<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:71552.wais]
ENERGY IMPACTS OF THE ROADLESS RULE
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 4, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-552 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming, Chairman
RON KIND, Wisconsin, Ranking Democrat Member
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia
Mac Thornberry, Texas Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Calvin M. Dooley, California
Vice Chairman Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Grace F. Napolitano, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 4, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Prepared statement of........................ 14
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Prepared statement of................... 2
Otter, Hon. C.L. ``Butch'', a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho, Prepared statement of.................. 17
Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Eppink, Jeffrey, Vice President, Advanced Resources
International.............................................. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Lance, Hon. Alan G., Attorney General, State of Idaho........ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Morton, Dr. Peter A., Resource Economist, The Wilderness
Society.................................................... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Letter from The Ecological Society of America submitted
for the record......................................... 68
Moyer, Steve, Vice President of Conservation Programs, Trout
Unlimited.................................................. 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Letter to The Honorable Barbara Cubin and The Honorable
Ron Kind submitted for the record...................... 40
Phillips, Randle G., Deputy Chief for Programs and
Legislation, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Letters from the Office of Advocacy, Small Business
Administration, and other materials submitted for the
record................................................. 72
Schaefer, Greg, Director, External Affairs, Arch Coal Company 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Additional materials supplied:
Report entitled ``Endogenous Substitution Among Energy
Resources and Global Warming'' submitted for the record.... 125
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``ENERGY IMPACTS OF THE ROADLESS RULE''
----------
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, joint with the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 1:27 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health] and
Hon. Barbara Cubin [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources] presiding.
Mr. McInnis. The Committee on Resources Subcommittee on
Forest and Forest Health in the joint oversight hearing on
energy impacts of the roadless rule will come to order.
Here is what our schedule looks like this afternoon. As you
know, it is 1:30 now. That clock is wrong, by the way. A couple
of things we would like to go over. Number one, we would like
to have this hearing completed within a two-hour period of
time. Unfortunately, during that period of the two hours we
will be interrupted with voting, which we did not anticipate,
but the meeting must conclude by 3:30.
With that in mind, what I have done as Chairman is
exercised my discretion and taken the witness list out of
order. I intend to call our witnesses first who are from out of
town in hopes that we can complete your testimony.
Under the rules of this Committee we allow the witnesses 5
minutes. We have a timer that is sitting on your desk there on
the witness table. I ask that you comply with it. It gives you
warning when you come close to the end of your time expiration.
And in order that we can complete as much of this hearing as
possible within the allotted time, I ask that everyone respect
the time limits that have been allotted.
Congresswoman Cubin will be joining us shortly. She is co-
chairing the meeting so I would expect that I will turn the
meeting over for her to chair not long after she gets here.
I am going to go ahead and waive my opening remarks, again
in hopes, as a courtesy to the witnesses, that we can get as
many witnesses as possible on so I will submit my remarks for
the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott Mcinnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health
The RARE I and RARE II (Roadless Area Review and Evaluations) in
1971 and 1977, were attempts to deal with the debate over roadless
areas, each in a single national process. Both times, they proved
unsuccessful legally and politically. In response, through passage of
the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in 1976, Congress provided
for the further protection of roadless areas, but on a forest-by-forest
basis. It directed the Forest Service to develop forest plans for the
management of those forests, utilizing significant local and state
input, then move resulting wilderness recommendations through Congress.
This process, while deliberate and at times cumbersome, resulted in
significant protections for roadless areas and the creation of more
than 30 million acres of congressionally designated wilderness on the
national forests. While somewhat controversial, this process
nevertheless managed to resolve most disagreements through thoughtful
compromise. Ultimately and unfortunately, these compromises were not
acceptable to some groups and individuals, who were then able to
convince the Clinton Administration to take another run at the roadless
issue in yet another single national process. Repeating the mistakes of
history, the Clinton Administration moved forward a top-down roadless
rule-making process, trading a hard-won local consensus for an
explosive national controversy. In so doing, it created a new, illegal
process with striking similarities to the failed RARE I and RARE II
national initiatives.
This is unfortunate because to most of us in Congress there has
never been any question that some roadless areas deserve further
protection, it is simply a matter of how best to do it. To cram a one-
size-fits-all political edict down the throats of the states could not
have been more polarizing and damaging to the issue itself. It should
therefore come as no surprise that a number of states have filed, or
are in the process of filing, lawsuits against the rule -- and it is
likely that the states will prevail. This also should come as no
surprise, considering that the Administration denied all Freedom of
Information Act requests and all Cooperating Agency Status applications
filed by affected states. Consider also that accurate maps were not
made available during the public comment period, in violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act. Consider that the Administration
developed the policy in lockstep coordination with a handful of
national environmental groups and in conjunction with their
multimillion dollar roadless campaign--a likely violation of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Consider that no small business or
small government analysis was done to comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. Consider that many forest plans will have to be
revised as a result of the rule, violating the National Forest
Management Act. Consider that it usually takes the Forest Service two
to three years to do a legally defensible EIS for a timber sale
covering only 300 acres, yet it took the Administration only one year
to do a single massive EIS covering 58 million acres. How many
``considerations'' does it take before it becomes painfully obvious
that the roadless initiative was not undertaken to solve environmental
problems but rather was done for the purpose of creating a partisan
political issue.
It's no secret that if you want broad national policies to be
accepted broadly, you must get a critical mass of buy-in from the
public, both nationally and locally. Polls asking only whether roadless
areas deserve protection, while avoiding how this should be done, do
not accurately represent the public's sentiments on the issue. Anyone
who really believes that a lasting solution to the roadless debate can
be achieved by forcing it through politically, at the national level,
without substantial involvement at the state and local level is
delusional.
I am willing to work with anyone concerning further protection of
roadless areas, but never at the expense of effective local
participation. These are not mutually exclusive goals and, in fact,
they can only be achieved together.
______
Mr. McInnis. I would also request that other members of the
Committee waive their opening remarks and just submit them for
the record. Is that all right, Mr. Udall? Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. That is fine.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Otter, would you like to introduce the
first witness?
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin
by thanking you for calling this very important meeting that
has had a devastating effect on Idaho--on our economy and our
way of life, on our big game habitat, you name it. It has been
a problem for us.
I am proud to bring before the Committee today Alan G.
Lance, who is the Attorney General for the State of Idaho. Al
Lance was elected as the 31st Attorney General of the State of
Idaho in 1994 when I was elected to my third term as Lieutenant
Governor for the State, and Al and I had the chance to work a
term and a half very close together.
Attorney General Lance's leadership has resulted in the
successful consolidation of legal services to the State of
Idaho, an effort sought by previous Attorneys General for more
than two decades. So General Lance is well known for his
austere moves and abilities to save Idaho taxpayers as much as
$1.6 million thus far and many more to come.
General Lance has done a terrific job on a national front
for the State of Idaho. He is recognized as a national leader
in the battle against domestic terrorism. Legislation that he
sponsored in Idaho has become a national model for dealing with
the extremist groups and the surviving families.
General Lance signed a monumental agreement with the
tobacco industry on November 18, 1998, unprecedented by any of
our sister states, for $712 million, which is the largest civil
settlement in Idaho's history.
General Lance has served as the Chairman of the Conference
of Western Attorneys General in 1999 and the year 2000 and he
is currently a member of the Strategic Planning Committee on
the National Association of Attorneys General.
Mr. Chairman, I bring before you today a well qualified
advocate for the position which I hold for the State of Idaho
and the roadless area issue and I am proud to say the champion,
the first champion that has been willing to come forward to
subject the last Administration's land grab in the State of
Idaho and in the West to court resolve.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I present to you
Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of the State of Idaho.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Lance, prior to you beginning your
testimony I would like to welcome the Co-Chair of the
Committee, Barbara Cubin, Congresswoman from Wyoming. I will
turn the microphone over to her. Following her remarks, Mr.
Lance, we will go immediately to your remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you and thank you for your patience.
This Subcommittee meets today jointly with our sister
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, in our oversight
capacity to take testimony on the impact of the Clinton
Administration's roadless area conservation rule. Our
Subcommittee wishes to focus on the ``opportunity costs'' of
this policy upon our nation's energy supply. By that I mean the
potential of the affected National Forest System lands to host
deposits of natural gas, coal, oil and other mineral resources
which could contribute to domestic energy supplies.
The Energy Subcommittee has held several such oversight
hearings to examine the role of public lands and minerals and
what role they can play in alleviating the current energy
crisis. We are now focusing on the roadless rule. With the able
assistance of Chairman McInnis, we hope to understand better
the pending transportation policy of the U.S. Forest Service. I
guess it is not pending; it is the case now.
My interest in this issue was aroused when I learned that
late last year that the Department of Energy had contracted to
analyze the impact of the draft roadless rule on oil and gas
resources availability. Despite the serious concerns raised by
the DOE, senior officials of the OMB and also the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Forest Service and several
influential environmental groups decided to meet in early
December of 2000 and recommend to President Clinton an
alternative which they knew would have a major impact. There
certainly was an effort by some to write a rule which would not
have reached the $100 million impact threshold by exempting
mineral leasing activities from the roadless policy. In the end
though, the decision was made to exempt no one. Instead they
chose to forge quickly ahead with the little time available in
order to make the ``midnight rule'' effective before the new
President was sworn in. And we are all left to clean up the
mess.
I have concerns that the past Administration inadequately
analyzed the impact of the rule upon the small business
community, a requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for
major rules. But this is hardly the first time they have run
roughshod over these folks. The small hardrock mineral miners
successfully sued when the BLM tried to ignore them in a rush
to make new rules. Perhaps that will also be the case here,
although I am told that the Forest Service has argued that the
roadless policy is not subject to this law.
One legacy of Bill Clinton which is just beginning to be
recognized is the energy situation in which our nation has been
left. The past decade was one of denial. The Internet-driven
economy was booming. Why should they worry about power demands
versus supplies? The previous Administration felt OPEC could
not set the price of crude oil like they did in the '70's and
'80's, so why should they concern themselves about import
dependence? They felt natural gas was so plentiful that we
would be able to put off-limits some of the best hunting
grounds for replacement supplies--including the public lands of
our Rock Mountain basins with high potential for development of
significant energy resources. We are all feeling the effects of
that poor policy direction.
The cavalier attitude of the past CEQ Chairman and the
recently retired Chief of the Forest Service is simply
baffling. As with the argument that ANWR's estimated 10 billion
barrels of oil represents only six months of domestic demand,
so it was said that DOE's estimate of 11 trillion cubic feet of
roadless area gas is only six months of our national
production. In the aggregate these amounts do matter.
Chief Dombeck even stated in a January 5, 2001 letter to
OMB, and this is a quote, ``If exploration and development did
occur, it would likely be five to 10 years before any
production would occur, because oil and gas leasing is a
lengthy process. Therefore the value would not be realized in
the near future and any production would be spread over
multiple years in the future.''
So what is wrong with this picture? Mr. Dombeck
acknowledged that natural gas to be developed from these lands
would be an additional increment of supply over many years, not
six months. Yet he argued against exempting energy leasing from
the roadless proposal, anyway. On the date he signed this
letter spot prices for natural gas were hovering around $10 per
million BTUs of energy--five times the long-term average--and
in Southern California the prices were hitting over $50. But
because roadless gas could not get to market this winter, the
previous administration chose to continue down the road of
denial. They chose to lock up these resources and further
reduce our ability to increase our own energy supply.
In addition to the gas resources taken off the board, there
was a great deal of access to coal reserves also restricted by
this policy. The former Chief felt there was plenty of coal
outside the roadless areas, so they should not worry about the
rule's impact on coal production. This was while California was
warning that rolling black-outs were about to happen, and they
did happen.
I am here to tell you they will need more coal-fired power
from Utah, not less. What were they thinking when they
recommended that Bill Clinton promulgate this rule? Could they
have been any more short-sighted than they were? It reminds me
of the story of how Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Chairman McInnis, I look forward to this hearing and I look
forward to the testimony of our witnesses as we try to
understand the effects of this roadless policy.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Barbara Cubin, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources
The Subcommittee meets today jointly with our sister Subcommittee
on Forests and Forest Health, in our oversight capacity to take
testimony on the impact of the Clinton Administration's roadless area
conservation rule. Our subcommittee wishes to focus on the
``opportunity cost'' of this policy upon our nation's energy supply. By
that I mean the potential of the affected National Forest System lands
to host deposits of natural gas, oil, coal and other mineral resources
which could contribute to domestic energy supplies.
The Energy Subcommittee has held several such oversight hearings to
examine the role public lands and minerals can play in alleviating our
current energy crisis. We are now focusing in on the roadless rule,
with the able assistance of Chairman McInnis, to help us understand the
pending transportation policy of U.S. Forest Service.
My interest in this issue was aroused when I learned late last year
that the Department of Energy had contracted to analyze the impact of
the draft roadless rule on oil and gas resource availability. Despite
the serious concerns raised by DoE, senior officials of the Office of
Management and Budget and also the Council on Environmental Quality,
the Forest Service and several influential environmental groups decided
to meet in early December 2000 and recommend to President Clinton an
alternative which they knew would have a major impact.
There certainly was an effort by some to write a rule which would
not have reached the $100 million impact threshold, by exempting
mineral leasing activities from the roadless policy. In the end, the
decision was made to exempt no one. Instead they chose to forge quickly
ahead with the little time available in order to make the ``midnight
rule'' effective before the new President was sworn in. And we are all
left to clear up the mess.
I have concerns that the past Administration inadequately analyzed
the impact of the rule upon the small business community, a requirement
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for major rules. But this is hardly
the first time they ran roughshod over these folks. The small hardrock
miners successfully sued when BLM tried to ignore them in a rush to
rulemaking. Perhaps that will also be the case here, although I'm told
that the Forest Service has argued the roadless policy is not subject
to this law.
One legacy of Bill Clinton which is just beginning to be recognized
is the energy situation in which our nation has been left. The past
decade was one of denial. The internet-driven economy was booming, why
should they worry about power demands versus supplies? The previous
administration felt OPEC couldn't set the price of crude oil like they
did in the ``70s and ``80s, so why should they concern themselves about
import dependence?
They felt natural gas was so plentiful that we would be able to put
off-limits some of the best ``hunting grounds'' for replacement
supplies - including the public lands of our Rocky Mountain basins with
high potential for development of significant energy resources. We are
all feeling the effects of that poor policy direction.
The cavalier attitude of the past CEQ Chairman and the recently
retired Chief of the Forest Service is simply baffling. As with the
argument that ANWR's estimated 10 billion barrels of oil represents
only six months domestic demand, so it was said that DoE's estimate of
11 trillion cubic feet of Roadless area gas is only six months of our
national production. In the aggregate, these amounts do matter.
Chief Dombeck even stated in a January 5, 2001 letter to OMB, ``if
exploration and development did occur, it would likely be 5 to 10 years
before any production would occur, because oil and gas leasing is a
lengthy process. Therefore the value would not be realized in the near
future, and any production would be spread over multiple years in the
future.--
So what is wrong with this picture? Mr. Dombeck acknowledged that
natural gas to be developed from these lands would be an additional
increment of supply over many years, not six months. Yet he argued
against exempting energy leasing from the Roadless proposal anyway. On
the date he signed this letter spot prices for natural gas were
hovering around $10 per million BTUs of energy - five times the long-
term average - and in southern California the prices were hitting over
$50.
But, because roadless gas couldn't get to market this winter, the
previous administration choose to continue down the road of denial.
They choose to lock up these resources and further reduce our ability
to increase our energy supply.
In addition to the gas reserves taken off the board, there was a
great deal of access to coal reserves also restricted by the policy.
The former Chief felt there was plenty of coal outside the roadless
areas, so they shouldn't worry about the rule's impact on coal
production. This was while California was warning that rolling
blackouts were about to happen. And they did.
I am here to tell you, they will need more coal-fired power from
Utah, not less. What were they thinking when they recommended that Bill
Clinton promulgate this rule? Could they have been any more short-
sighted? It reminds me of the story of how Nero fiddled while Rome
burned.
Chairman McInnis, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our
witnesses as we try to understand the effects of this roadless policy.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Now I will recognize Mr. Rahall. Then we will go to you,
Mr. Lance, but I will recognize Mr. Rahall to present the
minority opening remarks, as well as his own. Mr. Rahall?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. McInnis. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate very much your allowing me to give this opening
testimony.
If the government is to run more like a business, as many
in the business community have urged us to do throughout the
years, then it would seem to me that we should all agree that
the roadless rule makes economic sense. I make this observation
because the 380,000 miles of roads in our national forests are
not by any stretch of the imagination being maintained. The
Forest Service is receiving only about 20 percent of the funds
it annually needs to keep these roads in repair and we are
faced with an $8.4 billion capital improvement backlog. The
results--a rash of public health, safety and environmental
threats.
Once built, people in rural communities begin to use many
of these roads but they do so at their own peril. The state of
disrepair is so bad that landslides and slope failures put not
only these people at risk but also endanger entire watersheds
and critical fish and wildlife habitats.
It seems to me that prudence dictates that we first fix
what we have rather than build more roads in national forests
only to then have them deteriorate once the timber or energy
companies are done with them.
Frankly, I believe it is unfair to the American taxpayer to
have to shoulder this burden. The public is being called upon
to subsidize these extractive industries, to add to their
profit margin, and then to be saddled with the responsibility
of maintaining these roads long after the timber is gone, the
oil and gas is drilled, or the coal is mined. That is hardly an
attractive proposition.
So I would submit that the first question, Mr. Chairman,
that we should ask is whether these industries are willing to
help finance repairing the existing roads as well as pay to
maintain any new roads before any consideration is given to
opening up these roadless areas. If they are, then in my
opinion we have something to discuss, but I do not see that
mentioned in any of the testimony that will be given to us
today.
We have had several hearings in this Committee already on
the issue of producing more energy from public lands and I
think those calling these hearings are becoming more desperate.
Energy production from these lands was at an all-time high
during the Clinton Administration. Oil production from Federal
areas already account for 27 percent of the U.S. total: natural
gas, 38 percent of the total; coal, 33 percent of that total.
And where will the major new production could come from? The
OCS? Well, much of that is off-limits due to leasing moratoria
supported by both Republicans and Democrats.
So this Committee is now reduced to looking at opening up
national monuments and pristine roadless areas, which amount to
only 2 percent of the lands in the continental U.S. If that is
the case, why not set a drill pad down in Yellowstone National
Park? It would be 100 percent certain that wells at Old
Faithful would generate geothermal power. While you are at it,
why not build a dam in Grand Canyon National Park? It would be
100 percent certain that hydropower from the new dam on the
Colorado would generate electricity. But the fact of the matter
is that the American people would overwhelmingly oppose such a
trade-off of national treasures for energy development.
I do not believe that this nation is so desperate, so short
of alternatives, that we should now sacrifice our remaining
pristine forest roadless areas which, by the way, have been
opened to energy leasing for decades, so that the American
people will have what apparently some view as the honor of
subsidizing these activities even further. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Welcome Mr. Inslee, the Ranking Member on the
Forest Subcommittee.
Mr. Lance, we are now prepared for you to begin your
comments. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALAN G. LANCE, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
STATE OF IDAHO, ACCOMPANIED BY THORPE ORTON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair. Let me
take this opportunity to introduce Thorpe Orton, my Deputy
Chief of Staff, who has been the project manager on the
roadless proposal.
Congressman Otter, thank you very much for that generous
although brief introduction.
Congressman Simpson, good to see you again, sir.
Congressman Rahall, thank you for your perspective on this.
My good friend, Tom Udall, former attorney general of New
Mexico, Tom.
Congressman Udall, nice to see you, Mark, and Congressman
McCollum.
Let me start out by explaining Idaho's lawsuit. First of
all, it was filed on behalf of the Land Board. The Land Board
consists of five constitutional officers, which would be the
governor, the attorney general, the superintendent of public
instruction, the secretary of state and our controller, five
constitutional officers. The Land Board's responsibility is to
manage the state lands within the State of Idaho. The proceeds
of that management go to fund our endowed institutions, which
are the schools, and for the benefit of the school children of
the State of Idaho.
For the minority members I think it is significant to note
that all five members of the Land Board filed the lawsuit and
have been opposed to this roadless initiative from its
inception. The composition is three Republicans and two
Democrats on the Land Board in the State of Idaho and all five
are plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Forest Service at the
present time. In Idaho this is not a partisan issue; this is a
bread and butter issue.
Sixty-five percent of our land mass in the State of Idaho
is presently under Federal management, and I might say
mismanagement. Last year we lost 1.2 million acres to forest
fires as a result of years of neglect, by the Forest Service
and forest policy.
Idaho has actually filed two lawsuits against the roadless
initiative. The lawsuits were filed through the Idaho State
Board of Land Commissioners, which I have described to you. The
Land Board is bipartisan, composed of five statewide-elected
constitutional officers. The Land Board manages the State of
Idaho's endowment lands to maximize revenue for our public
schools, whose lands are impacted by the roadless rule
substantially.
The thrust of our case is quite simple. NEPA requires
meaningful public notice and comment and that means meaningful
to the citizens of the State of Idaho, who stand to lose 9.5
million acres in inventoried roads to this initiative.
President Clinton called the roadless initiative one of the
largest land preservation efforts in America's history. It was
not, however, put through anything close to an equally historic
public comment period. Instead, the notice of intent was issued
just six days after President Clinton's announcement. The
public was given just 60 days to comment during the scoping
period. Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck called the
proposal urgent and told his agency that it cannot afford to
waste a single day. Indeed the roadless proposal impacts 58.5
million acres of inventoried roadless areas. We cannot tell how
many acres of uninventoried acres are impacted but Idaho alone
accounts for 9.5 million acres of inventoried roadless lands.
The Forest Service-touted website for public information on
the roadless service was, by and large, totally useless during
the entire scoping period. Public meetings in Idaho began just
12 business days before the deadline expired. The Freedom of
Information Act information which was requested and filed by my
office, was totally ignored and we had to bring a lawsuit to
get the information that we desired.
Idaho's first lawsuit was filed on December 30, 1999. The
court had to dismiss our lawsuit at that time due to the issue
of ripeness but it provided a rather stern warning to the
Forest Service. The warning included the following statements
by the court, and I quote. ``The Forest Service should make
every effort to ensure that the process is properly implemented
with reasonable time frames to allow meaningful participation
by the public.''
And I quote again. ``When the areas contemplated to be
roadless are not defined or shown by way of maps or otherwise
illustrated, one does not have to be learned in the law to
determine that the public's participation will hardly be
meaningful.''
I quote again. ``The Forest Service should proceed with
caution. Time is not of the essence on this issue that has been
studied for over 30 years.''
Idaho's second lawsuit: Despite Idaho's efforts and the
court's warning, the Forest Service pressed forward, rejecting
requests for extensions of comment periods and ignoring Freedom
of Information Act requests. The DEIS comment period was a
laughable 69 days. The Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners
provided an additional comment to the Forest Service
immediately after the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
issued on November 13, 2000. The Land Board also requested a
face-to-face meeting with Secretary Glickman and Chief Dombeck.
We never heard anything back as a result of our request to
them. Maps or other identification of the uninventoried areas
were never provided to the people of the State of Idaho.
Accordingly, given the court's clear directives to the
Federal Forest Service and our concerns, the State of Idaho
filed a second lawsuit on January 9, 2001. We are currently
awaiting the court's decision on the state's motion for a
preliminary injunction and that was argued last Friday.
Idaho is concerned with the roadless rules and its impact
on energy, particularly given the current energy crisis.
Idahoans typically pay close to the highest prices in the
nation for gasoline. Adverse impact in other states will
trickle down to the price that we pay at the pump in the State
of Idaho.
With respect to mineral extraction, the Final Environmental
Impact Statement details impacts associated with phosphate
mining in the Caribou National Forest. The annual economic
impacts are set forth in the FEIS at Table 3-68.
In conclusion, Chairman, let me thank you again for the
opportunity to be here. You may be aware that the State of
Colorado has joined with Idaho in its case against the roadless
rule. In addition, I understand that the State of Alaska has
now filed its own lawsuit. These three states contain almost 49
percent of the total inventoried acreage impacted by the
roadless rule. I have heard that several other Western states
may be filing suits too, including the states of Wyoming,
Montana, North and South Dakota.
Thank you, Chairman, for your consideration and time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lance follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, State of
Idaho
I would like to thank Chairwoman Cubin and the members of the
subcommittees for inviting me to testify here today. It is an honor to
appear before you as the chief legal officer of the State of Idaho to
speak about an issue that is extremely important to the citizens of
Idaho.
It is my understanding that this hearing focuses on the effect of
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule on this nation's energy resources.
The State of Idaho does indeed have significant concerns about the
roadless rule and its effect on Idaho's economy. The most immediate
economic concern of the State of Idaho relates to our endowment lands
which are contiguous to or surrounded by the roadless areas. The
endowment lands must be managed by the Idaho State Board of Land
Commissioners (Land Board) for the benefit of Idaho's public schools.
The State of Idaho has 9.3 million acres of inventoried roadless areas,
and the Forest Service has not yet told the State how many acres of
uninventoried areas in Idaho would qualify as roadless. I also
understand that the subcommittees are particularly interested in the
reasons why the State of Idaho has filed a lawsuit against the roadless
rule.
As a threshold matter, let me make clear that Idaho's legal case
focuses on the process followed by the United States Department of
Agriculture in proposing and implementing the roadless rule. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural law, requiring
certain steps be followed by federal agencies. The process followed by
the Department of Agriculture in adopting the roadless rule wholly
ignored the procedural requirements of NEPA.
The State of Idaho, through the Idaho State Board of Land
Commissioners, which is bipartisan and composed of five statewide
elected constitutional officers, unanimously agreed to file two
lawsuits against the roadless initiative. The first lawsuit was filed
on December 30, 1999, during the NEPA process and shortly after the
scoping period expired. The second lawsuit was filed on January 9,
2001, shortly after completion of the NEPA process and adoption of the
rule. The second lawsuit is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho.
From the beginning, the State of Idaho was concerned with the short
timeframes and information provided for public notice and comment.
Moreover, when those concerns are considered in the context of a NEPA
proposal of such historic scope, impacting 58.5 million acres
nationwide, the quality of the public notice and comment provided rises
to the level of a legal deficiency. As you know, NEPA was enacted to
ensure fully informed and well-considered decisions on proposed actions
with environmental consequences. In other words, public notice and
comment must be ``meaningful'' in order to comply with NEPA.
The roadless rule was first announced by former President Clinton
on October 13, 1999, at which time he characterized it as ``one of the
largest land preservation efforts in America's history.'' Just six days
later, the Department of Agriculture initiated the scoping period by
publishing a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement. The fanfare surrounding the announcement also included
Forest Service Chief Dombeck's October 28, 1999, letter to Forest
Service employees, wherein he characterized the roadless proposal as an
``urgent'' need and stated that the agency ``cannot afford to waste a
single day.--
The public was given only sixty (60) days to comment during
scoping. Public meetings were scheduled in Idaho starting just twelve
(12) business days and ending just three (3) business days before the
end of scoping. Requests for an extension of the scoping period from
Idaho Governor Kempthorne and from myself and six (6) other western
Attorneys General were ignored. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request sent by my office for pertinent information was also ignored.
Meanwhile, the Forest Service's touted website for public access and
information on the roadless proposal was, by and large, totally useless
during the entire scoping period. Finally, despite the fact that this
proposal was a land management proposal, no accurate, site-specific
maps were made available to the public, and there were no maps for the
uninventoried roadless areas. I would submit that it is not possible to
meaningfully comment on a land management proposal when you do not know
where the land is located.
Based upon the lack of any responses to our extension request
letters and FOIA request, as well as the sheer magnitude of the
proposal in Idaho, the Land Board was left with no alternative but to
file a lawsuit seeking an order from the court for more information and
an extension of the public comment period.
Idaho's first lawsuit was ultimately dismissed due to the fact that
the federal courts lack power to hear NEPA cases before the entire NEPA
process is final. However, the court's order contained a rather ominous
warning to the Forest Service. Please allow me to read from the court's
February 18, 2000, decision:
While the Court has determined it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the State's Complaint at this point, the
Court would be remiss if it failed to emphasize to the Forest
Service that due to the historic magnitude of the proposed
action, the agency's final action will undoubtedly be subject
to close judicial scrutiny. As stewards of the federal funds
being expended to complete the NEPA process on the proposed
action, the Forest Service should make every effort to ensure
that the process is properly implemented with reasonable time
frames to allow meaningful participation by the public. It
appears at least arguable to this Court that the Forest Service
may be inviting error and a necessary review of its actions by
ignoring the objections of the Plaintiffs for a meaningful
scoping process.
Counsel for the Forest Service do not dispute that the purpose
of the scoping process is to identify issues that are
substantive and eliminate issues that are not so as to instill
confidence and trust in the process. A central purpose of the
NEPA process is to provide full disclosure of relevant
information to allow meaningful public debate and oversight.
When the areas contemplated to be roadless are not defined or
shown by way of maps or otherwise illustrated, one does not
have to be learned in the law to determine the public's
participation will hardly be ``meaningful.'' The State's
concern over access to and management of its endowment and
state forest lands that may be surrounded by national forest
land are legitimate concerns of state and local governments and
its citizens.
The sheer magnitude of this governmental action involving 40 to
60 million acres nationwide that precipitated 500,000 comments
in sixty days is the best evidence the Forest Service should
proceed with caution. Time is not of the essence on an issue
that has been studied for over 30 years. The public needs to be
informed in order to meaningfully participate. An argument
suggesting the Court is required to give due deference to
agency action and expertise is likely to ring hollow unless the
Forest Service does what it says it will do and that is give
due consideration to new comments and issues that may be raised
both during the draft EIS comment period as well as at the time
the final EIS is issued.
Despite the court's warnings, the Forest Service continued to press
forward with inadequate information and artificially short deadlines
for public comment. The draft environmental impact statement was issued
on May 10, 2000, and the public comment period was set at a meager 69
days. Once again, Idaho's requests for extension of the comment period
were denied. We still had no accurate maps for inventoried areas and no
maps for the uninventoried areas. The public meetings in Idaho were
once again set near the end of the comment period. In a letter we
received from the Forest Service, Governor Kempthorne and I were told
that no maps or mapping criteria existed or were planned for the
uninventoried areas.
The final environmental impact statement was issued on November 13,
2000, approximately one (1) year and one (1) month after this massive
proposal was first announced. In anticipation of the adoption of the
final rule, the Land Board provided additional comment and requested a
face-to-face meeting with Secretary Glickman and Chief Dombeck. Once
again, Idaho's concerns and the request for a face-to-face meeting were
never even acknowledged.
Throughout this process, Idahoans have felt ``stiffed'' by the
federal government. What should have been an open process with
meaningful information and dialogue was fairly perceived as a sham
process designed to reach a pre-determined outcome before a political
deadline. Moreover, it is an insult to the elected officials and others
who attempted to participate, requested basic and highly relevant
information, and pled for additional time to comment on such a massive
policy proposal, that we were simply ignored. This is not a good way to
do business, particularly with the states that contain the most land
impacted by the roadless rule, and it is why the State of Idaho will
continue to move forward in the second lawsuit it filed on January 9,
2001.
With respect to energy and mineral exploration, many Idahoans have
expressed concern with the substance of the roadless rule. I know that
the new Administration is working on a comprehensive national energy
policy, which I commend and recognize as clearly necessary for our
future energy needs and economic well being.
The roadless rule is a one-size-fits-all national policy, which
constitutes a significant departure from site-specific planning and
multiple use. Therefore, while Idaho is not currently an oil or gas
producer, it will feel the impact of restrictions imposed on other
states.
Idahoans are often asked to pay higher prices for gasoline, and we
are told that the reasons are supply related, including pipeline
capacity and geographical isolation. The final environmental impact
statement details the adverse impacts on energy and mineral exploration
and production.
In Idaho, phosphate mining in the Caribou National Forest will be
substantially impacted. Table 3-68 of the FEIS estimates an annual
economic impact of 10.4 million dollars in direct labor income, 38.5
million dollars in total labor income, 185 direct jobs, 976 total jobs,
and 1.3 million dollars in payments to the State of Idaho.
Once again, I want to thank the subcommittees for inviting me to
testify here today. Idaho will continue to press forward with its
lawsuit. The State of Colorado has filed an amicus brief in support of
Idaho. Alaska has also filed a lawsuit. Idaho, Colorado, and Alaska
contain almost 49% of the total inventoried roadless areas subject to
the roadless rule. It is my understanding that several other western
states are contemplating lawsuits or preparing to file lawsuits against
the roadless rule. I will keep you apprised of any significant
developments during the litigation.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Lance.
We will now begin the questioning. I will initiate that.
I find it interesting in your remarks that the Forest
Service denied accurate maps of the roadless areas, they denied
meetings with you. My understanding is they denied information
to you unless you sought it under the Freedom of Information
Act and even then stalled.
First of all, are my statements accurate about the
information denied to you? and what additional information was
denied to you by the U.S. Forest Service?
Mr. Lance. Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairs, that is exactly
accurate. We made a request for maps so that we could have some
meaningful input in terms of some of these public hearings that
the governor's office and my office attended. We had about 25
hearings in Idaho and I think we attended about 20 of them.
In order to testify in a meaningful and intelligent manner
we needed to know what sort of areas we were looking at. The
Forest Service claimed that it had the maps on the website.
However, upon closer scrutiny one determined that, in fact, no
website had been developed. It was still under development.
We then made a FOIA request, which was virtually ignored,
and after several telephone calls and requests for the
information, we were required to file a lawsuit. That lawsuit
was mooted 2 days before the scheduled hearing because the
Forest Service then finally came up with these maps and the
information that we had requested. It was an on-going delaying
tactic. Of course, we are dealing with a large area. We are
dealing with 2477 roads. Some have existing roads and some do
not.
But we have tremendous impact, Mr. Chairman, and some of
the impact that I think may be missed is that much of the
state's land, our endowed land that we use to support some of
our schools, is surrounded by Federal land. If, in fact, they
make that a roadless area surrounding our land, the only way
that we can meaningfully harvest any timber off of our land to
help pay for the school costs is to helicopter log, which
substantially reduces the receipts to the school children of
the State of Idaho. No one has satisfactorily answered the
question.
At any rate, the governor and I and the other members of
the Land Board also requested the face-to-face meetings with
Secretary Glickman and Chief Dombeck. That was receipted for by
certified mail, our request which was sent in December, and we
have yet to hear a response from anyone.
But we have serious issues. We have not been trying to
sandbag the Forest Service or anybody else but the bottom line
is they have been totally uncooperative.
Mr. McInnis. I can tell you, Mr. Lance, that it is the
opinion of the Chair that the Forest Service's cooperation,
regardless of which side of the issue one falls on this, is
absolutely necessary. It is that kind of noncooperation that
creates a great deal of deep distrust. I find their behavior
reprehensible and I use that word with caution but I intend to
say that word because of the fact that they have that
information; they know what they were doing. And I should
advise you that if you have further difficulties in the future
you may contact either of the Chairs and we will have them in
our office and we will sit down, as well as your own
congressman, because we can have that Forest Service sent in a
different direction.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. With that, I will turn questioning over to the
Co-Chair and then we will go to the Ranking Member. Madam
Chairman?
Mrs. Cubin. I just have a couple of questions. They will be
brief.
You discussed briefly logging with the use of helicopters.
I want to know when you use energy to fly the helicopter is
that an energy-efficient way to harvest the timber or is it
cheaper to harvest it from the ground in the traditional ways?
Mr. Lance. Madam Chair, Co-Chairs, obviously it is much
more expensive to attempt to helicopter log and it is not as
environmentally friendly in the opinion of many, but the result
is that if it costs more to have a state timber harvest when
you bid out a tract for selective harvesting, the bottom line
is that we, the State of Idaho and the school children of the
State of Idaho, are going to receive fewer net proceeds as a
result of the increased costs of the logging processes.
And this is not mythical. We have a forest timber sale that
has been now pending for about 3 years on Contux Creek and if
you talk to the Forest Service and certain others they will
tell you that there is a process that you can go through
referred to as the ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act) process for accessing your way through
federally managed forests to get to your own timber for
purposes of harvest or energy exploration, et cetera, et
cetera. We have been blocked now for 3 years from making a sale
on Contux Creek as a result of NMFS and the Forest Service not
allowing us access to our own land so that we can manage that
forest or those trees in a very responsible manner. That is the
sort of noncooperation that we have not only with the Forest
Service but also National Marine Fisheries.
Mrs. Cubin. I remember a large blow-down, I think it was in
Idaho, where the Forest Service did not allow anyone to go pick
up the blow-down, so it got insect-infested, and became
worthless. It happens all over.
One last question. How will the roadless rule affect state
fire-fighting efforts on state and private lands?
Mr. Lance. Madam Chair, Co-Chairs, that is an excellent
question. Secretary Norton recently visited what is now called
the National Interagency Fire Center but referred to still in
Idaho as the Boise Interagency Fire Center. She was very
concerned about what has been projected in terms of the fire
year that we are facing this coming year. Idaho and Oregon and
Washington have 40 percent of the snowpack that we
traditionally have. As a result of mismanagement or lack of
management by the Forest Service, we have beetle infestations;
we have a great fuel load on many of the acres that we
presently have in the State of Idaho. It is going to be a tough
fire year and unless or until you can access these fires that
start by lightning strikes that are not followed by rain,
contrary to many views held here in the East, you have
lightning strikes, you have a fire start, and you have to get
on that fire as quickly as possible.
The bottom line is if you do not have fire breaks,
represented by roads, if you do not have access to those fire
sites, which are also generally represented by roads and also
air control, we are going to have a very serious problem and we
anticipate a very serious problem because the undergrowth, the
fuels that have been allowed to accumulate on these nationally
managed forests and lands have reached an unacceptable level;
the infestation by insects is just absolutely horrendous.
And I think by way of comparison, Madam Chair and Co-
Chairs, it takes about 27 years to grow a saw log on federally
managed lands. It takes about 21 years to grow a saw log on
state-managed lands and about 17 years to grow a saw log on
privately managed lands. That tells you the level of management
that they have put into it so far.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Lance. I have nothing further.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Kind?
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today for
today's hearing and your testimony. I have a written statement
I would like to submit for the record without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kind follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources
This afternoon we continue our review of the Clinton
Administration's conservation and environmental policies by bringing
into question the Forest Service roadless policy as it pertains to
energy resources. While I do not debate the need for a comprehensive
national energy policy, we will not achieve that goal by undoing the
good work of the past Administration.
As is the case with the hard rock mining rules, CO2 emission
reductions, protection of national monuments, and ANWR--the Bush
Administration appears determined to undercut environmental initiatives
and retreat from environmental challenges. Characterizing this policy,
and the others, as ``last-minute decisions'' of the Clinton
Administration is a thinly disguised attempt to discredit a good policy
in order to rationalize jettisoning it as the oil and gas industry
demands.
As the record plainly shows, the Forest Service finalized its
``roadless area'' initiative on January 12 of this year after three
years of public debate, review, and consultation. They held more than
600 hearings nationwide and received more than 1.6 million comments.
The Forest Service analyzed the effect of the policy on oil and gas
activities, among other things, as part of the Environmental Impact
Statement. Some may disagree with the intent of the roadless policy,
but, we should not pretend that it was a snap judgement at the eleventh
hour.
The roadless areas affected by this policy comprise roughly one-
third of all National Forest System lands, or approximately 58.5
million acres. According to the Forest Service, although the roadless
areas comprise only 2% of the land base in the continental United
States, they exist within 661 of the more than 2,000 major watersheds
in the nation and provide many social and ecological benefits, such as
fish and wildlife habitat, clean water, hunting, fishing and outdoor
recreation resources, to name but a few. On the other hand, Forest
System lands play a minor role in producing oil and natural gas,
generating only about four tenths of one percent of current domestic
production. By comparison nationwide, Federal lands account for about
11 percent of the natural gas produced onshore while offshore the Outer
Continental Shelf accounts for more than 26 percent of domestic natural
gas production.
The vast majority of lands affected by the roadless policy have
been open to oil and leasing for decades but the oil and gas industry
has demonstrated little interest in exploiting the potential energy
resources in these areas. Confirming this lack of industry interest,
the Forest Service noted in its Final EIS, Minerals and Geology
Specialist Report, that because of the downturn in the domestic oil and
gas industry, the amount of National Forest System land under oil and
gas leases dropped from about 35 million acres in the mid-1980s to 5.8
million acres in 1998.
The Forest Service presented a good overview of the rule's
potential effects on oil and gas development in the final environmental
impact statement for the roadless rule. However, as noted by several of
our expert witnesses in their statements, the resource estimates are
highly speculative and with the lack of industry activity in roadless
areas over the years, cannot be considered as sufficient to warrant
rescinding the roadless rule. The resource estimate of 11.3 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas, for instance, is derived from academic
exercises designed to estimate the location of resources and can only
be considered as a hypothetical scenario.
The total oil and gas production from all National Forest System
lands is less than one percent of the current national production. And
the potential oil and gas resources that could be located inside
inventoried roadless areas--by even the most generous estimates--are
but an insignificant portion of total domestic resources. On these two
facts alone, the wildlife, environment and social values protected by
the rule outweigh the costs of foreclosing oil and gas drilling in
those areas.
______
Mr. Kind. Mr. Lance, just a couple of questions before we
move on. Currently Idaho has filed suit in regard to the
roadless initiative; is that correct?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs and Congressman, yes, that is correct.
Mr. Kind. Is Idaho currently producing any oil and gas or
even coal production?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman, no, but we certainly
wish that we had some and would like to explore. A few years
ago certain petroleum exploration companies took out some
options on some land but at the present time, to my knowledge,
we have no oil or gas production occurring.
Mr. Kind. Right. And I think overall there is roughly less
than 1 percent of oil and gas being produced in our Forest
Service lands to begin with.
I certainly appreciate the complaints that you have raised
in regard to the process and access and communication and
certainly there is room for improvement in that area but my
concern in regard to the roadless initiative is since it is
such an insignificant amount currently being produced on our
national forests, given the energy needs out there, there is so
much attention placed on supply. Would you agree that as we
develop a long-term energy policy in this country we need to be
looking in the areas of conservation, alternative and renewable
energy sources, as well, rather than just focusing on the
supply equation and also looking at demand aspects in regard to
the energy needs?
Certainly the constituents of mine in Wisconsin are feeling
the effects of rising energy prices, as I am sure the people in
Idaho are, too, but would you agree that a more balanced
approach to our long-term energy needs is what is required
right now?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman, certainly renewable
resources is at the top of my list. Being from farm country, we
think ethanol would certainly be one of those things that
should be explored and we need to get into. But may I also say
that while they were building the pipeline in Alaska I was a
member of the 172nd Infantry Brigade up in Alaska for three
years. The argument that the caribou would be scared away by
the pipeline, that the pipeline would destroy the tundra, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera--we heard all those arguments and
I would be happy to take you, Congressman, up to the Denali
Highway and when the caribou want to cross they will cross
right in front of your car.
So I think that there is a balance here. I think you are
absolutely right. I think we have to use our resources and our
intelligence and sit down and discuss this matter, make sure
that we apply those areas to conservation that are necessary
but, at the same time, I think we need to somehow lower our
dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Kind. I am not sure what the economic impact to the
State of Idaho is in regard to access to our national forests
in the areas of fishing and wildlife habitat but certainly I
would hope you would agree that part of managing the national
forests should be conservation, the protection of fishing lands
and access.
In fact, in a written statement to this Committee today Mr.
Moyer of Trout Unlimited kind of broke down some of the
economic benefit to conservation practices, access to hunters
and fishermen on these lands. In fact, in his written statement
Mr. Moyer noted, and I quote, ``According to a 1999 report from
the American Sports Fishing Association, 1996 fishing on the
national forests produced $8.5 billion to the nation's economy.
Hunting yielded $6.1 billion. Much of this value comes from
trout and salmon fishing and big game hunting. Roadless area
protection is tied to the long-term sustainability of these
huge benefits.''
Now again your process complaints aside, do you agree or
disagree that roadless areas are needed in order to protect or
enhance these valuable fish and wildlife habitats for outdoor
sports, as well?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman, I would disagree with
that statement. In order to manage you have to be able to
access. You have to get back in and look at your elk herds. You
have to take a look at your mule deer populations, your goats,
your sheep. You have to be able to access it. Also, in order to
sell a hunting license you have to give hunters and
recreationalists a reasonable access to it.
The best way that we have found in Idaho to manage our
larger game herds is to require that we examine the animals
that are taken for diseases, nutritional things, that type of
thing. And I think if you take away all of the roads in the
State of Idaho in terms of fishing, as well as hunting, we are
not going to be able to provide the access that we usually do
to harvest those animals in a manner that is consistent--
Mr. Kind. I would agree that access is important but we
also have a backlog of multi-millions of dollars in repair and
maintenance expenses that are currently going unmet in regard
to the current roads that already exist. Do you have any
solution of how we deal with that to improve access on the
roads that already exist?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs and Congressman, yes, close
coordination with the locals. You all are not going to solve
the problem in Idaho from Washington, D.C. here, other than
spending money for the problem. The folks in Idaho have been
living on these lands for generations. We know how to manage
those lands and what we need is a close coordination with the
Federal managers. Sixty-five percent of our land mass is
presently under Federal management. We know how to manage
lands. The people here in Washington don't. So we would be
happy to sit down with them, have local input--we are
stakeholders, as well--and come up with solutions to the
problems that I know that you are concerned about, Congressman,
and legitimately so.
Mr. Kind. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, I would like to
submit for the record my opening statement, as well, without
objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Otter follows:]
Statement of The Honorable C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, A Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Chairman McInnis and Chairwoman Cubin, thank you for holding this
hearing today on the devastating impacts that the previous
Administration's forest roadless rule will have on our efforts to
develop a comprehensive domestic energy policy.
I'm particularly pleased to see my good friend and the Attorney
General for the State of Idaho--Al Lance, who's here today to explain
for the committee the reasons that led to the State's lawsuit
challenging the process and substance of this rule, and the potential
impacts it would cause on Idaho citizens. I understand that the State
of Alaska has also filed a lawsuit challenging the rule.
The previous Administration's rush to pursue unprecedented and
sweeping restrictions on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
lands--through monument designations and this roadless rule--would
effectively shut off access to 9 million acres of Idaho public lands.
This is land that most certainly would yield to the development of new
sources of natural gas supply, rich mineral, phosphate and coal
resources.
Additionally, the Forest Service estimates that 7 million acres of
inventoried roadless areas are at risk of dying trees from insect
infestation or diseases. The proposal could interfere with road
construction and maintenance necessary to restore degraded ecosystems
and reduce the risk of uncontrollable and catastrophic wildfires--like
the 7 million acres that burned last summer and fall.
One of the primary concerns that I have heard about the roadless
policy is that it effects 58 million acres of national forest lands,
and yet only about 60 days were allowed for the citizens affected by
the proposal merely to comment on the proposed rule. No extensions were
permitted. No maps were provided to those interested in looking at the
areas affected until well after the Forest Service's 60 day-comment
period had expired.
After the Forest Service issued a 700-page impact statement, along
with the proposed rule, it released the rule on November 13, 2000, and
published it on January 12, 2001 so that it would go into effect
without regard to other reasonable alternatives, ignoring many critical
comments to the proposal, including its impact on energy. They
overstepped the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), ironically,
in the name of protecting the environment.
Recent estimates reveal that 11.3 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas could be made available from untapped American resources, including
trillions of cubic feet that are now off limits because of the
monuments, roadless rules, and other restrictions imposed by the
previous Administration on public lands.
Coal is another source of that could be made available on federal
lands. Federal lands account for almost 35 percent of total U.S. coal
production. Another 30 billion tons of minable coal are sitting unused
on millions of acres of Forest Service land. Over 2.5 million acres of
coal bearing rocks are in inventoried roadless areas. Holders of
existing federal coal leases are concerned that the roadless rules will
bar them form building roads necessary to mine, and future coal leasing
would be prevented altogether.
Yesterday, we held a hearing with the Forests and Forest Health
subcommittee on the potential to utilize biomass for energy and other
uses. I was quite intrigued by the technology that the Forest Service
has already developed. If it were marketed, it could provide
significant financial assistance for rural communities in Idaho, whose
tax base, schools, and other basic services have been hit hard by the
Forest Service's rules. Unfortunately, the Forest Service acknowledges
that some 27 percent of the potential biomass materials are
inaccessible due to the forest roadless policy.
And the impact of the roadless rule does not only affect access to
public lands. The Forest Service acknowledges it cannot deny
``reasonable access'' to reserved or outstanding privately-owned
minerals. Yet, private mineral rights cannot be accessed unless and
until they go through stringent environmental permitting and delays
that can discourage or prevent them from accessing their rights at all.
Transportation across forest roadless areas impacts a great deal of
private land.
That energy that could fuel American industries, businesses,
homes--and help offset the millions of dollars that taxpayers are now
paying for years of poor maintenance by the federal agencies in our
national forests.
I notice that there are panelists today, Mr. Chairman, that will
say that the roadless policy is important to protect endangered
species. But the Forest Service is not the agency responsible for
endangered species. That is a task that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have taken on--and
their management of endangered species is a subject of another hearing.
But overlooking the mission of federal agencies seems to have been a
specialty of the previous Administration. They masterminded the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan and other top-down
bureaucratic processes that would eliminate years of local planning
efforts to properly manage our forests in Idaho, Washington, Oregon,
and Montana.
While we must all be sensitive to the environment we all live in, I
cannot agree that preventing access to areas that would help maintain
healthy forests and eliminate destructive wildfires will protect
species. In fact, it has already done exactly the opposite. Entire
watersheds and land where endangered species live were destroyed by
fires last year--fires that could have been prevented through better
management and access. Last year, an enormous amount of silt and
sediment from the wildfires fell into the tributaries and waters where
fish swim, eat, and live. Undoubtedly, deer, elk, even lynx and wolves
perished in the millions of acres of hot fires that rages for months
last year.
On an issue unrelated to the roadless rule, but pertinent to the
energy crisis we face in the Pacific Northwest and California, I think
its time for a reality check. We cannot rely solely on conservation or
marginal proposals to use solar or wind power generation. We need to
continue exploring and increasing clean, renewable sources of energy--
including hydroelectric power.
Trout Unlimited and the Wilderness Society are represented here
today by witnesses that argue against selective timber harvesting of
the forests, and against the increased use of any other source of
fuel--coal, natural gas, or oil. They also are on record for endorsing
a proposal to tear out four hydroelectric dams that produce up to 3,000
megawatts of power at their peak--enough to power the City of Seattle
three times over.
Replacing the clean electricity generated by the dams with the next
cheapest source--natural gas--would take years to implement, cost
millions of dollars per year, and would further exacerbate the growing
demand for natural gas that is already there. Instead, we should
support efforts to swiftly relicense these dams, and authorize access
to public lands to maximize their transmission capability.
I look forward to working with the committee, to explore common
sense proposals to unlock the abundant energy resources available on
the millions of acres of public lands and to reverse unwise directives
such as the roadless regulations, that prevent access to those who
could untap resources, reduce the risk of forest fires, and to ease our
nation's energy crisis.
______
Mr. Otter. Hearing none, I would like to follow up with a
few of the questions or at least one of the questions that Mr.
Kind brought up.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Otter, may I interrupt for a second? I
made a procedural mistake. I should have recognized Mr. Inslee
as the Ranking Member. I apologize.
Mr. Inslee. No, I think the gentleman's on a roll. Let's
let him keep going.
Mr. McInnis. I apologize.
Mr. Otter. Thank you for that compliment. I appreciate it.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. Anyway, Al, much was made of whether or not we
have any energy exploration going on in Idaho or proven. Is it
not a fact that some of the oldest phosphate beds known to man
are actually in the Southeastern Idaho and that phosphate then
is made into fertilizer and that fertilizer then helps corn and
other farm products grow, which we make ethanol and other
energy products out of?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman Otter, Butch, you are
absolutely right. In the heart of the Caribou National Forest
in Southeastern Idaho we have some of the richest phosphate
deposits in the United States that are presently being
extracted for purposes of use in agricultural pursuits, et
cetera, et cetera. And yes, you can make by logical extension,
the argument that those products, in fact, could be used as a
biomass to make ethanol and so forth and so on but other than
that, I am unaware, Butch, of the energy relationship that we
might come up with, although over by Sand Hollow a few years
ago they did give out some options on some exploration for oil
but other than that and the phosphates.
But Idaho is a large state and virtually unexplored in
certain areas, so we may be sitting on some natural gas that we
are unaware of.
Mr. Otter. Thank you for that response, Al.
I would remind all the members of this Committee that it
was only two short days ago that we had substantial testimony
that was offered before this Committee on biomass and indeed
how much energy could come from the forest and forest floor and
would result in many kilowatts of potential electricity, needed
electricity, that could be created. And with 21.5 million acres
of forest in Idaho, along with 14 million acres of BLM ground,
there is much fuel stock there that could leave a fire-
defensible forest, as well as fire-defensible public lands and
still yield an awful lot of energy.
Al, I am very interested in the impact that the roadless
area has had on Idaho's schoolchildren and your comment
relative to the endowment plans. For the benefit of a lot of
people that are east of the Mississippi River and probably do
not experience this in their state, these tremendous land grabs
that go on by the Federal Government constantly, is it not true
that sections 16 and 36 out of every township--and every
township is roughly six square miles or 23,040 acres--out of
every township the State of Idaho was granted for its public
schools an endowment fund of 1,280 acres?
Mr. Lance. Madam Chair, Co-Chairs, Congressman Otter, yes,
that is absolutely correct. Idaho presently has about 2.5
million acres still in inventory that is under the management
of the Land Board and those proceeds, which are grazing lands,
agricultural lands, some mining, not too many mining lands, and
timber lands, the proceeds from the management of those lands
are used for the endowed institutions, which primarily are the
educational institutions in the State of Idaho.
And parenthetically, let me add that those school districts
that are heavily dependent upon the timber industry are hurting
at the present time because we have shut down several timber
mills, as you are well aware, as a result of the unavailability
of timber to keep those folks working and to pay their taxes to
keep those schools open. But you are absolutely right, Butch,
but we are down to about 2.5 million acres of state-endowed
lands.
Mr. Otter. Very quickly, Al. Yes or no on these next two
because I think they are important.
Is it not true that the private sector holdings in the
timber industry--for instance, Weyerhauser, Boise Cascade,
Potlatch, Plum Creek, many of the other private holdings--pay
on the average to the State of Idaho and to the counties I
should say $8.82 an acre for timbered lands a year?
Mr. Lance. Mr. Chairman, yes.
Mr. Otter. Is it not also a fact that of the total Federal
receipts for 21.5 million acres of Idaho forest lands we
receive less than 80 cents in the county for support of publics
schools, fire, police, et cetera?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman, yes, that is true.
Mr. Otter. And is it not a fact that most of the receipts
that we formerly received came only when we were allowed to use
those timber resources on a sustainable yield, sustainable cut
for the supplies for our logging mills?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman Otter, that is correct,
yes.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, my time
is up.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Otter.
Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lance, I am really glad you are here today because I
think all of us know how beautiful Idaho is and every American
citizen in this room has some interest in this policy because
we all have a stake in Idaho, even if we do not live there.
I would like you to help educate us a little bit about the
status of this lawsuit. Let me tell you, I have some very, very
deep concerns about it because it is my understanding that the
attorney general of the United States promised the American
people in his confirmation hearing that if indeed the United
States Senate confirmed him he would enforce the law of the
United States of America when it came to protecting and
defending this roadless policy.
I heard him say that, the press heard him say that and I
have heard that in this lawsuit, at best, he has delayed and at
worst, he has looked for a way for the law to be abrogated and
that really disturbs me to think that an attorney general who
has told the U.S. Senate and the American people they are going
to defend the law apparently is doing something, what I used to
call, and I used to be an old trial lawyer, called taking a
dive and I am very concerned about that and I would like you to
address, in fact, what the United States government has done in
that lawsuit. Are they defending this rule? Are they
aggressively defending it or are they doing something else?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman, thank you for the
question.
The plaintiffs are the Land Board, the State of Idaho, the
governor and the attorney general of the State of Idaho. We
have two Idaho counties that are also plaintiffs in that
action, the Kootenai, one of our tribes up in Northern Idaho.
And on the defense side you not only have the Federal
Government and the Forest Service but you also have a variety
of intervenors. Those intervenors were present and made
argument last Friday in Boise, Idaho on behalf of the Forest
Service. The Federal Government was there and made argument on
behalf of the Forest Service and we, on the other side, made
our arguments before Judge Lodge.
He presently has it under advisement as to whether or not
he is going to grant us the injunction that we sought, the
State of Idaho and the plaintiffs. Of course, the intervenors
and the Federal Government have defended against the granting
of that injunction.
I would say to you, sir, that the intervenors on behalf of
the Federal Government and the Forest Service are well
represented. They have made their arguments. I am talking about
the conservation groups and so forth and so on. They, in
conjunction with the Federal Government, have gone all the way.
If we had a deal, so to speak, with the Federal Government,
Congressman, we would not have had to spend my resources last
Friday in going before Judge Lodge and making this argument,
taking some substantial risk relative to the overall
development of the case, if you will. But we had no deal. We
went forward. We made our best arguments and we would have made
those arguments whether or not it was Janet Reno, the attorney
general of the United States, or John Ashcroft as the attorney
general of the United States. We have a case to make and we are
going to make it regardless of who is in the White House, sir.
Mr. Inslee. And could you tell us what the pleadings were
that were first filed by the attorney general of the United
States? Did he, in fact, file a pleading on behalf of the
United States which asserted that these rules were
appropriately adopted and that they should be implemented and
that your case should be dismissed with prejudice? Did he do
that, sir?
Mr. Lance. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the first thing that
happened was that President Bush suspended the implementation
of the rules until May 12 so as to give the administration, as
I understand it, the opportunity to look at it. The next thing
that I was involved with was a meeting with the Department of
Justice and representatives from the Department of Agriculture.
The same people, you understand, were with the Department of
Justice that were under the present administration as were, in
fact, under the previous administration. So we were dealing
with virtually the same people. And until last Friday Michael
Dombeck was also the Chief of the Forest Service until his
resignation.
So to answer your question, the bottom line is the
administration, as I understand it, is taking a look at these
rules and some of our complaints and some of our problems and
we would hope that someone would listen to us in terms of the
due process violations that we perceive transpired during the
course of the hearing.
Mr. Inslee. So I take it your answer, in a short word, is
no, in fact, the attorney general did not do that, even though
he told the U.S. Senate that he would do that. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Lance. Co-Chairs, Congressman, no, I do not think that
that is a fair statement. The United States government showed
up. They made their arguments, along with the intervenors,
against our position. I think that is opposition. Whether or
not one would characterize it as being in violation of Attorney
General Ashcroft's oath, I am not prepared to say, sir.
Mr. Inslee. I really truly want to understand what happened
in the lawsuit because I have been asked myself, so I do want
to understand it.
My understanding is, and I used to practice a little law in
my day, that when you file a pleading you state what your
position is. My understanding is that the attorney general had
the opportunity to come in and follow his oath to the U.S.
Senate and file a document that said that the position of the
United States of America was that this policy was appropriately
adopted and should be implemented and my understanding is he
did not do that. Am I correct or not?
Mr. Lance. Congressman, as I understand your question, and
Chairs, no, they were there. They argued against our position.
Mr. Inslee. The answer is no, is that correct?
Mr. Lance. Last Friday they were there, they made their
arguments against our position. So if they wanted to stipulate
to it and give us what we wanted, which would have been a lot
easier, we would have much preferred that, sir, but they were
there arguing against our position in court in Boise last
Friday.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Lance.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, sir.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Lance, I am going to save you a little
breath. You do not always have to address the Co-Chairs and the
Committee. We appreciate your formalness but it is not
necessary.
To get us back on track I am going to recognize Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall?
Mr. Rahall. Attorney General, you may have heard my opening
statement. I mentioned the 380,000 miles of forest roads. There
is an $8.4 billion backlog of maintenance needs just to repair
what is already there.
Mr. Lance. Yes.
Mr. Rahall. Only 20 percent of what the Forest Service
needs on a yearly basis is being appropriated to help maintain
that backlog.
Now I appreciate your comment about us people here in
Washington not knowing how to manage these lands and my
colleague from Idaho trying to tell us east of the Mississippi
what life is like out West but I am just wondering if I am
missing something here. With that backlog and with the lack of
funds to adequately maintain what is there now, and by the way,
you mentioned the high gasoline prices in your State of Idaho,
the high costs you already face. You are the fourth highest in
the nation in state gas tax and there is nothing wrong with
that; my state is high in state gasoline tax, as well, but we
do not go blaming it on us people here in Washington. And we
are glad to see that because we use it to match more Federal
dollars and build more highways.
But anyway, where are you proposing then the money comes
from? Is the State of Idaho willing to belly up to the bar, so
to speak, to pay for this? Do you have industry commitments of
which we are unaware, that are willing to help maintain what we
have now?
Mr. Lance. Chairs, Congressman, first of all, I have been
to your beautiful State of West Virginia on several occasions.
Mr. Rahall. I have been to your beautiful state of Ohio--I
mean Idaho, sorry.
Mr. Lance. I was originally born in Ohio but that is a
whole long story.
You know, the common misperception, and I understand that
the needs are great in terms of what is perceived to be normal
and routine maintenance of roadways but we are not talking
interstate highways here. We are just talking about roadways,
generally speaking logging roads that have been cut in the side
of the mountain to access a timber sale and then once the
timber has been extracted in a selective and environmentally
responsible manner, that road is there.
Now the only maintenance that is necessary in some
instances is to ensure that it does not pollute the stream and
erode, quite simply. That can be done in several manners.
Number one, you can close access to that logging road. The road
is there as a fire break. It is there in the event of an
emergency. And assuming that you have the erosion under control
it does not take anything.
The bottom line, Congressman, I think is that we need a
Forest Service and a Federal Government that we can sit down
with and we can compare our needs.
Now industry, certainly when we have a timber sale that is
anticipated on state lands, we take into account the value
added to our lands when we ask a contractor to come in and
carve in a road and then to put in the culverts and to take
care of the road in a responsible manner. That is factored into
our timber sales price and I suspect the Forest Service ought
to take a look at that but the bottom line, I think, is that we
all need to sit down together and find out what the State of
Idaho is willing to do, if we have sales, what the industry
might be prepared to do in terms of a sale and a credit for the
improvements that they may make to the land, and what the
Federal Government is willing to do. Right now we do not have a
place at the table.
Mr. Rahall. I am aware of that process that you have just
described. I am just not aware of any financial responsibility
or anywhere where the state or the industry has kicked in to
help once those extractive industries have gotten their
payloads out of the area. There are still some costs involved
in that process. You say you do not have the ability to sit
down at the table. Perhaps if you sat down at the table without
the Federal Government involved and then came to us with a
proposal; is that not a proper scenario?
Mr. Lance. Mr. Chairman, Co-Chairs, Congressman, yes, I
think that it is. I think that if we, in fact, Idaho has what
we call a process that we have spent a lot of time and money on
dealing with the joint management of Federal lands. We have
identified six projects. This has been run through the
committee that was funded by the Department of Lands and the
Land Board through the University of Idaho. We have identified
six projects to sit down with the Federal Government and
jointly manage this, which would require money on our part but
it would also require a willingness on the part of the Forest
Service and others to sit down and discuss our proposals. Thus
far we have had no cooperation in terms of sitting down and
looking at these proposals, finding out how to manage these six
tracts of land that we have identified and how we are going to
pay for the roads and how we are going to maintain them, sir.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you wonder why General Lance always responds to the
Chairman first, to the Committee and then the one asking the
question, the Idaho Legislature, that is the way it is always
done. He served there for a number of years with me and has
testified before the Legislature many, many times and
consequently you get in the habit of doing that. It is just the
way we show respect in Idaho.
There are some interesting things that have been brought up
during this and I appreciated the opening statements of the Co-
Chairs and also of the gentleman from West Virginia. He
mentioned that we had an $8.4 billion backlog in roads in our
national forests currently and we were not doing our best to
address those and that because of those, we were damaging
critical fish and wildlife habitat, and so forth.
You know, last year we had legislation called CARA and many
of us suggested that we ought to use that money, before we
start acquiring more land, to address the backlog needs in our
national forests and national parks. But, of course, we could
not get enough support for that but that is one of the ways we
could have addressed some of that backlog because I agree with
you that there is a problem there.
But I can tell you another thing. We did not in any of
these roads damage as much critical fish and wildlife habitat
as the wildfires that occurred last year in Idaho. And the fish
habitat that is being destroyed today as water runs off that
area and into the streams and covers the beds is doing more
damage than any roads have ever done. And a large part of the
reason those fires occurred is because we have not had active
management of those lands over the last several years and the
roadless moratorium that we are talking about today just means
that we will not have more active management because you will
not be able to get in there and do it, or it will make it so
expensive that you cannot actively get in there to do it.
Mr. Rahall. Would you yield? You mentioned my name.
Mr. Simpson That I would.
Mr. Rahall. Just on the CARA issue, I supported that
legislation, as well, and I suggest you go talk to the
leadership that controls the Appropriations Committee here.
That is where that problem lies. My party does not control the
leadership here.
And I would say as far as the fire issue, on those areas
that are not opened up, I am not sure what there is to control
as far as fires that may occur.
Mr. Simpson Well, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's comments but last year what we tried to do is make
sure that that money used in CARA was used to address the
backlog instead of all the new programs that were in there. I
voted against CARA because of that so that's the reason that I
opposed it.
Let me pose a hypothetical and I wish Mr. Inslee was still
here. You are the attorney general for the State of Idaho. Your
job is to defend the State of Idaho and the people of the State
of Idaho. Let us say that an agency of the State of Idaho had
proposed a rule and in proposing that rule they had violated a
number of Idaho statutes. Would you, as the attorney general,
then feel obligated to defend the rule implemented by that
agency?
Mr. Lance. Congressman Simpson, you would examine it, you
would find out how serious the violations were. If it were a
violation of due process, I think as an officer of the court
you would have an obligation to make that known to the court
that the rules had been violated and that your agency probably
stepped across the line and maybe they ought to go back to the
drawing board and start again and do it by the numbers.
Mr. Simpson Considering that the past Administration denied
all Freedom of Information Act requests and all cooperating
agency status applications filed by the affected states,
considering also that accurate maps were not made available
during the public comment period, in violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act, considering that the
administration developed the policy in lock-step coordination
with a handful of national environmental groups and in
conjunction with their multi-million-dollar roadless campaign,
a likely violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
considering that no small business or small government analysis
was done to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
considering that many forest plans will have to be revised as a
result of this rule, violating the National Forest Management
Act, considering that it usually takes the Forest Service two
or 3 years to do a legally defensible EIS for a timber sale
covering only 300 acres yet it took the administration only 1
year to do a single massive EIS covering over 5,800 million
acres, do you think the attorney general can defend this? I
know that is a tough question.
Mr. Lance. Congressman Simpson, let me just say that I
think the new Administration would have preferred to have more
time to include the attorney general and the attorneys that
represented the Forest Service and others. They would have
preferred to have a lot more time to study this to get to the
bottom of it.
The bottom line is they were new. They walked in, they
offered a defense because we felt it would have been a
violation of the court's order to stipulate to the continuance
to give them that time that would have been required. All I can
tell you, sir, is that they were there, they opposed our
position and they were doing their job and probably if
circumstances were such, I would have been very willing to give
them additional time to study the issue and study the problem.
But the bottom line is fire season is going to be starting in
Idaho, as you both are aware, very soon and we do not have time
to have people tell us that we cannot go to put out the fires
that are being caused as a result of the years of neglect in
our national forests.
Mr. Simpson In your opinion what is the likelihood of
catastrophic fires occurring again this year?
Mr. Lance. I think, Congressman, this is going to be the
first year we are going to have back to back record fires. Last
year was a terrible fire year. We had 1.2 million acres
destroyed by fire last year. We still have about 895,000 acres
of good timber just laying out there and we cannot get at it
because the Forest Service will not cooperate in terms of some
sort of salvage effort. As a consequence, we are just wasting
that timber. You talk about wasting energy. You are talking
about many, many boardfeet laying out there that we cannot get
at because the Forest Service is not cooperative.
This year is going to be a tremendous fire year, a very bad
fire year, not only in the State of Idaho but from what I
predict and what I see, the states of Washington and Oregon, as
well, sir.
Mr. Simpson Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Lance, good to see you here today, to be reunited
with you again from the old days. His two colleagues here did
not say but he is also the national commander of the American
Legion, which I think is a real honor that they have bestowed
upon him, so congratulations on that. I know that happened near
the end of your AG term there.
General Lance, you have talked about imported oil and
dependence on imported oil and how we should get our way out of
that situation. You know, we have grown dramatically in terms
of our dependence. In the 1960's we imported about 20 percent
of our oil. We are headed toward 60 percent now. We are not
doing anything to change that direction. We are heavily
dependent on imported oil and 55 percent of that imported oil
is from the Middle East, which is a very volatile region.
When you look at the numbers here, especially in Idaho, of
oil that we are going to get out of roadless areas, you are not
here to tell us that we are going to solve our energy problem
with oil that we are going to get off roadless areas in Idaho,
are you?
Mr. Lance. Congressman, Tom, good to see you again, too.
Absolutely not. To my knowledge, as I have testified, we do not
have any oil unless there is some that I am unaware of. We have
a little potential for natural gas in the Targhee National
Forest.
Tom, when it comes right down to the issue of energy
exploration I am here just to say that the process was not, in
fact, followed. The NEPA processes were not followed. The
governor of the State of Idaho and the attorney general of the
State of Idaho were given 3 minutes to testify and that was the
maximum. Testimony from people who work in the forest, took off
time from their jobs and away from their families to come and
stand in line to testify were given the same weight as people
who sat in their offices and sent in e-mails. That is just
wrong, Tom. I know you and I may have some disagreements in
terms of the ultimate result but I think we both have a
commitment to the process and that is why we filed the lawsuit.
Now if the energy exploration business piggybacks on our
lawsuit when it comes to the process and sitting down and
talking about these things and coming up with some type of
process that is acceptable to the American people and to the
affected states, so be it, but I cannot comment too much on the
energy thing, Tom. Unfortunately, Idaho is not a large energy-
producing state.
Mr. Udall. Thank you. The issue that you have raised of the
commenting and the process that was followed, that is clearly
one where many other individuals had an opportunity to comment
and I think they took comments in the time period. 1.6 million
people stepped forward and got their comments in and had the
ability to do it.
So I do not think you are suggesting that a lot of other
Americans did not have the opportunity to look at the roadless
policy and comment in their respective state about it, are you?
Mr. Lance. Congressman, I think that there were a lot of
form letters being filled out, a lot of postcards, a lot of e-
mails. And I think, Tom, to be real honest with you, there is a
difference between somebody who takes time off of the job to go
to a Federal public hearing and waiting an hour and a half and
he works in the sawmill and he has kids to support. He or she
is there to testify eyeball to eyeball with these folks and I
think there is a tremendous difference between that person's
testimony and the sacrifice they made and then somebody who
fills out a form letter and sends it into the Forest Service.
That is my point.
Mrs. Cubin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Udall. I just want to deal with one more thing and then
I would be happy to yield.
You mentioned in your testimony about the school children.
The last time around we had a lot of testimony in front of the
Resources Committee dealing with timber-dependent communities
and that money in terms of the schools and we, in fact, one of
the bipartisan things we did out of the Resources Committee was
to pass a piece of legislation--I forget exactly what it was
called but it was the county payments legislation. What we did
was we said under the old system, because you had these cycles
of boom and bust, that you could make a choice. You could go
with the old system, with the cycles of boom and bust, or you
could choose a formula under the new system and that formula
many times was higher than under the old system.
So we tried to deal, I think, with the situation you are
talking about. I do not know how familiar you are with that law
but I think we did a good job of trying to disconnect the two,
make sure that we have healthy forests on the one hand and that
states could also choose on the other hand their method of
payment so that you did not have this connection driving the
forest policy.
And I guess since the time is out I would just say for the
record that piece of legislation did pass, I believe it passed
on a large bipartisan basis and it was an attempt to really
tackle the issue that you are talking about.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would yield to you
at this time.
Mrs. Cubin. That is okay; you do not have any time left.
Mr. Lance, did you want to say anything?
Mr. Lance. If I may, Madam Chair, Tom, you are absolutely
right. I think that was a step in the right direction and I
applaud those of you who studied that issue. But you are
talking about the PILT payments, Tom, what we used to call the
payment in lieu of taxes payments. That is a little different
issue than land that is owned by the State of Idaho and you
cannot access your land for purposes of harvest because there
is a roadless policy of the lands of the Federal Government
that surround you. That is a little different issue, Tom, but
I--
Mr. Udall. In fact, we are not talking PILT payments. We
are talking county school payments and we did legislation on
that and states can now make a choice. I do not want to argue
with you. My time is up. I am running over here and maybe on
the next round we will have an opportunity to go through it
again.
Pleasure to have you here.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Tom.
Mr. Udall. I would like to carve out some time for our
Chairman here. You have the prerogative. You have all the time
over there, anyway.
Mrs. Cubin. I just do want to make a point about the
process to counter what was said. Yes, there was a lot of
public input. There were hundreds of thousands if not millions
of statements that were submitted but also the rule was put in
place before it was physically possible for the Forest Service
to have considered all of those comments.
I know in the State of Wyoming there was like 24 hours left
and thousands and thousands of statements that needed to be
regarded and the point is, Tom, that the statements were made
but they were not included in the decision-making process.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Flake.
Mr. Flake. No questions.
Mrs. Cubin. Mrs. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Lance, when you were talking about the mills closing, I
am from Minnesota so we are not identical but we are on that
border with Canada and I am hearing from a lot of the folks in
my part of the world that part of the reason why our mills are
not successful has to do with what is happening with Canadian
timber.
Is that a fair statement, that that played a factor in what
you were describing as closing the mills and it was not all the
Forest Service?
Mr. Lance. Madam Chair, Congressman, yes, absolutely, there
is no question about it. The Canadians are exporting large
quantities of lumber. That is a factor in terms of the mill
closures. There is no question about that.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Lance, I appreciate you clarifying that
because had I not brought that up you would have thought that
only the factor that you mentioned was the only reason why your
lumber people are suffering.
Could you tell me, has your state, as my state, had any
discussions about closing roads, trading roads back and forth
between the Federal Government? Any where there is state
forest, national forest, where they are parallel, doing any
land swaps, road swaps, any of that kind of stuff?
Mr. Lance. Congressman, yes, we swap lands, state lands
with Federal lands, on a fairly frequent basis in the State of
Idaho, generally a block-up. If you have in-holdings here and
there, what you are trying to do is block it up so that we have
a management unit and the Federal Government ends up with a
manageable unit. Sometimes those include roads and rights-of-
way and so forth and so on.
The problem that we have that I do not know if you have in
Minnesota is 2477 roads. We have these historic roads that were
established sometime ago and we still are trying to sort out
where the 2477 roads are, who owns them and who has the right
to use them. So that kind of complicates some of those
transfers that you would suggest.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Lance, could you tell me where your
school trust lands are isolated, as ours are in Minnesota, has
the state had a dialogue going on to access those lands, to get
the dollars for the schools? Have they had a long dialogue
going on identifying records of conversations back and forth
between the Forest Service to access those spots of school
trust land? Have they been working on this for a while?
Mr. Lance. Well, Congressman, the example that I used is
Contux Creek, state land. We tried to do a timber sale. In
fact, we did the timber sale. It is surrounded by Federal
lands. We were in the process of working with the Forest
Service. Intervenors, like conservation groups, filed a variety
of lawsuits. NMFS came in and wanted another environmental
impact statement so it has been about 3 years and our timber is
still there and we have not been able to harvest it.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Lance, that was not my question.
Mr. Lance. All right.
Ms. McCollum. My question was are you aware if your state
has had an on-going dialogue about trading lands back and
forth, making sure that road access, as roads were being
developed by the state and by the Federal Government or roads
in Federal lands be kept up, upgraded so that you could have
access to your school trust funds lands? Have you been doing
that?
Mr. Lance. Madam, Congressman, I am of the opinion that
yes, we attempt to do that on a fairly frequent basis. As I
indicated earlier, we do, in fact, trade lands with the Federal
Government and agencies of the Federal Government on a fairly
frequent basis. To identify all of the parcels of state lands
and to sit down and attempt then to identify all of the roads
or the 2477 roads or whatever else, I think would be somewhat
difficult but we are certainly willing to do as you suggest, to
sit down and to try to cooperatively manage many of these roads
and lands.
Ms. McCollum. And Madam Chair, Mr. Lance, I am very
disappointed that you did not get access to maps when you asked
for them so I want to make that perfectly clear. I am sure we
had some of the same things going on in Minnesota but we had
maps available to us to figure out what was going on. Were you
totally clueless as to what this was going to look like when
the roadless policy came out or did you have some maps, some
idea or were you really totally out there without a clue what
was going to happen?
Mr. Lance. Congressman, there are two types of roads
covered by the roadless proposal, two types of lands, one of
which is the inventoried roadless and one is the uninventoried
roadless. No one knows what the uninventoried roadless is. We
know that the inventoried roadless in Idaho is 9.5 million
acres. No one can tell us what the uninventoried size is. It
has been projected that maybe that is another 4.5 million
acres. On the uninventoried, we are totally clueless. We do not
know.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mrs. Cubin. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. No questions for this witness at this time. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, Mr. Lance, we certainly thank you for
your testimony, thank you for the answers to the questions and
we really appreciate your being here.
Also, Mr. Orton, we appreciate your being here. You were
just as cute as could be sitting there. Don't think we do not
appreciate that.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Cubin. Okay, never mind. You are not that cute.
Thank you very much. The panel is now dismissed.
The Chair would like to now call for panel two: Mr. Randy
Phillips, Deputy Chief of Programs and Legislation for the USDA
Forest Service; Mr. Jeffrey Eppink, Vice President for Advanced
Resources, International; Mr. Steve Moyer, Vice President of
Conservation Programs for Trout Unlimited; Mr. Greg Schaefer,
Director of External Affairs for the Western Region for Arch
Coal, Incorporated and, I might add, a personal dear friend of
mine--thank you, Greg, for being here--and Mr. Pete Morton,
Resource Economist for The Wilderness Society.
Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee rules
you must limit your oral statements to five minutes but your
entire statement will appear in the record.
I now recognize Mr. Phillips for his five minutes of
testimony.
STATEMENT OF RANDY PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND
LEGISLATION, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am Randy Phillips, Deputy Chief of Programs and
Legislation for the U.S. Forest Service. I am also accompanied
by Mr. Larry Gadt, who is the director of our minerals and
energy program for the Forest Service.
I am here today to discus with you the effects of the
roadless rule on energy production based on the analysis in the
Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement
that was released on November 9 of last year and the final rule
that was published on January 12 of this year.
As you know, on January 20, 2001 the Assistant to the
President and White House Chief of Staff issued a memorandum to
agencies to request that all new rules and regulations not yet
in effect be delayed for 60 days to give the administration
time to review the rules. In accordance with that direction,
the secretary delayed the effective date of the Roadless Area
Conservation final rule from March 13 of this year until May
12, 2001.
With the roadless rule currently under review by the
Department of Agriculture, my comments today will be limited to
the effects documented in the final environmental impact
statement and the final regulatory impact analysis that was
prepared in conjunction with the final rule.
The roadless rule would generally prohibit road
construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas
on about 58.5 million acres of national forest and grasslands.
The prohibition of road construction and reconstruction is
anticipated to have some impact on leasable energy minerals.
The final rule would not affect road construction and
reconstruction providing access to and development within
existing mineral lease boundaries or access needed for existing
rights, such as private or state-owned mineral deposits. The
prohibitions would likely prevent expansion of existing mineral
lease areas into adjacent inventoried roadless areas or
exploration and development of new mineral leases except in
situations where development can be done without road
construction.
The final roadless rule could affect exploration for or
development of known coal reserves on approximately 47,400
acres in Colorado alone not currently leased in inventoried
roadless areas. These reserves are estimated at between 237
million and 1.3 billion tons of coal near or adjacent to active
mines. In addition, there are over 2.5 million acres of
inventoried roadless areas with varying levels of potential to
contain coal resources suitable for commercial development.
There may also be other coal resources in inventoried roadless
areas. However, the extent of the resources is not known at
this time.
The mining of coal from inventoried roadless areas is not
extensive but there are active mines on the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests in Colorado and the
Manti-Lasal National Forest in Utah. On the Grand Mesa,
Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Arch Coal is
interested in expansion into a contiguous inventoried roadless
area.
Although the mine is an underground operation, expansion
may require road access for exploration and development
drilling and construction of ventilation shafts. If production
cannot be expanded into inventoried roadless areas, the mine
could close within two to 5 years when current reserves are
exhausted. Potential effects from closure of this mine could
include the loss of 361 direct jobs and affect 2,119 total
jobs. Two other operating mines adjacent to roadless areas on
the GMUG could also be affected. Together these two mines
produce about 9 million tons per year and employ 368 people.
There are also three tracts with known recoverable coal
reserves in the Manti-Lasal National Forest that currently are
not under lease.
Currently over 6 million acres of National Forest System
land is under lease for oil and gas. This includes
approximately 759,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas
considered to have high oil and gas potential under lease. The
areas currently under lease will not be materially affected by
the roadless rule.
Near the completion of the Roadless Area Conservation Final
Environmental Impact Statement the Department of Energy, DOE,
raised additional concerns about the potential impacts on
production of coal, oil and gas resources. After being informed
about these concerns the Forest Service evaluated the
information provided by DOE in accordance with agency
procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act for new
information. The agency concluded that there was no change in
the magnitude of the effects, as disclosed in the FEIS. The DOE
information was included in the regulatory impact analysis.
Using information from the Department of Energy, an
estimated 11.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 550
million barrels of oil could potentially underlie inventoried
roadless areas. They also estimate that between 63 percent and
78 percent of these potential reserves may be economically
recoverable.
In addition, on the Los Padres National Forest in
California the prohibition of road construction or
reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas could affect
exploration and possible development.
In summary, while the roadless rule does not impact
existing mineral leases and outstanding rights it could impact
expansion of existing leases and exploration and development of
new mineral leases on National Forest System lands. Thank you.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
Statement of Randle G. Phillips, Deputy Chief for Programs and
Legislation, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chairman Cubin, Chairman Mcinnis and Members of the Subcommittees:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk
about the potential impacts of the roadless rule on energy mineral
leasing from National Forest System lands. I am Randy Phillips, Deputy
Chief for Programs and Legislation, and with me today is Larry Gadt,
Director for Minerals and Geology Management of the Forest Service. I
am here today to discuss with you the effects of the roadless rule
based on the analysis in the Roadless Area Conservation Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was released on November 9,
2000 and the final rule that was published on January 12, 2001.
As you know, on January 20,2001, the Assistant to the President and
White House Chief of Staff issued a memorandum to agencies requesting
that all new rules and regulations not yet in effect be delayed 60-days
to give the Administration time to review the rules. In accordance with
that direction, the Secretary delayed the effective date of the
Roadless Area Conservation final rule from March 13, 2001, until May
12, 2001.
The roadless rule is currently under review by the Department of
Agriculture, so my comments today will be limited to the effects
documented in the FEIS and the final regulatory impact analysis that
was prepared in conjunction with the final rule.
In brief, the roadless rule would generally prohibit road
construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) on
58.5 million acres of national forests and grasslands. The prohibition
of road construction and reconstruction is anticipated to have some
impact on leasable energy minerals. The final rule would not affect
road construction and reconstruction providing access to and
development within existing mineral lease boundaries or access needed
for existing rights, such as private or State owned mineral deposits.
The prohibitions would likely prevent expansion of existing mineral
lease areas into adjacent inventoried roadless areas or exploration and
development of new mineral leases except in situations where
development can be done without road construction.
Before I talk about the impacts of the rule on energy mineral
leasing, I first want to briefly discuss energy mineral leasing on
National Forest System lands.
BACKGROUND
Leasable mineral resources are those mineral resources that can be
explored for and developed under one of several mineral-leasing acts.
They include energy resources such as oil, gas, coal, and geothermal.
Exploration and development of oil, gas, coal, and geothermal
resources are discretionary activities, meaning that leasing of them
may or may not be allowed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the
authority to lease minerals on National Forest System lands; however,
they may only be leased subject to Forest Service concurrence.
Environmental impact statements are generally prepared before the
issuance of mineral leases in inventoried roadless areas. The effects
of any future lease exploration or development are also addressed in
subsequent environmental analysis.
EFFECTS OF THE ROADLESS RULE
Locatable mineral access is a right granted by statute and
therefore not materially affected by the road prohibition. Saleable
minerals are subject to the road prohibition, and therefore generally
eliminated as a permissible activity within inventoried roadless.
However, the economic effect of eliminating saleable minerals is
insignificant because saleable minerals (sand, gravel, limestone for
aggregate, etc.) are not economic unless very close to market due to
haul costs, therefore there is a minimal amount of this activity in
inventoried roadless areas.
For leasable energy minerals, the road prohibition would not
materially affect road construction and reconstruction providing access
to and development within existing lease boundaries, even if those
leases are extended beyond their current termination dates. However,
the road prohibition would likely prevent expansion of existing mineral
lease areas into adjacent inventoried roadless areas. In many cases,
such expansion is more economically advantageous to the operator than
developing new deposits.
Where reserves are known to occur in inventoried roadless areas,
the road prohibition is likely to preclude future development, except
in situations where development can occur without road construction.
The economic impacts of precluding development of an area depends on a
variety of external factors that would lead to development including
market prices, transportation, access, plus other factors such as the
availability of alternate resources in areas that may be available for
leasing (either on other National Forest System lands or on other
ownerships). Since mineral deposits tend to be concentrated in some
geographic areas, it is likely that the impacts on mining jobs and
income would also be concentrated in a few areas. The most immediate
economic effects are associated with current proposals to expand
existing leases into adjacent inventoried roadless areas for phosphate
and coal mining.
Coal
In 1998, over 75 million tons of coal produced from Federal leases
on National Forest System land accounted for almost 7 percent of total
national production, and about 22 percent of production from Federal
leases.
The final roadless rule could affect exploration for or development
of known coal reserves on approximately 61,200 acres not currently
leased in inventoried roadless areas. These reserves are estimated at
between 237 million and 1.3 billion tons of coal near or adjacent to
active mines. In addition, there are over 2.5 million acres of
inventoried roadless areas with varying levels of potential to contain
coal resources suitable for commercial development.
Some of these reserves or resources would likely be developed
within the next 5 years if offered for lease. There may also be other
coal resources in inventoried roadless areas. However, the extent of
the resource is not known and there is no demonstrated industry
interest in these.
The mining of coal from inventoried roadless areas is not
extensive, but there are active mines on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre
and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) in Colorado and the Manti-Lasal
National Forests in Utah.
On the GMUG, Arch Coal is interested in expansion into a contiguous
inventoried roadless area. Although the mine is an underground
operation, expansion may require road access for exploration and
development drilling, and construction of ventilation shafts. The mine
currently produces about 7 million tons per year. If production cannot
be expanded into inventoried roadless areas, the mine could close
within two to five years, when current reserves are exhausted.
Potential effects from closure of this mine could include the loss of
361 direct jobs and affect 2,119 total jobs.
Two other operating mines adjacent to roadless areas on the GMUG
could also be affected. Data was not available on when current reserves
may be depleted for these mines, but together the two mines produce
about 9 million tons per year and employ 368 people. If future
expansion of these operations is precluded by the road prohibition, and
no alternative sources of production are economically attractive, then
these mines could be closed after current reserves under lease are
mined.
There are also three tracts with known recoverable coal reserves on
the Manti-Lasal National Forest that currently are not under lease. Two
of the potential tracts have relatively small recoverable reserves, but
the third tract has an estimated 135 million tons of recoverable
reserves, of which 50 million tons is within inventoried roadless
areas. Included in the recoverable reserve estimate are about 22
million tons of recoverable reserves owned by the State of Utah. Access
to coal owned by the State of Utah would be guaranteed, as would access
to any privately held rights. This tract would require development
facilities in an inventoried roadless area, which may preclude
development of the rest of the tract once the State's portion of the
reserve is extracted.
Oil and Gas
Federal leases are an important source of oil and gas production,
but most of the production is from off-shore leases. Production from
national forests and grasslands currently accounts for only 0.4 percent
of total U.S. oil and gas production. However, interest may increase in
response to increasing prices and demands. Although much of the
increased development is expected to be off-shore, a number of national
forests and grasslands either have current leases, or have applications
for permits to explore for natural gas.
Currently over 6 million acres of National Forest System land is
under lease for oil and gas. This includes approximately 759,000 acres
of inventoried roadless areas considered to have high oil and gas
potential under lease. The areas currently under lease will not be
materially affected by the roadless rule.
Near the completion of the Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, the
Department of Energy (DOE) raised additional concerns about the
potential impacts on production of coal, oil, and gas resources if the
final roadless rule did not allow road building in support of
exploration and development of these leasable minerals. After being
informed about these concerns, the Forest Service evaluated the
information provided by DOE, in accordance with agency procedures under
the National Environmental Policy Act for new information. After
careful review of the information provided, the agency concluded that
there was no change in the magnitude of the effects as disclosed in the
FEIS. The Forest Service included the DOE information in the regulatory
impact analysis that accompanied the final rule.
Department of Energy undertook an analysis that focused on the
potential impacts to undiscovered oil and gas resources in the two U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS)-defined Rocky Mountain regions. Overlaying
USGS oil and gas ``play'' areas on Forest Service maps of IRAs, DOE
estimated the acres of IRAs in each of the play areas. (A play is a
USGS-designated area with common geologic characteristics that have
potential to produce oil or natural gas.) The calculations of oil and
gas resources that are estimated to occur beneath inventoried roadless
areas are tied to these acreage estimates.
Using information from the Department of Energy, an estimated
(mean) 11.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 550 million barrels
of oil could potentially underlie inventoried roadless areas.
(Estimates range from 3.5 trillion cubic feet to 23.1 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas and from 119 million barrels to 1,212 million
barrel of oil.) They also estimate that between 63 percent and 78
percent of these potential reserves may be economically recoverable.
DOE estimates that historically about one-third of the oil-in-place of
known reservoirs is recovered. At the assumed prices ($3-4 per Mcf),
the value of the economic activity for these natural gas resources
would range from $23 to $34 billion dollars, which would be realized
over a number of years.
In addition, on the Los Padres National Forest in California the
prohibition of road construction or reconstruction in inventoried
roadless areas could affect exploration and possible development of
five high potential oil and gas areas and preclude possible future
development of up to an estimated 21.4 million barrels of oil.
Based on DOE's figures of total undiscovered resources within the
208 Rocky Mountain play areas examined, estimated resources beneath
IRAs account for about 3 percent of undiscovered gas and almost 7
percent of undiscovered oil resources in these play areas. DOE
estimates that 2.7 million acres of inventoried roadless acres contain
83 percent (9.3 trillion cubic feet) of the natural gas resource in all
inventoried roadless areas. Based on information from the National
Petroleum Council this is less than 1 percent of the nation's natural
gas resources.
If exploration and development did occur, it would be 5 to 10 years
before any production is likely because oil and gas leasing is
typically a lengthy process. The value would not be realized in the
near future and any production would be spread over multiple years in
the future. It is unlikely that exploration in IRAs would be a high
priority because of issues independent of the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule, such as access limited by rugged terrain, low
probability of occurrence of oil and gas resources, distance to
markets, and potential restrictions of other environmental laws.
Transmission lines
There is nothing in the final roadless rule that would prohibit
construction of new power lines or oil and gas lines in inventoried
roadless areas. However, having to construct these facilities without
the use of roads would generally increase the construction and
maintenance costs.
Hydropower and Geothermal Energy
The roadless rule FEIS also did not identify any impacts to
existing or proposed hydropower or geothermal energy projects.
SUMMARY
While the roadless rule does not impact existing mineral leases and
outstanding rights it could impact expansion of existing leases and
exploration and development of new mineral leases on National Forest
System lands that require road construction or reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas.
Outside of known reserves such as the active coal mines in
Colorado, the actual impacts can only be estimated. However, in those
identified communities with a history of mining dependence, prevention
of existing mining expansion due to the roadless rule could likely have
a significant impact.
Predicting the impact on undiscovered resources is difficult since
it is unknown how much of these potential reserves are actually
underneath inventoried roadless areas or how much of the reserves will
be economically recoverable in the future, or what future prices will
be.
It is reasonable to assume, under the current demand conditions,
that there will be increased interest for development of natural gas
resources on Federal lands and elsewhere. However, while it is unlikely
that inventoried roadless areas would be a significant contributor at
current prices, since exploration in inventoried roadless areas may not
be a high priority because of existing rugged terrain and access issues
independent of the roadless rule, at higher market prices development
of gas resources on Federal lands could increase.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jeffrey Eppink.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY EPPINK, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVANCED RESOURCES
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Eppink. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cubin and
members of the Committee. My name is Jeffrey Eppink. I am a
Vice President with Advanced Resources, International, an
energy consulting firm based in Arlington, Virginia.
At Advanced Resources we have conducted a number of oil and
gas resource assessments in recent years. I participated in the
National Petroleum Council's 1999 study on natural gas and am
currently conducting a major study on the impacts of leasing
stipulations which I will elaborate upon later.
Today I would like to present an analysis that we conducted
last fall concerning oil and gas resources associated with
then-proposed Forest Service inventoried roadless areas. We
performed the study for the Department of Energy as a task
under a multi-year technical and analytical support contract to
the department. We will first present the conclusions from the
study, then briefly discuss how the study was conducted and
then present specific results.
The analysis shows the following. Nationwide the vast
majority of natural gas resources in roadless areas are found
in the Rocky Mountain region. Undiscovered natural gas
resources in the Rocky Mountains impacted by the roadless areas
amount to 11 Tcf and are mostly contained in the largest nine
plays. Less than 5 percent of the roadless areas nationwide
contain about 80 percent of the natural gas resources.
Implementation of the roadless area rule in the Rocky Mountain
region will close to development an additional 9.4 Tcf of
natural gas, raising the total estimated by the NPC from 29 to
38 Tcf, a significant 32 percent increase. Economic activity
associated with the recovery of natural gas resources
associated with roadless areas is estimated to be $23 to 34
billion.
Next I would like to briefly discuss how the study was
conducted. The study was comprehensive. In all, we examined 19
Rocky Mountain provinces or basins and 208 plays. The map on
the left shows the Rocky Mountain region that was covered by
the study. The region contains a vast majority of oil and gas
on Federal lands. The red areas on the map depict the so-called
inventoried roadless areas, areas which without road access
would effectively prohibit oil and gas resource development.
Shown on the map in light green are areas of underlying oil and
gas resources.
We used resource estimates from several expert groups in
the analysis. The vast majority of resource data was taken from
the USGS 1995 assessment, which I might add we participated in.
For a few selected plays where analysis had been conducted
subsequent to the 1995 assessment we supplemented the USGS data
with resource estimates conducted by ourselves, the Utah
Geologic Survey and the Potential Gas Committee.
The areas of occurrences of resources in the analysis are
defined by the intersection of the plays themselves with the
roadless areas. Estimates of high, low and mean technically
recoverable oil and gas resources were made. The results show
that the roadless areas contain from about 3 to 23 Tcf of
natural gas with a mean value of about 11 Tcf. The roadless
areas also contain from minor amounts to over 1 billion barrels
of oil with a mean value of 550 million barrels.
Further in the analysis we examined the issue of access
using guidelines established in the NPC study and we determined
that implementation of the roadless areas will close to
development an additional 9.4 Tcf of gas, a 32 percent
increase, and further, that resources subject to access
restrictions will increase by 7 Tcf from 137 to 144 Tcf.
To examine the economic impacts for eliminating access to
these resources we also provided a cursory examination of the
economically recoverable natural gas resources. Based on the
mean resource values and prices of $3 and $4 an Mcf, about 68
to 75 percent of the technical natural gas resources could be
recovered economically, representing about $23 to 34 billion of
economic activity.
We also estimate that the nine largest plays in the study
area comprise about 83 percent of the total impacted natural
gas resources. We determined that these nine plays represent
less than 5 percent of all roadless areas nationwide.
I mentioned earlier that we are conducting on-going
resource studies. As follow-up to the NPC study we are
currently conducting a major study on the cumulative impacts
upon undiscovered natural gas resources of leasing
stipulations. We are conducting the study on a detailed
township by township basis. The study covers Southern Wyoming
and Northwestern Colorado and preliminary results show that
over 60 percent of the natural gas resources are either closed
to development or available with restrictions.
We will next be examining oil and gas in the Uinta-Piceance
Basin in Utah and Colorado. These studies are being conducted
for the Department of Energy and we would be happy to share
those results with you when they are available.
I appreciate the opportunity to present our roadless
analysis to you and would be glad to answer any questions you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eppink follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey Eppink, Vice President, Advanced Resources
International, Inc.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Cubin and members of the committee. My
name is Jeffrey Eppink. I am a vice president with Advanced Resources
International, an energy consulting firm based in Arlington, Virginia.
At Advanced Resources, we have conducted a number of oil and gas
resource assessments in recent years. I participated in the National
Petroleum Council's 1999 study on natural gas and am currently
conducting a major study on the impacts of leasing stipulations upon
natural gas resources, which I will elaborate upon later.
Today, I'd like to present an analysis that we conducted last fall
concerning oil and gas resources associated with then-proposed Forest
Service Inventoried Roadless Areas. We performed the study for the
Department of Energy as a task under a multi-year technical and
analytical support contract to the Department.
I will present first the conclusion from the study, discuss briefly
how the study was conducted, and then present specific results.
The analysis shows the following:
<bullet> LNationwide, the vast majority of natural gas resources in
Roadless Areas are found in the Rocky Mountain region. Undiscovered
natural gas resources in the Rocky Mountains, impacted by the Roadless
Areas, amount to 11 Tcf and are mostly contained in the largest nine
plays.
<bullet> LLess than 5% of the Roadless Area nationwide contain
about 80% of the natural gas resources under those Forest Service
lands.
<bullet> LImplementation of Roadless Area Rule in the Rocky
Mountain region will close to development an additional 9.4 Tcf of
natural gas resource, raising the total estimated by the 1999 NPC Study
from 29 Tcf to 38 Tcf, a significant 32% increase.
<bullet> LEconomic activity associated with recovery of natural gas
resources associated with Roadless Areas is estimated to be $23 to $34
billion.
Next I'd like to briefly discuss how the study was conducted. The
study was comprehensive; in all, we examined 19 Rocky Mountain
provinces or basins and 208 plays. The map to my left shows the Rocky
Mountain region that was covered in the study--New Mexico to Montana
plus a portion of North Dakota. This region contains the vast majority
of oil and gas on federal lands. The red areas on the map depict the
so-called ``Inventoried Roadless Areas'', areas which, without road
access, would effectively prohibit oil and gas resource development.
Shown on the map in the light green are areas with underlying oil and
gas resources. In dark red within Roadless Areas are areas of high
slopes--mountain tops, ridges, etc., which we assumed to be less
prospective because they would be locations where it is physically
difficult to site a drill rig or because they are could represent
difficult geological settings for oil and gas to occur.
We used resource estimates from several expert groups in the
analysis. The vast majority of resource data was taken from the USGS
1995 National Assessment. For a few selected plays where analysis had
been conducted subsequent to the 1995 Assessment, we supplemented the
USGS data with resource estimates conducted by Advanced Resources (for
the Department of Energy), the Utah Geological Survey and the Potential
Gas Committee (an industry group).
The areas of occurrence of resources in the analysis is defined by
the intersection of the plays themselves with the Roadless Areas.
Estimates of high, low and mean technically recoverable oil and gas
resources were made. High estimates have low probability for occurring;
conversely, low estimates have a high probability for occurring.
Technically recoverable resources are those that are recoverable using
current technology.
The results, presented in the table below, show that the Roadless
areas contain from about 3 to 23 Tcf of natural gas, with a mean value
of 11 Tcf. The Roadless Areas also contains from minor amounts to over
1 billion barrels of oil, with a mean value of 550 million barrels of
oil.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.001
Further in the analysis, we examined the issue of access using
guidelines established in the 1999 NPC study (see table below). We
determined that, for the Rocky Mountains:
<bullet> LImplementation of the Roadless Areas will close to
development an additional 9.4 Tcf of gas, raising the total to 38 Tcf
from the 29 Tcf presented in the NPC Study, a significant 32% increase.
<bullet> LResources subject to access restrictions will increase by
7 Tcf (resource formerly under Standard Lease Terms), from 137 to 144
Tcf.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.002
To examine the economic impacts for eliminating access to these
technically recoverable resources, we also provided a cursory
examination of economically recoverable natural gas resources. Based on
the mean resource values and prices of $3/Mcf and $4/Mcf, about 68 to
75% of the technical natural gas resources could be recoverable
economically, representing $23 to $34 billion of economic activity,
respectively.
We also estimate that the nine largest plays in the study areas
comprise about 83% of the total impacted natural gas resources (please
see the map). We determined that these nine plays represent less than
5% of all roadless areas nationwide.
I had mentioned earlier that we are conducting ongoing resource
studies. As a follow-up to the 1999 NPC study, we are currently
concluding a major study of the cumulative impacts upon undiscovered
natural gas resources of leasing stipulations. We are conducting that
study on a detailed township-by-township basis. The study we are just
now concluding covers Southern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado (the
Greater Green River Basin). Preliminary results show that over 60% of
the natural gas resources are either closed to development or available
with restrictions. We will next be examining the Uinta-Piceance Basin
in Utah and Colorado. The studies are being conducted for the
Department of Energy and we would be happy to share those results with
you when they are available.
I appreciate the opportunity to present our Roadless Areas analysis
to you and would be glad to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Moyer.
STATEMENT OF STEVE MOYER, VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS, TROUT UNLIMITED
Mr. Moyer. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittees today. I am Steve Moyer, Vice
President for Conservation for Trout Unlimited.
Trout Unlimited is a nonprofit organization whose mission
is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and
salmon fisheries and their watersheds and we have about 130,000
members spread across the country. The National Wildlife
Federation, the nation's largest wildlife conservation group,
endorses the main points of my testimony. The National Wildlife
Federation has a deep and abiding interest in the health of the
national forests.
Back to Trout Unlimited, our members are thoroughly
invested in protecting and restoring trout and salmon habitat
in the national forests. Since our inception our members have
devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of
person-hours to on-the-ground restoration work on watersheds in
the national forests and we have invested considerable time in
the studying and commenting on Forest Service policies and
decisions of all types.
We support the roadless policy because of the great fish
and wildlife habitats roadless areas contain, because of the
substantial adverse impacts that roads have on fish and
wildlife habitat, and because of the huge backlog of existing
unaddressed forest road maintenance costs. It makes good sense
to us to fix the all-too-common existing broken roads in
habitat in the national forests before building new roads in
the roadless areas and incurring even more costs for which we
cannot pay.
As the Subcommittees consider the potential benefits of
increased energy production from roadless areas on the national
forests, we urge the Subcommittees to fully consider what would
likely be the high cost to the Federal treasury, as well as
fish and wildlife habitat, if greater energy development were
to occur in roadless areas.
Further the Subcommittees should consider the current great
needs to restore healthy fish and wildlife habitats that
already exist on national forests. And finally, the
Subcommittees must consider the huge backlog of road
maintenance and reconstruction needs on the existing forest
road system and the substantial adverse impacts those poorly
maintained roads have on fish and wildlife.
Also I am here today speaking as one of the six trustees of
the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance. The TRCA consists
of us, the Izaak Walton League of America, Wildlife Forever,
the Mule Deer Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and
the Wildlife Management Institute. The purpose of the alliance
is to educate and motivate hunters and anglers to positively
influence the future of our National Forest System.
Relevant to today's hearing the TRCA supports the general
policy direction contained in one of its square deal
initiatives which I mention in my testimony and it was included
in a letter to President Bush and to the leaders of this
Committee, which I have here with me today and I would like to
have included in the record if I could.
Mrs. Cubin. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.011
Mr. Moyer. The letters support keeping roadless areas
roadless on the national forests, as well as supporting the
scientific management and conservation of all fish and wildlife
habitat on the national forests.
Just a few points that I would like to make in addition to
what I have said here in my final minutes. Roadless areas are
known to include some of the best remaining habitat for fish
and wildlife in the nation. Especially in the Western United
States, roadless areas are vital for trout and salmon resources
and for big game, such as elk and mule deer. These resources
sustain hunting and fishing recreation that is extremely
valuable to Western communities. According to a study that I
have highlighted in my testimony, fishing on the national
forests produces about $8.5 billion worth of value to the
nation's economy and hunting yields about $6.1 billion. These
are very valuable resources that are sustained in part by
roadless areas.
A related point, as I have mentioned, is poorly designed
and poorly maintained roads are some of the biggest threats to
aquatic life and wildlife in our national forests. When you
combine this with the backlog that we already have, the
Subcommittees really need to ask the question, can we afford to
build more roads when we cannot afford to pay for the ones that
we already have?
On the energy issue, as you are hearing from this panel,
the amounts of energy available may be debatable. What is not,
I do not think, is the high cost of developing these resources
relative to the cost of developing other energy sources in
already roaded areas. And the Subcommittees must look at the
cost as well as the benefits of energy production to come from
roadless areas.
I just wanted to finish my highlighting the fact that what
was already said, 1.5 million people have commented in support
of the roadless policy or even making it stronger. And yes, it
is true that many of these were post cards or e-mails but still
that is a national record in terms of the response to a Federal
rule and I think it does show that there is deep support in the
American populace for this policy. And I just wanted to
highlight the fact that hunters and anglers who are
conservationists who use these Federal forest lands are also
very much part of the large support for this policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moyer follows:]
Statement of Steve Moyer, Vice President of Conservation Programs,
Trout Unlimited
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittees
today on behalf of Trout Unlimited (``TU'') regarding energy and
roadless area conservation on the National Forests. TU is a nonprofit
organization whose mission is to conserve, protect, and restore North
America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. TU has more than
130,000 members in the United States.
TU and our members are deeply invested in protecting and restoring
trout and salmon habitat on the National Forests. Since our inception
in 1959, our members have devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars and
thousands of man-hours to on the ground restoration work on watersheds
on the National Forests. They have invested considerable time into
studying and commenting on Forest Service policies of all kinds, from
national policies such as the roadless conservation policy, to
revisions of national forest management plans, to individual road
reconstruction and grazing allotment decisions.
Summary of TU's Position on the Forest Service's Roadless Policy
TU supports the roadless policy because of the great fish and
wildlife habitats roadless areas contain, because of the substantial
adverse impacts that roads have on fish and wildlife habitat, and
because of the huge backlog of existing, unaddressed forest road
maintenance costs. It make good sense to us to fix the all too common
existing broken roads and habitat in the National Forests before
building new roads into roadless areas and incurring even more costs
for which we cannot pay.
As the Subcommittees consider the potential benefits of increased
energy production from roadless areas on the National Forests, we urge
the Subcommittees to fully consider what would likely be high costs to
the federal fisc as well as fish and wildlife habitat if greater energy
development were to occur in roadless areas. Further, the Subcommittees
should consider the current, great needs to restore healthy fish and
wildlife habitats on the National Forests. Finally, the Subcommittees
must consider the huge backlog of road maintenance and reconstruction
needs on the existing forest road system and the substantial adverse
affects those poorly maintained roads have on fish and wildlife. I
assure you that TU stands ready to assist the Subcommittees as they
consider these important aspects of forest road policy, and fish and
wildlife habitat, in addition to the ramifications of the roadless area
policy itself.
Summary of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance (TRCA) Position
on Managing the National Forests and Roadless Areas
I am also here today speaking as one of the six trustees of the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance (TRCA). The TRCA consists of
TU, the Izaak Walton League of America, Wildlife Forever, the Mule Deer
Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Wildlife
Management Institute. Our organizations believe the future of the
National Forest System is of great importance to healthy fish and
wildlife species, clean water and the opportunity for all Americans to
enjoy quality hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation on our public
lands. The purpose of our Alliance is to educate and motivate hunters
and anglers to positively influence the future of our 192 million-acre
National Forest system.
Relevant to today's hearing, TRCA supports the general forest
policy direction contained in ``Square Deal Initiative 1'' (below) that
was carefully drafted by the TRCA trustees, and was included in the a
letter to President Bush, which was signed by over 100 sportmen's
conservation clubs across the nation. I have brought copies of the
letter for the Subcommittees, and I ask that it be included in the
hearing record.
TRCA's Square Deal Initiative 1: Room to Roam--Landscape and Access
Management
``We urge elected officials and public land managers to
scientifically manage all fish and wildlife habitat in the
National Forest System, whether roaded or unroaded, as valuable
and unique lands that will remain open to hunters, anglers and
other public users. Balance accessibility to National Forest
lands, with the year round requirements of fish and wildlife
(habitat, clean water, food, shelter, open space and
disturbance management), while maintaining a functioning forest
road system, including keeping roadless areas roadless (with
science-based exceptions made for forest health, restoration,
and other national needs).''
National Forest Roadless Areas Contain Valuable Fish and Wildlife
Habitat, Which Sustains Valuable Hunting and Fishing
Recreation.
The roadless policy would ban new road construction in 58 million
acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forests, while
maintaining access for anglers, hunters and other public users.
Roadless areas are known to include some of the best remaining habitat
for fish and wildlife in the nation. Especially in the western U.S.,
roadless areas are vital for trout and salmon resources, and for big
game, such as elk and mule deer. National Forests support 80% of the
elk, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep habitat in the lower 48 states.
The following are a few examples from Montana National Forests:
<bullet> LThe South Fork of the Flathead has perhaps the state's
strongest populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Most
of the watershed is roadless (mainly in the Bob Marshall wilderness).
<bullet> LThe Blackfoot drainage has some of the healthiest
populations of migratory bull and cutthroat trout in Montana. The three
most important spawning tributaries for bull trout are Monture Creek,
the North Fork and the Landers Fork. Large portions of these watersheds
are roadless. Bull trout are uncommon in heavily roaded drainages of
the Blackfoot drainage.
<bullet> LRock Creek is one of the most popular wild trout
fisheries in the state. Approximately half of the watershed is
roadless. Biologists have found that most of the important spawning and
rearing areas for bull trout are in waters flowing through roadless
areas such as the Quigg Peak and Stony Mountain areas.
<bullet> LThe majority of the remaining pure-strain native
westslope cutthroats in the upper Missouri drainage, where these fish
hang on by a thread, are in roadless areas found along the Rocky
Mountain Front, in the Elkhorns, in the upper Big Hole watershed and in
the roadless fragments found near the Continental Divide.
Fish and wildlife resources found on National Forests, such as
those highlighted above, sustain hunting and fishing recreation that is
extremely valuable to local economies. According to a 1999 report from
the American Sportfishing Association, in 1996 fishing on the National
Forests produced $8.5 billion to the nation's economy. Hunting yielded
$6.1 billion. Much of this value comes from trout and salmon fishing,
and big game hunting. Roadless area protection is tied to the long-term
sustainablity of these huge benefits.
Simply put, world class hunting and fishing are still available to
the public in the remote areas of our National Forests and use trends
show hunting and angling rising at five percent per year nationwide. In
some areas like California, hunting use of National Forests is doubling
in eight years, while fishing use of Alaska's Tongass National Forest
doubled in the last seven years. Further, if America's 50 million
hunters and anglers grow in proportion to the population of the U.S.
during this century, wild space open to the public will be at an
absolute premium.
Roads Often Damage Fish and Wildlife Habitats
Existing poorly designed and maintained roads are some of the
biggest environmental threats to aquatic life and wildlife in our
National Forests, promoting soil erosion in fish spawning and rearing
areas and destroying the water quality of streams.
Studies from the Forest Service's Interior Columbia River Basin
plan, for example, conclude that:
<bullet> LIncreasing road density and management intensity is
correlated with declining pool frequency and increased fine sediments
in streams. Pools are important winter and foraging habitat. Sediment
from roads fills pools and smothers spawning gravels. Thus, roads are
harming critical elements of aquatic habitat.
A Huge and Pressing Backlog of Forest Road Maintenance Needs Already
Exists.
The Subcommittees should bear in mind that the forest roads debate
should start by recognizing that the Forest Service has an $8.4 billion
backlog on maintenance and reconstruction of its existing 386,000 miles
of road. As we consider the prospect of building new roads to access
hard to reach, potential, energy or timber sources, we need to address
the question, ``Why build more when we can't care for what we have?''
The Tongass road situation is but one bad example. The Forest
Service in cooperation with the State of Alaska, recently completed the
Tongass Road Condition Survey, which determined that 53 percent of
culverts (164 of 301 culverts) in Class I streams are impeding passage
of juvenile salmon under certain conditions, while another 29 percent
(80 of 301 culverts) in Class I streams may be impeding passage. The
estimate for repairing the culverts in the Tongass National Forest is
at least $20 million.
There is a clear need for the Resources Committee to request, and
for Congress to appropriate, the funds that the Forest Service needs to
improve road maintenance and reconstruction, as well as funds needed to
eliminate unfixable roads, which are damaging fish and wildlife
habitat.
The Amount of Available Energy from Roadless Areas is Debatable. The
High Cost of Developing Those Resources, Relative to the Costs
of Developing Other Energy Sources in Roaded Areas, Is Not.
According to the Forest Service, the roadless policy could have
some impact on leasable minerals, such as oil and gas, because the
policy would prohibit road construction associated with future mineral
leasing. Yet, the Forest Service's roadless documents say that there
appears to be relatively small amount of oil, gas and coal in roadless
areas. In context, total oil and gas production from all National
Forest lands is about 0.4 percent of the nation's supply, and since the
roadless areas have been available to oil and gas leasing for many
years and have remained undeveloped, it is difficult to see where the
supplies really are.
A study done recently for the Energy Department held a different
view. The study found that roadless areas ``contain moderate to
significant amounts of natural gas and oil.--
TU is not an energy expert and thus we are unable to shed much
light on the debate surrounding availability of energy sources on
roadless areas. What we do know is this: roadless areas have remained
such for a reason--most are difficult to access. Building roads to
access energy in the roadless areas would likely be costly ventures.
Add in the fish and wildlife habitat harm produced by these roads, and
the result of any contemplated energy development in roadless areas is
likely to be an expensive proposition. The Subcommittees must carefully
look at the costs, as well as the benefits, of energy production from
roadless areas.
Millions of Americans, Including Hunters and Anglers, Support Keeping
Roadless Areas Roadless.
Finally, the Subcommittees should keep in mind that 1.6 million
Americans commented in favor of the roadless policy being as
protective, or more so, than it is right now. This is the largest
outpouring of public support for any federal rulemaking in history.
Similarly, a survey of American hunters and anglers commissioned by
the TRCA last year found a very strong response from sportsmen and
women in support of keeping roadless areas roadless: 83% of respondents
favored such a proposition. In short, support for roadless area
protection runs deep, and it includes sportsmen and women.
In sum, TU supports the roadless policy because of the high habitat
and recreational values that they sustain, and because the substantial
damage roads incur on fish and wildlife habitat. We also support the
best science-based management of those areas, as well as all of our
National Forests. We urge the Subcommittees to fully consider what
would likely be high costs to the federal fisc as well as fish and
wildlife habitat if energy development were to occur in roadless areas.
We look forward to having a more detailed dialogue with the
Subcommittees on these issues. Also, we urge the Subcommittees to work
with us on fixing the longstanding problems associated with lack of
funding for roads maintenance and reconstruction and fish and wildlife
habitat restoration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the hearing.
Summary of TU's Position on the Forest Service's Roadless Policy
TU supports the roadless policy because of the great fish and
wildlife habitats roadless areas contain, because of the substantial
adverse impacts that roads have on fish and wildlife habitat, and
because of the huge backlog of existing, unaddressed forest road
maintenance costs. It make good sense to us to fix the all too common
existing broken roads and habitat in the National Forests before
building new roads into roadless areas and incurring even more costs
for which we cannot pay.
As the Subcommittees consider the potential benefits of increased
energy production from roadless areas on the National Forests, we urge
the Subcommittees to fully consider what would likely be high costs to
the federal fisc as well as fish and wildlife habitat if greater energy
development were to occur in roadless areas. Further, the Subcommittees
should consider the current, great needs to restore healthy fish and
wildlife habitats on the National Forests. Finally, the Subcommittees
must consider the huge backlog of road maintenance and reconstruction
needs on the existing forest road system and the substantial adverse
affects those poorly maintained roads have on fish and wildlife. I
assure you that TU stands ready to assist the Subcommittees as they
consider these important aspects of forest road policy, and fish and
wildlife habitat, in addition to the ramifications of the roadless area
policy itself.
______
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. I am one of those hunters
and fishermen that oppose the policy.
We have a series of votes so we will not be able to take
the testimony of the other two witnesses until about 3:30 when
we should be able to be back. Thank you very much and thank you
for your patience.
[Recess.]
Mr. Peterson. I welcome you back to the hearing. I am
Congressman Peterson, Fifth District, Pennsylvania. I am the
substitute for the substitute for the substitute.
We are going to call now on Mr. Greg Schaefer, Director,
External Affairs, Western Region, Arch Coal Company.
STATEMENT OF GREG SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, WESTERN
REGION, ARCH COAL COMPANY
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the record a
special hello to Congresswoman Barbara Cubin, who is my
representative in Wyoming.
The Forest Service has a mineral policy which states that
``the national forests and grasslands have an essential role in
contributing to an adequate and stable supply of mineral and
energy resources.'' This policy is as important today as it was
the day it was written. The mineral policy further states that
the Forest Service requires ``reclamation plans for all
proposed surface-disturbing activities to return the land to
productive uses, in accordance with land management goals.''
As you listen about the backlog of maintenance on roads on
Forest Service lands, keep clearly in mind that any road that
we construct or reconstruct must be reclaimed at our own sole
expense to a condition at least as good as it was premining.
The final rule stated that the action was not designed to
prohibit mining but only prohibits road construction and
reconstruction. Roads are needed, however, even with
underground mining operations for such activities as
exploration drilling, construction and maintenance of mine
ventilation and for emergency situations.
Relative to energy, California has drawn a great deal of
attention over the past year. Currently the State of California
is importing 25 percent of their electric needs from other
Western states. There are no major coal-fired power plants in
the State of California but coal-fired generated electricity
still accounts for 20 percent of their total electric
consumption. Some of these sources include the Intermountain
Power Project in Utah, which is owned by the City of Los
Angeles and burns Utah Coal; the Reid-Gardner Unit Number 4 in
Nevada, which burns Utah and Colorado coals; the Deseret G&T
plant in Utah, which burns Utah coal; the Boardman plant in
Oregon, which burns Utah, Colorado and Wyoming coals; and
various other sources, including PacifiCorp in Utah, which is
supplied by Utah coal. Each of these power plants obtains coal
from mines that are either on or immediately adjacent to the
new roadless areas.
The North Fork Valley of Colorado produces between 50 and
60 percent of the total volume of coal in Colorado and is the
fastest coal-producing region in Colorado. These underground
mines employ about 700 people in rural Colorado with an annual
payroll of about $50 million. Forty percent of the coal mined
in Colorado stays in Colorado to be used to generate
electricity; the rest of the coal is shipped to other states,
such as Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon,
Minnesota, Texas, Iowa, and Utah.
The Department of Energy reported that ``the West Elk Mine
will require access in the next one to 5 years of high-quality
coal resources that lie partially or entirely under roadless
areas. Approximately 200 million tons of high-quality coal
would be put off-limits [which is roughly a 35-to 40-year
supply for that mine] and the mine would be forced to close
prematurely. As a result, the $100 million worth of
infrastructure already invested in this mine would be
abandoned. The Bowie Mine in Colorado is hemmed in on the north
and west by roadless areas. These are the logical directions
for expansion of this mine. This mining company estimates that
the roadless rule would put 50 million tons of high-quality
coal off-limits.''
In Utah the map of Utah shows that the significant portion
of Utah's coal production, almost 70 percent, is located on the
Manti-LaSal National Forest and is either overlain or adjacent
to the roadless area boundary. Over half of Utah's coal
production is also used in generating plants within the State
of Utah. Utah coal is also exported to Nevada, Missouri,
Oregon, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska and to the Pacific Rim.
The State of Utah is unique among coal-producing states in
that it does not have an extensively developed rail system for
many of the mining operations and coal-fired power plants. That
means in most instances the Utah power plants are reliant on
local sources of coal. For example, the Hunter Power Plant,
which has no rail service, is planning on a significant
expansion to meet energy demands in Utah and other Western
states, such as California. As mentioned, the City of Los
Angeles owns the Intermountain Power Project in Utah and is
also planning a significant expansion.
The proposed power plant expansions in Utah could add as
much as a 40 percent increase in in-state demand for Utah coal
used for electric generation. As a result of this rule, the
coal industry is facing a long-term impact to the coal supplies
in Colorado and Utah. I hope that Congress carefully looks at
this impact to energy production in the West and corrects the
mistakes that have been made due to a lack of sufficient
information.
Again thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schaefer follows:]
Statement of Greg Schaefer, Director, External Affairs, Arch Coal
Company, on Behalf of the National Mining Association and the Colorado,
Utah and Wyoming Mining Associations
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
today regarding the Roadless Area Final Rule. My name is Greg Schaefer
and I am Director External Affairs Western Operations for Arch Coal,
Inc. I am also here on behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA)
as well as the Colorado, Utah and Wyoming Mining Associations. As
background, Arch Coal is the second largest coal producer in the
nation, producing about 112 million tons of high quality coal annually.
We serve 149 power plants in 30 states. We currently have six operating
coal mines in the western United States, four of which operate at least
partially on National Forest Service lands.
At the outset let me say that the Forest Service, throughout the
rulemaking process, stated the rule was not designed to prohibit
mining, it would only prohibit the construction and reconstruction of
roads. In fact the preamble to the rule states that ``[m]ineral leasing
activities not dependent on road construction such as ``underground
development, would not be affected by the prohibition.'' This
proposition was refuted in the record by a Department of Energy report
(``Impact of the Roadless Initiative on Coal Resources'' Bill
Hochheiser, November 30, 2000) which provided, ``[w]hile these
resources are recovered using underground mines, roads are needed to
build ventilation shafts and for safety.'' Simply put, one must have
roads for mineral exploration and development. This point was clearly
made in the rulemaking record and obviously ignored by the rule's
authors.
Impacts on Energy Resources
The Forest Service has a stated policy regarding minerals on Forest
Service Lands which states:
``The Federal Government's policy for minerals resource
management is expressed in the Mining and Minerals Policy Act
of 1970-- `...foster and encourage private enterprise in the
development of economically sound and stable industries, and in
the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to
help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and
environmental needs.' Within this context, the national forests
and grasslands have an essential role in contributing to an
adequate and stable supply of mineral and energy resources
while continuing to sustain the land's productivity for other
uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals.''
This policy is as important today as it was on the day it was
written. Coal and mineral resources from Forest Service lands are vital
to supplying electricity at a reasonable price and in an
environmentally sound manner. The mineral policy also states that the
Forest Service ``require reclamation plans for all surface-disturbing
activities to return the land to productive uses consistent with the
ecological capability of the area and in accordance with land
management goals.'' This policy is consistent with state and federal
laws and regulations governing coal mining activities.
As I will describe in more depth later in this testimony, the
Forest Service proposed and promulgated the Roadless Area Conservation
Rule without sufficient information to perform an adequate analysis of
the rule's impact on coal production from Forest Service lands. Only
after the abbreviated 60-comment period closed did it become clear what
areas would be affected and to what degree. When this information
became available to the Forest Service, it was glossed over or
completely ignored in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
the final rule and its preamble.
Due to the lack of detailed information, the Forest Service
significantly underestimated the rule's impact on energy supplies in
the western United States. The preamble to the final rule shows the
effort to which the Department has gone to try and minimize the impact
of the rule. Faced with the additional information that we provided,
the Forest Service concluded:
``Moreover, it seems likely that even if resources do underlie
inventoried roadless areas, they would be among the last areas
entered for exploration and development...the agency has
determined that the information does not materially alter the
environmental analysis disclosed in the FEIS and does not
constitute significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the rulemaking
effort.''
The fallacy of this statement can be seen on the attached maps. The
additional coal resources needed to keep the West Elk Mine alive would
be among the first areas entered for exploration and development--not
among the last.
The Department also downplayed the significance of National Forest
Service lands as a source of high quality, low sulfur coal. In the
preamble to the final rule they stated:
``The FEIS described the coal production from NFS lands as
accounting for about 7% of national production in 1999.''
This statement implies that tightening up access simply will not
have much impact on energy production from National Forest Service
lands. However, last year our Black Thunder Mine in Wyoming alone
produced over 60 million tons of coal, which represents over 5% of
national production by itself. The Black Thunder Mine is located in the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming and is located on the Thunder Basin
National Grasslands which is managed by the National Forest Service. In
speaking with Forest Service personnel, it was learned that they do not
have a good method of estimating coal production from National Forest
Service lands. A quick survey of some of producers on the Thunder Basin
National Grasslands revealed that these few mines in Wyoming accounted
for 8-10% of national coal production. This completely ignores coal
production from National Forest Service lands in Colorado and Utah. If
accurate data were used, the percentage of national coal production
from National Forest Service Lands could very likely be 15-20%, which
is a very significant percentage.
In the justification for limiting access to high quality coal
reserves on National Forest Service lands, which ultimately leads to
phasing out the existing mining operations, the Department concluded:
``Overall, the U.S. has abundant coal reserves. Also,
alternative sources of low-sulfur coal do exist, concentrated
in the western U.S., mostly in Colorado, Montana and Wyoming.
Additionally, the abundant sources of low cost-coal and
available technology, such as scrubbers, will enable electric
utilities to meet their Clean Air Act compliance goals.''
This statement writes off significant sources of high quality
compliance coal in Utah and parts of Colorado and creates major
problems for the generators of electricity in Utah. The premise for
this statement is simply incorrect, and will be discussed below.
Colorado Impacts
The State of Colorado produces close to 30 million tons of high
quality bituminous coal annually. Roughly 45% of this coal is used
within the state and the remainder is exported to other states. The
North Fork Valley near Paonia, Colorado (roughly 90 miles east of Grand
Junction, Colorado) produces approximately 60% of the total volume of
Colorado coal, and is the fastest growing coal-producing region in
Colorado. This area consists of three underground coal mines: Arch's
West Elk Mine, the Oxbow Mine and Bowie Resources. It is anticipated
that these three mines will produce up to16 million tons of coal in
2001 with about 700 employees and an annual payroll of $50 million.
In 1999, coal from these three mines was shipped to power plants in
Colorado, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Minnesota,
Missouri, Texas, Iowa, and Utah. The Utah power plant supplied by this
coal was the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) which is owned by the
City of Los Angeles and provides low cost reliable power to California.
The Department of Energy report referenced above highlights some of
the energy impacts created by the roadless rule:
``This coal is highly valued by these utilities because of its
low sulfur content (0.5%) and high Btu value. Utilities such as
Tennessee Valley Authority rely on this coal as their Clean Air
Act compliance strategy. The utilities blend this coal with
other, higher sulfur, lower Btu coal to achieve compliance, and
burn the Colorado coal exclusively during time of high demand
in order to avoid derating of their plants while staying under
air emissions limits.''
The Department of Energy report also describes specific energy
impacts in the North Fork Valley:
``The West Elk Mine requires access in the next one to five
years to three areas of high quality coal resources that lie
partially or entirely under roadless areas. Approximately 200
million tons of high quality coal would be put off limits and
the mine would be forced to close prematurely. In addition, as
much as 50 million tons of coal on the existing lease would
likely not be mined because planned longwall panels that would
extend into unleased federal coal would not proceed. As a
result, the $100 million of infrastructure already invested in
this mine would be abandoned.''
The West Elk Mine produces seven million tons of coal per year,
providing $26 million dollars per year of direct labor income and
almost $90 million of direct plus indirect income. The potentially
unminable 200 million tons of coal have a value of $3 billion. Using
the multiplier of 3.5, as used in the FEIS (p.3-316, table 3-68), this
represents a total of over $10 billion in foregone economic activity.
The Bowie mine, northwest of the West Elk mine, is hemmed in on the
north and west by roadless areas. These are the logical directions of
expansion for this mine. This mine produces five million tons of high
Btu/low sulfur coal and employs 178 people at the mine, with an annual
payroll of $9 million per year. This translates to more than $30
million per year of direct plus indirect economic impact.
The mining company estimates that the roadless rule would put 50
million tons of high quality coal off limits to the Bowie mine, coal
with a value of $750 million. Using the multiplier from the previous
bullet, this translates to over $2.5 billion of economic activity.''
Utah Impacts
In Uinta coal region of Utah, the Forest Service concentrated on
only three tracts: the Muddy, Ferron, and North Horn tracts. These
tracts are either next to an existing mine or contain sufficient high
quality reserves to support a new mine. The FEIS that preceded the
final roadless rule estimates these three tracts contain 185 million
tons of high-Btu coal. This coal would have a value of over $2.8
billion to $3.7 billion if mined.
While these three tracts represent a sizable amount of coal, they
also represent only the tip of the iceberg as shown on the attached map
of the Uinta region. The roadless areas block mine development and
expansion across the entire western boundary of the region. None of
this information regarding resource information outside of the three
tracts was considered by the rule writers nor the authors of the FEIS.
The primary impact of the roadless area rule in Utah will be on the
Manti-LaSal National Forest. The map shows that a significant portion
of Utah's coal industry is located in the Manti-LaSal National Forest
and is either overlain or adjacent to the roadless area boundary. The
State of Utah annually produces roughly 25 to 27 million tons of high
quality, low sulfur coal, half of which is used in the State of Utah.
Just under 50% of the coal is exported to states such as Nevada,
California, Oregon, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Idaho, Colorado,
Washington, Wyoming and Tennessee for electric generation (about 26%)
and other industrial/commercial/residential uses (%16). Depending on
the exchange rate and the demand for steam and metallurgical coal about
10% of Utah coal is exported to Pacific Rim countries through the Los
Angeles Export Terminal.
The existing coal mines that are overlain by or adjacent to the
Roadless Areas are the SUFCO, Deer Creek, Trail Mountain, Crandell and
Star Point mines. In 1999 these mines represented almost 70% of the
coal production in the State of Utah.
The State of Utah is unique among coal producing states in that it
does not have an extensively developed rail system for many of the
mining operations and coal-fired power plants. This means that in many
instances the Utah power plants are much more reliant on local sources
of coal than counterparts in other states. For example, the Huntington
Power Plant has no rail service and must rely on local mines to supply
coal by truck. This plant is planning a significant expansion to meet
energy demand needs for the State of Utah, as well as for export to
other western states (e.g., California).
The City of Los Angeles owns the Intermountain Power Project (IPP),
with the power generated by this plant being exported to California. As
a part of the current energy crisis in California, the IPP plant is
also considering a significant expansion. The vast majority of the coal
used at this plant is from the State of Utah.
The potential power plant expansions in Utah could add as much as a
40% increase in in-state demand for Utah coal. This is at a time when
the number of coal mines in Utah have been decreasing and significant
uncertainty has been added due to the roadless rule. A complicating
factor in the State of Utah is the settlement agreement between the
state and the federal government over the lost coal resources as a
result of the designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National
Monument. In this settlement agreement, the federal government
transferred temporary ownership of some coal reserves to the State of
Utah (SITLA). The final rule states that these tracts have valid
existing rights and can be mined. However, after the tracts, a certain
amount of coal has been produced from these tracts, they revert back to
the federal government. Furthermore, some of these tracts will need
adjacent coal in order to justify the capital needed to build a mine.
Where that adjacent federal coal is encumbered by the roadless area
prohibitions, the likelihood of one investing capital in these mines is
diminished.
California
This section briefly discusses the role of coal in the State of
California. This State was chosen since it is currently in the middle
of a critical energy crisis and has generated a great deal of
attention. Currently, the State of California is meeting 75% of its
electric needs by in-state generation and is importing the remaining
25% from other western states. There are no major coal-fired power
plants in the State of California, but coal-fired-generated electricity
still accounts for 20% of their total energy mix <SUP>1</SUP>. Some of
these sources include the Intermountain Power Project in Utah (Utah
coal); Reid-Gardner Unit 4 in Nevada (Utah and Colorado coals); Deseret
G&T in Utah (Utah and Colorado coals); Boardman Plant in Oregon (Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming coals). Each of these sources receives a portion
of its coal from mines underlying areas affected by the roadless rule.
The State of Califonia also has various ``northwest contracts'' from
various sources including Pacificorp in Utah, which is supplied by Utah
coal and similarly affected by the rule. As can be seen, the Utah and
Colorado coal industries are an integral and critical part of not only
the Utah and Colorado electric supply but also the State of California
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: 1999 Net System Power Calculation, Electricity Analysis
Office, California Energy Commission , April 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The Nation must use our vast domestic resources to meet the growing
energy requirements that an expanding economy requires. Many of these
resources, including coal, are found on lands administered by the
Forest Service and on other public lands. Demand for coal for
affordable, reliable electricity is expected to increase by over 25%
during the next 20 years. Nearly 90% of this additional coal production
will come from public lands in the West; much from Forest Service
administered lands impacted by this rule. If this affordable coal is
not available, high costs for alternative fuels will mean higher
electricity costs and lower electricity reliability. Also, the coal
industry will continue to be required to reclaim any surface
disturbance to at least as good a condition as the premining landscape.
The Roadless Area Initiative Process.
I have been involved in the Roadless Area proceedings since
President Clinton announced the initiative on October 13, 1999. I
attended several public scoping meetings, including one in Grand
Junction, Colorado in December, 1999 and subsequently requested an
extension of time of the scoping period. In our letter, dated December
17, 1999, requesting an extension of time we made several requests that
have never been adequately addressed in this process
``It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide knowledgeable
comments on the proposal when the Forest Service has not
provided the public with sufficient detail. For example, the
Forest Service has not provided maps with any level of detail
to be able to develop questions or comments relative to our
operations. Just prior to writing this letter, I went to the
Forest Service website dedicated to the Roadless Area
initiative and it still states that the maps are `Under
Development'. In Colorado, a public hearing was held in Grand
Junction, Colorado. Once again, the Forest Service provided
maps, but in this case they were `conceptual', and lacked any
meaningful detail. We have asked for detailed maps, that
included coordinates, townships, ranges, and sections, but have
been unable to acquire the requested information. Local Forest
Service personnel have tried to help, but they have warned us
that even when the maps are available, they may not be
accurate? At a minimum, the Forest Service should provide the
following so that meaningful comment can be submitted:
LDetailed maps showing the location of the proposed roadless
areas, with coordinates, sections, townships and ranges.
Identify the coal reserves that are located within the proposed
roadless areas, as well as quantify the coal quality of those
reserves. Identify the location of existing mining operations
that could access these reserves, and provide an analysis of
the socio-economic consequences of the inability to obtain
additional reserves. If there are no nearby mining operations,
assess the impact on the loss of those coal reserves from the
reserve pool.''
The Forest Service never addressed this request. Subsequently, maps
were posted on the website after the close of the public comment
period, but the scale and lack of legal description made them virtually
useless for assessing local impacts, but did give us a sense that we
should look very closely at our Colorado operation in particular. The
same information was requested by the NMA though a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request during the comment period for the
proposed rule. After the close of the comment period, NMA was told in a
formal response from the Forest Service that, in short, the maps and
the relationship between roadless areas and mineral reserves were
available on the Forest Service web site. Anyone who saw the
information on the Forest Service web site knows this statement is just
plain wrong.
Fearing that we would not have any data in which to assess the
boundary of the Roadless Area relative to our West Elk Mine in
Colorado, we set out on a mission to try and develop our own map(s).
Working with a local Forest Service employee we dug up the RARE II
boundary that was proposed in 1979 and plotted that information on our
mine plan map. It was found that the boundary passed right over the top
of the West Elk Mine and contained nearly all future reserves
accessible by this underground mine. As it turned out, the 1979 RARE II
boundaries were used in setting the boundaries of the Roadless Area
without any further review of any changes over the 20-year period. Of
particular interest is that this boundary encompasses lands that
contain a significant number of existing roads.
Once this map was developed, we met with the Regional Forester's
Office in Denver, Colorado in early February 2000. Their response was
that they were pleased to have a map with this level of details, as
they had not been provided with any detailed information from the
Washington, D.C. Office of the Forest Service. The Regional Office
acknowledged the problem and asked what relief we were seeking. Our
response was that since the West Elk Mine was on the margin (edge) of
the proposed Roadless Area that we would like the boundary slightly
modified in order to provide a future for the West Elk Mine. The reply
was that there was not an opportunity to move the boundaries as that
decision had already been made.
Even though the public comment period had closed, we provided the
map that we had developed to the national Forest Service Team working
on the Roadless Area Environmental Impact Statement. One member of the
team reiterated that there was no opportunity to move the boundary as
that decision had already been made. Our question was how could that be
if the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was only now being
prepared?
All of our efforts during this period were reflected in one small
paragraph of the DEIS, which stated:
``[The prohibition of road construction] could increase
exploration and development costs for leaseable minerals so
that deposits in inventoried roadless areas may be less
economically feasible for development. For example, one
Colorado coal company has submitted information showing that
the opportunity to access coal resources adjacent to their
existing leases would be severely limited by a prohibition on
road construction.''
Leadership in the Forest Service either did not have adequate
information or chose to ignore it. The problem remained that there was
a lack of detailed map information. Arch Coal commissioned a consultant
to develop the location of existing, and in some instances prospective
coal leases, on the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre and Gunnison (GMUG)
National Forest in Colorado. Significant resources were put into
developing this map, but the most difficult aspect was obtaining the
legal descriptions of the proposed roadless areas.
During the development of these maps, we continued to meet with the
minerals branch of the Forest Service, the Department of Energy, Office
of Management and Budget, Council on Environmental Quality, among
others. A scheduled meeting with Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck was
``delegated'' as the Director and other senior members of the Forest
Service canceled the meeting to lower level staff at the last moment.
During one meeting with the Department of Energy we were shown a
Roadless Area delineation map supplied to them by the Forest Service
that showed several areas of significant impact to the coal industry on
the Manti-LaSal National Forest in Utah. This information was stunning
for two reasons: first, the Forest Service had never made this
information public; and second, our company had been told several times
by local forest service officials that there was no impact to our
underground coal mining operations in Utah. Unfortunately, we took that
declaration at face value.
Upon the revelation that the issue extended beyond our Colorado
operations, we also commissioned the consultant to perform the same
mapping exercise for the Manti-LaSal National Forest in Utah. The
Colorado and Utah maps were finally completed right about the time the
Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued, and are attached and
incorporated in this testimony. Although the final rule can be
published as soon as 30 days following publication of the FEIS, the
message these maps conveyed manifested a significant impact the Forest
Service failed to project and the message was conveyed to the
Department of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council
on Environmental Quality and the Forest Service.
Notwithstanding this compelling information, the preamble to the
final rule states:
``The Department has decided not to adopt the exception for
future discretionary mineral leasing because of the potentially
significant environmental impact that road construction could
cause to inventoried roadless areas.''
This is clearly an excuse and not a valid reason. State and federal
mining regulations require that all surface disturbances associated
with the mining operation must be reclaimed to a condition at least as
good as the pre-mining condition. This means that any roads developed
in conjunction with the mine, including exploration, development or
operation must be reclaimed. Further, state and federal mining
regulations require that the quality of surface and ground water must
be protected.
In a further effort to convince the public that these lands need to
be off-limits for future mineral development the preamble states that
if road construction and reconstruction were allowed for future energy
and mineral leasing, an additional 59 miles of road over a five-year
period would be built in roadless areas (including oil, gas and non-
fuel minerals). The preamble further states that at this rate, 10
million acres would be affected, which is interesting considering that
the Department only identified 8 million acres that have the potential
for oil and natural gas (of which 2.5 million acres have potential for
coal and coal bed methane). Again, the Forest Service has conveniently
ignored the fact that roads developed in conjunction with mining must
be fully reclaimed to a condition at least as good as the pre-mining
condition.
Protections for Roadless Values Already Exist
The Forest Service chose to accept these severe proscriptions for
roadless areas even though roads associated with coal mines are
temporary and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
mandates that these roaded areas be reclaimed to a condition as good or
better than they were before mining. Furthermore, surface coal mines
cannot be permitted at all on Forest Service lands unless the Secretary
of Interior ``finds that there are no significant recreational, timber,
economic or other values which may be incompatible with surface mining
operations...'' (Section 522(e)2)) In other words, the values the rule
is intended to safeguard have already been considered and protected by
an existing statute.
During the rulemaking process, the Forest Service also ignored the
fact that the SMCRA provides the exclusive statutory scheme for
designating areas unsuitable for coal mining. The first question the
authors of this rule should have asked was whether the agency has the
authority to deny reasonable access to federal coal.
Other Mineral Related Impacts of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Stillwater Mining Company produces platinum and palladium from its
mine located partially on Forest Service lands in Montana. Two of the
roadless conservation areas cover portions of these reserves, which
represent the only operating platinum/palladium mine in the Western
Hemisphere. Even though Congress specifically drew the boundaries of
the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to exclude these important deposits,
the roadless rule ignores this obvious congressional intent.
Platinum and palladium are critical elements in catalytic
converters as well as components in high temperature and corrosion
resistant alloys used in jet aircraft and other defense applications.
The environmental, economic and national security implications of
denying access to develop these unique and important deposits are
significant.
Like coal underlying Forest Service lands, holders of federal
phosphate leases will be limited in their ability to expand production
levels beyond the boundaries of existing leases. The FEIS states that
873.3 million tons of phosphates not yet leased could be affected by
the roadless rule and ideational amounts could be affected when land
management plans are revised or amended. The cumulative impact of the
increased energy costs and the escalated cost of fertilizer on western
farmers and ranchers will be profound.
Conclusion
The Final Roadless Area Conservation Rule will clearly result in
the loss of millions of tons of coal and phosphates, as well as
substantial quantities of metallic and other hardrock minerals, that
could otherwise be recovered from Forest Service administered lands.
The economic impact on energy, agriculture and mining sectors is
hundreds of millions of dollars. The cost/benefit analysis appears to
under-estimate grossly the impact, and the Forest Service has ignored
the cumulative effect the rule will have on sectors of the economy
already reeling because of elevated energy costs.
In its evaluation of the adequacy of the regulatory framework for
hard rock mining, the National Research Council stated:
``The lack of information appeared to be greatest among highly
placed officials who have the greatest need to know.
Consequently, those responsible for regulatory management and
change, and for keeping the public and Congress adequately
informed, appear to be severely limited in their ability to do
so.'' <SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, National Research Council
(September, 1999)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this observation was made in a different regulatory
context, it is clearly applicable to the situation at hand.
The authors of the rule went to great pains first to dismiss then,
when confronted, understate the impacts this rule will have on the
Nation's ability to meet its energy needs. The agency completely
ignored the existing regulatory scheme, including the Clean Water Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act, and most notably the Wilderness Act, that protects the values this
rule claims to defend. The price the entire Country will pay of this
failure has already been witnessed in California and is spreading
across the West.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.004
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Next we will hear from Mr. Pete Morton, a Resource
Economist for The Wilderness Society.
STATEMENT OF PETE MORTON, RESOURCE ECONOMIST, WILDERNESS
SOCIETY
Mr. Morton. My name is Dr. Pete Morton. I am a natural
resource economist in the Ecological and Economics Research
Department of the Wilderness Society. We are a 200,000-member
national conservation group focusing on public land issues. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
As you know, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule conserves
approximately 57 million acres of the public estate managed by
the U.S. Forest Service. Conserving these roadless areas will
provide for multiple uses, multiple goods and services and
multiple economic benefits for current and future generations.
I would like to include for the record an endorsement letter
from the Ecological Society of America, the world's premier
society of professional ecologists, underscoring the scientific
justification for the rule.
While gas is a clean-burning bridge fuel for the future,
the drilling of gas generates significant ecological threats
centered mostly on the daily discharge of thousands of gallons
of water in the arid West. As a result of the drilling,
aquifers are drained, water tables are lowered, drinking water
wells dry up, flood risks increase for property located near
discharge storage ponds, and the sudden influx of discharge
water increases sediment loads that run into and damage
fisheries.
Water discharged from coal bed methane wells, for example,
is highly saline with a very high sodium absorption ratio. This
ratio affects how water interacts with soil and can cause
declining crop productivity for downstream farmers.
All these impacts carry price tags but they almost never
are captured in cost-benefit analyses. Such costs need to be
considered, especially since roadless watersheds provide clean
water for hundreds of downstream communities and thousands of
affected citizens.
Another problem would be landslides. In Colorado alone over
a million acres of Forest Service roadless areas have high risk
from landslides that dump tons of sediment into the water
streams. A more detailed discussion of these uncounted costs
are included in my written testimony.
I would like to now turn to the Wilderness Society's GIS
analysis of oil and gas in roadless areas. Using a GIS
intersection analysis of oil and gas plays with roadless areas,
we estimate that roadless areas contain 4/10th of 1 percent of
the nation's oil resources and 6/10ths of 1 percent of the gas
resources. These numbers are estimated using USGS mean data.
These are the technically recoverable resources, which drop
significantly when financial and economic factors are
considered. Assuming companies would only extract those
resources that would yield a profit, 73 and 55 percent
respectively of the oil and gas is financially recoverable.
When nonmarket costs from erosion, loss of habitat, et cetera
are accounted for, these numbers drop even more.
With respect to the actual impacts from the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule, it is important to note that 41 percent of
the roadless areas already had management prescriptions
developed through normal planning processes with local and
national input that prohibited road construction. As such,
examining the impact of the roadless rule should focus on the
59 percent of roadless areas where management prescriptions
were actually changed.
In addition, 759,000 of roadless areas with high oil and
gas potential are already under lease and would not be impacted
by the roadless rule. The remaining land, much of which is on
steep slopes, has been available for leasing for 60 to 70 years
with little or no interest from industry. With more than
380,000 miles of road and the potential capability of slant-
drilling to pump oil and gas four to six miles from a road, it
is questionable whether road access is really a significant
issue and whether there will be any negative impacts at all in
terms of oil and gas. When these factors are considered, the
negative impacts from the roadless rule are much, much less
than have been estimated by the oil and gas industry.
And, as importantly, when estimating economic impacts it is
vital to examine the net effects of the rule, fully accounting
for the benefits; for example, the fishing and hunting benefits
cited earlier by Mr. Moyer.
While economics should not drive public land management,
when net impacts are considered I would agree with the
conclusion of the Forest Service that the benefits of the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule far outweigh the costs.
And finally, with respect to the current spike in energy
prices, the quantities of oil and gas in national forest
roadless areas are very small and will have absolutely no
impact on energy prices that are set by global market forces.
In addition, the oil and gas in roadless areas cannot be added
to current production for at least five to 10 years.
Currently undiscovered gas reserves and expected growth in
these reserves account for 42 percent of on-shore gas supplies
in the U.S. It is these resources, the financially feasible gas
resources in and around the already-discovered reserves, that
have the potential to impact short-term energy prices, not the
unknown small quantities of undiscovered gas resources in
roadless wildlands far from existing pipelines.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morton follows:]
Statement of Peter A. Morton, Ph.D., Resource Economist, Ecology and
Economics Research Department, The Wilderness Society
I am Dr. Peter Morton, Resource Economist in the Ecology and
Economics Research Department for The Wilderness Society, a 200,000-
member national conservation group that focuses on public land issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding potential
effects of oil and gas resource development in national forest roadless
areas.
The Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule has raised
concerns by some over the economic impact of prohibiting road
construction on domestic energy supplies. The environmental impact
statement for the rule presents a good overview of the rule's potential
effects on oil and gas development, including some detailed information
on reasonably foreseeable development activities. The objective of this
testimony is to evaluate the impacts--both positive and negative--of
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to provide decision-makers with
additional information relevant to the current debate.
Economic Impacts from the Roadless Rule
The Roadless Area Conservation Rule conserves approximately 58.5
million acres of the public estate managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
Conserving these roadless areas will provide for multiple uses,
multiple goods and services, and multiple economic benefits for current
and future generations. Roadless areas provide backcountry recreation
opportunities, represent critical habitat for fish and wildlife--
including threatened and endangered species, provide the scenic
backdrop for motorized and non-motorized visitors outside roadless
areas, generate ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration,
natural pest control and watershed protection for local communities,
and preserve the option of protecting additional wilderness for future
generations. A letter from the Ecological Society of America
(Attachment 1), the world's premier society of professional ecologists,
underscores the scientific justification for the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule.
Although roadless wildlands are highly valued by society, without
formal markets, the benefits of wildland conservation are difficult to
quantify in economic terms. As a result, non-market wildland benefits
are typically under-produced by private landowners responding to market
signals. This is a serious shortcoming as certain functions of nature,
although they have no market value and their benefits are only
partially understood, are necessary to keep America's market economy
running. Public lands can help correct market failures by sustaining
roadless wildlands that cannot survive the market forces driving
private land use decisions. The failure of markets to protect roadless
area benefits provides the economic justification for implementing the
roadless rule.
The record number of public comments received by the Forest Service
in support of the roadless policy provides empirical recognition and
support for the multiple uses and benefits generated from roadless area
conservation. While no quantitative estimate of the benefits of the
rule was provided in the Roadless EIS, the Forest Service believes the
benefits of the rule outweigh the costs (USDA Forest Service 2001,
Regulatory Impact Analysis). In a more sophisticated analysis, Loomis
and Richardson (2000) estimated that in their current, unroaded
condition, the 42 million acres of Forest Service roadless wildlands in
the lower 48 states can be expected to provide almost $600 million in
recreation benefits each year, more than $280 million in passive use
values, and nearly 24,000 jobs. The authors also estimated annual
benefits from roadless area ecosystem services to include between $490
million and $1 billion worth of carbon sequestration services as well
as $490 million in waste treatment services. Estimating the net impacts
of the roadless rule should fully account for the benefits of
conserving roadless areas as well as the potential costs with respect
to the decline in quality and quantity of the other multiple uses
generated by the public estate as a result of exploiting energy
resources.
The Ecological Footprint of Oil and Gas Exploration and Drilling
Oil and gas drilling operations leave behind a large footprint on
the landscape--a footprint that extends well beyond the several-acre
drilling sites. Beginning with exploratory activities, large trucks
with seismic surveying equipment crisscross the landscape using a crude
system of poorly designed roads with at times little consideration for
wetlands, storm water runoff or critical habitat. Exploratory drilling
operations then require more large trucks with drill rigs using a
network of constructed roads to access drill sites. If the exploratory
well is determined to have no potential for production, the well is
plugged, but the landscape scars remain. Depending on the agency with
oversight, there is typically little enforcement or - monitoring of
environmental regulations. In addition, no surety bonds are required
for restoration or clean up.
If the well has potential for production, the well is cased with
pipe and cemented (in an attempt to prevent oil and gas from seeping
into nearby aquifers), and the drilling rig is replaced by a well head.
Electric or gas powered motors are used to power the pumps that collect
the gas at each well and to power the series of 24-hour compressor
stations that pressurize gas for pipeline transport from the wells to
customers in distant markets (WORC 1999). Many drill sites also involve
the construction of sediment ponds and retention reservoirs to collect
storm water drainage and store the ground water brought to the surface
as a result of the drilling and extraction operation--the latter
process is called dewatering. Injection wells are sometimes used to
dispose of the water produced and to enhance oil and gas recovery--an
action that may necessitate additional drilling of a few to hundreds of
injection wells throughout the field (Gauthier-Warinner 2000). The
ecological footprint not only extends across the forest and range
landscape, it also penetrates to shallow aquifers as well as aquifers
thousands of feet below the earth's surface.
Water and the Uncounted Costs from Oil and Gas Extraction
The major uncounted environmental cost associated with oil and gas
drilling concerns water. National Forest roadless areas provide
important watershed protection services for downstream communities,
services that are negatively impacted by oil and gas drilling. In the
lower 48 states, 55% of the watersheds that contain IRAs provide water
to downstream facilities that treat and distribute drinking water to
the public (LaFayette 2000, Watershed Health Specialist Report).
Greatly increased drilling activity for coal bed methane is having
profound real life impacts on many families and communities in the West
and illustrates well some of these impacts. In order to ``release'' the
methane gas from coal beds, enormous amounts of ground water must be
pumped from coal aquifers to the surface. The water discharged on the
surface comes from shallow and deep aquifers containing saline-sodic
water. The total amount of water produced from individual coalbed gas
wells is generally much higher than that from other types of oil and
gas wells (USGS 1995). Coal bed methane wells in Wyoming and Colorado
discharge between 20,000 to 40,000 gallons per day per well, onto the
ground surface (Darin 2000). The disposal of the water produced with
coalbed gas not only affects the economics of development, but also
poses serious environmental concerns. Water disposal can vary from
inexpensive methods, such as discharge into streams, to more costly
alternatives, such as underground injection and surface discharge after
water treatment.
The amount of water discharged from CBM wells in Wyoming has
skyrocketed in recent years, increasing from approximately 98 million
gallons (300 acre feet) per year in 1992, to 5.5 billion gallons
(17,000 acre feet) per year in 1999 (Wyoming State Engineer's Office
cited in Darin 2000). The discharging of 17,000 acre feet of water in
the arid west is wasteful in the short-term (generally an acre-foot of
water will supply a family of four for one year), and has potentially
devastating economic impacts for affected communities in the long-term.
Dewatering of deep aquifers may upset the hydrologic balance,
eliminating or reducing the availability of this water for future
agricultural and domestic uses, as well recharge for shallow aquifers
and surface water.
The discharge of ground water can deplete freshwater aquifers,
lower the water table, and dry up the drinking water wells of
homeowners and agricultural users. Monitoring of wells maintained by
the BLM in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming already indicates a drop in
the coal aquifer of over 200 feet (WORR 1999). The short-term economic
costs include drilling new, deeper wells for current and future
homeowners, ranchers and farmers, assuming successful wells can be
found and/or the costs of relocating families to new homesites. If the
freshwater aquifers do not fully re-charge, the long-term economic
costs to affected landowners, homeowners, communities, and states
across the west could be severe, including the foregone opportunity
(option value) to use aquifer water in the future.
The water discharged from oil and gas wells is highly saline with a
very high sodium absorption ratio (SAR)--a ratio that affects how water
interacts with soil. Water with a high SAR can permanently change
chemical composition of soils, reducing soil, air and water
permeability and thereby decreasing native plant and irrigated crop
productivity. Test results from water discharged from CBM wells from 3
sites in Wyoming all revealed SARs exceeding a level that could result
in a 30-40% decrease in plant productivity (Powder River Basin Resource
Council 2000).
The discharge of tens of thousands of gallons of ground water
transforms many streams that normally flow intermittently only during
spring runoff or after storms into all-season streams (Powder River
Basin Resource Council 2000). The influx of water has resulted in deep
channel scouring, erosion, and increased sedimentation. Increased
sedimentation in streams can negatively impact native fisheries found
in mainstream drainages with increased likelihood and financial costs
from fishery restoration projects. The discharge of water into
intermittent stream channels damages native flora and fauna not adapted
to year-round water and promotes the spread of noxious weeds such as
Scotch burr and Canadian thistle. The change in native vegetation
composition, combined with the increase in noxious weeds, negatively
impacts threatened and endangered species and other wildlife, as well
as cattle. The loss of native species and the spread of noxious weeds
across the west has enormous economic costs to the public and private
interests.
The landscape is also impacted from the retaining ponds or
reservoirs constructed to store the water discharged from the drilling
operation. The constructed earthen dams and retaining ponds destroy
additional habitat and introduce artificial structures to the
landscape. Habitat and homes on property nearby reservoirs also have
potential flood risk from structural failure of the poorly designed,
quickly built retaining ponds and reservoirs during storm events, for
example.
And finally, drilling for oil involves ecological risks and
potential economic costs associated with blowouts--the catastrophic
surge of the highly pressurized fluid from the drill hole that can
cause fires, loss of life and property, and the potential contamination
of surface drinking water sources. To reduce the number of blowouts,
rotary drilling operations typically inject a fluid of drilling muds
into the drill hole in order to lubricate and cool the drill bit. While
reducing the number of blowouts, the drilling fluids themselves create
a risk of contamination of adjacent freshwater aquifers (Gauthier-
Warinner 2000).
The Uncounted Costs from Drill Sites, Pipeline and Road Infrastructure.
The exploitation of unconventional gas resources (e.g. continuous-
type and coalbed methane) will require hundreds of thousand of wells to
be drilled. Exploiting the gas in continuous-type deposits will also
require drilling a significant number of wells, as these deposits are
randomly distributed. Based on existing technology, the USGS indicates
that nationwide approximately 960,000 productive wells will be required
to recover potential gas reserve additions of 300 trillion cubic feet.
However the habitat loss would not end there as extrapolation of
present-day success ratios indicates that that roughly 570,000 ``dry''
holes would have to be drilled in addition to the productive wells--for
a total of 1,530,000 drilling sites on public and private lands. Based
on an industry report in Alaska (cited in NPC 1999) while past drilling
pads consumed about 65 acres of habitat, recent operations average less
than 10 acres. If we assume 5 acres per drilling pad and 1,530,000
drill sites, exploitation of just the continuous-type gas deposits
would consume approximately 7.7 million acres of habitat on public and
private land across the nation. As noted by the USGS (http://
energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/GIS/gis.html), ``land-use planners are not
in a good position to determine the societal impacts of the drilling
(density) that would be necessary if these continuous reservoirs of
(tight) gas were exploited.--
In order to bring gas to market, thousands of miles of pipeline
must also be constructed--extending the impacts of gas drilling far
from the actual drill site. There are currently more than 270,000 miles
of gas transmission pipelines and another 952,000 miles of gas
distribution lines. The National Petroleum Council (1999) projects a
need to build 38,000 and 255,000 miles of additional transmission and
distribution pipelines, respectively, by 2015.
Oil and gas exploration also requires roads that increase
ecological costs and invite cross-country travel and habitat damage by
ORVs. Oil and gas drilling often require daily vehicular trips to
monitor and maintain wells and pipelines. The increased traffic
disrupts wildlife, may result in more road kill, and diminishes quality
of life for local residents. The linear deforestation associated with
road construction degrades habitat and fragments travel corridors
needed by wildlife species such as grizzly bears, wolves, and other
large, wide-ranging predators. Roads become conduits for non-native
species that displace native species resulting in significant
mitigation costs for taxpayers. Roads, by providing access, increase
the frequency of human-caused fires. Humans cause ninety percent of all
wildfires in the national forests; more than half of those wildfires
begin along roads. In addition, roads increase the damage to
historical, cultural and archeological resources due to increased ease
of access.
Roads also increase sediment deposits in streams resulting in
reductions in fish habitat productivity. In addition to keeping
sediment from access roads and drill sites of community water sources,
roadless areas protect communities from mass wasting (e.g. landslides).
Mass wasting from landslides and debris flows is a key source of
sediment, particularly in western forests, and many of the roadless
areas are at high risk from landslides. In Colorado and Wyoming, for
example, over 1,146,000 and 645,000 acres of roadless areas,
respectively, have high susceptibility to landslides (Table 3). While
landslides are a natural process, management activities like road
construction and logging accelerate the incidence of mass wasting by
several orders of magnitude (Swanson 1971, Anderson and others 1976,
Swanson and Swanston 1976, Sidle and others 1985, Swanston 1991). For
example, a joint FS and BLM study in Oregon and Washington found that
of 1290 slides reviewed in 41 subwatersheds, 52% were related to roads,
31% to timber harvest, and 17% to natural forest (USDA Forest Service
1996 cited in LaFayette 2000, Watershed Specialist Report). The Forest
Service concluded that the Roadless Area Conservation Rule ``would have
a considerable beneficial effect on water quality, particularly in
Regions 1 and 4.'' (the Northern Rockies)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.005
The uncounted economic costs from road construction for oil and gas
drilling include increased ORV monitoring costs, increased frequency
and costs of stream restoration projects, increased noxious weed
mitigation costs, increased damage to archaeological sites and the
decline in future benefits from visiting these sites, increased water
treatment costs for downstream communities, and increased road
maintenance and closure costs for taxpayers. On average, the annual
maintenance cost of a mile of road is about $1,500 per mile (USDA FS
1999). Each new mile of road added to the FS transportation system
competes for limited road maintenance funding, as Congressional funding
is less than 20% of the funding necessary to maintain the existing road
infrastructure. One must seriously question the wisdom of building more
roads when current roads can't be maintained, and each year's unmet
maintenance needs increase the backlog as roads deteriorate and the
costs of repairs increase over time.
Examples of the economic costs from energy exploitation are
summarized in Table 4 and should be included as part of the discussion
on the net impacts from the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule. While
many of these costs are difficult to estimate, academic and federal
agency economists have made great advances in developing methods to
value non-market costs and benefits. Included in the table are methods
available for estimating the economic costs, to drive home the point
that these costs are quantifiable and should be included in the
economic calculus. Many heretofore-unquantifiable wildland benefits and
costs are now quantifiable and available to agency officials
responsible for developing the policies and procedures for guiding
public land management. We therefore strongly encourage the USGS to
internalize non-market costs into the cost functions used to estimate
economically recoverable resources.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.006
Preliminary Analysis of Oil and Gas Resources in National Forest
Roadless Areas
As indicated by the Forest Service in the EIS for roadless rule, it
is very difficult to evaluate the reasonably foreseeable potential for
oil and gas development in Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). While
significant energy resources underlie some IRAs, there has been very
little interest in leasing or drilling in roadless areas or other
national forest lands. It is wildly unrealistic to estimate the
potential economic impacts of protecting IRAs based on total quantities
of oil and gas resources in IRAs. That is like estimating timber
industry impacts based on the total number of board feet of timber in
IRAs - a pointless exercise that would result in a grossly inflated and
inaccurate economic impact estimate. While the EIS does not include
extensive data on oil and gas resources in IRAs, it presents a
realistic picture of the overall economic effects of prohibiting roads.
As a starting point in evaluating economic effects, The Wilderness
Society undertook an assessment of the energy potential of federal
lands in general and roadless areas specifically. The assessment
included a GIS analysis of the oil and gas resources in national forest
roadless areas for 6 states in the Intermountain West. These 6 states
were selected as they represent the states with major oil and gas plays
and they have significant acreage of national forest IRAs. Following
are some preliminary results; we expect to have final results later
this spring.
Data
We obtained data from the USGS 1995 National Assessment of United
States Oil and Gas Resources, which divides the U.S. into eight regions
and subdivides those regions into 72 geologic provinces, with each
province containing a number of individual plays. Plays are defined by
the USGS as a set of known or postulated accumulations of oil or gas
that share similar geologic, geographic and temporal properties. A
separate GIS coverage for each of the 199 plays in the six western
states (North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico)
was obtained from the USGS in ARC/INFO export format (Weller 2001).
These coverages define the boundaries of the oil and gas plays. The
National Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) GIS coverage was downloaded
in ARC/INFO export format from the USDA Forest Service Roadless Area
Conservation website. This dataset contains all National Inventoried
Roadless Areas (IRAs) for the lower 48 states.
Methods
A Geographic Information System (GIS) and ARC/INFO software were
used to determine the area of overlap between IRAs and oil and gas
plays. The IRA coverage was clipped to the boundary of each of the six
states in the study area to create an IRA coverage for each state. The
state IRA coverages were then intersected with each play that falls
within that particular state to identify the IRAs that overlap with
each play. Plays could not be appended into a single oil and gas play
coverage, because different plays are located within different geologic
formations, and therefore their geographic boundaries often overlap
each other.
The results of the intersection analyses were then used to
calculate the number of acres of each play that lie within IRAs, as
well as the number of acres of each individual IRA that overlap with
different plays. The total acres of each play were also determined in
order to obtain the percent of each play that coincides with IRAs. In
order to estimate technically recoverable oil and gas resources in IRAs
we multiplied the percentages by the estimated oil and gas resources
for each play, taken from the USGS 1995 Assessment. Economically
recoverable resources within IRAs were then estimated using a model
based on the financial cost functions and recovery rates developed by
the Attanasi (1998). Our estimates are based on the USGS mean value for
each resource. USGS mean values represent the expected value and
provide the best, unbiased estimate of oil and gas resources.
Results for Technically Recoverable Resources
The technically recoverable oil in national forest IRAs for the 6
states in the intermountain west are reported in Table 1. The
technically recoverable resources are those that may be recovered using
existing technology without regard to cost or profit. For this report,
oil totals include both petroleum oil and gas liquids from conventional
and unconventional sources. The 754 million barrels of technically
recoverable oil represent only four-tenths of one percent (0.4%) of the
nation's oil resources. The technically recoverable gas in the IRAs in
the 6 western states is reported in Table 2. The 8.7 trillion cubic
feet (Tcf) of gas in IRAs represents six-tenths of one percent (0.6%)
of the nation's gas resources.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.007
Results for Financially Recoverable Resources
The financially recoverable resources are that part of the
technologically recoverable resources that can be recovered with a
profit. To be considered financially recoverable the market costs of
gas recovery must be less than or equal to the gas price (Goerold
2001). When financial criteria are considered, the oil and gas actually
recoverable drops significantly (USGS 1998). For the lower 48 states,
only 38 and 39 percent of the technically recoverable undiscovered oil
and gas, respectively, can be extracted profitably when oil is $18 per
barrel and gas is $2 per mcf (thousand cubic feet). At $30 per barrel
and $3.34 per mcf, two-thirds of the technically recoverable oil and
gas is financially profitable to recover (Attanasi 1998).
Financial recovery rates are even less for unconventional oil and
gas resources (continuous-type gas and coal bed gas) than for the
conventional resources. For continuous-type gas, only 7 and 15 percent
of the technically recoverable gas is financial to find, develop and
produce at $2/mcf and $3.34/mcf, respectively (Attanasi 1998). For
continuous-type oil accumulations at $18 and $30 per barrel, about 7
percent and 50 percent, respectively, of the technically recoverable
oil is financially feasible to exploit (Attanasi 1998). For
unconventional coal bed gas, about 30 percent of the technically
feasible gas is financially recoverable at $2 per mcf, while at $3.34
per mcf, the financial portion increases to slightly more than 50
percent (Attanasi 1998).
The financially recoverable oil in IRAs on the national forests is
shown in Table 1. Assuming oil prices of $18 or $30 per barrel, oil in
the IRAs of these 6 states would meet total U.S. oil consumption for
approximately 21 or 29 days, respectively (e.g. 552/18.92=29). When
financial factors are considered the quantity of gas available also
drops dramatically (Table 2). At $2 and $3.34 per thousand cubic feet
(mcf), the financially recoverable gas in these IRAs would meet total
U.S. gas consumption for approximately 2 or 3 months, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.008
The financially recoverable totals reported above are based on USGS
estimates of economically recoverable resources. The costs that the
USGS uses in assessing the costs of oil and gas production include
items such as the direct costs of exploration, development and
production of gas. Not included in the USGS calculus are non-market
costs such as the off-site ecological costs and cumulative negative
environmental impacts that might result on a public resource such as a
watershed (Goerold 2001). An economic analysis of benefits and costs
must account for non-market benefits and costs, as well as those more
readily observed and measured in market prices (Loomis and Walsh 1992;
Pearse 1990). An economic analysis is conducted from the viewpoint of
society, which should also be the viewpoint of politicians and managers
of the public estate. In contrast, a financial analysis only examines
costs and benefits as measured by market price; it is the viewpoint of
private industry and is more concerned with profits or losses.
The USGS economically recoverable analysis more closely resembles a
financial analysis than an economic analysis. A more accurate estimate
of the economically recoverable resources from a public perspective
should include a full accounting of non-market costs. If economic
analysis accounted for the uncounted, non-market costs discussed
earlier, the quantities of oil and gas estimated to be economically
recoverable would be much less than reported here.
Energy Impacts from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are Minimal
As discussed earlier, raw estimates of technically or financially
recoverable oil and gas resources do not provide even a remotely
accurate measure of the reasonably foreseeable economic effects of
roadless area protection. For example, the roadless area conservation
rule conserved approximately 58.5 million acres of public wildlands on
the national forests. However, the roadless rule would not change
management prescriptions on 24.2 million acres, representing 41% of the
IRAs. There would be no impacts from the roadless rule on these acres
as existing land management plan prescriptions already prohibit road
construction (USDA Forest Service 2001). The policy discussion on
impacts of the roadless rule should therefore focus on the 59% of the
IRAs where management policy was actually changed as a result of the
final rule.
Furthermore, the oil and gas industry has demonstrated little
interest in exploiting potential energy resources in IRAs. Because of
the downturn in the domestic oil and gas economy, the amount of
National Forest System land under oil and gas lease dropped from about
35 million acres in the mid-1980s to 5.8 million acres in 1998 (USDA
Forest Service 2000). The national forests are not a major supplier of
gas. In 1999, the National Forest system produced about 0.4% of the
nation's gas supply, with about half of that total coming from Little
Missouri Grasslands (USDA Forest Service 2000). As such the impacts on
current and reasonably foreseeable supply from a change in national
forest management are minimal.
Most roadless areas have been available for leasing for decades.
Extensive portions of the lands which the oil and gas industry believes
have high potential are already under lease and therefore would not be
affected by this rule. Currently 759,000 acres of IRAs with high oil
and gas potential are under lease (USDA Forest Service 2001). Most of
these areas are within the Intermountain, Northern, and Rocky Mountain
regions. Existing leases are not subject to the prohibitions. The
roadless rule would have no effect on existing oil and gas leases. In
fact, it provides for future leasing, with roadbuilding, on lands
currently under lease. This exception will reduce economic impacts on
current operators, by avoiding the possibility of increasing the costs
of production or precluding future development on the lease if
restrictions had been applied at the time of lease extension or
renewal.
In addition, just because an IRA is off-limits to road construction
does not mean that underlying energy resources are impossible to
develop. The roadless rule could affect extraction of oil and gas in
IRAs in the future where road construction is required. However, this
impact can be minimized by the use of extended reach drilling and other
technological improvements that can allow access to oil and gas
resources 5-6 miles from the drilling site (NPC 1999). With 380,000
miles of roads and an extended drilling reach of 5-6 miles, it is
questionable whether lack of additional road access is really a
significant issue.
Public concerns and environmental safeguards for protecting
sensitive lands and resources are also key factors limiting oil and gas
development. While standard leases govern gas drilling on 59% of
Federal land in the Rocky Mountain region, only 9 percent of the
federal land in the region is actually off limits while 32 percent is
subject to access restrictions (NPC 1999). These restrictions are not,
however, without purpose. For example, seasonal closures designed to
protect wildlife populations may slow down the rate of gas exploitation
but protect the wildlife and other multiple-uses under which public
land is managed. Such protection is warranted economically, as
watershed protection, hunting, fishing and recreation generate
significantly more economic benefits to all Americans, including
affected residents and business in the Rocky Mountain Region, than oil
and gas extraction. Legislative intent and public sentiment indicate
that public lands should not be for the exclusive use of the oil and
gas industries and that managers must attempt to balance the many uses
that occur on public land. Environmental restrictions help internalize
the uncounted costs from oil and gas extraction mentioned previously by
protecting other multiple uses enjoyed by the public.
With respect to energy prices, the quantities of financially
recoverable oil and gas in IRAs are very small and will have no impact
on energy prices that are set on the world market. Extracting or not
extracting oil and gas in IRAs will have absolutely no impact on short-
term energy prices since IRAs resources could not be added to current
production for at least 5-10 years (USDA Forest Service 2001). In
addition, a substantial amount of undiscovered, unconventional gas
resources in the IRAs are categorized by the USGS as hypothetical
resources and are associated with higher extraction costs than
conventional resources. Producers have limited ability to exploit
hypothetical sources within an expedient time frame. The hypothetical
nature of much of the unconventional resource underscores the inability
of IRA oil and gas resources to impact current energy prices.
The oil and gas resources that may affect energy prices already
exist in discovered known reserves and in the growth of these reserves.
Currently discovered reserves and expected reserves growth account for
42% of U.S. onshore gas supplies (USGS 1995). It is these resources,
the financially feasible gas resources in and around the already
discovered reserves, that have the potential to impact short-term
energy prices--not the unknown and hypothetical, small quantities of
undiscovered gas resources in roadless wildlands far from existing
pipelines.
Conclusion
Based on our analysis, The Wilderness Society concludes that IRAs
hold very small quantities of oil and gas, and drilling in IRAs on the
national forest is economically inefficient and will do nothing to
reduce current energy prices for consumers. While economics should not
be the driving force behind public policies, we agree with the Forest
Service conclusion that IRAs should be protected from oil and gas
drilling as the benefits of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
outweigh the costs. While The Wilderness Society also agrees that gas
is the bridge fuel for the future, it is important to recognize that
the extraction of gas, a cleaner burning fuel than coal, involves
significant ecological and economic costs. It is important for the
public to be aware of these costs and internalize them into their
public land management and energy consumption decisions. The United
States has less than 5 percent of the world's population but consumes
40% of the oil and 23% of the gas (USGS 2001). As such there is much we
as a nation can do via investments in energy conservation and renewable
energy to reduce our consumption, and the ecological and economic costs
associated with our consumption levels (NRDC 2001).
We strongly support the Roadless Area Conservation Rule's
prohibition on road construction for oil and gas development and other
forms of resource extraction. At the same time, we believe the
protection of roadless areas should not be used as an excuse to
exacerbate the impacts of drilling for gas next to homes or private
property where the families do not own the sub-surface mineral rights
(i.e. split estate). We recommend a programmatic EIS on gas drilling
where it is adversely affecting homeowners, ranchers, and communities.
Such an approach in needed until adequate baseline conditions are
firmly established and funding is obtained for long-term monitoring and
mitigation to assess and minimize environmental impacts and long-term
costs. Such a comprehensive approach is desperately needed in Wyoming
where gas drilling, especially drilling for coal bed methane, is
causing extreme damage to water supplies and other environmental
values.
References (partial list)
Attanasi, E.D. 1998. Economics and the 1995 National Assessment of
United States Oil and Gas Resources. USGS Circular 1145.
Darin, T. 2000. Coalbed methane coming to a town near you.
Frontline Report. Wyoming Outdoor Council. Spring 2000.
Ecological Society of America, 1999. Letter to Forest Service Chief
Dombeck on the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Gauthier-Warinner, R.J. 2000?. Oil and gas development. In:
Drinking water from forest and grasslands: A synthesis of the
scientific literature. USFS GTR SRS-39. S. Research Station.
Harmer, D. 2000. Roadless Area Specialist Report. Analysis of
effects for recreation, wilderness, scenic quality, and recreation
special uses. USDA Forest Service
Krause, J. 2000. Roadless Area Specialist Report. Effects analysis
for the FS Road System. USDA Forest Service
LaFayette, R. 2000. Roadless Area Specialist Report. Analysis of
effects for watershed health.
USDA Forest Service
Loomis and Richardson, 2000. The economic benefits of Forest
Service roadless areas. Report prepared for The Wilderness Society.
Morton, P. 2000. Wildland economics: theory and practice. In: Cole,
David N.; McCool, Stephen F. 2000. Proceedings: Wilderness Science in a
Time of Change. Proc. RMRS-P-000. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Powder River Resource Council 2000. Coal Bed Methane News
USDA Forest Service, 2000 Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation
Rule, Final EIS.
USDA Forest Service, 2001. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
USDA Forest Service, 2001. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1995. The 1995 National Assessment of
United States Oil and Gas Resources. CD-ROMs
Western Organization of Resource Councils, 1999. Coalbed methane
development: boon or bane for rural residents? Billings, MT.
______
[Letter from The Ecological Society of America submitted for the
record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.013
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Phillips, I missed your testimony but can you explain
to us what kinds of activities you foresee happening on these
large roadless areas and how it will differ what happens on
wilderness areas?
Mr. Phillips. Before I do, it is nice to see you again. I
enjoyed our conversations last year on gateway visitor centers.
Hopefully we can continue that discussion.
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. Phillips. The roadless rule, which is under review by
the administration, essentially prohibits construction and
reconstruction of new roads. Activities that have occurred in
the past on roads that are currently open will be allowed to
continue. Current leases that exist in the roadless areas would
be continued and allowed to renew those leases but only in the
leased area.
Mr. Peterson. What percentage of the 59 million acres do
you think has a lot of roads in them?
Mr. Phillips. Has a lot of roads?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, substantial amounts of roads, existing
roads.
Mr. Phillips. About 2.8 million acres of the 58.5, I
believe.
Mr. Peterson. So a very small percentage has roads in it.
Mr. Phillips. Correct.
Mr. Peterson. So 2.8 from 59 is 56 million does not have
roads.
So I guess my question then is what kind of activity do you
see happening in the 56 million acres that are roadless and
will remain roadless?
Mr. Phillips. They will still be open to many of the
multiple use activities.
Mr. Peterson. Such as?
Mr. Phillips. Trail use.
Mr. Peterson. Hiking?
Mr. Phillips. Yes.
Mr. Peterson. What else?
Mr. Phillips. Mountain biking, snowmobiling.
Mr. Peterson. Well, not if some people have their way.
Mr. Phillips. And, as I said, existing leases, general
leases.
Mr. Peterson. I am a hunter, fisherman, hiker, but when you
get beyond the age of 35 or 40, I do not find many people go
very far from a road. I guess that is the part that has puzzled
me with this. If this is public land for public use, forgetting
all about resources, just public use, if that great percentage
of this is still roadless, in a way I guess we are calling it
wilderness.
Most people, and hunters are probably a little less fearful
than the average citizen--if you have ever been up in a small
plane in hunting season and look where the orange suits are
against the white snow, you go a mile from a road and you see
very few orange suits. Go two miles from a road and you may see
one occasionally. Go five miles from a road and you do not see
anybody.
Today's adults are not comfortable that far from a road.
They are not that experienced about being out in the woods in
the wilderness. I guess that is the part that bothers me, is
are we not locking it up from public use, period? It would be
interesting to look where five miles would take you but I would
say the average citizen would not go five miles from a road An
average young robust citizen is not going to go five miles from
a road. You have campers and hikers that will go anywhere but
they are the minority. That is just a very small percentage of
it population.
Let us be honest. Are we just locking it up for the
critters? Is half the Forest Service for the critters?
Mr. Phillips. I guess the only way I could respond is to
say that there will be a lot of uses that could occur out
there.
Mr. Peterson. Could, but would they?
Mr. Phillips. Depending on your ability to use that land,
yes.
Mr. Peterson. But it is certainly not for senior citizens,
who would be careful about hiking five miles with potential
health problems. It certainly is not going to be for people who
have not been taught about the forest and how to get back to
where you came from.
I could get my father lost and he spent a lot of time in
the woods but for some reason he did not have a good sense of
direction and I could get him lost any time I wanted to hiking
in the woods because he would just get lost; that is all. I
would hear him whistling pretty soon and he needed help to
figure out which hill we went around to get back out of there.
I guess I was just wanting to make that point, that the
roadless issue sounds good to some people but I guess in my
view I think there is going to be very limited people-use. And
I think to take half of the Forest Service land and lock it up
to where it is almost not usable by the average citizen is a
policy I do not think is well thought through. That is my own
personal view.
How will the Forest Service assure legal access to state
and private lands within or adjacent to roadless areas?
Mr. Phillips. I think the roadless rule, we have tried to
be clear that there has been no intent to exclude or deny legal
access to people's lands. So given that, in-holdings, those
kinds of private uses would still be granted access.
Mr. Peterson. Do you have any estimate on the amount of
biomass on the national forest that could possibly be used for
energy production and how much of this is on the roadless
areas?
Mr. Phillips. I do not. I believe this Committee addressed
that yesterday in a hearing but I do not have that information.
We can certainly try to get that to you.
Mr. Peterson. I have an eight-page letter dated July 17,
2000 from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration to the Associate Chief of the Forest Service.
The letter raises concerns about the adequacy of economic
analysis of the draft roadless rule.
I understand that this watchdog for the small business
community continued to work with Forest Service personnel about
better assessing the roadless rule's economic impacts before
the rule went final. Can you provide for the record copies of
any or all correspondence with the Office of Advocacy regarding
the Roadless Area Conservation Rule or broader transportation
policy?
Mr. Phillips. Certainly.
Mr. Peterson. I will submit the letter dated July 17 for
the record.
[The requested materials follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.078
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Schaefer, throughout the roadless rule-
making process the Forest Service has said that mining is not
prohibited; only the construction and reconstruction of roads.
Would you please comment on whether this statement is true?
Mr. Schaefer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My testimony centered on
the mines in Colorado and Utah, all of which are underground
mines. So you have a vision of people underground mining and
not having the need to access the surface but the simple fact
is you have to. You need access to the surface to drill, to
explore that coal seam, make sure of the geology, the quality,
and to make sure that it is a piece of coal that is worth going
after and spending the amount of money that it takes to get the
infrastructure.
Also, we have very stringent ventilation requirements for
air flow underground to protect worker health and safety so
with that, we also have to go to the surface and drill
ventilation shafts and install fans. We also have to have roads
up there to access those fans and maintain them, as well.
So the simple fact is you do need access to the surface,
even with underground mines.
Mr. Peterson. And do you think you will have that?
Mr. Schaefer. No, it is very clear in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and in the final rule that road
construction and reconstruction is prohibited on roadless area
surfaces.
Mr. Peterson. Construction or reconstruction?
Mr. Schaefer. Road construction and reconstruction.
Mr. Peterson. Did the Forest Service play any role in the
development of the maps you attached to your written testimony?
Mr. Schaefer. No, those maps are ones that we developed
ourselves. We had tried to obtain that information from the
Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service. We had the
same problem as the attorney general from Idaho had early on
where we asked for maps to show here the boundaries of the
roadless areas were located; we were told that they would be on
the website but the website was not available until after the
close of the public's scoping period.
Once they finally did post them on the Internet they were
on such a scale that they were virtually impossible to use for
depicting local impacts, to see if we even had a problem. As an
example, in Utah we first saw a map that was given to the
Department of Energy by the Forest Service that showed areas,
three particular coal tracts that were impacted, but we had
already been told by the local Forest Service officials that
there was no impact and unfortunately we took that at face
value.
So we developed these maps and then provided them to the
Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service.
Mr. Peterson. If my memory is correct, the first estimates
were 30 some million acres and then it was 40 million acres and
it ended up being 58, so there had to be a lot of changes in
the process.
Mr. Schaefer. I believe there were a lot of changes in the
process. We felt like we were chasing a moving target for much
of that. In fact, the maps that you see here, the Colorado and
the Utah maps, took us the better part of a year to develop and
present to the Forest Service and the Department of
Agriculture. The Colorado map we finally finished around the
first part of November 2000 and the Utah map was not available
until December and that was after the issuance of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and during the process when they
were drafting the final rule.
Mr. Peterson. The Forest Service maintains that Forest
Service lands account for about seven percent of the national
coal production in '99. Do you think that is an accurate
figure?
Mr. Schaefer. I think that number is very low, Mr.
Chairman, and the reason being most of this land is
administered by the--the coal resource itself is managed by the
Bureau of Land Management and there is a mixed surface. A lot
of areas there is BLM surface, Forest Service surface, private
surface, but the mineral itself is managed by the Bureau of
Land Management.
As such, the Forest Service I do not believe has a really
good accurate way of determining how much coal is actually
produced on their land. For example, in Wyoming we operate the
Black Thunder Mine on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands,
which is National Forest Service surface. In 1999 that single
mine itself produced right about 5 percent of the nation's
supply.
In talking with two neighboring mines that also operate on
the Thunder Basin National Grasslands, an informal survey
showed that just those three mines in Wyoming were up around 8
to 10 percent. Then you put in Colorado and Utah; I think it
could be up in the order of 15 to 18 percent of the total coal
supply comes from Forest Service lands.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Eppink, the Forest Service Chief's letter
to OMB dated January 2, 2001 pretty much dismissed the concerns
of the DOE regarding access to oil and gas beneath the roadless
areas of the national forests. How do you account for that?
Mr. Eppink. I do not know that I can. We presented the
study, DOE and myself, in November to the White House and what
happened after that, really I was not privy to that process. I
really cannot comment on that. I do not know exactly the
procedure.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Otter? Do you have some questions?
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to the panel, my apologies not having been in
attendance here all the time. If I plow some old ground that
already been plowed, if I go over some questions that have
already been asked and you have responded to, my apologies
again but it will be for my information and for some of the
questions that I want to ask, the information that I want to
get, it is going to be necessary for me to ask these.
I would like to start out, if I might, and it is too bad my
colleagues from the other side of the bench here are not here
because one of them made a special point of what President Bush
and then, of course, the attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft, has
done relative to the enforcement of the roadless rule and I
just want to remind them and put into the record that during
the public comment period then-Vice President Gore and
candidate Gore made a statement that the roadless decision was
a done deal and that the administration, obviously as far as I
was concerned at that point, did not care about the scoping
period or what the testimony that was going to be offered by
1.2 or 1.6 or however many people offered testimony or offered
an opinion on the value of the roadless area. As far as I was
concerned, the administration, if represented by Mr. Gore's
comments, they did not care. It was a done deal in his terms
and all the Forest Service had to do and the analysis, as far
as I was concerned, all they had to do was come out to the end
that was already predetermined.
But I would like to begin my questioning by asking Mr.
Morton of the Wilderness Society, one of the things that
concerns us is that the 65 percent of the land mass of the
State of Idaho, and you heard this number and I am sure you are
sick and tired of hearing it as I am of saying it, but when you
lock away 65 percent of the land mass of an area, that takes
away from an economic base; that takes away more importantly, I
think, from a taxing base that supports communities and society
and education systems, public schools, fire departments, police
departments, the building of necessary roads, whether they be
not particularly those in the roadless area.
And I think those of us that have all of a sudden brand new
discoveries in our area are concerned about the lost potential
energy resources and those things but does the Wilderness
Society have any idea in mind on how we could replace the lost
money because we no longer cut trees in the five national
forests in Idaho, which when we cut the trees, there was a
certain percentage of that that went to construct the
elementary schools in the communities that it affected? It went
to help support local systems of government. And right now, as
I have said several times in front of this Committee, I think
Idaho is down to around $17.2 million, which comes out to about
80 cents an acre, whereas all the other private owners pay
$8.80 per acre in taxes per year. If the Wilderness Society
suggests that this land belongs to all the people, then you
ought to all pay your taxes, so you ought to be paying $8.80 in
taxes a year. And for the Forest Service alone it would be $173
million.
Can you tell me how I am going to support my local units?
Or do we just wipe them off the map and maybe come up with
another map problem? But do we just wipe, along with the 33
mills that we have already shut down during the Clinton years
in Idaho, do we just wipe these communities off the map?
Mr. Morton. Well, I think last year the county payments
bill separated county payments for schools from timber
harvesting, so I think that problem is a little bit
ameliorated.
In terms of locking away, I do not think that is quite the
right terminology. I think there are a lot of multiple uses
that can still occur on these lands.
In terms of the lumber mills shutting down, right now you
have an oversupply problem. Wall Street analysts are saying you
need to shut down because there is too much timber on the
market, so I am not sure you can blame the roadless policy for
those mills shutting down. It is a corporate decision based on
profit maximization.
And in terms of tax revenues, there have been studies that
show that wilderness areas, property adjacent or nearby
wilderness areas actually have a high property value. So you
might think about more wilderness in terms of increasing
property values and increasing revenues for those school kids.
Mr. Otter. Well, unfortunately, if you have lived through
one of these, and obviously you have not or you would not be
able to make that kind of statement, sir, because when you see
a city die, when you see a little town die and generations,
five and six generations of people that have lived and worked
in that community, whether it is on a ranch or in a lumber mill
or in a mine or whatever, all of a sudden that is gone. Those
people have to pack up and they have to go start a whole new
life and a whole new generational process.
I would like to move on to Mr. Moyer. Mr. Moyer, the
Wilderness Society believes that those that are going to use it
ought to pay a little bit more for it, I guess. So how much is
Trout Unlimited willing to pay for access to the trout streams
in the Clearwater reaches of the Clearwater National Forest?
Mr. Moyer. I think we would be willing to pay.
Mr. Otter. Would you care to say how much?
Mr. Moyer. I have no idea how much more we would be willing
to pay. I would just point out, as I did in my testimony, that
our local chapters have worked throughout Idaho on Federal
lands to work with the Forest Service, providing manpower and
money to help the Forest Service conserve trout and salmon
resources.
So not only have our members paid the state fishing license
fees but they have put out more and given more back to the
resource in terms of those things that they have put forward to
do that. So I think we have demonstrated that we are already
willing to pay more so than a lot of others are.
Mr. Otter. Do you have any idea what each member would have
to pay in order to come up with $172 million?
Mr. Moyer. I think you are forcing me to try to do math in
public, which I vowed not to do.
Mr. Otter. Must be a graduate of public schools.
Mr. Moyer. You are exactly right about that. But I
definitely think we would be willing to step up and do more
watershed restoration than we are doing. Part of the problem is
that the Forest Service does not have sufficient money to help
us do that, to get us going.
Mr. Otter. Well, I would just like to close, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you both for your responses.
I would just like to close, Mr. Chairman, by saying I am a
grand slam lifetime member of Ducks Unlimited and I am sure,
Mr. Moyer, being with Trout Unlimited, you know what that
means. It is not that I am not committed to the natural
resources and to habitat but along with all the other problems
that we have and especially in the Clearwater National Forest,
and this is the most pathetic thing that a lot of people do not
understand, especially those east of the Mississippi River, and
that is that we have lost the genesis of one of the greatest
elk herds in the Pacific Northwest in the Clearwater National
Forest because the habitat is gone. It has nothing to do with
anything except for the fact that the canopy has grown so close
together in the forest that the browse is gone.
And it has everything to do with these same organizations
like those sitting on the end of that table that come in and
say we want wolves in Idaho and their preferred meal happens to
be elk calf. And in that great herd that once sustained a lot
of other herds around the United States and around the world,
that great herd that once had something like 46 calves per 100
cows is now down to three on a count by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife this year. Three calves per every 100 cows of calf-
bearing age.
So it is more than just these esoteric things that
everybody likes to talk about. It is real people leaving their
real roots and somebody needs to care about that and I wish
more than a couple of people at that table did.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. I just have to share with my
friend from Idaho that I am from Western Pennsylvania.
Mr. Otter. I said most of the people--
Mr. Peterson. No, no, no. My district has a county called
Elk in it because it has a very successful elk herd in it. In
fact, it has been growing to the point that they are going to
hunt next year and they have been stalking them in a couple of
neighboring counties. They have moved them, not without some
controversy, I believe, because when elk get in your farm
fields they do a lot of harm. But we have a very successful elk
herd in Pennsylvania in Elk County. If you are ever over there
I will show it to you.
Mr. Moyer, when your organization's mission to conserve,
protect, restore cold water fisheries and their watersheds, how
would you suggest that the Forest Service deal with the forest
fuels problems in roadless areas to avoid or reduce
catastrophic wildfires? I do not know whether you have ever
flown over one of these wildfire areas but I have and it is
stunningly devastating. I sometimes wonder how it will ever
recover. How do we prevent that?
Mr. Moyer. Well, on fire, sometimes that is true but
oftentimes that is not true. Moderate to light fires are very
much part of natural--
Mr. Peterson. That is not what I am asking about. Some of
the fires of the 7 million acres this year, what percentage of
those would you claim were light? I flew over a large area in
Idaho and Wyoming a number of years ago and there was not a
blade of grass; there was nothing alive. The ground was cooked.
They were horrendous fires. The hillsides were sliding into the
valleys. The streams had to be totally annihilated. It was
devastation, and we flew for a long time. I have never seen
anything like it.
And this fuel load will not create a light fire; it will
create a fire that absolutely cooks the ground and it will be
years before anything will grow there.
Mr. Moyer. My understanding is that the vast amount of the
fuel situations that are out there in the Forest Service are in
roaded areas and not in the roadless areas. I think the problem
that you are talking about is mostly in the roaded areas and
especially in the urban forest interface.
The Forest Service did allow for forest health work in
roadless areas. Now whether they allowed enough flexibility for
that or not, I am probably not the best judge but they did
allow for harvest of trees within the roadless areas to take
care of fire risk situations.
Mr. Peterson. I believe some of the most serious fires last
year were in roadless areas. Am I correct, Mr. Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. In some parts of the country that is correct.
Mr. Peterson. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Morton, in your written testimony you assert that
roadless areas hold very small quantities of oil and gas.
Having heard Mr. Schaefer's testimony and having seen his maps,
both of which persuasively demonstrate that there are, in fact,
abundant energy resources below Colorado and Wyoming's roadless
areas, would you like to amend your statement?
Mr. Morton. No, because we did an analysis of oil and gas
and he was talking about coal. In terms of coal, we have about
1.7 trillion tons of coal in the United States. In the Powder
River Basin alone you have almost 140 billion and with annual
consumption of 1 billion, you have over 100 years of coal just
in the Powder River Basin.
Given some of the advances in solar technology, coal could
actually be obsolete. We may never actually mine all the coal
that is out there. So I would stick with my statement.
Mr. Peterson. You said coal will soon be obsolete? Is that
what I heard you say?
Mr. Morton. No, I am saying I have seen economic research
from people that said given the advances in solar technology
and other renewable energies that the production of coal, the
use of coal for energy production could drop dramatically in 20
to 30 years so we may not even actually get to mining all the
coal that is there.
Mr. Peterson. Would you share that research with the
Committee? I am on the Interior Subcommittee and we have been
holding hearings and boy, I want to tell you the pie charts 10
years out, 20 years out, I wish you were correct. If you have
information that wind and solar and renewables are going to be
that successful and where and how and the models that are
working, I am all for that but I will tell you that is not the
information we are receiving from this country's energy
experts.
Mr. Morton. Okay, I will track down a copy of the article.
Mr. Peterson. For the record.
[Report entitled ``Endogenous Substitution Among Energy
Resources and Global Warming'' submitted for the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1552.039
Mr. Schaefer, do you want to react?
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our testimony we
did highlight the fact that in Utah there is very much an
undeveloped rail transportation system. The power plants that
are there rely almost exclusively on the Utah coal-mining
operations for their future. Most of those mines now are either
underlaying or adjacent to roadless areas. The opportunity for
bringing in coal from the Powder River Basin is simply
nonexistent there.
Then as you look at Colorado and Utah coals, those are both
states that have very high-quality bituminous coals, very high
in BTU content as opposed to a Powder River Basin coal, which
is about two-thirds of the BTUs per similar weights per pound.
A lot of the boilers that are constructed in the United
States focus or need a very specific coal quality in which to
operate, so as we ship coal from Utah to Tennessee Valley
Authority, they need that particular type of coal and in many
instances cannot burn a Powder River Basin coal.
We are going to need access to all of our coals across the
country--West Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming--
in order to make this--
Mr. Peterson. Do not forget Pennsylvania.
Mr. Schaefer. Pennsylvania. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Eppink, you were hired by the Department
of Energy to analyze roadless during the Clinton
Administration.
Mr. Eppink. That is correct.
Mr. Peterson. How much impact do you think your analysis
had or how seriously was it taken in developing the final
statement?
Mr. Eppink. I think it was seriously taken. It certainly
got a lot of attention.
Mr. Peterson. You caught a lot of hell, huh?
Mr. Eppink. We did the analysis very quickly. We spent
about three or 4 weeks conducting the analysis and probably 3
months defending it so it got a fair amount of attention, yes.
Mr. Peterson. I am going to give each of the participants
no more than 30 seconds to make a statement. Who would like to
start? Who is ready to go with 30 seconds? Final comment.
Wait. One final question. That will give you a little
chance to think.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a five-part question. No, it is only one question.
Mr. Phillips, in 1914, there was probably one of the most
devastating fires ever that went 582 miles through my district
in Idaho. That is the Western District in Idaho. It burned
millions of acres of forest, national forest, went through the
Payette, the Clearwater, the Panhandle--gosh, I am going to
forget one and offend somebody, I am sure. But anyway, it
burned millions and millions of acres of forest. Most of that
under a natural process was replaced by species of trees that
have a lifespan of roughly 90 to 110 years. Is that not right?
I just want a yes or no on that.
Mr. Phillips. That is a tough one to answer because you
have a lot of different species in Idaho, depending on the
site. If it is lodgepole pine, that is correct.
Mr. Otter. Okay, it was lodgepole pine, it was some firs
and some white pine. But the species, the professionals tell
me, will live to be 90 to 110 years old and that is it. We are
right now on that threshold. That forest is going to start
dying. There is nothing you can do about it.
During that 1914 fire some of that area was so dense; in
fact, one place is called Slate Creek. It is on the tributary
to the St. Joe River. To this very day, Mr. Chairman, nothing
grows on Slate Creek, areas of Slate Creek, because the earth
was calcined so deep that there is nothing there to sustain
life, any kind of life. And I think that whole age factor,
which we have not talked much about, and the natural life cycle
of that forest, we are on the threshold, whether we have a
drought or not, we are on the threshold of those trees just
starting to die naturally. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. Phillips. I would say you are right in many of those
areas.
Mr. Otter. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Now 30 seconds. Who wants to go first? Raise
your hand. Mr. Moyer?
Mr. Moyer. I just want the Subcommittees to consider three
things. One is as you look at these roadless areas just
consider the high value for habitat they have for a lot of
trout and salmon and wildlife. Consider that roads damage trout
and salmon habitat especially but often wildlife, wildlife
habitat, as well.
And three, I think a real area of common ground that we
could work together on is working on maintaining and restoring
roads that are part of this backlog that really need work. That
would also put people to work in those areas that you were
talking about, Mr. Otter, but also restore watersheds and make
healthier systems for fish and wildlife. So those are the
points that I wanted to make.
Mr. Peterson. If your groups are willing to help lobby for
the funds to fix the roads, that will be welcome because I have
been here a few years and that has just been talk in the past.
I felt there was a defense against putting money in the roads
budget because it was about roads and rightfully or wrongfully,
I think that not maintaining the roads has probably caused more
problems than anything.
Who is next? Mr. Eppink.
Mr. Eppink. I just want to emphasize from our study we have
done a number of these studies for DOE and elsewhere. This is
one of the few studies when we concluded that the fact that a
vast minority of the roadless areas contain the vast majority
of especially oil and gas resources was pretty striking. I just
want to emphasize that point.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
Mr. Phillips?
Mr. Phillips. I wanted to thank the Committee's continued
attention to the road backlog that came up a number of times
today and recognize that that is a continuing problem. And a
reminder that the roadless rule is still under review until May
12.
Mr. Peterson. Take your time.
Next? I am just trying to be a little spirited. Go ahead.
Mr. Schaefer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just three quick
summary points.
When we talk about backlog of maintenance of roads, just to
make sure you are clear that that is an irrelevant discussion
with regard to the coal mining industry because we are solely
responsible for the reclamation of the roads that we construct
and any other surface disturbance associated with a mining
operation.
I reiterate that the Forest Service lands represent a
significant amount of production, coal production, and
necessary part of coal production for this country and our
energy needs.
The other one is just to again address the fact that if you
want to shift coal production, say we do not need these
existing mines, the coal can come from somewhere else, that
that really ignores the local communities. The final
environmental impact statement correctly noted that the
economies of these rural Western towns is relatively inelastic
and if you take away these high-paying jobs there is just
simply not anything to back it up.
Mr. Peterson. You get the final word.
Mr. Morton. I just want to reiterate that when you look at
the impacts of this policy there are a lot of benefits and you
cannot just focus on the negative impacts.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you.
I would like to share just a thought with you and then I
have a closing comment here and we are just about ready to
conclude.
I have had the privilege of working on the energy issue
seriously for the last few years and about a year and a half
ago when it became very apparent that a lot of gas was going to
be committed to making electricity, which has not historically
been a part of our energy plan in this country, I predicted to
my staff and a few people that people heating their homes would
pay significantly higher gas bills this year and they did. I do
not claim I am some expert about predicting but I had concerns
about that. From two to two and a half times they paid more for
gas this year.
I am here to predict I think next year will be worse and we
are, with our current energy issues--I do not think people in
this country really realize that with our current issues and
the amount of gas we have already committed to electric
generation, I do not think there is going to be gas to put in
the ground for the winter season, which is normally how you
build up the supply.
And with the inability to repermit hydroplants, with the
inability to repermit nuclear plants and the inability to build
a new coal plant in this country, I want to tell you we are
going to face--I mean California is not going to be alone long;
we are going to face serious energy issues in this country.
When you look at all the charts that go out for 10 and 20
years, and I looked at them last week and we questioned some of
our finest experts in this country, we are in trouble. And when
we are dependent on oil from the most unstable part of the
world, certainly not friendly places in the world, this country
has gradually backed themselves into a very difficult energy
issue.
And all of those things I mentioned in the very slow
projected growth on renewables, if you look at the big pie
chart 10 years out, 20 years out, they are not predicting a lot
of growth. I am a big supporter of hydrogen as one of our
futures, personally. I think it may have more potential than
any of the renewables.
But we need growth in renewables. We need our hydro to keep
running. We probably need to upgrade our nuclear and drill for
a lot of oil and gas and dig more coal just to meet the growing
needs in this country because what you are going to do is you
are going to hit business hard. The businesses in my district
that use energy to melt things, to cook things are having
profitless years. A major paper company in my district, their
energy budget took away their profitability for the year at the
end of January.
It has not hit the streets yet. You think Wall Street has
been bad? You wait till some of the lack of profit statements
come out from energy. My greenhouse growers do not expect to
make money this year because of fuel costs. I mean it is going
to hit everywhere. Buying gas in a vehicle is the small part of
it. When it starts to get added in and rolled into the cost of
doing business and when it happens that quickly, there is no
way to raise prices and you are going to find a lot of
profitless businesses in this country.
In my view we have an awful lot of work to do and we had
better not argue too much and we had better be able to agree on
some things because in my view we are in serious trouble in
energy.
Closing comments here. It is no secret that if you want
broad national policies to be accepted broadly you must get a
critical mass of buy-in from the public, both nationally and
locally. Polls asking only whether roadless areas deserve
protection while avoiding how this should be done do not
accurately represent the public's sentiment on this issue.
Anyone who really believes that a lasting solution to the
roadless debate can be achieved by forcing it through
politically at the national level without substantial
involvement at the state and local level is delusional. I am
willing to work with anyone concerning further protection of
roadless areas but never at the expense of effective local
participation. These are not mutually exclusive goals; in fact,
they can only be achieved together.
I want to thank the witnesses on the second panel for their
insights and members for their questions. The members of the
Subcommittees may have some additional questions for the
witnesses and we ask you to respond to those in writing. The
hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these
responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittees I
want to again thank everybody for their participation and this
hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]