[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2547, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND INTERESTS TO CHUGACH
ALASKA CORPORATION TO FULFILL THE INTENT, PURPOSE, AND PROMISE OF THE
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-581 WASHINGTON : 1999
______
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 28, 1999....................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Statement of Witnesses:
Blatchford, Edgar, Chugach Alaska Corporation, Anchorage,
Alaska..................................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Buretta, Sheri, Chairman of the Board, Chugach Alaska
Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska............................. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Lankard, Dune, Eyak Rainforest Preservation Fund, Cordova,
Alaska..................................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Stewart, Ron, Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, accompanied
by James Snow Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and Paul Kirton, Solictor's Office, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 68
Additional material supplied:
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, NEPA........ 77
Chugach Alaska Corp., Summary................................ 78
National Wildlife Federation, prepared statement of.......... 92
Text of H.R. 2547............................................ 2
H.R. 2547, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND INTERESTS TO CHUGACH
ALASKA CORPORATION TO FULFILL THE INTENT, PURPOSE, AND PROMISE OF THE
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young [chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
The Committee is meeting today, and I want to thank those
Members here, and most Members decided to go out because of our
deceased colleague in California, and I do thank you for being
here to hear testimony on H.R. 2547, the Chugach Alaska Native
Settlement Claims Act.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.019
The Chairman. Under rule 4(g) of the Committee rules, any
oral opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, and other statements of Members can be
included in the record under unanimous consent.
H.R. 2547 fulfills the purpose, promise and intent of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for a group of Alaska
Natives in the Chugach region. They are represented by the
Chugach Alaska Corporation, the vehicle that manages the lands
transferred to native ownership under the settlement Act.
I always feel a little awkward saying these lands were
transferred to the Natives when, in fact, the lands were theirs
to begin with.
The legislation is divided into three titles. Title I fully
and finally eliminates the terms of a 1982 agreement between
the United States and the Chugach Native people which the
government promised, but has failed to grant, an easement
providing access to property they own called the Carbon
Mountain tract. This agreement in turn was supposed to
implement the 1971 Native Claims Act.
Title II fulfills the intent of the Congress that Chugach
receive possession of historical sites and cemeteries within
its Native region. These sites have been the target of a
zealous Trustee Council on a land-buying spree.
And title III requires the government to coordinate the
forest land management plan with Native corporations whose
lands are intermingled with national forest lands.
Twenty-eight years ago Congress extinguished the land
claims of Alaska Natives. This cleared title to millions of
acres of public land in Alaska and enabled the government to
effect the d(2) withdrawals, which then led to all the future
parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas.
But the purpose of the Native Claims Act was not to turn
Alaska into a national park, it was meant to return a fraction
of the lands the Federal Government took from our first
Americans.
However, in the Chugach region, the Native people have not
obtained what was promised. They were promised access to their
Carbon Mountain lands, fee ownership of historic cemetery
sites, and maximum participation in the management of public
land that affects them, but these promises were either broken
or left to wither. Even now while Chugach waits for a
commitment to be honored, the government is planning new,
unauthorized wilderness and wild and scenic river designations
in the Chugach National Forest that will effectively impair the
Natives' rights.
I wish Members would think about it. The administration
could have granted the easement years ago, but instead devoted
its attention to managing forest lands in a way that deprives
the Natives of the promises, intent and purposes of ANCSA. What
does that tell us about the government's intentions?
I am especially perturbed with this administration because
it assured this Committee that easement would be issued by a
time-certain deadline. Chugach met every obligation under the
1982 agreement, but no acceptable easement has been granted.
I believe this administration misrepresented its intentions
to this Committee last year. It has no desire of issuing an
easement. The Chugach people are tired of lip service, so I am
giving them H.R. 2547.
I should note that my frustration is not with those
dedicated Forest Service employees on the ground in Alaska. In
fact, the employees of the Forest Service in Alaska have worked
very hard to accomplish this goal. The problem is here in
Washington.
There is no excuse for further delays. The administration
has to grant the easement today, it is that simple. I could go
on, but there are more issues concerning the Native Claims Act
and the Chugach Natives, and we will leave that to our
witnesses to explain.
I am rearranging the order of witnesses today because the
administration again failed to submit its testimony in an
acceptable time frame. This is a habit that OMB can't seem to
break. Hence, I am disallowing the submission of administration
testimony for the record. However, the administration witness
will remain present in this room and prepare for questions at
the witness table after the other panel testifies and answers
questions.
Let me remind the witnesses under our Committee rules they
are limited to oral statements for 5 minutes, but their entire
statement will appear in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ALASKA
H.R. 2547 fulfills the purpose, promise and intent of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for a group of Alaska
Natives in the Chugach Region. They are represented by the
Chugach Alaska Corporation, the vehicle that manages the lands
transferred to Native ownership under the Settlement Act.
I always feel a little awkward saying these lands were
``transferred'' to the Natives when, in fact, the lands were
theirs to begin with!
The legislation is divided into three titles. Title I fully
and finally . . . implements the terms of a 1982 agreement
between the United States and the Chugach Native people in
which the government promised, but has failed to grant, an
easement providing access to property they own, called the
Carbon Mountain tract.
This agreement in turn was supposed to implement the 1971
Native Claims Act.
Title II fulfills the intent of Congress that Chugach
receive possession of historical sites and cemeteries within
its Native Region. These sites have been the target of a
zealous Trustee Council on a Native land-buying spree.
And Title III requires the government to coordinate its
forest land management plan with Native corporations whose
lands are intermingled with national forest lands.
Twenty-eight years ago Congress extinguished the land
claims of Alaska Natives. This cleared title to millions of
acres of public land in Alaska and enabled the government to
effect the d(2) withdrawals, which then led to all the future
parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.
But the purpose of the Native Claims Act was not to turn
Alaska into a national park . . . it was meant to return a
fraction of the lands the Federal Government took from our
First Americans.
However, in the Chugach region, the Native people have not
obtained what was promised. They were promised access to their
Carbon Mountain lands, fee ownership of historic and cemetery
sites, and maximum participation in the management of public
land that affects them.
But these promises were either broken or left to wither.
Even now, while Chugach waits for a commitment to be honored,
the government is planning new, unauthorized wilderness and
wild and scenic river designations in the Chugach National
Forest that will effectively impair the Natives' rights.
Think about it. The Administration could have granted the
easement years ago, but instead, devoted its attention to
managing forest lands in a way that deprives the Natives of the
promises, intent and purposes of ANCSA. What does that tell us
about the government's intentions.
I am especially perturbed with this Administration because
it assured this Committee the easement would be issued by a
time-certain deadline. Chugach met every obligation under the
1982 Agreement, but no acceptable easement has been granted.
I believe this Administration misrepresented its intentions
to this Committee last year. It has no desire of issuing an
easement. The Chugach people are tired of lip service, so I'm
giving them H.R. 2547.
I should note that my frustration is not with those
dedicated Forest Service employees on the ground in Alaska . .
. many Alaskans have worked hard to get this completed. The
problem is here in Washington.
There is no more excuse for further delays. The
Administration can grant the easement today. It's that simple.
I could go on, but there are more issues concerning the
Native Claims Act and the Chugach Natives, and we'll leave that
to our witnesses to explain.
The Chairman. The Chairman now welcomes the witness Chugach
Alaska Corporation, one who represents the environmental
organization, and will the witnesses take the stand, Sheri
Buretta, Mr. Edgar Blatchford and Mr. Dune Lankard.
We will start out with Mr. Blatchford, please. He is
chairman of the board, Chugach Alaska Corporation. Welcome, Mr.
Blatchford. You are on.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR BLATCHFORD, CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION,
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. Blatchford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be back here. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
again about the Federal Government's obligation to the Chugach
people. My name is Edgar Blatchford, and I am chairman of the
finance committee of Chugach Alaska Corporation's board of
directors. And I say testify again, Mr. Chairman, because 17
years ago I sat before another committee and testified to
Congress about the Forest Service's entrenched commitment to
frustrate the self-determination of the Chugach Natives and to
deny them the fair and meaningful land settlement promised by
the Congress of the United States. I came here 20 years ago and
started the process that led up to the 1982 settlement
agreement.
Seventeen years ago I testified as chairman of the board of
Chugach Alaska, then Chugach Natives, Inc. Since then we have
changed our name to Chugach Alaska Corporation, and today a new
generation has risen to the leadership of our Native
corporation, a generation that should be finally reaping the
benefits of land settlement we fashioned 17 years ago; a
generation that should be finally building on the promises of
ANCSA and ANILCA and the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc., settlement
agreement; finally, to taking care of our elders, preserving
our heritage for our children, and providing meaningful
benefits and opportunities under the ANCSA, a generation of
promise which is embodied in our chairman, Sheri Buretta, from
whom you will hear a little later.
Instead it was with humble disappointment, Mr. Chairman,
that we find ourselves today testifying before Congress about
the very issues that brought me here 20 years ago, 17 years ago
to this Committee: the entrenched refusal of the United States
Forest Service to carry out the will of the Congress in meeting
the Federal Government's obligations to the Chugach Native
people.
Mr. Chairman, in 1982, Chugach, the State of Alaska, the
Forest Service and the United States Department of Interior
entered into the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc., settlement
agreement. The agreement ended years of litigation by which the
Chugach Natives sought to obtain a fair and just land
settlement as envisioned in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act enacted in 1971. Under the settlement Act, largely because
of Chugach National Forest lands withdrawals within our region,
the Chugach Natives would have received nothing but
mountaintops and glaciers in return for the extinguishment of
our aboriginal land claims. In the years following the enact of
ANCSA, the Forest Service did everything in its power to
obstruct and delay the conveyance of economically viable lands
to the ANCSA corporations created to effect Congress's land
settlement to the Chugach people. Only pressure from the
Congress caused the Forest Service to finally agree to a land
settlement for Chugach. The 1982 settlement agreement finally
provided Chugach with a land base upon which to build an
economic future and a foundation for achieving the self-
determination of the Chugach people.
Mr. Chairman, one of the cornerstones of the settlement was
a large tract of land, 73,000 acres, known as the Bering River
Coalfields, and also known as the Carbon Mountain tract. This
tract of land is rich in mineral and timber resources, but
unfortunately is surrounded by public lands with no road
access. Recognizing that the entire value of this tract
depended on access, the 1982 settlement agreement guarantees
Chugach access across Forest Service land for the purpose of
economic development. In fact, the settlement specifically
calls this access ``an integral part'' of our settlement.
Chugach was not in a position to develop the Carbon
Mountain tract in the period immediately following the 1982
settlement. It is important to remember that, as of this time,
Chugach had not received a single acre of land to which it was
entitled under the settlement Act, now already past its 10-year
anniversary. In the years following the 1982 settlement,
Chugach expanded its operations in Prince William Sound to
fisheries, a traditional livelihood of the Chugach people.
After establishing successful fishing operations, operations
that paid our shareholders dividends out of corporate profits
in the mid-1980s, Chugach finally turned its attention to the
timber resources that were only beginning to be conveyed under
the 1982 settlement.
Mr. Chairman, I can speak of this period of time from
personal experience as one of unprecedented optimism at Chugach
Alaska Corporation. We had settled our land claims with the
Federal Government. We had established successful fishing
operations throughout south central Alaska, owning and
operating canning and fish processing facilities in Cordova,
Port Graham and Kodiak. We had embarked on a plan to develop
our timber resources through investing heavily in timber
harvesting and manufacturing operations in our region. We had
even changed our name to reflect the promise of the future. I
was proud to be on the board of directors during this period of
growth and promise.
As you recall, Mr. Chairman, in March of 1989, an oil
tanker called the Exxon Valdez grounded beside the Native
village of Tatitlek in the heart of our region and spilled 11
million gallons of crude oil in the waters of Prince William
Sound. As a result of the oil spill, virtually overnight,
Chugach lost all of its fishing operations, it lost its timber
and logging operations, and it was even forced to declare
bankruptcy. It is impossible to overstate the consequences of
this event on Chugach Alaska Corporation and its shareholders.
Our businesses were completely destroyed, our communities
devastated. The natural environment of our remarkable region
which had sustained our people for thousands of years was
blackened and ruined. As a result of the oil spill, it is safe
to say that Chugach lost everything--everything except its
land--or has Chugach lost all of its lands because of the oil
spill?
The Congress has been well-informed of the environmental
damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Damage has been
well studied and documented. And it is easy to grasp the impact
such an event would have on fishing and timbering operations.
Today I am here to report a different kind of damage, an
injury not so obvious, but one that needs your attention
nonetheless. As a result of the oil spill, the Federal agencies
charged with conveying the land and access rights we have been
promised and to which we are legally entitled have embarked on
a strategy of rendering Native lands in the Chugach region
undevelopable all in the name of repairing the damage done by
the oil spill.
Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the oil spill, I was appointed
for the third time to act as chairman of the board, but this
time my responsibilities were specifically to hear and address
the concerns of Chugach shareholders affected by the oil spill.
I am well acquainted with the damage caused when the Exxon
Valdez grounded on Blight Reef and can tell you that no one has
been more damaged than the people in the Chugach region, the
Chugach Natives, and the Federal Government will not repair
this damage by depriving Chugach of the self-determination
promised by Congress.
Which brings us back to access to the Carbon Mountain
tract. In 1994, Chugach began planning the development of its
timber resources on the Carbon Mountain tract. A feasibility
study in 1995 showed that the timber resources were
economically viable and that development would provide
significant benefits to our shareholders. In 1996, Chugach and
the Forest Service began working to provide Chugach the access
that was guaranteed in the 1982 settlement. Between 1996 and
1998, at the Forest Service's insistence, Chugach spent
millions of dollars studying the environmental consequences of
a road to Carbon Mountain, even paying the Forest Service
several hundreds of thousands of dollars to review the studies
and process our application.
Despite these studies, which the Forest Service has
accepted as complete, despite these enormous sums of money,
despite the promises and contractual commitments, despite even
the genuine dedication of local Forest Service officers and
employees, Chugach was compelled last year to seek the
assistance from Congress in obtaining the promised easement
from the Forest Service. At the time the Forest Service
insisted that legislation was not necessary because it was on
the verge of granting the easement required under the 1982
agreement. But today we have no easement. Yet during the entire
period of these attempts by Chugach to obtain the easement to
which it is entitled under the 1982 settlement, the Forest
Service has been acquiring land from Native corporations in the
Chugach region, using money paid to the Exxon Valdez oil spill
Trustee Council as a result of the oil spill. Not content to
acquire land from willing sellers, its appetite whetted by
EVOS-Council-funded acquisitions of surface estate and
conservation easements from Chugach region village
corporations, the Forest Service has determined to foreclose
development on lands remaining in Native hands. These maps here
show graphically the extent to which the Forest Service and
other Federal agencies are committed to the eradication, Mr.
Chairman, of the settlement Act's footprint from the Chugach
National Forests.
As Chugach redoubled its efforts to obtain a fair and
meaningful land settlement for the Chugach people, many people
will come before you purporting to speak for the Chugach
Natives. But Congress created the Native corporations to be the
vehicles for the self-determination of Alaska Natives, young
and old, and it is the people elected by the shareholders of
such corporations--such as myself and Chairman Buretta--who
have the responsibility and duty to achieve the purposes of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude my statement with the simple
statement, Chugach Alaska Native Corporation lands and Chugach
Native lands are not for sale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blatchford follows:]
STATEMENT OF EDGAR BLATCHFORD, CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE,
ALASKA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity to
testify again about the Federal Government's obligations to the
Chugach people.
My name is Edgar Blatchford, and I am Chairman of the
Finance Committee of Chugach Alaska Corporation's Board of
Directors. I say ``testify again'' because 17 years ago, I sat
before another committee and testified to Congress about the
Forest Service's entrenched commitment to frustrate the self-
determination of the Chugach Natives, and to deny them the fair
and meaningful land settlement promised by the Congress of the
United States.
Seventeen years ago, I testified as Chairman of the Board
of Chugach Natives, Inc. Since then, we have changed our name
to Chugach Alaska Corporation, and today, a new generation has
risen to the leadership of our Native Corporation: a generation
that should be, finally, reaping the benefits of the land
settlement we fashioned 17 years ago; a generation that should
be, finally, building on the promises of ANCSA and ANIILCA and
the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc., Settlement Agreement; a
generation turning, finally, to taking care of our elders,
preserving our heritage for our children, and providing
meaningful benefits and opportunities under ANCSA; a generation
the promise of which is embodied in our Chairman, Sheri
Buretta, from whom you will hear later this afternoon.
Instead, it is with humble disappointment that we find
ourselves today testifying before Congress about the very issue
that brought me here 17 years ago: the entrenched refusal of
the United States Forest Service to carry out the will of the
Congress in meeting the Federal Government's obligations to the
Chugach Native people.
In 1982, Chugach, the State of Alaska, the Forest Service
and the United States Department of Interior entered into the
1982 Chugach Natives, Inc., Settlement Agreement. The Agreement
ended years of litigation by which the Chugach Natives sought
to obtain a fair and just land settlement as envisioned in the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, enacted in 1971. Under the
Settlement Act, largely because of Chugach National Forest
lands withdrawn within our region, the Chugach Natives would
have received nothing but mountaintops and glaciers in return
for the extinguishment of our aboriginal land claims. In the
years following enactment of ANCSA, the Forest Service did
everything in its power to obstruct and delay the conveyance of
economically viable land to the ANCSA Corporations created to
effect Congress's land settlement for the Chugach people. Only
pressure from the Congress caused the Forest Service to finally
agree to a land settlement for Chugach. The 1982 Settlement
Agreement finally provided Chugach with a land base upon which
to build an economic future and a foundation for achieving the
self-determination of the Chugach people.
One of the cornerstones of the settlement was a large tract
of land--73,000 acres--known as the Bering River Coalfields,
and also known as the Carbon Mountain Tract. This tract of land
is rich in mineral and timber resources, but, unfortunately, is
surrounded by public lands with no road access. Recognizing
that the entire value of this tract depended on access, the
1982 Settlement Agreement guarantees Chugach access across
Forest Service land for the purpose of economic development. In
fact, the settlement specifically calls this access ``an
integral part'' of the settlement.
Chugach was not in a position to develop the Carbon
Mountain Tract in the period immediately following the 1982
Settlement. It is important to remember that, as of this time,
Chugach had not received a single acre of land to which it was
entitled under the Settlement Act, now already past its 10-year
anniversary. In the years following the 1982 settlement,
Chugach expanded its operations in Prince William Sound
fisheries, a traditional livelihood of the Chugach people.
After establishing successful fishing operations--operations
that paid our shareholders dividends out of corporate profits--
in the mid-80's, Chugach turned its attention to the timber
resources that were only beginning to be conveyed to it under
the 1982 settlement.
I can speak of this period of time from personal experience
as one of unprecedented optimism at Chugach Alaska Corporation.
We had settled our land claims with the Federal Government. We
had established successful fishing operations throughout south
central Alaska, owning and operating canning and fish
processing facilities in Cordova, Port Graham and Kodiak. We
had embarked on a plan to develop our timber resources through
investing heavily in timber harvesting and manufacturing
operations in our region. We had even changed our name to
reflect the promise of the future. I was proud to be on the
Board of Directors during nearly this entire period of growth
and promise.
And so it was that I was serving on the Chugach Board of
Directors in March of 1989 when an oil tanker called the Exxon
Valdez grounded beside the Native Village of Tatitlek, in the
heart of our region, and spilled 11 million gallons of crude
oil into the waters of Prince William Sound. As a result of the
oil spill, virtually overnight, Chugach lost all of its fishing
operations; it lost its timber and logging operations; and it
even was forced to declare bankruptcy. It is impossible to
overstate the consequences of this event on Chugach Alaska
Corporation. Our businesses were completely destroyed; our
communities were totally devastated. The natural environment of
our remarkable region, which had sustained our people for
thousands of year, was blackened and ruined. As a result of the
oil spill, it is safe to say that Chugach lost everything--
everything except its land . . . or has Chugach all but lost
its land because of the oil spill, after all?
The Congress has been well-informed of the environmental
damage caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, damage that has
been well-studied and documented. And it is easy to grasp the
impact such an event would have on fishing and timbering
operations. Today, I am here to report a different kind of
damage, an injury not so obvious, but one that needs your
attention nonetheless. As a result of the oil spill, the
Federal agencies charged with conveying the land and access
rights we have been promised and to which we are legally
entitled have embarked on a strategy of rendering Native land
within the Chugach Region undevelopable, all in the name of
``repairing'' damage done by the oil spill.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the wake of the oil spill, I was
appointed for the third time to act as Chairman of the Chugach
Board. But this time, my responsibilities were specifically to
hear and address the concerns of Chugach shareholders affected
by oil spill. I am well acquainted with the damage caused when
the Exxon Valdez grounded on Blight Reef, and can tell you that
no one has been more damaged by the oil spill than Chugach. And
the Federal Government will not repair this damage by depriving
Chugach of the self-determination promised by Congress.
Which brings us back to access to the Carbon Mountain
Tract. In 1994, Chugach began planning the development of its
timber resources on the Carbon Mountain Tract. A feasibility
study in 1995 showed that the timber resources were
economically viable, and that development would provide
significant benefits to Chugach's shareholders. In 1996,
Chugach and the Forest Service began working to provide Chugach
the access that was guaranteed in the 1982 settlement. Between
1996 and 1998, at the Forest Service's insistence, Chugach
spent millions of dollars studying the environmental
consequences of a road to Carbon Mountain, even paying the
Forest Service hundreds of thousands of dollars to review the
studies and process our easement application.
Despite these studies, which the Forest Service has
accepted as complete; despite these enormous sums of money;
despite the promises and contractual commitments; despite even
the genuine dedication of local Forest Service officers and
employees, Chugach was compelled last year to seek assistance
from Congress in obtaining an easement from the Forest Service.
At the time, the Forest Service insisted that legislation was
not necessary because it was on the verge of granting the
easement required under the 1982 settlement.
But today, we still have no easement.
Yet, during the entire period of these attempts by Chugach
to obtain the easement to which it is entitled under the 1982
settlement, the Forest Service has been acquiring land from
Native Corporations in the Chugach Region, using money paid to
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council as a result of the
oil spill. Not content to acquire land from willing sellers,
its appetite whetted by EVOS-Council-funded acquisitions of
surface estate and conservation easements from Chugach Region
Village Corporations, the Forest Service has determined to
foreclose development on land remaining in Native hands. These
maps show graphically the extent to which the Forest Service
and other Federal agencies are committed to the eradication of
ANCSA's footprint from Chugach National Forest.
As Chugach redoubles its efforts to obtain a fair and
meaningful land settlement for the Chugach people, many people
will come before you purporting to speak for the Chugach
Natives. But Congress created Native Corporations to be the
vehicles for the self-determination of Alaska Natives, and it
is the people elected by the shareholders of such
Corporations--such as myself and Chairman Buretta--who have the
responsibility and duty to achieve the purposes of ANCSA.
The Chairman. Before we go on, would you have your staff
explain to the Committee what those green spots are? Is that
what they bought? You mentioned the exposure there. Whoever is
going to do it.
Ms. Buretta. If I could have Peter Giannini answer that.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Mr. Giannini. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are actually
two maps. The one that I have sat down on the floor shows the
extent of Native land surface holdings in Prince William Sound
prior to the EVOS acquisitions.
The Chairman. Would you have somebody else point them out?
Which one are we talking about now? That was before the
purchase of land.
Mr. Giannini. It is upside down. That shows the full extent
of Native surface holdings in Prince William Sound prior to the
oil spill acquisitions. That was all fee simple Native land.
The Chairman. And the second one is after they purchased
the property?
Mr. Giannini. Anything in green remains unrestricted fee
simple Native ownership. If it had a black outline, that means
it has been purchased in fee by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Council and transferred to a Federal or State agency, or that
the surface rights have been restricted to development with or
without public access.
The Chairman. Do you have the number of acreage that has
been purchased?
Mr. Giannini. It is roughly 235,000 purchased.
The Chairman. Purchased by the oil spill money.
Mr. Giannini. Either in fee of the development rights.
The Chairman. Edgar is telling me that prior to the oil
spill money, the oil spill itself, there was an active fishing
and a viable company or a corporation. But after the oil spill,
which destroyed the fisheries and any other activities, the
moneys that were settled by Exxon to the council, the council
has been eradicating the Native-owned land.
Mr. Blatchford. That is correct.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Sheri Buretta, chairman of the corporation, you are now
up.
STATEMENT OF SHERI BURETTA, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHUGACH
ALASKA CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Ms. Buretta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on
behalf of the Chugach people.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank some of the
Congressmen. I know that you have rearranged your schedule to
be here today, and I appreciate that very much.
Before I get started, I would like to ask you a few
questions, Mr. Chairman. I have the additional information on
the maps and our environmental study that I would like to be
added to the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Buretta. Thank you.
I have already introduced our special counsel, Mr. Peter
Giannini, and from time to time if there are technical
questions, I would like to refer to him.
Finally, my testimony may take a few minutes longer than
the 5 minutes allocated.
The Chairman. I am very lenient with Alaskan witnesses who
have traveled 5,000 miles to Washington, DC.
Ms. Buretta. My name is Sheri Buretta. I am the chairman of
the board for Chugach Alaska Corporation and a shareholder in
both Chugach and Tatitlek Corporations. My mother is an Aleut
woman who grew up in the village of Tatitlek. I am here to talk
about our land, which is at the heart of our culture and our
heritage, and which was promised to us under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act as the cornerstone of our future.
Our land was taken from us, without our consent, by the
Russians, who later sold it again without our consent to the
United States. Since then, generations of my ancestors have
fought to regain ownership of that land and to restore the
rights of Natives to makes decisions about how we use our land.
In 1971, Native leaders were finally successful in reaching
a settlement with the United States on our land claims, but we
gave up much. Although Alaska Natives once owned all of Alaska,
Native land holdings were reduced under ANCSA to entitlements
for each of the village and regional corporations. Chugach
Alaska Corporation, formerly Chugach Natives, Inc., was given
an entitlement to 375,000 acres of land plus the subsurface
under village corporation lands. We accepted this settlement
because we believed that the United States would honor its
commitment to return the land to us and because we believed
that our people would benefit from economic development of our
land by the for-profit corporation created by this Congress as
the vehicle for Native self-determination.
But as Mr. Blatchford has told you, we were not given the
land we were promised. Instead, we found that much of the land
in the region of Chugach's entitlement had already been made a
national forest which they called the Chugach National Forest.
As a result, the only lands available for the Chugach people to
select were mountains and glaciers.
In 1975, Chugach sued the United States. In 1982, through
the efforts of the elders who had obtained the settlement and a
new generation of Natives such as Mr. Blatchford, who had
college educations and a degree of sophistication about the
political process, we reached a second written settlement, the
1982 Chugach Natives, Inc., settlement agreement with the
United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, which
finally promised us our land and our rights of access to it.
Many of the elders who were responsible for ANCSA are now
gone, and it has been almost 20 years since the second
settlement was agreed to, but Chugach has yet to receive the
land which it was promised. These problems must not pass to yet
another generation. It cannot fall to my 2-year-old daughter to
complete the work that her great-grandfather began. It must be
resolved now.
One of the issues that brings us to Washington involves
access to our land. This easement was promised in writing in
the 1982 settlement. Without access, the 73,000-acre tract at
Carbon Mountain is worthless. In a recent radio interview, one
of our critics accused us of seeking this easement because it
makes our land more valuable, but this is not true. In order to
make any meaningful use of our land at Carbon Mountain, we must
have the access we were promised. What landowner would think
otherwise?
We have spent over a million dollars addressing the
environmental issues relating to access. We have addressed all
of the Forest Service concerns. We have been required to do
twice the studies of any other road built in a national forest.
We have been required to pay the Forest Service over $100,000
to do their part in the preparation of the environmental
documents.
On January 12, 1999, the forest supervisor of the Chugach
National Forests deemed our application complete, finding that
the content and the format of these environmental documents was
consistent and responsive with the Forest Service's requests.
Under our Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service,
Chugach was to have its easement within 45 days, but as a
result of pressure from environmental groups and the
administration, we have nothing but delays. We have yet to see
a draft easement which grants us the rights we need to access
and develop our property. According to the Forest Service, we
are at impasse over what the government lawyers call an
exchange of easements, despite the fact that Chugach has
already given the government all of the easements we are
required to give under the Chugach Native settlement agreement,
and we have agreed to allow public access over any road we
build.
The outspoken opponents to Chugach getting our rights are
funded, although many have never even stepped foot on the land
that they are so driven to take from us. The people of the
Chugach region have inhabited this area for over 7,000 years
and deserve to be able to access and utilize it.
When the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill happened in our
beautiful and abundant waters, the spotlight was on our home
and lives. The world got a good look at the Prince William
Sound, and many people decided that their opinions about what
was best for everyone are more important than the owners of the
property.
There is a war being waged against the continued private
ownership of this land. We are witness to this by the treatment
that we have received from the Federal agencies, which give
more weight to the views of environmental activists than they
do to their obligations to the Native people. This attack on
Native rights pours salt on the wounds that are left in the
wake of a horrendous environmental disaster that not only
crippled the economies of the communities surrounding the
spill, but cast a dark shadow over a lifestyle depending on the
precious resources provided by the waters of Prince William
Sound. This event changed the course of an innocent, simple
culture.
Unfortunately, it also created a huge war chest for the
State and Federal Governments, which are trustees for a $900
million settlement that does not consider humans as part of the
environment affected by the spill. They have justified that
buying private land from the people most affected by the spill
is a way of protecting it from future devastation. The fact
that Exxon Corporation has used legal tactics for the past 10
years to avoid paying billions of dollars to the people of the
affected area is criminal. It only assists the government in
creating a land grab. The State and Federal Governments are
taking advantage of the economic situation that these people
are faced with as a means of survival.
Using the EVOS funds, the State and Federal Government have
been extinguishing Native ownership in Prince William Sound.
These maps show clearly the devastating impact that EVOS'
purchases have had on Native presence in Prince William Sound.
The surface estate owned by Native corporations prior to EVOS
is shown in green. The maps show the extent to which those
ownership rights have been extinguished. The land in gray is
land which has been either sold to the State and Federal
Government or is subject to such restrictive conservation
covenants that it has no continuing economic value.
While some of the EVOS land remains in Native ownership, it
is really nothing more than a park. ANCSA promised us land and
economic development. We did not bargain for ownership of
parks. The EVOS fund has created a mindset in our public
officials such that they now believe it is their duty to
facilitate the extinguishment of Native ownership in Prince
William Sound rather than fulfill the commitments made to us in
1971 and 1982. Chugach still has thousands of acres of land to
which it has yet to receive patent. Although BLM says it
doesn't have the resources to process those conveyances, which
date back to 1971, it was able to immediately process the
conveyances to EVOS of property that it bought.
The Department of Interior seems far more interested in
buying up Native lands than it does in honoring its ANCSA
commitments. Several weeks ago I met with the special assistant
to the Secretary of Interior and asked for her help in gaining
the title to our lands and in obtaining the easement. I told
her Chugach was under increasing pressure from environmental
groups to sell our land, and that the president of the Alaska
chapter of a national environmental group had said that it we
were unwilling to accept a conservation easement on our land at
Carbon Mountain, that they would sue us.
I made it clear that Chugach's board of directors has
clearly stated that Chugach land is not for sale. Her response
was, I know your land is not for sale, but would you consider a
conservation easement? This is not what the Department of
Interior agreed to do under ANCSA and the Chugach Native
settlement, but it is the new EVOS mindset.
In a meeting with the Forest Service in June in a failed
attempt to negotiate an acceptable easement document, the
government lawyer said, we don't want you to have this
easement, and suggested that once an easement is granted,
Chugach should begin discussing a sale or trade of our land in
Carbon Mountain and Prince William Sound. As a Native
corporation we are entitled to our own lands and to make the
decisions about how to use it, just like every other private
property owner.
The Congress of the United States created Native
corporations as the vehicle of Native self-determination.
Congress envisioned that these corporations would make the
decisions as to if and when to develop the land through their
elected board of directors. Mr. Blatchford and I are two such
elected representatives, and it is the will of our board that
Chugach obtain the rights to which we are entitled. Most of our
shareholders support the board. The Eyak Corporation, the
Village Corporation for the Cordova area and the Eyak Tribal
Council are both on record as supporting our easement. Some of
our shareholders disagree. Although we respect their positions
and their right to their own opinions, our board believes it
should be trusted to make the decisions with which it is
charged under ANCSA and Alaska law. We believe we can make them
responsibly with the best interests of our shareholders in
mind, and we should be allowed to do so without the
interference of non-Native groups, especially environmental
groups based outside of Alaska.
We resent the implication that Alaska Natives are too
inexperienced or irresponsible to be trusted with the land on
which we have lived for thousands of years.
Chugach Alaska Corporation's mission statement has three
parts: a commitment to profitability, a commitment to preserve
our heritage, and a commitment to continued ownership of our
lands. The legislation which has been referred to this
Committee is an important step toward allowing Chugach Alaska
Corporation to exercise self-determination over our lands and
our historic sites and to fulfill each of the three elements of
our mission.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I ask you on behalf of the Native
people of the Chugach region to move this bill forward. We have
waited a long time for our land and for our rights. We have
been profoundly affected by the oil spill and the delay of the
Federal agencies. It is time to bring these matters to an end.
It is time for the Native people of the Chugach region to have
control over our lands, over our lives, and over our destinies.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Sheri.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Buretta follows:]
STATEMENT OF SHERI BURETTA, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHUGACH ALASKA
CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Chugach people.
My name is Sheri Buretta. I am Chairman of the Board of
Chugach Alaska Corporation and a shareholder in both Chugach
and The Tatitlek Corporation. My mother is an Aleut woman who
grew up in the Village of Tatitlek.
I am here to talk about our land, which is at the heart of
our culture and our heritage and which was promised to us under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as the cornerstone of
our future.
Our land was taken from us, without our consent, by the
Russians, who later sold it, again without our consent, to the
United States. Since then, generations of my ancestors have
fought to regain ownership of that land and to restore the
rights of Natives to make decisions about how we use our land.
In 1971, Native leaders were finally successful in reaching
a settlement with the United States on our land claims. But we
gave up much. Although Alaska Natives once owned all of Alaska,
Native land holdings were reduced under ANCSA to entitlements
for each of the Village and Regional corporations. Chugach
Alaska Corporation, formerly Chugach Natives, Inc., was given
an entitlement to 375,000 acres of land, plus the subsurface
under Village Corporation lands. We accepted this settlement
because we believed that the United States would honor its
commitment to return the land to us, and because we believed
that our people would benefit from economic development of our
land by the for-profit corporations created by this Congress as
the vehicles for Native self-determination.
But, as Mr. Blatchford has told you, we were not given the
land we were promised. Instead, we found that much of the land
in the region of Chugach's entitlement had already been made a
national forest--which they call the Chugach National Forest.
As a result, the only lands available for the Chugach people to
select were mountaintops and glaciers.
In 1975, Chugach sued the United States. In 1982, through
the efforts of the elders who had obtained the settlement and a
new generation of Natives such as Mr. Blatchford, who had
college educations and a degree of sophistication about the
political process, we reached a second written settlement--the
1982 Chugach Natives, Inc., Settlement Agreement--with the
United States Departments of Interior and Agriculture, which
finally promised us our land and our rights of access to it.
Many of the elders who were responsible for ANCSA are gone
now, and it has been almost 20 years since the second
settlement was agreed to. But Chugach has yet to receive the
land which it was promised. These problems must not pass to yet
another generation. It cannot fall to my 2-year-old daughter to
complete the work her great-grandfather began. It must be
resolved now.
One of the issues that brings us to Washington involves
access to our land. This easement was promised in writing in
the 1982 settlement. Without access, the 73,000-acre-tract at
Carbon Mountain is worthless. In a recent radio interview, one
of our critics accused us of seeking this easement because it
makes our land more valuable. But this is not true. In order to
make any meaningful use of our land at Carbon Mountain, we must
have the access we were promised. What land owner would think
otherwise?
We have spent over $1 million addressing the environmental
issues relating to access. We have addressed all of the Forest
Service concerns. We have been required to do twice the studies
of any other road built in a national forest. We have been
required to pay the Forest Service over $100,000 to do their
part in the preparation of the environmental documents.
On January 12, 1999, the Forest Supervisor of the Chugach
National Forest deemed our application complete, finding that
the content and the format of these environmental documents was
consistent with and responsive to the Forest Service's
requests.
Under our Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest
Service, Chugach was to have its easement within 45 days. But
as a result of pressure from environmental groups and the
administration, we have had nothing but delays.
We have yet to see a draft easement which grants us the
rights we need to access and develop our property. According to
the Forest Service, we are at impasse over what the government
lawyers call an ``exchange of easements''--despite the fact
that Chugach has already given the government all of the
easements we are required to give under the Chugach Natives
Settlement Agreement, and we have agreed to allow public access
over any road we build.
The outspoken opponents to Chugach getting our rights are
heavily funded, although many have never even stepped foot on
the land that they are so driven to take from us. The people of
the Chugach Region have inhabited this area for over 7,000
years and deserve to be able to access and utilize it.
When the devastating Exxon Valdez oil spill happened in our
beautiful and abundant waters, the spotlight was on our home
and lives. The world got a good look at the Prince William
Sound, and many people decided that their opinions about what
is best for everyone are more important than those of the
owners of the property. There is a war being waged against the
continued private ownership of this land. We are witness to
this by the treatment that we have received from the Federal
agencies, which give more weight to the views of environmental
activists than they do to their obligations to the Native
people.
This attack on Native rights pours salt on the wounds that
are left in the wake of the horrendous environmental disaster
that not only crippled the economies of the communities
surrounding the spill, but cast a dark shadow over a lifestyle
dependent on the precious resources provided by the waters of
the Prince William Sound. This event changed the course of an
innocent simple culture.
Unfortunately, it also created a huge war chest for the
state and Federal governments, which are trustees for a $900
million settlement that does not consider humans as part of the
environment affected by the spill. They have justified that
buying private land from the people most affected by the spill
is a way of protecting it from future devastation: i.e.,
logging, development, private ownership. The fact that Exxon
Corporation has used legal tactics for the past 10 years to
avoid paying billions of dollars to the people of the affected
area is criminal. It only assists the government in creating a
land grab. The State and Federal governments are taking
advantage of the economic situation that these people are faced
with as a means of survival.
Using the EVOS fund, the state and Federal Governments have
been extinguishing Native ownership in Prince William Sound.
These maps show clearly the devastating impact the EVOS
purchases have had on the Native presence in Prince William
Sound. The surface estate owned by Native corporations prior to
EVOS is shown in green. The maps show the extent to which those
ownership rights have been extinguished. The land in grey is
land which has been either sold to the state and Federal
Government or is subject to such restrictive conservation
covenants that it has no continuing economic value.
While some of the EVOS land remains in Native ownership, it
is really nothing more than a park. ANCSA promised us land and
economic development. We did not bargain for ownership of
parks.
The EVOS fund has created a mind set in our public
officials such that they now believe it is their duty to
facilitate the extinguishment of Native ownership in Prince
William Sound, rather than fulfil the commitments made to us in
1971 and 1982. Chugach still has thousands of acres of land to
which it has yet to receive patent. Although BLM says it
doesn't have the resources to process those conveyances, which
date back to 1971, it was able to immedately process the
conveyances to EVOS of property it bought.
The Department of Interior seems far more interested in
buying up Native lands than it does in honoring its ANCSA
commitments. Several weeks ago, I met with the Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Interior, and asked for her help
in gaining the title to our lands and in obtaining the
easement. I told her Chugach was under increasing pressure from
environmental groups to sell our land, and that the president
of the Alaska chapter of a national environmental group had
said that, if we were unwilling to accept a conservation
easement on our land at Carbon Mountain, they would sue us.
I made it clear that Chugach's Board of Directors had
clearly stated that Chugach's land is not for sale. Her
response was, ``I know your land is not for sale, but would you
consider a conservation easement?''
This is not what the Department of Interior agreed to do
under ANCSA and the Chugach Native Settlement, but it is the
new EVOS mind set.
In a meeting with the Forest Service in June in a failed
attempt to negotiate an acceptable easement document, the
government lawyer said, ``We don't want you to have this
easement,'' and suggested that, once an easement is granted,
Chugach should begin discussing a sale or trade of our land in
Carbon Mountain and Prince William Sound.
As a Native corporation, we are entitled to own our land,
and to make the decisions about how we use it, just like every
other private property owner.
The Congress of the United States created Native
corporations as the vehicles of Native self-determination.
Congress envisioned that these corporations would make the
decisions as to if and when to develop the land through their
elected board of directors. Mr. Blatchford and I are two such
elected representatives, and it is the will of our Board that
Chugach obtain the rights to which we are entitled. Most of our
shareholders support the Board.
The Eyak Corporation, the Village Corporation for the
Cordova area, and the Eyak Tribal Council are both on record as
supporting our easement.
Some of our shareholders disagree. Although we respect
their positions and their right to their own opinions, our
Board believes it should be trusted to make the decisions with
which it is charged under ANCSA and Alaska law. We believe we
can make them responsibly with the best interests of our
shareholders in mind, and we should be allowed to do so without
the interference of non-Native groups, especially environmental
groups based outside of Alaska.
We resent the implication that Alaska Natives are too
inexperienced or irresponsible to be trusted with the land on
which we lived for thousands of years.
Chugach Alaska Corporation's mission statement has three
parts:
1. A commitment to profitability, so we can provide economic
benefits to our shareholders, as Congress expected when it
created for-profit corporations as the economic organizations
of the Native community;
2. A commitment to preserve our heritage. With the passing of
every Native elder, more and more of our culture is being lost.
As a Regional Native corporation, we must do what we can to
save what we can and pass it on to our children and our
children's children.
3.A commitment to continued ownership of our Native lands.
As Alaska Natives working, as ANCSA anticipated, through our Alaska
Native Regional Corporation, we should be given the opportunity to
balance these important commitments ourselves, and to reach the
decisions which we believe are in the best interests of our own Native
community. The legislation which has been referred to this Committee is
an important step toward allowing Chugach Alaska Corporation to
exercise self-determination over our lands and our historic sites, and
to fulfill each of the three elements of our mission.
Title I of the bill allows negotiations with the Forest Service to
continue for a reasonable time, as they should, because there are no
real issues standing in the way of the United States obtaining our
easement, and there is no reason why an acceptable easement cannot be
presented immediately. If the Forest Service is acting in good faith,
then this title will be unnecessary. But if there is additional delay,
we will have our easement by operation of law.
Title II will allow Chugach Alaska to renew its application to
cemeteries and historical sites on land which as purchased by EVOS from
the Village Corporations. ANCSA provided that the Regional Corporation
would have the right to apply for title to these sites on any land
which the Village Corporations did not select.
ANCSA did not anticipate the oil spill and the handicaps it would
create for our people, or the huge fund of money which would be used to
buy Village and private lands with cultural and historic significance
at the same time the Exxon litigation was dragging on and on, depriving
the people most affected of any meaningful compensation for their
damages. The technical language of the law should not be used to keep
these sites out of Native ownership.
The Native graveyards at Kiniklik, one of the original village
sites in Prince William Sound, was sold to EVOS at the same time
Chugach's application for this site was denied because it was not
Federal land. The village site and cemetery on Hawkins Island, called
Quayvik (``The Crying Place''), where recently the bones of our
ancestors were repatriated from museums, was sold to EVOS and
transferred to the State of Alaska for a marine park.
This is not what ANCSA intended. This Congress envisioned these
places in Native ownership, and allowed Regional Corporations to take
this responsibility if villages chose not to own the site. We should
have the right to manage these sites which are so important to our
culture and our heritage.
Finally, Title III requires the Forest Service to meaningfully
coordinate with Native Corporations as part of their planning process.
Although ANCSA corporations are not on the list of ``recognized
tribes'' in Alaska, this Congress gave us the duty to own and manage
Native land.
While it is important for the Forest Service to coordinate with the
tribes, it is equally important that they coordinate with Native land
owners. Chugach owns interests in 700,000 acres of land within the
Chugach National Forest, and has rights of access under the law across
the forest. It would be of mutual benefit to both the government and
the Native community to work together prior to initiating the public
process of forest land use planning, in order to avoid creating
unreasonable expectations in the public by calling an area ``roadless''
when in fact it is burdened by the government's written obligation to
provide an easement to access Native land.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, I ask you, on behalf of the Native people
of the Chugach Region, to move this bill forward. We have waited a long
time for our land and for our rights. We have been profoundly affected
by the oil spill and the delay of the Federal agencies. It is time to
bring these matters to an end. It is time for the Native people of the
Chugach Region to have control over our own land, over our lives, and
over our destinies.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Lankard.
STATEMENT OF DUNE LANKARD, EYAK RAINFOREST PRESERVATION FUND,
CORDOVA, ALASKA
Mr. Lankard. Thank you, Chairman Young and fellow House
Members. My name is Dune Lankard. I am an Eyak Indian from the
Chugach region. I am also a shareholder of both Eyak
Corporation and the Chugach Alaska Corporation.
Our Eyak people have 3,500 years of history on the Copper
River Delta. There are four distinct tribes in the Chugach
region, the Eyak, the Tlingit, the Aleut and the Chugach, and
out of the 1,900 shareholders of the Chugach Corporation, we
only make up about 50, so we are a superminority tribe within a
corporation. And out of the 326 village corporation
shareholders, we only make up 37, so again, we are a
superminority of our own corporation, so whatever the
corporation decides to do, we have to go along with it because
we don't have the votes to overpower the majority.
The Eyak people have historically lived off of the Copper
River Delta and its incredible salmon runs. There are about 500
gill netters that have made a living off the Copper River Delta
salmon, and it has been the catalyst to our industry since the
Exxon Valdez oil spill.
I would like to tell you a little bit about the history of
the region. In the 1800s they tried to build canneries, and
they basically wiped out the majority of the fish. Shortly
after that they decided to get into mining and build the Copper
River Railway, and that didn't pan out very well either. So we
have a strong history of natural resources extraction that has
not made a lot of money for the people, but a lot of resources
have left the region.
In the early 1900s there was clear-cutting in some of the
areas in Prince William Sound; only 6,500 acres fell. In the
last 10 years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Native
corporations have leveled over 50,000 acres, yielding very
little to no dividends for the shareholders. For example, in
the Eyak Corporation they leveled 1,700 acres of trees, and we
were paid $3,000 apiece, that is $978,000, and over a $100
million in losses, so there was no money in the extraction of
the timber.
As far as I see it, what the issue is, it is about
environmental restoration in the region from the Exxon Valdez
oil spill, not about economic restoration. I think what we need
to do is stop the hemorrhaging in the region. What this
legislation does is it allows a road to be built across the
Copper River Delta, again which is one of the most incredible
wetlands left intact and is still pristine and highly
productive in the world. I think it is important if they are
going to build a road across the delta, that they spend the
extra money and make sure that it is done right, and that it is
done properly, and to see that the environment as well as the
salmon fishery continues well into the future.
The history of our corporation, in 1971, the Chugach Alaska
Corporation, we have seen very little dividends. I believe the
total to date has been about $750 paid over 28 years. And I
don't see that changing with the building of this road which
could cost 20- to $30 million. I would imagine that the 8,000
acres of hemlock doesn't have much value, so they would be
lucky if they cover the cost of building the road.
In 1986, under the net operating loss sale, the Chugach
Alaska Corporation sold the Bering River Coalfields. They were
valued at $100 million. They sold it for $3 million. That
created a $97 million loss on a blank piece of paper. Those
losses were sold for the $50 million that was eventually lost
in the bankruptcy. During that 1991 bankruptcy, our Chugach
Alaska Corporation transferred the Bering River Coalfields to
an outside corporation. There was a subsidiary joint owner
called Korean Alaska Development Corporation where the
shareholders did not have a say in how those assets were to be
transferred, so we lost the entire Bering River Coalfields.
Now they want to get legislation that opens up the road
across the delta so they can level the 8,000 acres of trees
that has no market. The Asian market crash has severely
affected Native logging in Alaska. I don't know what crystal
ball they are looking at, but I don't see that changing again
in the near future.
So what we are concerned with is that if you apply the
wisdom from the past experiences of the bad decisions that the
corporation has made, then the best thing that it could do is
bring the shareholders together and try to figure out what is
best for the corporation.
In the Chugach region, four of the five village
corporations chose to do deals with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Trustee Council. I have never once supported sale of our land,
Mr. Chairman. I have never once said that Native land should be
for sale. The government could have met the goals of
restoration without buying title to our land. They could have
purchase development restrictions, and we would still retain
title and be paid to watch our trees grow, subsistence
continues, and the fish keeping jumping.
I think under this situation that probably the best thing
that could happen to the Chugach Corporation at this time right
now is if a comprehensive conservation easement package was put
together that was able to help the corporation become solvent
and liquid. I think that at this time we are at a very critical
stage because with the year 2000 coming up and the fact that
the last director of the corporation, Mr. Brown, has left
office, I think that now is a good time for the corporation to
be looking at other alternatives. And so I feel that the bill,
the way that it is written, that under title I it would force
the Secretary of Agriculture to grant the CAC an easement in
the Chugach National Forest allowing the construction of a 55-
mile logging road across the Copper River Delta. The thing that
I am concerned about there is that we are not only talking
about a 55-mile logging road--that is just to get there--we are
talking about a couple of hundred miles of logging roads once
they do get there, and I do not think that the economics are
there. The corporation has never given its shareholder an
economic analysis to show how they are going to make any money
from this logging operation.
Under title II it would require the Secretary of the
Interior to undo certain land conveyances agreed upon by the
Alaska Native villages corporations. The regional corporations
were never in the position to receive title to our cemetery or
our burial sites or any of our historical sites, so I don't
feel that they should be able to come back and double-dip. In
fact, in reality, the lands have more protections now than they
did when they were owned by the regional and the village
corporations. Because in 1992 our village corporation, Eyak
Corporation, decided to clear-cut Eyak River even though we
proved there were culturally modified trees, burial sites,
charcoal rocks, village sites in the direct vicinity, they were
able to clear-cut the land anyway, where at least if it was
under some sort of protection, State or Federal historical
preservation Act laws, we would have been able to at least get
an injunction to stop them.
Under title III, it would effectively amend the National
Forests Management Act by forcing the Secretary of Agriculture
to engage in extensive coordination with CAC and other Alaska
Native corporations before revising, developing or maintaining
national forest land management plans.
Under this I feel that the Chugach Alaska Corporation
should not have preferential treatment, Mr. Chairman, and I
feel that with the way that the public process has worked,
there has been 114 meetings since 1997, and Chugach has
participated in the great majority of those meetings, so I feel
that they have participated, and I think that this legislation
not only overrides public process, but it overrides what the
best interests of the 1,900 shareholders are.
I don't think that nine board members have the wisdom to do
for its 1,900 shareholders at this point. If you look at the
track record and the decisions that they have made, they have
made poor and bad decisions over and over again.
I really think that this legislation, if it is written to
really help the Native people, then it should include the
Native people. And you as Congressmen should understand that
Native corporations are not Native people, they are separate
entities. They do not represent the best interests of the
shareholders.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lankard follows:]
STATEMENT OF DUNE LANKARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SPOKESPERSON, EYAK
PRESERVATION COUNCIL, EYAK TRADITIONAL ELDERS COUNCIL
Introduction
My name is Dune Lankard. I am a local resident of the
Copper River Delta and Prince William Sound. As an Eyak Indian,
local commercial and subsistence fisherman, and shareholder of
both the Eyak Corporation and the Chugach Alaska Corporation, I
appreciate the opportunity to submit written and oral testimony
for the Hearing Record opposing H.R. 2547.
The Eyak Preservation Council and Eyak Traditional Elders
Council strongly opposes H.R. 2547. The Eyak Preservation
Council is a grassroots defense fund for the traditional lands
of the Eyak people. We represent issues facing our Eyak
Traditional Elders Council and address local and regional
environmental issues and concerns that erode our subsistence
relationship to our ancestral lands of the Copper River Delta.
The Eyak Traditional Elders Council represents the Eyak Tribe,
one of the 550 federally recognized tribes in America, we are
also one of the 226 recognized tribes in Alaska, and we are one
of the four distinct tribes of the Chugach region (Eyak,
Chugach, Aleut and Tlingit) that own shares of stock in the
Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAQ, an Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA, 1971) corporation.
The Copper River Delta is one of the most fragile, wild and
highly productive ecosystems left intact in the Chugach
National Forest and possibly the world. Our Eyak people have
for thousands of generations survived off the incredible bounty
of this irreplaceable region. To even consider upsetting the
delicate balance of this region and the Copper River Delta
salmon fishery is unacceptable--we as humans, cannot manage
land better than nature does itself.
H.R. 2547 is divided into three titles, each of which is
apparently intended to resolve a private dispute between CAC
and the United States Government:
Title I would force the Secretary of Agriculture to grant to
CAC an easement in the Chugach National Forest allowing the
construction of a 55-mile logging road across the incomparable
Copper River Delta.
Title II would require the Secretary of the Interior to undo
certain land conveyances agreed upon by Alaska Native village
corporations and the U.S. Government as part of the Exxon
Valdez oil spill restoration program.
Title III would effectively amend the National Forest
Management Act by forcing the Secretary of Agriculture to
engage in extensive ``coordination'' with CAC and othcr Alaska
Native corporations before revising, developing or maintaining
national forest land management plans.
Although we recognize certain rights granted to CAC by ANCSA, the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, 1980), and the
Chugach Native's Inc. Settlement Agreement (CNI, 1982), H.R. 2547 goes
beyond the intent of these agreements by attempting to exempt CAC from
environmental and public laws that safeguard the public's interest in
national forest land and other public resources. ANCSA sought to strike
a fair balance between the rights of Alaska's Indigenous people and
members of the American public. H.R. 2547 rejects this responsible
approach in favor of immediate but poorly considered action. H.R. 2547
creates hasty ``solutions'' to complex issues and may ultimately harm
the interests of both CAC and the general public. In particular, it may
threaten the health and vitality of one of our world's environmental
treasures, the Copper River Delta. The Eyak Preservation Council and
Eyak Traditional Elders Council therefore opposes H.R. 2547.
The Copper River Delta
The Copper River is located in a remote region of south central
Alaska and drains significant portions of the Alaska, Wrangell, and
Chugach mountain ranges into the Gulf of Alaska. For much of its
length, the river forms the western boundary of the Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park, the largest national park in the country. The St. Elias
mountains to the east of the Copper River are the tallest coastal
mountains in the world and are capped by the greatest mantle of glacial
ice outside the polar ice caps and Greenland.
The Copper River Delta lies at the confluence of the Copper River
and the Gulf of Alaska. At 700,000 acres it is the largest wetlands
complex on the Pacific coast of North America and an ecosystem of
almost unparalleled productivity. The Copper River Delta hosts
incredible numbers and varieties of fish and wildlife. Considered by
biologists to be one of the most important shorebird habitats in the
western hemisphere, the Delta is a critical staging area for over 16
million shorebirds and waterfowl. It supports world-renowned salmon
runs and is a haven for grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, mountain
goats, moose, wolverines, mink, otters, sea lions, and harbor seals.
The Copper River Delta is also a place of incredible beauty and
uncompromising wildness. Ragged peaks of rock and snow crowd the
watershed. Pale blue glaciers split with explosive force thrusting
enormous sheets of ice into the river. Sculpted icebergs ride the silty
turbulent waters along with logs, brush, and other victims of the
river's erosive appetite. Seals swim inland for miles hunting salmon
while enormous brown bears patrol the shore. These scenes from an
almost prehistoric landscape are accompanied by the uneasy music of
current, ice and wind. There are other great wetlands ecosystems in the
world, but few are as magnificent, dynamic and productive in its intact
wild state as the Copper River Delta.
Notwithstanding its harsh, untamed appearance, the Delta has
nurtured the people of the Copper River basin for thousands of years.
Thousands of generations of Eyak Indians and other tribal Nations have
relied upon the bountiful fish and wildlife that thrive in the region.
Today, over half of the watershed's population of 5,000 people live in
the seaside town of Cordova, separated from the Delta by only the
narrow Heney Range. Cordova is the region's sole community and most of
its residents (many of whom are Native) continue to live a subsistence
lifestyle-harvesting and sharing the area's sustainable natural
resources. Commercial and subsistence fishing are the mainstays of
Cordova's economy, in large part because of Copper River salmon, one of
the most highly prized stocks of wild salmon in the world. The Copper
River Delta is the nursery that sustains both fish, wildlife and human
populations.
Almost 100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt recognized that the Copper
River Delta was a unique and irreplaceable natural wonder. In 1907, he
created the Chugach National Forest to help protect the Copper River
Delta and Prince William Sound from corporate monopolies engaged in
coal mining and other unregulated development of public resources.
Today's conservationists have learned from this wise example by making
the Delta a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site, an
emphasis area in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and a
State Critical Wildlife Habitat Area. The Copper River Delta is one of
the most productive, beautiful, and untamed wetlands ecosystems in the
world. Congressional action and/or any actions affecting this area
should be thoroughly evaluated and responsive to a clearly established
need.
Title I--Easement for Access
ANILCA gave CAC, formerly known as Chugach Natives, Inc., the right
to select lands within the boundaries of the Chugach National Forest.
To ensure that CAC shareholders obtained a just and fair land
settlement, the Secretary of Agriculture and others were directed to
prepare a study of the Chugach region. Eventually, the U.S. Government,
the State of Alaska and CAC signed an agreement, generally referred to
as the 1982 CNI Settlement Agreement, directing the United States to
convey to CAC 73,000 acres of land known as the Bering River/Carbon
Mountain tract. The Bering River/Carbon Mountain tract lies
approximately 30 miles east of the Copper River and 20 miles north of
the Gulf of Alaska. It is bounded on three sides by the Chugach
National Forest and on the fourth side by Bureau of Land Management
holdings. Under ANILCA, CAC may access its land by utilizing the
procedures established by 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3210. This is exactly the
same right afforded to other Alaska Native corporations for accessing
their own in-holdings. In addition, the 1982 Settlement Agreement
provides that CAC may ``construct, at its own cost, roads, pipelines
and transportation facilities for access necessary for economic
utilization of the Bering River coal fields.''
Although CAC no longer owns the Bering River coal fields (it
conveyed title to a partnership of Korean corporations in 1992), it now
proposes to log the 8,000-acres of coastal rainforest on the Bering
River/Carbon Mountain tract. The 55-mile access road would sever
hundreds of streams that feed the pristine, eastern portion of the
Copper River Delta, including the Bering and Martin Rivers which are
eligible for inclusion into the Federal Wild and Scenic River system.
It would also degrade hundreds of acres of marsh and other wetlands. A
heavily used logging road would inevitably impair the wildlife and
aesthetic values of the Delta and could even threaten the world-famous
Copper River salmon fishery. Ironically, CAC may not even benefit from
this potential environmental tragedy. CAC's timber is of modest
quality, the market is extremely poor, and it will be very expensive to
build and maintain an access road. An independent economic analysis
prepared by ECONorthwest of Eugene, Oregon in 1998, concluded that the
proposed logging project was unlikely to be profitable and could
actually result in a substantial loss to CAC and its 1900 shareholders.
CAC and the U.S. Forest Service are both fully aware of the
richness of the Copper River Delta and the environmental threat posed
by a major road project. Nevertheless, they have entered into an
agreement that allows CAC to plan and develop the project without an
unbiased environmental impact statement or an opportunity for public
notice and comment. Instead, CAC has been permitted to conduct its own
environmental studies under the supervision of Koncor Forest Products,
the company retained to log CAC's land. While CAC must go through the
formalities of obtaining a special use permit before it can cross 27
miles of Chugach National Forest, its activities will not be subject to
environmental review and public process normally required by the
National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws.
An appropriate level of environmental review and public
participation should be particularly important given CAC's dubious
environmental track record. CAC built the first mile and a half of
logging road last summer. This section of road crosses private land and
did not require Forest Service authorization. CAC's placement of a
bridge across Clear Creek, the first river in the proposed road
corridor, was very controversial and prompted the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game to investigate the construction for possible violations
of state law. More recently, the Environmental Protection Agency is
investigating potential clean water act violations. Nevertheless, CAC
has said it plans to build several more miles of road this summer. The
next section of roadway would cross both private and public lands and
would necessitate filling gravel in Sheep Creek and bridging Sheep
Creek, an anadromous and beautiful, fast-flowing braided river. The
Copper River Delta is simply too important culturally, economically,
and environmentally to authorize development without the careful
consideration required by the nation's environmental laws.
Indeed, full environmental review and public input is especially
critical now. The Forest Service is in the process of updating its
management plan for the Chugach National Forest and, in response to
strong public sentiment, is considering recommending portions of the
Delta as a special management area. It would be inappropriate, and a
blow to every citizen with a legitimate interest in the Copper River
Delta, to authorize an easement without taking the time to ensure that
the environmental effects of road construction will be minimized.
CAC is not entitled to exercise its rights without regard to the
rights and laws of other citizens of this country, especially without
regard to the rights of its own shareholders. The original intent of
the CNI Agreement was to provide access for CAC to its in-holdings--but
not allow CAC the right to restrict public access through its private
land once a public road is built. If allowed, a precedent will be
established that ANCSA corporations can override the entire purpose and
intent of the Federal Government that protects the public interest, and
in the process evaporate public laws by enacting special interest
legislation.
Until a thorough and independent environmental impact statement is
completed, and CAC obtains the normal permits and authorizations, we
must oppose any bill that forces the USFS to issue an easement in 90
days and to approve construction activities no matter how ill
conceived. Sound public policy dictates extreme caution. The Copper
River Delta is an extraordinarily complex and fragile ecosystem. It was
created by forces of nature over tens of thousands of years and, once
destroyed, can never be recreated by human beings. No compensation or
restoration could ever replace the Copper River Delta back to its
pristine state. The Delta should be treated with the care reserved for
any other international treasure--preserved, not exploited with minimal
environmental review and public input.
Title II--Cemetery Sites and Historic Places
This section is designed to determine the outcome of a U.S.
District Court lawsuit currently pending between CAC and the USFS,
filed on May 19th, 1999. This bill would give CAC the right to obtain
historic areas and cemetery sites from the Federal Government after the
ANCSA village corporations agreed to protect these culturally sensitive
area's using Exxon Valdez Oil Spill restoration funds. Ironically,
these culturally sensitive lands have more protection now than when
they were owned by the village corporations, however the actual titles
to the archeological, historical and cultural resources still belongs
to each of the village corporations because they were reserved at the
time of conveyance.
The Eyak Preservation Council and Eyak Traditional Elders Council
has never agreed to the fee simple title component to these
``restoration acquisitions.''
We have always believed that conservation easements (development
restrictions), could have met the goals of restoration without
demanding title to our Native lands. If Congress would like to fix this
restoration flaw and reverse the fee title acquisition and apply
conservation easements--then, do it, but, don't let these ANCSA
regional's take what they never deserved to own in the first place.
According to ANCSA, CAC has certain undeniable rights. However, we
believe it is premature for Congress to decide the issues raised in
H.R. 2547 without first allowing the Federal court to issue a ruling.
Leaving aside the propriety of asking Congress to intervene on behalf
of a private litigant, the courts are generally in the best position to
decide complex issues of statutory construction. CAC has sat around
since 1991, without taking any action or intervening in any meaningful
discussion to disrupt this acquisition process, until now. They were
repeatedly invited to participate, but refused.
We are also concerned with the practical effects of H.R. 2547. The
bill focuses on lands sold by ANCSA Native village corporations to the
Federal Government as part of the ongoing efforts to restore Prince
William Sound to its pristine pre-spill condition. The ANCSA village
corporations, whose shareholders are also shareholders of regional
Native corporations such as CAC, voted to approve the sales and were
somewhat reasonably compensated. Allowing CAC to reclaim the properties
(apparently without payment) would create a windfall for some ANCSA
regional corporations and would threaten the integrity of the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill restoration efforts.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, National Historic Preservation
Act and Alaska State Historic Preservation Act establishes a process
for protecting culturally sensitive lands of Alaska Natives that were
acquired by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. In actuality,
these cemetery sites and historic lands now have state and Federal
protections that were not afforded to Alaska Natives under ANCSA. A
clearcut example is when the Eyak Corporation clearcut our Eyak village
and burial sites along the Eyak River in 1992.
If Congress finds under section 14(h)l of ANCSA, that the Secretary
has the authority to withdraw and convey to the appropriate regional
corporation fee title to existing cemetery and historical places, and
pursuant to section 14(h)7 of ANCSA, lands located within a National
Forest may be conveyed for the purposes set forth in section 14(h)l of
ANCSA--then, why not incorporate into this legislation, that section
14(c)l of ANCSA be carried out by these concerned ANCSA regional
corporations. And that is, that our ancestral lands of Alaska's Native
people be reconveyed to the Alaska Native people immediately, once the
regional corporations receive title from the Federal Government.
Title III--Forest System Land Management
This section of H.R. 2547 attempts to amend the National Forest
Management Act and other laws prescribing the process for developing or
revising national forest plans. Specifically, it would require the
Secretary of Agriculture to ``coordinate'' with CAC and other ANCSA
Native corporations by, among other things, ``assessing the impacts of
Alaska Native Corporation land use plans on National Forest land and
resource management planning, and determining how to address those
impacts'' and ``Identifying conflicts between National Forest land and
resource management plans and the land use plans of Alaska Native
Corporations, and considering alternatives for resolving those
conflicts.'' We oppose this section for three reasons.
First, changes to existing practice are unnecessary. The U.S.
Forest Service is required by law to provide interested parties with
ample opportunity to influence the development or revision of a
national forest management plan. The revision of the Chugach National
Forest land management plan, which apparently prompted this bill, is a
good illustration. The U.S. Forest Service has utilized an extensive
public process involving dozens of open meetings for all affected stake
holders. Notably, CAC representatives have attended and participated in
many of these public meetings.
Second, the ``coordination'' required by H.R. 2547 would give CAC
undue leverage in which to influence forest plan revisions. National
forests are supposed to be managed for the benefit of all Americans and
to accommodate multiple uses. H.R. 2547 requires the Forest Service to
work around CAC's development plans and gives the corporation a
privileged status that is inconsistent with the public purposes of
national forest land.
Finally, H.R. 2547 treats similar parties unequally. There are many
individuals businesses and private entities other than Alaska Native
corporations, that have lands ``which are intermingled with, adjacent
to, or dependent for access upon National Forest System lands.'' A
fundamental tenet of legislation is that it should be fair and even
handed. H.R. 2547 is neither.
This bill would also give ANCSA Native corporations ``preferential
treatment'' to determine land status and zoning processes for
environmentally and culturally sensitive lands that the entire public
should be a part of, including CAC's shareholders. CAC has never
provided a ``land use plan'' for its CAC shareholders that shows not
only the environmental impacts but, the economic impacts of CAC's
natural resource extraction projects. Nor, has CAC ever created a
process in which to identify and settle internal conflicts with its
distinct tribes, or attempted to settle ANCSA section 14(c)l re-
conveyance claims of its 1900 shareholders.
CAC's Eyak Shareholder Concerns
As ANCSA shareholders, we Eyak Natives feel it is necessary for
Congress to understand that we are not being well served by CAC or the
Eyak Corporation. ANCSA was a way of creating dependency by Alaska
Natives on the ``money culture.'' Also it is important to point out
that the ``access issue'' has nothing to do with inherent rights of
Chugach Natives--it is a way for CAC to gain access to our ancestral
land and exploit its abundant natural resources.
After oil was discovered on the north slope in the 1960's, and as
the construction of the pipeline was proposed, it was deemed necessary
to settle the Alaskan Indian land claims. ANCSA's original intent was
to settle these land claims, in the simplest of terms, by transferring
Indian land claims into ``for-profit only'' corporations. Approximately
500 Alaskan Natives voted on ANCSA, out of a population of over 65,000
Natives at the time. We are the only minority race of people in America
who have been forced into corporations in order to receive a ``just and
fair land settlement'' from the Federal Government.
Unlike the lower 48 states, where the Indian problem was dealt with
by creating ``reservations'' (land reserved for Indian people), the
Indigenous people of Alaska were deprived of sovereignty over their
ancestral land and inherent rights by being placed in corporations and
given non-transferable stock. 100 shares were issued to ``applicable''
Indigenous people in 1971, with no new shares to be issued, according
to the ANCSA law. Shareholders with less than 100 shares are not
allowed to vote. Shares are transferred by virtue of inheritance.
It is only a matter of simple math to realize that ANCSA was
designed to take the power and land away from Alaska's Indigenous
people over time, therefore creating a legalized form of cultural
genocide. ANCSA for-profit corporations also jeopardize Alaska Native
ancestral lands, because the land is either clearcut, stripmined,
drilled or sold--allowing cultural ecocide. If Congress wants to truly
help Alaska's Native people, in this case CAC, then it should enact
legislation that benefits all CAC shareholders equally, while providing
opportunities and choices to natural resource extraction--as the only
fix-all to corporate failings. CAC's entire history is filled with
corporate mismanagement, poor/bad judgment by Board of Directors (CAC
has yet to recover from it's 91' bankruptcy) and tens of millions of
dollars in net operating losses.
An immediate GAO investigation of all the ANCSA regional
corporations should be implemented by the House Committee on Resources,
starting with CAC. These findings would give Congress the information
it needs to make educated, timely and sound decisions as to how to
proceed with proposed ANCSA legislation or ANCSA implementation
amendments.
ANCSA is a social and cultural experiment that has failed miserably
by any stretch of one's imagination. Congress needs to rewrite ANCSA
and implement laws that helps preserve our inherent rights--laws that
also compliment our inherent rights as stewards--rather than just ANCSA
shareholders of our land.
The Eyak Preservation Council and the Eyak Traditional Elders
Council wants to emphasize to Congress that ANCSA corporations has not
and does not represent the true interests and concerns of Alaska's
Native people. Ironically, it is ANCSA corporations that are the one's
who can ultimately protect subsistence rights and our inherent rights
of self-determination for Alaska Natives. By preserving our ANCSA lands
and keeping them ``roadless and wild'' will preserve our unique way of
life that has provided for us since time immemorial.
It is our wish that Congress stay out of Native politics and let us
settle our intra-corporate affairs on our own. CAC has never proven to
its shareholders that it is worthy of deserving access to our ancestral
land in the Copper River Delta region. CAC has been fiscally,
environmentally and culturally irresponsible ever since they were
created in 1971. Many of our shareholders are embarrassed to report
that we have never received dividends from any of CAC's ill conceived
development schemes. Congressional legislation should help us become
solvent, not liquidate our remaining assets, drive us further into
poverty and place us right back into the bankruptcy court.
This legislation is unacceptable and unnecessary. It allows CAC to
have dominion over our ancestral land and inherent tribal rights.
Congress should be enacting legislation that strengthens our bond to
our ancestral land and clearly enhances our right to self-determination
as independently recognized tribes in Alaska.
I would offer that there is not a place in Indian Country on the
planet, where a road has not permanently changed the management of fish
and wildlife, allowed irresponsible natural resources development and
adversely affected Native people's subsistence lifestyle forever.
Conclusion
We and numerous other Alaska voters strongly oppose H.R. 2547. This
bill takes a slap-dash approach to complex situations in which many
Alaskans and numerous ANCSA corporations have a passionate interest.
This is particularly true with respect to the Copper River Delta. It
requires finesse, not a sledge hammer, to responsibly evaluate a 55-
mile road project through one of the world's intact and most-unique and
spectacular wetlands.
There are numerous stake holders and worldwide consumers who depend
on the returning Copper River Delta salmon. There is a value to intact
wild places and what they mean to the world--wild places are priceless
and simply become more valuable each day as more wild places are
developed and lost to progress.
Protected watersheds are some of the most valuable and rich
ecosystems left on our planet. Last year, when Congress decided to
assist the Chalista Corporation, this was a similar situation, near
bankruptcy, both financially and spiritually--Congress intervened and
basically created a conservation unit that helped them financially and
socially.
We would obtain a greater financial and social return in preserving
the Bering River/Carbon Mountain tract in its pristine state, in
perpetuity--while maintaining our ability to preserve our needed
traditional subsistence activities and unique way of life on the Copper
River Delta.
By helping us to implement a comprehensive conservation easement
(without any fee title transfers) and helping preserve the entire
Copper River Delta region for all future generations to enjoy is the
best way to settle this controversial dilemma on the Delta.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.020
The Chairman. I beg to differ with you. This is a process.
Sheri is a Native person, Edgar is a Native person, you are a
Native person. I don't think that you ought to differentiate
and say they are not Native people.
Mr. Lankard. The corporation does not represent Native
people, that is what I said.
The Chairman. They are elected by Native people. It is an
elective process.
Mr. Lankard. I agree to disagree with you, sir.
The Chairman. It is an elective process?
Mr. Lankard. Yes.
The Chairman. Edgar is elected by your people?
Mr. Lankard. Like I said, we are a superminority group.
The Chairman. And they don't vote with Chugach at all?
Mr. Lankard. Yes, we do vote, but whenever we do vote, our
numbers do not carry any weight.
The Chairman. Of course not, you are the minority. If you
want to change the system, you ought to become the majority.
Mr. Lankard. Yes, I am planning on running for the board of
directors.
The Chairman. And if you get elected, you will have a
voice. I thank you.
Let's go back to where and why we are all here. We had this
hearing last year. I think most of you were here. Mr. Vento, we
moved the bill out of committee, and this is an Act of 1971 and
an Act of 1982, an inability of the Forest Service to come to a
conclusion. We can argue about whether it is right or wrong,
but the fact is that there is a requirement.
I just want to know one thing. Edgar or Sheri, has Chugach
Natives met all of the obligations of the 1982 Act?
Ms. Buretta. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You had to pay for the full cost of the
environmental impact statement?
Ms. Buretta. This is correct.
The Chairman. Is that common practice? Does anyone know
whether any other Native corporation had to do this?
Ms. Buretta. If I can refer to our legal counsel.
Mr. Giannini. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The environmental documents which the forest supervisor
deemed necessary were paid for by Chugach Alaska. We estimate
that the cost was over $1 million, and then we paid $100,000
under a collection agreement for the Forest Service to
participate in them, read them and review them.
The Chairman. The Forest Service has agreed with the
findings and have signed off on this agreement?
Mr. Giannini. Prior to final publication of the
environmental documents, we received a letter from people in
Anchorage at the Forest Service that said it was complete both
in form and content and--it was an interdisciplinary team
review toward the end, and everybody agreed that it was the
best route, and all questions had been addressed. And we
understood that within 45 days of the submission of those
documents, we would receive the issuance of a recordable
easement document.
The Chairman. Let's go back to the selling of the land.
EVOS bought how many acres of land?
Ms. Buretta. EVOS has purchased lands from the village
corporation, the surface estate of which we own the subsurface.
The Chairman. How many acres?
Ms. Buretta. Approximately 235,000.
The Chairman. When they purchase that land, do they
transfer title to the National Forest Service?
Mr. Giannini. Some land has been purchased in fee simple,
and title has been transferred to the Forest Service, some to
the State and I believe some to the Department of Interior. I
am not entirely sure.
Some of the land was not purchased in fee, but instead what
they purchased were what they call conservation easements,
which include development rights. In other words, the property,
while remaining--bear title remaining in the village
corporation, the rights of development are completely----
The Chairman. My understanding is that--and the Forest
Service has communicated to me--that they want a Federal
easement for the whole road, otherwise you have to enter into
an agreement with your land as Federal easement?
Mr. Giannini. Yes. Mr. Chairman, under the 1982 agreement,
there was a provision whereby as the government deeded the
property out to the Native corporation, it would reserve
easements. And, in fact, on the particular Carbon Mountain
tract, there were several routes of easements that were
reserved. What they have told us is that they now believe that
we have an obligation to convey yet another easement across the
proposed route of the mainline road once it leaves Forest
Service land and enters our land.
The Chairman. You have agreed to build the road and pay for
the road and grant public access. Why do they want a Federal
easement?
Mr. Giannini. The 1982 agreement, Mr. Chairman, requires
that we build the road and we maintain the road, but that the
public have access on the road on Forest Service land. Now they
are saying that they want to have public access on Chugach
Alaska land on the mainline road because there are several
pieces of that road on our land which would also access Forest
Service land.
While we have said we will not convey further easements, we
have agreed that as a condition of the easement, we would allow
public access on the road that we build on our land.
The Chairman. Why are they insisting on that? They have
said, we have given the chance to do it. We are not the ones
dragging our feet, Chugach is doing it. As far as I can find,
the only problem that they have is this easement. Why do you
think that they are insisting upon that provision?
Mr. Giannini. We believe that there is some danger that
once they request this easement, and once we grant them an
easement and they have a Federal property interest on our land,
that it would basically federalize an undertaking on our land
that requires additional studies.
The Chairman. Otherwise not issue the right of way?
Mr. Giannini. Yes, and delay it further so that we would be
forced into the position of having to sell the land or a
conservation easement.
The Chairman. My time is up.
The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
would like to echo your sentiments expressed earlier about the
funeral services that our colleagues are currently attending of
our late member, George Brown. I want to say with all due
respect and reverence for this great American, it has been my
privilege in the past 11 years knowing him.
Having said that, I want to thank you and to commend you
for holding this hearing on this legislation that we find
ourselves now in, an example of--not just in terms of the
easement process, Mr. Chairman, but it goes a lot deeper and a
lot farther, in my humble opinion, on how we have gone about
treating the rights of our first Americans, especially in the
great State of Alaska.
I do have several questions that I want to ask the members
of the panel. As expressed earlier by Mr. Lankard, there seems
to be some concern that the Eyak Athabascans are not
represented in his nine-member board. I would like to ask the
panel, in the election process of the nine-member boards,
aren't all the four groups represented in the membership of the
board, of the corporation, Mr. Lankard?
Mr. Lankard. No, they are not. When it comes to voting, it
is not like we make sure that we have an Eyak or Tlingit or
Aleut or Chugach representation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So there is no proportional
representation in your election process?
Mr. Lankard. No, neither in the village as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Ms. Buretta, do you want to respond to
this?
The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, sure.
The Chairman. I have a letter here from the president of
the native village of Eyak, which acknowledges Mr. Lankard is a
respected member of our tribe. However, he is not a member of
our tribal council, nor is not a spokesman for our tribe. The
native village of Eyak does support H.R. 2547, the village
itself does. I just want to make that clear.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lankard. Could I clarify that?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Lankard. The native village of the Eyak tribal council,
the five Eyak tribal chiefs, are all of Aleut descent, so it is
only in name.
The way that it works under the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
it is the traditional government. So any traditional
government, the 600-some members, they elect their own
officers.
So when it comes to election, again, we are a super
minority so we don't even have status within our own village
council as well.
Ms. Buretta. I would like to just clarify.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, could you respond to that, Ms.
Buretta?
Ms. Buretta. The native village of Eyak tribal council is
the federally recognized tribe for the Eyaks, and they are the
designated tribe.
Mr. Lankard. Federally-recognized traditionally.
Mr. Faleomavaega. On the 1,900-shareholder membership on
CAC, that represents obviously all four groups. So we are
talking about a total population of what, of the Chugach
Nation, if I would describe it in that format?
Ms. Buretta. There are approximately 1,900 shareholders
that we represent.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The corporation, right?
Ms. Buretta. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But I am talking about what is the total
population of the Eyaks, the Chugachs, the Tlingit, the Aleuts,
that make up the Chugach?
Ms. Buretta. We also have descendants that--1971 was the
cut-off date for allowing native people to belong to the
corporation, but there are a large number of descendants that
are also considered part of the corporation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, maybe I am losing my question to
you. The tribal roles for these four groups make up the total
Chugach Corporation, or the Nation, if you call it. What is the
total population that we are talking about?
I am not talking about the 1,900 shareholders. I am talking
about the total population of all of these four groups that was
indicated earlier, the Chugachs, the Tlingits, the Aleuts, the
Eyaks. What is the total population that we are talking about
of the Nation?
Mr. Blatchford. If I might, Mr. Chairman, respond?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please.
Mr. Blatchford. The total population within the Chugach
region, the native population is much larger than the 1,900,
because we have descendants of shareholders, descendants of
shareholders, and all of those Alaskan natives who were not
alive prior to December of 1971 are not shareholders, original
shareholders, but they can be granted shareholder status by
their parents, gifts of their 100 shares that the parents have
to their children. Okay?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Am I making the question so complicated?
All I want to know is the total population of the Chugach
shareholders. Twenty thousand people?
The Chairman. No. The shareholders, I would say, are about
2,000 shareholders.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Right.
The Chairman. Now the descendants, I don't know whether--
and we will have to figure that out with this new census that
comes up.
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond. Again, the
total native population of the Chugach region probably
represents around 3,500 people. That is shareholders and
descendants of shareholders.
Mr. Lankard. And as far as Eyak descendants, there are 132
of us.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, the experience that I seem
to gain in meetings and in trying to understand, for this
member in resolving all the problem that has come to the
forefront of this corporation, duly-elected members asking for
an easement and the recalcitrance of the Forest Service and
other agencies, they have been dragging their feet for the past
10 years. And I would like to ask, again, the members of the
panel: Is there for some reason--personality problems in the
administration--or is there some missing portion of the
agreements that were made in the 1982 settlement that has
caused this thing to drag on now for 10 years?
Ms. Buretta. Peter Giannini will answer that question.
Mr. Giannini. Mr. Chairman, we have enjoyed for the last
several years a very fine working relation with the local
people in the Chugach National Forest. The new forest
supervisor and the people he has put on this have really worked
hard, and we are really pleased with that relationship.
I cannot say that it has been that way. I think Mr.
Blatchford's comments indicated that in the 1970s and 1980s
particularly there was strong resistance. We think that the
million dollar study, which was done by the previous forest
supervisor, was----
Mr. Faleomavaega. So the supervisor does approve all the
things that have been done, but when it comes to Washington it
washes--is that basically what we are looking at?
The Chairman. If I can, and your time is about up and we
will come back to you, that is exactly what is happening.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I mean, it comes right out of DC. They want
to force this group of native people to sell their land because
of environmental pressures.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
The Chairman. And that is a fact. That is not a joke; that
is a fact. EVOS has done that--$900 million. What they have
done is criminal. That money was granted to the board of
trustees to replenish the wildlife and the fish that were hurt
because of Exxon Valdez, and what they have done is set out and
bought native land, eradicated native rights.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the chairman yield?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And out of this EVOS fund of $900
million, has there ever been any consideration given to the
economic losses of the Chugach Corporation?
The Chairman. What happens is not to the corporation. They
go into the village and wave that money over and over. We have
cases where the village has said, we do not want to sell our
land and yet they keep coming back and coming back and coming
back and waving the big dollars. And by the way, the reason
Chugach hasn't been able to pay any dividends is because they
haven't been able to do anything because they can't get title
to their land, which was guaranteed to them.
The gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I hear three sets of issues here. One set has
to do with the environment. One set has to do with the economic
viability of potential future operations on this 73,000 acres
and the other set of issues has to do with an agreement between
the Chugach Alaskan Corporation and the Department of Interior.
Is that a fair analysis, Mr. Blatchford?
Mr. Blatchford. If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, I would say
it is a fair analysis. Going back to the 1982 agreement, in
answering the previous question, there is a substantial lack of
good faith and there is a substantial lack of respect for
Alaskan natives, I believe, in the Chugach region. We have
tried very hard to keep that not for sale kind of----
Mr. Saxton. In 1982, your corporation made an agreement
with the Department of Interior; is that right?
Mr. Blatchford. In 1982, Congressman, we did--in good
faith, we made an agreement and an integral part of that
agreement was access to our lands.
Mr. Saxton. And there were--what I hear you saying is there
were two parts to that agreement. One was to convey title to
the land, which they did, right?
Mr. Blatchford. Right. That is correct.
Mr. Saxton. And the second part of that agreement, which
was a signed contract between the parties?
Mr. Blatchford. It was a signed contract between the
parties, between the Chugach natives and the United States
Government.
The United States Government guaranteed us access across
public lands. We gave up our claims to those public lands in
exchange for 73,000 acres in the Carbon Mountain Tract, and we
could not develop that land unless we had access to it, an
easement.
We would not--I believe we would not have agreed to the
1982 agreement had we believed that the United States
Government was acting in bad faith.
Mr. Saxton. Was there anything in the agreement about
environmental studies relative to the establishment or
construction of the road?
Mr. Giannini. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, yes, there is. It
says that although under ANILCA, the--this ANCSA conveyance
would be exempt from NEPA, that the forest supervisor can deem
the preparation of NEPA-like environmental documents necessary,
and the previous forest supervisor did deem documents
necessary. And the pile of documents at the end of the counter
there, that is the study that took place.
Mr. Saxton. And those documents--those studies have been
done, the documents have been completed and they have been
accepted by the Forest Service; is that right?
Mr. Giannini. Yes, they have.
Mr. Saxton. So you have done everything that you agreed to
and yet the Forest Service hasn't done everything it agreed to;
is that correct?
Mr. Giannini. That is exactly how we view it, yes.
Mr. Saxton. Well, Mr. Chairman, I was in the real estate
business for 20 years and we handled thousands of contracts,
and people get in trouble if they don't--if they don't do what
they agree to do in the contract.
I find it strange that the Forest Service had agreed in
1982 to do these things, and the CAC did what they agreed to
do. I just have a hard time understanding how it is that the
Forest Service can just not do it.
Now, their motive, their motive, may not be so mysterious,
from what I am hearing. Because there is a pot of money that
was created subsequent to the Exxon Valdez oil spill to
purchase lands. There is money available for purchase if
somebody is a willing seller; is that correct?
Mr. Lankard. Not out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
restoration monies. They have refused to extend the boundary to
include the Bering River region. So none of those monies, which
are about $55 million, that were set aside for habitat
protection, can be used.
Mr. Saxton. Well, Mr. Blatchford, there are monies
available for the purchase of this land; is that correct?
Mr. Blatchford. I believe, Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I
believe that there is an agenda out there to force Chugach
natives to sell its land to the Federal Government.
I believe this is an extinguishment effort. I think that we
have seen this--I saw it. I experienced it back in the 1970s
when I was coming back to Washington, DC. There was a strong,
strong opinion that lands should not be conveyed to native
Alaskans, and then within the Chugach region, once the land was
agreed to, they agreed to slow the process.
How they have done it, Mr. Chairman, to the Congressman, is
that they have prevented any development; and when there is no
development and no effort to generate any profits, there are no
dividends. If there are no dividends, there is no--there is
dissension within our shareholder ranks, our Alaskan natives.
They are asking what the corporation has done.
What the Forest Service, I believe--what the Federal
Government has done is to fan the waves of dissension by
saying, look, you have not done anything; therefore, you have
not received anything from your corporation. Therefore, the
only time you are going to get anything is if you sell the
land.
What is so sad about it, Mr. Chairman, to the Congressman,
is that the land has been sold at a ridiculously low price,
between--an average--we haven't figured out the average, but it
is between $200 and $400 an acre in the most pristine area of
Prince William Sound.
I think the least that the Federal Government can do is to
have a little respect for Alaskan natives and have a little
faith that we can take care of the land just as good as anybody
else.
We need a little respect here, Mr. Chairman, Congressman.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The gentleman from Washington State, I believe, was the
next here, and then Mr. Vento.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lankard has expressed some criticism of some decisions
the corporation has made in the past. I am going to be asking
you some questions about the corporation's intent, but in doing
so, I want to make sure that I believe wholeheartedly in Mr.
Blatchford's comment that the tribe is deserving, number one,
of respect legally; and two, I believe that the corporation has
the right to make mistakes.
And if it has made mistakes in the past--I am not agreeing
with Mr. Lankard necessarily; I don't know the situation--but
if it has made mistakes in the past, it has the right to make
mistakes. These are decisions about its own land, and it has a
right to make an investment decision just like any other owner.
I am going to ask you some questions about your intent, but
I want to make sure at least one member--and I think a lot of
the members feel it is important to respect your decisions in
this regard for your own purposes, and I just want to tell you
personally that that is how I feel about this.
Let me ask you about your feelings about prospective
purchases or sales. I think you are right. I don't know a lot
about this issue, but I think there are people interested in
trying to purchase conservation easements, in some sense to do
this rather than harvest the timber on this land. From what
little I know about that, that seems to be accurate.
What is the corporate feeling about that if, indeed, the
corporation could receive the same net economic benefit from a
sale of conservation rights as opposed to harvest? Does the
corporation have it on record or really addressed that issue?
If it could, in fact, have the same net economic benefit, would
it make a difference to the corporation in its decision?
Ms. Buretta. I would like to respond to that, Congressman.
The position that the board of directors has taken with
this issue, and all of our land issues, is that our land is not
for sale; and until we get the rights that we bargained for
under the agreements in 1971 and again in 1982, we are not in a
position to make any considerations until we have achieved
those rights that we have bargained for.
I don't know how--you know, how much more clear that can
be. We have an obligation to our shareholders to fulfill what
was bargained for, and that is our intent.
Mr. Inslee. Is it--I am sorry, Mr. Blatchford. Go ahead.
Mr. Blatchford. With the permission of superior, Mr.
Chairman, in response to the question there, I chair the
finance committee of Chugach Finance Corporation and we have
done no economic analysis, no financial analysis, of any
purchase of Chugach's land. Simply that we look at the
opportunities for shareholders, Alaska natives, descendants of
shareholders. We are there for the best interest of the Alaska
native people.
We have done no financial analysis, no economic analysis,
of any money that we might receive from any sale of land for
the simple reason that we have not considered the sale of
native land in our region, period.
The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment?
Mr. Inslee. Certainly.
The Chairman. I think one of the problems they are faced
with is that if the Forest Service keeps dragging their feet,
and they don't have access to the land, then they will be
required to sell the land. Once they get access, and that is a
right, and once they have full title to their land, then that
is when the negotiations should take place.
But right now they are unable to negotiate. They can't put
a price on it because it really is of no value. If you can't
get to it, it might as well be on the moon.
Mr. Inslee. Well, let me ask a question, and if you give me
a candid response I would really appreciate it. It is kind of a
sensitive question, I suppose.
I assume that the corporation is reluctant to even consider
this issue because they feel that without access they will be
low-balled on the purchase price and that is of great concern
to the corporation, as opposed to a situation where the
corporation, for some philosophical reason, would always reject
a sale of conservation easements.
The reason I have that belief and assumption, is that the
corporation did sell its subsurface rights several years ago
and that, therefore, it is not a philosophical objection that
the corporation would have; it is more of an economic one, that
without the access, they think they will get low-balled.
Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman, to the Congressman, I don't
think that is a fair statement. I think that the corporation
simply says that we are not going to sell our land. The Bering
River Coalfields, the Carbon Mountain Tract is not for sale.
Sure, we entered into some business development prospects with
a company from Korea several years ago, but we remain adamant
that the land is not for sale.
Just let me address, Mr. Chairman--talk about the kinds of
dissension that results from lack of return from the
corporation. Yes, shareholders become frustrated because they
are told that this is a corporation; therefore, you are
entitled to a dividend. We are expected to go out and utilize
the opportunities within our natural boundaries, the Chugach
native region, because we want to expect some sort of return
for our shareholders.
Now, a few years ago, it was timber. A few years ago, it
was fisheries. That doesn't foreclose the opportunities of
fisheries or timber, despite what happened, because we had an
unnatural incident that totally surprised and shocked the board
of directors and the Chugach native region, and that was the
Exxon Valdez running aground on Blight Reef. From 1971--from
1971 to 1982, and I got my first introduction, Mr. Chairman, to
Congressman Mo Udall with this same issue. When Blight Reef
came into the international spotlight, Chugach was spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars just on what we thought would
be our opportunities in the Chugach region. Those opportunities
were extinguished when the Exxon Valdez hit the reef. From 1971
to the settlement time, 1982, we spent well over a million
dollars trying to convince the Congress of the United States to
convince the Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture to convey to us what we were entitled to, an Act of
Congress, a binding Act of Congress on the United States
Government, to honor its good-faith commitment to native
Alaskans, Alaskan natives.
It kind of reminds me, Mr. Chairman, if I may be so bold as
to say this, but in 1830 the Congress of the United States
permitted the removal of all Indian tribes east of the
Mississippi River, and then on those lands, they were taken;
they were removed off of those lands.
Well, we found out with the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill
that it became kind of like that. It became the Chugach Native
Removal Act.
Sure, there is dissension within our region, and there will
always be dissension within our region. We have thousands of
people that we are responsible for; and you are all
Congressmen, you are all elected by the people, so you know
what dissension is.
We appreciate it.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Minnesota, I believe, is next.
Mr. Vento. I think the gentleman from New Mexico.
The Chairman. Mr. Udall then. Go ahead, Mr. Udall. We are
not going to waste time passing this baton back and forth.
Mr. Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lankard, you were about to comment on that sale issue
at one point.
Mr. Lankard. Yes.
Mr. Udall. Could you go ahead?
Mr. Lankard. A point of clarification: A conservation
easement is purchasing the development restrictions, and not
fee title to one's land. I feel that if Congress is so
concerned about that, then they should go in and reverse those
fee simple acquisitions and make them acquisitions of
development restrictions only, where they could have still met
their goals of restoration without having to buy the title of
native land away from the people.
So what they are confusing this issue with is--is that what
we are trying to do here is create a conservation alternative
to the natural resource extraction projects that have landed us
in bankruptcy. So we feel that if they are allowed to build a
road across the Delta, and they are allowed to log this land;
and since they haven't proven through an economic analysis how
they are going to make any money, we see we are just going to
be further driven into bankruptcy.
You know, I agree that corporations have the right to make
mistakes, but I don't think that they should be allowed to
repeatedly make bad decisions that affect all of the people,
because 90 percent of the people who live in the Cordova region
and along the coastline live a subsistence life-style.
So I think it is really important that we look at
alternatives and not just have blinders on and say that this is
an access issue and we need to develop our land. ANCSA didn't
say that. It said that it was to help the native peoples, and
development obviously has not.
Mr. Udall. You say in your statement at the end that you
believe that implementing a comprehensive conservation easement
without any fee title transfers and helping preserve the entire
Copper River Delta region for future generations would be the
best way to go. Could you describe why you believe that?
Mr. Lankard. Well, if you look at the economic restoration
that Mr. Murkowski and Mr. Young are so concerned about in the
Chugach region, in the four villages that have accepted deals
with the trustees' council, the Exxon Valdez oil spill trustee
council, that has poured over $100 million of economic
restoration into the region where we would not have received
that any other way.
So I think as far as helping the native peoples out, I
think that the alternative is this: That rather than clear-cut,
strip mine, oil drill and sell the land, if we were to do
conservation easements, and again purchasing the development
restrictions away from these native corporations, it would do a
number of things. It would preserve the land in its intact
state; it would show that wild places do have value; and at the
same time, it would allow the people who continue to make a
living off of the Delta, the way that it is right now, that
opportunity way into the future, because these watersheds are
irreplaceable and especially this one that is as highly
productive as the Copper River Delta.
So I feel that the corporation should at least have a
choice and not be forced to have a road built across the Copper
River Delta, because the stakeholders--it affects many
stakeholders, not just the corporation.
Mr. Udall. So you view this really as a win-win situation
for the corporation and for the native people that live there?
Mr. Lankard. Definitely, because again, like I said earlier
in my testimony, our subsistence life-style makes us some of
the most wealthiest people on the planet because we are able to
subsist in the wild rather than in grocery stores. And I don't
think that a lot of the commercial fishermen in the Sound would
have been able to survive over this last decade if the Copper
River Delta Fishery wouldn't have been the catalyst that has
made their industry stay afloat.
Because the Sound salmon, the price just plummeted, like
Mr. Blatchford said. Right after the Exxon Valdez oil spill
happened, our prices went from a dollar a pound for pinks and
chums down to around a nickel a pound. So the only thing that
has held the price and kept people fishing, without going
bankrupt themselves, is the Copper River Delta Fishery.
Mr. Udall. Do you view that the corporation has supported
the native subsistence life-style in the way they have
operated?
Mr. Lankard. No. I feel that because of the extraction
projects that they have been engaged in and the amount of
losses and the no-dividends that have been paid through these
extraction decisions, I think reflect that they haven't been
enhancing our subsistence life-style at all.
The best thing that they could do is help us preserve our
lands, preserve our subsistence life-styles, preserve our
commercial fishing industry and allow the people to continue to
live off the land the way it is. That is how I think, the best
they could help us, by leaving the land alone.
Mr. Udall. Have you viewed the Forest Service as being a
constructive force in this process?
Mr. Lankard. I think that the Forest Service has tried to
uphold and protect the laws, and also they have tried to
protect the public interest in this case, because again this
road has to cross 27 miles of public forest. So I think they
have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the land as much as
they can.
As far as the access issue goes, that, I think, has been a
point of contention. I think that if Chugach Alaska Corporation
wants to build a road across public lands, then they should, in
turn, give up access to private lands to cross a public road.
And I think it goes both ways. They can't have it just one way.
I think that is what the Forest Service has done.
Mr. Udall. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I think we have also heard the Forest Service
locally has tried everything possible to make sure this
happens. It is getting stopped right here in Washington, DC.
That is number one.
Number two, I think it has been explained that if they
insist on having the public easement on the Federal lands, then
it becomes Federal lands on native lands, taking lands away
from the natives. Then that opens a whole gamut of new lawsuits
that can be applied because it is Federal land, thus impeding
or slowing down the processes of the easement.
Now, we may disagree--by the way, Mo was a very big
supporter of the Native Lands Claim Act. You know, I want you
to remember that. He wanted it to be fully implemented.
Mr. Udall. Do you think if he was back here today, hearing
this, he would still----
The Chairman. He would be very upset with the Forest
Service and this administration.
Mr. Udall. I think he would be very upset about some of the
things he would have heard today.
The Chairman. Now I want to say one other thing, too, while
we are at it.
The idea that this road is going to destroy the fisheries,
remember there has been a tremendous amount of money put into
the environmental impact statement, has been signed off and
there are many different laws that would also preclude that
from occurring. I am going to suggest that this is a case where
there are a group of people, primarily stationed in Washington,
DC, that are trying to harass this small 3,500 group of people,
2,000 shareholders, and finally buy them out. This is the goal.
I mean, you know, this is what this is all about.
You may disagree. It may not be economical, et cetera, et
cetera. Of course, it is not economical if you don't have
access. This was the problem with our whole battle over the
Alaska National Lands Act. We have State lands and native
lands, and in between we have the Federal; and the Act itself--
I have an amendment that says we shall have access, but every
time we try to achieve access, we are precluded from getting
it. It actually makes your land not valuable.
Now, I again think that if we were to get the access, this
is just saying--I am not going to put anybody in a box here. If
the access was granted, if it isn't economical to harvest those
hemlock, that is another story, but at least they would get a
fair shot at the true value of that 8,000 acres. Right now they
have no fair shot at all. I want you to understand that.
It was set up in 1971. It was to build the corporations,
nonprofit and profit, and that has been recognized. That is the
law, and I don't think it is going to be changed.
The gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Vento. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I know there hasn't been--one of the witnesses said there
hasn't been--Mr. Blatchford said there hadn't been an economic
analysis of exactly what the results or consequence would be.
But one of the statements that has been made and one that
persists is the issue that in order to get that--this easement
has been off and on.
This hasn't been a one-position situation since 1982 when
Jim Watt granted this particular parcel of land under a lawsuit
issue, incidentally. It wasn't part of ANILCA.
I think, in fact, leading up to ANILCA, we had every
effort, including John Dingell tried to make this a wildlife
protected area, and it came back as a conservation area. It is
an important wetlands resource, one of the most distinctive in
North America, as the gentleman from Alaska knows.
But the issue here is, the total length of the road is
something like 55 miles, and apparently 30 miles of it is
proposed to be over the national or Federal lands and the rest
over village corporation lands. So the issue is, part of the
road construction has already begun and we have no analysis of
what the cost of the road is. There are estimates that go into
the tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Lankard, do you have any idea of what the cost of this
road is? It has been built through some of the corporation
lands already, near as I can see.
Mr. Lankard. Yes. If it is flat land and there are no
bumps, they can build for about $125,000 a mile, but once they
start going up over any slopes, which they would have to do
along this road because they are right up against the cliff
line, the forest line, then it bumps up to $250,000 a mile. So
then, in past discussions with the corporation, we heard
anywhere from $3 million to $4 million, and I actually believe
that it is going to be $20 million to $30 million, and that is
just to get to where they are going. That does not include the
number of miles that it would cost to build once they go there,
which could drive that price even much higher than that.
I don't think the timber is enough or the quality is there
to cover the cost of even building the road.
Mr. Vento. Do you have to pay the trees on top of it? Ms.
Buretta?
And pardon me. That is a name I should be able to
pronounce, I would say.
Ms. Buretta. Congressman, I would like to point out two
things on our map here, if I could.
Can I get somebody to just put up the other map? If you can
just put that one down.
If you would note, there is already a road that crosses
over much of the Delta, that does not affect, to the degree
that Mr. Lankard has mentioned, any of the fisheries. The
public is able to enjoy the beauty of that area, and it has
been there for a long time, without any of this effect that
they are so concerned about on the environment.
Mr. Vento. What did you say the cost was of constructing
the road? That was my question, the new road, the cost of the
new road that you say you disagreed with his assessment of,
what the cost is--$125,000, $250,000 a mile?
Ms. Buretta. If I could let our attorney answer.
Mr. Vento. Well, yes. Mr. Giannini.
Mr. Giannini. Thank you. We have estimated that the cost of
the road from the Copper River Highway to our land would
probably be somewhere in the $6 million to $8 million range.
The estimates of $20 million to $30 million, I don't know where
they come from.
Mr. Vento. Ms. Buretta, in terms of talking about how the
public was going to enjoy that, does that mean you are
interested in giving a public easement on this land?
Ms. Buretta. Well, the other thing that I wanted to point
out on the map----
Mr. Vento. Because about half of it is public and half of
it is in the native area, right?
Ms. Buretta. Well, if you look at the map, surrounding our
area, everything in white is already a park, is already--and
there are hundreds of thousands of acres of----
Mr. Vento. But my question, of course, is, if it is a park
and nobody can get to it, you can't enjoy it. The national
forest----
The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Vento. Yes.
The Chairman. In the agreement, they have agreed to public
access. They just don't want to give a Federal access
definition, is my understanding, because once you do that, they
have other problems that could occur that would delay the
granting of the right-of-way. They have publicly agreed to
public access on the road.
By the way, I never understood the Forest Service, where
they are hung up on this, unless there is something mischievous
in their minds about delaying the issuance of this deal.
Don't look at me that way. They can be very mischievous,
believe me.
Mr. Vento. I know in your mind, Mr. Chairman, they are.
The Chairman. In everybody's mind. You had better watch
out.
Mr. Vento. Well, I think the other aspect, of course, is
that since there has been no economic analysis of this--as has
been pointed out by the chairman, I guess there has been no
economic analysis of a lot of things that have gone up on the
Chugach Corporation, based on the dividends. I don't know if it
is all inability to get access, but the cost of the logging has
to be added in here, the cost of the roads in this area have to
be added in; so many other aspects.
So since you are coming with us and pleading this case as
an economic problem, I guess we want to understand the
specifics of it.
Mr. Lankard?
Mr. Lankard. Yes. Historically, the way that native
corporations have done logging business in the past is they
have paid loggers to log the land and paid people to build the
roads. So if you look at the way the regional corporations have
been set up is that they are supposed to pay 70 percent of
their profits to the other 12 regional corporations through 7-I
sharing, but as long as you are driving your overhead so high
that there is no way that there are any profits at the end, you
basically spend all of your money building the roads and paying
off the loggers. So by the time it comes down to any profit
there is none, and that equals no dividends.
Historically, that is the way it has always been.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is up.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I want to thank the panel. I appreciate your
being here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, go ahead. I am sorry.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can we go further?
The Chairman. If you would like to go further, go further.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to. I still have some more
questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise here.
It is my understanding, in reading the testimonies here,
that the corporation had expended well over a million dollars,
even $100,000 that the Forest Service had demanded that you pay
for an environmental impact statement that has now been
submitted, fully accepted by the supervisor, the people, the
Forest Service in Alaska? Is this all in the books, accepted?
Mr. Giannini. Mr. Chairman, if I may--Peter Giannini
speaking--it is environmental documents that are--were
prescribed by the forest supervisor. It is not an environmental
impact statement, but it is documents that met the Forest
Service supervisor's concern.
This was part of--I think there has been some confusion
here. When Mr. Blatchford said there has been no economic
analysis, there has been no economic analysis of any
conservation easements, because none have been proposed to it,
none have been offered to us. No one has ever shown us the
money.
What there--there has been significant economic analysis of
the proposed logging venture, and in fact the reason nothing is
going forward now is obviously because the market is
unacceptable.
Somehow it is being painted that this corporation has been
financially irresponsible. While it is true that in 1991 it was
forced into bankruptcy by the failure of the fish canneries and
a sawmill, the ongoing logging operations that the corporation
has engaged in since its Chapter XI, which incidentally has
paid its--Chugach Alaska has paid its creditors in full and is
back to a position of profitability and strength, thanks to
very good management by both our board and our management.
But that being said, there has been an economic analysis
done and there has been an environmental analysis done, and the
real issue here is, if we could stop spending money on trips to
Washington to try to get the access rights and on the
environmental study, we could be much more profitable. If we
had the easement, we could then make the decision as to whether
this is an appropriate time to log, an appropriate time not to
log, an appropriate time to consider----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Could I reclaim my time? I think you are
going a little further than what I was trying to get at.
Is the CAC Corporation the only organization that clearly
does timber operations? What about the other 11 regional
corporations in Alaska? Do they also have timber operations
currently?
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman, responding to the
Congressman, we do not speak for the other regional----
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, I am just saying, do the other 11
regional organizations have timber operations?
Mr. Blatchford. There are logging operations, yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. That is all I am trying to
ascertain.
Since you declared bankruptcy after the Valdez spill, with
a $900 EVOS, why is it that that the EVOS funding has not been
utilized to help you overcome this financial disaster that you
have--not as a result of you, but because of what the Exxon
company had done?
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, under the
policy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill trustees' council, under
their policy, they do not recognize people and indeed they do
not recognize cultural activities.
Mr. Lankard. Also, the fact that they demand fee title, and
that was one reason that Chugach has not entertained any
negotiations with them. And again, we have never endorsed that
as well.
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman, I must respond. With all due
respect to the person sitting to the right of me, he doesn't
have any official position with Chugach or within the Chugach
native community. So I wonder where he got some of his factual
basis in responding to the Congressman earlier about the
financial analysis.
We have not done a financial analysis of the sale because
we are not considering any sale.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me.
Could someone show me where the road surface is, where the
Forest Service wants an easement over the corporation's land?
Could you just kind of generally give me an idea of where that
is?
Mr. Giannini. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Inslee. I have got the map. I don't know if you can
show me on the board or somehow.
Mr. Giannini. In the material that we have provided, one of
the things is a summary of the documentation in support of the
easement. And the very last page is a map, and on that map, on
the far left, is a dotted line, which is the existing Copper
River Highway.
Mr. Inslee. Yes.
Mr. Giannini. Then there is a--the proposed route across
Forest Service land is shown--it is actually marked as
``proposed corridor.'' on the right-hand side is a tract that
says, Chugach Alaska Corporation/Carbon Mountain Tract, and so
from the river----
Mr. Inslee. Could I stop you just for second. From the
intersection with the existing road, is it just the square that
shows Chugach Village Corporation lands?
Mr. Giannini. The Eyak village land is what is called a 17-
B easement, and there is already public access on that route.
Then--that is actually a public easement. Then--or there is an
agreement to relocate that easement.
The piece that would travel across the national forest to
our land, there is a provision in the Chugach Native Settlement
Agreement that provides that the public and the government has
a right of access across any road that we build.
Then when we get to Chugach Alaska property; that is
private property. The government has reserved various rights--
various easements across that tract, and has the right today to
construct whatever roads it chooses across that property.
What they are saying is that the road that we are proposing
to build on our land may not follow those easements, and so
they are suggesting that we now have an obligation to provide
an additional easement without any contractual or statutory
basis for requesting that.
We have said that we will not give them that interest in
land, but to the extent that we have agreed to allow access on
the road on the Forest Service property, we will provide access
across the road--the mainland road that we build on our
property, at least so far as it provides access to Forest
Service.
Mr. Inslee. So you made some statement that the Forest
Service reserved the right to place some easements on that
property?
Mr. Giannini. When the Forest Service issued interim
conveyance--I don't believe we have final patent to these. When
the----
Mr. Inslee. Let me interrupt just for a second. Did the
Forest Service have the right to decide where those easements
were, or do you say they were already described in metes and
bounds?
Mr. Giannini. Actually, I believe it was BLM that
officially was responsible for that selection, but I am certain
the Forest Service had input in that decision.
Mr. Inslee. So if BLM, in fact, or some Federal agency,
reserved the right to locate some easements, couldn't they
effectively argue that they have the right to put the easement
right on top of wherever you were going to build your road?
Mr. Giannini. The easement that is reserved is specifically
described as passing through specific sections. It is a
reservation in our patent or in our conveyance.
Mr. Inslee. I see. Have they expressed a willingness to
give those up in exchange for a public easement on wherever you
put your road?
Mr. Giannini. They have been unclear as to whether they are
willing to or not.
Mr. Inslee. Okay.
Mr. Lankard, could you tell me, we are very sensitive in my
statement about degradation of salmon spawning habitat because
of logging roads. We have had some real tragedies in our State
and we don't want to see that happen in yours, obviously.
Could you tell me, do you or others question the site
location or specifics for this road from a salmon habitat
standpoint?
Mr. Lankard. Well, I think that since there have been
adjustments and the road has been moved up to the timber line,
that I think that it is actually in a better place than where
they originally had planned.
But what we are more concerned with is what kind of fill
will be required, like the very first bridge that they built
across Clear Creek this last year in the first mile and a half
of road, there were 11 stipulations in Title XVI, which is an
anadromous fish spawning stream crossing, and there were at
least five violations that we had recorded.
So there are a number of investigations going on right now
that, you know, show that on the very first bridge they had
violated the Clean Water Act. So I think that that is only
going to increase, the farther away they get from the public
road. They have--it depends on the path that they finally
choose, but it could cross over a couple hundred salmon
streams.
And then the other concern that we have is that we don't
know what kind of resources are going to come out of that
region. I know that there has been expression of oil and gas
pipelines, and that was originally one of reasons why they
wanted such a wide easement. I believe last year they wanted
500 feet wide.
So we just want to make sure that if this road is built,
that the environmental document that they did in-house, that
there is an accompanying environmental impact statement that
mitigates any damages that could occur. That is why we would
rather see an EIS than an in-house environmental document.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Udall. Certainly.
Mr. Vento. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, go ahead.
Mr. Udall. I will yield to anyone.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I believe the gentleman, Mr. Udall, does
have the time.
Mr. Vento. The gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Udall. New Mexico.
Mr. Vento. Excuse me.
Mr. Udall. That is okay.
Mr. Vento. I am out of practice.
Mr. Udall. Listening to this discussion here, and looking
at the history, it seems to me the corporation has been willing
to sell the coal, the fee title to the coal, of which I guess
has been purchased by some Korean companies, you have been
willing to sell the trees and that has gone to Pacific Rim
countries, and I would just urge you, in the strongest possible
terms, to seriously consider a conservation easement to the
United States.
It seems to me that a good argument has been made that the
corporation wins and that natives can continue their
subsistence life. It looks like a win-win situation to me, and
I don't know why you are not seriously considering that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Udall. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In my limited understanding of what
happened here, historically, I understand that in 1907 then-
President Teddy Roosevelt declared this whole region as a
national forest reserve out of fear that some corporate
entities were going to go there and literally rape the
landscape and do mining operations and all of that sort.
What really boggles my mind is the fact that here are these
people that have been living here for thousands of years from
the tip of there to the 10 million acres total that is
equivalent to the size of Connecticut and Massachusetts
combined, and yet not knowing that the Russians claimed in some
papers they owned all of Alaska and then it became ``Seward's
ice box,'' becoming later a State, and yet these people,
indigenous people living in this whole region, didn't even know
that this was happening.
My question really is, I just can't understand how such a
settlement can be made of these lands, totally owned by these
indigenous peoples are, so spotty? And why are these the worst
areas that are given to the Chugach Nation, the way it is
listed in the village level and the corporation level? Why
couldn't there have been a combination of a whole reservation,
if you will, like we do the Navajo Nation? Why so spotty like
this?
And it is so difficult, now that we are faced with this
problem and we can't even get an easement to the 73,000 acres
that has tremendous environmental value and interest.
The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield, and I will let
the panel answer.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Unbelievable.
The Chairman. Two things have happened. One, you are
absolutely right. The Alaska native people were totally ignored
until 1970--1968, and we started a process of--and by the way,
we white men, we did start this process with the native leaders
to try to solve some of the injustices--yes, driven by the oil
line--to give them 44 million acres of land, chosen by the
recognized groups. Chugach was one of them.
Unfortunately, as you said, Teddy Roosevelt--and by the
way, he did this to stop a monopoly of the Guggenheimers in the
coal fields, and he did declare it a national forest. But
unbeknownst to these people, this was all something done in
Washington, DC.
So now we come to selecting lands. The Chugach region had
no choice but, frankly, the rooftops of mountains and glaciers.
The Calista group, nothing, very frankly, at all because it was
a refuge created by the Department of Interior. And I can go on
down the line.
It was decided by this Congress that they had a priority
right, but even Chugach, after the Native Lands Claim
Settlement, couldn't choose the land. They had to eventually
sue and finally reached an agreement in 1982. That is when this
all came from, 1982.
That agreement was reached with the Forest Service and it
says specifically in the law, access shall be granted from 1971
to 1982 until 1999.
Now, they did build the road, by the way, Mr. Lankard,
across the great Copper River Delta.
Mr. Lankard. The west Delta.
The Chairman. It has been all the way through there. It has
been one of the most productive areas. It apparently hasn't
hurt too much because subsistence still takes on and fishing
still takes on. It can be done.
Now, as far as Mr. Udall, the idea of an easement, again,
there is no value there until they get the easement access.
Once that is made possible, they can negotiate. Right now we
will low-ball them. That is not fair.
Now, if the Federal Government wants to take and buy their
land, and they say they want to sell it, give them a million
dollars an acre. If it is worth that much, then they have a
decision to make. That is fair, because the idea is that they
were supposed to get this land. They are the first Americans.
They were there.
This was an Act of this Congress, and to have agencies like
the Forest Service and the Department of Interior--who oppose
the Native Lands Claims Act, by the way--suggest that it be
vetoed, still drag their feet and not fulfill what this
Congress has said should be done, that is my frustration.
You may not agree with what they have done. I am not saying
that is right or wrong, but that is their privilege, as they
should have the right to do so because we set it up that way.
And that is our responsibility. To go back on them now is
wrong, and I will say again, every one of the regional
corporations, if I have my way, when this finally gets done and
they all get their land, which they still don't have all title
to it, we ought to sue the Forest Service and the Department of
Interior and the Park Service for a hundred billion dollars in
lost revenues because they have had to fight every inch of the
way, because they have never supported the ideas that the
American Indians should own land.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to say for the record that I
support this legislation, period.
The Chairman. Any other questions?
If not, I will excuse the panel. And for the rest of you
here, we will have the administration up to answer questions.
For you who were not here earlier, they did not get their
testimony to this Committee until this morning. That is a no-
no. I am tired of that. If they want to be heard, they want to
testify, then they ought to have at least the decency to have
testimony to us on time.
So we will be asking them questions. Do you have any
questions you want to ask them? You are welcome to stay. I do
have some questions.
This panel is excused.
The next up will be Mr. Ron Stewart, I believe--is that
correct--Deputy Chief of Programs and Legislation, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC;
accompanied by Mr. Snow, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office
of General Counsel; and I believe one other legal eagle, Paul
Kirton.
RON STEWART, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE, U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY
JAMES SNOW, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, AND PAUL KIRTON, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The Chairman. I want to welcome the witnesses before the
Committee, and I hope you understand my frustrations about the
delay in having testimony on time.
The Department of Interior has a habit--it is like a drug
disease--of never being on time. As a chairman, I don't deeply
appreciate that at all.
Which one of you wants to answer this first question? I
have a series of questions, and I will go on down them.
Isn't it true, under the 1982 CNI Settlement Agreement, it
requires you to grant Chugach an easement and that easement is
a real property interest?
Mr. Stewart. That is my understanding, yes.
The Chairman. You agreed to that?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay. Is the environmental documentation
required under the 1982 CNI Settlement Agreement and MOU signed
last year complete and adequate?
Mr. Stewart. That is my understanding, that it is. Yes, we
have accepted it.
The Chairman. What does H.R. 2547 grant that the Secretary
is not already required to grant?
Mr. Stewart. The concern we have is that the 1982
settlement agreement did provide for reciprocal access. At the
time that that negotiation occurred, which--as you probably
recall, I was not there, but the two people with me were
actually engaged in that suggestion. That access was a
significant issue for the State of Alaska, members of local
public and both the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. As
part of the give-and-take that came out of that settlement
agreement, there was a desire to assure that there would be
access to the public lands there as part of the access across
the Forest Service lands.
It is my understanding that the only sticky issue at this
point in time is the resolution of that access. I heard a lot
of discussion of that here, but there are ongoing negotiations
to try to work that out; and my understanding is that has also
been fairly productive, and hopefully we are very close to
actually having an agreement.
The Chairman. With all due respect, Mr. Stewart, I heard
the same thing last year. I hope that if there are
negotiations, it is in sincerity and not just--you know, my
fear is that the longer you delay this, the more pressure, the
people's group and the rest of the environmental groups will
get this group to sell their land.
Mr. Stewart. I would like an opportunity, if you would,
please, to have Mr. Snow, who has been engaged in that on the
part of the Forest Service in the discussions, but only to say
it is our intent, and I am quite well aware the administration
has made some commitments to assure granting of that.
The Chairman. Before Mr. Snow answers, I have a question to
ask you, Mr. Snow. I understand you had a major role in
drafting the easement. Is that correct? And I want a yes or no.
Mr. Snow. Yes, I had a role in it.
The Chairman. Did you read the environmental document
approved by the Forest Service before or when you attempted to
draft the easement?
Mr. Snow. I drafted that easement in consultation with my
local counsel.
The Chairman. Did you read the document?
Mr. Snow. Sir, I did not have all the documentation.
The Chairman. You did not read the document?
Mr. Snow. I don't believe that is a correct
characterization of the process that went on.
The Chairman. Let's don't play games with me now. I want to
ask you a question.
Mr. Snow. Sir, it was not necessary for me to read the
entirety of the environmental documentation in order to draft
the easement.
The Chairman. What did you read?
Mr. Snow. Sir, all I was required to do was to draft an
easement, which is an interest in land that incorporates the
terms and conditions of the 1982 agreement, and that is what I
did.
The Chairman. Okay. The Forest Service issued a deficient
document and called it an easement. This document is deficient
because it ignores the environmental document. Would you not
say that?
Mr. Snow. I don't understand your question, sir.
The Chairman. The question is, your issuing of the document
ignores the environmental document that you signed off on.
Mr. Snow. On the contrary, sir. Our document that we issued
and that we proffered then in March incorporated, by reference,
all the documentation that was prepared and accepted by the
Forest Service, and it is incorporated by reference and
specifically stated in the easement.
The Chairman. Why did it take 45 days of waiting, after
submission of the easement application, to issue a draft
document that again ignores the work done by the environmental
document?
Mr. Snow. Forty-five days was, I think, a very prudent and
necessary period of time in order to put together a very
complicated legal document, and we proffered it to them and we
got to it before the 45 days.
The Chairman. How long have you been on this case?
Mr. Snow. We got--I had the case given to me in January.
The Chairman. In January. How long has the Forest Service
had it?
Mr. Snow. The Forest Service has been working with Chugach
Alaska, I believe, for quite a long time.
The Chairman. 1982.
Mr. Snow. No, sir. It has been an off-and-on process since
1982, and we have not had a pending application since 1982.
The contract--and I would direct the Committee to read the
contract, because it is very explicit on these points--requires
that Chugach apply. Chugach did not apply formally under the
terms of the contract until January.
We, in fulfillment of our obligation, responded within 45
days.
The Chairman. Does the document you call an easement
require Chugach Alaska Corporation to undertake additional
worker studies that have already been performed pursuant to the
MOU?
Mr. Snow. It required them in three or four situations to
do additional work that had not been done and that would have
been required in order to complete it, but the great majority
of the work was done.
There are some things that Chugach, on its own initiative,
opted not to do at the time we recommended it. So, therefore,
those----
The Chairman. Is this the same document that was signed off
by the Forest Service?
Mr. Snow. The Forest Service signed off on the adequacy of
that which was submitted. There were some items that they
specifically--that the Forest Service had asked for that were
not provided, that Chugach asked to do during the construction
phase; and those matters we agreed to allow them to fulfill
during the construction phase, but the easement was contingent
upon them.
The Chairman. Can you explain the exchange of easements?
Mr. Snow. You mean the reciprocal right of access?
The Chairman. Exchange of easements. Have you requested an
exchange of easements?
Mr. Snow. Yes, we did.
Our reading, and this is contrary to CAC's reading of the
contract, but we think it is quite clear that the contract
contemplated that the public would have full rights of use of
that easement over the entirety of the road as built, to the
extent that it provided access to public lands.
Now, at that point, where the road leaves Federal land for
the last time and enters back onto CAC property--we are not
contending that the public has a right of access, but having
been a party to the negotiations in 1982, I can tell you that
one of the concerns of the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Watt,
and the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Block, on behalf of the
Reagan Administration, was that the people of south central
Alaska should have full rights of access to their public lands.
And that was one of the major contractual provisions that we
put into the agreement.
The Chairman. If it is the understanding that Chugach is
offering to allow free public use of the road on Chugach's
private land, why do you have to have another easement?
Mr. Snow. Well, because that is the position of the
corporation today. The board of directors tomorrow could pass a
resolution and block public access. Unless we have a legal
right of access, we have no access at all because then it
becomes access essentially at the behest of whoever is in
control of the corporation.
The Chairman. If I write this in the legislation that there
will be public access, why do you need the exchange of
easements?
Mr. Snow. Well, right now, there is no legislation. There
is----
The Chairman. There is legislation before us. I am asking
you if I put in, in fact, there will be public access, that no
other board can change that, why do you have to have a Federal
easement?
Mr. Snow. Well, first of all, I would question the ability
of this Congress to compel, without its consent, CAC to grant
use of the----
The Chairman. That is an argument I can have with them, but
I am asking you a question. Why do you need the Federal
easement recognition at this time?
Mr. Snow. Well, again, I am not sure where your question is
leading, other than to say----
The Chairman. What it is leading to, if you were here
before, it leads to another whole ball game of delaying tactics
by the Forest Service and through outside interests that
preclude the issuance of this access. That is what I am leading
to.
Mr. Snow. Well, sir, our position is they are entitled to
access and they are entitled to an easement, and the direction
that I have been given from all levels of the Department and
the administration was that we are going to live up to and
comply fully with the 1982 settlement agreement and that
requires----
The Chairman. Let's see, 1982 to 1999, that's--'82, that's
10--that's 19 years, 19 years.
Mr. Kirton, I keep seeing you shake your head. What do you
mean it is not 19 years? I can add up. Seventeen years, 19
years is a long time.
Mr. Kirton. The end of 1982 to the present is 16 years.
The Chairman. They have what?
Mr. Kirton. The end of 1982/January of 1983, the final
ratification by Congress, to present, is 16 years.
The Chairman. Is that a short period of time?
Mr. Kirton. Just the bath, I would say.
The Chairman. Just a short bath. I see.
Mr. Kirton. Just a bath.
The Chairman. It is easy for people to do that, Mr.
Stewart, Mr. Snow, Mr. Kirton. You are dealing with people's
lives here and a right of law.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Mr. Stewart. No, Mr. Chairman, but if I might just say,
almost anything dealing with Alaska becomes controversial.
Of course, this particular area, the Copper River Delta, is
an area that was even specifically dealt with in ANILCA, so
there is a significant amount of interest. So I think
everybody's concern is, we want to do whatever we do there.
The Chairman. But, Mr. Stewart, with all due respect, that
is not up to you. The law says they shall have access, and by
nonaction you are depriving them of that access. You are
depriving them of what this Congress said was theirs.
Is that correct?
Mr. Stewart. My understanding is, we have not had a formal
request for the access, the paperwork to request that, until--
is that January of this year, we processed that, we came back
with an agreement? There were some differences in the
agreement, and we are continuing to negotiate with the parties,
believing that everybody is negotiating in good faith, and it
should be possible to reach agreement.
The Chairman. Do you have any idea of time frame?
Mr. Snow. Well, we were ready--we believe that we offered
an adequate easement in March.
The Chairman. Because you see--you want a Federal easement,
they are willing to give public access. Why do you need that
Federal easement, if, in fact, it is guaranteed in law that
they can't renege on what they said they can give?
Mr. Snow. I think I have to reserve judgment on whatever
language that might be proffered by the Committee, but the
bottom line is, we feel that the public has a right of access.
The Chairman. They do, too.
Mr. Snow. Pardon?
The Chairman. They do, too.
Mr. Snow. Okay.
The Chairman. Okay. So what I want to suggest is--which is
what I suggested last year and why I really would not like to
waste my afternoon today talking to you guys, very frankly,
because you told me last year that this would be accomplished.
And you did--maybe you weren't sitting in front of me, I
forgot, very rarely I do that, but it was said this would be
accomplished. I am going to suggest, all right, now I have got
you at the table, and I have the other people that testified, I
am willing to sit down with all three of you and the three
people who were before the Committee today, and we will arrive
at a decision. What is wrong with that proposal?
Mr. Snow. Well, sir, I spoke with Mr. Giannini earlier, and
we have I believe very successfully negotiated 99 percent of
this. I think that there are options that we are currently
addressing for dealing with this access question. I think that
we are perfectly able and we certainly have the motivation to
complete it. I am not sure that action by the Committee would
be necessary, because I believe it could be done by
negotiation.
The Chairman. My problem is and the reason we are here is
you haven't done it. I hear from one side, and I hear from
another side. I am suggesting it is a good negotiating
position. I will be in the room, and we will get everybody to
sit down, and when we get done, we will sign a packet of
agreement. Then I don't have to move this bill. Otherwise, I am
going to move the bill, and I will pass it. You guys may veto
it, but it again shows your colors if you do so.
I haven't talked to Chugach about this at all, by the way,
so if they are in the room I am sure they are very, very
concerned right now. But I am just suggesting--I keep hearing
from both sides, we are negotiating in good faith, but you are
not because we have not reached a decision yet.
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, what I hear you offering is lend
your weight to keeping the feet to the fire on all parties to
try and reach agreement?
The Chairman. All parties feet to the fire to try to solve
this problem, so they get their just due. And if you, in fact,
think you have some concern, I can address those concerns also.
But I do not want this constant 18, 17, 16 years, 1971 till
now, 1992 till now, to continue, because I don't see you coming
to the conclusion.
I think there will be somebody outside--Mr. Stewart, all
due respect, will blow on somebody's ear and say we can't do
that, this is a sacred area, forget the people, we have got to
protect it. I mean, I am afraid that is going to happen. And
you may be caught in the middle. I don't know. But I know this,
that the regional people have worked very hard to get this
done, and they can't get anywhere. They have worked very hard,
and I won't take that away from them. But for some reason it is
a constant stalemate from down here.
Mr. Stewart. I am not in a position--I would like to bring
your proposal back to the administration and see if we can work
something out. What I would be concerned about is, is in the
meantime holding out the prospect of trying to resolve this
legislatively, which could take a significant amount of time,
and in the meantime have the people walk away from the table
and not continue what have been fairly productive discussions.
The Chairman. Well, again, I don't think you have to worry
about that too much, Mr. Stewart. For one reason, you know, if
I don't want this bill to move, it is not going to move. If I
do want it to move, it is going to move. That is the threat to
you, and that is the suggestion of the other side of the aisle
that we try to solve these problems. I think they have worked
very well in good faith. You say you have worked well in good
faith. I hear from both sides, but out of it comes nothing.
I waited a whole year before I introduced this bill
hoping--by the way, it was supposed to be last January, we were
told last December, and now it is the--whatever it is in July,
28th of July, and so I want--this is one of the projects that I
have a great seriousness about completing about the end of this
year. So if you want to go back and suggest what I am
suggesting and, in the meantime I will talk to the people from
Chugach and see if they are willing to sit down. They are
sitting in the back room--I haven't talked to them about this.
This is something I want to get done. I don't want to be
sitting here next year finding out why it wasn't solved. Okay?
Mr. Stewart. I think we all want to solve this. They do
have the access right. It is our intent to grant that to them.
As I said, there has been one--at least one sticking point, and
if there is a way to break that logjam and get people to the
table, I am all for it.
The Chairman. All right, thank you.
The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the
statements made by the gentleman before us on the panel. We
have completed about 99 percent of the negotiations at this
point in time, as I hear, Mr. Snow. Where is that 1 percent
left that seems to be bothersome to the agencies?
Mr. Snow. I think perhaps putting a percentage on it is not
correct, because that assumes that 1 percent is not important.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Obviously, it is very important. So that
is why I am asking.
Mr. Snow. That is right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Where is that 1 percent that is causing
all of those problems?
Mr. Snow. I think that we have--as a result of a meeting
that we had in June, we made extraordinary progress, I believe,
not only in coming to agreement on most of the terms and
conditions of the proposed access but I think in our
cooperative regulations between the Forest Service and the
Corporation. The remaining issue concerns this public access, I
believe, that Chugach has some very legitimate concerns about
the effect that granting an interest in land has on
federalizing. I believe it is legitimate. But I also believe
there are legitimate concerns that we have with respect to the
public's rights under this agreement.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Snow, if I may, I would like to quote
you a statement by Ms. Buretta, chairman of the Corporation,
and I quote: In a meeting with the Forest Service in June, in a
failed attempt to negotiate an acceptable easement document,
the government lawyer--and I would like to know who the
government lawyer is--said, and I quote, we don't want you to
have this easement. I suggested that once an easement is
granted, Chugach should begin discussing a sale or a trade of
our land in Carbon Mountain in Prince William Sound.
Is that an accurate statement by Ms. Buretta?
Mr. Snow. With all due respect to Ms. Buretta, who I have a
great deal of respect for, I don't believe that was a correct
representation.
I was the government lawyer at that meeting. I made no such
statement. We have consistently said that at some point that
Chugach gets its easement, that if the Corporation, acting at
the behest of its shareholders, decides it wants to convey an
interest in land, we would be happy to talk about it.
We do not, however, use this as a lever. They have a right
to that access. They are going to get the access. When they get
it, if they want to sell, they can sell it to us.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Are you fully satisfied that the counsels
and all the responsible people do and have all expressed the
interest that this is the policy of the direction that the CAC
Corporation wishes to pursue with the Forest Service? You sound
like you are waiting for the Corporation to say, unless we hear
from the corporate membership of the shareholders, the majority
in agreement they are going to negotiate, is that what you
mean?
Mr. Snow. What I am addressing, sir, is the contention that
we heard frequently this afternoon that somehow the denial of
this access is predicated on a strategy to force them to sell
an interest in the land. We have, on occasion, offered Chugach
the opportunity to sell or convey or to exchange that
opportunity. Chugach has told us they are not interested in
doing so, at least until they get their easement. There is
legitimate concern that the property would be valued without
access.
I would make a point that it would be valued, as if it did
have access, because it has, as a matter of law and contract, a
right of access, so there is no way that the government under
the uniform appraisal standards could ever devalue that
property for the lack of it. But the bottom line is, they have
a right to access. If they want to develop that access, that is
their prerogative. Once they get it, or if they decide that
they want to sell or convey an interest in that property, that
is also their prerogative. And we are hoping for consideration
of that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Are you satisfied with the supervisors'
evaluation, given the fact that the Forest Service had also
requested that an environmental study was made costing this
corporation about a million dollars just to do this
requirement? Is this an agreement with your regulatory
administration of this part of the contract, Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Stewart. It is not----
Mr. Faleomavaega. This Corporation paid over a million
dollars to comply with your requirements, Federal requirements.
Is there any other aspect of the contract agreement that they
are short of in terms of why this thing has dragged on now for
so long?
Mr. Stewart. I think what was mentioned is, in the 1982
agreement, the forest supervisor was given the prerogative to
determine what environmental documents would be needed. But not
a NEPA process, that was part of the trade-off. And he
specified that. Those were agreed to in a memorandum of
understanding between the forest and Chugach Alaska. And my
understanding is and--which I had just heard explained a minute
ago, that we have accepted everything they have given to date.
There are a couple of things that were not done.
But at this point it did not prevent us from going forward
with a draft proposal to grant the easement. In this issue of
them having to pay for the environmental work and so forth,
there is a significant precedent for that, when there is a for-
profit corporation proposing activities that would impact
Federal lands, to have the proponent actually pay for some or
all of the environmental documentation.
There is--unfortunately, one of the problems with that is
the perception then, in the case where NEPA is concerned, that
there is an implied agreement if they spend that, they are
going to get a favorable decision, and you can't always
guarantee that. And in this case there was no NEPA. And, in
fact, the information has been accepted; and we are prepared to
go ahead.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One more question, Mr. Chairman. I know
my time is over.
Mr. Stewart, what kind of a timetable are you looking at in
terms of months that you think that we can wrap this thing up
as far as negotiations are concerned? Again looking at that 1
percent that seems to be hanging over.
Mr. Stewart. One percent is always the sticking point. And
my sense is we would like to resolve it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I was, frankly, told by the administration
that they wanted to make sure that we did convey the message
that we planned to grant that; and, you know, anything that
brings the people to the table and gets this resolved as
quickly as possible is good.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Stewart, if I may, you know, I heard
President Clinton being the compassionate President of the
First Americans and Native American rights and the issues and
the problems that we have had socially, economically. I really
like to hope and take in good faith that the President means
what he said and that, as you and your stewardship and members
of this administration, that we follow through on this and,
hopefully, that there is resolution to the problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And again I want to stress, Mr.
Stewart, that the sticking point is that 1 percent can be
solved very easily. If we can get an agreement from Chugach and
an agreement from you that the public access is guaranteed by
law, and, you know, that is all I have to do, and I will move
this bill just with that provision, and there may be a couple
other things that you would like, and it can become a reality.
I just--again, I am somebody that doesn't want to see this
happen. I can tell you, in a small area, especially with a
small group of shareholders, the lure of big dollars can
sometimes do great harm. And one thing I don't want to do, as
long as I sit in this chair, is to have the American, the
Alaskan Natives make a settlement for 44 million acres of land
and not have any land.
We can talk about subsistence and all the other good things
you want, but that was a deal that we made, this Congress made.
And to have us deny and take and through attrition deprive them
of their land, I think is inappropriate.
The gentleman from Washington state, Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can I offer for the record a statement from the National
Wildlife Federation? May I make that part of the record with
your indulgence?
The Chairman. Not until I read it. After I read it, I will
sure it is all right. I am not particularly fond of the
National Wildlife Foundation right now.
Mr. Inslee. I understand that. But I understand you are
against censorship too, Mr. Chairman, so hopefully you will
permit that.
The Chairman. I will read it, and if it is permissible----
Mr. Inslee. They will capitalize the name Young in here,
too. I will make sure that they do that.
Has anyone asserted that legally there are additional
process requirements for design of the road, for instance, NEPA
or some other Federal law? Has anyone argued that any of the
Federal agencies are required legally to go through any
additional process than they already have? Has anybody
suggested that to you?
Mr. Snow. Well, the contract requires, as it necessarily
must, that they comply with all applicable State and Federal
laws, rules and regulations. I don't think it surprises anyone
here that to do anything can bring up a panoply of different
laws. I know questions have been raised with regard to section
404 of the Clean Water Act, for example. Interior and
Agriculture have no jurisdiction over that particular section
of the law. So if you are asking are there other legal
requirements that Chugach may have to fulfill in order to
construct this road, I would say the answer is probably yes.
Mr. Inslee. For instance, I mean, do I understand that the
ANSCA has essentially taken the position that NEPA does not
apply at least to granting the access?
Mr. Snow. Well, the issue of NEPA was addressed in the 1982
agreement. And in that regard, the 1982 agreement was intended
to effect the conveyance of entitlements to Chugach Alaska
Corporation; and under section 910 of ANILCA, those are exempt
from the preparation of environmental impact statements.
So there was an effort by the parties in 1982, and we agree
with it today, that section 910 should apply to this situation.
Now, does that mean that will be upheld in court? That will be
a question that could be the subject of litigation, but we
certainly, I think, agree with CAC with regard to the
applicability of section 910.
Mr. Inslee. Let me ask you kind of a broad question. This
is extremely sensitive ground. It seems to me a significant
portion of this would cross or be very close to wetlands, as I
understand it. What can you tell us about how high a standard
of design has been contemplated by the Corporation and the
agencies relative to other Federal lands and other criteria for
road building?
Mr. Stewart. This road, I think, is going to be very
environmentally sensitive. I think you heard that from one of
the members of the local community. And it will meet best
management practices as established by the State and by the
Forest Service. It has used the Forest Service standards over
Forest Service roads. We are certainly very sensitive to the
watershed and so is the Chugach Alaska. So I think that those
concerns will be taken care of, and it will meet best
management practices standards.
Mr. Inslee. Do I understand there was some controversy
already on some construction? Someone told me--someone alluded
to some difficulty in the first stage of construction. Has the
State of Alaska challenged this at all?
Mr. Snow. I do know of some controversy. I don't know of
what the status is.
Mr. Stewart. There were some demonstrations during some of
the early construction phase, but I am not sure that it was--
necessarily there have been alleged or proof of any violations
of anything.
Mr. Inslee. As far as the agency's desire for Federal
easement on the deeded property, to the extent you can, can you
tell us what--is that based on some statute that you believe is
required? Is it simply an administrative position? Do you know
what basis should we have in evaluating whether we should or
should not have a Federal deeded access on fee title property?
Mr. Snow. We believe that the contract read as a whole
contemplated that the public would have use of the road. We
reserved the Kushtaka Lake easement in the contract at the time
when the proposed delineation of the road was to be on that
particular side of the lake. So the intent was to have the
reservation of the right of way be congruent or identical to
where the planned route was.
That at the time was predicated on a road that was for coal
extraction. Now they have changed their intent to have the road
be for timber extraction, and that necessarily requires them to
put it over a different portion of their property. Where we do
not have a reserved easement, I guess at the time, had we been
clairvoyant, we might have also reserved an additional public
easement over the proposed route.
Mr. Inslee. With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, the
Corporation's concern is, if there is an easement, it will just
simply open the door to untold further barriers to ultimate
construction, if necessary. Is that an accurate concern? And,
if so, what can be done about that?
Mr. Snow. I can't--whenever you are dealing with the myriad
of conflicting environmental laws, rules and regulations, if I
were a private developer, I think I would be concerned about
any situation that could unravel or get more complicated than
anticipated.
So if you are asking me, is the Corporation being
unreasonable in their concerns; if I were their lawyer, I would
say they are not. On the other hand, from the government's
perspective, all we are trying to do is enforce the 1982
agreement, and that is subject, by its own terms, to all
applicable rules and regulations and laws. Since we can't
change that by contract, we just have to let the chips fall
where they may.
Mr. Inslee. For whatever it is worth, from what little I
know of this, it sounds to me like your interpretation is
probably correct, and I hope that your negotiations under
whatever auspices reach a conclusion. And I also hope that that
ultimately leaves the Corporation to conclude in the exercise
of their sovereignty and best interests that they will
entertain offers for this property, and I would hope that I can
work with anyone interested in this subject to ultimately
respect the dignity and sovereignty of this Corporation and
also reach that conclusion.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And, Mr. Stewart, I again want to get a response back from
you. I am glad to hear Mr. Snow say that they do have a
legitimate concern about becoming a Federal easement and body
in the water. You said you thought section 910, it is a law.
Now, how can anyone challenge that? I mean, they can challenge
it, but would you be willing to defend that as a lawyer?
Mr. Snow. The position that we have taken is that the 1982
agreement is an extension of Chugach's entitlement under the
Native Claims Settlement Act, and to the extent that the
section 910 of ANILCA exempts conveyances to native
corporations under their entitlements from NEPA requirements,
then we believe that the '82 agreement is correct. And we will
defend that.
The Chairman. Thank you. The term here is conveyances are
different than easement, but it says easement determinations.
So 910 as defined in ANILCA precludes anyone from filing a
lawsuit, or they can do it, but it would be heavily defended,
it could be heavily defended.
What I am looking for it, if necessary, when I reach this
agreement, if I do have to move some legislation after we have
a sit-down meeting, I want to make sure we write it so that
other parties can't delay this process. They can't turn around
and sue the Forest Service for not doing something, further
delaying this access question. You know, the delay tactic is
what a lot of people use in this arena in these days, and that
is what I am trying to look for.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Chair, could you yield for just one moment?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Inslee. I just--apparently, there is some suggestion
that the original language that excluded coverage of NEPA
applied to the deeding process of the property itself. I have
been told that there is potentially an argument though that
that exclusion did not cover granting of easements, of access
easements and I just--some have argued that, I just wanted to
point that out, the agencies have not obviously agreed with
that interpretation. But it seems to me that there is some
argument that folks interested in this issue ought to be
somewhat concerned about.
The Chairman. The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, 83 statute 852, shall not construed in whole or in part
as requiring preparation or submission of an environmental
impact statement for withdrawals, conveyances, regulations,
orders and easement determinations or other actions which would
lead to the issuance of conveyance to the native and native
corporations pursuant to the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement
Act, and it sounds good.
I am not a lawyer. I just want to make sure that there is
no open doors, and if there is any open doors there, Mr. Snow,
I would like to know it so that we can preclude any delaying
tactic once you agree that this easement shall take place. I
don't know how many times I have seen agencies sued by other
interest groups who supposedly haven't done the job as you
should do it, and that again delays the process. I want to look
at that. That will be part of our discussion. Come back to me
with your recommendations.
If there are no other questions, I excuse the panel. I do
thank you for your patience, and I hope you take my criticism
in good faith. Next time, have your testimony here at least 2
days prior to the actual hearing.
This Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0581.042