-4 Amends the 1964 Wilderness Act S. 2801 represents a breach of promises made by Congress and the environmental groups in the National Wilderness Preservation Act of 1964. This act permits seismic surveys and other inventory/exploration activities, even after the proposed areas were designated as Wilderness. S. 2801 reverses repeated assurances that highly prospective energy and mineral areas could be set aside as Wilderness and wilderness study areas, without harming this nation's ability to inventory the public's resources and meet economic, industrial and national defense needs. Wilderness Protected To date, no development activities have taken place in Wilderness designated areas. All mineral leases issued in Wilderness areas contain stipulations to protect the Wilderness character of the area. All of the present leases (39 total) in existing Wilderness contain "no surface occupancy" stipulations. It should also be noted that contrary to what many have heard, all the land affected by coal, sand and gravel, and "hardrock" (phosphate, metallic, et cetera) mining since 1930, taken together, totals only 5.7 million acres. This is one quarter of one per cent of the land area of the United States. Over one-half of this 5.7 million acres has already -5 been reclaimed. Similar figures apply with respect to oil and gas development, the industries most affected by this bill. These facts, coupled with the fifteen major environmental protection acts passed in the last decade, assure this country of a Wilderness heritage. We feel compelled to ask for assurance of another equally important national heritage ignores the dynamics of the exploration process, to include seismic testing, in mineral surveys, thus interfering with the Wilderness study process itself, contains an unworkable "urgent national need" provision and fails to define the term, thus leaving us unable to respond in a timely or environmentally sound manner to any crisis that creates a need to open Wilderness areas, contains completely inadequate "valid existing rights" language by failing to address what constitutes the right of access and development to established leases and claims, -6 breaches the compromise of the 1964 Wilderness Act by closing the December 31, 1983 window for exploration in Wilderness, contains no "release" language, which is designed to insure that areas studied for Wilderness do not remain in de facto Wilderness status, after it has been determined that they are not suitable for designation as Wilderness. Of particular concern to us is the bill's lack of release language. Misconceptions frequently arise about release language. However, it is important to recognize the following facts: Currently, over 80 million acres of national forest, Contrary to repeated claims "release" in no way creates or implies a "mandate to develop" any of the lands returned to non-wilderness management. It simply means lands are returned to the management status they held prior to their identification for Wilderness study. development can occur on any released lands until all applicable environmental study and permit requirements have been met. No -7 Thus to be a true compromise, any future bill must provide: permanent release language for those 36 million acres determined to be unsuitable for Wilderness under the 1979 RARE II Study, provisions for the immediate reversion of BLM Wilderness Study Areas to multiple use once they are determined to be unsuitable for Wilderness designation, the opportunity to explore Wilderness areas at least until the statutory deadline of December 31, 1983, for inventory purposes. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the NAM I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and the Subcommittee today. We look forward to working with you in developing a truly balanced compromise of S. 2801. Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Rolander. STATEMENT OF F. STEVEN MOONEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GULF MINERAL RESOURCES CO. Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Mooney. I am Executive Vice President of the Gulf Mineral Resources Co., a division of Gulf Oil Corp. based in Denver, Colo., Gulf has extensive operations in oil and gas, coal, oil shale, and exploration for nonenergy minerals on public lands in the United States, and largely in the West. I am here to offer arguments against S. 2801, the Wilderness Protection Act of 1982. I would like to reiterate what has been said here several times before, that long-term decisions such as those included in this bill cannot be based we think on conditions of the moment. Today's energy and mineral markets are slack. However, as the events of last week have made painfully clear, conditions in the rest of the world, especially the Middle East, can change quickly. It is in our opinion not good public policy to limit our options with regard to the domestic natural resources when we are so clearly vulnerable to unpredictable foreign politics. More specifically, we at Gulf oppose S. 2801 on two grounds. First, the legislation would relegate large areas of public land to the most exclusive form of use without first determining the value of ultimate uses. Second, the legislation fails to define the deadlines for Congress to decide the highest and best use of the lands now proposed for wilderness. We strongly support the long-established concept of multiple use for public lands and believe that only in carefully selected situations can we afford the luxury to dedicate land to a single use, be that for wilderness or any other narrow purpose. Our main concern here is one of national security and economic viability, not direct impact on our corporate bottom line. There is we think a misconception that removal of lands from mineral development is somehow a defeat for the energy and mining companies. We think more properly that it is a defeat for our society. If we remove our own resources from consideration to wilderness designation or to other means, it simply makes us more dependent on other nations for our needs. We recognize the value of setting aside lands for wilderness preservation. However, the designation of these lands should reflect a reasonable understanding of the tradeoffs involved. Under the RARE II wilderness inventory comments were solicited from the public about the value of the alternative uses of the land. However, no meaningful effort was made to evaluate the subsurface value of the tracts in the study. Now this bill, 2081, would prohibit not only lease and adequate exploration in designated wilderness lands, but also on lands still under consideration. Such a policy insures that well-informed, intelligent designations of land to the wilderness status would be impossible. It is hard to believe the American public would want, not want to know if a tract being considered for wilderness overlies a major oilfield. Such new information which is obtained conclusively only by seismic work and drilling would be vital to a balanced decision. This proposed legislation exhibits a complete misunderstanding of the essentials of petroleum mineral exploration methods or it is an effort to mislead the Congress into believing that adequate provisions have been made to assess the resources contained when there is actually no chance to accomplish this assessment under the restraints provided in the legislation. It is too complex an issue I think to debate here, but my 25 years of experience in the business tells me that the provisions of section 4 of the bill could not produce a meaningful evaluation of any but the most simple geological conditions. In order to give credence to the kind of geostatistical study described by the gentlemen from Oak Ridge, they are by definition speculations that are not data. The only real test for both petroleum and minerals is the drill bit, and the drilling can be carried out in an environmentally compatible manner. Moreover, Federal leases contain stipulations under which companies have been suc |