Mr. LEGGETT. And Mr. Robinson. OK, who'd like to be first? Do you have any prepared statments? [Mr. Reid was the only individual who had a prepared written statement.] Mr. LEGGETT. OK, your statement will be included in the record, Matt, and you can go ahead and emphasize whatever portions you care to. STATEMENT OF MATT REID Mr. REID. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I'd like to start off with hello. My name is Matt Reid and I have a background of interest in wildlife conservation and I'm here to add some comments for the record. From my standpoint there is much merit in the proposed legislation in H.R. 2082. At the same time, I'm very supportive of another pending legislation and that's H.R. 39. I suggest that the two committees resolving these legislations work closely together on the issue of public lands in Alaska. This blend would cut back needless repetition, orienting many fine political energies into a more coordinated path of decision. The majority of my comments deal with specific portions of southwestern Alaska as is in map 1 of that statement there. In particular, the peninsula region, from Lake Iliamna to the Aniakchak Monument proposal. The creation of a Lake Iliamna National Wildland is an important step in the direction of recognition of significant wildland regions. The fisheries in this area are an important national resource and heritage, deserving as much protection as can be afforded but I'd like to address some more specific problems such as the protection of a herd of freshwater harbor seals within the waters of Lake Iliamna. These seals are the only freshwater population known to the United States. At present, this seals numbers are on the decline and this is perhaps due to some environmental irregularities but I might add that there is presently an unlimited subsistence harvest of these seals granted to the Natives of the region under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972. I suggest the following in view of proposed Fish and Wildlife management of these lands: That because of the uniqueness of this seal and its threatened status, the seals be recognized as a special resource being considered under the Endangered Species Act as one possibility. That all the harvest of this herd be restricted and that a thorough study of his herd be initiated and funded adequately by the managing, agency to determine the parameters of the seals. And, that if necessary a critical zone be implemented, precluding adverse developments within the habitats of importance, seasonal or year around. Thi should include a buffer zone. A map of the known range of the seals is submitted with this testimony. Now in further response to the Iliamna proposal, I would like to recommend a boundary adjustment in the southern portion. I suggest this adjustment in support of the idea of an unhunted aggregate of brown bears. In this case the Park Service's Katmai proposal seems to be the most logical vehicle. Map No. 3, submitted with my testimony, shows the relation of this recommendation to the Ilaimna, to the Iliamna proposal. The Park Service has identified the region as an area of ecological concern and considered it in the proposed Katmai additions as alternatives 1 and 5. The justification for including this region into the Katmai proposal are strong. One, there are significant concentrations of brown bear along the Alagnak River and tributaries during the summer salmon runs and the Battle Lake area contains known denning complexes. The wildlife value within this region is diverse and of critical importance to some species, in particular, the osprey. The scenic quality is outstanding, meeting the Park Service's natural area criteria. The physiography and wildlife of the region is more related to the Katmai area than the Lake Iliamna country. The Alagnak River meets the BOR criteria for wild rivers and the above justifications fit the purposes of the proposed Katmai Park precluding this critical region from even the most heavily regulated form of potetial development. This integral addition compliments the idea of the creation of an important brown bear sanctuary. Map 3 in the statement includes land status of this region. I am also very supportive of an Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge. A large refuge following the Aleutian range from Becharof to the proposed Aniakchak Monument boundary. This is imperative in light of the landowner jigsaw that will occur on Kodiak Island Refuge as a result of the implementation of the Native claims. The brown bear heritage may be lost forever on Kodiak. Federal compensation for the loss of the Island as an important bear range could be in the form of a refuge with similar habitat and densities of bear. The region between Katmai and Aniakchak fits the description. With one adjustment the boundaries proposed for this region in H.R. 39 would be adequate to meet this need. The adjustment is portrayed on map 4 of this statement. It is the same as the Park Service's alternative 7 in the proposed exention of Katmai. This region should also be precluded of any possible developments and added to the proposed park for the following reasons: There is an obsolutely unique complex of dens in the eastern portion of the south arm of Becharof Lake. This complex is on the islands within the lake, a situation unequalled in the world. Harvest and development should be excluded from this vulnerable area. The region has among the heaviest concentrations of brown bear on the Alaska Peninsula. The area's scenic value is outstanding. The base of Mount Peulik, east to the Gulf of Alaska, is a more natural boundary for southeastern Katmai. The region is physiographically a contiguous extension of the southern mountains in the Katmai proposal. These conditions make this area a comfortable and imperative addition to the Katmai Park proposal. This testimony is presented in hope that you will consider these suggestions that I deem of great importance when considering the political land status of this particular region. I am vigorously supportive of the establishment of refuges in this bill and H.R. 39. Again, I wholeheartedly endorse that you work closely with the Seiberling committee while deliberating over this matter of interest to the entire U.S. public. Thank you. Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much Mr. Reid and we will ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to do a study on those fresh water seals that you're talking about and we'll get back to you on that. [The material was not received at time of printing.] Mr. LEGGETT. Let's see, the next person is David Finklestein. STATEMENT OF DAVID FINKLESTEIN Mr. FINKLESTEIN. I have no copies of my statement but I will get them to you. My name is David Finklestein and I'm testifying today because I feel that the most important aspect of the D-2 question is the protection of wildlife habitat throughout Alaska. The boundaries and management provisions that are eventually enacted must be sufficient to protect the importayt wildlife habitat of Alaska. I feel the Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency best able to manage areas where wildlife is the primary value. The Fish and Wildlife Service was legislatively established and mandated to assist and guide the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources and to develop a program to give the public an opportunity to understand and use these resources. The Fish and Wildlife Service has the power to regulate conflicting uses so I feel their jurisdiction should be expanded to include the best wildlife habitat in Alaska. Senate bill 1787 composed by Mr. Hammond, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Young, is an example of proposals which are not adequate to protect the wildlife resources in Alaska. This HaSt Y proposal would leave areas containing some of the best wildlife habitat in the State open to development under the multiple use principle. A good example of this is in the Yukon Flats area that has been much talked about already today. This is probably the largest and most productive waterfowl basin in the Arctic and Yukon Alaska. In response to Senator Orsini's statement earlier today, I personally feel that agriculture does not have important potential in the Yukon Flats region. The environmental and transportation costs in this area make agriculture there a very low priority and a much lower priority when you consider other areas of the State available. Recent work done by the State department of natural resources has shown that these lands fall into a very low percentile of agriculture lands in the State and therefore will not be economic to develop for agriculture in the forseeable future. If and when these lands become economic to develop at least 2 million acres will be in private (Native) hands. These lands should be developed before any Federal lands are. The HaStY proposal would not place a single acre of the Yukon Flats into the wildlife refuge system. H.R. 39 sponsored by Representative Udall would place 12.3 million acres of the region into the refuge system. I was going to talk about the Arctic Wildlife Range and the Alaska Peninsula a little bit but they are both similar situations where I find that wildlife is the primary value. In each of these areas not a single acre would be put into the wildlife refuge system under the HaStY proposal. These are just examples of many areas of Alaska that should be managed with wildlife as the primary value. I support H.R. 39 because it would place these lands in the refuge system prohibiting uses such as mining and permitting hunting in areas where it's appropriate. In addition to refuges, H.R. 39 also places important wildlife habitat under the management of the National Park Service. Many of these areas should also be considered by your subcommittee in that, although H.R. 39 places them under the Park Service, I personally feel that some of these areas could instead be placed in the refuge system. As long as the area is managed primarily for the protection of wildlife habitat, it doesn't matter to me whether it's managed by the National Park Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I personally am in support of the 47 million acres of wildlife refuges as proposed in H.R. 39. Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, David. Let's see, Mr. Robinson. [The following was received for the record:] STATEMENT OF DAVID FINKELSTEIN, ON NEW WILDLIFE REFUGES IN ALASKA I feel the Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency best able to manage areas with wildlife as the primary value. The Fish and Wildlife Service was legislatively established as a dominant-use agency. It is mandated to assist and guide the conservation and management of fish and wildlife resources, and to develop a program to give the public an opportunity to understand and use these resources. The Fish and Wildlife Service has the power to regulate incompatible uses within refuges. I feel the Fish and Wildlife Service-administered refuge system should be expanded to include the best wildlife habitat in Alaska. The Hammond, Stevens and Young bill is an example of the type of proposal which would not adequately protect the wildlife resources of Alaska. Areas containing some of the best wildlife habitat in the state would be left open to development under the multiple-use principle. An example is the Yukon Flats, which is probably the largest and most productive waterfowl basin in Arctic or Yukon Alaska. An average of about 2.1 million ducks and geese use the Yukon Flats annually, including 15,000 loons, 700,000 grebes, 50,000 canvasbacks and 8,000 Canadian geese. Despite the importance of the Yukon Flats, the HaStY (Hammond-StevensYoung) proposal would not place a single acre of the Yukon Flats into the wildlife refuge system. H.R. 39 would place 12.3 million acres of the region into a refuge. Another example is the extension of the Arctic NWR, which provides important big game habitat. Over 1,000 Dall sheep are found in the mountains, and the area provides range for the Porcupine caribou herd, the largest herd in North America. The HaStY proposal would not place any of this area into the refuge system. H.R. 39 would enlarge the Arctic NWR by 8.4 million acres. The Alaska Peninsula provides habitat for many large mammals, including one of the largest brown bear populations in the world. The protection of this brown bear habitat is especially critical because of the reduction of the size of the Kodiak NWR through Native selections. The HaSt Y proposal would not place any of the Peninsula into the refuge system. These are just examples of the many areas in Alaska that should be managed with wildlife as the primary value. I support H.R. 39 because it would place these lands in the refuge system, while prohibiting incompatible uses such as mining. STATEMENT OF E. A. ROBINSON Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is E. Allen Robinson. I was born and raised back where you folks work in the District of Columbia and I guess I first got interested in wildlife living on the fourth floor of a walkup apartment house just behind the National Zoological Park. I guess walking up four flights of stairs helped to give me good leg muscles. After 30 years there, I moved to the Seattle area, and from there worked up here beginning in 1950, and then I moved up here 3 years ago. Mr. LEGGETT. For whom do you work? Mr. ROBINSON. I'm an economist by training and I work for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I have just come out from 4 days in the wilderness, so I apologize for not being here early enough to hear the other speakers. During the time I've been in Alaska I have taken vacation trips, quite a few of these in wilderness areas, not by any means all of them, but such places as the Copper River Delta, the Resurrection Pass Trail down the Kenai, and St. Paul Island in the Pribilofs. I find that there's economic support for this type of thing. I think probably the greatest advantage that a refuge system will have in the future, as well as from development in the past few years, is that as the income of people in this State and in the lower 48 States increases, more and more people are getting out, not only throughout our country, but elsewhere in the world, as well as in Alaska. Some of the people haven't had a chance to see some of these marvelous areas, and I think that unless these are preserved, not only for the wildlife themselves, they will not have this opportunity again and I just hope that you can do something about this. That's basically my statement. I would like to file a written statement if that's OK with you. Mr. LEGGETT. We'd be happy to have that Mr. Robinson. Thank you. OK, do any of my colleagues have any questions? Mr. PATTERSON. I have no questions Mr. Chairman. Mr. AKAKA. No questions. Mr. FORSYTHE. No. Mr. LEGGETT. OK, thank you very much. Mr. LEGGETT. OK, now we're down to panel No. 5 on page 2, Mr. Stratman, Mr. Castle, Mr. Bigelow, Mr. Degenhart and Mr. Gallagher. Are any of these folks here? [No response.] Ok, scratch panel No. 5. Panel No. 6, Mr. Jenson, Mr. Anderson, Miss Anderson, Miss Hemmons, Mr. Benesch, and Mr. Lohr. [No response.j OK, scratch panel No. 6. Panel No. 7, Harry Nelson, Beau Bassett, Ben Shane, David Levine, Brian Tlougan, Susan Georgette, and Vira Englebach. Let's see, we've got seven names and five people, so we've got two absentees. Mr. FORSYTHE. Why don't you have them identify themselves? Mr. LEGGETT. Good. It's been suggested that you identify yourselves from either right to left or left to right, do you want to start down on the end here? Mr. LEVINE. David Levine. Ms. ENGELBACH. Vira Engelbach. Ms. GEORGETTE. Susan Georgette. Mr. TLOUGAN. Brian Tlougan. Mr. LEGGETT. OK, and Ben Shane and Harry Nelson are not here, right? OK, good. David do you want to go first? Mr. LEVINE. I just wanted to get up on the panel to make sure I could file a written statement, I just recently got back from the Noatak River and I haven't had a chance to prepare a detailed |