I think there are a variety of extensive resource-base recreational management opportunities that can be provided that don't have to be in the wilderness system. I am looking forward to exploring those. Mr. YOUNG. I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, we have a case now on the Carter River, Prince Williams Island where they have been told by the Forest Service, for instance, that their long-term cut will not be allowed because this is a proposed wilderness area. Of course, the direct affect upon that is Thorne Bay's life span which is a large community, frankly a very well-run community. Its life span will be diminished by approximately 6 years. It will have to be moved someplace else.

I just wondered whether any consideration was given to that environmental impact of moving a community, putting in new facilities and the whole thing when they decide as a proposal that their longterm sale would not be validated? You might be able to give me an answer later on on the subject. It is the Carter River, Wash., area. Mr. CUTLER. We will look into it and provide you with it. [The following was received:]

IMPACT OF CHANGE IN TIMBER SALES AREAS ON THORNE BAY

Thorne Bay was established in 1962 as a logging camp for the purpose of harvesting timber included in the 50-year timber sale to Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC). The camp is expected to continue at this location until the sale expires in 2004. The volume of timber to be harvested in the immediate area may decrease because of previous cutting. This may result in the need for fewer people at this camp location. It is estimated that 500-550 people are living there now. There exists a company operated commissary; a post office handled by the Company; one tackle shop operated by a company employee and his family; one grade school and one high school which are State supported; and one community-supported interdenominational church. There is no city or village governing body.

The Company has requested the State of Alaska to select lands under the Statehood Act which would allow for community selection by the logging camps at Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, and Naukati. We do not know what the State's action will be on this request.

KPC has been informed by the Forest Supervisor that, for the 1979-84 operating period of KPC's long-term timber sale contract, no cutting will be allowed in the Karta Watershed timber block. The Supervisor's letter also makes clear that other timber can be made available to substitute for that in the Karta River block. Because substitute timber can be made available, there is no foreseeable impact on the life-span of the Thorne Bay community.

Mr. YOUNG. The direct effect is long range.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Secretary, I think that is the extent of our examination today. Undoubtedly we will be calling you at some later time. I think you have helped us to gain some insight over the magnitude of the problems. We have no solutions. Our mind is open as yours is. We hope that we can adopt concurrent schedules for a rapid conclusion which hopefully will be nonmutually exclusive.

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you.

Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. I am to be the next witness or Senator Stevens. I would like at this time to submit for the record Senator Stevens' testimony, the senior Senator from Alaska, not only his testimony before this

committee, but the additional testimony before the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee in April 1977. He is now leading the clean air amendments on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. His statement will be included in the record at this point.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, JUNE 9, 1977

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: It's a pleasure to appear before you today, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you concerning an issue of great importance to the State of Alaska. Today, you begin consideration of legislation concerning section 17(d) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Settlement Act generally dealt with the issue of land claims by Alaska's Natives and culminated over 100 years of their efforts to achieve recognition of their just claims for compensation by the Federal Government. That legislation passed by Congress also contained a specific provision authorizing the study of certain public lands of Alaska as potential additions to the National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Forest, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems.

At hearings held earlier this Spring by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I reviewed for them the history of section 17(d) (2) and discussed those lands under study which have come to be referred to as d-2 lands. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of my statement before the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Alaska lands for the record. That statement details the development of the legislative situation your Committee addresses today starting with the land freeze imposed in 1969 which preceded the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and authorized the study provisions of section 17(d) (2).

My understanding is that this Committee's primary concern is wildlife refuges. Therefore, my brief remarks shall be directed to the management of wildlife and its interaction with other uses of the land. The bills before your committee cover a wide spectrum of legislation. One bill establishes a single unit, albeit one of tremendous size; yet another bill attempts the enormous task of more than doubling the lands contained within the National Park system and National Wildlife Refuge system as well as adding significant acreages to the Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Forest systems. A third bill before your Committee, which is sponsored by my good friend from Michigan, John Dingell deals solely with wildlife refuges and would establish a series of new refuges throughout the state of Alaska. Congressman Dingell is known throughout the country as a great friend of America's wildlife and a champion of the refuge system which was established to ensure the propagation and continued stability of wildlife populations throughout the country. To that end, I would like to congratulate Congressman Dingell and the members of this subcommittee for their continuing efforts to protect Alaska's wildlife.

At the outset, I will admit to some concerns regarding the tremendous acreage involved in H.R. 1652. My understanding is that approximately 68 million acres of refuges are authorized by this draft legislation. If passed in its present form, the bill would more than triple the acreage presently contained within the National Wildlife Refuge system. This is a tremendous increase to accomplish in one piece of legislation.

However, the d-2 situation has too often been reduced to what some have referred to as a "numbers game". The key to a reasonable and satisfactory solution to the final designation of d-2 lands rests with the flexibility and balance that the System or systems which the d-2 lands are finally dedicated to provide. It si here that the National Wildlife Refuge system, under a system of flexible management, can play a role.

In many ways, Alaska is a de facto wildlife refuge. Species of fish and game abound in Alaska in amounts unparallel throughout the rest of the country. It should be noted that the remarkable populations of fish and game which are found throughout my state have for the most part flourished on public domain lands. These lands, as you know, have not been subject to the wildlife management and habit manipulation practices which will most certainly accompany the management of any new refuge units which are established by Congress.

My point is wildlife management need not necessarily be considered incompatible with other uses of the land including, recreation, agricultural cultivation, livestock grazing, the extraction of locatable and leaseable minerals, the establishment of necessary access routes, and hunting, both sport and subsistence. I call to your attention an example of a present unit of the National Wildlife Refuge system which proves my point most plainly.

The Kenai National Moose Range, was established to ensure the propagation of a stable population of moose on the Kenai Peninsula in south central Alaska. In the approximately 20 years of its existence, the moose range has demonstrated how flexible management can increase the population of the species for which a refuge is established and still provide the flexibility to allow other uses within the boundary of the unit.

As the members of this subcommittee know, extensive recreational facilities are available on the moose range. Access across the moose range has been maintained and continuously improved Alaska's oldest oil exploration venture is located in the Kenai National Moose Range. The Swanson River oilfields have been producing for approximately 20 years. The moose range has been in existence for the bulk of that time. The compatibility of these activities and the management of the moose population is apparent.

The moose range is unique because it is one of the few units of the National Wildlife Refuge system in which active mineral exploration activities are taking place. Many of the refuge lands proposed by H. R. 1652 contain lands within the 15 sedimentary basins in Alaska which have yet to be adequately explored. Additionally, these areas contain lands that are uninventoried for hardrock minerals. Any management system established for such land must guarantee that necessary and appropriate exploration activities will not be precluded by the management of that system.

I present the Kenai Moose Range to you as an example of how flexibility in management can produce balanced results for all parties involved. I believe that the ultimate goal of this Committee is to ensure that the populations of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife in Alaska are sustained and, hopefully, increased under appropriate management. This can be accomplished without precluding the opportunities for other activities on the lands which are incorporated within refuge units.

Your attention to the issue of uses and the guarantee that such uses will be allowed on any units recommended by your subcommittee will perform a great service to the Nation. Alaska remains a source of great wealth for the entire Nation in many different areas. Not the least of these areas is its wildlife population, but neither is that Alaska's only source of contribution to the welfare of the United States.

Let me close my testimony with an invitation to all members of this Committee to come to Alaska and see the lands with which they are dealing. We Alaskans are cognizant of the great interest that our state has stirred throughout the rest of the country. Consequently, we urge all policymakers, congressional and otherwise, to travel to the state for an indepth, look at the vast areas which are under consideration in the d-2 process. Such trips are vitally necessary to gather a full understanding of the role Alaska's public lands can play in the future of the United States.

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: It is a pleasure to appear before you today, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you concerning an issue of paramount importance to the State of Alaska. Today, you begin consideration of legislation concerning Section 17(d) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Settlement Act generally dealt with the problem of land claims by Alaska's Natives and culminated over 100 years of their efforts to achieve recognition of their just claims for compenstation by the Federal Government, but the legislation passed by Congress also contained a specific provision dealing with the study of certain public lands in Alaska as potential additions to the national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and wild and scenic river systems. This is what your committee deals with today in the first of a number of hearings that have been scheduled throughout the lower 48 and in Alaska.

At the outset, it is important to review the history of Section 17 (d) (2) and those lands which have come to be referred to as d-2 lands. In 1966, former Secretary of

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

23-868-78 -8

interest for the purposes set forth in this subsection and are withdrawn to be studied and investigated in accordance with the procedures and time limits set forth in paragraph (5) of this subsection. Lands withdrawn by the Secretary for study under this prargraph shall not exceed fifty million acres.

"(5) Within five years of the designation of each national interest study area withdrawn pursuant to this subsection, the Secretary shall, on the basis of further detailed studies and after consultation with the Temporary Planning Commission established pursuant to this subsection, report to the President and the Congress his recommendations as to the suitability or non-suitability of such national interest study area or portion thereof, together with such adjacent areas as he may deem appropriate, for the purposes of inclusion as recreation, wilderness or wildlife areas within the National Park System, this National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the National Wildlife Refuge System; for retention as National Resource Lands for Federal multiple use management (including for subsistence use, 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; or for such other purposes as the Secretary may deem appropriate.

"(6) Each national interest study area designated pursuant to this subsection shall remain withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws, until the Secretary submits his recommendations pursuant to subsection (g)(5) of this section and until the future status and disposition of each such national interest study area is determined by Congress: Provided, That the authority of the Secretary to establish national wildlife refuges on the public lands under his jurisdiction, including within any national interest study area, shall not be diminished by this paragraph. Initial identification of lands desired to be selected by Alaska Native Regional Corporations pursuant to section 11(j) of this Act and by the State pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act may be made within any national interest study area, but such lands shall not be tentatively approved or patented unless and until the withdrawal of such areas pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection is revoked by Act of Congress: Provided, further, That selection of lands by Native villages pursuant to this section and pursuant to section 13 of this Act shall not be affected by such withdrawal and such lands may be patented as authorized by section 11 of this Act. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this subsection, the total amount of lands that may be selected by Natives or by the State under the terms of this or any other Act shall not be lost or diminished by reasons of the provisions of this paragraph. In the event Congress determines that any area that the Natives or the State desire to select shall be permanently reserved for any of the purposes specified in subsection (g) (5) of this section, then other unreserved public lands shall be made available for alternative selections by the State and Natives. Any time periods established by law for such selections shall be deemed to be extended to the extent that delays are caused by compliance with the provisions of this paragraph.

"(7) The Congress finds and declares that the disposition of Federal lands in Alaska and the use of Federal, State, and other lands, including offshore mineral resources development in Alaska, should be coordinated and planned so as to foster and promote the general welfare, create and maintain conditions in which man and nature can exist in sustained productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, cultural, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. It is the purpose of this paragraph and paragraph (8) of this subsection to establish policies and procedures which will provide for planned and orderly economic development and conservation of lands in Alaska, including those Federal lands to be transferred to other ownerships, in a manner which is compatible with the social, economic and cultural well-being of Alaskans and all of the American people of present and future generations, with National and State environmental policies, and with the public interest in public lands and in existing and potential parks, forests, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and cultural, historical, and natural sites.

It is important to note that this amendment was offered as a substitute for the committee amendment which had been sponsored by Congressman Kyl of Iowa. Mr. Kyl's amendment is somewhat different and is printed below:

Committee amendment: Page 30, after line 18, insert a new subsection as follows:

"(g) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all unreserved public lands in Alaska which have not been previously classified by the Secretary are hereby