such as buffer strips along salmon spawning streams, leaving critical deer winter uncut, and keeping development out of wetlands have only recently been recognized and practiced by the Forest Service in Alaska.

The Forest Service's attitude toward resource management is most reflected by its record of wilderness protection in the Tongass. After more than 70 years as managers of the Tongass, the Forest Service has not proposed 1 acre for primitive area or wilderness status. The areas slowly picked for wilderness study by the Forest Service contain little of the rich lowland forest; they are largely within the inaccessible, glaciated and mountainous regions of the Tongass. The Forest Service is not in sympathy with the concept that the finest fisheries and wildlife habitat is suitable for wilderness consideration.

This poor record of protection cannot be attributed to a lack of public interest in wilderness preservation for the Tongass. Agency, mostly Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and citizen proposals have been consistently presented to the Forest Service over the past 15 years. For some of these proposals it is probably too late. An example is the Sweetwater Lake region on Prince of Wales Island. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game rated its potential for waterfowl, big game and fur production and recreational and sport hunting value as 100 out of 100. Trumpeter swans wintered in the area Ospreys were reported in the area. Sweetwater Lake was one of the few freshwater lakes known to have large numbers of hair seals. The Sweetwater drainages included some of the best bear observation points on Prince of Wales Island during the salmon runs. In 1975, the sweet waters of this, the second largest lake on Prince of Wales Island, were muddied by the logging operations of the Ketchikan Pulp Co. as part of its 50-year timber contract operations. The development occurred despite Alaska Department of Fishland Game proposals for no logging and citizen proposals for wilderness.

As you consider the fate of proposals for new national forests in Alaska, we urge you to keep in mind the record of the Tongass. We believe there should be no new forests.

Our hopes for a more balanced and enlightened use of the Tongass have been brightened by the introduction of Congressman Udall's H.R. 39 and John Seiberling's H.R. 5605. With these bills, the American people have their first opportunity to consider wilderness preservation of some of the finest remaining natural areas in the Tongass National Forest. These two bills are monumental steps in reversing the Forest Service's disregard of the wilderness resources in Alaska's national forests.

One of the proposals in H.R. 39 is for wilderness designation of the Yakutat Forelands, northwest of Glacier Bay, where marshes and estuaries, rich in geese and cranes, harbor the threatened glacier bear and the best moose populations in southeast. Of the areas proposed for wilderness in the Tongass National Forest by H.R. 39, the Yakutat Forelands probably qualifies most for a fish and wildlife refuge designation. We could support fish and wildlife service management of the Forelands under a wilderness designation which would guarantee the continued use of fish camps along the many anadromous rivers in the area.

We are glad you are considering H.R. 5605. This bill is a precedent in Alaska. It formulates the opinions of a Native people who want to see their homeland protected through congressional wilderness designation. We believe that the concepts in H.R. 5605 to help the Angoon people protect their cultural heritage, to provide for a trade of the village corporation's timber in Mitchell Bay for timber elsewhere in the Tongass, and to insure that the Angoon Natives are consulted before hunting and fishing regulations are written, are all reasonable and necessary considerations for an Admiralty Island Wilderness area proposal. Now that the Angoon people have their needs on the record, it is time for the Congress to act.

As you know, Congressman Seiberling and members of his subcommittee were here in southeast only 1 month ago. They were able to spend more than 1 week seeing the areas in H.R. 39 and H.R. 5605, reviewing forest practices in Alaska and listening to Alaskans at numerous hearings and public meetings. As a result of their trip, the subcommittee has available to it a tremendous resource of information on the need for wilderness preservation in southeast and the economic effect of the proposals made for wilderness in the Admiralty Island, Yakutat Forelands, West Chichagof-Yakobi Island, Misty Fjords and Stikine River areas. We are pleased to be able to report to you that soon after his trip to southeast Alaska, Congressman Seiberling held a Forest Service briefing in Washington at which the regional forester for Alaska and the chief reported to him that the H.R. 39 proposals would not likely have a significant negative effect on the current level of employment and income.

We hope that your subcommittee will work with Congressman Seiberling closely as the Congress decides on the best classifications for the wildlife and fisheries areas in southeast Alaska. We are pleased so far with the progress that has occurred in this direction as a result of H.R. 39. We are enthusiastic supporters of this legislation. Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much, Miss Greenough. Ms. GREENOUGH. Thank you very much.

Mr. LEGGETT. OK, next is Paul Peyton, Sitka Sierra Club.

STATEMENT OF PAUL PEYTON, SITKA SIERRA CLUB

Mr. PEYTON. My name is Paul Peyton. I'm representing the Sitka group of the Sierra Club, and do not have any written testimony to present at this time.

I am a lifelong Alaskan who has lived in Fairbanks most of his life, and have spent time in Barrow and the Eastern Brooks Range. I don't think many people in southeastern appreciate what large scale development means to the Alaskan lifestyle. They decry the crowding, pollution, and noise, yet push for gung-ho development.

Fairbanks used to be my home; it is not anymore, and the reason is simple. The pipeline has destroyed the character and beauty of the community, the air pollution is terrible, the gouging, ripoff attitiudes of the people who came up to get rich and of the businessmen who gouged them in return made the place unacceptable as a place to live. I'm glad I wasn't tied there like so many of my friends who couldn't afford to stay or leave.

All this was done in the name of the national need. But what is the national need? We feel that is to learn restraint, to curb excesses, and to conserve. The flagrant waste that we all see everyday leads directly to the destruction of wildlands to produce a lot of useless junk.

A large amount of the testimony presented today is a rehash of the hearings before Mr. Seiberling's subcommittee. I would urge you to consult that record and coordinate any legislation on refuges with his group. We strongly support H.R. 39 and feel that it will develop into legislation that will adequately address the issues raised in these hearings. Further, it is the only legislation that adequately protects America's last great wilderness. H.R. 39 proposes Forest Service wilderness designation for five major areas in southeast Alaska, in addition to expanding Glacier Bay. This should be viewed as the minimum core around which can be built a system that represents the diversity and beauty of the area. Within this framework marine sanctuaries in areas offshore to protect the fisheries, marine mammals, and other parts of the marine ecosystems could be established. This is the only concrete proposal we have to offer, and no specifics have been worked out yet.

In closing I'd like to thank the committee for visiting southeastern Alaska, and to ask them to consider the values of wilderness and fisheries first in their deliberations, and to work with Mr. Seiberling's subcommittee on the markup of H. R. 39.

Mr. LEGGETT. If you don't favor development in Alaska, how do you feel about the Alaska Native Land Claims Act. Did you support that legislation?

Mr. PEYTON. Yes; I supported the bill.

Mr. LEGGETT. But hasn't that legislation led to development of the State by the Native groups?

Mr. PEYTON. Allow me to rephrase that. I supported the concept. of legislation to answer the needs of the Native peoples, and their right to restitution. However, that legislation attempts to integrate the Natives into white culture, and with that intent has forced the Natives to form profitmaking corporations. There are obviously two groups within the Native community, one which favors the subsistence lifestyle and one, usually the urban corporations, which favors development. ANCSA only answered the needs of part of the community. Mr. LEGGETT. In other words, you wouldn't do it that way.

Mr. PEYTON. That's correct. I would not support that bill if there was a chance to do it again.

Mr. LEGGETT. Thank you very much. OK, the next witness is Dave Brown. Let's see, are Bud Boddy, William Brady, Cliff Lobaugh and Mr. Tangen here?

[Affirmative responses from all named individuals.]

Mr. LEGGETT. OK, so far as I can tell, we have four witnesses left in addition to Mr. Brown.

STATEMENT OF DAVE BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dave Brown and today I'm representing the Conservation Society. Mr. LEGGETT. What is your business, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. As an occupation I am a State conservationist and I'm also a commercial fisherman part time.

I feel very strongly about southeast Alaska. I'd like to thank the ubcommittee for coming to southeast Alaska and giving myself and thers a chance here today to testify. Specifically, the Conservation Society gives its wholehearted support to H.R. 39 and we believe that H.R. 39 is the most proper tool that we have at the present time to leal with all of the national interest lands in Alaska and specifically hat refers to the land in southeast Alaska. We feel that southeast Alaska must receive immediate protection classification. H.R. 39 also protects subsistence rights of Native and non-Native Alaskans who lepend upon the land for their livelihood. We also believe H.R. 39 goes a long way toward (indiscernible) which are extremely important o southeast Alaska economy.

At this point I would like read a very brief statement by Derek Poon who was not able to come to testify.

Mr. LEGGETT. That statement will appear in the record as though read and you may summarize if you want to.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. We also feel H.R. 5605 is important because it deals with important development. As far as wilderness and wildlife management, I think there's a real problem between traditional wildlife management techniques. I feel that the proposed wildlife refuges in Alaska should manage themselves for the most part. I feel that even with the increasing pressures there has to be some significant attempt to maintain large amount of habitat in a primarily unmodified condition and I think if you look at places in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States, the national wildlife refuges have not been maintained primarily in unmodified conditions. Wildlife management I think is necessary in the language of the Wilderness Act. I don't believe, as has been testified to by wildlife managers, that wilderness and wildlife refuges are incompatible.

I personally feel that protection of the natural habitat will be a single important issue in the future.

In south-in the lower 48, western Oregon, they felt that with 21 national forests, here we have a situation which I feel could be a preview of the future for the wildlife in Alaska and Alaska in general. And that's a case where they have said that if the management of the forests continues and we force these, (indiscernible) and they're faced with this situation right now and I just wonder if we don't do something to protect wildlife, protect wildlife habitat which is a problem with national forests, are we going to be faced with this in southeast and all of Alaska? I feel that we can go a long way with wildlife values in southeast Alaska. I think there's a very special case for protection. I believe H.R. 39 is the proper tool to do that because it addresses all (indiscernible), it deals with significant acreages of land, which is important to support the wildlife.

An additional point which I feel is raised by the lack of (indiscernible) for the Angoon people and their attempt to exploit resources outside (indiscernible), I think that's a problem primarily because of the way the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was finalized. These people have to show profit? I wonder and I would ask the committee to consider this (indiscernible) which frees them of this requirement. Would they necessarily have to go beyond the potential resource development in nonresource (indiscernible). Would they have to go. outside of that to maintain their culture? I personally think not, just from the dealings I've had with the people of Angoon.

I would now like to briefly summarize the statement of Derek Poon.

STATEMENT OF DEREK POON, PRESENTED BY DAVE BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Salmon aquaculture is an emerging activity in southeast Alaska. It is my hope that present land use legislation will allow its orderly development.

About 80 percent of the total U.S. salmon harvest was landed in Alaska from 1970 to 1973. In most recent years, southeast Alaska has accounted for 40 percent or more of the total weight of Alaska salmon harvest. But all is not well. A recent 10-year average of all salmon caught in southeast Alaska is only about 30 percent of the average of the highest 10 consecutive years. This percentage is one of the lowest calculated for any area in the entire State. It is the common opinion of biologists and managers that many runs will not be able to return to former levels without rehabilitation and enhancement.

Alaska has already made major financial commitments to aquaculture. Recent State legislations made available a $200 million loan fund for construction of private facilities; a $30 million bond issue was authorized for construction of public facilities. Comprehensive planning and site selection are in the early stages. Technology under consideration vary from the permanent facilities typically found in the lower 48, to portable facilities designed to temporarily augment depleted runs in remote areas.

Effectiveness of aquaculture efforts will be determined in part by the types of structures and activities allowed under Federal land use designations. Under present interpretations of the 1964 Wilderness Act, even unobtrusive temporary aquaculture facilities are precluded from wilderness areas. I contend that a more liberal interpretation is in order to allow aquaculture and wilderness to coexist. After all, a healthy salmon resource is consistent with wilderness values and return of salmon to depleted wilderness streams will enhance the wilderness experience.

To be sure, some wilderness areas should be left totally undisturbed. I suggest, however, that in proposed wilderness areas with demonstrated potentials for aquaculture development, such as the outer coast of lower Chichagof Island, provisions be made to allow unobtrusive temporary facilities. An alternative is to draw the wilderness boundary around these areas.

Again, land use policies will either facilitate or delay restoration of salmon runs. What is at stake are not just jobs and the economy of many communities, but a way of life. I can't put a dollar value on the satisfaction gained from catching salmon, but I suspect that many people would pay dearly for it.

Thank you very much for listening to me. By best wishes to you in your task.

Mr. LEGGETT. Let me ask you this, would you oppose wilderness for Admiralty Island be included in the section of a $2 million agriculture on the island?

Mr. BROWN. I don't believe that's the type of proposal, I don't believe that it is. The proposal that the aquaculture people are presently dealing with, which I feel Mr. Poon would like to comment on, is more a need that, which is natural, unobtrusive but mostly nonstructural stability. Structural stability such as a $3 million hatchery