reduce the effective growing season. Considering how short the growing season is for this area, a whole season could be lost because of one spring flood..

Wildlife and large scale clean farming are not compatible despite the assurnaces of agricultural experts. Many of the real farmers will fill potholes, straighten streams, cut hedgrows and scare wild game from their fields in order to increase production. In our view, large scale farming of the Yukon Flats would clearly be a tradeoff with wildlife resources.

Although the center contends that large scale agricultural development of the Yukon Flats is neither practical or justified, we do recognize that the villages in the region could become more selfsufficient and economically benefit by growing some of their own crops. We support these efforts and programs, such as the Tanana Chiefs, however, we do not believe that designating the Yukon Flats as a national wildlife refuge will inpinge on these programs. If anything, the opprotunity to obtain protein via hunting and fishing will add to the food available to the villages.

OIL AND GAS

Indications are that the Yukon Flats is not of major importance of oil and gas discoveries. If there is ever a place where wildlife protection should take precedence over oil and gas development, the Yukon Flats should be the palce.

METALLIC MINERALS

The Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge states that, high on favorable potential for minerals extends only into northernmost parts of the proposed refuge. Since a potential conflict between protection of wildlife resources and development of mineral resources is minimal, designating the Yukon Flats as a national wildlife refuge should have little, if any, economic impact.

HYDROELECTRIC

The Yukon Flats would be severely impacted by any of four suggested hydroelectric sites. One, the Rampart Dam is now considered dead due to its questionable economic justification and impact on waterfowl. Resurrection of this project would also have to consider the Alyeska popeline which would be beneath the reservoir.

The other three sites, Porcupine, 2,320 million kWh; Woodchopper, 4,200 million kWh and Yukon Taiya, 21,300 million kWh, would face barriers similar to those which defeated the Rampart proposal. Stabilizing streamflow would reduce flooding as well as waterfowl habitat in the Yukon Flats. Also, each site would generate much more power than there is need for. The entire interior in 1976 used only about 450 million kWh. In fact, if all four projects were built, it would amount to 8 percent of the total U.S. hydroelectric generation in 1974. Furthermore, there are no existing or planned needs for such massive amounts of power in proximity to any of these sites. Economic justifications are lacking.

It should be realized that the survey which suggested the potential hydroelectric sites considered only sites where the construction of a

dam was possible. No attention was given to actual needs or environmental impacts.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, we again want to thank you and the subcommittee for providing us this opportunity to testify on the D2 issue. As previously stated, we have given our support to H.R. 39 and H.R. 5605. We trust that your subcommittee will work with Congressman Seiberling's subcommittee in developing legislation for national interest lands.

Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Now, the fact that you talked about the Fortymile caribou herd in the Yukon Flats is significant. In the 1920's there was some 500,000 animals and in 1973 there were around 8,000.

Mr. MATZ. The significant point about the Fortymile area is that transportation corridors have been built across the caribou range. Caribou should be considered to be a species which requires wildland habitat.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Matz, your time has expired but you have been very helpful and I think with your specific analysis of the Yukon Flats will be helpful to the subcommittee in making determinations on that area.

Our next witness is Virgil Severns.

STATEMENT OF VIRGIL SEVERNS, FAIRBANKS AREA RESIDENT

Mr. SEVERNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Virgil Severns, a resident of the Fairbanks area and I want to thank the committee for allowing me to testify.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act allows for up to 80 million acres to be put into four systems. Congress, in my opinion, should hold the line and adhere to this amount, or less, not more.

I favor parks, wild and scenic rivers, wildlife refuges and forest land in reasonable sizes, manageable areas and with accountability. I say don't go huge just because Alaska is big. I hear talk of areas of 116 million, 135 million and see figures of 68 million, 77 million, and 107 million acres of land for single use purposes. The 80 million acre amount allowed by Congress in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 is over 11⁄2 times the area of the State of Kansas, a goodsized State in its own right, a State I left 21 years ago. An area of 125 million acres equals about 21⁄2 Kansas which is 200 by 400 miles by 640 acres per square mile, or 51,200,000 acres.

Philosophy of the Federal and State Governments seems to be government control and ownership of land, a feudalistic form of absentee ownership and control. That's what happened in the 1770's. It was proved wrong then and still is.

I recommend a minimum of land be put in any single use category. That it be placed there only when it can be fully justified and is identified, and it seems to me that identification for all intents and purposes is surveyed land. Meanwhile, 80 million acres can and possibly should be placed in a holding pattern until need, identity and usefulness can be identified.

Nationally, there is no need for more agricultural land today. Present prices of wheat, eggs, and beef as examples, are indicators of this. But my first interest is Alaska. Our consumer prices indicate a real need for local, that is State, agricultural land development. Gen

erally this development would have to come below the 1,000 foot elevation level. The future of our Nation and world may well require utilization of much or all of the 20 million plus acres of potential agricultural land in the State located in the Yukon, Tanana, Kuskokwin, Matanuska-Susitna, Nuskagak, Kobuk, their tributaries and perhaps other rivers. Additionally, there are vast quantities of potential grazing lands in Alaska that should be privately owned and operated for traditional grazing by cattle and sheet and other classes of livestock, plus reindeer and muskox and possibly the moose, if and when they are domesticated. By the way, we're presently 24 years behind the Russians in this endeavor.

Agriculture will require the extraction of many mineral resourcesby the way, as a reference for identification of the agriculture lands in Alaska, there was a special study done about 4 or 5 years ago by the Alaska Rural Development Council, Publication No. 1, P-40 and they identified 15 million acres, and they have since then upped that in excess of 20 million acres.

Agriculture will require the extraction of many mineral resources, both above and below the 1,000 foot level. These resources are at least partially known and identified. They include limestone, phosphate, coal, iron, copper, and many others. Lets not lock them up and throw away the key. Lets make them available as economical feasibility and demand arise by the small businessmen, miners, who have already made some of them available. Allow use and development, multiple use and development, and not tie them up in a nonuse category or situation.

Please don't overlook the fact that game populations can be increased, improved and can coexist with many forms of utilization, including agriculture, mining, forest utilization, recreation, trapping, subsistence living, and perhaps other uses.

Thank you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Severn. What's your business?

Mr. SEVERN. I'm presently employed with the University of Alaska. Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. Any questions?

[No questions by committee members.]

Very good. Merry Tuten?

STATEMENT OF MERRY TUTEN

MS. TUTEN. I'd like to commend the committee for asking very receptive questions this morning, particularly (indiscernible). I am presently employed by the University of Alaska in a cooperative park study agreement. This agreement is through the National Park Service and for the past 2 years these studies have been conducted for the Native corporations of Alaska. I go around to the different villages, live in the villages, looking at resources and lifestyles (indiscernible).

Mr. Leggett, you said this morning that you needed some help, some sort of suggestions on the subsistence activities in the State and I'd like to submit for your files approximately 4 studies on subsistence conducted thus far in Alaska and let you know that we have about 15 other studies in progress right now that will be forwarded to you.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, that will be digested by my counsel and we will anxiously await the additional documents.

Ms. TUTEN. I also, on my own, have put together a study on all (indiscernible). I am speaking only for myself, but during the last year I was very interested in the Alaska Peninsula and the land proposals and there was so much going on (indiscernible). I would like to support any kind of legislation as to the proposals on the Alaska Peninsula. [The remainder of Ms. Tuten's testimony is indiscernible due to her speaking directly into the microgphone and causing an echo.]

Mr. LEGGETT. Very good. It's been suggested that perhaps the Native Claims Act has spent a rather large amount of money on land on which a relatively few number of Native families, in fact, might be living by the aboriginal or Native tendencies

MS. TUTEN. Do you mean

Mr. LEGGETT. I see an awful lot of Native groups now represented by lawyers. I see a lot of very well off Natives. I see a lot of very impressive Native lawyers and I see a lot of tendencies to select land in areas that have great mineral potential. I see Natives very wary about anybody taking their salmon, and it seems to me that while there are folks that haven't got the work, an awfully lot of them have.

All right, thank ou very much. Your testimony has been very helpful to the subcommittee and we will be looking forward to the other documents that you'll be sending on to us.

OK, now we have Mr. Scarborough.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS N. SCARBOROUGH, ON BEHALF OF THE TANANA VALLEY SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas N. Scarborough president of the Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association of Fairbanks, Alaska. Ours is a private organization of 200 local hunters and fishermen and are dedicated to see that our natural resources are managed wisely and for the benefit of all Alaskans.

This written testimony is submitted on behalf of TVSA's members to be considered by your Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, in connection with the pending and future legislation on D2 lands.

The major concerns of TVSA are wildlife management, subsistence and access to and across D2 lands.

We feel that it is very important that management of fish and wildlife shall remain with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. H.R. 1652 contains this provision but H.R. 6564 and H.R. 39 transfer management authority to the Secretary of the Interior. TVSA feel that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is best suited to manage Alaska's fish and wildlife resources, has an established organization and is funded to perform its duties. The Secretary of the Interior would have to set up an organization or expand the limited Alaska office staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Enforcement would also be a problem as it is doubtful if the Alaska State troopers would pay much attention to D2 lands if management responsibility was not with the State of Alaska.

Access to D2 lands will have a very substantial impact on the hunter and fisherman if not provided for in D2 legislation. The wilderness designation of H.R. 39 will in fact stop most legal hunting

because the only practical method of getting to most D2 land is by aid of some mechanical device. We believe the antihunting organizations backing H.R. 39 planned for this result. If access should be denied, we believe many large poaching areas will be created to the benefit of a few dishonest individuals.

Probably the most difficult subject for D2 legislation to deal with is the subsistence issue. All of the pending legislation attempts to deal with subsistence but does not fully comprehend what is really involved with the exception of H.R. 39. H.R. 39 is so written that it is doubtful if anyone can qualify taking into account the welfare status of the Alaska Native. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game did attempt to establish a subsistence hunting season on the western Arctic caribou but found themselves in court. The court ruling was that several sections of the constitution of Alaska were violated. Of the most interest to your committee are article 1, section 1-all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law, and article VIII, section 3-wherever occurring in the natural state, fish, wildlife and waters are reserved to the people for common use. The State and Native organizations have appealed this decision to the Alaska Supreme Court. With the patchwork of land ownership that has evolved in Alaska, it will be very difficult to control any type of subsistence if regulations should vary between landowners or managers. TVSA recommends that subsistence be deleted from all D2 legislation. This may be politically difficult due to pressures from Native organizations, however, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act attempted to make the Native equal citizens with the reaminder of us in these United States. In fact, ANCSA states, all alleged aboriginal titles and claims of aboriginal title in Alaska based on use and occupancy, including any alleged aboriginal hunting and fishing rights that may exist, are hereby extinguished. Putting subsistence back in D2 legislation is an attempt to reinstate subsistence rights. Another way to view this is to consider that the Natives were given 40 million acres of land. Of course, they do not own the fish and wildlife but do control access and therefore can dictate who will be able to utilize these resources. We Alaskans have enough problems with hunting, fishing and access now, please do not complicate things further.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views.

Mr. LEGGETT. All right, thank you. Your testimony will be included in our record. Mr. Burdick?

STATEMENT OF JOHN BURDICK, CIVIL ENGINEER, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I am John Burdick, civil engineer employed by the University of Alaska and I am speaking on behalf of myself and not any organization.

I'd like to state that I do belong to the Alaska Conservation Society. I have just two points and one, I sincerely believe that in accordance with the Statehood Act that fish and game are given to the State and that is the way it should be. There are a few people in Fairbanks and Alaska that will come down, say, to the board of fish and game rather than letting somebody outside do it. I think they've done