Page images

Senator HASKELL. Dr. Robert Henshaw, State College.
Dr. Henshaw, would you proceed in your own way.


I am Robert Henshaw. I have been conducting research for 8 years in northern Alaska on wildlife that live there while I was on the faculty of Casy Gimellon (phonetic) University and Penn State University.

This research has been supported throughout by naval research, so my credentials are somewhat less formal than the preceding guests today.

I was also a contributor at the request of the plaintiffs in the original court case to respond to the Department of Interior's Environmental Impact Report on the trans-Alaska pipeline system and I wrote opinions at that time primarily on wildlife and mammals.

I appear here today to comment specifically on the four bills that you have listed as the topics for the day dealing with rights-of-way.

In the short time I had to prepare this statement, I am sorry I don't have a written statement I can put in your hands to help you follow it.

Senator HASKELL. That is not necessary. It is all being taken down. Mr. HENSHAW. So I will go hurriedly. I will refer to the transAlaska pipeline to illustrate principals because that is the experience that I had in Alaska, but I hope to be talking to the general topic of the rights-of-way.

I should preface my remarks however' by saying that I believe an obstructionist attitude regarding construction of a trans-Alaska pipeline is not appropriate.

On the contrary, if we have exploitable resources, they will and should be exploited.

In their recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court referred to Justice Holmes. They defined litigation over the Alaskan pipeline as great because of the high public interest and immediacy. There is a high interest today because of the immediate priorities having an exploitable energy resource in the middle of an energy crisis.

The law may be great for reasons quite converse to the court cases. Here timelessness, nonspecificity, broad practicability, longer term priorities, and the setting of procedures and precedents which will avoid irretrievable losses are important criteria.

The actual legal right-of-way is an easily definable entity. However, the concept of a right-of-way is not nearly so clear.

I wish to comment then from the standpoint of wildlife, the protection of wildlife, and particularly the preservation of the ecosystems of the wildlife regarding right-of-way legislation.

The point I wish to develop then are the uniqueness of each habitat and of each species relationship to its habitat and the uniqueness of the impacts of any construction, any right-of-way, on these habitats and the species.

Particularly, I wish to emphasize the subtleties, most of which are not yet even known, and finally the need for Congress to arm the Department of Interior with strong environmental guidelines.

A 50-foot corridor which has been discussed this morning in a number of ways has a very definite disruptive effect in the Midwest or in western mountains, or for that matter in Alaska at the northern end or the southern end of a pipeline.

In northern Alaska, if the pipe were laid in or on high ice content permafrost, if melting occurred subsidence would occur and the guesstimates now are the right-of-way would no longer be 50 feet wide. It might be hundreds of yards wide in just a few years.

In southern Alaska, on the other hand, are more stable soils and more rapid plant growth. It is quite possible that healing would occur and the scares would be minimal.

The effects on grazing animals who tend to be beasts of habitat moving from one traditional feeding ground to another and to calfing grounds. Failure to reach any of these grounds would mean death to that group of animals.

Recent studies still underway supported in part by the Department of Interior and in part by the oil industries themselves show that at least 80 to 90 percent of caribou coming upon a pipeline, 48-inch pipeline as it is now proposed for the trans-Alaska pipeline—that is, setting on top of the ground-would be deflected, caused to reverse themselves or be funneled along it.

Caribou are a principal protein source for the Alaskan Natives. We, and they can't afford to lose that. Carnivors, on the other hand, range widely, up to hundreds of miles in search of food. Disruption of this species either in numbers or locations will have an adverse effect.

The right-of-way corridors may afford a very high density of the nutrients for the grazing animals. They may tend to congregate there. Carnivors may as a result move into this

gold mine of prey species food. At first glance this might seem good. This is not so. This would be a very unstable situation, a very localized abundance of animals. The populations could build to an unreasonable level and then crash dramatically.

Rights-of-way are not 50 feet nor 300 feet wide to wildlife. They may in fact be hundreds of miles wide in their effect. Wildlife can effect rights-of-way.

The high abundance of grazers might denude the cleared areas above rights-of-way.

In central and northern Alaska we can expect that caribou, moose, wolves, bear, and others would be funneled along the pipe, would tend to tromp down the vegetation, destroying all of the vegetation under it and the result would be thermal erosion.

The entire foundation of the pipeline could be endangered as a result of the animals themselves. Possible answers to this are in alternative designs.

Russia, for instance, a nation with 50 percent of its country on permafrost, has developed engineering capabilities specifically aimed at solving the problems in coal ranges, suspended pipes have been tried and my feeling is that pipelines suspended 10 feet or more above the ground would eliminate most of the criticisms that wildlife conservationists have leveled at the current pipeline designs.

The answer then is proper attention early on the design and route alternatives. Not to make incontrovertible decisions which may cost

the environment dearly or may cause the demise of natural systems.

When one right-of-way can do, more than one is intolerable. At the moment in Alaska an oil corridor is planned and a liquid gas corridor has been proposed. This would be an intolerable situation and it would lead to the possible demise of the second largest caribou herd in northern Alaska.

Considering the wide ranging impacts felt in an ecosystem multiple use corridors for power, for materials, communications, transportation, are vitally needed, the fewer corridors, the less impact. demands for additional corridors. That is, fewer effects on the wildlife.

Long-range planning and land use will lead to fewer new demands for additional corridors. That is, fewer effects on the wildlife.

Long-term planning must have clearly at its core a commitment to not develop areas at the cost of ecosystems within.

Senator HASKELL. Dr. Henshaw, due to the constrictions of time, do you think you could wind up in 2 minutes ?

Anything further you want to submit in writing for the hearing record will be accepted.

Dr. HENSHAW. Yes; I will attempt to do that.

Again, if I may stick to my notes—I am coming very close to the end of what I had put together.

To this end, I feel that the bill, 1040 should be strengthened in the area of providing wildlife and environmental guidelines to aid the Secretary of the Interior in taking action.

My understanding of the content of the bill gives the Secretary of Interior carte blanche on all of these lands. His office as a result is placed in a very difficult position where he must listen to the business interests on the one hand, and the conservationists interest on the other.

It is my feeling the bill should be strengthened in the area of furnishing very concrete guidelines to the Secretary of the Interior giving him very strictly the intentions that you have in mind for protecting and following, if you will, the intent of the original NEPA Act, to protect environment, giving him firm decisionmaking ability.

I don't think it is there implicitly or specifically in the wording of titles I, II, and III. In contrast the statements in title IV are,


my personal opinion, almost a variance to the intent and really the great value of the bill as it is now written in the other sections.

It deals too specifically in my personal opinion with pipelines per se when we must think of rights-of-way for many, many uses.

Thank you.
Senator HASKELL. Thank you, Dr. Henshaw, very much indeed.

As I said, anything you want to submit within a reasonable time for the record, we will accept. We will call a reasonable time 2 weeks.

I have no questions.
Senator Hansen.
Senator HANSEN. No questions.
Senator HASKELL. Senator McClure.
Senator McCLURE. Just one little area I would like to explore.

You have indicated that you don't believe the legislation dealing with rights-of-way should in any way subtract from the protections granted by or set forth in NEPA, is that correct?

Dr. HENSHAW. Yes, sir. The intention of NEPA.

Senator McClure. Do you think NEPA, standing by itself without further guidelines than this, is adequate for the purposes of directing the administrative discretion in rights-of-way questions?

Dr. HENSHAW. I am sorry, I can't comment on the wording of NEPA, but let me tell you my impression of the way people have used NEPA.

They feel their work may be done at the time they have followed the original intent of the description of the area. Once you have done an impact report, then you are finished. You have completed your obligations. Rather than moving actions, rather than considering alternatives more directly and more seriously.

There are a number of alternatives that have been proposed to the Department of Interior in construction design, alternative routes and it is not my understanding that it has been considered with equal weighing that the original proposal had. Senator McCLURE.

I was looking as to whether or not you feel that in rights-of-way legislation we should attempt to add to NEPA.

Dr. HENSHAW. Not to NEPA, but show clearly that the intention of your law would be to have the Secretary of Interior follow the intention of NEPA very specifically.

Senator McCLURE. If the legislation is completely silent on environmental questions, would then not the Secretary be mandated under NEPA?

Dr. HENSHAW. I am sorry, sir.

Senator McCLURE. If we say nothing at all about environment constraints in amending rights-of-way legislation, the Secretary would still be bound to follow the requirements of NEPA, would he not?

Dr. HENSHAW. I believe that would be correct.

Senator McCLURE. Would it be a wise thing for us in dealing with pipeline legislation to not attempt to reiterate NEPA, but remain silent on the question ?

Dr. Henshaw. Not in my personal opinion.
Senator McCLURE. Thank you very much.
Senator HASKELL. Thank you very much.
Peggy Spaw of the Arizona Audubon Council.

We had scheduled three additional witnesses. They all live in Washington and I understand they are happy to come back—at least I hope they are happy-on March 27. So you are the last witness.


Ms. Spaw. Thank you.

On behalf of the Arizona Audubon Council we very much appreciate being invited to be here today.

I will make this as to the point as I can because everybody is surely getting tired by now.

I was asked to say by our rather hasty committee meetings when they heard that someone was going to get to come back to Washington, that Senate bill 1081 is really news in Arizona. That is as of yesterday. So are Senate bills 1040 and 1041 with their proposed amendment of title IV.

Foremost, Arizona's general preoccupation especially in the legislature and among environment and academic groups has been with Senator Jackson's national land use bill.

Much of Arizona's pending legislation on State land is being examined and patterned against 268 as the background.

We would like to congratulate the chairman of this committee for his long, hard work in the area of public land use planning:

We understand the fundamental interplay between Senate bill 268, Senate bill 1081, 1040, and 1041 are today being considered only at the level of title IV.

We are acutely amazed that Senate bill 1081 should breach into 268 at this critical time of discussion and development when 268 was being used as a planning unit among our States.

We sincerely consider Senate bill 1081 and its companions something like an untimely intruder. We consider thewe think about rights-of-way and we naturally, out where we come from, think of transmission lines and think of them as an inseparable factor that cannot be fairly considered outside the context of a national land use plan.

No environmentalist worth his salt, especially one who works in the West, he observes transmission lines multiplying like coat hangers all over the countryside, would fail to be flagged down by the appeal of the fact that there will be an organized corridor system under 1081.

But under the conditions that prevail, with the companions that the bill has

Senator HASKELL. To reduce the number of coat hangers though.

Ms. Spaw. We will overlook the fact there is a rose here among the thorns and stand with the fact that we think 1081 is hastily put. We are pleading for time and study. We are asking for fairness of a natural study and the full participation of elected Congressmen in the prosecution of the study.

We sense at today's hearings, we talked about it a lot, us ordinary people in the short time we had back home-we really can't understand the thinking behind 1081 and the thinking behind amending title IV of 1041. We are trying to figure it out.

It occurred to us that with the Alaska pipeline being what it is, though it is not to be talked about to specifically today, we sense we might be showing a flash of Hades so we will settle for purgatory, that is one thought.

The second though we have on it—we have many thoughts—is that today we are part of an allegory. It is the Alaska pipeline all right, and we are here talking about everything that interests us.

So we simply, in Arizona, where problems are so tremendous in our country and the West so gorgeous, are asking for time and field hearings and we are also citing the fact that this amendment of title IV to accommodate some people is a pretty puny offering.

The whole 1873 mining law needs to be gone over with bravery and organization. We are asking for that as long as we are moving out and thinking in areas of repair.

We ask that this be done on behalf of the interest of the entire country. Mainly our kids that are coming up beginning from about 3 years

up now.

« PreviousContinue »