RELEASE LANGUAGE In the last two years, the WRC has testified at least six times before a number of Senate and House Committees on the need for release language. Even though this message has been repeatedly stated by the WRC and many other organizations, the Council finds itself once again testifying on a bill, S.2801, which contains no release language to insure that wilderness study areas do not remain in de facto wilderness status after it is determined that these areas are not suitable for such designation. For the past decade the management status of at least one-third of the National Forest System has been in limbo because Congress has not statutorily proclaimed whether it is to be wilderness or nonwilderness. The wilderness process has been, and continues to be, embroiled in studies, restudies, and court cases. From 1977 to 1979, the Forest Service studied its roadless areas for a second time to determine which areas should be and should not be recommended for wilderness. Today, in 1982, the Congress and the courts have still not completely resolved this issue. Each public This long debate has created enormous uncertainty and insecurity Wilderness designation precludes multiple use. and However, designation of lands for "further planning" also is a serious impediment to the evaluation and use of the public lands. This designation creates de facto wildernesses. Although these lands have not been finally designated wilderness they must be managed so as to preclude multiple use. In fact, regulations affecting "future planning" areas are more stringent than those provided for in the Wilderness Act. Lands designated as "wilderness areas" are at least, theoretically, open to entry, exploration, and development until December 31, 1983. - Unless the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) is revised, a wilderness review spanning 1-2 decades (depending on the area involved) will be followed by a relatively brief period of multiple use management and then by another series of wilderness studies and appeals, covering significant acres and time, during which the previously mentioned non-wilderness uses will once again be banned. The RPA requires that this wilderness study process be repeated every 10-20 years. The increasing curtailment of resource development on public lands is one of the most serious problems facing energy and mineral industries. The point that needs to be made is that exploration and development and protection of wilderness values are not mutually exclusive. Exploration and production can be conducted without "unnecessary" or "undue" degradation. The Federal government should encourage, in the interest of determining resource potential, access to the public lands, under appropriate protective guidelines. In order to determine resource potential, energy and mineral companies must have improved access to the public lands. Energy consumers and the national economy will be the losers if domestic production of energy and minerals decline. - The WRC would like to emphasize that the protection of wilderness values and the release of lands found not suitable are not in conflict it isn't an either/or situation. Even long-term, generic release language would not preclude a future Congress from studying the public lands for their wilderness values at a future date. Congress can always initiate another, additional wilderness study. Therefore, the WRC requests that the Subcommittee amend S. 2081 to provide: 16-780 0-83--6 --that wilderness study areas determined to be unsuitable for wilderness status be released and managed for multiple use. --that all non-wilderness lands be managed for uses other --that any remaining studies by administrative agencies and Congress be concluded by specific dates. --that Federal lands reviewed under these processes not --that the withdrawal provisions of Section 2 of S.2801 apply only to the lands designated as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. CONCLUSION The Western Regional Council would request that this Subcommittee not over react to the emotions surrounding this issue. The Council does not oppose the designation of appropriate lands as wilderness nor does it oppose the protection of lands so designated from undue degradation. However, the WRC does oppose the way S.2801 is written since it seems to present a simplistic solution to a very complex issue. The issues raised by this legislation are too important to make hasty decisions before the consideration of the consequences of such decisions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S.2801. The WRC would ask that you consider that the WRC represents a cross-section of the business community in the Intermountain West. The economic wellbeing of the employees of these businesses and the communities in which these businesses are located often depend on businesses having access to the public lands. These businesses and the people which depend on them also have a "western viewpoint" on access to the public lands and this viewpoint is worthy of your consideration. Senator WALLOP. Thank you. Mr. Hughes? STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. HUGHES, LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY ANALYST, CENTRAL REGION, CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Richard Hughes. I am employed by Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., as a legislative and regulatory analyst for the central region headquartered in Denver, Colo. Chevron is a domestic oil and gas subsidiary of Standard Oil Co. of California and is active in exploration and production both onshore and offshore throughout the United States. I am here today to share thoughts on S. 2801, the Wilderness Protection Act of 1982. We recognized that this country is blessed with many special areas which warrant special land management attention. We support the efforts of Congress and the executive branch to manage these areas with an eye toward protecting their unique values. We do not, however, agree that the large-scale mineral withdrawal which would be effected by S. 2801 is the only way or the best way to manage the resource values in our designated wilderness or our wilderness candidate areas. When the management of lands as wilderness was given congressional consideration in 1974, Congress recognized that mineral activity should continue and could continue under appropriate regulation without any permanent impairment of the values which the wilderness designation sought to protect. The intent of the 88th Congress is clearly demonstrated in section 4(d)(3) of the Wilderness Act. The inclusion of section 4(d)(3) appears to have been based on two premises. First, this Nation cannot afford to lock away vast amounts of public land without knowing their potential for production of energy and mineral resources. Second, that mineral activity could occur in a manner compatible with the management of an area as wilderness; both of these premises still hold, and in fact they are even more compelling today than they were in 1964. The technological advances made since 1964, particularly in the areas of rehabilitation and reclamation, are far beyond what was envisioned when Congress provided for continued mineral activity in wilderness areas. Today a largescale mineral withdrawal based on the assumption that oil and gas activity is not compatible with environmental concerns is simply not based on fact. During the years since the passage of the Wilderness Act we have witnessed a heightened awareness of environmental protection and seen an increase in the laws and regulations designed specifically to protect many of the same values which the wilderness designation seeks to protect. This body of environmental law would, when properly administered and complied with, insure that mineral activity cannot lead to any permanent impairment of wilderness values. As to the question of whether this country can now afford to forgo the energy and mineral resources which may underlie our wilderness areas, we believe the answer is "No." Notwithstanding the fact that the petroleum supplies and prices have recently stabilized over the short term and that we have made significant strides in recent years to reduce our dependence on imported oil, we find it shortsighted to interpret this present situation as an end to our quest for energy self-sufficiency. We continue to import nearly onethird of our petroleum needs and our sources continue to be unstable. Thus the premises which prompted the enactment of section 4(d)(3) remain valid and the same premises indicate to us that the interest of the Nation would be best served by continued access to wilderness areas and wilderness candidate areas. We suggest that at this date the appropriate congressional action is to proceed on a course of exploration and production of oil and gas on public lands and to direct the responsible agencies to develop the necessary regulatory framework to insure that mineral activity proceeds along with the protection of other values. If I have 1 more minute, I would like to respond to-- Mr. HUGHES. Some of the reasons that support of a proposal like S. 2801 is a perceived threat to wilderness because of lease applications. It is to ignore reality to equate a lease application with development of an oilfield. Historically less than 10 percent of the Federal onshore leases are ever actually drilled upon, and of those drilled upon, less than 1 in 10 is likely to discover commercial quantities of oil and gas. When you further reduce that factor by the acreage which is actually disturbed, the ratio of lease lands to land that is likely to be disturbed is minimal, and I just want to dispel the image of a rapid, you know, plunging into the wilderness if the leases are granted. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:] |