Koniag Incorporated has proposed such an exchange to the Department of Interior. The Fish and Wildlife Service has long recognized that the Native entitlements on the refuge constitute much of the best brown bear habitat on Kodiak Island, and, consequently, is very receptive to acquiring the bulk of these holdings. Central to such an exchange is the question of the principles under which the interests to be relinquished by the Native Corporation are to be valued or appraised. In determining such value, HR 6471 simply states: ". . .primary consideration shall be given to the optimum enhancement of refuge objectives arising out of the acquisition by the United States of lands and interests to be acquired, taking into consideration difficulties of achieving such optimum enhancement if the lands and interests are not acquired." While we appreciate that any such appraisal is properly negotiated among interested parties, established procedures and standards for determining values must be applied. Again, we respectfully request that the legislation receive the Committee's approval. Sincerely, Charles MClusen Charles M. Clusen STATEMENT ON H.R. 6471 BY J. F. MORSE before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND NATIONAL PARKS July 26, 1982 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: My name is J. F. Morse. I am President and Chief Executive Officer of Koniag, Inc,, the Alaska Native Regional Corporation covering the Kodiak archipelago and headquartered in the city of Kodiak, Alaska. Koniag welcomes the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 6471, introduced by Representative Don Young. H.R. 6471 provides statutory underpinning for a major land exchange to the mutual benefit of the public and Koniag. Under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, acres - villages located in or near a federal wildlife refuges were compelled to accept conveyance from within the refuge of the surface estate of up to three townships (a township is 23,040 36 square miles) even though the uses that could be made of those lands of which they were to be the ostensible owners remained severely restricted. Villages receiving land on wildlife refuges were thus constituted a kind of "second class" landholders. They gave up all their land claims like all other Natives, but their rights to enjoy what they received in return were to be severely restricted. Section 22(g) of the 1971 act 2 provided that refuge lands when conveyed would remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and development of the particular refuge on which they were located. The Native corporations received no alternative compensation for this second 300,000 acres of land on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. This is about one fifth of the entire refuge. A substantial portion of those lands have been conveyed. The balance is awaiting conveyance. The Department of the Interior acknowledges that these Native entitlements on the refuge constitute most of the best bear habitat on Kodiak Island. The Kodiak brown bear, the largest carnivore on earth, is a unique sub-species. but on Kodiak and its neighboring islands, principally Afognak Island. The Kodiak Refuge is the only refuge establsihed to produce and protect this useful sub-species. The Kodiak bear is renowned throughout the world as a big-game animal. The village corporations representing the villages with holdings on the refuge have merged with Koniag. As a result, with its more than 300,000 acres of land on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Koniag is today, if not the largest single inholder within any national wildlife refuge in the entire United States, certainly one of the largest. The Koniag inholdings are not themselves technically a part of the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. any doubt that Native land entitlement removes the lands involved from refuge or other conservation system unit status, that question was settled in favor of the Natives by ANILCA. ANILCA's definition of "public lands" [section 102(3)] excludes Native land selections. Section 103 (c) of ANILCA provides that only those lands within the boundaries of any conservation system unit this term includes wildlife refuges which are "public lands" as defined in the act are included as a portion of the - conservation system unit involved. - Moreover, section 103 (c) also provides that no lands which are conveyed to the state, to any Native corporation, or to any private party "shall be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public lands within" conservation system units. There are at present no Fish and Wildlife regulations applicable to lands in a refuge which are not "public lands". As a result, there is uncertainty regarding what if any vitality remains in section 22(g) of ANCSA. This only adds to the legal confusion regarding land use rights. I recite these uncertainties because unless the situation is cleared up, the ability of the public to achieve the refuge values for which the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was created and the ability of the Koniag Natives to achieve the economic benefits which it was the purpose of the ANCSA land conveyances to provide in exchange for surrender of all their aboriginal rights, are, to say the least, clouded. Moreover, whatever the technical scope of section 22(g) of ANCSA today, the very presence of the Natives' large scale fee holdings inevitably constitutes an impediment to Native-FWS relations that challenges both full realization of refuge values and the Natives' opportunity to realize the full benefit of their fee interest. So long as the Natives as inholders on the refuge are locked cheek by jowl with the government, the Natives, like the government, are confronted with a situation in which inherently conflicting interests occupy the same turf, a situation which frustrates the entirely understandable desires and objectives of each. The 1971 Settlement Act was a very complex, unprecedented piece of legislation. Specific inequities that might result in particular situations were in most instances left for future resolution if, indeed, they came to Congress' attention at all during that time. Section 22 (g) was not in the version of the legislation passed by the House. A similar provision was included in the version of the settlement legislation that was reported by the Senate Committee. beyond a summary description in the section-by-section analysis, the Senate Committee Report was silent and contained nothing indicating that consideration had been given to the impact of the provision on the Native villages affected by it. However, On the Senate floor an amendment proposed by Senator Metcalf was adopted providing specifically that the exchange authority provided elsewhere in the bill would specifically apply |