Mr. HULETT. Mr. Begich, if I may amplify an answer given by Mr. Utley a moment ago, I think he left perhaps the impression that the Secretary of the Interior had no authority to move in if the constructing agency decided they did not want to do anything. However, the bill that is under consideration by the committee specifically allows the Secretary of the Interior to initiate his own activity should the constructing agency either fail to recognize that there were certain data available or that they simply did not wish to do anything with it.

Upon the notification by another Federal agency or by any archeological or historical society, the Secretary may then initiate such study.

Mr. BEGICH. I thank you for that clarification. I was concerned because sometimes an agency has had a choice and they have a shortage of funds. They would cut out some area of responsibility that they could get by with, in this case transfer it back to you folks.

My last question, Mr. Chairman, is prompted by two very fine letters I received from Alaska Methodist University. One is from Professor Workman, professor of anthropology, who was commenting on a recent book by Professor McGinsey, of the University of Arkansas, entitled, "Public Archeology." Professor Workman states:

I fear the accurate observation that for much of the United States the present generation of archeologists are the last who will find a significant portion of the land surface in an undisturbed condition.

He goes on to say:

The picture in Alaska is as yet not quite so alarming but as you well know, we can expect an explosion of development activity in the very near future.

The other letter, if I may take one sentence out of it, is written by a professor of anthropology, Dr. West:

With so much of our land under Federal stewardship, Alaska is especially in need of this kind of protection that will be afforded by H.R. 6257.

The question I am asking is because we have always been in the grand haste to take all of Alaska's land in Federal stewardship. The Department of the Interior has not done much with it except protect it and give many friends in the conservation movement an objective of high motivation, high objectivity. No mapping is done. No charting is done. Nothing is done. I asked my good friend from the Corps of Engineers, why have you not charted all the coastline of Alaska? He said, "It is just too much, 53 percent of Americans will never travel the coastline, so, therefore, we did not chart it."

Now we are coming back to this great movement which is going to occur. That is the building of the pipeline from the north to the south. Has the Department of the Interior been involved in any of the very fine work that has been done there, between teams of archeologists at the University of Alaska, Methodist University, and the oil companies? Little publicity has been given to this very fine cooperative venture that is going on in the private enterprise field. This field covers the Federal area where the Federal agencies have not quite done as much because of lack of funding. Has the Department of the Interior been involved in any way with this very fine venture going on up there now?

Mr. UTLEY. The National Park Service is acutely aware of the archeological values in Alaska and the vast potential for contribution to knowledge that lies beneath the ground unexploited so far in Alaska. We currently have a task force in Alaska, as you well know, concerned with the identification of those lands in which the Interior Department is interested in the native claims legislation, and we also recently have placed an archeologist in a cooperative relationship on the faculty of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. To what degree there has been direct consultation with the pipeline companies I am not aware, but I am quite certain that our archeological people in Alaska are concerned with the pipeline probably above all other Alaskan affairs at this time because of its relationship to archeological values.

Mr. BEGICH. If I may, I ask these questions because there has been a tremendous cooperative venture among business, national, and local government officials, and archeologists on where the pipeline is going and where there are any archeological finds. They have made some dranatic finds and they are continuing to do so. I think sometimes we are apt to criticize and not give credit to this cooperation where we find it. These two letters by Professor West and Professor Workman highlight that activity to me.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HULETT. Mr. Begich, if I may make a comment in response to your statement, I think it is very fair to say that the archeological program that is run by the National Park Service would not be effective were it not for the tremendous cooperation that we get from archeologists, both in the universities and in the private sector.

Mr. BEGICH. Well, the whole area again, Mr. Chairman, if I may just comment, the whole area of my questioning was devoted to this point. We are so concerned about the animal habitat of Alaska, that the great lack of development has been on the cultural history of that great area. We have recorded the chirping of the birds to some extent but we never have done much about the language of the people in Alaska. I think it is high time the two legged animal gets his place in history, and by two-legged animal I mean man.

Mr. SAYLOR. Homo sapiens.

Mr. BEGICH. Right, and I would say the concern over man's history is in the secondary place at this present time. The activity of the archeologists is important, particularly in Alaska where we have a history of a people that go back 8,000 years. There are fantastic finds in the museums up there, but this work has been highly neglected. I did not want this area to be neglected as the recording of our coastline has been and every other blasted thing that you can imagine, because they always say the size is too big. We cannot do it.

History is being made with the laying of the pipeline. We cannot let the archeological area of concern be diminished in the eyes of some of the agencies of Government or private enterprise. We cannot recover once that land has been destroyed and move on. That is why I want to be very careful in making certain this area is protected.

Mr. BURLISON. The gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. CÓRDOVA. No questions.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman

Mr. BURLISON. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SAYLOR. I cannot leave the remarks of my colleague go unnoticed, particularly after his comments with regard to those of us who might have an interest in Alaska that exceeds even some native Alaskans or those who adopted it as their home.

I am delighted to know that you have two letters from people in Alaska that are interested in preserving something. Maybe there are signs of intelligence seeping through the halls of the Government of Alaska. At one time I did not think there was any hope of ever having such a change in thinking up there but apparently through the university and through education it might sink down even to the people who occupy State and local positions in the Great State of Alaska.

Mr. BEGICH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. The reason I wanted to make my comment was because you said that this bill was permissive and I am a little disturbed. Section 3(a) says that Federal agencies shall notify the Secretary. Then 3(b) says, the Secretary, upon notification that certain data may be adversely affected "shall, if he determines that such data is or may be adversely affected, immediately conduct a survey or other investigation." And then Section (d) says the survey provided for in Subsection (b) and the work required to be performed as a result thereof will be undertaken in connection with any dam, activity, or program heretofore authorized by any agency of the United States,... any type of person or corporation holding a license issued by such agency or by Federal law.

In view of the fact that the Secretary shall conduct these programs, does not that take away the permissive end of it?

Mr. UTLEY. I am sorry, Mr. Saylor. I was not precise enough in my use of the word "permissive," but what I was referring to was the funding. It is permissive in that it does not require any Federal agency to expend any portion of money. It simply authorizes them to do so.

Yes, sir. It is not permissive in extending the provisions of the 1960 law that dam building agencies notify the Secretary of archeological values that may be affected. It does require other agencies to notify the Secretary. In a sense that is not permissive. That, of course, is limited. however, by their capability of knowing when such resources are affected.

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes, but once they have notified them, once it has come to their attention, section (b) says the Secretary shall conduct. Mr. UTLEY. Yes. The Secretary

Mr. SAYLOR. Nothing permissive as far as the Secretary. It is mandatory.

Mr. UTLEY. The Secretary of the Interior is then enjoined to do certain things which we are delighted to do. My use of "permissive" was that as applying to other agencies.

Mr. SAYLOR. That is all.

Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Secretary, for the record, will you supply a list showing specifically which Federal agencies and what Federal programs would be subject to the provisions of this legislation?

Mr. HULETT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to do so.

(The information follows:)

FEDERAL AGENCIES PRESENTLY IDENTIFIED WHOSE PROGRAM WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army.

Tennessee Valley Authority.

Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.

Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.
Atomic Energy Commission.
Federal Power Commission.

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

Department of the Army, Department of Defense.

Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Mines, Department of the Interior.

General Services Administration.

National Science Foundation.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Water resource development programs, regardless of construction agency, including

Dams and reservoirs.

Channelization projects and channel improvements.

River and harbor improvements.

Levee and drainage developments.
Local flood protection programs.

Soil and moisture control programs.

Agricultural landleveling programs.

Watershed development and improvement programs.

Federally assisted airport developments.

Urban Renewal programs.

Federally financed or assisted building or facilities construction construction programs including but not restricted to V.A. hospitals, post offices, military facilities, schools, housing developments.

Federal programs administered for the purpose of granting Federal licenses for the construction of power transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines, telephone lines and buried cables, etc., and for strip mining activities to non-Federal organizations.

Mr. BURLISON. We thank you gentlemen.

Our next witness is Mr. William B. Davey, Deputy Administrator for Watersheds, Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, who will be accompanied by Mr. Jamison of the Forest Service. We will be delighted to hear from you gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. DAVEY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATERSHEDS, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY OWEN JAMISON, FOREST SERVICE

Mr. DAVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcom

85-667-72- -5

mittee to present the views of the Department of Agriculture on H.R. 735 and other similar bills relating to the preservation of historical and archeological data.

H.R. 735 would amend the act of June 27, 1960, which provides that the Secretary of the Interior will survey and arrange for the preservation of historical and archeological data which might otherwise be irraparably lost or destroyed as a result of the construction of Federal dams or federally-licensed dams. H.R. 735 would broaden the existing act in the following ways:

In addition to the presently covered dams, arrangements for the preservation of scientific, prehistorical, historical, and archeological data would be extended by section 1 to any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of any Federal, federally assisted, or federallylicensed activity or program. Section 3 (d) makes provisions of the bill retroactive insofar as practicable, in connection with any dam, project. activity, or program previously authorized.

Presently, historical and archeological data are covered. Section 1 of this bill would add scienfic and prehistorical data.

Presently, only such data "which might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed" are covered. Section 1 of this bill changes the coverage to data which might be "adversely affected."

Section 3(b) of the bill would authorize not to exceed one per centum of the total amount appropriated in connection with such activity or program to be transferred to the Secreary of the Interior to survey. investigate, and preserve such data, and H.R. 6257 and others would authorize a larger amount as mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and the responsible Federal agency for smaller projects which cause extensive damage to such data.

Section 3(a) of the bill would authorize the operating Federal agency to make the surveys and investigations relating to the archeological and other data and to take recovery and preservation action on other than major dam construction projects.

We agree that in those cases where agencies have or can obtain the capability of evaluating archeological and related data as stipulated in section 3 (a), they should have the opportunity to do so directly. This will enable these agencies to better plan and control the timing and progress of programs and projects affecting such data and at the same time fulfill their responsibilities as to the quality of the environment. The Forest Service presently has the capability to perform archeological investigations on the national forests and to take action to preserve archeological data. In other situations, the Department now works with the Department of the Interior, local historical and archeological associations, and universities in evaluating the impact of projects and programs on historical and archeological data.

The Department of Agriculture supports the objective of recovering and preserving scientific, prehistorical, historical, and archeological data. However, in view of the broad language of H.R. 735 we are concerned about the impact it would have on certain of the Department's servicing of individual landowners and land users.

While supporting the objectives of H.R. 735, we feel that the bill should be clarified with respect to: The area of applicability; the "responsible agency," or "instigating agency," as 735 puts it: the