I am pleased that the administration has kept to its timetable, and is here today to present its position on the Alaska D2 lands. As I previously referred to in general comment we have a number of bills before this committee and we want to look at the broad subject area of D2 lands and recognize that even legislation like H.R. 39, which is not precisely before this committee today, and in the course of our agreements with the Interior Committee, that legislation will be before this committee and we have been running hearings roughly parallel to the hearings conducted and managed by Mr. Seiberling and Mr. Udall, in the Interior Committee. We have been to Alaska several times over the past year and we have heard from Native interest groups. We are prepared to address everything that needs to be addressed by this committee, but we want to refrain from making decisions on conflicts between National Parks and Forests, National Parks and Scenic Rivers and National Parks and B.L.M. interests. We want to make sure that a refuge program, if it is developed in the State of Alaska, as is currently existing, is adequate and meets the needs of the people of Alaska and the people of the United States. So, let us see, Secretary Andrus, you are the ranking Cabinet member present, and we welcome you at this point. Your statement will be added in our record as if you fully read it and you can emphasize such portions as you care to. STATEMENT OF HON. CECIL D. ANDRUS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND HON. RUPERT CUTLER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONSERVATION, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: ROBERT HERBST, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS; CYNTHIA WILSON, STAFF MEMBER; WILLIAM REFFALT, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS; ROGER CANTOR, PARKS SERVICE; AND JAMES WEBB, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE Secretary ANDRUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to you and the members of the committee, let me express my appreciation for the opportunity to be here. I will, as you suggest, submit the total testimony for the record, some 34 pages, but I will condense that into a summary, if I might, so that Dr. Cutler then can have the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. [The following was received for the record:] STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to present today President Carter's recommendations for new National Parks, Wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, Forests and wilderness areas in Alaska. We recommend the enactment of H.R. 39, with certain modifications; we recommend against the enactment of H.R. 6564. As President Carter said in his May 23rd Environmental Message, "No conservation action the 95th Congress could take would have more lasting value than this." Moreover, the establishment of large land areas in Alaska as units of the "Four Systems" is the highest environmental priority of this Administration. Until very recent times the essence of our national policy has been the most apid possible development and consumption of the resources of this continent. In establishing the first national parks and wildlife reservations a little more than a century ago, the Congress made some of its greatest contributions to the future of America, and of the world. It was a belated but nonetheless noble determination to maintain some of the natural beauty and wildlife of America for all time. This movement began after we already had lost many of our treasures in the "lower 48"-but in time to save some of the most spectacular. Now we have an opportunity to learn from the past-to avoid making the rash mistakes we committed in our youth as a Nation. Alaska is a rejuvenation for us as a country-a chance to preserve a major portion of our natural heritage-the resources which more and more are recognized as essential to the continued existence of man on earth. We can be profligate with these resources-we can dig, cut, drill and destroy these resources at random so that our material standard of living today and tomorrow will be a degree or two higher. Or we can conserve these resources to help insure the health and prosperity of Alaska, our country and the world for decades and perhaps centuries to come. Through designation of new parks, refuges, forests, and rivers, we can be certain that the crown jewels of Alaska-its most spectacular natural environments, recreation areas, and wildlife habitats-will remain intact for the benefit of our Nation's citizens. Some people seem to fear that we are trying to hoard resources needed by Americans today and in the immediate future. Our recommended amendments to H.R. 39 have been prepared with sensitivity to the resource needs of Alaska and America both now and for the coming years. There are roughly 375 million acres in Alaska. Our amendments involve approximately 92 million acres. The State of Alaska will be receiving 103 million acres, much of which will be open to development. The Natives are receiving more than 44 million acres, much of which will be developed. And there will be tens of millions of acres remaining outside the "Four Systems" which will be available for mining, grazing, timber, harvesting, hunting, fishing, and various multiple uses for the benefit of Alaska and the Nation. The question I ask is why-with all of the area we are leaving open to potential development should we also invite development and risk the destruction of areas which are important for their beauty, their wildlife, or their ecological and cultural significance? Why shouldn't we protect and preserve some of these resources so that the people of our future-perhaps even during our own lifetime will have some options? Visual aesthetics, wildlife and other benefits are resources that can be used over and over. Let me suggest this: If we err in this decision and exclude some precious and delicate areas from the four systems, these areas could be lost forever. Americans in the future could never enjoy them nor benefit from production from them. Alaska would be left with devastated areas rather than with preserved treasure, with a liability rather than an asset. But if we err by conserving too much, this can always be changed in the future. Our system of government-as I needn't remind members of Congress-responds to pressures from the people. In the future the people may decide that they need the resources from one of the areas so urgently that they want to redesignate the area or allow additional development under stringent controls--this can be done. I am sure that Congress will not be insensitive to such demands. The problem of attempting to decide today what to do with this enormous landscape so as to preserve it for the future is staggering. It would be natural to fear that we lack the imagination to deal with conflicts of the scope presented by Alaska, but we should not fear failure simply because we cannot see all that is in the future. Failure will come only if we choose not to act now. Until now inaccessibility and a harsh climate have shielded Alaska from the impacts of "progress" that we have experienced in the "lower 48." Now, however, change is sweeping Alaska as never before. We cannot be, and we have not been, insensitive to the needs of the people of the State of Alaska. My staff and I have sought out the views of Governor Hammond, the State Legislature's Committee on d-2, the Land Use Planning Commission, representatives of the Native groups, conservation organizations, resource users and concerned citizens. I have visited Alaska and discussed this legislation with many of these people personally. Many of the decisions I have reached 23-868-78-45 concerning our recommended amendments have been difficult. I have tried however, to accommodate as many of the views expressed as possible and still remain true to my responsibilities as Secretary of the Interior. Governor Hammond has stated eloquently that "it is not easy to be both c barrel to the Nation and National Park to the World," but to a great exter: Alaska is both. He and the Land Use Planning Commission have each presented "d-2" proposals which recognize this difficulty and treat it responsibly. The recommendations which I am presenting for your consideration today draw heavily on those proposals, and, I am pleased to say, are in large measure compatible with them. We are deeply indebted to both for their resource inform tion and their wise judgment in dealing with the d-2 questions. Our amendments would place approximately 92 million acres of Alaska land into the "Four Systems" management units. We recommend establishing 10 new units and expanding three existing units of the National Park System. We al recommend establishing nine new units and expanding five units of the Nation Wildlife Refuge System. These recommendations would constitute approximately 41.7 million acres in National Parks and Monuments and 45.1 million acres in National Wilde Refuges. We are also recommending 33 rivers for inclusion in the National Wit and Scenic Rivers System totalling some 2.45 million acres and nine rivers for study, and additions of some 2.5 million acres to existing National Forests. La addition, the Administration recommends the establishment of Admiralty Island as wilderness under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. Parcels of isolated public land remain in southeast Alaska. These are all in areas where there is dominant management by the Forest Service and have no been identified as having national significance for Park or Refuge designation Land management patterns and management efficiencies could be achieved t adding these parcels to the National Forest System (approximately 1.6 milli acres). In addition, an area of .9 million acres in the Copper River delta will b transferred to the Forest Service to consolidate ownership with the understanding that it will be managed to protect its significant wildlife resources. We are, of course, aware of the highly significant migratory bird resources of the Copper River Delta. However, we have tried to follow a policy of consolidating ownership wherever possible. The Forest Service is aware of these resources and will, under the amendment we recommend, manage the area to protect these resources. Therefore, we recommend transferring the parcel of Bureau of Land Management land between the existing Chugach National Forest and the proposed Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve to the Forest Service. In addition, four areas we are recommending for National Park System adminis tration-Noatak National Ecological Preserve, Kobuk Valley National Park. Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, and Kenai Fjords National Park-have fish and wildlife values of such importance as to involve the research and management expertise of the Fish and Wildlife Service. In these areas, the Fish and Wildlife Service will provide research and management plans for the Park Service. I would like to comment specifically on another area, Iliamna. We considered including it in the National Wildlife Refuge System, but I have decided it is not! appropriate for inclusion. Although the fish nd wildlife values of the Iliamns area are tremendous, I did not propose a refuge because of the land ownership patterns in this area. The Natives have made large selections and the State intends to make selections. I chose not to propose an Iliamna refuge in light of the importance which the State placed on the State regulation of fishery resources and because of assurance by the State that it will sensitively manage this area for its fish and wildlife values We are depending upon the State to protect the fish and wildlife in the Iliamna area. Our amendment to H.R. 39 would provide sufficient authority to protect this important resource if the State has not established a management scheme prior to conveyance which is consistent with such protection. After conveyance, if the Secretary determines that State'management is inconsistent with protection of this resource he may, by appropriate order establish one or more units of the National Wildlife Refuge System within the area. A special study area is being proposed on the Alaska Peninsula, which contains some of the highest wildlife resources in the State. Because of mixed land ownership patterns on the Peninsula, we did not propose immediate establishment of a refuge there. However, the federal lands would be protected during the study period to assure that wildlife values are maintained, while efforts are made to consolidate land ownership patterns. Upon completion of the study in June of 1983, a specific proposal would be made on how we can best provide long-term protection of wildlife resources, possibly including establishment of one or more refuges. Mr. Chairman, certain working principles have guided our deliberations in developing these recommendations. For example, wherever possible we have tried to protect whole watersheds; resources rather than acreage have been the guide to the boundaries we have drawn. The preservation of natural and cultural diversity and habitat for fish and wildlife are primary reasons for all of our recommendations. In order to recognize total ecosystems our boundaries include some lands selected by the State and the Natives. Land selections so included would be treated as inholdings in existing Parks and Refuges. We are hopeful that the State and the Natives will work with us in the management of these areas to the benefit of all concerned. While we have considered other resource values, we believe the fundamental purpose of Section_17(d)(2) is to identify and preserve nationally significant cultural, historic, fish and wildlife, and their habitat, scenic, scientific and recreational resources in Alaska for the enjoyment of all Americans. We have done everything we could to eliminate resource conflicts in the proposals by adjusting the boundaries accordingly. Some potential conflicts remain, such as in the existing Arctic National Wildlife Range, where we have recommended designation of wilderness. We decided that the long-term value of the resource being protected far outweighed the potential short-term value of any oil and gas within the Range. If this Nation's energy situation requires opening up the Range to oil and gas development in the future, the Congress will be free to do so. But let this environmentally sensitive area be the last place where we seek petroleum development if we need it. Even though we do not now have, and may never have, complete information on the mineral resources of Alaska, we do have to make a decision. I am confident that the boundaries drawn and the management established by our recommendations will be in the best long-term interests of the Nation. We have carefully considered the nature of the existing Federal land management systems before including an area in one of the systems. For example, National Parks are usually spacious land areas essentially of primitive character containing scenery and natural wonders so outstanding in quality that their preservation intact has been mandated by Congress for use by both present and future generations. In general, National Monuments are small national parks established to protect a single nationally significant natural or cultural feature. Generally both National Parks and National Monuments can be used for fishing, hiking, camping, interpretive programs and wildlife observation. New mining claims, grazing, commercial timber harvesting and hunting are generally not permitted. Subsistence taking, however, is permitted in Hawaiian parks. We have attempted to draw our recommended boundaries in such a fashion as to accommodate these general criteria. Where conflicts arose that could not be resolved by exclusive boundary designation we have used a "park-preserve" concept. Similar to Big Thicket and Big Cyprus, National Preserves may accommodate a variety of uses including sport hunting, under regulation, which do not significantly impair the natural or cultural values for which the preserve is established. In the case of National Wildlife Refuges, they may vary considerably in size, but all refuges possess land and water habitats capable of sustaining significant populations of fish and wildlife. The management of refuges generally permits a wide variety of recreational activities if compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Discretionary oil and gas leasing in refuges may be permitted under strict controls once the area is classified and it is determined such use is compatible with primary refuge purposes. New grazing or timber harvesting, generally must contribute to the enhancement of the wildlife habitat before these uses are authorized. These general management criteria also weighed heavily in our area boundary decisions. Mr. Chairman, I would now like to discuss several important issues which have an overall application to our recommended amendments. COOPERATIVE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT There is widespread consensus that some sort of cooperative planning and management is needed among Federal, State and private landowners. ANCSA and Alaska Statehood provisions are resulting in divergent landholdings in every area isions on wildlife, transportation, watersheds, and various develanai significance cut across these property boundaries. Several *n advanced by Governor Hammond, Members of the Alaska De Land Use Planning Commission to formalize a means by which de sooperation can best be obtained. verail planning and management cooperation in the State, we sament of a Statewide cooperative planning commission. This vad serve as the Statewide focus for cooperative planning, doing an vork on majer issues, but also serving as the catalyst and organi Sczerni Native planning, interagency studies and meetings. The advisory to land managers and could make such recommendesignations outside of Federal management areas. The Chairlovna ed by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Governor na ful-time basis. The Commission would be composed of Live presentatives and land managers who represented each daagement agencies in Alaska and their counterpart State My representatives. jee that included in many of our d-2 area recommendshed adjacent areas within which resource use and developcertant to the proper protection, management and interpreand wildlife resources within the d-2 area. We urge legislative signated "aress of environmental concern" (AEC). We proPent be authorized to enter into voluntary cooperative add aners in these areas of concern so that some form of and consultation can be achieved between the d--2 land na the public and private adjacent landowners on inatters of the d-2 lands. We are not proposing any regulatory other than that encompassed in existing Federal law, er Pollution Control Act, etc. Rather, the AEC's would save planning and management effort to be undertaker. y Commission. se that the Secretary be authorized to enter into coophe State and Native corporations within Cooperative ent Zones recommended by the Commission. These zones mutual agreement by the Department, the State and the lands would be included within a zone. We propose and Management Zone mechanism as a means by and management can be employed to protect a parvacie cosystem-wide areas, such as the North Slope, the Seca Bay salmon fishery watershed or the Arctic caribou herd save arrangements would be advisory only. We are not espeasibility of the Secretary of the Interior be delegated ission or agreement or otherwise. SUBSISTENCE ties have traditionally been allowed on certain Federal |