A STUDY OF FIVE SOUTHEAST ALAsKA COMMUNITIES PREPARED FOR U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofLand Management and Bureau ofIndian Affairs PREPARED BY Institute ofSocial and Economic Research, University ofAlaska Anchorage Lee Gorsuch Steve Colt Charles W. Smythe, C.W. Smythe Consulting Services Bart K. Garber, Garber &. Bazzy, P.C. FEBRUARY 1994 This publication is printed on recycled paper. Institute of Social and Economic Research University ofAlaska Anchorage 3211 Providence Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Contract No. 53-0109-3-00368 A Study ofFive Southeast Alaska Communities Preface In early 1993, Congress directed the Secretary ofthe Interior to prepare a report examining whether Congress had inadvertently denied five communities-Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell-in SoutheastAlaska status as recognized villages or urban places under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Natives from these five study communities were eligible to enroll as at­ large shareholders ofSealaska, the regional corporation established for SoutheastAlaska. But theywere not eligible to form village or urban corporations-and therefore received no land entitlements. land entitlements that the ten village and two urban corporations in Southeast received have proved very valuable, because they included stands ofcommercial timber. The Forest Service ofthe U.5. Department ofAgriculture and the Bureaus of land Management and Indian Affairs ofthe u.S. Department ofthe Interior contracted with the Institute ofSocial and Economic Research (ISER) at the University ofAlaska Anchorage to prepare a report presenting the available, factual evidence on why the five study communities were omitted from ANCSA-and how the historical circumstances andconditions ofthe studycommunitiescomparewith those ofthe Southeastcommunities that were recognized under ANCSA. Congress will use the historical record in this report to help determine whether the studycommunities were intentionally or inadvertently denied recognition under ANCSA. The legislative history in many instances is not explicit, and a judgment about Congress's omission of these study communities is com­ plicated by the fact that from the outset Native communities throughout Southeast Alaska were treated differently underANCSA. To shed light on Congress's intention, we compiled the available evidence from the period before the claims settlement through implementation of ANCSA provisions. The first two chapters ofthe report examine Congress's broad authOrity to settle abOriginal land claims and the development and application of CongreSSional and administrative criteria for villages and urban communities recognized under ANCSA. Attorney Bart Garber wrote these two chapters. He examined in detail the history of the settlement act-including several earlier proposed settlement bills-and interviewed a numberofpeople who were involved in the process that ultimately led to passage ofAN CSA in 1971. He particularly looked for evidence ofhowthe status ofthe studycommunities changed, and why it changed, under the different settlement bills introduced between 1967 and 1971. Chapter 3, by anthropologist Charles Smythe, examines the Tlingit and Haida land claims settlement-Alaska's first aboriginal land claims settlement, resulting from a suit the Natives of Southeast Alaska brought against the federal government. The author compares the participation of the study communities with that of other Southeast Alaska communities in the court case and the subsequent settlement. Chapter 4, by Lee Gorsuch, ISER's director, assesses similarities and differences in Native population characteristics ofthe study communities and other communities at the time ANCSA was passed. He uses two sources for those comparisons-the 1970 U.5. census, andthe Alaska Native roll compiled for ANCSA in the first half of the 19705. PREFACE Chapter 5 describes historical Native use and occupation of the five study communities and of ANCSA communities in Southeast Alaska. ("Use and occupation" includes historical Native steward­ ship and management ofland.) The author, anthropologist Charles Smythe, uses a number of criteria­ ranging from sites of early Native settlements to presence of government schools for Natives-to assess similarities and differences in historical use and occupation of communities that were and were not recognized under ANCSA. Chapter 6, also by anthropologist Charles Smythe, reports how ANCSA enrollment procedures were carried out in both the study communities and the recognized villages and urban communities. For that work he consulted available documents and also spoke with community residents who took part in the enrollment process. Chapter 7, by ISER economist Steve Colt, reports on the financial benefits that shareholders of Southeast village and urban corporations have realized over the years, as compared with benefits the at-large shareholders received. He points out that "benefits" can be defined in many ways, some of which can't be quantitatively measured. His work, based on corporate reports and other sources, looks chiefly at cash distributions and income from timber harvests. Appendixes (bound in separate volumes) provide detailed histories of Native occupation and use in the five study communities, a legal analysis ofANCSA, and other relevant source documents as listed in the Table of Contents. About the Authors Steve Colt is a research economist with the Institute of Social and Economic Research. He has for several years examined the finances ofthe Native corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Bart K. Garber is an Anchorage attorney who has studied the legal history and implementation of ANCSA. Lee Gorsuchis the director ofthe Institute ofSocial and Economic Research. He has a long-standing interest in Native land claims and the effects of ANCSA. Charles Smythe is an anthropologist with wide experience in studying the histories of the Native peoples of Southeast Alaska. ii Contents Preface i Executive Summary: A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Villages vii Introduction and Background vii Provisions for Southeast Communities Under ANCSA vii The Study Communities YIll The Alaska Claims Settlements YIll Participation of the Study Communities in the Tlingit and Haida Settlement lX Eligibility Criteria for ANCSA Village and Urban Corporations x Criteria for Village Corporations Except Southeast x Criteria for Urban Corporations xi Eligibility of Study and Other Southeast Communities xi Eligibility Determinations for Unlisted Southeast Villages xii Comparison of Southeast Community Populations xu Comparison of Enrollment Procedures xiii Histories ofUse and Occupation in Study and Other Communities xv Financial Benefits from Village and Urban Corporations XVII Chapter 1. Congress and Alaska Land Claims Setdements 1 Congressional Discretion in Settling Aboriginal Claims 1 The Tlingit And Haida Settlement 3 Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement 5 CONTENTS Chapter 2. Review ofANCSA Eligibility Criteria 7 Historical Development of the Term "Native Village" 7 Native Groups Under Early Settlement Bills 7 Federal Indian Policy and Alaska Native Villages 10 The Governor's Task Force 11 Native Village Beneficiaries Under S. 2906. 13 Not Modem and Urban in Character and A Majority of Native Residents 15 Village Lists 16 Southeast Village Lists 16 Historical Development of the Term "Urban Community" 17 Native Village Certification Under ANCSA 19 Southeast Village Eligibility Determinations 22 Chapter 3. The Tlingit and Haida Setdement 25 Origins of the Tlingit and Haida Settlement 25 Implementing the Jurisdictional Act: Creation of the Tlingit and Haida Indians ofAlaska 26 Filing the Tlingit and Haida Lawsuit 27 The 1959 Tlingit and Haida Claims and Aboriginal Indian Title 28 After the 1959 Decision: The Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indians 31 The 1968 Tlingit and Haida Land Claims Valuation of Indian Land Lost 34 The Tlingit and Haida Central Council and ANCSA 35 Summary 36 References Cited 37 Chapter 4. Southeast Alaska Community Populations 39 Introduction 39 Southeast Community Populations in 1970 39 Other Sources of Native Population Data 41 iv CONTENTS Chapter 5. Comparison ofHistorical Native Use and Occupancy in the Study Communities and in Other Southeast Communities 45 Regional Overview 45 Criteria For Comparison 48 Profiles of Study Communities 49 Haines 49 Ketchikan 51 Petersburg 53 Tenakee 55 Wrangell 57 Comparison of Communities 59 Indian Settlements At Sites of Modem Communities 59 Indian Occupancy of Identifiable Areas in the Early Towns 61 Land Reservation or Exclusion from the Tongass National Forest 61 Indian Possessions and Native Townsite Lands 62 Government Schools for Indians 64 Churches and Missions Serving Indians 65 The Alaska Native Brotherhood and Sisterhood 66 IRA Government Organization 67 Summary Comparisons 68 Tlingit and Haida Central Council Community Council 69 References Cited 70 Chapter 6. Enrollment 79 Overview of Procedures 79 Proposed Enrollment to the Five Southeast Communities 80 Reopening of the Roll 87 Redetermination of Place of Residence 88 Summary 90 References 90 v CONTENTS Chapter 7. Financial Benefits Generated by Southeast Village Corporations 91 Introduction 91 Some Economic Benefits Were and Are the Same for All Shareholders-Village, Urban, and At-large 93 land Selections of Southeast Village and Urban Corporations 94 The Amount of Timberland Per Shareholder