seal harvest, which was declared by the International Fur Seal Convention with an exclusion for subsistence harvest, compels Tanaq Corporation

shareholders to look elsewhere for a viable economic base.

The economic impacts of the fur seal moratorium are further complicated by the the National Marine Fisheries Service's plan to leave St. George Island. The 'Service, which manages the fur seal harvest and conducts the research, is presently the sole outside employer for St. George islanders. The first round of National Marine Fisheries Service proposed budget cuts will reduce the St. George facility by one-third in fiscal year 1983. Thus, most of the jobs now held by the islanders will be deleted by October, 1983. In short, within perhaps a year and a half, St. George Island will lose its main employer unless, within that time, the Tanaq Corporation can implement its economic development plan.

While the corporation is developing a fishing business and is prepared to enter the bottom fishing industry, for which its location on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Bering Sea is uniquely suited, such activity requires capital. The primary source of capital is the money to be realized from the sale of the Bird Cliffs. If the acquisition funding is further delayed, St. George Island faces dire financial straits.

When the Congress adopted this section authorizing the acquisition of the Bird Cliffs, it recognized the singular habitat provided in the Bird Cliffs for migratory seabirds. The seabirds, including kittiwakes, puffins, murres, merlots and terns, comprise the most significant colonies in North America. The Bird Cliffs attract migratory birds from all over the world. As a result, the seabirds that nest and raise their young on the Pribilof Islands, are protected under treaties with Mexico, Russia and Japan.

Once the land exchange is completed, the Bird Cliffs will automatically become a subunit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, created in Title III of ANILCA.

However, this will not come to pass and the

Bird Cliff habitat will not be guaranteed protection until the land is conveyed. The conveyance of the Bird Cliffs will be delayed by failure of Congress to meet its obligation to purchase the land and Congress' purpose in passing Section 1417 is thwarted.

The Bird Cliffs area also presents a unique research opportunity for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as private groups. A provision in the Pribilof Terms and Conditions specifically states that the National Audubon Society will participate in the studies to be conducted. Furthermore, St. George hopes to develop a tourism industry that will feature the Bird Cliffs as the island's prime attraction. Cooperation between the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pribilof Islands could produce a unique educational experience for visitors to the Islands.

None of the above events can happen unless the remainder of the purchase price is appropriated promptly. There is no time limit set on the acquisition in the statute and unless the Congress sees fit to meet its obligation to the Pribilof Islands, there is a very real danger that there will be no one left on St. George Island to help develop this unique facility. St. George islanders live there by choice and hope to continue living there. In some respects, the Aleuts on the Pribilofs are an endangered species which cannot hope to survive unless the island's economy is independent of the fur seal harvest and the Federal Government.

On behalf of the shareholders of Tanaq Corporation, I respectfully ask this Committee to urge the Appropriations Committee to appropriate the remainder of the purchase price of 5.3 million dollars. Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

The National Wildlife Federation appreciates this opportunity

to present testimony on the implementation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. NWF is the nation's largest, not-for-profit, citizen conservation-education organization with over 4.5 million members and supporters in the 50 states, Guam Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, including nearly 4500 in Alaska. NWF's interest in Alaska is longstanding, and in recognition of the increased national importance of and threats facing the state's fish and wildlife, recreational, scenic and other conservation values, in the fall of 1979 the Federation established its Alaska Natural Resource Center in Anchorage.

We applaud the committee's decision to hold oversight hearings at this time. Although the enactment of ANILCA was a tremendous conservation achievement, improper implementation could result in a substantial erosion of its benefits. Additionally, without of course questioning its integrity, it is nevertheless clear that the present administration is philosophically opposed to many of ANILCA's most significant provisions, and that a number of the people who are responsible for implementing the Act were vigorous opponents of its enactment. Consequently, the utmost vigilance and oversight is required both in the Congress and in Alaska to ensure that ANILCA's promised gains are not lost.

1. The Budget. Several witnesses have mentioned the inadequate budgets with which federal agencies in Alaska are being asked to fulfill their responsibilities under ANILCA. Inadequate funding is one of the major obstacles facing full implementation of the Act, and we would like to add our voice to those calling for additional monies. Furthermore, in allocating those monies that are available, the Administration is devoting a far greater proportion than is reasonable to resource development, thereby substantially slighting fish and wildlife and recreational programs. A good illustration of this can be found by comparing BLM's FY 1982 funding for oil and gas with its funding for wildlife and recreation: Oil and gas, $4,169,000; wildlife, $750,000; recreation, $480,000.

2. Planning. Adequate planning of course depends to a large extent on sufficient funding, and under present budgetary constraints we are concerned that planning is not receiving the priority it deserves. Additionally, we are afraid that in at least some instances, for example in BLM's Steese and White Mountains areas, planning is being accelerated not to ensure protection of fish and wildlife and other conservation values, but to hasten the extraction of oil and gas and other minerals (see Secretary Watt's June 22, 1981 memorandum to Mr. Burford).

3. Exchanges. Again, other groups have testified at length concerning the threats posed by the Administration's present exchange policy or, perhaps more accurately put, its failure to develop a comprehensive policy on exchanges.

The proposed St. Matthew's Island exchange (the island supports major seabird colonies) would result in the loss of approximately 4,000 acres of designated wilderness which would be leased to the