and elsewhere. For example, what specific information is presented on the value of having the Brooks Range remain unimpaired? How does this value compare to wilderness elsewhere?

B. The document should include a detailed statement on the positive effects which would accrue from the alternatives of having no pipeline at all. No mention is made of many important advantages of denying or deferring the pipeline project.

One example of an impact statement which more adequately stresses advantages and disadvantages of maintaining land as wilderness in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Emigrant Wilderness in Stanislaus National Forest, California. Excerpts are as follows:

"Beneficial effects of maintaining wilderness. Timber: 28 per cent of the area supports timber growth. Leaving this plant cover in a natural state has favorable social, biological, and physical impacts. The esthetics of an undisturbed forest are important to some people. It can be used for scientific and educational purposes as well. Some animals and birds may be dependent upon it for continual existence. The land form will remain in its natural and primitive state. Wildlife: Animals, birds, fish native to the area will continue to live in a natural habitat unmodified by man. The impacts are similar to those described above. Water: Perpetuation of a continued high quality source would be maintained."

Mr. Chairman, despite its weight and quantity of verbiage the final environmental impact statement on the trans-Alaskan pipeline has failed to give appropriate consideration to environmental amenities in general and to wilderness values in particular. In this regard, I feel only Congress can correct the impasse the Secretary of Interior has created by giving total consideration of all isuues related toward the construction of an Alaskan pipeline. Such appropriate consideration must be taken into account:

(1) Description: Objectively describe the probable environmental effects.

(2) Quantification: Estimate in certain terms the magnitude of environmental effects.

(3) Monetization: Place value on effects. In Environmental Defense Fund US TVA 2 ELR 20044 it was decided some resources transcend commercial values, for example, redwoods. Thus next to description, quantifying the environmental effect should be regarded as a required category for adequate consideration of NEPA statements and in this case, congressional review.

Moving on now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the validity of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Some representatives have referred to this statute as "outmoded" and "outdated." I object to this language. The validity of this section. was underscored by Justice Wright on February 9, 1973, when he handed down his decision in Wilderness Society v. Morton 4 ERC. I quote:

The debates in Congress (referring to debates over enactment of Section 28) indicate the reason why Congress was so strict with the rights-of-way provision. Congress at that time felt the granting of rights-of-way to railroads, which occurred in the latter part of the previous century had been much too generous and consequently did not want this to be repeated.

Mr. Chairman, this committee should not be pressured into a hasty removal of a section that served to protect our public lands. A thoughtful judgment on the width limitations of this section should be made only after a full consideration of surrounding issues pertaining to gas and oil lines across Federal lands.

Now I feel I should address myself to the measures before this committee. Being that I discovered duplication of measures before this committee I will discuss them according to topic.

Congressional authority H.R. 1893: I feel this measure is clear as stated. The intent is for Congress to have final say on the Alaskan issues before this committee. I definitely support such a measure for as I stated earlier, this committee and Congress need to carry out the responsibilities the Secretary failed to do under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Public land law management: H.R. 5524 and H.R. 5541 title IV:

These bills as I understand them, would, among other actions, convey broad discretionary powers to the Secretary of the Interior over management of our public lands. As stated by Dr. Robert R. Curry, professor of environmental geology at the University of Montana, in his testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March 27, 1973:

Congress should not invest more power in the Secretary of the Interior to determine public good for federal lands unless the executive branch is firmly instructed upon the determination of that public good by the public through its Congress.

I agree with Professor Curry that if these measures were passed in their present form the decisionmaking process would be subverted. Our public lands and their management are the Nation's concern. Just next week, a joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission set up under the terms of the Alaskan Native Lands Claim Act will hold public hearings on what we, the citizenry feel should be the policy toward 80 milion acres of public land in Alaska. A tragic day it will be when the public can no longer speak out concerning how its lands will be managed.

The 1920 Mineral Leasing Act Sec. 28. H.R. 4651, H.R. 4910, H.R. 5542 Sec. 122: These bills would simply amend Section 28 of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. My position on these measures was stated earlier in my testimony. Section 28, the width limitation should be changed only after careful consideration of all the issues revolving around the Alaskan v. Trans-Canadian Pipeline controversy. No more needs to be said concerning these measures.

Trans-Canadian Route Authorization Bills: H.R. 5750, H.R. 4707, H.R. 6871: As I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of the Interior has created an impasse by not carrying out his mandate under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The measures that I will discuss now offer a solution to this problem. All three bills require a full hearing to all issues surrounding Alaska Pipeline situation with the exception of H.R. 4707 which authorizes a transCanadian line subject to provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. It is this approach I feel Congress must take, an open distinterested study of all aspects of the issue. However, I would have to object to the time element contained in measures H.R. 5750 and H.R. 6871. As I understand, the provision H.R. 5750 authorizes a new congressional arm, Office of Technology Assessment, to study all practical methods of recovering and delivering of Alaspa North Slope petroleum and report to Congress within 1 year of passage as to the best method and route. H.R. 6871 states a 6-month study

should be made by a Federal task force; 1 year and 6 months are not acceptable. I'm not saying the studies should be continued indefinitely. I am saying, however, a time element means pressure and a fair, objective, study should proceed on its own headway. I do like H.R. 7550's provision for Office of Technological Assessment to carry out the study of issues economic, environmental, national security of the best method of delivering Alaskan oil. Such a mandate would not only test the office's capabilities, but also assure the National Environmental Policy Act provisions be carried out based on unbiased data. If the time element could be worked out H.R. 5750's broadest scope is the best solution to the questions before this committee and urge its adoption.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to share with this committee what the opportunity of testifying here today has meant to me. Two years ago, for a period of a week, I was in Alaska. I was enroute to Anchorage, standing at a spot literally removed from civilization. However, I didn't feel isolated at all, for before I knew what was happening, the appearance of four flocks of Canadian geese came into view. The chance to experience the value conveyed through a land alive with other life forms helps me define my own experience. I feel grateful for the opportunity of expressing my views and hope the decision made here today will take into account a policy which would protect not only human values but natural values as well. Thank you.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Phillips, I appreciate very much the points you raised, both concerning section 28 and the question of whether or not the Secretary has adequately studied the environmental situation and has conveyed that study to his impact statement.

The committee has available the impact statement in its entirety. and is struggling with making a judgment on the accuracy of it, too. It isn't something that we are ignoring.

Your comments along this line are very helpful to the committee. I appreciate your coming here very much.

I have no real questions to ask you. I just want to compliment you on your very sincere and earnest approach to the question and your willingness to share it with the committee.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you.

Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.

Certain letters and statements that have been received for the record will be inserted here without objection.

Hearing none, so ordered.

[The letters and statements follow:]

THE STANDARD OIL Co.,

Cleveland, Ohio, May 16, 1973.

HON. JOHN MELCHER,, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Public Lands,

House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During my testimony before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs regarding matters related to transportation of oil and gas resources from the North Slope of Alaska, I was asked for my views with regard to the timing of a Canadian alternate to the proposed TransAlaska pipeline. In the course of responding, I offered to provide for the record

additional support for our Trans-Canada timetable. It occurs to me that you and the other members of your Committee might wish to have the same information.

Beginning on the fifth page of our Detailed Report on Matters Related to a Trans-Alaska or Trans-Canada Pipeline, which was submitted to your Committee on April 19, 1973, we set forth our views on the possible timing of a Trans-Canada alternative. We conclude that North Slope crude oil production would be put off for nine or ten years after a final decision barring construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline is reached and all appeals are exhausted. I wish to emphasize that this estimate does not allow for any delay for United States or Canadian governmental action, environmental opposition, or settlement of native claims in Canada since it is assumed that these issues could be resolved within the period of time required for the route analysis, design, and enginering which must be completed prior to commencement of construction. It is the additional background and support for our estimate of the time required for these pre-construction activities and for the construction phase which I submit for your consideration.

Figure 1 of our report, which for your convenience is attached as Exhibit A, delineates certain activities which must be accomplished prior to startup, shows the sequential nature of various activities, and provides our estimate of the time required to accomplish the requisite tasks. Exhibit B, attached, elaborates upon each of these activities and provides support for our estimate of the time which would be required for completion of each. As shown, a total of ten years is required to accomplish route analysis, design, and construction of the Trans-Canada pipeline. Since the Trans-Alaska pipeline, in its present state of readiness, can be completed in three to four years from the date of approval, the Trans-Canada alternative would delay production of North Slope crude oil for six or seven years.

The participants in the Trans-Alaska project have been criticized by some for not bringing the Trans-Canada pipeline to the same state of readiness as the Trans-Alaska pipeline. There are several reasons why it has not been prudent for us to plan and organize short of actual construction-for both an Alaskan and a Canadian pipeline including:

(1) The ownership in the two systems would be different due to participation by Canadians in a Trans-Canada line.

(2) Financing plans would be totally dissimilar, due to higher construction costs and to the involvement of the Canadians in a Trans-Canada pipeline. (3) The tremendous cost of the pre-construction phase for projects of this magnitude precludes duplication. To date we have spent approximately $375 million on the Alaskan proposal. Some of this expense, such as the cost of purchasing pipe, would serve either systems. However, the elimination of common costs would still leave well over $200 million of duplication and waste. Our fiduciary responsibility to our debt holders, our stockholders, and our customers requires that we carefully consider alternatives and that we subject the selected course of action to continuous review. However, our fiduciary responsibility also requires that we avoid duplication and waste of the magnitude which would result from planning and organizing to construct two mutually exclusive projects.

I hope this additional material will be helpful to you in your deliberations on proposed legislation regarding pipeline construction across public land. You may make this information part of the record if you so desire.

Sincerely,

97-839 O 73 pt. 2 17

CHARLES E. SPAHR.