nation. No dollar amount can express it anymore than we can measure the importance of God in human living. I am pleased to see that S. 2801 will temporarily withdraw Further Planning Areas from oil and gas leasing. These areas, like Deep Creek, need protection as well as areas already in the wilderness system. Otherwise, they will be ruined before Congress has a chance to add them to the system. Senators, it is my humble request that you will reflect on my comments with the same sincerity in which they are given. It will take diligent efforts on your part to protect these lands of which I speak. Years later, our children of the nation will say in reflecting on their heritage, "It took real statesmanship to stand in the face of exploitation's demand for more QUANTITY in our lives and then substitute QUALITY for QUANTITY." Senator WALLOP. Thank you, Mr. Barker. Mr. Smith, we will go at least until those bells go off, and then I think we have 4 minutes' worth. STATEMENT OF ROGER J. SMITH, ENVIRONMENTAL Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Roger J. Smith. I am an environmental consultant for the American Land Alliance, which is a nonprofit, public foundation reflecting a coalition of constituents of over 100,000 Americans, including private property rights organizations, business and industrial groups, and a wide array of nationally respected land-environmental experts. Mr. Chairman, the alliance is concerned that our Federal land and environmental policies should reflect a balance between environmental protections which avert unnecessary deterioration or degradation of our natural resources and the needs of our citizenry and Nation for energy independence and national security. The ALA is opposed to S. 2801 in its present form for the following rea sons. One: It is imperative that our Nation have an opportunity to complete an inventory of our energy and mineral resources. The wisdom of our future energy decisions is linked to the adequacy of our information. We believe it to be both unwise and premature to preclude from exploration millions of acres without a thorough examination of its potential for energy and mineral reserves, and in that context the constraints contained within S. 2801 appear to unnecessarily hinder and in some cases preclude both reasonable accessibility for and completion of the inventory process. In particular, the limitations upon the methods of inventory analysis are internally inconsistent and potentially prohibitive. First, it is our understanding that although aerial reconnaissance and survey is a verifiable method, it may become infeasible when coupled with the other restrictions in the bill such as the prohibition on the use of explosives. Second, the limitations upon the methods of inventory analysis dramatically increase the cost of analysis. That substantial increase in cost may cause a prohibitive effect in more marginal energy areas and in more substantial areas further increase already excessive energy costs. We believe that wilderness areas and wilderness study areas must be adequately inventoried for their mineral and energy potential in a slow, careful, and thorough manner. Otherwise we fear that in the case of a hypothetical national emergency, hurried, careless, and destructive methods of exploration and development may be resorted to. It is better to know now where our resources are located so that we don't have to begin the search during a crisis atmosphere. Two: the provisions governing declaration of national need for the mineral activity, section 5(b) are unrealistic and self-defeating. It is difficult to envision a scenario by which the threshold requirements-(a) finding of national need; (b) report; and (c) NEPA compliance-coupled with the natural, time-consuming delays of energy deployment, could possibly resolve the crisis that implemented the Presidential declaration in the first place. The applicable provisions of section 5 are unrealistic and deter the very issue of paramount concern-an urgent national need for mineral activity. In order to respond to a national crisis, an adequate inventory must first be available or a Presidential declaration becomes moot at best. Three: The ALA favors balanced multiple use of Federal lands. That is not to suggest that sensitive environmental areas should be degraded, but it is to suggest that a principle that unnecessary limitation of remaining Federal lands to one use not occur without a reasoned and informed justification. We believe that one-use limitation should be the exception and not the rule, but an informed and justified exception. We believe that the withdrawals cited in S. 2801 are premature by virtue of that principle. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the ALA joins millions of Americans in the concern that our sensitive environmental resources not be degraded or subjected to gradual and unnecessary deterioration. However, we also share a prevalent concern that our country provide for national security, energy independence, and reasonable economic energy costs. We do not believe the present provisions of S. 2801 reflect a balanced and informed approach to these issues. For these reasons, we oppose the bill and urge your consideration of our comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of the American Land Alliance follows:] opportunity to comment upon the substantive provisions contained in Senate Bill 2801, entitled the "Wilderness Protection Act of 1982." The American Land Alliance (ALA) is a non-profit public foundation, that has achieved a broad national coalition concerned with balanced federal and state land and environmental policies. In only one year of existence, the ALA reflects a coalition constituency of over 100,000 Americans. The ALA coalition-alignment includes private property rights organizations, business and industrial groups and a vast array of nationally respected land-environmental experts. The ALA's coalition includes the following representative groups: the Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc., (with 4,000 active members and over 100,000 supporters in 13 western states); Resource Development Council of Alaska (with over 10,000 agricultural, timber, labor, business and energy members); California Coastal Council (with over 10,000 landowner-members and a vast array of labor, agriculture and energy companies); National Inholders Association (with over 4,000 members and 40,000 families effected by National Park and Forest service practices). Added to this broad array of citizens are respected businesses (i.g. Dart Resorts, Wrather Hotels, Chevron Oil, etc.). 1961 Landings Drive. Mountain View, CA 94043. (415) 965-7240 AMERICAN LAND ALLIANCE Senate Bill 2801 September 23, 1982 Page Two The ALA's leadership reflects a broad range of expertise in land-environmental issues, including its President Joseph M. Gughemetti and Vice-President Robert Webber (both nationally respected land use attorneys); Vern Ravenscroft (former President, Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc.); Paula Easley (Executive Director, Resource Development Council of Alaska); Deloyd Satterswaite (Executive Director, States Rights Coordinating Council); Sid Karsh, (President Dart Resorts), Ron Michieli, (Vice President, National Cattlemen's Association); Professor Bernard Freiden, (M.I.T.); R. J. Smith, (Council for a Competitive Economy); Professor Frank Schnidman, (George Washington-Harvard University) to name a few. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The ALA is concerned that our federal land and environmental policies reflect a balance between environmental protections which avert unnecessary deterioration or degradation of our natural resources and the needs of our citizenry and nation for energy independence, and national security. The ALA is opposed to Senate Bill 2801, in its present form, for the following reasons: I. UNFINISHED AGENDA: INVENTORY is It is imperative that our nation have an opportunity to complete an inventory of our energy resources. The wisdom of our future energy decisions inextricably linked to the accuracy of our information. We believe it to be both unwise and premature to preclude from exploration millions of acres without a thorough examination of its potential for energy reserves. In that context, the constraints contained AMERICAN LAND ALLIANCE Senate Bill 2801 September 23, 1982 process. within Senate Bill 2801 appear to unnecessarily hinder, and in some instances preclude both reasonable accessibility for and completion of the inventory In particular the limitations upon the methods of inventory analysis are internally inconsistent and potentially prohibitive. First, it is our understanding that although aerial reconnaissance and survey is a verifiable method, it may become infeasible when coupled with the other restrictions in the bill. Second, the limitations upon the methods of inventory analysis dramatically increase the cost of analysis. That substantial increase in cost may cause a prohibitive effect in more marginal energy areas, and in more substantial areas further increase already excessive energy costs. II. UNREALISTIC PROVISIONS: A NATIONAL CRISIS The provisions governing a declaration of "national need for the minerals activity" [Sec. 5(b)] are unrealistic and self-defeating. It is difficult to envision a scenario by which the threshold requirements, (a. finding of national need; b. report; and c. NEPA compliance) coupled with the natural time consuming delays of energy deployment could possibly resolve the crisis that implemented the Presidential declaration. The applicable provisions [Sec. 5] are unrealistic, and deter the very issue of paramount concern: an urgent national need for mineral activity. In that sense the need for a complete and accurate inventory is not unlike the practical necessity for draft registration in advance of a military confrontation. Yet, a thorough inventory analysis would take substantially longer than the draft-registration which |