Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding these hearings. I think it is a very important subject on which we speak today. We often hear it said in this subcommittee that if legislation we pass needs changing, we can always come back and change it. Today we meet not to change the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act but to look for ways to allow the true spirit of that act, as it applies to Koniag, Inc., to be implemented. As a result of the Claims Act, Koniag is now entitled to more than 300,000 acres of land in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge-land essentially worthless to them unless they undertake activities that will do potential harm to the refuge, or unless we, the Congress, act to grant them other consideration. Failure to reach agreement on disposition of the refuge lands means that the unique habitat for the largest carnivore in the Western Hemisphere-the Kodiak brown bear-will be in jeopardy. Anyone who has ever seen a Kodiak brown will tell you he is a very big bear. Although our able witnesses today-Deputy Under Secretary of Interior Bill Horn and J. F. Morse, the president of Koniag-will share more information with us, I will briefly run down the need for this legislation. The passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 gave Alaska Natives land on which to build their futures, in keeping with a promise to them since Alaska's purchase from Russia in 1867. Those Natives on Kodiak Island were forced to choose lands in the Kodiak Refuge because those lands were near their villages. As a result, Koniag, Inc., has 300,000 acres smack in the middle of a refuge-lands they do not want, and that the Fish and Wildlife Service wants very much. Koniag and the Fish and Wildlife Service want to trade. They have been trying to work out a deal, but so far a trade of the magnitude necessary to clear up the inholdings has seemed unattainable. My legislation simply offers more flexibility for the trade, recognizing that more flexibility may enhance the possibilities for trade and expedite a solution that will benefit all. My legislation recognizes the spirit of the administration's desire to maintain a moratorium on acquisition through the land and water conservation fund, and instead, allows Koniag "value credits," or "bidding chits," on future offshore lease sales. Any chits used by Koniag would correspond with acquisition on the refuge by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Congress need not appropriate any moneys for these transactions, while at the same time fulfilling the intent of the 1971 act. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you very much. There being no other statements, we will hear from Secretary Horn. [Prepared statement of Hon. William P. Horn may be found in appendix III.] STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM P. HORN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me say I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to discuss the Department's position on H.R. 6471. I would like to summarize and amplify my prepared statement and ask that it be inserted in the record. Mr. SEIBERLING. Without objection your statement will be inserted in the record in full. Mr. HORN. Thank you. As indicated, H.R. 6471 would provide that in exchange for conveyance to the United States by Koniag, Inc., certain lands within or adjacent to the Kodiak Wildlife Refuge, the Secretary would issue certificates of bidding rights for use in competitive lease sales conducted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to certain Native villages and corporations affiliated with Koniag. The lands that the United States would acquire in this exchange would be added to and become part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. The Kodiak unit encompasses approximately 1.9 million acres on Kodiak and Uganik Islands on the west side of the Gulf of Alaska. This is a very important wildlife refuge unit of considerable fame, well-deserved fame I might add, in that it provides extremely valuable habitat for the Kodiak brown bear, one of the largest carnivores in the world, and associated habitat in the form of fisheries and other wildlife. The Kodiak brown bear is an animal requiring large areas of undisturbed habitat for survival and the refuge is managed to conserve this habitat. Since the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and effective transfer of over one-quarter million acres of the refuge to Koniag, Inc., the Federal Government has had keen interest in seeking return of some of these lands to public ownership. Frankly, this is because of the very important wildlife values that we all know exist there. The Department accordingly desires an exchange to put the lands presently held by Koniag back into the refuge. Presently we are evaluating the resource potential of the lands held by Koniag and we believe in the future we will be in a position to sit down and negotiate for the return of virtually all these lands to the refuge system. A detailed assessment of the needs and priorities for acquisition will be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan for the Kodiak Refuge. That plan, of course, is required by title III of the Alaska Lands Act. I will say, however, that some lands are presently known to possess resource values that we want immediately for return to public ownership, and we feel we do not need to await completion of the comprehensive conservation plan to identify these particular areas and proceed to add those back to the refuge. Despite the interest we have in returning these lands to the refuge, we believe we cannot support this measure in its current specific form for three primary reasons. The first of those is the explicit exchange policy enunciated in title XIII of the act which places heavy emphasis on exchange of lands, and particularly exchanges involving land interests for equal value. Second, to minimize the adverse impact on revenues to the Federal Treasury and, of course, providing Koniag transferable bidding rights and permitting these bidding chips, in essence, to be used for OCS sales would have the effect of diminishing in some manner the revenues we can expect from leasing offshore tracts under the Outer Continental Shelf Act. The third factor that has led to this position is the availability of alternative means of exchange and other possible avenues of acquisition. Because of the immense flexibility provided under both section 22(f) of ANCSA and 1302(h) of ANILCA, we believe there are numerous exchanges that could be entered into to reacquire these lands using the exchange of noncash or nonfiscal interests. Consequently, we think that it would be unwarranted at this time to move ahead with a mandatory exchange involving bidding rights when we have not exhausted or given these other alternative means a fair shot. Nonetheless we are prepared to fully explore other means to achieve the goal of an exchange of interests other than land if the revenue impact of such an exchange procedure can be minimized and, of course, if implementation of such a nonland interest exchange can be consistent with the policy underlying title 13 of the Alaska Lands Act. In closing, let me emphasize while we cannot support H.R. 6471 in its current form we are very interested in continuing to work for exchange of these lands and plan to work closely with both Koniag, the Congress, and this committee to see if we can resolve this question in a manner satisfactory to all of the parties involved. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. In your statement on page 2, in the second paragraph, you refer to the "congressionally mandated" policy of title XIII of the ANILCA legislation as the basis for objecting to this proposal. My recollection is that title XIII provides authority for exchange, it doesn't mandate them. Mr. HORN. Basically, the language in section 1302, coupled with the legislative history made it clear, at least in our minds, that before the Department of Interior or any other Federal agency is to begin to engage in land acquisition in Alaska, all efforts should be brought to bear to effect an exchange of equal value. That is the preferred course of action and should be examined first before we get to indirect or outright acquisition. Mr. SEIBERLING. That is correct, but that was to protect the Natives, not to block a proposal that the Natives feel is to their benefit. I think the legislative history is quite clear that it was the purpose of that section to be protective in nature, not a straitjacket. But in any event, this would be new legislation and, of course, if Congress wishes to they can make it clear that this is what they want. So I presume if they do, that would at least offset your interpretation of title XIII. Is that correct? Mr. HORN. Obviously, if it is congressional policy we are seeking to define, if Congress chooses to alter that policy, yes. Mr. SEIBERLING. All right. Thank you. Now, I wonder if you could supply us with a map showing the lands which would be reacquired under this bill. Mr. HORN. We can do that. I apologize to the committee. I realized this morning I didn't have one. Mr. SEIBERLING. There is a map there. Mr. HORN. I don't think that is Kodiak Island, however. Mr. SEIBERLING. You could supply us with one, though. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-The map referred to above was subsequently furnished by the Department. It is entitled "Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge", and is printed immediately following the bill, H.R. 6471. See Table of Contents for page number.] Mr. HORN. The bulk of the holdings are on the southern and western end of the island; the major blocking is basically from the Karluk Lake, along the Karluk River, down to the village of Karluk. It is the block we are primarily interested in having returned to public ownership. Mr. SEIBERLING. I can see why. That is a beautiful area of the island. I have flown over it and was most impressed. So I think there is great merit to reincorporating it into the wildlife refuge. When will the comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge be completed? Can you tell us that? Mr. HORN. It is underway. My recollection is that it will be complete sometime in 1984. The first plans are to be completed in 1983 involving the units associated in Bristol Bay, and I believe Kodiak is on the next list. Mr. SEIBERLING. We don't need to wait for that, I presume? Mr. HORN. As I indicated, Kodiak is a longstanding part of the refuge system, it is not like the new units just created a year and a half ago. We know these lands are of sufficient caliber that it is well worthwhile to return them to public ownership. Mr. SEIBERLING. Will grazing continue in the refuge? Or will cattle grazing be allowed in the refuge if it isn't now? Mr. HORN. My understanding now is that, if there is any cattle grazing left it is very limited and, of course, that is all subject to compatibility determinations to be made by management. Mr. SEIBERLING. There is a conflict between bear and cattle, I understand. Mr. HORN. There has been a longstanding problem down therethat the bears have had a tendency to develop a taste for beef. Mr. SEIBERLING. Staff says there is no conflict from the point of view of the bear. Mr. HORN. That is true. I will say that part of-bringing in a different topic involving Kodiak, one of the arrangements made that brought about the Terror Lake hydro project mitigation agreement that permitted that project to proceed, was to have the State commit some of its major land holdings on the island to cooperative management, and basically phase out grazing in some of those areas as a means of better preserving and protecting the bears and their habitat. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Young. Mr. YOUNG. I just want to say that I get kind of tired of fish all the time, and for the bears a cow doesn't taste too bad once in a while. I don't blame the bears. I think your last paragraph is the important one, where you say "Let me emphasize again that we cannot support H.R. 6471 in its present form." Again I want to compliment you for presenting this testimony, and although you can't embrace the bill as written, to me it indicates the doors have not been closed to future negotiations. I think it is a good way to face the problem there, and the objections you have are well noted. In the long run we can still rely on the revenues projected through this type of legislation. Maybe not as quickly but in the long run we can realize the same amount of money. So I again introduced the bill trying to solve two problems. Mr. Chairman, I know there is a letter written from the Wilderness Society, signed by Chuck Clusen, and some other people that I have always considered worthy adversaries over the years. I always look over my shoulder when I see them on my side of the aisle, but legislation makes strange bedfellows. So I welcome their support on this issue. Mr. SEIBERLING. I might even support it myself. If there are no further comments, we want to thank you. Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I might add. Although we are reluctant to pursue this approach of outright bidding rights exchange in this particular case, I think the committee is probably aware that as part of the Park Service land protection policy we are examining a possibility of using the bidding rights approach for acquisition of lands in the Channel Islands off the coast of California, so the door is not closed to this approach or some variant of it. Mr. SEIBERLING. Would you say that again? Mr. HORN. I was told the committee is aware that apparently we have, as part of the Park Service land protection policy, some study going on involving land acquisition on the Channel Islands off California that would solve a variant of an exchange along the lines outlined in this measure. Mr. SEIBERLING. Are these existing bidding rights that have been granted already? Mr. HORN. No; apparently not. It is some examination of the possibility of offering bidding rights to acquire some of the inholdings on the Channel Islands. Mr. SEIBERLING. So if we are not opposed to it in principle, then- Mr. HORN. Not if the situation warrants. I think that the―― Mr. HORN. My understanding in the Channel Islands case-and I am getting out on the limb that is not my particular end of the woods-is that there are not very many alternatives to pursue visa-vis acquisition. Mr. SEIBERLING. Are you making a distinction with respect to Alaska because of title XIII? Mr. HORN. Not only XIII, but we believe the authority in XIII, and in 22(f) that we have other alternatives available to us, that we would prefer to pursue those more aggressively before we come down with some indirect acquisition approach. |