Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native
December 22, 2021
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA): Overview and Tana Fitzpatrick
Selected Issues for Congress
Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy
At the time of its passage in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; P.L. 92-

203) was the largest land claims settlement in U.S. history. ANCSA extinguished claims by
Alaska Natives to over 360 million acres of land and settled their claims to the aboriginal lands

on which they lived for generations. Under provisions of the settlement, Alaska Natives received
approximately 45 million acres, the majority of which were divided among more than 200 village corporations and 12
regional corporations established by the legislation. ANCSA also established a 13th regional corporation, composed of Alaska
Natives who were nonpermanent residents of Alaska, which did not receive land under the settlement. The 12 regional
corporations, together with the 13th regional corporation, shared in a settlement payment of approximately $962.5 million.
Prior to ANCSA’s passage, the aboriginal land claims had been unresolved for the more than 100 years since the United
States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. Various federal actions over this time, such as executive orders and acts of
Congress, noted Alaska Natives’ use and occupancy of the land, but the aboriginal land claim remained uncertain. The
influence of oil companies in the area and the statehood of Alaska were among the factors that prompted the resolution of
Alaska Natives’ land claims through ANCSA.
ANCSA sought to create a land entitlement system different from the reservation system for the tribes in the lower 48 states.
For instance, ANCSA created village and regional corporations, sometimes generally referred to as Alaska Native
corporations (ANCs), not only to receive land under the settlement but also to aid in the disbursement of the settlement
payment and boost the Alaskan economy. Unlike tribal governments, ANCs are business entities organized under the laws of
Alaska. Once an ANC receives title to land under ANCSA, the land is considered private property, a key difference between
ANC lands and tribal lands in the lower 48 states.
ANCSA contained several provisions addressing land entitlements for village and regional corporations. Such provisions
included withdrawing federal public lands from appropriation and creating a complex system for the selection of lands.
ANCSA also addressed the status of various land holdings from prior legislative and executive actions. For example,
ANCSA repealed prior acts of Congress authorizing individual Alaska Natives to hold up to 160 acres of land and terminated
all Indian reservations in Alaska, except one—the Annette Island Reserve of the Metlakatla Indian Community. In addition,
ANCSA authorized land exchanges between ANCs, the federal government, and the State of Alaska.
Through its land entitlement structure, ANCSA created split estates—estates where one entity owns the surface estate and
another owns all or part of the subsurface estate. For example, under ANCSA, village corporations primarily obtained fee
title to lands’ surface estates, whereas regional corporations obtained fee title to the subsurface estates of these same lands. In
other instances, ANCSA created estates split between the federal government and ANCs. For instance, ANCSA provided
village corporations the option to choose lands from within certain federal public lands, such as national wildlife refuges and
national forests. ANCSA’s creation of split estates generated land and natural resource management considerations for ANCs
and the federal government.
The federal government has various ANCSA-related lands programs. The Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Bureau of
Land Management has several programs related to the selection, withdrawal, and conveyance of lands to ANCs. DOI’s
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also has programs to provide technical assistance for allottee applications seeking a native
allotment and certifications of title to regional corporations’ claims to historical places and cemeteries under ANCSA.
Due to the complexities of the land settlement and entitlement structure created under ANCSA, lands-related issues in Alaska
may pose considerations for Congress. Congress may, for example, consider in legislation how to approach ANC lands and
tribal lands in the lower 48 states, consider in legislation ANCSA’s complex land management framework, dispose of
remaining lands withdrawn under ANCSA, and consider potential implications of creating new Alaska Native village
corporations.
Congressional Research Service

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Introduction
On December 18, 1971, President Nixon signed into law the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA)—the largest land claims settlement in U.S. history at the time.1 ANCSA extinguished
claims by Alaska Natives to over 360 million acres of land and settled their claim to the
aboriginal lands on which they lived for generations.2 Under provisions of the settlement, Alaska
Natives received approximately 45 million acres, the majority of which were divided among over
200 village corporations and 12 regional corporations established by ANCSA. The 12 regional
corporations, together with a 13th regional corporation composed of Alaska Natives who were
nonpermanent residents of Alaska, shared in a settlement payment of approximately $962.5
million (or a value of $185.7 million in constant 2021 dollars, adjusted for inflation).3
This report provides an overview of selected events leading up to the passage of ANCSA,
beginning with the United States’ purchase of Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867. It
discusses the unresolved land claims from Alaska Natives addressed by ANCSA, as well as other
social and political factors that led to the law’s passage.
The report also provides a general overview of ANCSA’s provisions. For instance, ANCSA
sought to create a land entitlement system different from the reservation system for tribes in the
lower 48 states.4 ANCSA created Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) in the form of village and
regional corporations. Unlike tribal governments, ANCs are business entities organized under the
laws of Alaska. ANCSA created ANCs to aid in settlement payment disbursement and to boost the
Alaskan economy.
Primarily, this report focuses on ANCSA’s land entitlement structure.5 ANCSA included several
provisions addressing village and regional corporations’ land entitlements. Such provisions
included withdrawing federal public lands from appropriation and creating a complex system for
the selection of lands. ANCSA also addressed the status of various land holdings from prior
legislative and executive actions. For example, ANCSA repealed prior acts of Congress
authorizing individual Alaska Natives to hold up to 160 acres of land and terminated all Indian
reservations in Alaska, except for one—the Annette Island Reserve of the Metlakatla Indian
Community. In addition, ANCSA authorized land exchanges between ANCs, the federal
government, and the State of Alaska.

1 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq., as amended;
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Federal Subsistence Management Program, “ANCSA,” at https://www.doi.gov/
subsistence/faq/ancsa.
2 Nell Jessup Newton, ed., Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 2012 ed. (Albuquerque, NM: LexisNexis, 2017),
§4.07[3][b][ii][B] (hereinafter, Newton, Cohen’s Handbook).
3 Constant dollars were adjusted to estimated FY2021 dollars using the GDP Chained Price Index from the White
House Office of Management and Budget, Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical
Tables—1940-2026” in Historical Tables, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/.
4 43 U.S.C. §1601. For more information on tribal land statuses in the lower 48 states, including federal Indian
reservations, see CRS Report R46647, Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for
Congress, by Tana Fitzpatrick.
5 In addition to ANCSA, this report discusses other federal laws, including the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487) and the Alaska Native Allotment Act (Act of May 17, 1906, 34 Stat. 197),
among others. This report discusses such laws because ANCSA addresses them directly or because these laws affect
Alaska Native corporation (ANC) land holdings in some way. Further, due to the report’s focus on ANCSA’s land
provisions, it does not discuss in detail hunting and fishing rights, subsistence uses, or other natural resources issues in
Alaska. Last, this report does not provide in-depth details or analysis of any specific ANC’s land holdings.
Congressional Research Service

1

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Through its land entitlement structure, ANCSA created split estates—estates where one entity
owns the surface estate and another owns all or part of the subsurface estate.6 Under ANCSA,
village corporations primarily obtained fee title to the surface estate of lands, whereas the
regional corporations obtained fee title to the subsurface estate of these same lands. In some
instances, ANCSA also created split estates between the federal government and ANCs.
In addition, this report provides a brief overview of the federal government’s ANCSA-related
lands programs. The Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
has several programs related to the selection, withdrawal, and conveyance of lands to ANCs.
Further, DOI’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has programs related to providing technical
assistance for allottee applications seeking a native allotment.
Due to the complexities of the land settlement and entitlement structure under ANCSA, lands-
related issues in Alaska may pose considerations for Congress. Issues for Congress may include
(1) defining tribal lands to include ANC lands and tribal lands in the lower 48 states in legislation,
(2) considering ANCSA’s complex land management framework in legislation, (3) opening up
withdrawn lands to settlement, and (4) creating new Alaska Native village corporations.
Historical Background: Unresolved Aboriginal
Claims in Alaska
Prior to the passage of ANCSA in 1971, aboriginal title claims in Alaska had been unresolved
during the more than 100 years since the United States purchased Alaska from the Russian
Empire in 1867.7 This section provides a chronology of selected events addressing or impacting
aboriginal property holdings in Alaska before ANCSA’s passage.
Chronology of Selected Events Prior to the Passage of ANCSA8
Prior to the passage of ANCSA, the federal government considered how to handle its
management of federal public lands in Alaska, selection of lands by the State of Alaska, and
aboriginal claims by Alaska Natives. The following selected events occurred between 1867 and
the 1971 passage of ANCSA.
 In 1867, the federal government purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire in
the Treaty of Cession.9 Article III of the treaty contained provisions addressing
Alaska Natives and their lands. Specifically, the treaty admitted “inhabitants of
the ceded territory” as citizens of the United States and maintained their “free

6 DOI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “Leasing and Development of Split Estate,” at https://www.blm.gov/
programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/leasing/split-estate.
7 Aboriginal title, sometimes referred to as aboriginal Indian title or original Indian title, refers to lands that tribes
claim by “virtue of its possession” and “exercise of sovereignty” rather than lands claimed by patent or formal
conveyance. See Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §15.04[2]. For more discussion on aboriginal title and Alaska Natives,
see David S. Case and David A. Voluck, Alaska Natives and American Laws, 2nd ed. (Fairbanks, AK: University of
Alaska Press, 2002), pp. 35-63. Hereinafter referred to as Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives.
8 For more information on the history of events involving Alaska Natives leading up to the passage of ANCSA, see
Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives.
9 15 Stat. 539.
Congressional Research Service

2

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.”10 The treaty did not otherwise
discuss aboriginal property holdings.
 In 1884, the Alaska Organic Act provided a civil government for Alaska and
created the District of Alaska.11 The Organic Act was the first congressional
legislation to protect Alaska Natives in their use and occupation of lands. The
Organic Act declared that “the Indians or other persons in said district shall not
be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or
now claimed by them but the terms under which such persons may acquire title to
such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress.”12
 From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, Congress passed other laws containing
clauses that protected native use and occupancy of land in Alaska. For instance,
in 1900, Congress passed a law that made further provision for civil government
in Alaska. The act included a provision that provided for “Indians” or
missionaries conducting schools or missions not to be “disturbed in the
possession of any lands now actually in their use or occupation.”13 Other laws
recognizing Alaska Native use and occupancy of lands include the Act of March
3, 1891 (repealing timber culture laws) and the Act of May 14, 1898 (extending
the homestead laws to Alaska).14
 In 1905, the District Court of Alaska decided U.S. v. Berrigan, a case involving
trespass upon lands occupied by Alaska Natives.15 The court held that the United
States has a duty to protect the property rights of Alaska Natives. In particular,
the court held that only Congress has the “right to dispose of lands” reserved for
occupancy by Alaska Natives.16
 In 1906, the Alaska Native Allotment Act (ANAA) authorized the Secretary of
the Interior to convey up to 160 acres of non-mineral land to individual Alaska
Natives who were head of household.17 In 1956, Congress amended the ANAA to
provide that land with “coal, oil, or gas deposits” could be allotted to Alaska
Natives.18 Alaska Natives were required to prove “substantially continuous use
and occupancy of that land for a period of five years.”19
 In 1936, Congress passed the Act of May 1, 1936, which extended the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934 to Alaska Natives.20 The act provided authority to the

10 15 Stat. 539, Art. III (emphasis added). Article III also excluded “uncivilized tribes” from U.S. citizenship, but such
tribes remained subject to U.S. laws and regulations.
11 Alaska Organic Act, 23 Stat. 24.
12 23 Stat. 24, §8.
13 Act of June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §27, 31 Stat. 330.
14 Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1095; Act of May 14, 1898, 30 Stat. 409.
15 U.S. v. Berrigan, 2 Alaska 442 (D. Alaska 1905).
16 Ibid at 450. The District Court of Alaska specifically rejected the holding in Sutter v. Heckman, 1 Alaska 188 (D.
Alaska 1901), aff'd, 119 F. 83 (9th Cir. 1902), which held that Alaska Natives have the power to convey rights to lands
reserved to them under the Act of June 6, 1900.
17 Act of May 17, 1906, 34 Stat. 197.
18 Act of August 2, 1956, §1(c), 70 Stat. 954.
19 Act of August 2, 1956, §3, 70 Stat. 954.
20 Passage of the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, 48 Stat. 984 (also known as the Wheeler-Howard Act), laid the
foundation for a new federal Indian policy by ending the division of reservation lands into private allotments. Although
certain sections of the Indian Reorganization Act applied to Alaska, the Act of May 1, 1936, extended several
Congressional Research Service

3

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Secretary of the Interior to create Indian reservations in Alaska (sometimes
referred to as Native reserves); specifically, the act authorized the Secretary to
designate certain areas within Alaska as Indian reservations that had been
reserved for the use and occupancy of “Indians or Eskimos.”21 The Secretary of
the Interior approved seven reserves under this authority.22 Prior to the enactment
of the 1936 law, other reserves had been created in Alaska under other
authorities.23
 In 1948, Congress passed the Act of February 26, 1948, which extended the
Native Townsite Act to grant individual title to Alaska Natives.24 The Native
Townsite Act, as amended, allowed Alaska Natives to obtain title to lots they
were occupying in townsites surveyed pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891.25
 In 1955, the Supreme Court decided Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S., a case involving
a group of Alaska Natives asserting a Fifth Amendment claim against the United
States for the taking of timber. 26 The Court held that neither the Alaska Organic
Act nor the Act of June 6, 1900, granted permanent rights to Alaska Natives in
lands they occupied in Alaska. Rather, the Court determined the acts preserved
aboriginal Indian title for later congressional or judicial disposition.27
 In 1958, Congress passed the Alaska Statehood Act, which authorized the
transfer of up to approximately 105 million acres of federal public lands to the
State of Alaska.28 However, Alaska Natives initially protested the state’s selection
of federal lands, and, in 1969, DOI froze land selections until Native land claims
were settled.29 The newly created State of Alaska, seeking to grow its economy
and land base, pressed the federal government to resolve aboriginal land claims.30
Further, due to the discovery of oil in Alaska, oil companies also sought the
resolution of aboriginal claims.31

provisions to Alaska.
21 Act of May 1, 1936, §2, 49 Stat. 1250. The 1936 act authorized the designation of Indian reservations in Alaska in
land areas reserved for use and occupancy by “Indians or Eskimos” under Section 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884 (23
Stat. 26); Section 14 or Section 15 of the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1101); by executive order; or on public lands
that were “actually occupied by Indians or Eskimos.” Ibid, §2.
22 Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][iii].
23 For more information on the creation of Indian reservations in Alaska prior to the passage of the Act of May 1, 1936
(49 Stat. 1250), see Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][iii].
24 Act of May, 25, 1926, 44 Stat. 629; as amended by the Act of February 26, 1948, 62 Stat. 35.
25 Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1099.
26 Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. U.S., 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
27 Ibid, pp. 278-279; see also Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b].
28 Alaska Statehood Act, P.L. 85-508. The Statehood Act and land selections by the State of Alaska are not discussed in
detail in this report. For more information on state land entitlement under the Statehood Act, see DOI, BLM, “State
Entitlements,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/land_transfer/state-
entitlements.
29 DOI, BLM, “Public Land Order 4582,” 34 Federal Register 1025, January 17, 1969; Newton, Cohen’s Handbook,
§4.07[3][b].
30 Robert T. Anderson, “Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-Government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather
After ANCSA,” Alaska Law Review, vol. 33, no. 2, (2016), p. 202.
31 Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b].
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

 In 1971, Congress passed ANCSA to address aboriginal land claims by Alaska
Natives.
General Overview of ANCSA Provisions
ANCSA settled Alaska Native aboriginal land claims and provided compensation and land
entitlements to Alaska Natives.32 ANCSA created the Alaska Native Fund for compensation
payments and deposited $462.5 million into the fund over a period of 11 years.33 ANSCSA
directed that this compensation, combined with approximately $500 million in funding from oil
and gas revenues within Alaska, be distributed to ANCs through the Alaska Native Fund, for a
total settlement of $962.5 million.34 Although Congress originally considered a land settlement of
approximately 40 million acres, ANCSA provided an estimated 45 million acres to Alaska
Natives. (For more information on the total acreage of lands to be conveyed under the ANCSA
settlement, see “Summary of Land Allocations Under ANCSA,” below.) ANCSA did not
expressly provide for the exercise of aboriginal hunting or fishing rights or address Alaska Native
tribal governments.35
To assist in distributing the settlement,
Alaska Native Corporations
ANCSA created ANCs, consisting of regional
Alaska Native regional corporations created under the
and village corporations.36 ANCSA created 12
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; P.L. 92-
Alaska Native regional corporations
203, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq., as
(sometimes referred to as regional
amended) are similar to county governments in the
lower 48 states, whereas Alaska Native vil age
corporations), which are for-profit businesses
corporations resemble municipal governments.
organized under laws of the State of Alaska.
However, ANCSA created Alaska Native corporations
ANCSA also authorized the creation of a 13th
to operate as business entities rather than
regional corporation for nonresidents.37 In
governmental entities.
addition, ANCSA created Alaska Native
Sources: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, P.L.
village corporations (sometimes referred to as
92-203; 43 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.; George Cameron
Coggins and Robert L. Glicksman, Public Natural
village corporations). Village corporations
Resources Law, 2nd ed. (Clark Boardman Callaghan, June
may be for-profit businesses or, unlike
2021), §13:13.
regional corporations, nonprofit businesses,
organized under laws of the State of Alaska.38 In addition to the 13 regional corporations, ANCSA
created over 200 village corporations.39 Because ANCs are business entities, they are unlike

32 43 U.S.C. §§1605, 1611.
33 43 U.S.C. §1605; Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §1.07.
34 43 U.S.C. §1608; Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][ii][B].
35 Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][ii][A]. This report focuses on ANCSA’s land provisions; thus, detailed
information about aboriginal hunting and fishing rights or tribal governments in Alaska is outside the scope of this
report. For more information on Alaska Native fishing and hunting rights, see Newton, Cohen’s Handbook,
§4.07[3][c]. In addition, federally recognized tribes in Alaska are mentioned throughout this report; however, tribes and
their land holdings are not discussed in detail.
36 43 U.S.C. §§1606-1607.
37 43 U.S.C. §1606.
38 43 U.S.C. §1607.
39 Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][ii][B]. For a list of Alaska Native villages and associated corporations
within each regional corporation, see Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land, and Water,
“Corporation Index,” at http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/trails/17b/corpindex.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

federally recognized tribes, which have government-to-government relationships with the United
States.
ANCSA provided a general structure for establishing corporation membership. For example,
within two years after ANCSA’s passage, individual Alaska Natives could enroll and become
shareholders in regional and village corporations based on their residence.40 ANCSA also
provided for the distribution of stock to enrolled members.41
Various provisions in ANCSA provided land entitlements to village and regional corporations;
these entitlements were determined largely by population.42 In addition, individuals, former
Native reserves, and other groups received some land entitlements under ANCSA.43 “Summary of
Land Allocations Under ANCSA,” below, discusses in more detail the land entitlements and
allocations provided to ANCs under ANCSA provisions.
ANCSA also created a process for withdrawing and selecting lands for ANCs. The act withdrew,
or reserved, certain public lands from appropriation, namely lands in or around the land areas of
native villages.44 Withdrawn lands were no longer subject to public laws, such as mining and
mineral laws, and were not available for selection by the State of Alaska under the Alaska
Statehood Act.45 ANCSA created a complex statutory structure for ANC land selections that
included acreage limitations and computations.46 For more information on land withdrawals and
selections, see “Withdrawals and Selection of Land Entitlements,” below.
Upon selection, ANCSA required the federal government to convey the property to the
appropriate ANC.47 BLM is the federal agency responsible for conveyances under ANCSA. (See
“Alaska Land Transfer Program,” below, for more discussion on the status of conveyances to
ANCs.) ANCSA authorized the Secretary of the Interior—or the Secretary of Agriculture, for
national forest lands—to administer the withdrawn lands prior to conveyance in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations; this administration could include making contracts, issuing
leases, and authorizing easements.48
Upon conveyance, ANCs own the land in fee simple status and the lands are freely alienable (i.e.,
available for sale or transfer) by the ANCs.49 Though conveyed in fee simple, ANCs lands are
subject to certain encumbrances, such as federal easements and village corporation conveyances
under 14(c) of ANCSA (for more information, see “14(c) Surveys, 17(b) Easements, and D-1
Withdrawals,” below). The fee simple structure ANCSA created is unlike the system for tribal

40 43 U.S.C. §§1604, 1606.
41 See, generally, 43 U.S.C. §1606. Because this report focuses on ANCSA’s lands provisions, it does not cover stock
or shareholder provisions in detail. For more information, see Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, pp. 159-160.
42 43 U.S.C. §§1611, 1613.
43 43 U.S.C. §§1613(h), 1617(b).
44 43 U.S.C. §1610.
45 43 U.S.C. §1610.
46 43 U.S.C. §1611.
47 43 U.S.C. §1613.
48 43 C.F.R. §2650.1.
49 Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998). “There is presumably no trust
responsibility for [ANCSA] lands.” See Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 97. However, some have suggested that
“undeveloped native corporation lands with many of the same protective attributes as tribal trust lands.” See Newton,
Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b] (emphasis added). For more information on the development of protections of ANC
lands under ANCSA, see Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, pp. 179-182.
Congressional Research Service

6

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

lands in the lower 48 states, where the federal government owes a federal trust responsibility to
administer and manage tribal lands.50
Summary of Land Allocations Under ANCSA
Although Congress originally considered a land settlement of approximately 40 million acres,
ANCSA ultimately provided for approximately 45 million acres of land to be conveyed to Alaska
Natives.51 ANCs received approximately 38 million acres in total as a land settlement.52 Former
Native reserves and other groups received the remaining acreage, approximately 7 million acres
(discussed in more detail below).
Of the 38 million acres set aside for ANCs, up to 22 million surface estate acres were available
for selection by village corporations.53 Village corporations, however, did not require the full 22
million acres to fulfill their land settlement.54 After villages fulfilled their land selections, ANCSA
authorized the reallocation of the remaining acreage among regional corporations based on
population;55 the regional corporations then distributed the land to village corporations “on an
equitable basis.”56 Except in limited circumstances, regional corporations received the subsurface
estate acreage beneath the surface estate acres selected by or distributed to village corporations.57
Land allocations to ANCs depended primarily on population.58 For example, village populations
during the 1970 census largely determined acreage amounts for land entitlements to village
corporations.59 ANCSA also prescribed acreage limitations for each village corporation and
acreage computations for regional corporations.60 Some regions, however, had large land claims
but small populations, and these regions would have lost more land in the settlement than others
would.61 To correct this inequity, ANCSA authorized some regional corporations to select from an
additional 16 million acres, which the regional corporations would own in full title (i.e., both the

50 For more information on the federal trust responsibility and the management of tribal lands, see CRS Report R46647,
Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Tana Fitzpatrick.
51 Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, pp. 161-162.
52 43 U.S.C. §§1611(b)-(c).
53 43 U.S.C. §1611(b).
54 Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 162.
55 43 U.S.C. §1611(b); Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 161. The land reallocations excluded a regional corporation
in Southeast Alaska. 43 U.S.C. §1611(b). The Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska (Tlingit-Haida) had litigated a case
against the United States just prior to the ANCSA settlement. See Tlingit and Haida Indian of Alaska v. U.S., 389 F.2d
778 (1968). In their case, Tlingit-Haida settled with the United States and received a cash settlement of $7.2 million.
Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 162. Due to this case, Tlingit-Haida did not participate in the same land allocations
as the regional corporations in other parts of Alaska. 43 U.S.C. §§1611(b), 1615(c). ANCSA provided 23,040 acres to
each village located in the southeastern Alaska region. 43 U.S.C. §§1615(a)-(c).
56 43 U.S.C. §1611(b); Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 161. See also James D. Linxwiler and Joseph Perkins, “A
Primer on Alaska Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute,” Mineral Law Institute, 61 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 7-
1 (2015), pp. 7-24-7-25, at https://www.guessrudd.com/articles/ (discussing how such land conveyances may be
strategically important to village corporations based on their potential for certain uses, such as for subsistence or
cultural activities). Hereinafter referred to as Linxwiler and Perkins, “Primer on Alaska Lands.”
57 43 U.S.C. §1611(a).
58 43 U.S.C. §§1611, 1613.
59 43 U.S.C. §1613.
60 43 U.S.C. §1611.
61 Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 161.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 10 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

surface and the subsurface estate).62 This additional 16 million acres, plus the 22 million acres to
the village corporations, brought the total acreage ANCs received under the settlement to 38
million acres.
In addition to the 38 million acre settlement, ANCSA provided approximately 7 million acres to
former Native reserves and other groups, as follows:
 Approximately 4 million acres went to village corporations that opted to hold full
title to their former Native reserves.63 (For more information, see “Indian
Reservations in Alaska.”)
 ANCSA authorized up to 2 million unreserved and unappropriated acres to be
allocated among various groups for cemeteries, historical sites, and some Native
allotments.64 (For more information on Native allotments, see “Alaska Native
Allotments.”) After distribution to the various groups, ANCSA authorized the
remaining acreage to be allocated among the 12 regional corporations based on
population.65
 Over 1 million acres went to regional corporations for subsurface selections in
lieu of subsurface rights to the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number Four, now
referred to as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), and federal
wildlife refuges.66
Former Native reserves and regional in lieu subsurface selections, along with an overview of
other selected ANCSA land-related provisions, are discussed in more detail in the next section.
Overview of Selected ANCSA Land Provisions
ANCSA included numerous other land-related provisions. For example, it created a complex
structure for withdrawal and selection of lands by ANCs. Under ANCSA, certain federal public
lands, such as lands in the National Park System, were unavailable for withdrawal, whereas other
lands were available for selection by village corporations but not by regional corporations.
ANCSA also included provisions addressing prior land laws applicable to Alaska Native
individuals and groups. For instance, some land provisions in ANCSA repealed or revised
existing laws, such as provisions addressing native allotments and Indian reservations in Alaska.
Another provision authorized land exchanges between ANCs, the federal government, and the
State of Alaska. This section provides more detail on such provisions.

62 43 U.S.C. §1611(c); Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 161. The land allocations excluded a regional corporation
in Southeast Alaska. 43 U.S.C. §1615. For more information, see footnote 55.
63 Linxwiler and Perkins, “Primer on Alaska Lands,” p.3. For more information on village corporations opting to
receive full title to former Native reserves, see Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][ii][B].
64 43 U.S.C. §1613.
65 43 U.S.C. §1613(h)(8); see also Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 161 (stating that these lands were especially
valuable if the lands included mature forests, such as the case of Sealaska, the southeast regional corporation).
66 Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 162.
Congressional Research Service

8

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Withdrawals and Selection of Land Entitlements
As noted above, ANCSA withdrew certain public lands from appropriation, namely lands in or
around the land areas of native villages.67 Withdrawn lands were no longer subject to public laws,
such as mining and mineral laws, and were not available for selection by the State of Alaska
under the Alaska Statehood Act. Such lands, however, were subject to valid existing rights.68
Once withdrawn, the lands became available for selection by ANCs.
Most unappropriated federal land in Alaska was withdrawn and became available for selection by
ANCs.69 However, National Park System lands and lands reserved for national defense purposes,
except the NPR-A,70 were exempt from being withdrawn for ANCSA purposes.71 Thus, unless
otherwise authorized, no village or regional corporation could select lands within these areas.
Several factors influenced the extent and location of land available for selection by ANCs. For
example, ANCSA limited the number of surface acres village corporations could select from the
National Wildlife Refuge System, a national forest, or the NPR-A.72 In addition, ANCSA
prohibited regional corporations from selecting the subsurface estates to refuge lands and the
NPR-A but authorized regional corporations to select subsurface acres from other withdrawn
lands.73 If a village corporation could not fulfill its land entitlement from withdrawn lands within
or near its Native village, the village corporation could choose from withdrawn lands elsewhere.74
Village corporations were required to select lands from withdrawn lands within three years of
1971, and regional corporations were required to select lands within four years of 1971.75 Due to
this limited timeframe, ANCs could over-select lands, some choosing up to double or triple their
land entitlements.76 Although the federal government has conveyed most of the lands under the

67 43 U.S.C. §1610.
68 43 U.S.C. §§1610. 1613. Valid existing rights included individual’s rights under the open-to-entry program created
by the State of Alaska pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act prior to ANCSA’s passage. For more information, see
Seldovia Native Ass’n, Inc. v. Lujan, 904 F.2d 1335 (9th Cir. 1990). Other valid existing rights included “previously
issued leases, permits, and rights-of-way.” James D. Linxwiler, “The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act at 35:
Delivering on the Promise,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 2007, pp. 65-66, at https://www.guessrudd.com/
wp-content/uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf. Hereinafter referred
to as Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35.”
69 Stephen S. Sorenson, “Split Estates Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Institute, 2005, p. 3, at https://www.rmmlf.org/publications/digital-library/split-estates-under-the-alaska-native-claims-
settlement-act. Hereinafter referred to as Sorenson, “Split Estates.”
70 The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. §§6501 et seq.), and associated regulations,
provided for competitive oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), subject to certain
conditions and restrictions. For more information on the NPR-A, see Linxwiler and Perkins, “Primer on Alaska Lands,”
p. 7-44.
71 43 U.S.C. §1610.
72 43 U.S.C. §1610. “The fish and wildlife limits on village and regional conveyances reflect a compromise to protect
federal and environmental concerns.” Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 159. For more information on selection
rights, see Sorenson, “Split Estates,” p. 4.
73 43 U.S.C. §§1611, 1613. Regional corporations could not select the subsurface estate beneath the NPR-A, because
the federal government set aside the subsurface estate for possible petroleum development. See Case and Voluck,
Alaska Natives, p. 159.
74 43 U.S.C. §1610.
75 43 U.S.C. §1611.
76 43 C.F.R. §§2651.4, 2652.3; Sorenson, “Split Estates,” pp. 4-5.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 19 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

settlement to ANCs, some of the more complex conveyances remain outstanding. For more
information, see “Alaska Land Transfer Program,” below.
Alaska Native Allotments
In 1906, the ANAA authorized the Secretary of the Interior to convey up to 160 acres of non-
mineral land—or land that did not have the potential for mineral development—to individual
Alaska Natives.77 The allotments were inalienable, nontaxable, and in perpetuity.78 As discussed
above, Congress later amended the ANAA to include mineral lands.79 At the time of ANCSA’s
passage, DOI had a backlog of approximately 7,000 applications for ANAA allotments.80
ANCSA specifically repealed the ANAA but authorized pending applications for Native
allotments at the time of ANCSA’s passage to proceed.81 Approved Native allotments were
charged against 2 million acres of unreserved and unappropriated lands authorized to be
conveyed among various groups for cemeteries, historical sites, and some Native allotments.82
Although ANCSA authorized the approval of pending applications, due to litigation and what was
considered to be burdensome application process, the backlog remained.83
Congress subsequently addressed the backlog in legislation. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).84 Section 905 of ANILCA statutorily
approved thousands of Native allotment applications pending approval on or before December
18, 1971 (i.e., the passage of ANCSA).85 ANILCA, however, created exceptions to the blanket
approval of pending applications. For instance, applications approved under ANILCA were
subject to “valid existing rights,” the determination of which was a source of litigation.86 In
another example, the lands at issue in the pending applications could be subject to ANC, state, or
private protests.87 Thus, although ANILCA approved many of the pending ANAA allotment
applications, a determination of approval or disapproval remained for other pending applications.
In 2004, Congress enacted the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act.88 Title III of the act
addressed pending Native allotment applications that would have been approved under Section
905 of ANILCA.89 Specifically, BLM estimated the remaining pending allotment applications

77 Act of May 17, 1906, 34 Stat. 197; Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p.113.
78 Act of May 17, 1906, 34 Stat. 197.
79 Act of Aug. 2, 1956, §1(c), 70 Stat. 954.
80 Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” p. 68.
81 43 U.S.C. §1617(a).
82 43 U.S.C. §§1613(h), 1617(b).
83 Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” p. 69. For more discussion on the effects of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487; 16 U.S.C. §§3101 et seq.) on the Alaska Native Allotment Act, see Case and
Voluck, Alaska Natives, pp. 118-123.
84 ANILCA, P.L. 96-487; 16 U.S.C. §§3101 et seq.
85 P.L. 96-487, §905; 43 U.S.C. §1634; Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” p. 69.
86 43 U.S.C. §1634; Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” pp. 69-75.
87 43 U.S.C. §1634(a)(5). Up to 180 days after December 2, 1980, ANCs, the State of Alaska, and individuals could file
a protest—or objection—with the Secretary of the Interior stating a Native allotment applicant was not entitled to the
land described in the applicant’s application. If a protest was filed, ANILCA required the Native allotment application
to be adjudicated. 43 U.S.C. §1634(a)(5). The filing and adjudication of protests is beyond the scope of this report.
88 Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, P.L. 108-452.
89 43 U.S.C. §1617. For more information on Title III of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, see Linxwiler,
“ANCSA at 35,” pp. 76-77.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 19 link to page 16 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

totaled 3,256 acres of land. Of that total, approximately 1,100 acres were erroneously conveyed to
the State of Alaska or to an ANC and thus no longer belonged to the United States upon the
passage of ANILCA in 1980.90 Thus, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act sought to remedy
the difficulty in recovering title to some of these applications. For example, the act amended
ANCSA to correct certain conveyances the federal government made to an ANC or to the state.
Such conveyances would have been made to an Alaska Native allottee, had the allotment
application described land in federal ownership upon the passage of ANILCA. With the
concurrence of an ANC or the state, the act allowed the Secretary of the Interior to issue a
certificate of allotment to the Alaska Native allottee.91 For more information on the status of
Native allotment applications, see “Alaska Land Transfer Program.”
Indian Reservations in Alaska
Prior to the passage of ANCSA, several tribes in Alaska had established reservations, or land
areas set aside by the federal government as permanent homelands for tribes.92 Reservations in
Alaska, sometimes referred to as Native reserves, were established under various authorities. The
Secretary of the Interior established some Native reserves under the Indian Reorganization Act of
1934, which was extended to Alaska in 1936.93 Other Native reserves were established by
executive order.94 Between 1891 and 1943, 23 Native reserves were established in Alaska under
these authorities.95
ANCSA revoked all Native reserves in Alaska, except for the Metlakatla Indian Community of
the Annette Island Reserve.96 (See Figure 1 for the location of the Annette Island Reserve.)
However, unlike other village corporations that could hold title to only the surface estate, ANCSA
provided village corporations with former Native reserves the option to hold full title (i.e., title to
surface and subsurface estates) to their land.97 If the village corporation elected full title
ownership, the village corporation would forego the other benefits of ANCSA, including options
for other land selections and settlement funding.98 ANCSA required eligible village corporations
to make their elections within two years of its passage. As noted above, approximately 4 million
acres were conveyed to village corporations that opted to hold full title to their reserves.99

90 Statement of BLM State Director Henri Bisson, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Hearing on the Alaska Native Allotment Subdivision Act, Cape Fox Entitlement Act, and the Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration Act, hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., August 6, 2003, S.Hrg. 108-163 (Washington, DC: GPO,
2003).
91 P.L. 108-452, §301.
92 For general information on federal Indian reservations, see CRS Report R46647, Tribal Land and Ownership
Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Tana Fitzpatrick.
93 The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 of was extended to Alaska under the Act of May 1, 1936, 49 Stat. 1250.
94 Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][iii].
95 DOI, Solicitor’s Opinion M-36975, “Governmental Jurisdiction of Alaska Native Villages over Land and
Nonmembers,” January 11, 1993, at https://www.doi.gov/solicitor/opinions.
96 43 U.S.C. §1618; see also Newton, Cohen’s Handbook, §4.07[3][b][ii][B]. The Annette Island Reserve, created by
Congress in 1891, is the only Indian reservation in Alaska.
97 43 U.S.C. §1618.
98 43 U.S.C. §1618.
99 Linxwiler, p.3. For more information opting to receive full title to former Native reserves, see Newton, Cohen’s
Handbook, §4.07[3][b][ii][B].
Congressional Research Service

11

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Land Exchanges
In addition to its land entitlement provisions, Section 22(f) of ANCSA authorized certain federal
agencies to exchange land with ANCs and the State of Alaska. ANCSA allowed the Secretaries of
the Interior, Defense, and Agriculture to authorize land exchanges with ANCs and the state; these
exchanges could be conducted to consolidate land or to facilitate development of the land.100 The
exchanges were to be made on the “basis of equal value,” and a cash payment could be issued to
equalize the land exchange.101 In 1976, Congress amended ANCSA and expanded the Secretaries’
authority to approve land exchanges with any federal agency and for any public purpose.102
Further, if the parties agreed to a land exchange that was not of “equal value,” the appropriate
Secretary could approve the land exchange if it were in the public interest.103
ANILCA included a similar land exchange provision.104 Some observers have suggested
ANILCA’s statute exempts its provision from the general authority under the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (providing that the Secretary of the Interior cannot modify or
revoke lands withdrawn by Congress).105
Despite the provisions in both ANCSA and ANILCA, ANCs generally do not use land exchanges
regularly.106 Such exchanges can be complicated, costly, and time-consuming,107 and some
exchanges have been controversial.108 Because land exchanges can occur between numerous
parties, determining who owns the surface and subsurface tract of land may be difficult. Further,
although ANCSA and ANILCA provided federal agencies the authority to permit land exchanges,
some observers suggest additional legislation is required to complete land exchanges under these
authorities.109 Despite these challenges, some ANCs have successfully consolidated their land
holdings through land exchanges.110

100 P.L. 92-203, §22(f), 43 U.S.C. §1621(f).
101 P.L. 92-203, §22(f), 43 U.S.C. §1621(f).
102 P.L. 94-204, §17, 43 U.S.C. §1621(f).
103 P.L. 94-204, §17, 43 U.S.C. §1621(f).
104 P.L. 96-487, §1302(h), 16 U.S.C. §3192(h). ANILCA’s land exchange provision is similar but not identical to
ANCSA’s land exchange provision. For instance, ANILCA’s statute authorized the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture—though not the Secretary of Defense—to authorize land exchanges with ANCs, the State of Alaska, and
other federal agencies. 16 U.S.C. §3192(h). An analysis of the differences between the land exchange provisions in
ANILCA and ANCSA is beyond the scope of this report.
105 Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” p. 61. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), P.L. 94-579, 43
U.S.C. §§1701 et seq. For more information on land exchanges under FLPMA, see CRS Report R41509, Land
Exchanges: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Process and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
106 Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 165.
107 Sorenson, “Split Estates,” p. 6.
108 Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” pp. 61-63.
109 Linxwiler and Perkins, “Primer on Alaska Lands,” p. 7-28.
110 Linxwiler, “ANCSA at 35,” pp. 61-63.
Congressional Research Service

12

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Figure 1. Alaska Native Lands

Source: Congressional Research Service, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI), State of Alaska, and ESRI.
Notes: Alaska Native lands, as depicted in this map, include Alaska Native vil ages (ANVs), Alaska Native
regional corporations, and the Annette Island Reserve of the Metlakatla Indian Community. Census describes
ANVs as constituting “associations, bands, clans, communities, groups, tribes, or vil ages” as recognized pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; P.L. 92-203, §3, 43 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.). See Census,
“Glossary,” at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html. ANV locations are
based on Census’s data for Alaska Native Vil age Statistical Areas, as well as on data from DOI and the State of
Alaska. Alaska Native regional corporation boundaries are established pursuant to ANCSA. Locations of ANVs,
Alaska Native regional corporations, and the Annette Island Reserve are approximate. Some ANV locations may
not be visible on the map due to size. Federal, state, and other private lands are not shown on the map. The
different color shades depicting Alaska Native Regional Corporations are intended to highlight their boundaries
and areal extent, but are not intended to imply any other differences.
Management Implications of Split Estates Under
ANCSA
Through its land entitlement structure, ANCSA created split estates, or estates where one entity
owns the surface estate and another owns all or part of the subsurface estate. Most commonly,
ANCSA established a split estate wherein village corporations own the surface estate and regional
corporations own the subsurface estate. In other scenarios, the federal government may own the
surface above a regional corporation’s subsurface estate or may own the subsurface estate under a
village corporation’s surface estate. The creation of the split estates under ANCSA generated land
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 16 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

and natural resource management considerations for ANCs and the federal government, discussed
in more detail below.
Village and Regional Corporation Split Estates
ANCSA does not define which rights are included in the surface and subsurface estates conveyed
under ANCSA.111 Generally, title to surface estates for village corporations includes beds and
banks of non-navigable waters.112 It also includes traditional uses of land, such as subsistence
hunting, as well as economic use, such as timber harvesting and tourism.113
Under ANCSA, regional corporations received rights to all subsurface estates under village
corporations’ surface estates.114 Generally, the subsurface estate underneath a village
corporation’s surface estate is owned by the regional corporation within which the village
corporation is located. (See Figure 1 for the approximate boundaries of each regional
corporation.)
The subsurface estate includes mineral rights and sand, rock, and gravel.115 Where the subsurface
estate is owned by a regional corporation and the surface estate is owned by a village corporation,
in order to access the subsurface estate, the regional corporation must seek the village
corporation’s consent “to explore, develop, or remove minerals” under the surface estate.116
ANCSA provided that regional corporations, however, require the village corporation’s consent to
access the subsurface estate only if the subsurface estate is within the boundaries of a Native
village.117
Village Corporation and Federal Government Split Estates
When a village corporation selected lands within a national wildlife refuge, a national forest, or
the NPR-A, additional management implications may arise. For example, for surface estate
conveyances within a national wildlife refuge, village corporations would be subject to the laws
and regulations governing use and development of such refuge.118 Further, where the federal
government owns the subsurface estate beneath a village corporation’s (or any nonfederal
owner’s) surface estate, the federal government may have certain responsibilities to the surface
owner in accessing the subsurface estate. For example, the federal government would be
responsible for ensuring the nonfederal surface owner is informed of oil and gas development
activities prior to such activities taking place.119

111 For more information on controversies and litigation surrounding what the surface and subsurface estates include,
see Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, pp. 162-163.
112 Sorenson, “Split Estates,” p. 5.
113 Ibid.
114 43 U.S.C. §1611(a).
115 Sorenson, “Split Estates,” p. 5.
116 43 U.S.C. §1613(f).
117 43 U.S.C. §13613(f). In 1989, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Lesnoi, Inc. v. Stratman, 154 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.
1998) considered what constituted the “boundaries” of the Native village—whether the boundaries included only the
occupied village site or all of the lands owned by the Native village. The court held that regional corporations require
the village corporation’s consent for mining activities by the regional corporation only within the area occupied by the
village. See also Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 164.
118 43 C.F.R. §2650.4-6.
119 For more information, see DOI, BLM, The Gold Book, at https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-
Congressional Research Service

14

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Regional Corporation and Federal Government Split Estates
When a village corporation selected surface estate lands within the National Wildlife Refuge
System or the NPR-A, ANCSA provided regional corporations the option to select the subsurface
estate in an equal acreage from other withdrawn lands within the region, commonly referred to as
in lieu selections.120 Under these circumstances, the federal government could be the surface
owner above a subsurface estate owned by a regional corporation.
Phases of the Alaska Land Transfer
Federal Programs for
Program
The Bureau of Land Management’s Alaska Land
ANCSA Land Selections, Transfer Program processes remaining applications for
an allotment under the Alaska Native Allotment Act
Conveyances,
(Act of May 17, 1906, 34 Stat. 197), remaining
conveyances under the Alaska Native Claims
Easements, and
Settlement Act (P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C.
§§1601 et seq.), and conveyances pursuant to the
Alaska Statehood Act (P.L. 85-508). The program has
Technical Assistance
three distinct phases:

Preliminary adjudication and application approval
BLM and BIA each have programs that

Cadastral survey
execute various provisions of ANCSA. BLM,
for example, assists with land selection and

Conveyance of lands and entitlements
conveyances to ANCs. Recent legislative
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “Alaska Land
developments allow some individual Alaska
Transfer Program,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/
Native veterans to select lands, which also will
lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/land-
require BLM conveyances to the
transfer. For more information on the program’s
individuals.121 For its part, BIA has two
phases, see U.S. DOI, BLM, FY2022 Congressional Budget
programs specific to ANCSA’s provisions: the
Justification, pp.V-91-V-92.
Native Allotment program, and a program
relating to historical places and cemetery sites. This section provides an overview of these
programs.
Bureau of Land Management’s ANCSA-Related Programs
BLM manages the Alaska Land Transfer Program, which includes certain responsibilities to
ANCs and individual Alaska Natives.122 Such responsibilities under the program include
conveying lands to individual Alaska Natives under the ANAA; operating the Alaska Native
Veteran Program of 2019; and conveying lands to ANCs under ANCSA and the Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration Act of 2004. Pursuant to authorities under ANCSA, BLM also performs
surveys, easements, and withdrawals affecting ANCs. These programs are discussed below.

and-gas/operations-and-production/the-gold-book.
120 43 U.S.C. §1611. Five regions received in-lieu selections: Aleut, Arctic Slope, Calista, Cook Inlet, and Koniag. Case
and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 161.
121 P.L. 116-9; 43 U.S.C. §1629g-1.
122 DOI, BLM, “Alaska Land Transfer Program,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-
information/alaska/land-transfer. BLM also manages conveyances to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood
Act, which is not discussed in detail in this report. For more information on BLM’s work on state land entitlements, see
DOI, BLM, “State Entitlements,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/
land_transfer/state-entitlements.
Congressional Research Service

15

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Alaska Land Transfer Program
BLM’s responsibilities to ANCs under the Alaska Land Transfer Program include processing
remaining conveyances to fulfill ANC land entitlements under ANCSA. Although the federal
government has conveyed title to many of the land entitlements, some ANCs may still be waiting
for land conveyances. BLM indicates that the remaining land requiring conveyance to ANCs
comprises some of the more complicated conveyances.123 The 2004 Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act allowed BLM to round up acreages, determine final selection entitlements, and
determine previously withdrawn land selections.124 As of 2019, approximately 1.7 million acres
remained to be surveyed and conveyed by BLM to ANCs.125
In addition to ANCs, BLM has responsibilities to individual Alaska Natives under the ANAA and
the Alaska Native Vietnam-Era Veterans Land Allotment Program of 2019. As mentioned, under
the ANAA,126 several thousand Alaska Native allotment applications were pending BLM
approval at the time of ANCSA’s passage. Although ANILCA statutorily approved many of these
applications, some of the more complex applications remain pending. As of April 2019, BLM had
conveyed over 16,000 parcels to individual Alaska Natives and approximately 251 parcels
remained to be processed.127
Congress also authorized land transfers to Alaska Native veterans under the Alaska Native
Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act of 1998.128 The act allowed Alaska Native veterans to apply for
160-acre tracts. Eligible Alaska Native veterans were those who were unable to apply for an
allotment under the ANAA due to active duty prior to the law’s repeal in ANCSA. The
application period ended in 2002. BLM issued 255 allotments and indicates four applications are
pending.129
More recently, Congress passed additional legislation authorizing land transfers to individual
Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Vietnam-Era Veterans Land Allotment Program. The
program was authorized under the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
Recreation Act of 2019.130 Under this act, Alaska Native Vietnam veterans or their heirs could
select allotments of up to 160-acres of federal land. Eligible Alaska Natives are Alaska Native
Vietnam veterans who served between August 5, 1964, and December 31, 1971, and did not
previously receive an allotment under prior laws. The application period is from December 28,
2020, to December 29, 2025. BLM indicates that approximately 1.6 million acres are currently
available for selection and that up to an additional 28 million acres may potentially become
available.131

123 DOI, BLM, “Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Conveyances,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/
lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/land_transfer/ancsa.
124 P.L. 108-452.
125 DOI, BLM, FY2022 Congressional Budget Justification, p. V-92, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/fy2022-
blm-budget-justification.pdf.
126 Act of May 17, 1906, 34 Stat. 197.
127 DOI, BLM, “Alaska Native Allotment Act Entitlements,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/
regional-information/alaska/land_transfer/ak-native-allotment-act.
128 Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act of 1998, P.L. 105-276; 43 U.S.C. §1629g.
129 DOI, BLM, “Alaska Native Allotment Act Entitlements,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/
regional-information/alaska/land_transfer/ak-native-allotment-act.
130 John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019, P.L. 116-9; 43 U.S.C. §1629g-1.
131 DOI, BLM, “Alaska Native Veteran Program of 2019,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-
information/alaska/land-transfer/ak-native-allotment-act/alaska-native-vietnam-veterans-land-allotment. If a veteran
Congressional Research Service

16

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

14(c) Surveys, 17(b) Easements, and D-1 Withdrawals
Other BLM responsibilities under ANCSA include conducting surveys, reserving easements, and
revoking withdrawals. Under Section 14(c) of ANCSA, village corporations are required to
convey some of the land they received under ANCSA to individuals.132 Specifically, ANCSA
required village corporations to convey title to Native or non-Native occupants of land occupied
as a “primary place of residence, or as a primary place of business, or as a subsistence campsite,
or as headquarters for reindeer husbandry.”133 Other Section 14(c) provisions required village
corporations to convey lands to nonprofit organizations; municipal corporations established in the
Native village; and federal, state, or municipal corporations for “airport sites, airway beacons, and
other navigation aids.”134 BLM assists village corporations by surveying the land at issue,
sometimes referred to as 14(c) surveys. BLM also provides legal descriptions and boundaries for
village corporations to use in the process of transferring land.135
Under Section 17(b) of ANCSA, the United States has authority to reserve easements on land
selected by ANCs, sometimes referred to as 17(b) easements.136 Such easements are reserved
when BLM conveys the land to an ANC.137 Most easements allow the public to cross lands owned
by ANCs to reach public lands and major waterways, such as airports, docks, marine coastlines,
and government facilities.138 BLM is authorized to terminate a 17(b) easement if BLM determines
the easement is no longer necessary.139
Separate from BLM’s authority to withdraw public lands for selection by ANCs, Section 17(d)(1)
of ANCSA provided the Secretary of the Interior authority to withdraw unreserved public lands
for further study and to reclassify them for various uses in the public interest.140 Commonly
referred to as d-1 withdrawals, ANCSA authorized the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw such
lands for the protection of the public’s interest in these lands.141 From 1972 to 1975, the Secretary
issued a series of public land orders under this authority.142 Though BLM revoked some of the d-1

were to choose land currently selected by an ANC or by the State of Alaska, BLM would issue a “conditional
relinquishment request” of the public land order on behalf of the veteran to the ANC or the State of Alaska. Ibid.
132 P.L. 92-203, §14(c); 43 U.S.C. §1613(c).
133 43 U.S.C. §1613(c)(1).
134 43 U.S.C. §1613(c)(2)-(4). ANCSA defines municipal corporation as “any general unit of municipal government
under the laws of the State of Alaska.” 43 U.S.C. §1602. In the 116th Congress, S. 4889 would have removed the
requirement that ANCs convey land for municipal purposes. The bill did not become law.
135 DOI, BLM, “Alaska 14(c) Surveys,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/
alaska/14c_Surveys.
136 P.L. 92-203, §17(b); 43 U.S.C. §1616(b).
137 DOI, BLM, “ANCSA 17(b) Easements,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/
alaska/17b_easements. Hereinafter, BLM, “17(b) Easements.”
138 P.L. 92-203, §17(b); 43 U.S.C. §1616(b).
139 BLM, “17(b) Easements.”
140 P.L. 92-203, §17(d)(1); 43 U.S.C. §1616(d)(1).
141 P.L. 92-203, §17(d)(1). According to BLM, “The intent was to limit appropriations of the land in order to complete
inventories of resources and assessment of values which would allow for orderly development of land use and
management objectives for present and future public needs.” See DOI, BLM, Sec. 207 Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act, A Review of D-1 Withdrawals, June 2006, reprint 2019, p. 3, at https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/
files/uploads/BLM_AK_sec207report_final_2019Reprint.pdf. Hereinafter, BLM, D-1 Withdrawals Review.
142 BLM, D-1 Withdrawals Review, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service

17

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

withdrawals, much of this land remains withdrawn but has yet to be reclassified.143 BLM reports
that revocation cannot take place without land use planning for these lands.144
The 2004 Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act required BLM to report on the remaining d-1
withdrawals and on whether such withdrawals continued to be necessary.145 In June 2006, BLM
reported that d-1 withdrawals affected approximately 160 million acres of land, including about
57 million acres of BLM-managed land.146 Since 2018, BLM has revoked four d-1
withdrawals.147 Revoking d-1 withdrawals opens up the land to mineral development, land sales,
and land selection by the State of Alaska and Alaska Native veterans under the Alaska Native
Vietnam-Era Veterans Land Allotment Program.148
Bureau of Indian Affairs’ ANCSA-Related Programs
BIA has two ANCSA-related programs: the ANCSA Historical Places and Cemetery Sites
Program and the Native Allotment Program. Under the ANCSA Historical Places and Cemetery
Sites Program, the BIA certifies regional corporation claims of title to Native historical sites
under Section 14(h)(1) of ANCSA.149 The program primarily focuses on the land conveyance
process, but it also manages an ANCSA museum collection.150
Under the Native Allotment Program, BIA provides technical assistance to Native allottees who
applied for a Native Allotment pursuant to the ANAA. Some of the services BIA provides include
performing field exams with the applicant and BLM staff and conducting probates and notifying
heirs of possible inheritance claims.151
Policy Considerations
Unlike federally recognized tribes, which have government-to-government relationships with the
United States, ANCSA established ANCs as business entities. In addition, in an attempt to move
away from the reservation system of the lower 48 states, ANCSA settled aboriginal land claims
by conveying lands to ANCs in fee title status, to be held and managed in fee as privately held
lands. Although many of these lands have been conveyed to ANCs, some outstanding issues
remain. Congressional policy considerations may include legislating on tribal lands and ANC
lands; land management challenges due to the complex land structure developed under ANCSA;
lifting d-1 withdrawals under ANCSA; and creating new village corporations.

143 BLM opened approximately 10 million acres of d-1 withdrawals in the 1980s. BLM, D-1 Withdrawals Review, p. 3.
144 DOI, BLM, “Alaska D-1 Withdrawals,” at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/
alaska/d-1_withdrawals.
145 P.L. 108-452, §207; Linxwiler and Perkins, “Primer on Alaska Lands,” p. 7-31.
146 BLM, D-1 Withdrawals Review, pp. 3-4.
147 For more information on the four revoked d-1 withdrawals, see DOI, BLM, “Revoking D-1 Withdrawals,” at
https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/d-1_withdrawals/revocation.
148 BLM, D-1 Withdrawals Review, p. 4; DOI, BLM, “After Nearly 50 Years Interior to Revoke Public Land
Withdrawals in Northwestern Alaska Covering 9.7 Million Acres,” at https://www.blm.gov/press-release/after-nearly-
50-years-interior-revoke-public-land-withdrawals-northwestern-alaska.
149 DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), “ANCSA Program,” at https://www.bia.gov/regional-offices/alaska/ancsa-
program.
150 DOI, BIA, FY2022 Congressional Budget Justification, p. IA-RES-12, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
fy2022-bia-budget-justification.pdf. Hereinafter, BIA, FY2022 CBJ.
151 BIA, FY2022 CBJ, p. IA-RES-12.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 9 Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Legislation Including Both Alaska Native Corporation Lands and
Tribal Lands
An issue for Congress may be the extent to which Congress intends to include land held in fee
simple status by ANCs when considering legislation pertaining to lands held in trust for federally
recognized tribes. Once BLM conveys withdrawn land to an ANC, the ANC privately holds that
land, which is freely alienable. Further, the federal government does not owe a federal trust
responsibility to those lands.152 By contrast, the federal government is responsible for
administering and managing lands on behalf of federally recognized tribes.153 Further, due to its
federal trust responsibility, the federal government has a duty to manage lands held in trust or
restricted fee status, including any such lands in Alaska (for example, the Annette Island Reserve
of the Metlakatla Indian Community).154 The federal government does not have the same
obligation to lands held privately by ANCs.
Thus, when Congress legislates on broad topics involving lands of tribes and ANCs, a potential
consideration could be whether Congress intends to include trust or restricted fee lands, as well as
land owned privately by ANCs. Depending on the legislation’s purpose, Congress may consider
including all lands involving tribes and ANCs, lands involving only tribes, or lands involving
only ANCs. Further, Congress may consider whether it intends to include both regional
corporations and village corporations, or one or the other. For instance, in the 117th Congress, S.
2369 would define tribal land to include regional corporations established under ANCSA Section
7(a) of ANCSA but not village corporations.
If Congress wishes to define tribal lands broadly in legislation but wants to have parts of the law
apply to ANCs only, an option could be to exempt ANCs from various parts of the law within the
definitions section of the law. For example, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
Determination Act expressly exempts ANCs from eligibility for certain grants and agreements
with the Secretary of the Interior that would touch on trust or restricted fee land.155
Management Considerations Due to ANCSA’s Complex Land
Structure
Should Congress pursue legislation, it may consider that several scenarios can exist on various
parcels of land in Alaska that may have ANC interests. For instance, a village corporation may
own the surface acres on a parcel of land and a regional corporation or the federal government
may own the subsurface acreage. In another example, the federal government could own surface
acres on a tract of land in which a regional corporation owns the subsurface acres.

152 Supra, footnote 49.
153 As of January 2021, 574 Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages are federally recognized. Over 200 federally
recognized tribes are located in Alaska. See BIA, “Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services
From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs,” 86 Federal Register 7554, January 29, 2021, at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-29/pdf/2021- 01606.pdf.
154 Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives, p. 97. Of the Alaska Native land holdings in Alaska, ANCs hold the majority of
the land privately, whereas federally recognized tribes in Alaska are mostly landless. See William H. Holey, “Starting
from Scratch: Reasserting ‘Indian Country’ in Alaska by Placing Alaska Native Lands into Trust,” Florida A & M
University Law Review vol. 11, no. 3 (Spring 2016), pp. 333-357.
155 Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act, 25 U.S.C. §3501.
Congressional Research Service

19

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

ANCSA’s complex land structure can create land and natural resource management
considerations for the federal government, due to the various land ownership patterns through
Alaska. Thus, when legislating on land or natural resource issues in Alaska, a challenge for
federal lawmakers could be determining the entity—federal, state, ANC, or other—that owns
surface and subsurface estates in a particular area, as well as the various obligations and
responsibilities of different owners in split estates.
Lifting D-1 Withdrawals
As noted above, BLM has revoked four d-1 withdrawals since 2018. The revocations opened up
approximately 11 million acres of land for various uses, such as mining interests.156 Some suggest
the revocations will provide economic development opportunities and help fulfill commitments to
the State of Alaska and ANCs in remaining land entitlement selections.157
Conversely, some assert that revoking d-1 withdrawals will leave the land without protection and
contend that the revocations were completed without due process.158 In addition, some tribal
communities have urged the federal government to conserve watershed areas and landscapes to
protect their traditional way of life.159
Congress could maintain, increase, or decrease BLM’s authority to revoke d-1 withdrawals.
Increasing BLM’s authority could provide BLM more flexibility in lifting d-1 withdrawals. This
increased flexibility may result in such lands becoming available sooner for selection by the state,
ANCs, and Alaska Native veterans, as well as by other uses, such as mining interests. Under any
option, Congress may consider an examination of the process through which BLM revokes d-1
withdrawals.
Creating New Alaska Native Village Corporations
After ANCSA’s passage, there have been a number of bills introduced that would have created or
provided the ability for communities to organize into new village corporations. For example, in
the 114th, 115th, and 116th Congresses, proposed legislation would have amended ANCSA to allow
five Native villages to organize as “urban corporations” and receive approximately 23,040 acres
of land.160 This legislation would have settled land claims for villages that were not included in
the initial ANCSA settlement.
Some have suggested the corporate structure as contemplated by ANCSA may not be beneficial to
Native villages, citing ANCSA’s lack of “cultural, traditional, or subsistence protective

156 David W. Shaw, “Will the Federal Government Reverse Course, Retain Protections on Intact Alaskan
Landscapes?,” Pew Charitable Trusts, April 6, 2021, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-
briefs/2021/04/will-the-federal-government-reverse-course-retain-protections-on-intact-alaskan-landscapes. Hereinafter
referred to as Shaw, “Intact Alaskan Landscapes.”
157 Elwood Brehmer, “BLM Lifts Alaska Land Withdrawals, Opening 1.3 Million Acres,” Anchorage Daily News, June
28, 2019, at https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2019/06/28/blm-lifts-alaska-land-withdrawals-opening-13-
million-acres/.
158 Shaw, “Intact Alaskan Landscapes”; Natalie Dawson, “Part 1: BLM Lands at Risk,” Audubon Alaska’s BirdBlog,
December 23, 2020, at https://ak.audubon.org/news/part-1-blm-lands-risk.
159 Shaw, “Intact Alaskan Landscapes.”
160 In the 114th Congress: S. 872, H.R. 2386; in the 115th Congress: H.R. 229, S. 1491; in the 116th Congress: H.R.
8751, S. 4891. Other examples include H.R. 4582 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 440 in the 117th Congress (settling
the aboriginal land claims of Alexander Creek village). None of the bills became law.
Congressional Research Service

20

Alaska Native Lands and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

benefits.”161 In addition, because some Native villages are federally recognized tribes, some
stakeholders have suggested placing the land into trust for the Native villages to be managed by
the federal government.162
For legislation that would bring land into trust for federally recognized tribes in Alaska, Congress
may consider the cost to the federal government of managing additional acres. In addition,
Congress may consider the cost and timeliness of the land-into-trust process.163 Conversely, if
Congress created new ANCs, upon conveyance of lands the ANCs could continue to manage their
lands without federal involvement, as initially contemplated by ANCSA.

Author Information

Tana Fitzpatrick

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

161 Vance A. Sanders, “A Tribal Advocate’s Critique of Proposed ANCSA Amendments: Perpetuating a Broken
Corporate Assimilationist Policy,” Alaska Law Review, vol. 33, no. 2 (2016), pp. 308-314, at
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1518&context=alr.
162 Ibid, pp. 312-313.
163 CRS Report R46647, Tribal Land and Ownership Statuses: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by Tana
Fitzpatrick.
Congressional Research Service
R46997 · VERSION 1 · NEW
21