Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

those, from either side, who question the State's motivation in making a good faith effort to implement the provisions of Title VIII of ANILCA. It has indeed been a good faith effort to comply. I believe we have done so, and expect the Secretary of Interior to certify our program in the near future.

The second issue I wish to bring to the Subcommittee's attention relates to the relationship between fish and wildlife habitat and timber harvesting activities on the Tongass National Forest in Southeastern Alaska. I wish to raise this subject to inform you that I believe we have a process in place which will encourage resolution of a potential conflict.

Historically, wildlife and forest managers agreed that timber harvest improved habitat for many fish and wildlife species. However, there is a growing body of recent research which indicates this beneficial relationship may not exist in Southeastern Alaska, especially for blacktailed deer, mountain goats, and Canada geese. It is now being suggested that the present forest management practice of clearcut logging on a 90-125 year rotation cycle is permanently converting old-growth, climax forest with high wildlife values to even-aged, second growth stands of much less value to some wildlife. Logging activities have tended to be concentrated in the economically attractive higher

volume stands at low elevations.

These stands represent

mostly the old-growth forest communities, and their loss

under the present rotation cycle is resulting in a permanent

alteration of the natural diversity of plant and animal communities.

Recognizing the potential conflict between such research findings and both the State's commitment to maintain historic levels of employment in the timber industry, and the mandate of Section 705 of ANILCA, the State has undertaken an effort to bring the various interests

together. We are working with the U.S. Forest Service and the timber industry in an effort to preserve adequate stands of high-volume, old-growth timber to provide healthy, viable fish and wildlife populations to meet subsistence and recreational use requirements in areas selected for cutting. In addition, we are working with the public, the industry, and with forest managers to maintain the natural diversity of plant and animal communities throughout the forest as much as possible. These efforts are consistent with the review and reporting requirements of Section 706(b) of ANILCA and should facilitate such, even though not a direct responsibility of the State of Alaska.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to bring these matters to your attention and would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF ALEX RAIDER

PRESIDENT

CALISTA CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman, my name is Alex Raider. I am the

President of Calista Corporation.

I appreciate the opportunity

to make this statement today at these oversight hearings on the administration of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation

Act. I also want to thank Congressmen Udall and Sieberling and other members of this Committee whose concern and vigilance at protecting the original purpose of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is appreciated by all Alaskan Natives.

ANILCA is a significant and important piece of

legislation for Alaska, for all Alaskans and for Native Corporations organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It is also a complicated piece of legislation and as with most complicated legislation, some parts of it work better than others. Although there are many aspects of ANILCA administration which I could address I will limit my comments today to two provisions of ANILCA.

My first concern is over a matter in which Calista has a direct interest, and which is cf grave concern to all Alaskan Natives. I speak of the complete failure of the Chugach Region Study to result in a fair and just settlement for the people of the Chugach region. More than ten years after passage of ANCSA, the Chugach Regional Corporation still has not received one single acre of its regional entitlement. I am dismayed and saddened by the foot-dragging and outright disregard of Congressional directions which have characterized the United

States Forest Service and Department of the Interior and I urge you to do what you can to rectify the gross injustice which the Chugach people have suffered. I know all Natives of the Calista Region and indeed of all Alaska endorse and support Chugach in its efforts to achieve a fair and just settlement.

The second matter I wish to address is the status of submerged lands on Native lands. The issue of submerged lands has been presented to this Committee on several previous occasions and I therefore do not intend to reiterate it fully here. For Native corporations, the problem is that all submerged lands under waters the BLM determines to be non-navigable are charged against the corporation's entitlement. The State of Alaska, however, maintains that it owns submerged lands under navigable waters and further contends that many water bodies which the BLM says are non-navigable are in fact navigable. State's position places a significant cloud on a Native corporation's title to submerged lands and holds out the spectre of our corporations being denied lands at a later date with no effective remedy to substitute other lands.

The

Because of the large number of inland water bodies in the Calista region, the problem of uncertain title to submerged lands is very serious to us. Calista has spent much time, effort and money trying to bring about a rational solution to the submerged lands problem. I wish I could report to you that section 901 of ANILCA is such a rational solution.

Unfortunately, I cannot.

When this problem was first presented to Congress at

the time "D-2" legislation was being considered, Congressman Udall and other members of this Committee supported a provision which directed BLM to convey ANCSA lands to Native corporations following land conveyance standards as set forth in the Bureau of Land Management's Manual of Surveys. Calista was and still is supportive of this provision.

I believe the approach initially taken by Congressman Udall and others was logical, workable and fair to all parties. Unfortunately, that approach to submerged lands was modified by a floor amendment in the Senate. This amendment was made at the behest and insistence of the State of Alaska. The provision which we now find in ANILCA, section 901, takes a completely different approach to the problem. Section 901 creates a statute of limitation on the time by which the State of Alaska must file suit to challenge any non-navigability determination of the BLM with which the State disagrees.

Ironically, section 901 is now being challenged as unconstitutional by the State of Alaska in one lawsuit and by various citizen groups in a second lawsuit. Because of the importance of these lawsuits to the issue of submerged lands, Calista has sought to intervene in both suits and will work vigorously to defend the constitutionality of section 901.

In light of this litigation, what can we say about progress towards a meaningful solution? The truth is that section 901 does not resolve any of the uncertainty of title.

So

far, all it has done is increase the amount of litigation on the

« AnteriorContinuar »