the Interior, Stewart Udall, imposed what we now know as the "land freeze" on all lands in Alaska under the theory that further dispositions of lands in Alaska until the settlement of the land claims was accomplished would be contrary to the best interests of the Alaska Native people. This land freeze was formalized in Public Land Order 4582, published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1969. The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act revoked that order and established the mechanism for the selection of lands by Alaskan Natives, the opening of the bulk of Alaska's remaining public lands to use by Americans under the public land laws, and the study of specifically withdrawn public lands as additions to the four systems previously mentioned. It is important to understand the exact legislative history of d-2 in order to realize the intent of Congress in its passage. First and foremost, it should be noted that the conference committee on H.R. 10367, the Native Land Claims bills, dealt with two distinct versions of this bill: one passed by the House on October 20, the other passed by the Senate on November 1, 1971. When H.R. 10367 went before the House Interior Committee, Congressmen Udall of Arizona and Saylor of Pennsylvania joined together to offer an amendment which was rejected. When the bill came to the floor of the House, this amendment was offered again. It is printed on page H-9793 in the Congressional Record for October 20, 1971. The text of the amendment as it related to d-2 lands was as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Udall as a substitute for the committee amendment: On page 30, line 19 and all of the remainder of page 30 and all of page 31 down to and including line 17, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(g) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all unreserved public lands in Alaska which have not been previously classified by the Secretary are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws. The Secretary is hereby authorized to classify, in the manner heretofore provided by the Classification and Multiple Use Act (78 stat. 986), and to open, subject to the provisions of this subsection, to mineral leasing, entry, selection, location or disposal in accordance with applicable public land laws, lands which he determines are chiefly valuable for the purposes provided for by such laws: Provided, That nothing herein shall restrict the land selection rights of Native villages and Alaska Native Regional Corporations under this Act or of the State under the Alaska Statehood Act. "(2) The lands withdrawn under this subsection shall be subject to administration by the Secretary under applicable laws and regulations, and his authority to make contracts and to grant leases, permits, rights-of-way, or easements shall not be impaired by the withdrawal, except that rights-of-way under section 2477 of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall take effect only under such terms and conditions as the Secretary may establish. "(3) The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to review all unresolved public lands in Alaska and to identify within such lands all areas which are generally suitable, under existing statutory and administrative criteria, for potential inclusion as recreation, wilderness or wildlife areas within the National Park System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the National Wildlife Refuge System; for retention as National Resources Lands for Federal multiple use management (including for subsistence uses, including hunting and fishing, by Natives and for wilderness); and, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, for inclusion within the National Forest System for multiple use management. The Secretary shall, on the basis of such review and within six months of the date of this Act, withdraw and designate all such generally suitable areas, and especially those areas which have been heretofore inventoried in agency studies, as "national interest study areas", and shall advise the President and the Congress of the location and size of, and the potential national interest in each such study area: Provided, That the total area of all such designations by the Secretary shall not exceed fifty million acres. In making the reviews and in designating national interest study areas as directed by this subsection, the Secretary shall consider areas recommended to him by the Temporary Planning Commission established pursuant to this subsection and by knowledgeable and interested individuals and groups. "(4) The Congress finds and declares that the Copper River Classification 33 Fed. Reg. 14971), the Brooks Range area as previously proposed for classification (35 Fed. Reg. 18003) by the Secretary under the authority of the Classification and Multiple Use Act (78 Stat. 986), the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4, and the Rampart Power Site Withdrawal, have potential national 23-868-788 proposal. That typically is not done because that education, retraining, whatever it is that is at least possible in some cases, is either the jurisdiction of another agency or another committee. It doesn't get built into the legislation. Mr. YOUNG. One last question, Mr. Chairman. Do you envision this new program you have I notice you mentioned cabins in the wilderness area. One of our big problems in the Tongass National Forest is the lack of land. The only land that is privately owned in that area is where homesteaders squatted many years ago and obtained patent to the land. Do you envision following the pattern of California, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and possibly leasing land for 99 year leases with convenants, so people can get away from the congested areas and truly enjoy it, without living in a tent? Mr. CUTLER. I don't particularly favor the use of the program for individual summer homes, or seasonal homes, on the national forests. This has turned out to be something of a troublesome program, as we try to well, in years past particularly, ideal recreation sites have gotten used for individual summer homes to the disadvantage of a lot of people. I do think that there may well be opportunities similar to the recreation development situations we have in the lower 48 with ski resorts, where there might be from time to time an opportunity to lease to a private developer who might have a private land base, acquire some patented land, that needs national forest land as part of its operation, to get into a 30-year lease on an approved management plan for recreational development of some kind. Mr. YOUNG. Would you envision the possibility-again in the southeast, Ketchican, Sitka-with all that land there are few places where people can go and be sheltered. The Forest Service has I think approximately 50-some-odd cabins totally in the southeast. Mr. COSTER. The last count was close to 160. Mr. YOUNG. Are these Forest Service owned cabins, or including private cabins? Mr. COSTER. These are Forest Service cabins, public cabins. Mr. YOUNG. I commend you for that. I happened to be near one of those the other day, and it is very, very nice. Would you envision for instance under your covenants, 20 people getting together, and filling for a lease, with a covenant? I don't like to see a larger commercial sized ski region. Mr. CUTLER. I didn't mean to imply it would be a ski resort. I just meant to imply a private corporation could obtain a permit to operate, say, a set of lodges-not a very high pressure deal, but just enough so you have central management. Mr. YOUNG. I think-I have watched the cabins. The one private cabin on Humpback Lake, the only private cabin I believe now in that area, is probably better than an other cabin. I just envision at a later date if you were to give the people an opportunity, you would have a lot of support. You still control it. It is still your land. I just think if you use some imagination, you could gain a great deal of support. Mr. Chairman, if I can restate my big objection to total wilderness area is inaccessibility, and the lack of use by a majority of Americans. I think if you have a recreation area designation instead, it might be more equitable for everyone. I have no further questions. Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Young. Does the staff have questions? Mr. GUTTING. I have one question regarding subsistence fishing and hunting. In the management of the wildlife resources in Alaska in the past, has your department given any preference to subsistence hunters and fishermen over commercial or sport fishermen and hunters? Mr. COSTER. On national forests, the Forest Service manages the habitat, and the State manages the resident game. The State is the one that would see if there were any special qualifications as far as subsistence use or not. Mr. GUTTING. With respect to the management of the habitat, however, have you exercised any preference? Mr. COSTER. No, sir; we have not. Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Mannina? Mr. MANNINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A review of the environmental impact statements suggests there are not large timber sources on the proposed refuges. Would you concur in that analysis? Mr. CUTLER. I don't believe I would on the D-2 land. Let me ask Mr. Coster to comment further on that. Mr. COSTER. I presume you are referring to H.R. 1652. Mr. MANNINA. I am referring to the original Morton proposal. I would like to get into the others in a moment. Mr. CUTLER. Talking about Interior, D-2? Mr. MANNINA. Yes. Mr. CUTLER. Yes, I concur. Mr. YOUNG. You concur there is little forest value? Mr. CUTLER. Well, relative to what? Mr. YOUNG. Relative to whatever a stick of wood is. The Morton proposal was written by Nat Reed. It was not a proposal of the commission. It has been proposed the Forest Service be involved in it. There is a viable timber resource in the interior of Alaska. Especially if you look at the refuge areas, they picked every river basin, which basically is where all the timber is. Mr. CUTLER. I guess the problem is not so much with the problem of the physical evidence of trees there today, but the costs associated with access and rotation. Mr. YOUNG. It depends on when the economic basis is built. Oil is not new in Alaska. Oil was known in 1900. It wasn't economicaly viable until the price was $7 a barrel. Then it became viable. Now at $13 a barrel it is a buy. The same with timber. But to say it is not a timber area is not looking to the future. The trees do grow there, and they are viable if the price goes up. Mr. CUTLER. I guess the point I am trying to make is, while it is not an outstanding commercial timber resource, it does offer an economic base for the communities there. It is a source of raw material for them to build their houses and so forth. Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Mannina has the time. Mr. MANNINA. Mr. Cutler, following up on the timber question, could you submit to the committee an analysis of the present and projected timber potential for each of the proposals now pending before the committee? Mr. CUTLER. What are the parameters you want-the value, the volume? Mr. MANNINA. Yes, I am trying to determine the commercial potential of those areas and I would ask for the same submission for the agriculture and grazing potential. Mr. LEGGETT. If we could get that in terms of both value and volume because the recovery problem obviously is expensive. We would like to have an analysis of exactly what you are doing up there right now and what you would project you would do under each of these bills. Mr. MANNINA. If we could, I think it would be helpful if we could have what is happening now, and what you project into the future. Mr. CUTLER. With respect to all current proposals? Mr. MANNINA. Yes. [The information was not received at time of printing.] Mr. LEGGETT. How many people are working up there now in harvesting timber on either public or private lands? Mr. CUTLER. Employment in forest products industry? Mr. LEGGETT. Yes. Mr. COSTER. About 3,500 directly employed in the forest products industry, mostly in southeast Alaska. Mr. LEGGETT. All right. Mr. Mannina? Mr. MANNINA. One final question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cutler, can you tell us how many Forest Service fish and wildlife specialists you have in the areas of Chugach and Tongass National Forests? Would you provide that for the record? Mr. CUTLER. There are 21 fish and wildlife biologists in the Alaska region today. We will submit further information for the record. [The information follows:] Forest Service Fish and Wildlife personnel now assigned in Alaska Mr. THORNTON, As a follow up, in the Morton proposal would you have a proposed national forest in the Powerpine area f Mr. CUTLER. That is correct. Mr. THORNTON. Can you point out on the map where that is! Mr. CoSTER. This is the Peppino props! Mr. LEGGETT. Does the Yukon geitosegh the center of that Porcupine area! Mr. Yorve, Right through the Mr. THORNTON, There are wang My million meaning that proposed forest area, is that correct! Mr. COSTER. That is correcÊ, YANG Mr. THORNTON. Of that, how many acres have been classified as potentially commercial forest areas? Let me site the figure that I have; 360,000 acres out of the 52 million. Is that generally your understanding? Mr. COSTER. I can check my figure here. Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman will yield a moment, the Forest Service not only deals with timber. It deals with agriculture. This is the large agriculture areas, including the Yukon, about 1112 million acres. Mr. LEGGETT. They deal in fish and wildlife service, and all kinds of things. Mr. YOUNG. That is right. Mr. LEGGETT. What are you going to raise in agriculture? Mr. YOUNG. Again, about 110 bushels to an acre. Mr. THORNTON. Could you answer the question? Mr. COSTER. I can respond. In the proposed Porcupine Forest, about 3.8 million acres are forested, and your figure of 360,000, I believe that is correct, as having commercial potential or a capability of producing 20 cubic feet of fiber per year or acre. Mr. THORNTON. How is that on the Forest Service scale of timber classification? Is it poor or good timber potential? Mr. COSTER. It would be marginal. Mr. THORNTON. Is Admirality Island currently an area you are studying for a possible wilderness? Mr. CUTLER. Admirality Island is being studied as far as the Tongass National Forest land use planning effort, and the alternatives that will be arrayed there for public comment include the gamut, from 100 percent wilderness to no wilderness at all. Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Cutler, I heard your testimony in front of the Interior Committee. As I recall it then you had something like 16 areas you had specifically outlined as potential wilderness areas in the southeast; is that correct? Mr. CUTLER. That sounds about right. Mr. THORNTON. Is one of those 16 the Admiralty Islands? Mr. COSTER. East Admiralty was one of the 16. Mr. THORNTON. What percentage of Admiralty would be a proposed wilderness area? Mr. CUTLER. I don't think it is particularly relevant right now, frankly because we have moved beyond that to a set of alternative proposals. But, I will say that among those proposals is included a couple of proposals that mix the concept of national recreation areas with a couple of wilderness areas. Now, I can give you the precise, or at least the round figure acreage. We were talking at the time I testified before the Interior Committee about an east Admiralty wilderness study area of 508,000 acres. As I recall, Admiralty is something like 1,100,000-some odd acres. But again, that was only a study area that didn't have prefected boundaries at all. It was just an area being reviewed. Mr. THORNTON. I wonder if you could supply for the committee your analysis of the current activities in the Copper River Delta area, and your proposals for future use of that area. Mr. CUTLER. We would like to. |