ALASKA PENINSULA WILDER~FSS 

DESIGNATION ACT OF 1993 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AJ.\TD INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1688 

TO DESIGNATE WILDERNESS, ACQUIRE CERTAIN VALUABLE 

INHOLDINGS WITHIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES AND NATIONAL 

PARK SYSTEM UNITS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

76----495 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

OCTOBER 28, 1993 

Serial No. 103-57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

For sale hy the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, \Vashington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-043650-8 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

LANE EV ANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETI, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITILE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTI MCINNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkan.;as 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, GeMral Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBC0MMl'ITEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California Ranking Republican Member 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOHN T. DOOLITILE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

LANE EV ANS, Illinois 

THOMAS M. BARRETI, Wisconsin 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

JEFFREY P. PETRICH, Counsel 

JULIE PETRO, Professional Staff Member 

LINDA GoRDON STEVENS, Clerk 

BRIAN MILLER, Republican Staff Assistant 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: October 28, 1993 ................... ........................ ............... ...... .............. 1 

H.R. 1688: 1. Text of the bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 2 

2. Background memorandum........................................................................... 14 

Member statements: 

Hon. Karan English . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . 1 

Hon. Don Young ....... ......... ................. ................... ..... .............. ... ...... ....... ......... 17 

Witness statements: 

Paul Gertler, Special Assistant, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 

of the Interior, accompanied by Destry Jarvis, Special Assistant, National Park Service, Department of the Interior ..... ............................ ....... 23 

Frank Pagano, president, Koniag, Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, accompanied 

by William H. Timme, Esq., Middleton, Timme & Luke, Anchorage, Alaska ................................................................. .............................. ............. 33 

Edgar Wayburn, M .D., chairman, Alaska Task Force, Sierra Club, accom- panied by Jack Hession, Alaska representative, Sierra Club, Anchorage, 

Alaska ............................................................................................................ 42 

Material submitted for the record from: 

Hon. Don Young: Prepared statement of Brad Gilman on behalf of the 

Aleutians East Borough ............................................................................... 51 

APPENDIX 

OCTOBER 28, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: 

Bristol Bay Native Corporation: Letter with attachments to Chairman 

Miller from Hjalmar Olson, president and CEO, dated October 26, 

1993 ··· ········· ············ ································· ······················································· 61 Lake and Peninsula Borough: Letter and attachment from Glen K. Vernon, borough manager, to Hon. Don Young, dated October 26, 1993 ..... . 72 

State of Alaska: Letter from Walter J. Hickel, Governor, to Chairman 

Miller, dated October 28, 1993 ............................... .................................. ... 74 

(III) 

H.R. 1688, THE ALASKA PENINSULA 

WILDERNESS DESIGNATION ACT OF 1993 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:48 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 

2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Karan English, 

presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KARAN ENGLISH 

Ms. ENGLISH. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

will come to order for the purpose of conducting a hearing on H.R. 

1688, the Alaska Peninsula Wilderness Designation Act of 1993. 

This legislation was introduced by our colleague Congressman 

Young of Alaska on April 2, 1993, but has a long legislative history. Mr. Young first introduced a bill on this subject in the 101st Congress on October 26, 1990. 

In the last Congress the subcommittee held a hearing on April 

2, 1992, and the full committee marked up the substitute legislation on July 8. The House approved the measure on July 24, 1992, 

but it did not receive consideration in the Senate. 

H.R. 1688 is essentially the same bill which passed the House 

without controversy last year. The bill provides for the acquisition 

of about 275,000 acres of inholdings owned by Koniag, Incorporated, an Alaska Native Regional Corporation. These inholdings 

are in two national wildlife refuges and a national park on the 

Alaska Peninsula. The bill also designates approximately 2.7 million acres of wilderness within these three conservation system units. 

At the outset I want to convey Chairman Miller's apologies to the 

witnesses for his absence. He has a conflict with a markup in another subcommittee, and rather than inconvenience those who have 

come all the way from Alaska for this hearing and unduly delay 

the considerations of Mr. Young's legislation, I was asked to substitute for him, and I am pleased to do that. 

At this point I would like to recognize Mr. Young for an opening 

statement. 

[The bill, H.R. 1688, and background material follow:] 

(1) 
2 

1030 CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R.1688 

To designate wilderness, acquire certain valuable inholdings within National 

Wildlife Refuges and National Park System Units, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 1993 

Mr. Yomw of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate wilderness, acquire certain valuable inholdings 

within National Wildlife Refuges and National Park System Units, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Alaska Peninsula Wil5 derness Designation Act of 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 As used in this Act: 

8 (1) The term "land" means lands, waters, and 

9 interests therein; 
3 

1 (2) The term "public lands" means land situ2 ated in Alaska which, after the date of enactment of 

3 this Act, the title is in the United States, except4 (A) land selections of the State of Alaska 

5 which have been tentatively approved or validly 

6 selected under the Alaska Statehood Act and 

7 lands which have been confirmed to, validly se8 lected by, or granted to the Territory of Alaska 

9 or the State under any other provisions of 

10 Federal law; and 

11 (B) land selections of a Native Corporation 

12 made under the Alaska Native Claims Settle13 ment Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) which have 

14 not been conveyed to a Native Corporation, un15 less any such selection is determined to be in16 valid or is relinquished. 

17 (3) The term "~ative Corporation" means any 

18 Regional Corporation, any Village Corporation, any 

19 Native group and those Native entities which have 

20 incorporated pursuant to section 14(h)(3) of the 

21 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 

22 1613(h)(3)). 

23 ( 4) The term "Regional Corporation" has the 

24 same meaning as such term has under section 3(g) 

25 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

•HR 1688 IH 
4 

1 (5) The term "Village Corporation" has the 

2 same meaning as such term has under section 3 (j) 

3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

4 (6) The term "Native group" has the same 

5 meaning as such term has under sections 3(d) and 

6 14(h)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

7 Act. 

8 (7) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

9 of the Interior. 

10 (8) The term "Alaska Statehood Act" means 

11 the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the admis12 sion of the State of Alaska into the Union", ap13 proved July 7, 1958 (72 Stat. 339), as amended. 

14 (9) The term "State" means the State of 

15 Alaska. 

16 (10) The term "Koniag" means Koniag, Incor17 porated, a Regional Corporation. 

18 (11) The term "Selection Rights" means those 

19 rights granted to Koniag pursuant to sections 12(a), 

20 12(b), and 14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims 

21 Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), as amended, to re22 ceive title to the oil and gas rights and other inter23 ests in the subsurface estate of approximately two 

24 hundred and seventy-five thousand acres of public 

25 lands in the State of Alaska which lands are identi-

. . ., ,HR 1688 m 
5 

1 fied as "Koniag Selections" on the map entitled 

2 "Koniag Interest Lands, Alaska Peninsula", dated 

3 May 1989. 

4 (12) The term "agency" includes5 (A) any instrumentality of the United 

6 States; 

7 (B) any element of an agency; and 

8 (C) any wholly owned or mi..xed-owned cor9 poration of the United States Government iden10 tified in chapter 91 of title 31, United States 

11 Code. 

12 (13) The term "property" has the same mean13 ing as is provided the term in section 12(b)(7) of 

14 Public Law 94-9204 (43 U.S.C. 1611 note), as 

15 amended.". 

16 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS. 

17 (a) DESIGNATIO:\" OF WILDERNESS.-The public 

18 lands within the boundaries depicted as "Proposed Wilder19 ness" on the following identified maps are hereby des20 ignated as wilderness, and therefore as components of the 

21 National vVilderness Preservation System, with the no22 menclature and approximate acreage as indicated below: 

23 (1) Aniakd1ak Wilderness of approximately five 

24 hundred and three thousand acres Yvithin the 

25 Aniakchak National ::.\fonument and Preserve and 

•HR 1688 1H 
6 

l which is generally depicted upon the map entitled 

2 "Aniakchak Wilderness" dated July 1992. 

3 (2) Alaska Peninsula Wilderness of approxi4 mately one million eight hundred and seventy-six 

5 thousand acres within the Alaska Peninsula Na6 tional Wildlife Refuge and which is generally de7 picted upon the map entitled "Alaska Peninsula Wil8 derness" dated July 1992. 

9 (3) Approximately three hundred and forty10 seven thousand acres within the Becharof National 

11 Wildlife Refuge as an addition to the existing 

12 Becharof Wilderness, as generally depicted upon the 

13 map entitled "Becharof Additional Wilderness" 

14 dated July 1992. 

15 (b) lVlAP AND LEGAI, DESCRIPTION.-As soon as 

16 practicable after the enactment of this Act, a map and 

17 legal description of each wilderness area designated by this 

18 Act shall be published in the Federal Register and filed 

19 with the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and 

20 the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the 

21 House of Representatives and with the Committee on En22 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate. Each such legal 

23 description shall have the same force and effect as if in24 eluded in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct 

25 clerical and typographical errors in such legal description 

•HR 1888 IH 
7 

1 and map. A copy of each map shall be available for public 

2 inspection in an appropriate office of the National Park 

3 Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

4 the Interior. 

5 (c) LANDS INCLUDED.-Except for those lands sub6 ject to Koniag Selection Rights which are subsequently re7 linquished pursuant to section 5, only those lands within 

8 the boundaries of any wilderness area which are public 

9 lands (as such term is defined in this Act) shall be deemed 

10 to be included as a portion of such area. No lands within 

11 the boundaries of any wilderness area designated pursuant 

12 to section 3(a) hereof and which, before, on, or after the 

13 date of enactment of this Act, are conveyed to the State, 

14 to any Native Corporation, or to any private party, shall 

15 be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public 

16 lands within such wilderness areas. Any lands subject to 

17 Koniag Selection Rights relinquished to the United States 

18 pursuant to section 5 which are within the boundaries of 

19 a wilderness area designated by this Act shall become part 

20 of such wilderness areas and be administered accordingly. 

21 SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT OF WILDERNESS AREAS. 

22 (a) GENERALLY.-Except as provided in subsection 

23 (b) of this section, anci subject to valid existing rights, the 

24 lands designated as Aniakchak Wilderness by this Act 

25 shall be managed by the Secretary of the Interior in the 

•HR 1688 1H 
8 

1 same manner as the lands designated as wilderness by sec2 tion 701 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conserva3 tion Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), and the other lands 

4 designated as wilderness by this Act shall be managed by 

5 such Secretary in the same manner as the lands des6 ignated as wilderness by section 702 of such Act. 

7 (b) PERMITS.-(1) Any special use or concession per8 mit which was in existence during 1991 for operations on 

9 lands designated as wilderness by this Act and which ex10 cept for designation of such lands as wilderness could have 

11 remained in effect or been renewed by or reissued to the 

12 same permittee, may be renewed or reissued to such per13 mittee, subject to the provisions of this subsection. 

14 (2) Nothing in this Act shall require renewal or 

15 reissuance of a permit if the Secretary, for reasons other 

16 than the designation of lands as wilderness, determines 

17 that such action would be inconsistent with applicable law 

18 or established regulations. Nothing in this Act shall pre19 elude the Secretary from canceling or otherwise restricting 

20 any permit for any reason other than the designation of 

21 lands as wilderness. 

22 (3) No renewal or reissuance of a permit described 

23 in paragraph ( 1) · of this subsection shall be for a period 

24 longer than the lifetime of the permittee, and no such per25 mit shall be transferable or assignable. 

-~ 1888 1H 
9 

1 ( 4) Designation of lands as wilderness shall not pre2 vent any structures and other improvements authorized by 

3 a permit described in paragraph (1), including cabins, 

4 from continuing to be used, maintained, and if necessary, 

5 replaced, to the extent otherwise permissible, but no addi6 tional structures or other improvements shall be permitted 

7 on lands so designated. 

8 SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF KONIAG SELECTION RIGHTS. 

9 (a) 11': GENERAL.-(1) If the Secretary receives from 

10 Koniag a timely tender of relinquishment of the Selection 

11 Rights, the Secretary shall accept such tender no later 

12 than 60 days after its receipt, and shall notify the Sec13 retary of the Treasury of such acceptance. 

14 (2) For purposes of this subsection, a tender by 

15 Koniag shall be timely if it is received by the Secretary 

16 no later than 180 days after either17 (A) receipt by Koniag of the Secretary's deter18 mination of the value of the Selection Rights pursu19 ant to subsection (b) of this section, or 

20 (B) the outcome of the procedures established 

21 by subsection (b) of this section for resolution of any 

22 dispute regarding such value, 

23 whichever last occurs, unless the Secretary and Koniag 

24 agree to modify his deadline. 

•HR 1688 IH 
10 

1 (b) VALUE.-(1) The value of the Selection Rights 

2 shall be equal to the fair market value of the oil and gas 

3 interests, and where appropriate the fair market value of 

4 the subsurface estate of the lands or interests in lands. 

5 (2) Within 90 days after the date of enactment of 

6 this Act, Koniag and the Secretary shall meet to determine 

7 the identity of a qualified appraiser who shall perform an 

8 appraisal of the Selection Rights in conformity with the 

9 standards of the Appraisal Foundation and utilizing the 

10 methodology customarily used by the Minerals Manage11 ment Service of the Department of the Interior in valuing 

12 such interests. Such appraiser shall be selected by the mu13 tual agreement of Koniag and the Secretary, or if such 

14 agreement is not reached within 60 days after such initial 

15 meeting, then Koniag and the Secretary, no later than 90 

16 days after such initial meeting, shall each designate an 

17 appraiser who is qualified to perform the appraisal. The 

18 2 appraisers so identified shall select a third qualified ap19 praiser who shall perform the appraisal. Within 180 days 

20 after the selection of the third appraiser, a written ap21 praisal report setting out the value of the Selection Rights 

22 and the methodology used to arrive at it, shall be delivered 

23 to the Secretary and to Koniag. 

24 (3) Within 60 days after the receipt of the appraisal 

25 report described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall de-

• HR 161111 1H 
11 

1 termine the value of the Selection Rights and shall imme2 diately notify Koniag of such determination. If Koniag 

3 does not agree with the value as determined by the Sec4 retary, the procedures specified in section 206(d) of Public 

5 Law 94-579, as amended, shall be used to establish the 

6 value, but the average value per acre of the Selection 

7 Rights shall not be more than $300. 

8 SEC. 6. KONIAG ACCOUNT. 

9 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-(1) Notwithstanding any 

10 other provision of law, on October 1, 1996, the Secretary 

11 of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 

12 establish a Koniag Account. 

13 (2) Beginning on October 1, 1996, the balance of the 

14 account shall15 (A) be available to Koniag for bidding on and 

16 purchasing property sold at public sale, subject to 

17 the conditions described in paragraph ( 3); and 

18 (B) remain available until expended. 

19 (3)(A) Koniag may use the account established under 

20 paragraph ( 1) to bid as any other bidder for property 

21 (wherever located) at any public sale by an agency and 

22 may purchase the property in accordance with applicable 

23 laws and regulations of the agency offering the property 

24 for sale. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

25 right to draw against such account shall be assignable in 

•HR 1688 IH 
12 

1 whole or in part by Koniag, but no assignment shall be 

2 recognized by the Secretary of the Treasury until written 

3 notice thereof is filed with the Secretary of the Treasury 

4 and the Secretary of the Interior by Koniag. 

5 (B) In conducting a transaction described in subpara6 graph (A), an agency shall accept, in the same manner 

7 as cash, any amount tendered from the account estab8 lished by the Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph 

9 (1). The Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust the bal10 ance of the account to reflect the transaction. 

11 (C) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation 

12 with the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish proce13 <lures to permit the account established under paragraph 

14 (1) to15 (i) receive deposits; 

16 (ii) make deposits into escrow when an escrow 

17 is required for the sale of any property; and 

18 (iii) reinstate to the account any unused escrow 

19 deposits in the event sales are not consummated. 

20 (b) AMOUNT.-The initial balance of the account es21 tablished in subsection (a) shall be equal to the value of 

22 the Selection Rights as determined pursuant to section 5 

23 of this Act. 

24 (c) TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS FROM ACCOUNT.-(1) 

25 The Secretary of the Treasury shall deem as cash pay-

•HR 1888 1H 
13 

1 ments any amount tendered from the account established 

2 pursuant to subsection (a) and received by agencies as 

3 proceeds from a public sale of property, and shall make 

4 any transfers necessary to allow an agency to use the pro5 ceeds in the event an agency is authorized by law to use 

6 the proceeds for a specific purpose. 

7 (2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary of 

8 the Treasury and the heads of agencies shall administer 

9 sales pursuant to this section in the same manner as is 

10 provided for any other Alaska native corporation author11 ized by law as of the date of enactment of this section 

12 (including the use of similar accounts for bidding on and 

13 purchasing property sold for public sale). 

14 (B) Amounts in an account created for the benefit 

15 of a specific Alaska native corporation may not be used 

16 to satisfy the property purchase obligations of any other 

17 Alaska native corporation. 

18 (d) REVEKUES.-The Selection Rights shall be 

19 deemed to be an interest in the subsurface for purposes 

20 of section 7(i) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

21 (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). 

0 

•HR 1888 m 

76-495 0 - 94 - 2 
;. .... . i.: t -.~C'• : -, .. , ,: - ,: _ · 

> t;P,.110 " E_.,,.,. <:•. r,:.11-.,.._ 

~·,l ~,c M•AOS<.lN .. ( w ... El'-'CO 

~{'FA A 01F"1•0 :'.; ll(C,QN 

~ .. , <"' ••LE0 ... AV• l GA A"'(ll1C,t, N SA...OA 

·"' ;O ~" so .. sou r>< o,u o·• _>, RII• '. • ROCCO ,a ...... a ><E ll ,l8(IIC" 0 "'81( "AW.Ill 

•~ALV'"' .. 000U Y C AUJ QII IO o• 

'= ·"''LO'i •o.,.~•o-a..,11cno •vun o ~,co ~A<lA .. ( N(,L,S " •Rll O IOA 

~:~~:;~\::l:~o~~~= ...... u111 u0 .. ,,.c>< EY "<(W <OII• 

11 08(nA ..r .. DEIIWOOO GLJ A"' 

:,;'~ ... £:o,.~5 B~~L~:~ 5 c•L ,, 011, .. ,. 

~,t,TSY T o.1 , ... ><•W AI/ 

• .. OMA$ ~ llAlllO""' HI •lloTUC•~ 

'NOMA $ .. 1"-""HT. W1$(Q .. $ 1N 

MEMORANDUM 

14 

~-~- ~ouse of l\epresmtatibes 

(ommittcc on 

jlatural l\csourccs 

Ma!ibington, 11)(( 205 13-620 1 

October 20, 1993 

• (-. ~,:,., ,tP• .... <· . .a -,• 

• •~ ,f,/ "~"'8°(,' .~ ,,_ o ~ a 

.•• J C• l• ••• ,. ,. S•'; 

J; .... . ... ..... , .. u s·•" :,,.,c--.• •· , .. • •O .,.h "H" 

"., £,.( ll• L CCi~ ,.S H 

Q A .. J[ L < AL <,S,. 

ll(~U&L•C•" SU-" 01"! CYQII 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

FROM: George Killer, Chairman 

SUBJECT: Hearing on H.R. 1688, "Alaska Peninsula Wilderness 

Designation Act of 1993" 

on Thursday, October 28, the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the Alaska Peninsula Wilderness Designation Act of 1993 which was introduced by Ranking Minority Member, Rep. Don Young. The 

hearing will be held in the Natural Resources Committee Hearing 

Room, 1324 Longworth, beginning at 9:45 am. 

H.R. 1688 designates approximately 2.7 million acres of 

wilderness within the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, 

Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge and Becharof National 

Wildlife Refuge and directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 275,000 acres of oil and gas selection rights from an Alaska Native regional corporation, Koniag, which constitute an inholding within those units. The bill is nearly identical t o legislation which passed the House in the 102nd congress on August 3. 1992 IH.R. 1219) , 

Kooiaa's Oil and Gas Selection Riahts 

Koniag, Inc. is one of thirteen regional corporations established 

by the 1971 Alaska Native Claims settlement Act ("ANCSA"). This 

Act extingui• hed the aboriginal title of Alaska's 75,000 Eskimos, 

Indians and Aleuts in exchange for 44 million acres of land and 

nearly $1 billion. The land and money in the settlement was distributed to regional and village corporations in which 

individual Alaska Natives enrolled as shareholders. 

Approximately 3,400 people, most of whom are Aleut or Russian 

Aleut, are enrolled as shareholders in Koniag. As part of i ts land entitlement under ANCSA, Koniag retains approximately 

275,000 acres of selection rights to oil and gas subsurface estate on the Alaska Peninsula in southwest Alaska. 
15 

H.R. 1688 directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 

Koniag's oil and gas rights on the Alaska Peninsula. Koniag wil l 

be compensated with a property account that can be used to 

purchase surplus federal or RTC property. The value of the 

property account will be determined by the Secretary of the 

Interior following an appraisal of the "fair market value" of 

Koniag's oil and gas s election rights, but is limited to no more than $300 per acre . 

Significantly, seventy percent of all revenues received by Koniag 

from the sale or use of the property account will be distributed 

to other Alaska Native regional corporations pursuant to section 

7(i) of ANCSA. 

wilderness Designations 

In the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

("ANILCA") Congress designated 104 million acres of new, federal 

reserved lands in Alaska. Seventy seven million acres - or approximately 90 percent of the total nation's wildlife refuge 

lands - are within Alaska. ANILCA created nine of Alaska's 16 

wildlife refuges and added about 27 million acres to existing 

refuges. ANILCA also designated about 19 million acres within 

the boundaries of the Alaska refuges as wilderness. 

Pursuant to section 1317 of ANILCA, the Secretary of the Interior was directed to review all Alaska refuge lands not already 

designated as wilderness by ANILCA to determine their suitability 

for wilderness. In turn, the President was required to submit 

recommendations to Congress. According to a 1989 GAO 

investigation done at the Subcommittee's request, Fish and 

Wildlife service planning teams determined that an additional 

52.6 million acres in Alaska wildlife refuges would qualify for 

wilderness designation. (See: Alaska Wildlife Refuges: 

Restrictive Criteria Used to Recommend Additional Wilderness" 

GAO/RCED-89-155, September 1989). Despite the 1987 deadline for 

recommendations to the congress established by section 1317 of 

ANILCA, no recommendations have been submitted. 

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve 

One of the most remote of Alaska's national park areas, the 

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve features the 6-mile wide 

Aniakchak Caldera created by the collapse of the central part of a volcano. No lands in Aniakchak were designated wilderness by 

ANILCA. According to the U.S. Park service, wildlife within the area include caribou, brown bears, and salmon. 

H.R. 1688 designates 503,000 acres of new wilderness within the 

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. This reflects the park 

manager's preference with small additions to make boundaries more uniform. 
16 

Al aska Peninsula Na tional Wi ldl ife Refuge 

The Al aska Peninsula National Wildl i fe Re f uge was establis hed by 

Congress in ANILCA. According to t he U. S. Fi sh a nd Wi l dl ife 

Se rv ice , tne 4.7 million acre refuge: 

contains a variety of l andscapes i ncluding tundra, l akes, 

wetlands, fjords, volcanic peaks, and rugged cliffs. The 

Ugashik, Meshik, and Chignik rivers, and the Ugashik Lakes, 

provide habitat necessary for the five species of salmon 

that spawn in the refuge. Over 30 species of mammals are present, including brown bear, moose, caribou, wolves and 

wolverine. Sea otters, sea lions, and harbor seals inhab i t 

the Pacific coast shoreline. The refuge's lakes and 

wetlands are also heavily used by migrating waterfowl. 

H.R. 1688 designates 1,876,000 acres of new wilderness within the 

Alaska Peninsula Refuge. This reflects both the Alaska Fish and 

Wildlife Service planning teams' recommendations and the refuge 

manager's preference. According to GAO, a total of 3,360, 000 ac res were determined to qualify for designation as wilderness. 

Becharof National Wil dl i fe Refuge 

The Becharof National Wildlife Refuge encompasses about 1.2 

million acres and is located on the Alaska Peninsula approximately 300 air miles southwest of Anchorage. About 

477 , 000 acres (35 percent) of wilderness was designated when 

Congress established the refuge in ANILCA. Included within the 

refuge boundaries is the 290,000 acre Becharof Lake. According 

to the U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service, the range of habitat in 

the Becharof Refuge supports a mix of wildlife species including 

brown bear, moose, caribou, tundra swans, and five species of 

salmon. 

H. R. 1688 designates 347,000 acres of new wilderness within 

the Becharof Refuge. This reflects both the Alaska Fish and 

Wildl i fe Servi ce planning teams' recommendations and the refuge 

managers preference. According to GAO , a total o f 606,000 ac res 

were determined to qualify as wilderness. 

Admin i stration Position 

In July 1993, the Department of the Interior testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee in oppositi on to a s i milar bill, s . 855, which provides for the acquisition of 

Koniag's inholdings but does not contain H. R. 1688's wilderness 

designations. The Department is reviewing its previous testimony 

especially in light of the wilderness designations contained in 

the House bill. 

A draft witness list is attached. Please contact Jeff Petri ch or Julie Petro of my committee staff at 225-1714 with any questions. 
17 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank you 

for having this hearing. You made a statement that this bill has a long history, and I 

have a written statement I would like to submit for the record that 

covers the necessity of the bill and the justification for the bill. 

It's rare that I'm one that sits in this committee and asks for a 

wilderness bill, but this is an example where Alaskans, the environmental community and a Native corporation, which I think is 

justified in requesting this legislation, can all work together with 

the Administration, the previous Administration and this Administration also, in trying to achieve a goal of providing a justifiable 

settlement to Koniag and also improve the wilderness designation 

in the State of Alaska. 

There will be some suggestions I know from Mr. Gilman, who 

will be testifying, and of course Frank Pagano, and I've read the 

testimony of the Administration, and I believe we can all work together to solve this problem. 

Hopefully through your leadership, Madam Chairman, we'll be 

able to move forward with this legislation, as it was done last year, 

get it over to the Senate and encourage the Senate to do something 

positive in the arena of wilderness and a justifiable settlement for 

a Native corporation. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 
18 

HONORABLE DON YOUNG 

Mr. Chairman: I wapt to thank you for holding this 

hearing this morning. I want to welcome Frank Pagano, 

President of Koniag Incorporated and Brad Gillman as well as 

the other witnesses here this morning. 

It is not often that you find me supporting a wilderness 

bill. However, in this case, I believe we can work-out a 

solution that everyone can live with. 

As many of you know, this is a situation where an 

Alaska Native Corporation, Koniag, is attempting to get 

equity for title they were given to lands under ANCSA in 

1971. ANCSA provided 44 million acres of land and nearly 

$1 billion to Alaska Natives as a settlement for claims to their 

native lands. Koniag was given title to 275,000 acres of 

subsurface on the Alaska Peninsula. In 1980 ANILCA passed 

and designated roughly 104 million acres of wilderness, parks 
19 

and refuges throughout Alaska. Some of those designa'tions 

took place on surface lands on the Alaska Peninsula and 

directly effect the ability of Koniag to gain value from 

their lands. With this bill, I am trying to bring equity to 

Koniag, whose lands are essentially useless. However, given 

circumstances beyond my control, wilderness is the only way 

we can move the bill forward. 

Many people in my state fear wilderness because of the 

uncertainty it brings. They don't trust the federal 

government. This bill allows Alaskans to take part in the 

designation process. Last year we were able to come up with 

a bill that brings some certainty. With the 7(i) provision, we 

are able to help one Native Corporation while helping others 

at the same time. We were also able to protect existing 
20 

guides and outfitters - their rights to continue to use lands for 

which they hold permits will not be cut off simply because 

there is a change in the status of the lands. We also went to 

great lengths to see that the transportation corridors were 

protected. All this gives credibility to Alaskan's in the 

wilderness debate. 

Alaskans need to remember that ANILCA directed the 

Secretary of Interior to examine all non-wilderness areas and 

determine their wilderness suitability - GAO found, at the 

request of this Committee, that over 50 million acres of lands 

in Alaska were recommended for wilderness designation. 

Many of the lands included in this bill were among them. 
21 

I have heard opposition from those who live on the 

Peninsula. I am sympathetic to their concerns and look 

forward to working with them. The committee needs to see 

clear examples of reasons why there is opposition to 

wilderness. 

If I had it my way, this bill would have no wilderness. 

This situation should be resolved on the merits - Koniag 

should be made whole. From an equity standpoint, 

wilderness is not necessary. But some have said unless there 

is wilderness, Koniag deserves no equity. The merits of the 

case are simple: Alaska Natives were given title to select 

lands on the Alaska Peninsula and have done so in the form of 

subsurface selections. Because lands on the surface have been 

designated wilderness, parks or otherwise, Koniag cannot do 
22 

anything with its lands because such use is not compatible 

with the reason for which the conservation units were created. 

As many of you know the Secretary of Interior spent 

some time in Alaska this summer. He was briefed on this 

issue and many others facing Alaskans. I look forward as we 

did last year to working with the various groups interested in 

this bill to craft something that everyone can live with. 
23 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you. 

Our first witnesses this morning are Paul Gertler, Special Assistant with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Destry Jarvis, a Special 

Assistant with the National Park Service. 

Welcome to the subcommittee. 

Your statements will be placed in the record in their entirety, 

and you may proceed for the next few minutes as you are most 

comfortable to do so. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL GERTLER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

ACCOMPANIED BY DESTRY JARVIS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. GERTLER. Thank you very much. I will summarize the testimony that has been submitted in writing. 

I am Paul Gertler, Special Assistant for the Deputy Director of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 

I am pleased to be able to present the Department's views on 

H.R. 1688, the Alaska Peninsula Wilderness Designation Act. 

I am accompanied by Destry Jarvis, Special Assistant to the Director of the National Park Service, and he will respond to questions on applicability of this bill on Park Service lands. 

The Department of the Interior strongly supports the wilderness 

designations proposed by H.R. 1688, provided that issues relating 

to the appraisal process and valuation mentioned below can be resolved with the committee, and that we can deal with the need to 

find offsets to the cost of the acquisition of subsurface rights. Then 

we will be able to support the bill. We are eager to work with the 

committee to resolve these and other issues. 

The 1,876,000 acres of wilderness designated by H.R. 1688 for 

the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge is the same figure 

contained in the preferred alternative for the 1985 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for the refuge. 

However, after review of all comments received and some technical questions, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

and wilderness review and record of decision was finalized in 1988 

that recommended 640,000 of wilderness. After additional consideration this year, the Department now 

supports the larger acreage recommended in 1985, which is reflected in H.R. 1688. We do, however, desire to incorporate some additional lands into 

the wilderness area which were excluded previously because they 

were in private ownership. We also understand that Representative 

Young may desire to have some modifications made to the 1985 

proposed boundaries, and we will be glad to work with the committee to develop final boundaries and maps for this wilderness area. 

Although the National Park Service's 1988 Final Environmental 

lm:pact Statement for its wilderness recommendation for the 

Aniakchak National Monument Preserve recommended designation 

of 293,336 acres as wilderness and potential wilderness. The National Park Service has reviewed this recommendation and now believes that a larger wilderness designation, similar to the 503,000 

acres in H.R. 1688, is appropriate. 
24 

The National Park Service thinks some acreage and boundary adjustments to those noted in H.R. 1688 are needed to avoid management problems, and we'll be happy to work with the committee 

to identify manageable boundaries. With respect to the wilderness management provisions of the bill, 

we note that the provisions of Section 4(b) are not necessary. There 

is existing authority to renew or continue permits in wilderness, 

and Secretary Babbitt has recently implemented new Departmental 

policies for concession and special use permits in Alaska refuges. 

We therefore believe Section 4(b) should be deleted. The acquisition of Koniag's selection rights under this bill will 

not only serve to permit the significant expansion of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System, but will also enhance the management of the affected conservation system units by perfecting the 

Federal Government's interests in the lands within these units. We are concerned, however, about the bill's requirements that 

the appraisals be done using the methodology customarily used by 

the Minerals Management Service. Rather, we believe that the 

1992 Uniform Federal Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, as established by the Department of Justice, must be 

used so that the mineral interests are fairly valued. 

We have several additional concerns about the appraisal process 

and methodology. We would like to work with the committee staff 

to address the following types of issues: 

What type of appraisal system is appropriate; 

What instructions should be give to the appraisers; 

What type of tie-breaking procedure is appropriate; and 

If arbitration is invoked, what standards should govern the process. 

By resolving these and related issues, we can assure that the 

public interest in a fair and accurate appraisal is served. 

Since mineral appraisals are often time-consuming and expensive 

activities, we welcome a recent offer by Koniag to pay the costs of 

the appraisal required by H.R. 1688. Upon acceptance by the Secretary of the relinquishments of their selection rights, Koniag 

would have their property account increased by an amount equal 

to half of the cost of the appraisal. 

With these changes we would urge prompt enactment of H.R. 

1688. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue. I will be 

pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gertler follows:] 
25 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL GERTLER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES, REGARDING H.R. 1688, ALASKA PENINSULA WILDERNESS 

DESIGNATION ACT OF 1993 

October 28, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Ge rtler, Special Assist anc t o the Deputy 

Direc tor of the United States Fish and Wildl ife Servi ce, Department 

o f t he Interior. I am pleased to be ab l e to p r e s e nt the 

Department's views o n H.R. 1688, t he Alaska Peninsu l a Wilderness 

Designation Act. 

The Department of the Int eri or strongly supports the wilderness 

designations propos ed by H.R. 1688. Provided that issues relating 

to the appraisal process and valuation mentioned be l ow can be 

resolved with the Commit tee, a nd we can deal with the ne ed t o find 

o f fs e ts to the cos t of the a cquisit i on of subsurf ace rights, then 

we wi ll be able to support the bil l . We are eage r to work wi th t he 

Committee to resolve these and other issues . 

Section 3 of the bill designa t es as wilderness substantial ac reage 

on three Conservation System Units on the Alaska Peninsula. On the 

Aniakchak National Preserve and Monument, 503 , 000 acres would be 

designated as wilderness. Within Alaska Peninsula National 

Wildlife Re fuge, a wi lderness a rea o f 1,876,000 ac r es would be 

e st:ablished ; and 347, 000 acres would be added : o the present 

wi lderness area within Becharo f Na tional Wildlife Refuge. 

Section 4 of the bill provide s fo r administrati on of the designated 
26 

areas as if they had been designated wilderness by sections 701 and 

702 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, except 

as otherwise provided . 

For lands designated as wilderness by the bill, section 4 (b ) 

provides that any special use or concession permit in effect in 

1991 that could have remained i n force or been renewed, except fo r 

the designation of wilderness, may be (but is not required to be) 

renewed o r reissued for a period not to exceed the lifetime of t he 

permit tee. 

Section 4 (b) also provides that any authorized cabins or other 

structures within the area designated as wilderness by the bill may 

continue to be used, maintained and replaced to the extent 

otherwise permissible. 

If they are o ffered by Koniag not l ater than 180 days after 

determination o f their value, section 5 of the bill provides that 

the Secretary must accept a relinquishment o f the r ights granted to 

Koniag by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to receive title 

to the o il and gas estate on approximately 27 5,000 acres of public 

land. 

Section 5(c) provides for an appraisal of the value of t he 

selection rights by an appra i ser j o i ntl y selected by the Secretary 

and Koniag. However, in the event they are unable to agree 

2 
27 

directly on an appraiser, the Secretary and Koniag would each 

designate an appraiser, and the two of them would select the person 

to actually conduct the appraisal. 

Within 60 days of receipt of the appraisal report, the Secretary of 

the Interior would be required to determine the value of the 

selection rights, and to notify Koniag of those values. In the 

event Koniag does not agree with the Secretary's determination, the 

procedures provided in the Land Exchange Facilitation Act would be 

used to determine the value of the rights. 

Section 6 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

establish an account for Ko~iag, in an amount equal to the value of 

the relinquished selection rights. The account woul d be available 

to Koniag for purchasing property offered for sale by any agency or 

instrumentality of the United States. The Off ice of Management and 

Budget advises us that this provision would be subj ect to the PayAs-You-Go (PAYGO ) provisions of the Omnibus Reconci liation Act of 

1990. PAYGO costs would be scored as an increas e in budget 

authority in the year that the selection rights are acquired by the 

Sec r etary, not when the account is created and funds become 

ava i lable to Koniag. 

The 1,876,000 acres of wilderness designated by H.R. 1688 f o r the 

Alaska Peninsula National Wildlif e Refuge is the same figure 

contained in the Preferred Alternative for the 1985 Final 

3 
28 

Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) for the refuge and the signed Reco rd of Decision. 

However, after review of all comments r eceiv e d and some technical 

questions regarding the wilderness review portion of the CCP , a 

Supplemental Environmental I mpa ct Statement and Wi lderness Review 

for the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge was issued and 

finali z ed in 1988. The Supplemental EIS concluded that 640 , 000 

acres was t he preferable figure to recommend. 

After additional consideration this year, the Department now 

supports the larger a creage recommended in 1985 , which is reflected 

in H. R. 1688 . 

We do, however, desire to incorpo rat e s ome additional lands into 

t he wilderness area whi c h were excluded previously b ecause they 

were in private owne rship. 

Young may desire to have 

We also understand that Representative 

some modifications made to the 198 5 

proposed boundaries, and we will be g lad to work with the Committee 

t o develop final boundaries and maps for this wilderness area. 

The designation of an additional 347 , 000 acres in Becharof National 

Wi ldlife Re fuge conforms to the Final CCP and Reco rd of Decision 

for that un it . 

The National Park Service 's Final Environmental I mpact Statement 

4 
29 

for its wilderness recommendation for the Aniakchak National 

Monument and Preserve, completed in 1988, recommended designation 

of 293,336 acres as wilderness and potent ial wi lde rne ss. 

The National Park Service has reviewed the recommendations of the 

Final Environmental I mpact Statement and now believes that a l arger 

acreage for wilderness designation within Aniakchak is appropriate. 

The acreage and boundaries proposed i n H.R . 1688 coul d present some 

management problems. The National Park Service will be happy to 

work with the Commit tee to identify manageable boundari es. 

With respect to t he wilderness management provisi on of the bill, we 

note that the provisions of section 4(b) are not necessary. There 

i s existing authority t o renew or continue permits in wilderness 

areas, and Secretary Babbitt has recently impl emented new 

Departmental policies f o r concession and special use permits in 

Alaska refuges . We therefore believe section 4 (b ) should be 

deleted. 

The acquisition of Koniag 's selection rights under this bill wil l 

not only serve to permit the significant expansion of the Nati onal 

Wilderness Preservation System, but will a l s o e nhanc e the 

management of the affected conservation system uni ts by perfec t i ng 

the federal government's interests in the lands withi n these units . 

We are concerned, however, about t he bill's requirement that the 

appraisal s be done using t he methodology customarily u sed by the 

5 

76-495 0 - 94 - 3 
30 

Minerals Management Service. Rather, we believe that the 1992 

Uniform Federal Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, 

as established by the Department of Justice, must be used s o that 

the mineral interests are fairly valued. 

We have several additional concerns about the appraisal process and 

methodology. We would like to work with the Committee staff to 

address the following types of issues: (1) what type of appraisal 

system is appropria te; (2) what instructions should be g iven to 

t he appraisers; (3) what type o f tie-breaking procedure is 

appropriate; (4) if arbitration is invoked, what standards should 

govern the process. By resolving these and related issues, we can 

assure that the public interest in a fair and accurate appraisal is 

served. 

Since mineral appraisals are often time-consuming and expensive 

activities, we welcome a recent o ffer by Koniag to pay the cost of 

the appraisal required by H. R. 1688. Upon acceptance by the 

Secretary of the relinquishment of their selection rights, Koniag 

would have their property account increased by an amount equal to 

half of the cost of the appraisal. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue, Mr. 

Chairman. 

have. 

I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may 

6 
31 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you. Mr. Jarvis, do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, madam. Our formal statement was incorporated 

into that which was presented by Mr. Gertler, and I would be 

happy to answer questions about Aniakchak National Monument 

and Preserve. 

Ms. ENGLISH. I have a couple of questions, and I assume Mr. Young might have a couple, too. 

I thank you very much for the testimony, and I also look forward 

to an opportunity for people to work together and work out some 

of the concerns that have yet to be resolved. 

In July the Department testified in opposition to S. 855, which 

is the Senate bill to acquire the same inholdings involved in this 

bill. Can you clarify for the record why you are more supportive of 

Mr. Young's legislation and not the Senate Bill. Mr. GERTLER. Yes, I would be pleased to. I think the essential 

difference, and the reason why we are in support of H.R. 1688, the 

wilderness provisions that are in this bill. We find that that would 

add to the value of the conservation units in question. Without 

those provisions the testimony that we previously provided on S. 855 would still be current. Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Jarvis, did you want to add to that? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. That reflects our views as well, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ENGLISH. In testimony which we will hear later today from 

one of the local government representatives several questions are 

raised which we would appreciate both of you responding to. 

The first is, Would residents continue to be able to land their aircraft in the wilderness area or land their vessels on the coastlines 

in order to hunt and fish? 

Mr. GERTLER. The answer to that in wildlife refuges would be 

yes. It is specifically provided by ANILCA that they have that right 

to continue to land their aircraft and their boats in wilderness 

areas. 

Mr. JARVIS. The same is true for the preserve, Madam Chairman. 

The wilderness designation does not alter the current management 

policy that affects either the monument or the preserve, with one 

exception, and that exception has nothing to do with landing of 

planes or boats. They may do so. 

Ms. ENGLISH. What is the exception? 

Mr. JARVIS. The exception is in the case of the two hunting 

camps which are currently exclusive-use camps. The only way that 

they would be permitted to remain is as public-use cabins. So the 

exclusivity would change, but the cabins would remain, or the facility would remain with the wilderness designation. Ms. ENGLISH. Will the Federal Government assert control of commercial fishing activities off the shores of the wilderness areas? 

Mr. GERTLER. Any control that the Federal Government might 

exert on commercial fisheries would not be related to a wilderness 

designation. If any part of the Federal Government had the authority to regulate those activities, it would be separate from wilderness. 
32 

Ms. ENGLISH. Would the enhancement or restoration of wild-run 

salmon stocks be prohibited in the river systems within the wilderness designation? 

Mr. GERTLER. Such activities would not necessarily be prohibited 

by wilderness designation. I think that what would occur would be 

that the scale of the activity that would be proposed in enhancement or restoration would be considered, and depending upon the 

scale of the facilities or the disturbance that would be involved in 

that activity, there may be some regulation, but there would not 

be a prohibition on enhancement and restoration activities. 

Mr. JARVIS. In the case of the monument, enhancement activities 

would not be permitted now. So that the wilderness designation 

would not change that. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Would commercial guides be allowed to engage in 

their enterprise within the wilderness area, and would they also be 

allowed to land aircraft and vessels? 

Mr. GERTLER. Yes, they would so long as those activities were related to their acting in their official capacity as guides. 

Mr. JARVIS. And in the case of the monument and preserve, the 

status quo, which is that they may land, would continue even in 

wilderness under ANILCA. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. I appreciate the testimony especially when it's short. 

You know, we worked on this legislation, and two things concern 

me the most. I want you to be aware of this. This is a finely crafted 

piece of legislation, and it's difficult to get the support of everyone, 

including the guides and the local governments, et cetera, and 

what we're trying to do is work together. Keep that in mind. 

The thing that concerns me is that Section 4[b] is recommended 

to be done away with. We have not had a good record with Fish 

and Wildlife and with the Secretary in this regard. Secretary 

Babbitt's new recommendations are unacceptable, and I want you 

to know that. We went through the guides' operation and tried to make sure 

that they have an understanding that they will not be submissible 

to the Secretary in a non-renewable permit process. It's because of 

a great deal of contention we had before on a five-year. I don't 

mind the five- and ten-year automatic or, if they have met the requirements, a renewal period. 

So I hope that you're willing to sit down and work on 4[b] and 

not totally drop it, because if we do that, then we have opposition 

to the bill and it will generate opposition to the bill from other arenas. Don't be locked into concrete with that, Mr. Gertler, because 

it is required. I mean it is part of ANILCA. We do have a five year 

or ten year, and we want to continue that. Secretary Babbitt's 

statement that it's at the discretion of the Secretary deeply concerns me because these people are part of the system now, and I 

want to continue to have them as part of the system. 

Do you understand that transportation corridors are protected 

under this provision? Is that your understanding on the transportation corridors primarily for the State? 

Mr. GERTLER. I am not aware of that. I think I would have to 

check with the Department and respond to you in writing as to 
33 

what the Department's understanding is on the transportation corridors. Mr. YOUNG. Right now we have transportation corridors across 

those lands. 

Mr. GERTLER. Across the wilderness designation? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. GERTLER. I will have to check with the Department, and we 

will respond in writing. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. That's important to me because the State 

now, you know, is not overexcited about this legislation, and one 

of the reasons is they do not want to be deprived. In ANILCA we 

have transportation corridors, and you're aware of that I hope. Mr. GERTLER. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. And if we have new designation, we don't want to 

lose those transportation corridors, because if you look at the land 

mass, they could be critical in the far, far future. I don't think 

they're going to be critical in the near future, but we hope that's 

taken into consideration, too, as we work on this legislation. 

I have no further questions, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you both very much. I appreciate your time 

and testimony. 

The next witness is Frank Pagano, President of Koniag, Incorporated, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chairman, before we continue, may I congratulate you. You not only got Koniag correct, but you got Pagano 

correct; that is a miracle. [Laughter.] 

Ms. ENGLISH. Well I lucked out. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Pagano. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK PAGANO, PRESIDENT, KONIAG, INC., 

ANCHORAGE, AK, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM H. TIMME, 

ESQ., LAW FIRM OF MIDDLETON, TIMME & LUKE, ANCHORAGE,AK 

Mr. PAGANO. Madam Chair, my name is Frank Pagano. I am a 

shareholder, director and president of Koniag, Inc. Koniag is an 

Alaska Native Regional Corporation created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for the Alaska Natives of Kodiak Island 

archipelago. 

With me this morning at the witness table is Bill Timme, Koniag 

counsel. 

On behalf of Koniag and its shareholders, I would like to express 

our appreciation to the Chairman and the members of the committee, and especially to our Representative Don Young, for your consideration today of Representative Young's H.R. 1688. Koniag supports the adoption of H.R. 1688. 

Koniag would also like to express its appreciation to Secretary 

Babbitt. I had the opportunity to meet the Secretary in August in 

Alaska, and he said that the Department would review its position 

on this legislation. It is apparent from the Department's testimony 

that the review did occur and that it resulted in the Department's 

reconsideration of its earlier position on the legislation. 

H.R. 1688 is nearly identical to H.R. 1219, which was passed by 

the House on August 3, 1992. Unfortunately, during the closing 
34 

weeks of that Congress the Senate was not able to take action on 

it. 

H.R. 1688 provides for the acquisition from Koniag of its right to 

receive title under ANCSA to certain inholdings in the Aniakchak 

National Monument, the Becharof Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska 

Peninsula Wildlife Refuge. 

The interests to be received by Koniag are basically the oil and 

gas rights on approximately 275,000 acres of land. Once these selection rights are exercised by Koniag, Koniag would not only have 

the right to explore, develop and produce oil and gas from the lands 

it selects, but it will also have the right of access across adjacent 

refuge and monument lands in order to reach its lands. 

H.R. 1688 would determine the value of the inholdings by an 

independent appraisal. Koniag has agreed to accept a ceiling on the 

value of an average value of $300 per acre based upon the precedents created by prior acquisitions. 

If there are concerns about the form of payment in H.R. 1688, 

Koniag is willing to work with the committee's staff to develop an 

alternative compensation method so long as it would result in the 

payment of a fair value within a reasonable time. 

Koniag has also agreed that the consideration which is to be paid 

would be subject to the revenue sharing provisions of Section 7[i] 

of ANCSA. Under 7[i], 70 percent of the compensation received by 

Koniag would be shared with the other Alaska regional corporations, village corporations and at-large shareholders. 

Thus, not only will the acquisition of these inholdings benefit the 

monument and refuges in which they are located, but through the 

provisions of Section 7[i] of ANCSA all of the Native corporations 

in Alaska will share in the distributions of the proceeds from them. 

It is Koniag's understanding that the wilderness provision of the 

legislation will not interfere with the corridors in the area proposed 

by the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and that the existing rights and permits of the guides, outfitters and hunters 

using the proposed wilderness areas will be continued. Given these 

protections, the designation of wilderness would not be unduly restrictive. 

Koniag understands that other regions may have concerns about 

wilderness designations in their regions. While the recommendations appear to be reasonable in Koniag's region, they are not experts about the other regions. We would defer to the expertise of 

the other regions with respect to their concerns and request that 

the committee would give them due consideration. 

An essential feature of Koniag's motivation in selling its interests 

in these inholdings is its hope to use a significant portion of its 

share of the proceeds to establish a settlement trust for the benefit 

of its shareholders. This would be a permanent fund which, if prudently managed, will provide an income stream for future generations. Having had its share of ill-advised investments, Koniag does 

not want to see history repeated. 

On behalf of Koniag, I want to express our sincere appreciation 

for the consideration that the committee and the staff has given to 

H.R. 1688. Should there be any concerns that you or your staff may 

have with the legislation, we will be willing to work with you and 

the staff to resolve them to the committee's satisfaction. 
35 

We would appreciate the committee's approval of the legislation. If there is any additional information that we could provide that 

may be of assistance to you, we would be happy to do so. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Pagano follows:] 
36 

Testimony of 

FRANK PAGANO 

On behalf of Koniag, Inc. 

Before the House Committee on Natural Resources 

October 28, 1993 

Mr. Chairman: My name is Frank Pagano. I am a shareholder, director and 

President ofKoniag, Inc. Koniag is an Alaska Native Regional Corporation created 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) for the Alaska Natives of 

the Kodiak Island archipelago. 

On behalf of Koniag and its shareholders, I would like to express our 

appreciation to the Chairman and the members of the Committee and especially to 

our Representative Don Young, for your consideration of Congressman Young's 

H. R. 1688. Koniag supports the adoption ofH. R. 1688. 

I would also like to express our appreciation to Secretary Babbitt. When we 

met with the Secretary in August in Alaska, he said that the Department would 

review its position on the legislation. From the testimony of the Department, it 

appears that the review did occur and the Department has seriously considered the 

advantages presented by the enactment of this legislation. 

H. R. 1688 is nearly identical to H. R. 1219, which passed this Committee in 

1992, and passed the House in the 102nd Congress on August 3, 1992. 

Unfortunately during the closing weeks of that Congress, the Senate was not able to 

take action on it. 
37 

In the 70's, under the provisions of ANCSA, Koniag and a number of Village 

Corporations in its region were required to make "in lieu" land selections on the 

Alaska Peninsula. These lands are hundreds of miles from the lands adjacent to the 

villages. They were required to be selected because there were not sufficient 

available public lands on Kodiak to satisfy all of the corporations' land entitlements. 

Under Section 1427 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 

enacted in 1980, virtually all of the Corporations' interest in these lands were 

exchanged for lands on Afognak Island. Koniag, however, retained its rights to 

acquire oil and gas rights and certain other subsurface interests in approximately 

275,000 acres of land within the boundaries of one national monument and two 

national wildlife refuges. Once these selection rights are exercised by Koniag, 

Koniag would not only have the right to explore, develop and produce oil and gas 

from the lands it selects, but will also have the right of access across adjacent refuge 

and monument lands in order to reach its lands. 

The acquisition of these rights, either through exchange or by direct 

acquisition, would prevent the potentially disruptive effect that Koniag's inholdings 

would have on the management of the units. As part of the Submerged Lands Act's 

inholding review, the Koniag inholdings in the national monument have been 

ranked by the National Park Service as one of its top priorities for acquisition. 

Many of the tracts of land subject to Koniag's refuge inholdings were also highly 

ranked by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Following discussions with members of the conservation community, Koniag 

had agreed to make its selection rights in these areas available for acquisition by 

the United States. It is Koniag's intent that, with the exception of its right to select 

Pagano Testimony 

Page 2 
38 

cemeteries and historical sites under Section 14(h)(l) of ANCSA, all of its selection 

rights on the Alaska Peninsula, whether for only oil and gas rights or for the entire 

subsurface estate, would be acquired under H. R. 1688. Koniag's decision is based 

on certain fundamental principles which are incorporated in H.R. 1688. 

First, the consideration which Koniag is to receive must be based upon the 

fair market value of the rights it is giving up. We believe an independent appraisal 

is the best mechanism to determine that value. Based upon discussions with 

representatives of the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, it was agreed that Koniag's rights to acquire oil and gas interests should be 

valued utilizing the mechanism which the BLM uses to value tracts in the National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. This would result the entire oil and gas estate to be 

conveyed to Koniag being valued. Should there be a disagreement as to the value 

arrived at by the process, then the procedures authorized under the Federal Land 

Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988 and as set out in 43 USC 1716(d), would be used 

to resolve it. Koniag is willing to accept a ceiling of an average value of $300 per 

acre, based upon the precedents created by prior acquisitions. 

Second, while H.R. 1688 proposes that Koniag be compensated with a 

property account to be established in the Treasury for it to utilize in purchasing 

surplus federal or RTC property, Koniag is willing to work with the Committee's 

staff to develop alternative compensation mechanisms which would also result in 

the payment of a fair value within a reasonable time, should a change in the 

mechanism prove to be desirable. 

We are likewise aware of the limitations resulting from the various budget 

agreement and the concerns of the deficit be reduced. Therefore, we are willing to 

Pagano Testimony 

Page 3 
39 

explore such changes as may be necessary to bring the compensation mechanism 

into conformity with them. 

Thirdly, because the interests which Koniag is relinquishing are based upon a 

regional corporation's right to the subsurface, we have agreed that the legislation 

clearly reflect the status of the law, that the consideration which is to be paid would 

be subject to the revenue sharing provisions of Section 7(i) of ANCSA. Under 7(i), 

70% of the compensation received by Koniag would be shared with the other Alaska 

regional corporations, village corporations and at-large shareholders. 

Since sharing under Section 7(i) is accounted for on a cash basis, Koniag 

wants to make certain that incurs no obligation to make a distribution until it has 

received cash. For instance, if Koniag were to receive real property in exchange for 

its rights, it should not have to make a distribution until it either sells the property 

or the property generates a revenue stream. 

Another fundamental concept which is not included in H.R. 1688 but which 

arises under ANCSA, is Koniag's intent to use a significant portion of its share of 

the proceeds from the transfer of its interests, to establish a Settlement Trust for 

the benefit of its shareholders. This would be a permanent fund which, if prudently 

managed, will provide an income stream for future generations. Having had its 

share of ill-advised investments, Koniag does not want to see history repeated. 

The present Board of Directors believes that in order for such a trust to be 

truly protected, it must be managed by trustees who are independent of the control 

by any future Board of Directors. The trustees must owe their allegiance solely.to 

the Trust. Under the existing law, there is an ambiguity as to whether a Board may 

Pagano Testimony 

Page4 
40 

create a Trust in which it does not retain the right to appoint and remove the 

trustees. Because of this ambiguity, we are requesting that the Committee provide 

for an amendment to ANCSA which will clarify that a Board may irrevocably 

delegate to another entity the power to appoint and remove the trustees. 

We have reviewed the wilderness provisions of the bill. It is our 

understanding that they include the lands recommended by the professional 

managers of the Monument and the Refuges, as well as the lands subject to the 

inholdings being acquired under the bill. Importantly, the wilderness configuration 

results in the preservation of the access corridors designated in the Bristol Bay Plan 

in the units of the Refuges in which Koniag's interests are located. We are also 

pleased to see that the legislation recognizes the rights and permits of the guides, 

outfitters and hunters currently using the units and provides for their continued 

use. Thus, the legislation's wilderness provisions reflect a balanced blend of 

preservation and flexibility for the future. 

These comments are, of course, primarily directed to the wilderness 

designations within the Koniag region. However, we are not experts as to the effect 

of the wilderness in the other regions. To the extent that other regions have 

concerns about the designations within their regions, we would defer to their 

expertise and request that the Committee would listen to them and address their 

concerns where appropriate. 

We understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service may have some concerns 

about some of the technical provisions of the legislation. We have met with 

representatives of the Service to address their concerns and are confident that we 

will be able to arrive at an agreeable resolution of their concerns 

Pagano Testimony 

Page 5 
41 

On behalf of Koniag, I want to express our sincere appreciation for the 

consideration that the Committee and the staff has given to H.R. 1688. If there is 

any additional information that we could provide that may be of assistance to you, 

we would be happy to do so. 

Pagano Testimony 

Page 6 
42 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

On behalf of Chairman Miller and the subcommittee, I want to 

express our appreciation for your cooperation and your willingness 

to work on creative solutions to the land management issues in 

Alaska. Thank you very much for that. 

The Department of the Interior has identified a number of concerns in its testimony. Are there any issues which you do not think 

can be resolved? 

Mr. PAGANO. No; I believe any issue can be resolved. 

Ms. ENGLISH. A great attitude. 

The local governments on the Alaska Peninsula have raised concerns about the wilderness designations in the bill. Do you have 

any response to the opposition? 

Mr. PAGANO. No, not at this time. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chairman, that's a bone of contention here. 

I very honestly have looked at this map, and I think we can work 

with the borough. If you look at the lands that are discussed here, 

very little of the lands are in the borough itself. Most of the lands 

are outside the borough that are to be designed as wilderness. 

I do think that there is some question that you brought up before 

about the fishermen. They are very concerned that they can still 

land and still dock. I know we would like to take out one little wilderness area designation there for Aniakchak Bay because it's the 

only deep-water port in that area. If we can solve that problem, I 

think the borough will be comfortable. 

We receive phone calls that you're going to make a wilderness 

and we can't fish there. That's not the intent of this legislation, and 

I don't think it's the intent of Mr. Pagano or the Corporation or 

anybody in this room, including the Department of the Interior. 

The big thing is once we all agree that it can be solved, as Mr. Pagano has said, then we have to sit down with staff ourselves and 

alleviate the concerns, and we can do that. We can write it so everybody is protected, and yet again, as I said before, we achieve 

this area as a wilderness area that I don't usually support, but it's 

natural and people want it. Environmentalists want it and corporations want it, and as long as no one is hurt, there is no real objection to it. So I think it can be worked out. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you. 

I really appreciate you coming all of this distance to testify today. 

Thanks very much. 

Mr. PAGANO. Thank you. 

Ms. ENGLISH. The next witness is Dr. Edgar Wayburn, chairman 

of the Alaska Task Force, Sierra Club, and he is accompanied by 

Jack Hession, Alaska representative, Sierra Club in Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF EDGAR WAYBURN, M.D., CHAIRMAN, ALASKA 

TASK FORCE, SIERRA CLUB, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK 

HESSION, ALASKA REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB, ANCHORAGE, AK 

Dr. WAYBURN. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for 

this opportunity to appear on behalf of the Sierra Club. 
43 

I am Edgar Wayburn, chairman of the Sierra Club's Alaska Task 

Force, and with me this morning is Jack Hession, our Alaska representative. 

With the subcommittee's permission, Madam Chairman, I would 

like to summarize my remarks and request that my full statement 

be place in the hearing record. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Without objection. 

Dr. WAYBURN. We endorse the basic purposes of H.R. 1688, 

which are to acquire subsurface selections of the Koniag Corporation and to classify as wilderness federal lands within the Alaska 

Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges and within 

Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. 

Acquisition of Koniag's 275,000 acres of subsurface interests, 

which are limited to oil and gas only, would benefit Koniag and 

other Native corporations via the revenue-sharing mechanism of 

ANCSA. 

Acquisition would also give the Federal Government complete 

ownership of the refuges and monument and preserve tracts involved and thereby make the tracts eligible for wilderness designation. 

H.R. 1688 would designate 2. 7 million acres of wilderness, including the 275,000 acres that would no longer be encumbered by 

Koniag's subsurface selections. This is an excellent proposal as far 

as it goes, and we commend Mr. Young for it. 

We recommend also to the committee that the remaining 2.1 million acres of eligible lands be added to the wilderness system for 

a total of 4.8 million acres and doing the wilderness reviews of the 

three conservation units. Virtually all of the federal lands within 

the units were found to qualify for addition to the Wilderness System. 

I would like to emphasize that the usual conflicts between wilderness designation and development interests are not present. 

There is no conflict with the timber and mining industries or with 

the oil and gas industry, which have shown no interest in exploration of these uplands. 

The one apparent major conflict is with hypothetical transportation and utility system routes across the peninsula. H.R. 1688 

does not designate wilderness for the areas it identifies as probable 

routes. These corridors, however, are purely speculative and should 

not be allowed to preempt wilderness classification. 

Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act is the appropriate procedure for considering proposed transportation corridors 

that would cross the peninsula's national conservation units, including wilderness areas, and should the need arise for such, Title 

XI could be used. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our views. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Wayburn follows:] 
SIERRA 

CLUB 

Final copy 

44 

408 C Street, N.E. Washington , D.C. 20002 202 · 547 · 1141 

STATEMENT OF EDGAR WAYBURN, M.D. 

CHAIRMAN, ALASKA TASK FORCE 

SIERRA CLUB 

on 

H.R. 1688, ALASKA PENINSULA WILDERNESS DESIGNATION ACT OF 1993 

before the 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OCTOBER 28, 1993 

Good morning. I am Edgar Wayburn .· I welcome this opportunity to 

testify on behalf of the. Sierra Club and its Alaska Task Force, 

which I chair.. The Sierra Club is a national environmental 

organization of over 500,000 members, inc luding approximately 

1700 members in the Alaska Chapter. Accompanying me this morning 

is Jack Hession, our Alaska Representative from ·Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

In summary , the Sierra Clubs recommends: 

--federal acquisition of oil and gas interests owne·d by the 

Kon iag corporation within the Alaska Peninsula and Becharo f 

national wildlife refuges, and within Aniakchak National Monument 

and Prese rve; 

--wilderness de~ignation for all of the eligible federal lands in 

these units for a total of approximately 4.83 million acres, as 

opposed to H.R. 1688's 2.72 million acres; 

"When we uy 10 piclcout anything by itself, we find it hitched .to cvaytlung else in the univcrsc."jolm Muit 

N2tional HC2£!qu:ancrs: 730 Polk Sum. San Francisco, c.lifomi2 94109 (41)) 776-2211 

MINTED ON UNBLOCHEO 100% POS~ CONSUMER W~TE . 
45 

--deletion of Sec . 4 (b) on permits, which would modify existing 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commercial use permit and 

concession policy at the behest of certain commercial sport 

hunting and fishing guides; and 

--designation of wilderness for 2,000 acres at Yantarni Bay 

within the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge. H.R. 1688 

omits this otherwise qualified acreage from its wilderness 

designation in order to satisfy the special interests of guides 

operating in that area; 

Wi lderness and acquisition of Koniag se l ections 

On three previous occasions we have gone on record as supporting 

the basic thrust of H.R. 1688: acquisition of Koniag's subsurface 

interests on the Alaska Peninsula - -which are limited to oil and 

gas selection rights--and the addition of federal conservation 

system unit lands on the peninsula to the wilderness system. 

We do so again here this morning. H. R. 1688 is very similar to 

last year's H.R . 1219. The chief difference is that the use of 

potential Outer Continental Shelf leasing revenues for 

acquisition of Koniag's interests has been replaced by an account 

that Koniag would draw on to bid for surplus federal assets . We 

suggested this change in our previous testimony, and welcome its 

adoption. 

Koniag's subsurface selectio ns evidently do not contain oil and 

gas deposits, or if deposits have been located they do not 

contain economically recoverable reserves. As the likelihood of 

developmen t is very low or even non-existent, Koniag's selections 

do not constitute a development threat to the overlying refuge 

and monument/preserve lands. However, the property interests 

preclude the addi tion o f the overlying refuge and 

mo nument / preserve lands to the wilderness system. If Congress 

were to designate the surrounding refuge and monument /preserve 

lands as wilderness, the tracts encumbered by Koniag's property 

i nterests woul d be island3 of non-wilderness in a s ea of wi lde rness, a pattern that would complicate management and make 

little planning sense. 

In short, the purpose of acquisition is to bring the tracts 

involved into full public ownership, and thereby enable them to 

receive the wilderness status they deserve . 

Wilderness designations 

H. R. 1 688 designates approximately 2.7 mil l ion acres as 

wilderness, including the 275,000 acres that would no longer be 

encumbered by Koniag's subsurface selections. We think this is 

an excellent proposal, as far as it goes, and commend Mr. Young 

for it . We also recommend that the Committee complete the task 
46 

by adding all qualified fede ral lands to the wilderness system, 

for a total of 4.8 million acres. 

During the wi lde rness revi ews o f the three un its as direc ted by 

this Committee in Se c. 13 17 of ANI LCA , virtually all of t he 

federal lands studied were found to qualify for the wilderness 

syst em. 

Taken as a whol e, the areas we propos e for wilderness contain a 

dazz ling array of wilderness, wi l dl ife , and sceni c values. As a 

recent planning document of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce 

notes, the Alaska Pen i nsu la a nd ad j acent Becharof refuges are the 

most scenically diverse o f the 16 refuges in Alaska. It is this 

stunning combination o f natural values that render these federal 

lands such outstanding candidates for the wilderness system. 

The differing .~ilderness re commendations are s umma rized as 

follows: 

Conserva tion Syst em Un it 

Al aska Peninsula NWR ......... . .. . 

Becharof NWR ..... . .......... ... . 

Aniakchak Nationa l Monument 

and Preserve ..... . ....... . ..... . 

Total 

H.R. 1688 

1,876,000 

347,000 

S03,000 

2,726,000 

Sierra Cl ub 

3,541, 000 

695,000 

602, 779 

4,838,779 

I also want to emphasize that the usual conflicts between 

wi lderness designation and extractive industries are not present. 

There is no confl ict with the timber or mining industries, or 

with the o il and gas industry, which has shown no interest in 

exploration of these federal uplands. The one apparent conflict 

is the quest ion o f cross-peninsuia transportation routes, a 

matter that deserves some comment. 

H.R. 1688 omits approximately two million acres qualified for 

wilde r ness , primarily in areas identified as potential routes for 

several trans-peninsula transport ation and utility syst em 

corridors. These corridors are based on the hope that future 

mineral discoveries or other developments elsewhere in Alaska 

wi ll necessitate the construction of roads, rai lroads , pipelines, 

and so o n across the Alaska Peninsul a. 

These speculative r outes s hould no t be allowed to stand in the 

way of wilderness designation. Title 11 of the Alaska Lands Act 

(ANILCA) is this Committee's proce dure for dealing with possible 

future transportation needs acros s Alaska's national conservation 

system units, including wilderness areas . It provides a 

systematic p r ocess fo r Congressional and Presi dent ial review o f 

various a l ternat ive routes, and expedited dec isio n -mak ing . 

Thus even if all o f the qual ified lands in the three peninsula 

conservat ion units were designated as wilderness , as we propose, 
47 

a c r o ss-peni nsula tra nspo rtation corridor (or c orridors) c ould be 

authorized through wi lderness provided that after careful 

e v aluatio n o f the alternativ es Cong r ess determi ned the cro ssing 

to be i n the national interest . 

In c o nclusio n , Mr . Chairman , we o nc e again u rge the Commi ttee to 

endorse the basi c purposes of H. R. 1688 , but also to add 

perfecting amendments designed to make the bill more consistent 

with the national interest , as outlined above. The lands found 

qualified for wilderness designation are of international 

conservation and wilderness importance, and r e al conflicts with 

other resource interests are minimal . These superlative refuge 

and monument areas fully deserve the added protection wilderness 

system status would afford. 

Thank you f o r this opportun ity t o present our v i ews . 
48 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Hession, do you have any additional comments 

you would like to make? 

Mr. HESSION. Not at this time, Madam Chairman. I would be 

happy to assist Dr. Wayburn with any questions you might have. Ms. ENGLISH. I have a couple. 

First of all, I want to thank Dr. Wayburn very much. Chairman 

Miller regrets not being able to be here this morning. He did want 

to attend and convey his personal appreciation for your testimony. 

I understand there is a long history of Sierra Club involvement 

in Alaska lands issues, and we very much welcome your contributions. 

Your testimony this mornin~ in effect says that the Congress 

should reject the Department s wilderness recommendations as 

adopted in the bill and designate 4.83 million acres representing 

every eligible acre of federal land in the area as wilderness. Does 

your recommendation reflect the views of other environmental 

groups as well? 

Dr. WAYBURN. As far as I know. I don't know any environmental 

group which is opposed to that. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Hession, do you want to add to that at all? 

Mr. HESSION. Yes; thank you, Madam Chairman. Last year the 

Wilderness Society testifying on the virtually identical bill also supported wilderness for eligible lands. These lands were reviewed 

during the late 1980s by the Park Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service as directed by this committee, and as Dr. Wayburn testified, virtually all of them were found to be fully qualified for 

addition to the System. Essentially what we're suggesting here is that the committee 

take a comprehensive approach to the issue and, instead of having 

to revisit it perhaps, look at it now. It has been studied, there are 

few conflicts, and why not move ahead. Dr. Wayburn did mention the one problem of transportation corridors, and we think the committee has designed a mechanism that 

would allow such future corridors to be considered, and therefore 

there is no real need to leave out millions of acres simply because 

of some potential future need for a corridor. Ms. ENGLISH. If we do not include all of the 4.83 million acres, 

as both of you have suggested, and stick with the 2. 7 million as 

proposed by Mr. Young and as endorsed by the Administration, what will be the position of the Sierra Club? Will you oppose the 

bill? 

Dr. WAYBURN. We will support the bill, but we will continue to 

urge you to amend it to include all of the wilderness which is de 

facto wilderness now. Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Hession, would you like to add anything to 

that? 

Mr. HESSION. No. I think Dr. Wayburn stated that quite well. Thank you. Ms. ENGLISH. One more question, and then I believe Mr. Young 

may have some questions. 

What is the Sierra Club's position on S. 855, the Senate bill 

which has no wilderness? 

Dr. WAYBURN. We think that that bill ignores the facts and that 

there is no reason for transferring Koniag's land to the Federal 
49 

Government if wilderness is not established. The reason for the 

transference from the point of view of the Federal Government is 

that it makes the surface and subsurface lands both Federal, and 

under those circumstances they can be made wilderness. They 

could not be made wilderness now as long as the subsurface lands 

belong to Koniag. So we just don't see any reason for the arguments in the Senate bill. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Hession, do you have any additional comments? 

Mr. HESSION. No. Thank you. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Well thank you gentlemen very much. Representative Young. Mr. YOUNG. I don't have any questions. I want to thank Dr. Wayburn for being here. You know, I feel kind of like holding 

hands with my ex-girlfriend. It's dangerous, especially when you're 

married to someone else. [Laughter.] 

I understand why you're asking for more but, again as I mentioned, we are trying to get support. As you know, in the State your 

position of more wilderness is objected to by local governments, 

guides, et cetera. So I'm hoping, as you mentioned, you would support the bill with the present acreage in it because that's going to 

sell the way it is. I'm really working very hard to try to get the 

Governor and some other people to understand it. 

In Alaska, as you know, a large majority of the people say 

enough is enough and regardless of the merits, and that's my big 

battle. They don't see the wisdom of this, and I'm going to have to 

try to sell it to them. So I hope you don't get locked into all of it. 

I've often said that next to Bruce Vento both of you are the same, 

including Jack. 

Jack and I go back a long way, Madam Chairman. We were allies 

in the Eagle Preserve. It was one of the better pieces of legislation 

and I never got credit for it. We've been adversaries about 88 percent of the time on most issues, but it has been sort of a friendly 

relationship. 

I just hope that both nationally and locally that there is an education process on the merits of this legislation. I mean go to the 

merits of it. I understand your position of wanting to get more, but 

it's just that if we get more we might lose the legislation that's proposed. So let's be very careful how we work together with everybody because this is a hard sell in Alaska right now. I do thank you both for coming down. 

Dr. WAYBURN. Mr. Young, I understand. It's simply logical to include the whole thing. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, but logic and politics sometime don't work, as 

you know. Dr. WAYBURN. I've noticed that myself. [Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank you both. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you both, gentlemen, very much. 

Is Mr. Brad Gilman here? 

[No response.] 

In those circumstances what do we do? 

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Chairman, I'll submit his testimony for the 

record at this time, if it hasn't already been submitted. 
50 

I do believe some of his concerns have been addressed by the witnesses. There is a difference of opinion on corridors and that situation. 

The concern, I want you to understand, if you look at what he 

has submitted for the record is the Aleutians East Borough, and 

their efforts to try to establish an economic base there are very, 

very recognized by this Member, and I think we can address those 

problems. Again, it goes back to we'll all sit down and we'll all work it out, 

because if we go too far one way or the other way the bill is not 

going to go anywhere. I have two Senators I have to work with, 

and it has got to be a mutual working relationship and everybody 

has got to give a little bit, and I mean everybody. 

But I think Mr. Gilman's testimony being submitted for the 

record at this time would be sufficient. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Okay. Well we will do that without objection. [Prepared statement of Brad Gilman, Washington Representative, Aleutians East Borough follows:] 
51 

Testimony of Brad Gilman 

on Behalf of the Aleutians East Borough 

on H.R. 1688 

The Alaska Peninsula Wilderness Designation Act of 1993 

October 28, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Gilman. I serve as the 

Washington Representative for the Aleutians East Borough. The 

Borough is composed of the Alaska Native communities of Akutan, 

False Pass, King Cove, Sand Point, and Nelson Lagoon, and the City 

of Cold Bay. We have approximately 2500 residents liv ing within 

the Borough, most of whom are descendants of the Aleut tribes. 

The Aleutians East Borough supports Mr. Young's effort to find 

some way for Alaska Native shareholders of Koniag, Inc. to receive 

fair value for their subsurface interests within public land 

conservation units. When such subsurface lands are on or adjacent 

to Federal lands, Alaska Native Corporations are effectively 

es topped from realizing any value for the settlement of their 

aboriginal rights. The establishment o f property accounts for 

Alaska Native Corporations is a fa i r way for Alaska Native peoples 

to receive value for the settlement of their aboriginal rights, 

while at the same time promoting the public policy objective of 

inholding consolidation within the conservation units. The Borough 

believes that inholding consolidation and fair value for Alaska 

Nat ive settlement lands shoul d drive the discussion of property 

accounts. Wilderness designations should have no place in this 

discussion. 

The Borough and its residents oppose H.R. 1688 as currently 

drafted. Approximately half of the acreage to be designated as 

wilderness under Section 3(a) (2) of H.R. 1688 is within the 

Borough's boundaries, as we ll as some acreage within the Becharof 

designation. The land in question lies between Cold Bay and Pavlof 

Bay, an area u sed by a wide array of t he Borough's residents. It 

is ironic that we are even discussing wilderness designations f or 

this area. Due to its remote location and lack of roads, t he 

portion of the Alaska Peninsul a Na tional Wildlife Refuge is in fact 

a wilderness in the truest sense. Other than the residents of the 

area who ent e r the Refuge for recreational purposes to hunting and 

fish, there are very few people who access the Refuge. The debate 

over wilderness in the East Aleutian/Al aska Peninsula area appears to us to b e a meaningless exercise. 

What a wilderness designation may do is antagonize the local 

residents by restricting their ability t o use the area to hunt and 

fish. Both the Aleut and non-Native residents use these l ands for 

subsistence and recreational activities. Th e Borough residents are 

concerned that the legisl ation may result in dramatic restrictions 

on the use of motorized vehicles, such a ircraft and v e sse ls, both 

of which are necessary t o allow residents to access the Refuge and 
52 

its resources. Wilderness designations invariably lead to 

regulations to restrict the use of such motorized craft. The 

legislation as drafted does not provide an indefinite, open-ended 

right for citizens to use planes or vessels to access the Refuge. 

Such access is an important part of the lifestyle for those 

residing in such a remote area of the world. 

We are not aware at this time about how many Federally 

permitted facilities reside within these lands. While H.R. 1688 

attempts to grandfather existing structures, the language of the 

bill creates a clear incentive for the Department of the Interior 

to seek to cancel or otherwise restrict any permitted activity in 

order to restore the area to its wilderness status. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has always had a reputation for questioning human 

activity within refuge systems. The continuation of human activity 

within a wilderness area would receive intensified scrutiny. Under 

the legislation, permits may not be transferred or assigned, nor 

may they be willed to the heirs of the original permittee. We 

predict that Interior would become extremely creative in squeezing 

out remaining permit holders in the coming years. 

Finally, we have very serious questions about the impact of a 

wilderness designation on fishing activity or the enhancement or 

restoration of anadromous fish streams. A significant portion of 

the proposed wilderness designation runs along the coastline. Any 

effort to curtail commercial fishing along this coastline would 

have a serious impact on the ability of the residents to earn a 

livelihood. Additionally, there are numerous natural salmon 

streams on the Refuge. Any effort to rehabilitate or enhance these 

natural salmon runs could be prohibited under a wilderness 

designation. 

It should be noted for the record that the proposed wilderness 

designations, for the most part, are not located within the Koniag 

geographic region. To the extent that there are any discussions of 

transforming refuge land to wilderness land in order to create a Koniag property account, the land under consideration should be 

located within the Koniag region. Additionally, the proposed 

wilderness designation is far greater than that originally proposed 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service when it studied wilderness options 

for the Alaska Peninsula. Borough officials have had a brief 

opportunity to scan the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge--

Wilderness Review Amendments and Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement. FWS had recommended Alternative A within the SEIS, or 

roughly 640,000 acres. H.R. 1688 triples the original 

recommendation. Moreover, it appears that many of the lands 

proposed by this legislation were recommended for "minimal 

management", and were not contemplated to be included within the 

wilderness category by FWS. 

Finally, the Borough would like to recommend the following 

prior to any further consideration of this bill: 

2 
53 

1. Field hearings should be undertaken in the Bristol Bay 

and the Aleutian Island regions so that the citizens most 

affected by the proposed designations are given a meaningful forum for public participation. 

2. The maps referred to in the bill should be duplicated and 

distributed to the local governments in the region. We 

have pieced together as best we could the proposed lands 

to be designated, however, we are still unclear precisely 

what land would be included in the formal designation. 

3. Comparison of the proposed wilderness designations in 

H.R. 1688 with the Wilderness Review Amendments and 

Supplemental EIS. 

4. The following questions on use need to be answered: 

a. Would residents continue to be able to land their 

aircraft in the wilderness area or land their 

vessels on the coastline in order to hunt and fish? 

b. May the Federal government assert control of 

commercial fishing activities off the shores of the 

wilderness areas? 

c. Would the enhancement or restoration of wild run salmon stocks be prohibited in the river systems 

within the wilderness designation? 

d. Would commercial guides be allowed to engage in 

their enterprise within the wilderness area? Would 

they be allowed to land aircraft and vessels? 

The residents of the area do not yet fully understand the 

implications of this designation, however, all believe this law 

would be used to dramatically restrict human activity on the Alaska 

Peninsula. We are opposed to H.R. 1688 and request that any 

further discussion of it be discontinued as long as wilderness 

designations are part of the bill. 

3 
54 

Do ~o Oo 0 

Aleutians East 

Borough 
2000 

1000 

1500 

,ooo 

... 

Borough Population 

1970 1$80 HtOO 

/ 

/ 

Ne lson Lagoon 

/ 

/ , 

/ 

/ 

/'\ 

/ 

/ 

/Col d Ba t 

/ 

/~Pass 

7 

w;r.~:, : 

/ ( ,---- ,-

// \_,,) ~ ... I 

_\) J 

(' - c;? "' _j 

? ~~e - ----rx-"vessel Value of Landings in the 

--- Mil:::•j Aleutian~ 

100 

,. ~------------- 1986 l S87 1988 1989 t990 

~ 

-✓ 
The Aleutians East Borough 

The Aleutians East Borough is a fairly young borough. Formed 

in l 987. it includes six communities that range in size from 

over 1000 people to just under 100. The Aleutians East 

Borough does, however, have a long history -- over one 

hundred years of commercial fishing . The 1990 c atch was 

worth over $123,805,933. 

Since their discovery in the eighteenth century. the Aleutians 

have always represented a wealth of possibilities. The 

Russians found great success with the fur trade, and when the 

Un ited States boug ht the 1erri1ory that 1radi1ion was continued 

and expanded upon. Whaling stations, fox farms and 

commerc ial fishing operations quickly developed all along the 

chain. Today, the bonomfishing industry presents the 

possibility of a whole new era with a combinaiion of resources 

and focilitics 10 meet lhe challenge. 

The Aleutians East Borough, coope rating with the loca l 

communities, is involved in a number of capital improvement 

projects. Akutan, False Pass and King Cove have new docks or 

have docks planned and ready fo r construction. The Aleutians 

Akutan 

Located on the north shore of Akutan Harbor on the east coast 

of Aku1.an Island, Akutan is 17 miles cast of Unalaska and 750 

miles southwest of Anchorage. 

The community was founded in 1878 as a fur storage and 

trad ing port by the Western Fur and Trading Co. The 

company's resident agent hel ped establish a commercial cod 

fishi ng and processing business that quick ly anracted nearby 

villagers to the area. 

56 

East Borough is ready for a major airpon expansion program in 

Sand Point and is redesigning the Cold Bay dock which adjoins 

the only instrumented, crosswind airport in the Aleutians. The 

communities arc also developing adjacent uplands and 

providing util ities, warehouses, lease lots, pot storage areas. 

and other support facilities. 

The dive rsity of facilities, services and resources within the 

borough make it an ideal place to establish a new business or 

expand an existing one. Cold Bay has one of !.he larges\ paved 

crosswind runways in the Slate, enabling parts and service from 

Anchorage within 24 hours. Borough-wide resou rces include 

the fishing industry which now has five major onshore fish 

processing plants tha1 service both the Bering Sea and Pacific 

Ocean fisheries. Two major exploratory mining opcrat..ions arc 

activ e within the borough, one in Sand Point (Battle Mountain 

Gold) and one on Unga Island (Alaska Apollo). The 

communities all provide basic amen ities including sewer and 

water, schools, medica l facilities and electricity . In addition 

excellent boat harbor facilities and potential uplan d 

development areas are available in many communitie~. 

Commcrcia1 fishing and fish processing c urren tly dominate 

Akutan's economy . Akutan's close proximity to Unalaska 

and major harve st grounds makes it a key port for future 

deve lopment activ ities. Trident Seafoods has a major 

bouomfish plant just west of the village. Deep Sea Fisheries 

also has a permanent processing vessel in the bay and are 

planning 10 build an i8-acre plant complex. Akutan Harbor 

is frequently used by other processing vessels during the 

fishing season. Processing and crew work: provide seasonal 

employmen t for about 25 residcms. There is also some 

employment at the school, post office, store, tavern and 

clinic. 

Communications in Akutan include phone s, CB radios, 

facsimile, mail plane and tel evision. The community has a 

school with grades k indergarten lhrough twelve. There are 

community electricity, wate r and sewer systems. Fre ight 

arrives by ship on a weekly basis and is delivered to the 

community dock. 

Cold Bay 

Located on the wes[ shore of Cold Bay, 40 miles from the 

extreme westerly tip of lhe Alaska Peninsula. I.he City of Cold 

Bay is 630 miles southwest from Anchorage and 180 miles 

from Unalaska. 

The airport, which was originally built as part of a large air 

base in the l 940's is one of the largest in the state wi1h a 

10.000 foot crosswind paved runway. Most residents arc 

employed directly or indirectly in its operation and 
maintenance. The community also has a major fuel dock. 

PlaMing for dock. expansion, upgrading and reoricmation is 

underway. A multi -purpose dock is expected to be in place by 

1993. 

Because of its ccmral location and modem airport. Cold Bay 

is a hub for the surrounding communities. It has promising 

future as a service center for the bottomfish indusuy with 

regard to product transportation, crew changes, emergency 

medical care, fuel and other supplies. 

Cold Bay is also home to one of the largest hatcheries in the 

wo rld at Russell Creek, which produces pinks and sockeyc 

sa lmon. Additionally Cold Bay is the entrance to the 

320,893 ac re Izcmbck National Wildlife Refuge and the 

so uthwestern portion of the 3.5 million acre Alaska 

Peninsula. Wild!ifo Refuge . 

Communica 1ions in Cold Bay incl ude phones, mail planes. 

jc1 service twice a day. six. days/week. lelcvisio n and radio. 

The community. with a popul:t1ion of 148. is served by a 

church, health clinic. and a school with grades kindeq;ar1cn 

1hrough twelve. Community water, sewer and e lectricity arc 

available. Frei ght arrives on regularly scheduled cargo planes 

and barges. 

False Pass 

False Pass is strate gically located on the Isanotski Strait 

which se parates the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian 

Islands. The Slrait provides th~ shone.st transit route bctwcen 

the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and has U.S. Coaia 

Guard maintained nav igation aids. 

Fa lse Pass is 35 miles soulhwcs1 of Culd Ray and 670 miles 

southwcs1 of Anchorage. 

A Multi•Purposc Public Dock will be complclcd in 1992. The 

new dock will accommodate heavy traffic from c rab boats, 

floating processors, freighters, barges, and Alaska Marine 

Highway vessels. 

Also plmncd is a marine industrial park with support services 

whi ch wi!l offe r business opponunities to boost the lo ca l 

economy. 

57 

False Pass. with a popul ation of 68. has a school with grades 

kindergarten through twelve and a heahh clinic with a 

community health aide. Other services include mail and 

passenger planes from Cold Bay, phones. television, and 

radio. Freight arrives by cargo plane and by barge and ship 

that presently use the Peter Pan Seafoods Company dock. 

King Cove 

King Cove is located on the Pacific side of the Alaska 

Peninsula. 18 miles southeast of Cold Bay, 625 mile.~ 

southwest of Anchorage. 

King Cove is one of the largest communities in the Borough. 

It was founded in 19 1 I when Pacific American Fisheries bui lt 

a salmon cannery and has main1ained i1s imporiance as a 

major fishing center in sou thwest Alaska fo r over seve nty 

-rive years. The currcnl populatio n is approximately 850. 

Today, Pel.er Pan cannery is one of the larges! fish processing 

operations in the entire Uni1cd States. Its facilities attract 

boats from both the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. 

King Cove has a strong, stable economy most of which is 

based on fishing and seafood processing. Both public and 

private facilities hav e continued to improve with I.he growtl1 

and prosperity of the community. Presently, the King Cove 

harbor has over 80 spaces for permanent and temporal") 
vesse l moo rings, a 150-ton boat hau lout, uplands boat 

storage, and a large warehouse with individual storage lockers 

and a major nee loft area. The harbor is also one of southwest 

Alaska's premier crab pol storage location with over l0.000 

pots currently being stored. Additional land is available for 

more pol storage. 

The city recently extended water and elect.ricity throughout 

the harbor. The community's first deep water dock is expected 

to begin port operations in l 992. E,;cellenl opportunities 

are available in the harbor and port areas for developing 

additional marine and fisheries related services. 

The community has a modem school, medical clinic. new 

community center, library, and recreation facilities. Marine 

freight arrives weekly from Seattle. Daily airline service 

from Anchorage provides reliable passenger and cargo 

services via the community's airport, 

Nelson Lagoon 

Nelson Lagoon is located on a narrow spil lhat separates the 

coastal areas of western Alaska from the Bering Sea, 550 

miles soulhwcs1 of Anchorage. h has a popula1ion of abou1 

60. 

The community derived its name from I.he lagoon, which was 

named for Edward William Nelson of the U. S. Signal Corps, 

who explored the Yukon Delta regio n between 1877 and 

1920. The area was seuled in 1906 when a salmon saltery 

was built there. A cannery operated from 1915 to 1917, but 

lherc has been no local plant since. For many years Nelson 

Lagoon was a seasonal camp. however families began 10 

setlle and a school was established in 1965. 

The economy is based on commercial fishing. Nelson 

Lagoon has a 3,300 foot airfield. Local boats arc stored 

onshore in !he community. Subsistence hunting and fishing 

for caribou, fox, wolverine, geese and seal helps compens at e 

for the seasonal nature of the work. 

Several hundred lhousand migratory waterfowl and shorebirds 

stop in the Nelson Lagoon :ire~ in the spring, and 1hcir 

numbers swell to over a thous and in lhc fall. 

58 

Nelso n Lagoon has phones and mail service. The re is a 

community utility system and a modem school. Freight 

arrives by ship once a year or by barge via Port Moller or 

False Pass. 

Sand Point 

Located on Humboldt Harbor on the north coast of Popof 

Island, Sand Poirt1 l5 570 air miles fTOm Anchorage. 

Foooded in lhe 1870's as a cod fishing station. Sand Point has 

consistently played a major role in the commercial fishing 

industry as both a repair and supply center. Currendy the 

home of the largest fishing fleet in the Aleutian chain, this 

community o f 1,000 has an annual growth rate of over seven 

percent. The state provides a number of subregional services 

for I.he community including: public safety, fish and game and 

a court system. 

Sand Point's 25-acre boat harbor was built in the mid-1970's, 

h features 140-plus slips and a 150-ton marine travel lift. A 

700-fool steel sheet pile dock. provides additional moorage 

adjacenl to Ulree acres of uplands available for development. 

Trident Seafoods has a major bottomfish and ulmon plant in 

the community which also provides fuel and other services. 

Peter Pan Seafoods has a new dock and storage and transfer 

facili1ies near the airport. 

The community has several churches and one school with 

grades kindergar1en lhrough twelve. There are community 

water. sewer and electricity systems. Freight arrives by air 

cargo, ship and barge. The airporl has direct service to 

A~chorage. · 
59 

Ms. ENGLISH. Also, I think the subcommittee has received several letters of opposition to the bill from the Bristol Bay Borough 

and the Lake and Peninsula Borough and perhaps some other local 

governments in area, and all these comments will be entered into 

the record today. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-These letters may be found in the appendix.] 

Ms. ENGLISH. If there are no other questions, then the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[The subcommittee adjourned at 10:26 o'clock a.m., subject to the 

call of the Chair.] 

APPENDIX 

OCTOBER 28, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

, ,_; _· : ,,-' ; -v ol, ...\\ - i ..JJ.. \J.~. l , _·L i. l..l 

l\ATIVE CORPORA1-IOt< 800 CORDOVA ! PO. SOX 100220 I ANCHOR AGE. ALASKA 9951G I ,907 , 278 -3602 

TELECOPY i9D7i 276-3924 

October 26, 1993 

Honorable George Miller 

Chair, Committee on Natural Resources 

US. House of Representatives 

Washington , DC, 

Dear Representative Miller: 

These comments about HR 1688 are submitted for your consideration and for the record 

of the public hearing. Bristol Bay Native Corporation does not support this legislation. 

BBNC participated in the Wilderness Review process for Becharof, Alaska Peninsula, 

and Aniakchak conservation system units. The 2.7 million acres proposed in HR 1688 

, ' far exceeds the 1,3 million acres recommended by the National Park Service and the 

· US Fish and Wildlife following exhaustive public dialogue and meetings throughout the 

region. To designate 2, 7 million acres based on the recommendations of a since 

departed refuge manager and a planning team of agency bureaucrats mocks the public 

process. 

Congress has previously designated extensive Wilderness areas in the Bristol Bay 

region . The Izembek Refuge contains 300,000 acres of Wilderness. Becharof Refuge 

already contains 400,000 acres of Wilderness. Togiak Refuge contains 2,270,000 acres 

of Wilderness. Existing refuge Wilderness totals nearly 3 million acres. Park totals are 

similarly impressive. Katmai contains 3,426,000 acres of Wilderness and Lake Clark 

adds 2,618,000 acres for a total of more than 6 million acres. These facts are lost in 

the confusing collection of maps which accompany HR 1688, The deliberation process 

should include the entire region so that the HR 1688 proposals can be seen in 

conjunction with existing Wilderness, BBNC prepared such a map and furnishes it for 

the record. It portrays as accurately as possible the 11 . 7 million acres of existing and 

proposed Wilderness in the region. 

We appreciate and support the efforts of Koniag to trade its mineral rights for more 

valuable properties located elsewhere. Oil and gas rights in frontier areas like the 

Alaska Peninsula are highly speculative and Koniag's decision to seek properties that 

will benefit current shareholders could be right for them. However HR 1688 fails to 

recognize the entire inholding acquisition list developed by the Interior agencies for the 

(61) 
62 

Alas ka Peninsula. Any legislation that proposes such fundamental changes to the land 

management regime should provide comprehensively for the acquisition of the 

inholdings sought by agency planners. Amend HR 1688 to allow other inholders 

whose properties are sought by Interior agencies access to the process crafted for 

Koniag. 

BBNC believes that Wilderness designations will negatively impact resource 

development activities of those companies and communities currently residing on the 

Peninsula. The provision of a cross peninsula corridor into Wide Bay for instance is 

negated by the designation of a portion of the Bay's uplands as Wilderness. This 

boundary should be moved south. A similar stumbling block is proposed for Kujulik 

Bay. The potentially best deep water port site on the mid peninsula, Aniakchak Bay, 

will be all designated Wilderness. Federal agencies, BLM, MMS, and the Federal 

State Land Use Planning Commission spent many years and completed numerous 

studies to determine the best port and corridor designations for the Peninsula. HR 1688 

should be amended to insure that these natural resources are not locked in Wilderness 

designations. 

The legislation pays little heed to BLM's study of the Peninsula's oil and gas potential. 

Although portions of the Peninsula are not valuable for these resources Wilderness 

designations overlay areas that BLM rated as highly prospective in its study. 

Testimony suggests that 30 wells in 90 years without a commercial discovery means 

that there is no potential but it is a vast area which has hardly been explored. Recent 

discoveries in Cook Inlet, an area with similar geology, came after many had given up 

in the province. BLM prepared their reports as part of the CCP process and developed 

impressive maps which when overlaid with the wilderness proposals show numerous 

conflicts. Designating these areas for Wilderness management sells the economic 

potential of the region short. 

Perhaps the future is tourism and you are putting us in the drivers seat by designating 

so much Wilderness in the region. If that is the case we want better access to the 

business opportunities that come with the Refuge and Park management regime. 

Instead HR 1688 grandfathers particular uses by one group of users at the expense of 

the local economy. ANILCA preferences for concessions are ignored by Interior 

agencies and the regional economy suffers as dollars and jobs leave the region. HR 

I 688 should be amended to insure that the communities on the Peninsula will be the 

focus of economic strategies associated with Park and Refuge management. 

Although there are more brown bears than people on the Peninsula both the bears and 

the people depend on the salmon fishery for their survival. HR 1688 should be 

amended to insure that fishery enhancement activities may take place in the wilderness 

designations. The preserve and protect strategy of the federal agencies makes it 

difficult to do fishery enhancement projects as it is and without specific direction in the 

legislation the Wilderness designation could make it impossible. These projects are 
63 

often necessary to protect salmon runs and improve their productivity. Both the bears 

and the fishermen support this amendment. 

These concerns and opposition to the legislation by the villages , local government, and 

regional governments on the Peninsula lead us to the conclusion that HR 1688 is not 

in the best interest of the region, state or nation. The amendments that we have 

described would improve the bill but fundamentally you are buying land rights that are 

not sought by the managing agency and designating wilderness without support of the 

public process designed by Congress for that purpose. For these reasons the legislation 

should be dramatically amended or rejected. 

BBNC appreciates this opportunity to comment on legislation which has such a direct 

impact on its interests. We are sorry that Alaska hearings were not held. 

Sincerely, 

~~-~ 

President & Chief Executive Officer 

Attachments 

Board Resolution 

Village Resolution 

APC correspondence 
64 

RESOLVTION 92 - ;l 7 

WHEREAS, H.R. 1219, the Alaska Peninsula Wilderness Designation, October 

of 1992 has passed the U.S . House of Representatives and is now under consideration 

in the U.S. Senate; 

WHEREAS, H.R. 1219 authorizes Koniag, Inc. to sell to the United States 

275,000 acres of its subsurface estate located on the Alaska Peninsula; 

WHEREAS, H.R. 1219 also establishes 2.8 million acres of wilderness on the 

Alaska Peninsula, although in the federal planning process in I 985-87, there were 

recommendations for only 1.3 million acres; 

WHEREAS, several Native villages on the Alaska Peninsula have earlier 

expressed their opposition to wilderness status on the Alaska Peninsula, but have not 

been able to express their views on this new wilderness designation because Congress 

has not held hearings in Alaska on H.R. 1219; 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bristol Bay Native 

Corporation (BBNC) supports the sale provisions of the Koniag subsurface estate to the 

United States, but only if the revenues from that sale are subject to the provisions of 

the Section 7(i) Settlement Agreement; 

FURTHER RESOLVED that BBNC opposes the wilderness provisions of H.R. 

1219 because they are not in the best interests of Alaska, the BBNC, and the Native 

villages located on the Alaska Peninsula. 

ADOPTED this ,J,f'\iay of August, 1992 at Anchorage, Alaska. 

Secretary 
65 

RESOLUTIO>i 93 - o I 

WHEREAS, legislation similar to H.R. 121 9, the Alaska Peninsula Wilderness 

Designation, October of 1992 may be introduced in the new Congress; and 

WHEREAS, H.R. 1219 would authorize Koniag, Inc. to sell to the United States 

275 ,000 acres of its subsurface estate located on the Alaska Peninsula; and 

WHEREAS, H.R. 1219 would designate 2.8 million acres of wilderness on the 

Alaska Peninsula, although in the federal planning process in 1985-87,, there were 

recommendations for only 1.3 million acres; and 

WHEREAS, several Native villages on the Alaska Peninsula have earlier expressed 

their opposition to wilderness status on the Alaska Peninsula, but have not been able to 

express their views on this new wilderness designation because Congress did not hold 

hearings in Alaska on H.R. 1219; 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned officers and 

directors of Bristol Bay villages support the sale provisions of the Koniag subsurface 

estate to the United States as long as the revenues from that sale are subject to the 

provisions of the Section 7(i) Settlement Agreement; and 

FURTHER RESOLVED that the undersigned officers and directors of Bristol Bay 

villages oppose the wilderness provisions ofH.R. 1219 because they are not in the best 

interests of Alaska, the Native villages located on the Alaska Peninsula, and the Bristol 

Bay Native Corporation and request that any congressional consideration of new 

wilderness designations on the peninsula include hearings in Alaska and the Bristol Bay 

region. 

_ _s:,_·_-_A._._&li._0..e'-=f"-1 __ A_P_(_----'ri~, ~ ,., l.c ...._ 
66 

f)4 . f'&?... £/cwolc 11-(c.. I 

::3 3AL~. 

·:p~o&.j e.wp 

~ ~ 

a~~ 4 =P . 
v<loL;;~ 

~ < . . ~· I =-v, 

1/47 0~ 

€~~ 

· //4, <«lu: /4'ur1~ o · / 

~~,. 

67 

~~~­

~d,y ,sb ";id++~ 

.,~ /, U, ;L:/Lt'~ Avl'vdl/c/4_g ,14. 

1

d0z~~ L SL;~ £ti 

;lf,+1± l5C~,, 

,La,y,1/- Unc/4ud 

4«trl&OI, ~ 

'111 QJf1⁄2 [L___J, 462 :; 

a .. ~1& . .._ -

I) 

~cL±d 

d£id+ ~-

Sb-~,,J,j/f M 

7 
68 

~WA,~1 

~\[\~~i>,. \t9:>,~M'\~,~ 

/wv~ 

I) 

u)&,\J\o,~ 

111 J iμluh. 

-;7L. -L/4 .a:;,, <L-

-; ~JJ 

4L, ~­

~ JD_ g' 

ckt:4 ~dw;j::..,kfJ 

frtw s±:1);}7Jak/ 

6.uk~ !?72 -~ 

E/u:Zl,,,.,:t ~l,v, t,.,,,,, 

7}f~~?q~~8 

(IJ,fl/9 

~..pr)> rfk~ :/bi 1/ab.tk 

~ 

e, Li 
69 

_QAlt'I\ ;±110-J--

2;&{ YU~ 

_,L(-~ 

~1J/7 

f~S~ 

?lf;uzeitdi/ 

Vcl,.__3(\_ 111. Pod\JQ) 

hLc~ zLVIAiuZA<A'-, 

(J ! 

oc.9"'va/c 111/C.. 

&;s-'---:;j,£~. 

:6£;{/c_ 

Q~.o"Y' 

IN L ~~JJ;t::_&-

l(Y1 k I~ 
70 

,L-~i« 

'1'.YldL CL ;:::bl~-

• ·l~ j (/ ,-~~Ll-~ -· ~ ...,•._.., . 

NJ.wt. aL~~ -Vt!c y J 

--rw~" H ~ \\s 4/c 

Le-1£.(od(__ tJaA,1v e; txc( 

l ~R:::,f_k__NC{/\_~ Ly; 

~ 1 nA~c# 

~~LJJ • 

14qc ~4 

£,J.·/U~ 

C/'1 nJ L~~ licJ;»t ~ 

~~~~-&;;~~~f 
71 

ALASKA PENINSL"LA CORPORATION 

800 Cordova St., Suite 103 

September 29 , 1992 

Honorable Ted Stevens 

United States Senate 

P.O. Box 104360 

Anchorage, Alaska 99510 

Telephone (907) 274-2433 

Telecopier/ Facsimile (907) 274-8694 

522 Hart Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510-0201 

FAX 202-224-1044 

Dear Senator Stevens: 

The Alaska Peninsula Corporation is the village corporation 

for South Naknek, Ugashik and Port Heiden. The Alaska Peninsula 

Corporation owns 230,480 acres of surface land on the Alaska 

Peninsula as their share of the settlement of the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act. 

The Alaska Peninsula Corporation is opposed to H.R.1219. 

APC cannot support the congressional designation of 2.8 million 

acres of wilderness in the peninsula's park and refuge units 

because it would adversely impact the economic viability of the 

corporation. 

APC's only asset, other than money in its stock portfolio, 

is land that is on the Alaska Peninsula. 

H.R.1219 would discourage mineral industry exploration and 

investment on the peninsula. It would frustrate fishery 

enhancement programs. Without a commercial fishery, the 

shareholders of APC would lose their only souice of income 

today. 

H.R.1219 would decrease state land development 

opportunities on the peninsula. This would deny APC an 

opportunity to participate in future development of its lands. 

And finally, it would block access to the all weather ports in 

the Pacific, further isolating the land holdings of APC. 

APC has participated in past hearings on classifications of 

land on the Peninsula. We have opposed previous attempts to 

lock away our land. We feel that H.R.1219 is an even more 

sinister attempt to lock away our holdings. 

Thank you for your considerations and we urge that you heed 

our pleading and reject H.R.1219. 

1c.a_t~ a\-\C~n -X,\. 11.,,. .£t+ 

Ralph Angasan ftr., President 0 

ALASKA PENINSULA CORPORATION 

cc. BBNC 

Koniag 

Alaska Federati on of Natives 
OcllobwU, 1993 

72 

Lalle and hft''"""' .Bof'ot4Sb 

P.0.8oz495 

King salmon, Alas.ia 99613 

T,~· (907) 246-3421 

Fax. (907) 246-6602 

The HollOl'lbw I>oA YOIIIII 

Uallld SIIIII HOliN ol~ 

Wuliitp,a. D.C. 20510 

U: Alulia,.._. Wiw..-Llpladla 

Dw~v1Y1111111: 

We •ppnaata)'\\1111' bllplllooadllulaato Oppot• dle Alllb Jleiinlula Wilder-. 

llpllllo11. We Ulldtrlllnd 11111 IMt JWI dirt IO dallpu ll8ll1y 3 millloD IQreS of the 

Alukal'llliullau...tldar-• llbackllaiDuJU. 16". 111aLalctllldPtnlaalla 

BofOlllh we on record lut 'f'lllU ftZ'Olll!YoppolillttM....._.~otH.J.. 

1219. 1'!11Boroup'lpolilioereialDllllflOliqe4. W1ftl'Olllly11111yo11111aotoaly 

oppoM lllil llplado11, but to do fY«ydlllrt po.a. to• lbat It doel DOt 'blaOD l&w. 

w, ~ lllked wllh oiw loell ~ llld llllM llllitla Ill the rflioa, 11111 u a.lrly 

u wt WI dltcmult. 1bi1 bW ii oppollll by Yinlllll)' 111 .... locill 1111d JIIMI• lntaelll on ti!. Peawula. Tbaak Y011 tor '/fNZ ellbrt1 to _diet 11111 ~ ii 11-,.d. 
73 

lo&U &ID tllmllai.A ICIIOHI 

IIIOLll'f%Cllr IO, 11•0' 

A IUOLft%CIII o, DI LUI AD JDUIIILA aoaova UlmLY 

IIM:tJIC 1'U IJ, I. &DUI 'l'O onoll TU 'llLDDDII lllCV%1%01111 

ID' •••• 1111, 

IIJID.U, 

-...... 

t:A• Lale• and Panin•ula lorouih u•euly deair•• to 

pro•ot• •oonoaio davelo,-.nt in tho ro,ion1 and 

tho proviaion• 01' •·•· 1211 would do•i~•t• an additional 3,1 aillion aoru of tha Alaalca 

P•ninaula •• vildarn•••• t!lually twtl:l•r 

d:Laini•hinv opportuniti-• tor tl•buy anllancuont 

ao1:ivitio• ~ tranapoir\:ation optiona to oi-oo• th• 

AlaaJca Po11in•111a to com1.ot ari•tol a• y vi1:n 

pot•nti• l daop vatar porta on th• taoi!io •id• of 

th• P•nin•ul•1 and • 

tho federal plMniaf pr-• CIOl\41i':ted duri.119 the 

period uu-1111 rwultod. 1A federal •!ency rec~tiona for tlle oraation of on y 1,J 

million additional aar .. of vildun-• 1 on the 

Ala• Jca Poninau1&1 Ud 

prior to d••i9Mtion of any additional acrui• to 

wild6nla• 1 lt• tll•, ooaprehan• iva pl&Mini lhOUld 

"OOlllplatad to ida!IUfY vhioh landl should 1:1• 

held out tor uaupor1:ation ooniCor• aoro11 th• 

U•al!.• )eninaula Incl far fiabuy anhanca• nt 

activiti .. ; and 

n~ da,anination on 1,a. 1211 aliould be aad• 1111til ti!• Cot\fi' .. • holCI bNrinq• in tbo Z'9iion Ind 

throuib.Ollt th• lute of Uaua. 

JIOIJ, nnnciaa,·H H' IUOl,VD that t.11.e t.alce and Penin111la 

Boro119h ~,,•-mlilly ~oin• the -•ny otbar pulio and ~ivete 

antit.l.e::. in tho N9ion in v,1119 th• U,I, hl\ata to OPPoH 

th• ~11~•rn••• provi•iona of 1.a. 1211 beca11• a they ar• not 

in th• :>est interHts ot tile L•Jc• •nC , • ninaula aoro119h or t~• •~•<• of Ala•Jca. 
74 

October 28, 1993 

The Honorable Georg• M//1,r 

United States Hauss of Representatives 

2205 Rayburn House Offictt Building 

Washington, DC 205 f 5-0607 

Dear Representative MIiier: 

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on House Resolution 1688, the 

Alaska Peninsula WIiderness Act. 

The Stare of Alaska does nor take Issue with Konlag's des/rs ro e><change a portion 

of its sub:surfsce lnholdlngs In Aleska':s parks and refuges for lands 6I:sewhere or 

other compensation. However, we er• strongly opposed to legislation that would 

designate large areas on the Ataske Panln:sula as wllderness. 

Federal lands In Alaska total over 217 ml/I/on scrss, of which more than 68 million 

are already designated wllderness. Additionally, almost 60 percent of the federal 

land holdings In Alaska are contained in parks and refuges. Alaska lands have 

contributed the most acrt1age of any of the stares to the Nations/ Park system, the 

National Wildlife Rt1fuge systsm and tht1 wlldarness-managed lends of the nation. 

The actions pro/;Josed by this legislation for converting more federal land 

designations Into wllderness ere unwarrantad. 

As Governor of ths State of Alaska, my resp·onsibi/ities include both thtt 

stewardship of our natural r•sources and the well-being of our citizens. Massive 

wilderness withdrawals undBtmine thB ability of Alaska citizens to use, not abuse, 

the land In the msnner It has been 1.1sed for 91neratlons. 

Wa have not lgnof8d the natural environment with which we are blessed in Alaska. 

In fact, the State of Al11sks has more arBa prorected by stats dsstgnstlons than any 

oth•r state In the union. Our t1nvironmental protection laws are the equal of any 

other state. 

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act IANILCAJ recognized, 

speciflcally, that enough of Alaska hes been designated as wilderness. Section 

101/dJ of ANILCA states: 
The Honorable George Miller 

Ocrober 28, 1993 

Psge 2 

75 

This Act provides sufficient protect/on for tha national Interest In rhe 

scenic, natural, cu/rural and environments/ valuas on the public lands 

In Alaska, and st the sams time provides adequate opportunity for 

satisfaction of the sconomtc ·1nd social needs of the State of Ateska 

and Its people.:.and thus Congress belleves rhat rhe need for future 

legislation designating new conservation system units, new national 

conservation areas, or new n1tlonsl recreation areas, has bssn 

obviated thereby. 

Additions/ wllderness withdrawals wlll haw, a significant and negative impact on 

the citizens of Alaska. They undermine the balance attempted by ANILCA. 

For thHe reasons, the State of Alaska strongly urg81 the r,moval of the wlldernass 

provisions of this bl/I and that the Konlag provisions be allowed to go forward. 

Thank you for consideling our views. Wa look forward to working with you and 

your staff. 

With best rega-rds. 

Sincerely, 

S/S WALTER J. HICKEL 

cc: Senator Ted Stevens 

Sansror Frank Murkowski 

Congressman Don Young 

bee: Mr. John Katz 

Dr. Paul Rusanowslci 

WJH/WDO/BPM/ec 

Mil/er.ltr 

Walter J. Hickel 

Governor 

0 

0110112 

Alaska Peninsula Wilderness 

Act-Oppose further wilderness 

designation 
ISBN 0-16-043650-8 

90000