreational values. We are not aware of any opposition to this legislation. 

S 881—The Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act.—The 

state continues to support Congressional action to resolve the outstanding land entitlement of the Sealaska Native Corporation. Sealaska has waited too long to receive 

a fair entitlement under ANCSA. The state agrees that the land currently available 

to Sealaska under provisions of ANCSA does not provide Sealaska with an adequate 

and equitable land base. The pool of economic development land that would be made 

available under S 881 provides Sealaska with land that is more suitable for timber 

harvest than the lands it would acquire absent this legislation. In addition, the land 

currently available to Sealaska contains areas with high public values for watersheds and recreation. These lands will remain in public ownership under S 881. 

In reviewing S 881 as currently drafted, we have identified some concerns regarding the need to protect public access across parcels to be conveyed to Sealaska, impacts to management of adjacent federal lands, and community concerns regarding 

certain specific parcels. Regarding public access, the Economic Development Lands 

need to provide sites for public access to and from the road system to the shoreline, 

as provided for in easements reserved under ANCSA Section 17(b). The Traditional 

and Customary Trade and Migration Routes to be conveyed under Section 

3(b)(2)(A)(11) need to be subject to ANCSA Section 17(b) or similar provision to ensure public access across these long, narrow conveyances. These Routes also need 

to exclude tidelands, submerged lands and navigable waters. 

We also would like to see the legislation crafted to minimize disruption to the existing, successful federal land transfer program in Alaska that is focused on largely 

completing land entitlements owed to all ANCSA corporations as well as the state. 

The state is also concerned that S 881 (Section 5(e)(2)) takes an unnecessary and 

problematic step in defining all ANCSA lands in Alaska as being ‘‘tribal lands.’’ The 

suggested change is directly contrary to section 4 of ANCSA which eliminated 

claims to tribal lands. Directly or indirectly modifying ANCSA is far more than a 

‘‘technical correction,’’ and raises fundamental land ownership and land management questions for the State of Alaska. The savings clause does nothing to address 

the immediate shift in land management authority, and merely confuses an already 

complicated land status question. See Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal 

Gov’t, 522 U.S. 520 (1998). 

We are willing to work with Sealaska and the Committee to address these concerns. We commend the subcommittee for bringing these bills forward for consideration and we respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing record. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important bills that will benefit 

Alaskans. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS E IRWIN, 

Commissioner. 
127 

ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC., 

Anchorage, AK, November 2, 2007. 

Hon. NICK RAHALL, 

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: HR 3560, to provide for the completion of Sealaska Corporation’s Land Selection 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlenient Act. 

We are writing oa behalf of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) to express 

AFN’s support for H.R. 3560, Sealaska Corporation’s legislative proposal to finalize 

its land entitlement conveyances. AFN is the largest statewide Native organization 

in Alaska. Its membership includes over 200 villages (both federally-recognized 

tribes and village corporations), the 13 regional Native corporations established 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), and 12 regional nonprofit 

and tribal consortiums that contract and run federal and state programs. 

In 1971, Congress enacted ANCSA to recognize and settle the aboriginal clainig 

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. The purposes of ANCSA were to settle 

the land claims of Alaska-Natives and to provide them with a means to pursue economic development, and create sustainable economies for the benefit of Alaska’s Native people. However, more than 35 years post-ANCSA, the land conveyances have 

yet to be completed. 

Since 1971, many of the Alaska Native Corporations have become successful and 

powerful economic engines within their regions and throughout the State of Alaska. 

Sealaska Corporation is the single largest private employer in Southeast Alaska, 

providing from 200 to 400 part-time and full-time jobs, annually, and contributing 

as much as $40 million, annually, to the Southeast Alaskan economy through its 

logging contracts, road building activities, and other timber-related activities. 

Sealaska also provides a significant benefit to Alaska Natives. throughout the State 

of Alaska through its annual 7(i) revenue sharing contributions, totaling over $300 

million since Sealaska began operating. Some Alaska Native Corporations outside 

of Southeast Alaska have expressed extreme gratitude to Sealaska because the 7(i) 

payments that they have received have, in many instances, kept the Corperations 

out of bankruptcy. 

Sealaska would now like to engage in comprehensive land entitlement and conservation initiative, which would allow it to complete its land entitlement by making 

cultural and economic land selections outside of the original withdrawal areas, and 

in return would allow removal of the encumbrance created by the withdrawal of 

lands for Alaska Native selection in Southeast Alaska. If Sealaska does not receive 

conveyance of all of the lands to which it is entitled in the near term, the primary 

economic activity of Sealaska—logging—will cease in the near term. That will impact Southeast Alaska’s Native people, the Southeast Alaska economy, and the Alaska Native Corporations throughout the State that have come to rely upon Sealaska’s 

7(i) contributions. 

Therefore, we strongly support the enactment by the United States, Congress of 

a bill that would allow Sealaska to complete its ANCSA land, entitlements, thereby 

enabling it to continue to help meet the economic needs of the Native people of 

Southeast Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations throughout the State of Alaska. 

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding our position on this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

ALBERT KOOKESH, 

Co-Chair of the Board. 

TIM TOWARAK, 

Co-Chair of the Board. 

ALASKA FOREST ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Ketchikan, AK, October 9, 2009. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 322 Hart Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI, The Alaska Forest Association (AFA) strongly supports the Sealaska Land Entitlement Legislation S-881. The AFA has represented 

the timber industry across Alaska for over 50-years. During the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 

early 1990s the industry provided several thousand direct jobs and thousands more 
128 

indirect jobs, but over the last fifteen years the employment in our industry has declined primarily as a result of an inadequate supply of timber. 

Our industry, which is comprised entirely of small businesses, includes landowners, logging and road building companies and manufacturing companies. These 

businesses work together in a symbiotic relationship along with our supporting industries—tug and barge operations, equipment and fuel suppliers, log and lumber 

scaling services, etc. Many of our supporting industries will be unable to survive the 

loss of Sealaska’s operations. The domino effect that would follow the industry collapse would be felt across Southeast Alaska and would be most harsh in the small 

communities. 

The AFA Board of Directors has consistently supported Sealaska’s efforts to resolve their land entitlements and we continue to do so. Thank you for introducing 

this vital legislation. 

Sincerely, 

BRIAN BROWN, 

President. 

BERT BURKHART, 

Vice-President. 

WADE ZAMMIT, 

Treasurer. 

KIRK DAHLSTROM, 

Director and past President. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. BORELL, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ON H.R. 3560 

The Alaska Miners Association is writing in support of H.R. 3560, the ‘‘Southeast 

Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act’’. This legislation will allow 

Sealaska Corporation to finalize its land entitlement granted user the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). 

When ANCSA passed in 1971, Sealaska and the other Native Corporations were 

given the right to select lands near their villages and other areas where their respective peoples had lived. However, before the Corporations could complete their 

selections, various federal withdrawals occurred that greatly restricted their selections. Then in 1980 much of their historic land areas became part of various federal 

conservation system units and were thereby placed totally off limits for selection. 

The result was that there was not enough land available that would qualify for the 

Sealaska entitlement. 

H.R. 3560 addresses this situation by exchanging some lands now held by 

Sealaska for other lands now owned by the federal government. This would provide 

closure regarding Sealaska’s ANCSA land entitlement. It would correct some of the 

inequitable limitations on Sealaska’s land selections by allowing it to select its remaining land entitlement from federal lands outside the designated withdrawal 

areas, including sites with sacred, cultural, and historical significance. The changes 

will also provide an opportunity for Sealaska to maintain a sustainable economy and 

to further economic and employment opportunities for Sealaska shareholders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important legislation. 

ANCSA REGIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

Anchorage, AK, June 30, 2008. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Sealaska Land Entitlement Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: I am writing to you on behalf of the Alaska Native 

Regional Corporation CEOs to express support for Sealaska Corporation’s legislative 

proposal to finalize its land entitlement conveyances. As you are aware, Sealaska 

has yet to complete its Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) land conveyances, 36+ years post-ANCSA, because of poorly contemplated land withdrawals in 

Southeast Alaska. Our organization strongly supports the fulfillment of the promises of ANCSA to create economically sustainable corporations for the benefit of 

Alaska Native shareholders. 

Representatives from Sealaska have briefed the Regional CEOs on the land entitlement legislation. The legislation clearly provides opportunities for economic development and cultural preservation. Not only would there be economic and cultural 

benefits to the Native people of Southeast Alaska through this proposal, but there 
129 

would also be economic benefits to the Native people throughout the State of Alaska 

because of the revenue sharing requirements of ANCSA. Moreover, many of our regions throughout the State are seeing a loss of residents from the rural communities. The Sealaska proposal would be a positive step towards slowing this trend 

in Southeast, Alaska. We, therefore, express support for any legislation on this matter. 

We urge you to pursue this important legislation. If you have any questions regarding our position, or need our assistance to secure enactment in the future, 

please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

VICKI OTTE, 

Executive Director. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER RICHTER, PRESIDENT, EDNA BAY COMMUNITY, ON S. 881 

The community of Edna Bay, located on the northwest side of Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska. would like to present testimony in opposition to the transfer of 32,000 acres of public land on Kosciusko Island into the private ownership 

of Scalaska Corporation. 

Edna Bay is a remote subsistence based community established by a State of 

Alaska land sale in 1982. Since it is not connected to any other road system. residents depend entirely on the access they have historically had to the public lands 

on this island for their daily needs, which include subsistence harvesting, personal 

use timber and building materials. as well as economic opportunities. 

Everyone understands the importance of completing ANCSA, and the state and 

federal government commitment to the support of economic prosperity for the native 

peoples of Alaska. The problem with the current legislation in it’s pursuit of these 

goals is the lop sided representation that is happening in the process. Our community has been left without representation on all levels. Our district representative. 

Senator Albert Kookesh is chairman of the board for Scalaska. Representative 

Thomas is also a member of the board of directors. Senators Murkowski and Begich 

are co-sponsors for this bill on behalf of Sealaska. and Congressman Young has expressed his singular support of Senlaska through his introduction of HR 2099. 

Our representatives should he striving to create a more balanced approach to resolving Senlaska’s land entitlements. A solution should represent equitable treatment for all people living in Southeast Alaska. The current path will lead to the 

certain demise of several subsistence dependent communities on Prince of Wales Island. If Sealaska chooses to pursue their land transfers outside of the withdrawal 

areas set aside for them by Congress, they should have to do so in cooperation and 

working coexistence with other residents of Southeast Alaska. Corporate take over 

should never be allowed to become the established way of doing business in the 

Tongass National Forest. 

As we have no representation in regards to this bill, we are asking the members 

of this committee to give careful consideration to Sealaska’s request. In the interest 

of the continued prosperity for all who live in Southeast Alaska. we are asking you 

to vote no on S.881. 

Thank you for your time. 

COMMUNITY OF ELFIN COVE NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, 

Elfin Cove, AK, December 31, 2008. 

Hon. ED SCHAFER, 

Secretary, Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, 

DC. 

The Community of Elfin Cove Non-Profit Corporation membership has reviewed 

and discussed the proposed land selections as part of Senate Bill 53651 that you 

introduced. We have serious concerns about the lands proposed for selection in the 

area near Elfin Cove. 

While we support your efforts to remedy the longstanding problems with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in regard to land claims for Sealaska, we do not 

support the inclusion of Lacy Cove, Point Lavinia and Inian Peninsula East. These 

areas have a long history of stewardship by the residents of Elfin Cove, Inian Islands, Idaho Inlet and Port Althorn. The adjacent waters are historically important 

commercial fishing waters. 
130 

* All attachments have been retained in subcommittee files. 

The residents of Elfin Cove have developed an effective working relationship with 

the Hoonah Ranger District of the US Forest Service. The current Forest Service 

administrative policies have been effective in preserving the forest supporting subsistence access and the development of tourism. 

We are concerned that dividing this contiguous area of wilderness will significantly disrupt the current subsistence access in the area. These lands are important 

sources of local subsistence activity. 

The Community of Elfin Cove respectfully requests that as this important land 

settlement process moves forward that Lacy Cove, Point Lavinia, and Inian Peninsula East be excluded from the selection. 

We have attached the resolution* passed at our most recent community meeting. 

We would be available to provide additional comment regarding S3651. 

Sincerely, 

GORDY WROBEL, 

Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY AND CARIN RICHTER, FISHERMAN’S COVE FISH CAMP, 

NAUKATI, AK 

Once again, my family find ourselves writing a letter for a different number bill, 

stating that we say NO to Kosciusko Island being part of Sea Alaska owned landed. 

This is my children’s inheritance It is our privately owed property already. Lot TEN 

(10), U.S Survey 2615, situated on the East side of Fisherman’s Harbor in Lot (5) 

and (6), Section 22, Township 68 South, Range 75 East, Copper River Meridian, 

Kosciusko Island, Alaska, Cape Pole. We depend upon the subsistence from hunting 

and fishing every year to feed ourselves and for our lodge business and for our business guests. With this proposed bills we would lose these rights. It would take away 

the from the value of the property due to the fact that Sea Alaska would own the 

property between Edna Bay and Cape Pole cutting off our supply roots. We own a 

hunting fishing lodge in Cape Pole. Considering the statement Sea Alaska made 

about a right to cross their property, would not be convened should we sell. In this 

economy crisis, the only econoirtical and real help in my children’s life’s is this land 

that belongs to us. When we die, to help them carry out their lives and families to 

come is this land in the last frontier Alaska, where they can live off of and work 

hard to survive. Why is this a threat again to my children and I again. 

I realize how busy the government must be at this economical crisis and state of 

depression but our family would ask you for a letter of response. That would touch 

base with us and realize that you are listening to private land owners and would 

make us feel valid and secure. Attached are the previous letters with all of our concerns. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LOVE, GLACIER GROTTO PRESIDENT; TIMOTHY HEATON, PALEONTOLOGIST AND NSS FELLOW; KEVIN ALLRED AND CARLENE ALLRED, GLACIER

GROTTO AND NSS MEMBERS; STEVE LEWIS, CONSERVATION CHAIR-GLACIER GROTTO, NSS MEMBER; RACHEL MYRON, GLACIER GROTTO AND NSS MEMBER

I am writing this letter on behalf of the membership of the Glacier Grotto listed 

below. The Glacier Grotto is a statewide chapter of the National Speleological Society (NSS) dedicated to the discovery, mapping and conservation of the karst and 

cave resources of the state of Alaska. The Glacier Grotto membership is very concerned about the new land selections that Sealaska Corporation has requested 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as introduced initially as House Bill 

3560 by Representative Don Young and reintroduced in Senate Bill (SB) 3651 by 

Alaskan senator Lisa Murkowski. 

First, definition of the type of landscape the Glacier Grotto and NSS are particularly concerned about: 

Karst topography is a landscape shaped by the dissolution of a layer or layers of 

soluble bedrock, usually carbonate rock such as limestone or dolomite. Due to subterranean drainage, there may be very limited surface water, even to the absence 

of rivers and lakes. Many karst regions display distinctive surface features, with 

sinkholes or dolines being the most common. However, distinctive karst surface features may be completely absent where the soluble rock is mantled, such as by glacial debris, or confined by superimposed non-soluble rock strata. Some karst regions 
131 

1Ford, D. and Williams, P. 2007 Karst Hydrology and Geomorphology John Wiley and Sones 

Ltd. 562 pp. 2 Bryant, M.D.; D.N. Swanston; R.C. Wissmar; and B. E. Wright. 1998. Coho Salmon Populations in the Karst Landscape of Northern Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:425-433, 1998 3Griffiths, P.; Aley, T.; Worthington, S.; Jones, W. 2002. Karst Management Standards and 

Implementation Review, Final Report of the Karst Review Panel, Prepared for USDA Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest, Submitted to MWH (Montgomery Watson Harza) under the 

terms of USDA Contract 53-0116-255901, 27 pp. and appendices. 4 Baichtal, J.F. 1997. Application of a Karst Management Strategy; Two Cases Studies from 

theTongass National Forest, Southeastern Alaska; The Challenges of Implementation. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Karst and Cave Management Symposium 13th National Cave Management 

Symposium Bellingham, Washington and Chilliwack and Vancouver Island, BC, Canada, October 7-10, 1997, Bellingham, Washington. Edited by Robert R. Stitt, pp. 4-11. 5 ‘‘Significant’’ caves are defined by the FCRPA as possessing one or more of the following: 

unique biota, cultural, historical or archeological resources, geologic, mineralogic or paleontologic 

resources, hydrologic systems or water important to humans, biota or cave development, recreational value, educational or scientific values or are located within special management areas. 

See Federal Register [16 U.S.C. 4301–4309] 

include thousands of caves, even though—evidence of caves that are big enough for 

human exploration is not a required characteristic of karst.1

It should be noted that current land management practices on federal lands 

underlain by carbonate rock in Alaska, especially on the Tongass National Forest, 

manage these karst landscapes for the unique hydrological, speleological, archeological and paleontological resources underlying the surface of these landscapes as 

well as the biological community that covers and protects their surface. These areas 

contain unique biological microhabitats, for example, freshwater streams sourced or 

passing through karst bedrock produce significantly more invertebrates which feed 

a larger number of salmon than do non-karst systems, thus providing greater opportunity for subsistence, commercial and sport fishing harvest.2 Karst regions in 

Southeast Alaska contain irreplaceable archeological and paleontological deposits, 

internationally significant cave and karst geologic features, surprising hydrological 

interconnectedness and remote recreational opportunities like few other places on 

the planet.3 Archeological and paleontological research in Southeast Alaska has not 

only redefined how indigenous people arrived and colonized the Americas, but has 

also provided a picture of the plant and animal communities present in this region 

for the past 40,000 + years. The potential for additional paleontological and archeological discovery in this region is extensive and many of the cave-containing karst 

lands within the Sealaska selections have not been thoroughly inventoried. Each 

year, this region attracts researchers and cave explorers from around the country 

and worldwide. To date, the US Forest Service (USFS) land management practices 

associated with karst lands in Southeast Alaska have been a model for other agencies in other parts of the world.4

Three of the areas suggested for conveyance to Sealaska occur in some of the most 

highly developed karst landscapes in Alaska (containing features that are unique 

internationally). These areas are: Northern Prince of Wales Island, Tuxekan Island 

and Kosciusko Island. Below is some Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis 

provided by James Baichtal, Forest Geologist of the Tongass National Forest, relating to HB 3560: 

‘‘ . . . Kosciusko Island: Total area of Sealaska selection equals 25,882 

acres of which 23,839 acres (92%) are underlain by karst. We (USFS, entered by D. Love for clarification) have inventoried some 1090 karst features we consider significant within the proposed land selection, of which 

there are 145 caves that have been designated significant5 or most likely 

would be found to be significant when nominated. The 2008 TLMP included 

a 7678 acre Geologic Special Area encompassing Mount Francis and karst 

areas to the south with a boundary change to include the results of tracer 

dye studies. The Sealaska Corporation proposal includes 5,708 acres of the 

7,678 acres or 74% of the Geologic Special Area. We have not inventoried 

this area but karst features may exceed a density of thousands per square 

mile. 

NPOW: Total area of Sealaska selection equals 32,482 acres of which 16,435 acres 

(51%) are underlain by karst. We have inventoried some 161 karst features we consider significant within the proposed land selection, of which there are 23 caves that 

have been designated significant or most likely would be found to be significant 

when nominated. The Sealaska proposal includes 1,651 acres of the Geologic Special 

Areas found in the 2008 TLMP. The Sealaska proposed land selection also includes 
132 

6 Baichtal, James F., Forest Geologist, Tongass National Forest, Memo to Scott Fitzwilliams, 

RLMH Staff Officer, dated March 13, 2003 Review of the Proposed Sealaska-Tongass National 

Forest Land Exchange Concerning Karst and Cave Resources 

the Port Protection Watershed identified by through a Village Safe Water Grant and 

tracer dye studies. 

Tuxekan Island: Total area of Sealaska selection equals 15,758 acres of which 

11,936 acres (76%) are underlain by karst. We have inventoried some 339 karst features we consider significant within the proposed land selection, of which there are 

30 caves that have been designated significant or most likely would be found to be 

significant when nominated. There are no Geologic Special Areas on Tuxekan Island. 

In summary, the Sealaska selection on the Thorne Bay Ranger District where 

there are karst landscape concerns equals 74,112 acres, 52,210 acres underlain by 

karst (71%). We have a total of 1,590 karst features inventoried of which there are 

198 caves that have been designated significant or most likely would be found to 

be significant when nominated. Many of these areas have such a high density of features that we have just never inventoried them so the actual number of caves from 

areas like Mount Francis, Flicker Ridge and the Calder Area would he much higher. 

The Sealaska proposal includes 7,359 acres of Geologic Special Areas . . . ’’6

Although the Glacier Grotto agrees that the tribes of Southeast Alaska (i.e-now 

represented by the Sealaska Corporation) have the right to lands promised under 

ANCSA, the Glacier Grotto does NOT believe that House Bill 3560 or Senate Bill 

3651 should be passed unless changes are made to the bills. This letter is in opposition to this bill asking for additional withdrawals of public US National Forest lands 

outside of the original ANCSA withdrawal areas if these new withdrawal areas 

overlie karst terrain and/or caves. Refer to Sec 3 (b) (1), page 19 of the Senate Bill 

3651 authorizing Sealaska to select lands categorized as ‘‘Economic Development 

Lands’’ (see the map entitled ‘‘Sealaska ANCSA Land Entitlement Rationalization 

Pool, dated March 6, 2008 and labeled Attachment A). Karst landscapes and caves 

underlying lands selected by Sealaska currently receive protection from damage 

under federal laws. These selected areas include and/or overlie karst landscapes 

and/or cave systems, and the Glacier Grotto and members of the NSS believe that 

these lands should not be developed but should be protected as they currently are 

under the FCRPA. Since no State cave resource protection law exists for State or 

privately owned lands, these areas should not be allowed to be managed under (nonexistant) State law, but should continue to be managed under the FCRPA. In addition, if any of the ’Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes’’, ‘‘Native 

Futures Sites’’ and ‘‘Sacred, Cultural, Traditional and Historic Sites’’ overlie karst 

terrain or cave containing bedrock then these areas should also be removed from 

the selections and continue to be managed under USFS and the FCRPA. 

While the membership of the Glacier Grotto signed below would like to believe 

that Sealaska Corporation would protect the karst landscapes and cave systems underlying the land selections in these bills, this may be an unrealistic expectation 

given Sealaska’s past poor forest management (ex.-clear-cut logging on steep hillsides) on other lands it currently owns. Forests overlying karst in some of the new 

selections (‘‘economic development area’’) are oldgrowth stands that were not harvested in USFS timber sales because of concerns about impacting the interconnected 

‘‘high vulnerability’’ karst bedrock below. As outlined by James Baichtal’s work 

above, these areas contain a large number of fragile cave systems, undelineated hydrologic systems and fragile soils supporting unique plants and animals. Transfer 

of these areas to Sealaska would endanger these unique cave resources and karst 

landscapes. 

Further clarification of karst management on federal and state lands provided by 

James Baichtal, Forest Geologist, Tongass national Forest, is provided below: 

‘‘ . . . The authority for management of the karst lands and the associated caves on public lands comes from the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (FCRPA) of 1988, The Antiquities Act of 1906, the Federal Land 

Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and in Forest Service Management (FSM) directions 2356, 2361, and 2880, and 36 CFR 261 and 290. 

Subsequently, in the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan, standards and 

guidelines were developed to protect the karst and cave resources found on 

the Tongass National Forest. For State of Alaska lands currently there is 

no ‘‘Cave Protection Act’’ in the State of Alaska (http://www.caves.org/committee/conservation/ )(Conservation Laws and Policy, Cave laws and Policies) nor does the Forest Practices Code contain any provisions for protection of those resources from timber harvest, road construction and/or quarry 
133 

6 Baichtal, James F., Forest Geologist, Tongass National Forest, Memo to Scott Fitzwilliams, 

RLMH Staff Officer, dated March 13, 2003 Review of the Proposed Sealaska-Tongass National 

Forest Land Exchange Concerning Karst and Cave Resources 

development as stated by the Alaska State Division of Forestry (DOF) 

website at http://foresnyalaska.gov/forestpractices.htm . Neither the Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Act as published in 2000 nor the Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Regulations as published in 2000 contained 

language addressing karst or cave resources. In a Memorandum from the 

Department of Natural Resources dated March 6, 2003 which outlines the 

Coastal Region’s Southern Southeast Area Five-year Schedule of Timber 

Sales for the period of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007, the 

DOF clearly states its position. In the description of the 2005 proposed El 

Cap Timber Sale, the DOF states, ‘‘The ADNR does not recognize karst topography as a significant resource to be managed on the State’s limited 

land base in southeast. The DOF will protect karst formations that effect 

water quality as per the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act and 

Regulations. If significant recreational activity is found to be dependent on 

a karst resource, it will be taken into account during the design and FLUP 

(Forest Land Use Plan) process for a proposed timber sale.’’ This memorandum can be accessed at the following website: http:// 

www.dnr.state.ak.us/forestry/pdfs/fysts2003prelirndoc.pdf 

Therefore, it can be assumed that if the ownership of these karst lands were 

transferred to Sealaska, no measures are in place to ensure their protection. ‘‘Section 2(b)(1).’’ of the FCRPA, Findings, Purpose, and Policy states that, ‘‘The purposes of this Act are ‘‘to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on Federal 

lands for the perpetual use. enjoyment, and benefit of all people’’. It would be difficult to make a case that disposing of land containing significant caves (or those 

that may meet the criteria) meets this purpose. 

There is also a planning and public participation section of the Act (Sec. 4. (b) 

(C)(1)(2) The Secretary shall— ‘‘(1) ensure that significant caves are considered in 

the preparation or implementation of any land management plan if the preparation 

or revision of the plan began after the enactment of this Act; and (2) foster communication, cooperation, and exchange of information between land managers, those 

who utilize caves, and the public.’’ These sections require consideration of cave resources and assure a public process is followed. 

Further more, the FCRPA Sec 4(a)(11) states ‘‘—... including management 

measures to assure that caves under consideration for the list [of significant cave 

designation] are protected during the period of consideration.’’ Therefore, I believe 

that if a cave is known or is nominated under the provisions of the Act, we have 

the responsibility to follow up and either designated it as a significant cave or make 

the decision that it does not meet the provisions of the law, and therefore not significant. Until this decision is made, known caves and nominated caves should receive the same protection as significant caves and we as an agency should not knowingly support an action that could jeopardize that resource. 

The karst lands of the Tongass National Forest and the caves and all the resources within them belong to ‘‘all people’’. These karst lands are national treasures 

containing caves and karst features of international significance. Federal land managers (... and all reasonable people, the Glacier Grotto would argue...) have been 

charged with the ‘‘perpetual’’ protection of these resources. Knowingly transferring 

the ownership of these caves to a private entity with no provisions for protection 

in place, in our opinion, does not meet the purpose of the FCRPA. Based on the past 

liberal management strategies and practices on Sealaska lands, these resources 

would be irrevocably damaged and the resources within them and what we may 

learn from them threatened or lost . . . ’’6

Glacier Grotto membership believes that there should be no transfer of karst 

lands without restrictions on development activities above and around these karst 

areas and with provisions allowing unlimited access for additional exploration and 

mapping, scientific study, and complete protection as if these areas were administered public lands protected by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act . We simply do not believe that the selected ‘‘economic development lands’’ will be managed 

in any other way than clearcut logging, no matter what Sealaska states is their new 

land management strategy. As to management of the 2004∂ CulturanacrecVnistoric 

Sites selected, Sealaska currently does not have an archeologist on staff, or a workable management plan for these sites that would protect the sites even for their own 

Native membership. Also, SB 3651, Section 18 (A-C) removes the ‘‘protective covenant’’ that was in the original ANCSA legislation from past and future 14(h)(1) 
134 

ANCSA sites that would have required that the sites be managed to federal standards. What are Sealaska’s intentions? Sadly, we do not believe that Sealaska would 

protect the karst landscape, unique cave ecosystems and associated biota, 

hydrological systems (some assocated with community water supplies), cultural and 

archeological sites, paleontological sites, and recreational opportunties in the same 

manner that these resources are currently being protected under federal management. We ask that the sponsoring members of the House and Senate consider our 

concerns regarding this bill. We will gladly provide more information and testimony, 

if necessary, to help in modifying or rewriting this bill such that it would protect 

the nationally and internationally unique karst resources in Southeast Alaska. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

HAIDA CORPORATION, 

Hydaburg, AK. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Supporting Sealaska Corporation’s Land Entitlement Legislation, H.R. 3560, 

Haa Aanı ́

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Haida Corporation, the Alaska Native claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) village corporation for the community of Hydaburg, supports 

H.R. 3560, Sealaska Corporation’s legislative proposal to finalize its land entitlement conveyances. These conveyances were originally contemplated under ANCSA, 

but more than 35 years post-ANCSA, they have yet to be completed. 

Sealaska representatives met with our community on September 14, and fully 

briefed us on the land entitlement legislation. Haida Corporation sees the economic 

and cultural benefits of this legislation and understands the importance of finalizing 

the ANCSA land entitlement conveyances, and therefore, is pleased to expresses its 

support for this legislation. 

If you have any questions regarding our position ont his important legislation, 

please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

LISA LANG, 

President. 

VINCENT JAMESON, 

Chairman. 

HUNA TOTEM CORPORATION, 

Juneau, AK, November 16, 2007. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Supporting Sealaska Corporation’s Land Entitlement Legislation, HR 3560, Haa 

Aanı ́

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Huna Totem Corporation, the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) village corporation for the community of Hoonah, supports 

H.R. 3560, Sealaska Corporation’s legislative proposal to finalize its land entitlement conveyances. These conveyances were originally contemplated under ANCSA, 

but more than 35 years post-ANCSA, they have yet to be completed. 

Sealaska representatives met with our Board of Directors on September 22, and 

fully briefed us on the land entitlement legislation. Huna Totem sees the economic 

and cultural benefits of this legislation and understands the importance of finalizing 

the ANCSA land entitlement conveyances, and, therefore, is pleased to expresses its 

support for this legislation. 

If you have any questions regarding our position on this important legislation, 

please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT WYSOCKI, 

Chief Executive Officer. 

ALBERT W. DICK, 

Chairman of the Board. 
135 

STATEMENT OF HAYDEN AND BONNIE KADEN, GUSTAVUS, AK 

My wife and I are writing to express our opposition to the Sealaska bill, S 881/ 

HR 2099, as it is currently drafted. We firmly believe that such a bill must be part 

of a comprehensive approach to resolving long-standing Tongass National Forest 

issues. The Tongass is a complex eco-system where decisions made on one issue 

often have significant impacts throughout the forest and on the communities, residents and industries which depend on the general health of the forest. 

First, let me say that we are 42 year residents of the Tongass. I am a retired attorney and worked with Senator Begich’s father, Nick, when I was on the legal staff 

of the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency. I also later served as legal counsel to both 

the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the Alaska Legislature: My wife, 

Bonnie, was an assistant to the Alaska Commissioner of Education in the late 60’s 

and early 70’s and later taught school in Gustavus, ending her career as principal 

of the Gustavus School from 1988—1993. During this same period we started and 

ran an eco-tourism business in Southeast Alaska using many areas of the Tongass 

that are the subject of this proposed legislation. In fact, we were early pioneers of 

the concept of eco-tourism on the Tongass National Forest demonstrating the principles of minimum impact camping and wilderness recreation and working with the 

Forest Service to plan and develop recreational opportunities throughout the forest. 

Thus, I believe that we speak with a wealth of on-the-ground knowledge. 

We are concerned that by giving away high value public lands, lands that belong 

to all Americans, to private, for-profit corporations, we are locking up those lands 

and pretty much forever locking out the public, both Native and non-Native alike. 

Especially, we have seen firsthand the rape and pillage effects of clearcut logging 

on other Sealaska lands, more or less permanently ruining those lands for multiple 

uses. 

Some potential consequences of this legislation include problems with public access to traditional community hunting, fishing, and recreational areas, decreased 

fish and wildlife populations, and loss of world class karst and cave resources. Witness the community resolutions which oppose Sealaska’s proposed legislation. We 

are concerned that this legislation allows Sealaska to control access to areas that 

local residents and visitors rely on for hunting, guiding, fishing, recreation and 

other traditional uses. 

We are concerned that this legislation does not prevent the cherry picking of some 

of the most productive fish and wildlife habitat in the Tongass National Forest. The 

targeting of some of the most valuable lands in the Tongass, which is proposed in 

this legislation, gives Sealaska miles and miles of roads and other infrastructure 

built and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers. 

We are especially concerned that ‘‘Native Future’’ and ‘‘Cultural’’ sites contain no 

limits on the scope or size of commercial development or the amount of commercial 

visitation that could be allowed. The selection of 46 popular bays, coves, and anchorages throughout the Tongass raises red flags as to bow local and community use 

of those locations might be impacted. 

We believe that Sealaska is attempting to change the rules under the 1971 

ANCSA legislation for selecting from the public lands for their entitlements. You 

must remember that Sealaska is a for-profit corporation and in its desire to make 

a profit, it does not always look to the totality of the interests of the members of 

that corporation. Traditional native values relying on subsistence resources and the 

preservation of an ancient way of life often take short.slarift in a profit driven 

world. 

Thank you for your attention to our concerns. 

KAKE TRIBAL CORPORATION, 

Juneau, AK, December 5, 2007. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Supporting Sealaska Corporation’s Land Entitlement Legislation, HR 3560, Haa 

Aanı ́

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: Kake Tribal Corporation, the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) village corporation for the community of Kake, is writing 

to express its support for H.R. 3560, Sealaska Corporation’s legislative proposal to 

finalize its land entitlement conveyances. In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 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 
136 

of the claims of Alaska Natives. The purposes of ANCSA were to settle the land 

claims of Alaska Natives and to provide them with a means to pursue economic development, and create sustainable economies for the benefit of Alaska’s Native people. However, more than 35 years post-ANCSA, the land conveyances have yet to 

be completed. 

Since 1971, many of the Alaska Native Corporations have become successful and 

powerful economic engines within their regions and throughout the State of Alaska. 

Sealaska Corporation is the single largest private employer in Southeast Alaska, 

providing from 600 to 800 part-time and full-time jobs, annually, and contributing 

as much as $90 million, annually, to the Southeast Alaskan economy through its 

logging contracts, road building activities, other timber-related activities, and total 

Sealaska economic output. Sealaska also provides a significant benefit to Alaska Natives throughout the State of Alaska through its annual 7(i) revenue sharing contributions, totaling over $300 million since Sealaska began operating. 

Sealaska would now like to engage in a comprehensive land entitlement and conservation initiative, allowing it to complete its land entitlement by making cultural 

and economic land selections outside of the original withdrawal areas, and in return 

it would allow removal of the encumbrance created by the withdrawal of lands for 

Alaska Native selection in Southeast Alaska. If Sealaska does not receive conveyance of all of the lands to which it is entitled in the near term, the primary economic activity of Seaiaska—logging—will cease in the near term, which will impact 

Southeast Alaska’s Native people, the Southeast Alaska economy, and the Alaska 

Native Corporations throughout the State that have come to rely upon Sealaska’s 

7(1) contributions. 

Therefore, Kake Tribal supports the enactment by the United States Congress of 

a bill to complete Sealaska’s ANCSA land entitlement to allow Sealaska to continue 

to help meet the economic needs of the Native people of Southeast Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations throughout the State of Alaska. 

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding our position on this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

HAROLD MARTIN, 

President. 

SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE ECONOMIC FUTURES COALITION, 

Juneau, AK, December 7, 2007. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Supporting Sealaska Corporation’s Land Entitlement Legislation, H.R. 3560, 

Haa Aanı ́

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: The Southeast Alaska Native Economic Futures Coalition is writing to express its support for H.R. 3560, Sealaska Corporation’s legislative proposal to finalize its land entitlement conveyances. These conveyances were 

originally contemplated under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 

but more than 35 years post-ANCSA, they have yet to be completed. 

Sealaska representatives met with us today and fully briefed us on this land entitlement legislation. The Southeast Alaska Native Economic Futures Coalition sees 

the economic benefits of this legislation and understands the importance of finalizing the ANCSA land entitlement conveyances. Therefore, we are pleased to express our support for this legislation. 

If you have any questions regarding our position on this important legislation, 

please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

DEWEY SKAN, 

Chair. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY RICHTER, PRESIDENT, NAUKATI WEST, NAUKATI, AK 

In June 2004 communities on Prince of Wales (POW) Island were made aware of 

the fact that Sea Alaska Corporation was seeking to acquire Forest Service lands 

on P O.W, Tuxekan, Hecata, and Kosciusko Islands. The communities on these Islands have historically relied on subsistence in the surrounding forest and streams, 

it is extremely important to these communities. Sea Alaska has a policy of no use 

of their lands and that would mean No firewood gathering, berry picking. hunting 

or fishing and actually would isolate the communities of Edna Bay, Port Protection 
137 

and Point Baker. We asked Sea Alaska to have some informational meetings with 

the communities and this request has been denied and ignored for four years. We 

now are informed meetings with each community will happen in April 2008. What 

in the world happened to change the informational meeting issue? 

Sea Alaska has offered user permits to locals that are supposed to be the same 

as we now have with the Forest Service. In fact they are very different. Permits 

would expire if you sold your property. If a family had a child after the permit was 

issued that child would not be allowed a permit. These are only a couple of points 

among several of the conditions of the permit. Sea Alaska is asking us to accept 

much less than what we now have. The Forest Service is a good neighbor and Sea 

Alaska is not going to be. 

We have two other issues which are also very important to the communities. 

(1) Sea Alaska has a history of whole log export of their timber so no supply 

for local mills is their policy. Since export timber is a significantly better return 

the bottom line is obviously more important than a healthy economy in Southeast communities. 

(2) The fifteen mile radius non competition areas also known as enterprise 

sites are not acceptable. Sea Alaska has not provided any suitable answers to 

these issues and has in fact rel-bsed to meet with the public up to now. 

Sea Alaska not surprisingly claims they have the support of the Native communities. It should be noted not all the natives agree with this land exchange and have 

stated so in public meetings. 

Sea Alaska has only one interest and that is the bottom line. Sea Alaska has not 

been able to provide and acceptable answer to the question why legislation is necessary for any party other than Sea Alaska. It’ this legislation passes the door will 

be open to other native corporations to come back to the Federal Government for 

more land because they think their piece of the pie wasn’t sweet enough either. 

The community of Naukati Bay supports Sea Alaska’s remaining land selection 

established in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Only within the core 

ivnship boundaries established by the original Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act. 

STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ON H.R. 3560 

The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) submits the following statement regarding H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. SEACC respectfully requests that this written statement and accompanying material be entered into the official record of this Committee hearing. 

Founded in 1970, SEACC is a grassroots coalition of 15 volunteer, non-profit conservation groups made up of local citizens in 13 Southeast Alaska communities that 

stretch from Craig on Prince of Wales Island north to Yakutat. Our individual members include commercial and sport fishermen, Alaska Natives, tourism and recreation business owners, small-scale high value-added wood product manufacturers, 

hunters and guides, and Southeast Alaskans from all walks of life. SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of Southeast Alaska’s unsurpassed natural environment while providing for balanced, sustainable uses of our region’s resources. 
138 

Congressman Don Young, along with several distinguished colleagues, introduced 

H.R. 3560 on September 18, 2007. We respect the efforts of Congressman Young to 

stand up for the interests of Alaska Natives throughout his tenure in the U.S. 

House of Representatives. Like Congressman Young and H.R. 3560’s other cosponsors, SEACC supports completing the conveyance of Sealaska Corporation’s land entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Nonetheless, 

we have serious reservations about the changes in federal law proposed in H.R. 

3560 and oppose the bill as introduced. We remain committed, however, to maintaining open lines of communication with Sealaska Corporation and the bill’s sponsors to finalize the conveyance of Sealaska Corporation’s outstanding statutory land 

entitlement. Consequently, we offer the Committee these preliminary comments for 

your consideration as you begin your review of this legislative proposal. 

[Due to the large amount of materials submitted, additional documents and statements have been retained in subcommittee files.] 

Æ