Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Clusen, following up on some of those questions, we have a situation in many of these refuge areas where we have substantial Native claims under ANSCA within the proposed refuge

areas.

Can you see on the map back there the black dots representing Native selections? They are really very substantially within the refuge areas under any of the proposals. The question is, how can you designate wilderness or wilderness overlay over those refuge areas given the fact that you have these substantial private inholdings and also given the fact that the philosophy of the Native Claims Settlement Act was that these individual Native selections would have some economic viability?

Mr. CLUSEN. Well, first of all, the major form of transportation in the State of Alaska today is with the airplane, the float plane in the bush. The Wilderness Act allows the continued use and landing of aircraft where they have in the past. I think the pattern of use is sufficiently substantial today up there that there would be few, if any, areas where there was not such a pattern already set. That can continue.

In the face of the national forest system in some of the wilderness areas, there are substantial amounts of private land. The Wilderness Act guarantees existing rights and that includes property rights.

Further, in the case of the national forest, their ingress and egress is guaranteed. I don't think we have any desire to prevent people from using their lands. The only thing that we possibly would be concerned about is the building of certain roads where it would be very destructive.

I think in the overwhelming majority of areas the Natives will probably be with us in the concern of protecting the habitat and environment because today many, many villages are completely dependent on the wildlife for subsistence purposes. The last thing they want to see is development which harms those values or brings in large numbers of additional people to create some sort of destruction. So I don't think we are really very far apart from them. I guess we are very anxious to hear where there are specific patterns that don't fit this pattern. If there are, we are certainly willing to sit down and talk with them or the committee here or whoever is concerned.

Mr. THORNTON. Isn't there a philosophical contradiction here? On the one hand you asserted that wilderness designation is in fact the best wildlife management possible, given that it is the most natural wildlife management.

On the other hand, you have substantial subsistence hunting within these various areas which is going to upset the natural balance there. Doesn't that level of subsistence hunting create the need for a more active management system than would be possible under a wilderness designation?

Mr. CLUSEN. Subsistence hunting and fishing and gathering has gone on for thousands of years in Alaska so that in a concept is not a problem. It is very much associated with the natural environment. The question becomes if there is a diminution of wildlife because of too many animals being taken of a certain population. In those cases we submit that there has to be a control of the Federal manager to curtail or diminish the take.

Now all we have really said is that we feel that a subsistence user should have a priority over the sports hunter because their livelihood is directly dependent upon it whereas the sports hunter's is not. But there are certainly cases where some restrictions may be necessary. Mr. THORNTON. Has the Sierra Club done an analysis of how many individuals would qualify as subsistence users under the terms of H.R. 39?

Mr. CLUSEN. No, we have not.

Mr. THORNTON. You don't have any ball park estimate as to what those numbers would look like?

Mr. CLUSEN. Well, I think that just from my impression, having visited parts of Alaska, that a very large percentage of people living in villages are dependent on wildlife for food, shelter, et cetera.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The subcommittee will stand in recess for the next 7 or 8 minutes, as long as it takes me to vote and return.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. OBERSTAR. The subcommittee will resume.

Mr. THORNTON. You indicated on page 9 of your statement that the reason various areas should be designated as wilderness immediately without going through the usual review period is that Alaska is facing rapid development. Would you then be in favor of a plan which would prevent any development on any of these areas pending a wilderness review?

Mr. CLUSEN. I think that would certainly be desirable if the instant designation was not enacted. I guess I really can't see why we can't go ahead now and designate a lot of this acreage. There is actually substantial amounts of information. The Interior Department studies on the D-2 areas have been exhaustively thorough. The University of Alaska and other institutions have volumes and volumes of information It is up to where we, with no specific conflict or something, I would hope we would just go ahead and do it so we don't have to come back. Mr. THORNTON. Is your answer that you would prefer an immediate designation, but that would be an acceptable alternative?

Mr. CLUSEN. I guess our support of instant designations is a little stronger than that. That is what we want. That is what we support. We don't see any reason why we can't do that. If for some reason in the wisdom of the committee that is not done, we would hope that there is some protection.

Mr. THORNTON. I have no further questions.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Counsel Gutting?

Mr. GUTTING. You have emphasized the importance of protecting whole ecosystems. By that are we to understand that if we could not set aside a whole ecosystem for refuge, that it would be inappropriate to set aside a refuge?

Mr. CLUSEN. No; what we are recommending is that in the establishment of refuges in Alaska, that we do it right and properly to start with. We have many cases of refuges in parks in the Lower 48 where the original designation was too modest and we had to go back later to attempt to solve some very thorny management problems.

One of the great examples pending before the Congress right now is Redwood National Park which had really an awful compromise when the area was first established in 1968. Since that time the logging companies have been logging right up to the boundary threatening the talle t trees in the world.

In this case we should have designated a greater area to include the whole watershed in 1968. It is for this kind of reason that we recommend we do it now. If you don't have full watershed protection, that is not to say we should throw the resource away. We are interested in protecting as much of the areas that have been identified as we can. Mr. GUTTING. In some of your testimony it was pointed out that with respect to a number of the wildlife refuge proposals there appears to be a substantial amount of native lands either in the refuge or adjoining to the refuge and that this might present certain difficulties in management of species that would migrate back or forth or were dependent on the ecosystem encompassed on the native areas and the refuge areas.

Does the Sierra Club have a position that some special provision should be made for the management of the wildlife that is on the both private areas and refuge areas?

Mr. CLUSEN. Well, we support cooperative management in the form that the Fish and Wildlife Service has it today in some refuges in Alaska which is to enter an agreement with the private landowner or the State on specific lands identified to be critical with the wildlife resources for which that refuge is established.

I guess we do not see any particular reason why we have to set up a big, huge institution such as a commission to govern that everywhere in the State. We believe we can do this on a case-by-case basis, depending upon what the need and the circumstances are.

Mr. GUTTING. Do you feel that it is necessary, for example, that the Fish and Wildlife Service have authority to make management decisions and undertake activities outside the boundaries of the refuge, say, on Native lands? Would that be the kind of activity that would be encompassed in the kind of cooperative agreements that you are talking about?

What I am thinking about, for example, would be some kind of habitat enhancement program or some kind of banding or research activity on the Native lands adjacent to the refuge areas.

Do you feel that this is the kind of activity that is proper under these?

Mr. CLUSEN. I think those kinds of needs will exist. We hope that there is a way of providing for them.

Mr. GUTTING. You have testified in support of H.R. 39. Do you have a view on how many professional wildlife managers would be needed for the refuges proposed in this bill?

Mr. CLUSEN. I cannot answer that. I know of the concern of the committee. I recall years ago we went through the game range bill and that was one of the issues in that. I guess I would have to say that the Fish and Wildlife Service today desperately needs additional manpower, professional staff. They are apparently going to get some additions. I think that they are certainly going to need more for these new refuges in Alaska.

On the other hand, I think this is referred to Alaska, a matter that can be phased into over some period of time. The need to have managers on the land in many areas of Alaska is not as great there as it is in our lower refuges in the Lower 48, but recognizing that through time the job of the manager certainly is going to increase and we will have to have additional manpower up there.

But I think for a while we can kind of go slow, but I hope there will be resulting increases in manpower made by the Congress.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you think there ought to be a minerals assessment made of the lands under consideration before any designation is made?

Mr. CLUSEN. The Interior Department has already been doing that. They have testified that they have come in with such assessments probably before you mark up a bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you think there ought to be a provision in the legislation to allow minerals assessment after the enactment of legislation?

Mr. CLUSEN. No; I think the decision you really have before you is to weigh between the various values and decide which is most important in the national interest. If you come down on the side of Fish and Wildlife, we hope there is not some door with a crack open to endanger that area.

Mr. OBERSTAR. What about those who argue that we don't really know, that it may take 10 or 20 years to accurately assess the minerals valuation of these lands and that we really can't make a choice between one or another of values, development, or protection.

Mr. CLUSEN. This is what we always hear from the mineral industry before they have a specific find. They always want to leave everything open to explore and prospect more. I think, again, that Congress has to decide the issue. We cannot have these important habitats continually disrupted in the future.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you have any preliminary assessment as to whether these lands would tend to have mineralization of hard rock minerals or of fuel minerals?

Mr. CLUSEN. Well, as I said in my statement, much of Alaska is mineralized but there are many questions as to the economics of production and transportation and so forth. I think these are factors that the committee would really have to take into consideration.

Simply because maybe something is there should not defeat this whole measure. It may be entirely uneconomic to capture and take it to market. In the McCarthy area, within the Rainbow area that we have recommended for a national park, there was a large copper mine there for many years. It went out of business quite a few years ago. The company has disposed of the land. Even though there is still more copper there, it is so deep that it is entirely uneconomic to capture it, and they don't see it is going to be economic at all in the foreseeable future to capture it.

I think that kind of analysis has to be done to any information that the Federal agencies or the mineral industries bring into you.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Sierra Club would be opposed to a designation of "wilderness" or "refuge" or other status for these lands with a provision allowing prospecting and assessment of mineral potential of these lands at some later date?

Mr. CLUSEN. Well, yes, we would oppose that. We don't think that is necessary.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would there by any difference in your judgment as to whether these various lands-and there are so many of them, such an enormous quantity, that it is hard to be specific-should be designated as "wilderness" or "national wildlife refuge"?

Does the level of protection differ in your judgment?

Mr. CLUSEN. Yes; it does. I think when it is a choice between national forests, wilderness, and Fish and Wildlife Service refuge with a wilderness overlay, we would opt with the Fish and Wildlife Service simply because in Alaska the track record of the U.S. Forest Service is so miserable in eliminating trust that the conservation community has in them. If the wilderness does not have the overlay, then the Forest Service would probably be better.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. We appreciate your participation this morning and this afternoon.

Our next witness is Lou Clapper, a representative of the Wildlife Federation.

You have been very patient in waiting this long. We will have a little reprieve. We are going to recess on the House floor and will not be interrupting you with votes. Your statement will appear in full in the record.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION DIVISION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. CLAPPER. I will try to hit the highlights. I do want to say that we are pleased that your subcommittee is scheduling these hearings and probably will go to Alaska this summer sometime, at least that is what we understand. It was my privilege to visit there for 3 weeks last summer. I know you will find your visit very interesting and informative.

[Mr. Clapper's statement and attachment follow:]

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, Conservation Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which has its headquarters here in Washington, D.C., at 1412 16th St., N.W.

The Federation is composed of Affiliates in all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These Affiliates, in turn, are made up of local clubs and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 3.5 million persons. Ours is a non-governmental organization which seeks to achieve conservation goals through educational means, principally via publications with which I hope the members of the Subcommittee are familiar.

We are pleased that this Subcommittee has scheduled these hearings. We are even more pleased to learn that the Members may visit Alaska later this year to gain firsthand knowledge about the various proposals for selecting and setting aside federal resource areas under provisions of Section 17d-2 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

The task of the Congress will not be easy. When it enacted this Act in 1971, the new law reaffirmed the State's right to select some 104 million acres from unreserved Federal lands. More than 44 million acres (and a cash settlement of $1 billion) are to go to Alaskan Natives. At the present time, some 20.7 million acres are in existing national forests, 22.2 million acres in wildlife refuges, and 7 million acres in national parks. Thus, it appears important that the Subcommittee give attention to the overall Alaskan picture as it makes these highly significant decisions on what the disposition will be of the so-called "d-1" lands as well as those to be designated under "d-2" classifications and assignments.

The Committee will hear a variety of views, both verbal and written, and there may be some value in sorting out at least some of the competing interests. First, at least four Federal agencies and the State are vying for jurisdictions in Alaska. While some unquestionably are best suited for parks or refuges or forests, many areas are "up for grabs". Second, industries and those persons who are interested