PANEL CONSISTING OF T. DESTRY JARVIS, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION; AND JACK HESSION, ALASKA REPRESENTATIVE, THE SIERRA CLUB

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We are going to have to move along. I see you have a prepared statement. Without objection we will put the entire statements in the record and you may proceed and summarize. Is that acceptable?

Mr. JARVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Destry Jarvis with the National Parks and Conservation Association and currently serving as the chairman of the Alaska Coalition.

We do not oppose the transfer of the railroad to the State of Alaska. However, there are certain problems of omission in H.R. 6308 and in S. 1500 which we wish to call to the attention of the committee for your perusal and consideration.

Initially, I should say, we are concerned about the creation of an extensive inholding in Denali National Park that would occur under the provisions of both these acts as now written with the transfer of title to the right-of-way, to the State of Alaska through Denali National Park.

We suggest that instead of such transfer the entire right-of-way through the park be transferred in fee to the National Park Service which is the customary procedure with a subsequent granting of a right-of-way under the normal procedures to the State assuring all rights and opportunities for maintaining and operating the railroad.

There are enumerable rights-of-way of this sort throughout the National Park System in the lower 48 States and we see it as no inhibition in any way in the operation of the railroad but a further assurance that the rail corridor and right-of-way through the park would be managed compatibly with the park.

As a secondary alternative, perhaps, if there is no interest or no possibility of the Park Service retaining fee title to the entire corridor, Park Service should at least retain the subsurface ownership in fee which would, for example, preclude mining in that right-ofway and we would hope, in fact, we would recommend that if the committee, as you have discussed earlier today, decides to include an easement as the mechanism that that easement explicitly state that mining of gravel for maintenance of the corridor not be allowed within the park but that the gravel come from outside the park boundaries.

There are also several other problems with the bill. Since the Energy and Commerce Committee introduced the concept of compensation for the transfer, we would like to suggest that, as an option, the State be given the choice of conveying lands of value equivalent to the value which the railroad is determined to be, from the inholdings the State now owns within the conservation system units.

Unfortunately, a very deleterious situation exists with the State inholdings in the National Parks. For example, the Park Service

has been told they can only use other parklands for purposes of exchange.

This, at best, results in trading a major problem for a somewhat lesser one. We think that since the State legitimately is not interested in trading for lands which it could otherwise select anyway under the Statehood Act, that lands which are perhaps off limits to it be used to trade rather than other national parklands. So we suggest this option.

Another serious problem which is brought out in the Senate bill and which is not discussed at all in the House bill but which we believe needs to be addressed, is the question of future rights-ofway. Title XI of the Alaska Lands Act, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, provides a process for future rights-of-way for access across conservation system lands.

We believe this process should be utilized rather than circumventing that process before it has even been tried in the manner that S. 1500 would do for essentially giving the State carte blanche for rights-of-way including rights-of-way through conservation system units.

The Senate bill also circumvents the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Historic Preservation Act, and other current laws which we do not believe are necessary.

The adherence to title XI of the Alaska Lands Act would adequately take those matters into account and consequently should be adhered to.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present our statement.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.

I have a letter from Governor Hammond for which I ask unanimous consent to be introduced in the record following the testimony of the representative from Alaska. In the letter he says as far as the rights to extend the railroad system into other portions of the State is concerned that the State will be satisfied with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act and does not feel any further grants of rights to extend the right-of-way are necessary. Mr. YOUNG. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SEIBERLING. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. That is in the Senate bill, section 9. It says exactly that.

Mr. SEIBERLING. I don't know exactly what is in the Senate bill because the final version as reported out is still being written.

Mr. YOUNG. What has been written is there. It is very clear the Senators have been agreeable to that, and the Governor.

Mr. SEIBERLING. As I understand it, everybody is agreeable to that.

Mr. YOUNG. That is why I don't see why the gentleman brings the point out.

Mr. SEIBERLING. I simply note for the record that Governor Hammond is also agreeable to it so I think that is probably not in contention, but we must make sure the final legislation is consistent with that.

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-The letter from Governor Hammond may be found in appendix II, under date of June 8, 1982.]

Mr. SEIBERLING. I have no other questions.

Mr. YOUNG. I have two questions.

The other thing, too, is that the gentleman brought up a point which would not support transferring the lands, section (d).

After the transfer to the State authorized by section 4 of this Act the portion of the State-owned railroad within the boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve shall be subject to such laws and regulations for the protection of fish and wildlife and other park values as the Secretary of Interior may determine.

The last question I may suggest is, does the Denali Park have a gravel operation now?

Mr. JARVIS. You mean for their own purposes?

Mr. YOUNG. Do they have a gravel mining operation going on in the park right now?

Mr. JARVIS. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. YOUNG. For your own information there is a new mill plant gravel unit in the park right now and a very large one, by the way. It is owned by the Park Service, purchased by the Park Service and established by the Park Service and as I say operated by the Park Service, much to my concern for those people involved in the gravel business outside there.

I don't think there is any danger of any mining done in any right-of-way. This park is deeply involved and I am sure they would be glad to sell gravel to the railroad.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you very much.

I have no further questions.

Mr. Hession, do you have a statement?

Mr. HESSION. Yes, sir.

My name is Jack Hession. I live in Anchorage, Alaska, and I am the representative of the Sierra Club.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the distinguished subcommittee which is where this Alaska Public Lands Conservation Act originated.

It appears that two of the issues I was going to talk about have, at least on the State's part, been resolved favorably for all concerned.

Mr. Katz indicated that the State would be satisfied with an easement across the Denali National Park and it appears now that the State of Alaska at least is willing to abide by existing law with regard to transportation corridors.

That being the case, I would like to followup on a point that Mr. Jarvis made in his testimony and your remarks in yesterday's briefing and that is the question of compensation or consideration to the Federal Government in return for yielding up the Alaska Railroad.

Mr. SEIBERLING. You are aware, of course, that we do not have jurisdiction over the question of how much compensation will be paid?

Mr. HESSION. Yes, sir; I fully understand that.

I also understand that you can have something to say about the form of that compensation, the form it would take.

It is our position, given the overall land exchange situation in Alaska at present, that the Federal assets represented by the

Alaska Railroad should be utilized by the Federal Government for exchange purposes.

We would recommend, as Mr. Jarvis pointed out, that the State be given the option of exchanging inholdings within conservation system units, acquiring other inholdings within those units which, in turn, could provide to the Federal Government or even provide other State lands outside conservation system units that would be valuable for national conservation purposes.

According to the University of Alaska study, well, actually according to the railroad itself, in 1981 the total net value of the railroad was $456 million. I have been listening with interest to State representatives endeavor to increase the amount of liabilities the State would assume when it takes control of the railroad.

Mr. Ward mentioned that deferred maintenance is now in the neighborhood of $120 to $140 million. According to the University of Alaska study the fiscal 1982 budget included an item for maintenance and capital expenditures of only $60 million.

In 1978, I think the figure was comparable, $63 million. That University of Alaska study also points out that many of the other costs we have heard described are covered by the operating revenues of the railroad and the railroad, of course, at present is making a profit.

So I think there is a danger that the liability side of the ledger may be overemphasized. I would urge the subcommittee to perhaps consult the General Accounting Office or some other authority on that matter.

Coming back to the overall land exchange problem in Alaska. What we are seeing since the passage of the act is a handicap on the part of the Federal land managing agencies to deal reasonably and adequately with the question of land exchanges.

They essentially had their hands tied behind their backs. To give you an example, there are two reasons for this. One is that the Watt administration refuses to provide these agencies with the kind of flexibility it needs to adequately deal with both State and Native interests.

As Mr. Destry pointed out, it rules out the use of BLM lands for exchange purposes. When these agencies look to other Federal interests such as OCS revenues or interests in oil and gas leasing on other Federal lands, they immediately encounter opposition from the Reagan-Watt administration on fiscal grounds, that is, the Federal Government simply can't afford to provide these kinds of considerations.

The result is that I can think of at least three, perhaps four current land exchanges pending in which the Federal Government is at an extreme disadvantage.

Mr. Destry mentioned this and you mentioned yesterday in the Wrangells, the Park Service is being forced to consider carving off lands from other national parks including wilderness portions.

In the Chugach National Forest where we have the Chugach land exchange, the Forest Service has been obliged to offer up national forest land which I think under ordinary circumstances they would prefer not to and some of them are national interest lands of the highest conservation value.

Another example is, right now, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in a potential exchange.

In fact, they have sent it down here to Washington, I understand, with the Kenai Native Association which the last administration found to be incompatible for the purposes of the refuge.

And so, given this overall context of Federal difficulty in dealing with land exchanges, I don't think it makes any sense at all to transfer a Federal asset of such extreme value to the State of Alaska as more or less a gift.

It makes far more sense from the national interest point of view to utilize it for national purposes and we would strongly recommend for national conservation purposes in Alaska inasmuch as the lands in question, of course, are Federal lands in Alaska. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you very much.

I have no questions.

I think you made some very good points. Without objection, your entire statement will be printed in the record.

I am going to recognize the gentleman from Alaska but before I do I want to say I have to step out for about 10 minutes to make a previous commitment. I am going to turn the gavel over to the gentleman so he can see how it feels to be chairman and I will return as soon as possible.

I would like to ask that he not adjourn the session before I get back because I have some questions I want to get into with the representatives of the Native corporation.

Mr. YOUNG [presiding]. That is fine with me, sir.

Mr. Hession, in your statement I am a little curious. On page 3, I think it is, being that you are a leader of the environmental movement in the State of Alaska, you say the State is fully able to offer 100 percent fair market value of the railroad. Although the recent State spending goals have exceeded oil and gas revenue, the State expects to receive approximately $3 billion from Prudhoe Bay oil and gas taxes in 1982.

What has that got to do with the environment?

Mr. HESSION. As I tried to point out in my statement, Mr. Young, I was setting the stage for discussion of the railroad as a Federal asset potentially useful in dealing with the question of land exchanges in Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG. What has the revenue got to do with the environment? That is the thing that bothers me. That they were able to pay 100 percent for the railroad.

Is that the position of the Sierra Club?

Mr. HESSION. That observation is, I think, self-evident.

Mr. YOUNG. It sounds like a position to me. The Sierra Club wants us to pay 100 percent of fair market value.

Mr. HESSION. Yes, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. I am glad to know that. I have no further questions. Mr. Nelson Angapak, Mr. George Kriste, and Mr. Daniel Alex. For the panel, don't feel bad about the chairman not being here. He is deeply interested in your position on this bill and he will be back in about 10 minutes. He is at a press conference, frankly, that