Page images

(2) At present there are 28 incoming radio circuits in operation and 13 standby circuits for emergency use. The ACS derives approximately 75 voice and telegraph communications channels from the operating circuits. This requires approximately 70 radio receivers and associated equipment. Additional circuits are being added each year in the approximate number of 10 channels.

(e) Since Anchorage is a hub of communications, radio reception is required from nearly every direction. Long Beverage antennas are effective only when constructed in a straight line pointed directly toward the distant transmitting station.

(f) During transmission disturbances, which are extremely prevalent in this part of the world, studies of long-distance radio transmission have shown that wide departures from the desired great circle transmission path will occur. This makes it mandatory that a variety of directive paths, and hence a number of alternate antennas having high gain and directive capabilities be available for selection. Wide directional coverage (preferably 360 degrees) is mandatory if continuous and reliable communication is to be realized.

(g) In order to realize the maximum capability of the complex multichannel reeciving equipment installed at this station, it is necessary that all possible measures be undertaken to combat the effects of fading with its attendant loss or disruption of high-frequency channels. This is best accomplished by utilizing two antennas on each transmission path to provide “diversity” reception. To gain full benefit from the diversity principle, wide separation between antennas is necessary.

(h) The Anchorage station provides the most important junction of ACS long lines radio communications and is a primary Army communication administrative network radio station tied into the Signal Corps worldwide network. This station serves the military, governmental, and civilian requirements for telephone and telegraph communications.

3. When the Campbell Point site was chosen, the following factors were considered:

(a) Desirability from a technical radio reception standpoint (good radio reception sites are limited in this area by rugged terrain and coastline).

(6) An area sufficiently level for antenna construction.

(c) Sufficient distance from radio transmitting stations in the Anchorage area to eliminate possible interference.

(d) Sufficient distance from the city of Anchorage to provide protection from all other manmade electrical noise, at the same time a near proximity to existing road system to keep construction, maintenance, and supply costs at an economical minimum. An additional consideration is the proximity of local electrical power source, an existing pole line construction on which to attach ACS control lines to communication center in the city of Anchorage.

(e) Security from military standpoint. (The area is bounded on three sides by water.)

4. The ACS situation in Alaska differs somewhat from the situation facing commercial communication agencies in the United States. In Alaska, road systems are limited and do not extend out into the unimproved areas. Construction of roads, power and control lines, are expensive and cost of maintenance for the use of one organization is prohibitive. In Alaska, the areas in the vicinity of the cities are normally bounded on one side by mountains or water, or the combination of both, which limits the number of good technical radio receiving locations in the reasonable vicinity of the cities. In the United States, usually large areas of reasonably flat land exist in the vicinity of cities and an extensive road network extends in all directions, therefore, good communications sites are normally available in the immediate vicinity of an existing road at a satisfactory distance from manmade electrical disturbances.

5. In order to protect the ACS, FCC, and CAA installations against mancreated electrical noises and to provide adequate land for future antenna construction, it is not practical to reduce the Campbell Point site in area. The ACS installation at Campbell Point represents an estimated evaluation of $1,200,000, excluding the value of the real estate. Relocation of the installation to another point at this time would be impractical and costly.


OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, February 3, 1954.


From: Assistant Secretary of the Navy
To: Assistant Secretary of Defense (Properties and Installations)
Subject: Senate Subcommittee on Territory and Insular Affairs hearings on S.

50, Statehood of Alaska, information on Navy properties 1. The answers to questions posed by subject subcommittee are as follows: (a) Are there plans for future activity at the Navy Petroleum Reserve No. 4?

Èxploration work in the reserve was suspended last year after consultation with the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. It was determined that the prospective results were not commensurate with the considerable costs involved. Much of the equipment was made available to the Air Force and to other Government departments, and that which remains is maintained by a small custodial force at Point Barrow under the jurisdiction of the field office at Fairbanks. No further exploration nor oil field development is planned for tbis reserve. However, the Navy does maintain the Arctic Research Laboratory at Point Barrow, and the Air Force has some operations on lands within the Reserve.

(b) Can the Navy give up either the whole or part of the oil and gas reserve?

"The Navy would interpose no objection to returning the reserve to the public domain under the administration of the Interior Department. This, however, is a policy matter for determination by the White House and by Congress through the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. Insofar as the oil potential of this territory is concerned, the Navy's primary interest is in its ultimate ecopomical development whether by private or governmental interests."

(c) Are there security aspects which would prevent the return of the reserves?

There are no security considerations with regard to the area of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, although certain limited portions are utilized by the Air Force.

(d) Would it be possible to turn it over to the proposed State with the Navy having the first call in the event of an emergency?

This is a matter to be determined by the President and the Congress. (See (b) above).

(e) Can the Navy release any property which it holds at Kodiak?

The naval reservation at Kodiak comprises 54,200 acres. It is probable that a few thousand acres can be returned to the public domain. However, no request has been received for the release of any part of the area for private enterprise. Before a definite answer can be given as to the amount which can be released a complete survey would have to be made.

(f) Are there any plans for future acquisition of land in Alaska? At present there are no plans for further acquisition of land.





INSTALLATIONS) This refers to your informal request of January 28 for information upon which to base a reply to certain questions asked by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in hearings held that day. The paraphrased questions and the answers as to the Air Force portion are indicated below.

Question. Can any Air Force land holdings in the vicinity of Anchorage be turned back to the public domain?

Answer. No relinquishments are possible at this time. Air Force holdings in the Anchorage area total 13,211 acres.

Question. Can any Air Force land holdings in the vicinity of Fairbanks be turned back to the public domain?

Answer. The Air Force is in the process of relinquishing 4,440 acres in the vicinity of Fairbanks withdrawn under Public Land Order 794. A study is cur

rently in process to determine whether any additional land can be relinquished. It is anticipated that this study will result in the return of several thousand more acres. The total Air Force holdings in the Fairbanks area including Ladd Air Force Base, Eielson Air Force Base and certain small Army defense installations (exclusive of the Blair Lake Bombing and Gunnery Range) total 87,547 acres.

Question. Can any portion of the Cook Inlet Bombing and Gunnery Range be turned back to the public domain?

Answer. In May 1953 under Public Land Order 894, the Air Force returned to the public domain 75,530 acres of land formerly a part of the Cook Inlet Bombing and Gunnery Range, and consisting of desirable shoreland for fishing sites. No further land can be turned back under present criteria. It is believed that new weapons currently being developed will require at least that much range. When firm criteria are ultimately developed for the new weapons, Air Force requirements will then be reevaluated. Air Force holdings in the Cook Inlet Bombings and Gunnery Range total 1,153,150 acres. (While the committee did not ask a similar question as to the Blair Lake Bombing and Gunnery Range, the requirement for that range has been reexamined. No relinquishments of land are possible at this time. The Air Force holdings at the Blair Lake Bombing and Gunnery Range total 655,000 acres, used jointly by Air Force and Army.)

Question. Could the Cook Inlet Range be abandoned and another suitable range be located elsewhere in Alaska?

Answer. Since there has never been any public interest in possible commercial use of the Cook Inlet Range (apart from the 75,530 acres recently returned), the Air Force has made no study as to the replacement of the Cook Inlet Range with another range. Such a study, in view of the scope of the project, would take at least a month. However, from information now available, it appears that no suitable alternate range in the vicinity of Elmendorf could be located. To locate a range outside the Elmendorf area would mean relocating a major Air Force base, which is economically infeasible and would probably result in adverse effects upon the civilian economy of Anchorage. It is believed that, in view of the uninhabited and inaccessible nature of the Cook Inlet Range, the committee would not wish a detailed study made, although we should be glad to undertake one if it is desired.

Question. Does the Air Force have any additional land acquisitions in mind in Alaska?

A. Total additional Air Force requirements in Alaska are approximately 51,000 acres. Approximately 35,000 acres are required for aircraft control and warning sites and associated relay stations in classified locations; 1,000 for navigational aids in microwave systems at sites not yet selected ; 10,000 acres estimated to be ultimately required for establishment of 2 forward bases in the general regions of Aniak and Fort Yukon; and approximately 5,223 acres of public domain and 160 acres of privately owned land are required for Army use in the vicinity of Fairbanks at Eielson.

The Cook Inlet Bombing and Gunnery Range overlay requested by Senator Anderson for his topographical map would not be technically satisfactory. We are forwarding two other maps outlining that Range which, your office has agreed, should answer the Senator's purpose.

This headquarters will continue agressive action to survey land held by the Air Force and will relinquish as rapidly as possible any land for which a requirement no longer exists.


Special Assistant for Installations. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Friday, January 29, 1954.)




Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the committee room, 224 Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C., Senator Guy Cordon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Hugh Butler, of Nebraska; Guy Cordon, of Oregon (presiding); and Henry M. Jackson, of Washington.

Present also: E. L. Bartlett, Delegate from Alaska, House of Representatives.

Present also : Elmer F. Bennett, Legislative Counsel and Assistant Solicitor; Herbert J. Slaughter, Chief, Reference Division, Office of Legislative Counsel; and Robert Coote, staff assistant, technical review staff, Department of the Interior.

Senator CORDON. The committee will come to order.

The committee has from the Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary Orme Lewis; Elmer Bennett, Assistant Solicitor and Legal Counsel; Mr. Ralph Barney, Chief of the Indian Claims Branch in the Lands Department of the Department of Justice; Mr. Harry Critchfield, Chief of the Division of Lands, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.

Gentlemen, the subcommittee is endeavoring to inform itself as much as possible with respect to the status of the public lands in the Territory of Alaska. The committee desires to secure the information in connection with what it believes is the general view of the whole committee, that any statehood bill for Alaska should have provisions in it for acquisition by the new State of Alaska of a larger percentage of public lands within the State's boundaries than even the most liberal provision yet made for any new State.

The committee realizes that the Territory of Alaska, insofar as its economic future is concerned, is in a different position than many other States. Whereas the States of the continental United States all had vast areas of either agricultural land in use or land susceptible of agricultural use, in the case of the Territory of Alaska, its economy, while it, of course, can be greatly aided by an expanding agriculture, is faced with definite limitations as to the amount of land that can be devoted to agricultural pursuits. Its economy is essentially tied to the mineral values in the area, the values coming from the forested areas, and from commercial fishing.

Of course another of those great assets is the potential electric power, which as long as it is merely potential is in itself no consequence, but

which becomes of very great consequence when we consider that it is a necessary part of any real expansion of the mineral industry in Alaska, and also of the industries incident to the use of merchantable timber, either for the purpose of lumber making, or for pulp and paper, and allied chemical uses. So it is important for us to have as much information as we can as to the nature of present land availabiliay, I mean public land, as to the extent of reservations, what is reserved in the orders of reservation, what of those reserve areas ought to be left in their present status, what can be cut down in size, or liberalized in reservation requirements. Then we must also, of course, face the ancient claims of the natives of Alaska.

These matters, of course, must have some decision if Alaska is going to have any hope at all as a sister State of the country.

We would like very much to have today, Mr. Lewis, any information that you can furnish us in any of these fields.

You know that we have heard from the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines, from the Fish and Wildlife Service to some extent, not perhaps as fully as we may need to hear. We have had information with respect to the forested areas. We have heard from the present Governor of the Territory, Governor Heintzleman, and he was most helpful to the committee. We have had information with respect to the military reservations and the reservations for national park and national monument purposes.

We have had considerable information with respect to the transportation problem. We may need some additional information in that field. But today we are particularly interested in the status of the Indian claims or native claims, whether to title or to possessory or occupancy rights. It is to that field that the committee expects to direct its attention today.

I know that we have Mr. Critchfield here today, and I understand that he is perhaps as fully personally acquainted with reserved areas there as any man that we could get.







Senator CORDON. Before we get into the main Indian thing, we would like to have any information he can give us in the field of reservations, particularly those that were for native animals, the native food animals.

Mr. LEWIS. All right. I think I need say very little because he is well informed on this subject.

Senator CORDON. We do not want you to become too modest here and hold yourself out of this conference at all. We want to hear from everybody than can aid us.

« PreviousContinue »