Mr. LEGGETT. And now what is the value of the land on Admiralty Island?

Mr. WILSON. Do you mean the land in our selection area or what? Mr. LEGGETT. Yes, the land in your selection area.

Mr. WILSON. Well, we have only an estimate based on land that's available to anybody from the Forest Service and based on the timber, that resource could run pretty close to $1,500. Now we have no way of analyzing subsurface values of the land primarily because Goldbelt does not own the subsurface but under ANCSA it belongs to the regional corporation. When we undertook trying to identify an area which would be the most valuable to our shareholders we did not take into consideration the minerals, we were not owners, we only owned the surface. The area very definitely has other values, such as recreational values but until they are tied in with transportation routes the flexibility of the value is high.

Mr. LEGGETT. How about your other lands outside of Admiralty Island, what are they worth?

Mr. WILSON. We selected lands on the back side of Douglas Island for land development, I think the value of that land is $500 or $600 an acre and on the land which would be recreational, it's very difficult to make a supposition. Our primary concern is trying to settle our rights on Admiralty Island.

Mr. LEGGETT. Well, under the Native Claims Settlement Act, 700 families would get, as you indicated, $50 million plus you've got right at $50 million under the terms of the Settlement Act.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, this country is probably in the neighborhood of between 4,000 and 10,000 years, depending on which archeologist you subscribe to. We don't have any other place to go and we are not about to lelave so we have to go back to selecting land to hand down to our children and we further look upon holding this land and also leasing it out but this is the only settlement we are ever going to get. We have to have something for our future generations that No. 1 we can hand over to them and No. 2, that the people do belong here and No. 3, Congress accepts that Native people in this area belong here. Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. I understand, but looking at the economics, to be brutally frank, it looks like 700 families under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are giving you roughly $100 million, which is not really bad. So the talk about the greed of the Sierra Club is not really a realistic term. We're not rephrasing the Alaska Native Claims Act, we're trying to make it workable and you made your selections on the basis of the most economic advantages that you could determine. And now you are opting for land which you don't intend to use for aboriginal uses, you intend to use it for the highest buck you can get out of it. So, in that case, some of the paternalism of Government kind of evaporates in trying to figure out what's best for you and for us and all the people of the State of Alaska.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we're merely asking that the Congress recognize our land rights, that we do have vested rights on that land and ask that Congress take that into consideration. I don't think our corporation at this point in time is wanting to discuss selling our land with anyone. I think our corporation fully intends to manage and develop the land for the best use of our shareholders and the rest of the people in our region.

Trang men. Ma. Forsythe?

hey mien enjoyed your testimony. Thank you

rastien mzizis the basis on which you're going to altres a my understanding that you're limitof values to the present value of the timber on

that's what the agreement spelled out that wernal razie wold be in the measuring of timber value of But as I mentioned there are other values but how make a remational va'ne determination that an area would s pretty subjective in nature where as you can pretty peasure timber values.

elresent time, Interior and Agriculture are still reviewing the seiner; and possibly they will come back with a proposed amend

De agreement before they sign the agreement and they svent nouijed us that they are not going to sign it, they have noti

hat they are going to need more time to review the agreement. V:- LEGGETT, OK, very good. Thank you very much. Well, we've o. 23 more witnesses and we would like to be finished by 5 p.m., so keep that in mind. The next witness is Terry Gardner, reprenative for the State of Alaska. Mr. Gardner, nice to have you

SATEMENT OF TERRY GARDNER, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF ALASKA

Gvarves. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not being here this

ween a member of the legislature since 1972 and am presde teise committee and have been for the last 3

Ketchikan and have been a commerss my background.

in looking at your committee and here touring around, I think they who can do the best job in Alaska Federal Government is in terms mort and consideration of the environof my perspective on who's doing sy sad presently, and I think you want of view that Alaska is a new State 2 beds are had to, it took a few years to aytarmart and managing a lot of resources the last few years and there citate that.

an who we paid for the State and right sering schuin 20 percent of our known historical yes face you look at it it's the standard out to rebuild it and the State 2 millest hatchery and this is one of the is where you're talking about chings, the salmon resource. We have

done this, been involved with commercial fishermen and others who are actively taking dollars out of their pockets to help develop this system. And we haven't gotten any Federal support, from my point of view, to rebuild these salmon fisheries and this is something, I think, peculiar to the environment and one of simple preservation.

Another example I want to give you of what the State's been up to, we had a rather controversial issue over oil in the lower Cook Inlet, specifically Kachemak Bay. The State did an unprecedented act and bought back the oil leases we already leased to the State. People say this is a little bit controversial, but the legislature did go through with it and immediately stopped oil development in that area and created a critical habitat area because we felt that there simply was not enough to justify risking the marine resources in that area for oil development. Of course, the State has been on the Government's case about the plan in lower Cook Inlet for some of these same reasons and we would like them to program it and look at it a little more. But I think this is a good example where the State has taken a lead in trying to protect the resources and the environment and think about what they're doing.

In the oil area, I have been involved in this in the last couple of years. We both have passed legislation dealing with standards for tankers, last year and then this year a civil penalty bill for oilspills, both of which have become law up here. From our viewpoint, we continually had problems with the Federal preemption of what we considered weak laws that didn't protect the environment and did not have the intent to prevent oilspills and that's why I say I think you've been getting possibly some of the wrong perspective on it because from your perspective we would like to see the Feds beef up what they've been doing in terms of oilspills and we have made efforts, in the State and now we have these bills.

When you look at southeast Alaska, you talk about the State and land management. You can't look to the State, what you have to look to is the Federal Government which manages most of the land in Valdez and as an example, we had the (indiscernible), the fish and game department took the Forest Service and a private (indiscernible) to tap for (indiscernible), basically, and the State didn't fair too well, of course, because simply the logger was doing what he was legally entitled to do under the contract with the forest system.

Also, another example of where I think the State has gone out ahead on some issues, we have established a renewable resources fund taking 1 percent of our oil revenue and we spend this on renewable resource development and what have you and we are now in the process in the legislature of implementing a budget.

Going onto another area, I would think that there are several activities going on that should be completed before Congress makes some kind of decision about what the disposition of land is going to be in southeast Alaska. Traditionally, it wasn't part of the D-2 withdrawal. There are ongoing processes such as the (indiscernible) plant, the planned process of the Forest Service which it is using right now. Also, we have something in terms of our hatchery program where our fish and game people and the regional hatchery association are in the process of finding a hatchery site and we're talking about 40 or 50 (indiscernible) in southeast Alaska alone. These sites have not been identified and will not be for the next year or two if we

do this properly, yet we're faced with saying, OK.

this land into the Wilderness Act and we have a rece
it is not stated in the Wilderness Act whether we CL THI
in. A lot of people say you can but nobody can point 7 2
for that. We have a State land selection process gor
selecting 400,000 acres and we have just gone throu some t
from Goldbelt about the Native land selections.

All of these processes which are really planning að mismuna
processes are going on in southeast Alaska now and it wou
me that regardless of what your point of view is, we our a
until those studies are done and look at the information

you make a decision on what's going to happen with what 42 in southeast Alaska.

I'd like to make some specific recommendations. One is m problem of salmon hatcheries and the rehabilitation prooem invite the Congress, not only for southeast Alaska, but

other areas of the State to make sure that the $400 millim v going to spend on salmon resources are effectively spent in ter that we identify. You can't just put a hatchery on any cret Clerya lot of problems and only certain types will qualify and so WE WI want to see those types precluded by some land desigDMI 1. There's several possibilities I think you could consider tant d wilderness areas, possibly wildlife refuge status would provide se ability for hatcheries and rehabilitation process. Possibly in provide for State land selections in those areas, for instance, Tirts now in southeastern, the State could not select lands for the parent of hatcheries and we understand that we have to make possity SVIE amendment to the Wilderness Act, if needed, to provide for hateb Most environmentalists tell me that they think that they are exch patible, so possibly that's something that you could look at, tee.

On the issue of subsistence, it's a real controversial issue in Alas itself and I think if you keep one thing in mind, how these species you're talking about, whether moose or caribou or salmon, they rely don't care what kind of lines we draw on a map, they go up that cres to spawn or they're going to migrate across that valley or whereve they want and I think we're going to run into a real problem where we end up in a situation where we have Federal game and fish management on this side of the line and State management on the other side of the line. The State, as an example, when we were drafting for our salmon resources, what we found out was the harvest of the salmon was too far away from the stream where they were going where we had mixed sides. We had several salmon stocks going to differen: destinations going along with the same body of fish and they are harvested from there and the impact with some was more drastic than others and so we had to try to back off with those stock fisheries and harvest them in a more logical manner. But if the Federal Government is concerned that the State is not doing a good enough job in providing for subsistence, then fine, you make the standard that you want the State to measure up to and continue to let the State manage the fish and game resources.

Finally, what I'd like to propose in terms of southeast is just that there is a lot of planning and information processes going on and I think that there ought to be some delay in terms of what is proposed in H.R. 39 and other bills related to D-2 for southeast Alaska and I

that the D-2 amendment to the land claims settlement probably t up with a good idea in setting up the Land Use Planning Comn to study what was done and advise Congress before they make sion. I think if you'd do the same kind of thing that you did for -2 land for southeast Alaska and you can set the timetables for you want to make the decision, set the standards for the Land Planning Commission or whoever else is advising you is going to think it would be Land Use Planning Commission because they et up to handle a lot of things and at the same time, have them e these other planning processes that are going on on land use ing, the hatcheries planning process, this is what the State's 1, what this land selection is, make sure that it all coordinates her.

at's all the testimony I have.

r. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, that's very helpful to the ommittee. We understand your recommendations and certainly e are going to act and indelibly put a stamp on various plans, essarily we probably should wait longer for the study. And as far griculture goes, we are going to be marking up the good bill over next few weeks and I think it'll measure up very well in the rests of Alaska.

Ar. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEGGETT. OK, thank you very much. All right, we're going to moving along now, is Mr. Jim Rynearson, vice president of Alaska mber & Pulp Co. here?

ATEMENT OF JAMES F. CLARK, REPRESENTATIVE, THE CITIZENS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ALASKA LANDS

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jim Clark, I'm going to ke care of two people at the same time. Mr. Rynearson broke his ck and I'll be testifying for him and also for myself at the same time. I've already submitted Mr. Rynearson's testimony.

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good, it will be inserted at this point in the -cord.

Mr. CLARK. I think you might find it particularly helpful in his estimony exhibit E, which is a wilderness management directive for he Tongass National Park.

Mr. Chairman, the Citizens for the Management of Alaska Lands ppreciate the opportunity to appear here before you today. It's a road based coalition of people and organizations from all over the State of Alaska whose purpose is to seek balanced, moderate D-2 egislation. In southeastern Alaska our chapter is made up of individal citizens, labor organizations, Native organizations, wildlife organizations, and industrial organizations. We are seeking a fair and just land allocation on the Tongass National Forest which would at once maintain at least the current levels of employment while at the same time putting aside lands in the national interests.

Overall we support the concept of the bill which was explained to you this morning by Governor Hammond and the legislation submitted by Senator Stevens.

One area which we believe should be put aside in the national interest is Admiralty Island. We have a specific proposal for this which we would like to share with the committee at a later point in