not be misused to advance federal power operations or to hamper the planning, construction and operation of non-federal transmission lines. D. Boundaries of Federal Offshore Lands Current proposals to internationalize ocean areas beyond a depth of 200 meters are inhibiting exploration in such areas and should be strongly opposed. The United States is urged to assert promptly and forthrightly its exclusive jurisdiction over the mineral resources of the entire submerged portion of the continent off its shores seaward of state-owned offshore areas down to its junction with the abyssal ocean floor. The United States should work with other nations toward the ultimate objective of precise demarcation of boundaries of coastal nations' natural resources jurisdiction. E. Withdrawals Congress should provide that before any federal land withdrawals of magnitude be made, there first be a public hearing on the proposed withdrawal in the state or states affected. A time limit should be placed on temporary withdrawals and withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more should require prior Congressional approval. 9 We sent you separate telegrams requesting permission for each of us to testify at your committee's hearings on Federal Policy Concerning the Granting of Rights-of-Way Across Federal Lands. After talking to various staff members and reading your statement of March 9, 1973, it is our opinion that our statements are not germane to the narrow scope of your present hearings. We understand that proponents of the Alaskan pipeline route discussed the merits of their proposal. We would also welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues and our reasons for believing that the Trans Alaskan Route is not in the national interest. But in view of your assurances concerning later hearings on the substantive pipeline issues we are withdrawing our requests to testify during the present hearings. Our testimonies would deal with the adequacy of the economic and environmental analyses carried out by the Department of Interior, the Department's consideration of alternatives, the possibilities for and results of utilizing "a systematic interdisciplinary approach...[for] the integrated use of the natural and social sciences" in evaluating TAPS and proposed Canadian alternatives in terms of appropriate economic, national security, and environmental criteria. Additionally, since Dr. Cicchetti has spent some time considering the relative desirability of an all land system versus the proposed TAP route, he would like to offer testimony concerning the types of amendments that should accompany any legislation that makes it possible to go ahead with the proposed Trans Alaska Pipeline. We would, therefore, like to request time to testify at your hearings on S.970 and S.993. However, if amendments are offered to the present more narrowly focused right of way bills that would accomplish the intent of either S.970 or S.993, we hope that you will permit us to testify before acting upon such amendments. Thank you for your cooperation on these matters. We are pleased to accommodate your desire not to overburden your committee with important Page 2 March 27, 1973 issues out of context knowing that you will give us an opportunity to testify at a later date. Sincerely, Charles Carleto Charles J. Cicchetti AMyriut rumang A. Myrick Freeman L ja PS: We request that you include this letter in the public sword of the teaming, يا الله As president of the Patuxent Valley Environmental Association, I would appreciate the opportunity to insert in the hearing record brief comments concerning S1040, S1041, S1056 and S1081. This Association is currently engaged in a fight against an EHV transmission line, which does not in fact come under any provisions of these bills, but has made us especially sensitive to the issues of right-of-ways, particularly the policy of multiple use of such corridors. My comments are directed principally to the need for further and more exhaustive study of the various methods proposed for revising the admittedly out-ofdate laws we have at present. Much more care has to be exercised to see that the revisions are not only desirable but workable. I note, for instance, that your bill S1081 subscribes to the principle of multiple use of utility corridors "wherever practical" but contains no criteria spelling out how this practicality shall be determined or provisions for enforcing such multiple use. It is my feeling that for more than pious hopes are necessary to oppose the strong utility pressure to acquire rightof-ways that serve only narrow economic interests. I would therefore respectfully urge that further public hearings be held to ensure that overly hasty measures are not adopted based on the desire to resolve the particular problem of the Alaska pipeline. Sincerely, Stanley Pickert (Stanley J. Pickart Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTIONS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 3106 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The forest products industry urges adoption of the enclosed amendments to the proposed Federal Lands Right-of-Way legislation which you and your Committee will be considering tomorrow. (S. 1081 and Title IV of S. 1041.) The first of these would include lands in the National Forest System as part of the provision in S. 1081 defining "Federal lands" and exceptions thereto. For the reasons given with the attached amendment, we believe the right-of-way granting authority for the National Forest System should be retained by the Secretary of Agriculture. This easement granting authority was specifically established in the Act of October 13, 1964. It has been satisfactory both to the Federal Government and to private cooperators in constructing and maintaining roads that cross intermingled land ownerships. It should be retained as is. The second amendment attached hereto is to provide comparable easement or right-of-way granting authority to the Secretary of Interior. We believe this would help him to administer the Bureau of Land Management lands more effectively. We urge adoption of this amendment also. Thank you for your attention and consideration to these amendments. We believe they will improve and strengthen the legislation now before your Committee. Sincerely, Enclosures. JOHN F. HALL. SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO S. 1081 Amend Section 2(b) by inserting the language in italics. (b) "Federal lands" means all lands owned by the United States except (1) lands in the National Park System, (2) lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System, (3) lands in the National Forest System, (4) lands on the Outer Continental Shelf, (5) lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and (6) lands held by the United States in trust for any Indian or Indian tribe, and lands held or owned by any Indian or Indian tribe under a limitation or restriction on alienation requiring the consent of the United States. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT The Secretary of Agriculture already has the necessary easement granting authority to provide for adequate rights-of-way across intermingled National Forest and private lands. This easement granting authority was established specifically in the Act of October 13, 1964 and has been effective in promoting the construction and maintenance of a single system of roads for access to intermingled Federal and private lands. Enactment of S. 1081 without the proposed exemption for National Forest lands, will increase the complexity of the existing easement granting authority by involving the Secretary of the Interior. It will not provide the same safeguards of private rights contained in the 1964 Act. SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO S. 1081 Amendment subsections (a) and (b) of Section 7 by deleting the language struck through and inserting the language in italic : (a) The Secretary may suspend or terminate any right-of-way granted, issued or renewed pursuant to this Act [if,] by consent of the owner of the right-of-way or by condemnation after due notice to the holder of the right-of-way and an appropriate administrative proceeding [, he determines that such action is appropriate.]. However, no administrative proceeding shall be required where the right-of-way by its term provides that it terminates on the occurrence of a fixed or agreed upon condition, event or time. (b) Abandonment of the right-of-way or noncompliance with any provision of this Act, condition of the right-of-way, or applicable rule or regulation of the |