In our view there are several Federal and State natural resource agencies with the capability, authority and commitment to protect the public's interest in Alaska lands. Accordingly, we will not make specific recommendations concerning who should get how much of which lands and for what purpose. Instead, we propose to list some generic guidelines for the allocation of water resources and their protection in the public interest. When Congress makes its final decision in this matter we urge: 1. That the maximum number of Alaska streams "possessing outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition" by protection under the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 2. That when it becomes absolutely necessary and/or desirable to impound any Alaska stream which does not qualify for Wild and Scenic River designation and protection, that Congress demand a full and complete mitigation program be implemented concurrently and that anadromous spawning migrations and juvenile returns be in no way impeded. 3. That vast areas of Alaska not be placed under so called "instant wilderness" because such designation forecloses on options for managing aquatic resources and indeed may even prevent practical access. 4. That the principal of multiple use with maximum environmental safeguards be the policy of whichever agencies are given management responsibility. 5. That nothing detract from the State of Alaska's primary responsibility for the management of fish and wildlife resources. Elements number 1, 2, 4 and 5 of our proposal require little, if any, additional discussion because they represent policies which have been repeatedly debated and proven beneficial in application. They need only to be implemented in the light of past performance. Item number 3 does require additional discussion. Recent years have seen great strides in the management of aquatic areas for maximum production of biological resources without jeopardizing aesthetic or recreational resources. There are outstanding successes from new fish or inverte brate species introductions. Major fisheries have been developed in waters left void of fish by nature. Vast stretches of rivers have been opened to anadromous fish runs through fish ladder construction. Undesirable species have been removed to the benefit of desirable species. Sterile, infertile streams and lakes have been made productive by addition of trace elements or fertilizers. Spawning areas have been artificially created where none was provided by nature. Annual stocking of fingerlings can develop a fishery where none existed before. Natural flood damage has been prevented by bank stabilization. Fish diseases outbreaks may one day be treated in nature and research continues to find new answers to managing aquatic resources for greater public benefits. As we understand the provisions of the Wilderness Act, virtually none of these valuable management techniques are permitted and thus none of the benefits from such management are available to the public. We object to the suggestion that what is natural is always best just as we object to the suggestion that what man does is unnatural. If we are inventive and resourceful, if we are prudent and protective, we can harvest even more production and pleasure from Alaska's water resources while guaranteeing a similar opportunity for future generations. Sincerely, CARL R. SULLIVAN, July 15, 1977 To: Members of House Subcommittee on General Oversight and Alaskan Affairs, 1327 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 Members of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 20515 Members of the Senate, U.S. Senate, Washington, D. C. 20510 SUBJECT: Hearing on "The Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act" HR-.(also identical bills HR-1974 and HR-2876) by Representative Morris Udall (D-Az) and several co-sponsors and any similar legislation. S-500 by Henry Jackson (D-Wa) (by request) and S-1500 by Lee Metca.. (D-Mt) and any similar legislation. We have reviewed "The Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act" with considerable concern. We request that this communication and the attached "Fact S by made a part of the record of testimony strongly in opposition of the proposed legislation to lock up major natural resource in Alaska and prevent development. The National Outdoor Coalition (NOC) is a large California based coalition of seve major recreation organizations. Affiliated nationally, it is a perceptive and accurat sounding board for the views and feelings of many millions of resource land users. As our logo suggests, "This Land for All", we strongly support the philosophy of practical multiple-use of the land and its resources as the only solution for the certinued strength and well being of the nation. By multiple-use we mean that land resources can and should be managed to produce the basic needs for society; not on. for multi-recreation opportunity but also for food, shelter, energy and minerals-as many uses as the same land can possibly support at one time. We believe that practical multiple-use allows the land to produce the greatest good for the greater: number. Single-use setasides are not multiple-use! We take to task the fantastic logistics of environmental preservationists whe would lock up as Wilderness 39 per cent, 146, 6 million acres, of Alaska's most priductive natural resource lands. To propose to close this vast area (not to mertier landlocking an additional area equal in size) to all but a handful of backpackers is outrageous--a great disservice to all Alaskans--in fact, to all Americans. Representing a huge citizen group of outdoorsmen, we are very much aware of th resource potential of the land since we visit it often. We have learned from dire experience that any acreage subtracted from the total intensifies the pressure on that which remains. Furthermore, history of the U.S. over the past 50 years te us that one generation is incapable of foreseeing the needs, demar is and des.co unborn generations. -continued MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS. Anorican Motorcyel" Association, Dirt 37/Associated biezers of California/Cality undergo Four-Wheel Drive Clubs/California Off Road Vchirie Asso, ption/ Warad of Rockhounds Association/Orange Co Chop S Finally, we must ask the question, "By what dogmatic authority can a handful of environmental zealots dictate to Congress how resources shall be used by future generations?" Is scarcity and weakness the legacy this generation will bequeath to those yet unborn? CONCLUSION We urge: 1. 2. that no more land resources be placed in wilderness or in single-use designations, and that Congress review paragraphs (17) (d) (1) and (17) (d) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Act of 1971 with the view of greatly reducing the amount of land for single-use categories. Common sense must prevail to Great insight and intelligence is needed now. Dick Moon Dick Moon, Chairman National Outdoor Coalition DM:K:mc ADDENDUM: PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON "ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS 1. Establishes 25 million acres of new National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, 2. Provides for Cooperative management between Federal, State and RECOMMENDATIONS: We agree with the objectives of S-1787 which would If we have learned anything from the history of the last 50 years, wo We urge Congress to rumovo the time limitatation on (c)(2) land-use We would welcome a series of field hearings on this important subject, THE PRESERVATIONISTS' BLACKOUT by Alfred H. Kramm June 1977 Fact Sheet on the ALASKA NATIONAL LANDS CONSERVATION ACT, HR-39 & S-5C **The Act was designed and drafted by the "ALASKA COALITICY" PARTITION of ALASKA 375.3 Million Acres EXIST. SINGLE-USE WITH- NATIVE LANDS WITHDRAWALS Parce": 27.1 *WILDERNESS DEFINITION: No human habitation, road, pipelire FACT SHEET on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Researched by Alfred H. Kramm June, 1977 SOURCE MATERIALS: Don Young (R) Alaska Congressman, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Alaska Oil and Gas Association, U. S. Bureau of Mining, Soil Conservation Service USDA Statewide Survey 1977, Alaska Power Administration, Alaska Gem and Mineral Society, Ralph M. Parsons Company, Wilderness Act of 1964, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. WHAT UDALL'S BILL HR-39 and S-500 DOES (Major Items): a. b. c. 10 new Designates 32 million acres of now existing national forests, wildlife refuges, In addition, the Secretary is authorized to seek agreement with private owners, other federal agencies and the state to manage land in the aggregate of about another 6.5 million acres (1. 73 per cent of state), as "areas of ecological concern". THE EFFECT OF THIS ACT (HR-39 and S-500) The huge proposed set-asides, exclusively for 1. RECREATION: The immense size of 146.6 million acres is equal to the size of the states of Washington, Oregon and one-half of California combined. Wilderness status by law precludes roads and any overland mechanical travel. Only the heartiest of backpackers will be able to go beyond the boundaries of the vast wilderness set-asides. It is thus unavailable to virtually all Americans for recreation. The argument that these set-asides are to preserve the grandeur of the areas is illogical (to put it courteously); for who can enjoy it? -continued ALASKA 375.3 Million Acres COMPARATIVE AREA MAP: Alaska, a treasure chest of natural |