I believe that gives you more or less a picture of the functions of our Office. I am not sure if the committee wants any more discussion from me. I will be very happy to try to answer any question of any kind on our Office or on any other matter where I have the information. Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. Chairman. Did you state how many employees the Office of Territories, as such, has in the Territory of Alaska? Mr. COULTER. No: I did not. Mr. ABBOTT. Could you do that? Mr. COULTER. I would have to get you the figures. The number would be quite large. The railroad has something on the order of 1,500. I think the road commission has some hundreds. It would probably be somewhere in the general neighborhood of 2,000 and it fluctuates quite a bit seasonally. Mr. O'BRIEN. That would include track workers and so forth on the railroad, is that what you mean? Mr. COULTER. Yes. They are all Government employees. Mr. COULTER. And it is a substantial group. Mr. ABBOTT. Within that framework, of course, a great deal of work is done through offices under the Office of the Governor, is it not? Mr. COULTER. Yes; we consider those people Territorial employees. Mr. ABBOTT. They are all in effect Territorial employees? Mr. COULTER. They are; yes, sir. And the only qualification there is that the Federal Government does pay these few salaries. In accordance with the traditional method of governing Territories, we pay part of the salaries of the legislators, the salary of the Governor, and the Secretary of the Territory, and perhaps 2 or 3 other people in the Governor's Office, and that is about it. Now the Territorial government has well-established departments of education and public welfare and a number of others, all of the usual departments that any State government has and all of the people em ployed in those departments are considered Territorial employees, are financed out of the Territorial appropriation raised by local taxes. Mr. ABBOTT. So that having that in mind, we will be able to develop with some precision these various activities you have described through the people that have that responsibility within the offices set up under the Governor. Mr. COULTER. That is right. Mr. ABBOTT. I believe there is one point, Mr. Chairman. Could you, Mr. Coulter, briefly, since there will be a great deal of reference to it, fill us in for the record on Public Land Order 82 withdrawal without the technical details that some of the Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines and Bureau of Land Management people may be able to fill in? But it could properly go in at this point, Mr. Chairman. Mr. COULTER. I have a copy of a letter which Secretary McKay addressed to the chairman of this committee and also to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the two corresponding Senate committees, in which he attempted to outline the problem and requested the views of those four committees as to what they thought about his proposal. Public Land Order 82 was signed in 1945 and withdrew three large areas of land from entry under all the public land laws including the mining and mineral leasing laws. The particular purpose of the withdrawal was with respect to the oil and gas. The three areas are the very large one across the top of Alaska which is now under discussion, and two smaller ones but still of substantial size along the southern coast of Alaska. The land order with respect to those latter two areas has been rescinded several years back and there is now, I think, extensive leasing and some exploratory drilling in both of those. The Secretary has proposed that he rescind this Public Land Order 82 as it affects this third area which is the large area across the northern part of Alaska, which amounts to about 48 million acres, of which about 23 million acres is included in Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. The effect of rescinding the order would be to release for particularly the Mineral Leasing Act and other public land laws all of those areas outside of what is called PET 4. It would not affect the status of PET 4 and the Navy has indicated they would like to keep PET 4 in its present status, so that is not involved in the discussion. I might say that this proposal has been cleared all around the administration. The Navy Department has told us they will not object if PLO 82 is rescinded provided PET 4 is not interfered with and it is on that basis we are proceeding. Since Secretary McKay wrote to these four committees we have. heard from the House Armed Services Committee and they have no objection to this proposal. We have had a hearing before the Senate Interior Committee and they have not reached any determination as far as I know. The area is believed to be rich in oil and gas possibilities. The Navy, several years ago, spent considerable sums of money on exploratory drilling. They found some oil of which I am not in a position to say what its value is. They also located a large gas deposit in which you will find there is a great deal of local interest. I believe the chamber has a witness scheduled who will go into all of those mineral developments very fully, so I will not try to. I am not an expert on that anyhow. That is where the matter stands now. The Department would like to have the feeling of this committee. I might say that the Secretary very likely could go ahead on his own and issue this order. However, he did feel that Congress is the policymaking branch of the Government and that at a minimum, the Congress should have an opportunity to tell us before we do it instead of being presented with a fait accompli, so to speak. We would appreciate having your views on this proposal. Mr. ABBOTT. You say that the Secretary, in addressing a letter to the four committees, wanted their views on the revocation of the withdrawal order. Could you state whether the revocation is proposed to apply to all forms of entry so that the area would be open to all forms of entry under the public land laws or is it limited, in the present consideration, to entry under the mineral leasing laws? Mr. COULTER. Šo far as I know, the idea is to revoke the order. However, quoting from the letter, I find that he states: We wish to have the views of your committee before issuing an order which would change in any appreciable degree the status of these lands. Elsewhere he refers to the problem of revocation. Frankly, I do not know. I do not think there is any interest in anything except oil and gas, as far as I know. Mr. ABBOTT. Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that letter might be placed in the record at this point since reference has been made to it? Mr. O'BRIEN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. CLAIR ENGLE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington 25, D. C., June 4, 1955. Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. MY DEAR MR. ENGLE: The Department of the Interior has received several requests from officials of the Territorial government of Alaska, the Delegate to the Congress from Alaska, and numerous private citizens to open to private development certain lands on the Arctic slope of the Territory presently reserved under Public Land Order 82. Public Land Order 82, a wartime measure, was signed on January 22, 1943, and withdrew three separate areas from entry under the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws. These tracts were located on the Alaska Peninsula, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Arctic slope. The minerals on these lands were reserved under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for use in connection with the prosecution of the war. In 1946, Public Land Order 82 was revoked insofar as the lands on the Alaska Peninsula and the Gulf of Alaska were concerned. Oil and gas prospecting is now being carried out in both areas by private firms. The northern Alaska withdrawal created by order 82 includes within its boundaries Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 established by Executive order on February 27, 1923. At the time the reserve was created, oil had been reported at a few places near the coast, but practically nothing was known of the inland area. Beginning in 1944 the Navy instituted a petroleum exploration program in the naval reserve and on adjacent lands withdrawn by order 82. This program was suspended in March 1953. With the suspension of the Navy exploration program, Alaskans began to express an interest in having the lands outside the boundaries of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 restored to entry under the public land laws and the mining and mineral leasing laws. It is believed in the Territory that private exploration will lead to the develop nent of oil and gas deposits in commercial quantities and the establishment of new industries in interior Alaska. The Alaska Development Board, an agency of the Territory, in mid-1954 published a study of the possibility of commercial development of the area and the use of natural gas as a source of energy. This study concluded in part that "The availability of cheap fuel (natural gas from the Arctic slope) will promote the industrial development of Alaska by significant reduction in the cost of utilization of natural resources. Ensuing economic growth will enable the Territory to become less dependent upon imported products and promote general stability at a time when a tapering off of military construction expenditures threatens to upset the economy of the railbelt area." The Congress has taken a deep interest in Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 and the now discontinued exploration program of the Navy. On March 6, 1954, Senator Leverett Saltonstall, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote to the President concerning the future of Petroleum Reserve No. 4. Senator Saltonstall's letter was brought to the attention of the Defense Mobilization Board which unanimously agreed that disposition of the naval petroleum reserve at this time would not be in the national interest. Senator Saltonstall was so advised on July 19, 1954, by Mr. Arthur S. Flemming, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization. Likewise the Department of the Navy desires to maintain the present status of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. However, the Department of the Navy has advised us through an exchange of correspondence that it would raise no objection to revoking Public Land Order No. 82 provided that the proposed revocation would in no way affect the present status of the lands in Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. The oil and gas deposits of primary interest to Alaskans for private development lie for the most part outside the boundaries of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. Additionally, it is understood that the Department of Defense plans to recommend that certain other lands within the area covered by Public Land Order No. 82 be reserved for defense purposes. There is vested in the Secretary of the Interior authority to revoke or modify Public Land Order 82. In the event that such action is taken by the Department, it would relate only to those lands lying outside the boundaries of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. The oil and gas deposits in the restored area would be subject to the mineral leasing law of the United States which requires that lands and leasable minerals within a known geologic structure of a producing oil and gas field be leased by competitive bidding. Other areas may be leased to the first qualified applicant. In view, however, of the interest of the Congress in the oil reserves of northern Alaska, we wish to have the views of your committee before issuing an order which would change in any appreciable degree the status of the lands on the Alaska Arctic slope withdrawn by Public Land Order 82. There is a related matter which should also be brought to your attention, the disposal of the naval oil-well drilling equipment. This equipment has been declared surplus by the Navy and is subject to disposition by public sale. It is understood that the Department of Defense believes that it would be in the best financial interest of the Government to withhold sale of this equipment until after the revocation of Public Land Order No. 82. The limited transportation facilities and harsh climatic conditions of northern Alaska would make the shipment of new equipment to the drilling site extremely costly to a private developer. This high cost might well spell the difference between success and failure in bringing in a producing field. The holders of the surplus oil-well drilling equipment, conversely, would have a competitive advantage in bidding for any oil and gas leases which may be offered. This Department will, therefore, work closely with the Department of the Navy in order that disposal of the surplus property may be properly coordinated with any mineral leasing in the area. I should appreciate having your views and comments on possible revocation of Public Land Order 82 I shall be pleased at any time to supply any additional information which you may require. A letter has also been sent to each of the Chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House and Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committees asking their views and comments on this subject. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE A. DAVIS, Acting Secretary of the Interior. Identical letters to: Hon. Richard B. Russell, chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, United States Senate; Hon. Carl Vinson, chairman, House Armed Services Committee, House of Representatives; Hon. James E. Murray, chairman, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, United States Senate. Mr. DAWSON. Is this the area where they located some uranium not long ago? Mr. COULTER. Not so far as I know. That has been in the extreme southern tip. Mr. DAWSON. But not in the area under withdrawal? Mr. COULTER. Frankly, not so far as I know. The Geological Survey can tell you whether there are other mineral possibilities. I do not know. I never heard that. Mr. BARTLETT. Suppose that discovery of uranium was not made within the area of this reservation. Mr. DAWSON. Supposing it was not made? Mr. BARTLETT. It was not made there. It is on Seward Peninsula. Mr. DAWSON. It would make considerable difference because the question the counsel asked was with regard to whether they would open it up simply for mineral leasing or for mineral entry. Under mineral entry they can go in and establish claim and acquire title, which would apply to uranium. Mr. COULTER. That is true. Mr. DAWSON. On mineral leasing for oil and gas the Government simply grants a lease. That is the reason I am asking the question whether there are uranium possibilities in the area, because an entirely different answer applies to it. Mr. COULTER. That is right. That is the only answer I can give but the Geological Survey man can give you the answer in detail. I have never heard of other mineral possibilities of that type. Mr. ABBOTT. The area which is under consideration or which the Secretary proposed to have considered by the full committee is that area within the withdrawal exclusive of what is known as Petroleum Reserve No. 4, is that correct? Mr. COULTER. Yes. I think his proposal actually would revoke Public Land Order 82. However, that would still leave Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 exactly as it is now. There will also be the necessity of reserving a few other small areas up there where there may be military installations, radar or something of that sort. Mr. ABBOTT. Is it correct that the Defense Department or the Navy Department has indicated to the Department of the Interior that they have no objection to a revocation of the order insofar as it applies to areas other than Petroleum Reserve No. 4? Mr. COULTER. That is correct. Mr. ABBOTT. And the isolated minor tracts you have referred to? Mr. COULTER. That is correct. Mr. ABBOTT. That is all. Mr. O'BRIEN. Do any committee members have any questions? Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Bartlett. Mr. BARTLETT. Just one or two there. Mr. Coulter, if this land outside Petroleum Reserve No. 4 were restored to the public domain, would all the normal laws and regulations apply to the granting of oil and gas leases? Mr. COULTER. Yes, sir; it would be handled in exactly the same way as any other tract of public domain anywhere in the United States or Alaska. Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Coulter. We will now hear Mr. Puckett of the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. ABBOTT. Would you state your full name and title, and proceed with your statement, please? STATEMENT OF LOWELL M. PUCKETT, AREA ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. PUCKETT. My name is Lowell M. Puckett, area administrator, Bureau of Land Management, area 4. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Delegate Bartlett and staff: I have written a brief statement, partially in order to limit myself to what I consider to be a reasonably short résumé and at the same time have handed Mr. Abbott a rather detailed statement that covers, we believe, our operations in Alaska to a degree that might be of interest to you. |