U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21-883 PS 2005

THE IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATIONS ON ENERGY AND

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT: THE

WILDLANDS PROJECT

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

MINERAL RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Serial No. 109-20

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Vice Chair

George P. Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado

Vacancy

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada, Chairman

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, June 16, 2005 ............................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Articles submitted for the record ............................................................. 43

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State

of West Virginia, Statement submitted for the record ............................... 46

Statement of Witnesses:

Boorse, Dorothy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology Department, Gordon

College, Representing Noah Alliance .......................................................... 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Conner, Teresa A., Manager, Environmental Resources Department,

Queenstake Resources USA, Inc., Representing Women’s Mining

Coalition ......................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Mathis, Mark E., Executive Director, Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible

Energy ............................................................................................................ 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

McDonnell, Thomas G., President, McDonnell Angus Ranch, McDonnell

& Associates, Representing the New Mexico Stockgrowers Association .. 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Additional materials supplied:

Vacariu, Kim, Southwest Director, Wildlands Project, Statement

submitted for the record by Hon. Rau ́l Grijalva ......................................... 46

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ‘‘IMPACTS

OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT:

THE WILDLANDS PROJECT.’’

Thursday, June 16, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

Committee on Resources

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Gibbons

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Gibbons, Pearce, Drake, Gohmert,

Grijalva, and Melancon.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral

Resources will come to order.

The Subcommittee today is here to hear testimony on how environmental laws and regulations are currently being used to limit

domestic energy and mineral production.

Obstructionists present Americans with a false choice of supporting either energy and mineral development or environmental

protection. Responsible energy and mineral development and environmental protection can and do work hand in hand to deliver to

American consumers the most basic resources necessary to feed

their families, keep their homes cool in the summer and warm in

the winter, and have access to the best health care in the world.

Unfortunately, we have allowed our domestic energy and

minerals policy to languish over the years, driving investment overseas and increasing our reliance on foreign sources of energy and

mineral resources. The United States Geological Survey tracked 62

non-fuel minerals that are used on a daily basis by Americans.

Last year, we imported 100 percent of 17 minerals on that list and

more than 80 percent of another dozen or so. We are now importing

about 63 percent of the oil that we need to run our economy. Crude

oil has been trading between $55 and $57 a barrel over the past

week, and the American consumer continues to pay well over $2 a

gallon for gasoline.

2

The increased prices Americans are paying for gasoline and other

goods and services are directly related to the increased competition

for those same resources from China, India, and other developing

nations. These are resources that are necessary to satisfy the basic

requirements of an individual’s well-being: food, clothing, shelter,

and a clean and healthy environment.

It is apparent to me that domestic energy and mineral production are crucial activities for creating jobs and maintaining and enhancing our Nation’s economic and national security. It would also

seem to me that with higher prices for energy and mineral commodities, we would see a higher level of investment in exploration

and development for energy and minerals and more activity on the

ground. However, while there has been some increase in expenditures and activity, it is not commensurate with the growth and

growing demand for these resources. In fact, only 8 percent of

mining’s exploration dollars are spent here in the United States,

and that means that 92 percent are being spent elsewhere. That

also means that high-paying jobs that could be in Nevada and

other States and elsewhere in our country are going overseas.

In the early 1990s, about 20 percent of mining’s exploration dollars were spent domestically. As a policymaker, I have to ask why

is it that companies find Canada, South America, and even Africa

more desirable places to spend exploration dollars than the United

States. Is it because there are no minerals or energy resources in

the United States? I don’t think so.

In my prior life as an exploration geologist, I spent many days

roaming remote places in Nevada, and I can say for certain that

Nevada is abundant in minerals, just like much of the United

States. The hard truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that the United

States is viewed as a poor choice to invest money or to put money

at risk by those investors that supply capital to our domestic

resources industry, primarily because of the long lead time required to bring projects into production compared to these other

countries.

Today we will hear testimony that details how environmental

laws and regulations that are intended to address real environmental problems are being used to limit domestic energy and

mineral production. These laws were designed to regulate human

activity in order to mitigate adverse impacts of people, communities, and the outdoor environment, including plant and animal

species.

These were laws designed to ensure that important industrial

activities such as mineral and energy projects were well thought

out, engineered properly, and would be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner. These laws are also often used to

delay permitting, to challenge records of decision on projects, and

to waste capital on litigious processes, all of which succeed in

changing and increasing the cost of a project and thus scaring off

potential investors for domestic resource projects.

We will also hear today about the Wildlands Project, an environmental plan designed to ‘‘re-wild’’ the North American continent

into a network of wilderness preserves linked together with corridors. While we all want to protect our sensitive lands and species,

I am deeply concerned by the corruption of our environmental laws

3

in order to implement grand schemes such as this. It is my opinion

that a great deal of our land is already locked up by the Federal

Government, often to the detriment of our own Nation and the

people who live here.

We can protect wildlife and habitats while still allowing for environmentally responsible energy and mineral projects that will ensure our economy can continue to prosper.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and the testimony they will give. Now I would like to turn it over to my good

friend, the Ranking Minority Member on the Subcommittee, Mr.

Grijalva, for any opening remarks he might make. Mr. Grijalva?

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on how environmental laws and

regulations are currently being used to limit domestic energy and minerals production.

Obstructionists present Americans with a false choice of supporting either energy

and mineral development or environmental protection.

Responsible energy and mineral development and environmental protection can—

and do—work hand in hand to deliver to the American consumer the most basic of

resources necessary to feed their families, keep their homes cool in the summer and

warm in the winter, and have access to the best healthcare in the world.

Unfortunately we have allowed our domestic energy and minerals policies to languish over the years, driving investment overseas and increasing our reliance on foreign sources of energy and mineral resources.

The United States Geological Survey tracks 62 non-fuel minerals that are used

on a daily basis by Americans.

Last Year we imported 100% of seventeen minerals on that list and are more than

80% dependent on another dozen.

And we now import about 63 percent of the oil that we need to run the economy.

Crude oil has been trading between $55 and $57 a barrel over the past week and

the American Consumer continues to pay well over $2 a gallon for gasoline.

The increased prices Americans are paying for gasoline and other goods and services are directly related to the increased competition for those same resources from

China, India and other developing nations.

These are resources that are necessary to satisfy the basic requirements of an individual’s well-being: food, clothing, shelter, and a clean, healthy environment.

It’s apparent to me that domestic energy and mineral production are crucial activities for creating jobs, and maintaining and enhancing our Nation’s economic and

national security.

It would also seem to me, that with higher prices for energy and mineral commodities, we would see a higher level of investment in exploration and development for

energy and minerals and more activity on the ground.

However, while there has been some increase in expenditures and activity, it is

not commensurate with the growing demand for these resources.

In fact, only 8 percent of mining’s exploration dollars are spent here in the United

States—that means 92 percent is being spent elsewhere.

That means high-paying jobs that could be in Nevada and elsewhere in the

United States are going overseas.

In the early 1990s, about 20 percent of mining’s exploration dollars was spent domestically.

As a policymaker, I have to ask—why is it that companies find Canada, South

America, and even Africa more desirable places to spend exploration dollars than

here in the United States?

Is it because there are no minerals or energy resources in the United States? I

don’t think so.

In my prior life as an exploration geologist, I spent many days roaming remote

places of Nevada, and I can say for certain that Nevada is abundant in minerals...

just like much of the United States.

The hard truth is that the United States is viewed as a poor choice to put money

at risk by the investors that supply capital to our domestic resource industries,

4

primarily because of the long lead times required to bring projects into production

compared to other countries.

Today we will hear testimony that details how environmental laws and regulations that were intended to address real environmental problems are being used to

limit domestic energy and mineral production.

These laws were designed to regulate human activity in order to mitigate for adverse impacts to people, communities and the outdoor environment, including plant

and animal species.

These were laws designed to ensure that important industrial activity such as

minerals and energy projects were well thought out, engineered properly and would

be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

These laws are also often used to delay permitting, to challenge ‘‘Records of Decisions’’ on projects, and to waste capital on a litigious process—all of which succeed

in changing and increasing the cost of a project and thus, scaring off potential investors for domestic resource projects.

We will also hear today about the ‘‘Wildlands Project’’.

This audacious environmental plan is designed to ‘‘re-wild’’ the North American

Continent into a network of wilderness preserves linked together with corridors.

While we all want to protect our sensitive lands, I am deeply concerned by the

corruption of our environmental laws in order to implement this grand scheme.

It is my opinion that a great deal of our land is already locked-up by the federal

government—often to the detriment of our nation.

We can protect wildlife and habitats while still allowing for environmentally responsible energy and mineral projects that will ensure our economy can continue

to prosper.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to make some opening remarks and also to welcome the witnesses that we have before us today.

The stated purpose of today’s hearing is to review the impacts of

environmental regulations on energy and mineral development,

and specifically how the Wildlands Project factors into this concern.

For those of you that may not have heard of it before, the

Wildlands Project is a group of scientists, conservationists, and others supporting the prevention of species extinction and ecosystem

degradation.

Started in 1991, the organization uses science to map a network

of connected wildlands to provide habitat for species on private and

public lands in North America. The Wildlands Project supports biodiversity and healthy ecosystems and believes it should be protected and restored.

Although the Wildlands Project encourages policies and private

actions that support this goal, the organization does not lobby Congress and has been involved in only one Endangered Species Actrelated lawsuit. It is, therefore, difficult to understand why this organization is considered to be such a bogeyman by some.

Some of the testimony submitted by the witnesses today appears

to incorrectly assume the Wildlands Project is orchestrating what

other groups of citizens are doing around the country on conservation issues. While the Wildlands Project’s main theory supports

some of the work of other groups, I believe it is inaccurate to view

this group as the grand architect of all the conservation efforts outlined in the testimony.

With regard to environmental laws, it is important to remember

that Congress enacted environmental laws such as the Endangered

5

Species Act in order to mitigate the adverse effects of activities

such as energy and mineral development.

Regulations by Federal agencies are developed and implemented

based on the goals of the legislation enacted by Congress. I am very

skeptical about the ostensible reason for holding this hearing.

Quite frankly, that is that the Wildlands Project is somehow hampering energy development on public lands.

The truth is, judging by statistics and recent press reports, environmental regulations and environmental organizations are having

no discernible effect on domestic energy and mineral production.

For instance, nearly 90 percent of Federal oil and gas resources are

open to oil and gas activity. Oil and gas activity have been surging

upwards on Western Federal lands to such a degree that there are

growing tensions and concerns being voiced by ranchers and other

land owners afraid of the long-term impacts such activity will have

on their water supplies.

In addition, the vast majority of Federal lands are open to hard

rock mining and coal production. Last year, we saw an increase of

nearly 4 percent over 2003. In other words, domestic production of

energy and mineral resources is and remains robust. Energy and

mineral extraction activities, if not managed properly, can have a

devastating effect on the environment. This is not a value statement. This is a fact.

The cost of reclaiming Federal lands from historic hard rock mining has been estimated to cost between $32 and $72 billion. There

is an estimated 16,000 miles of Western streams contaminated by

mining waste. So it is reasonable for citizens, communities, and organizations such as the Wildlands Project to look at proposed

energy and mining projects with skepticism. Despite that, I know

of no place in the country where the Wildlands Project is hampering mineral production.

In closing, I would note for the record that it is a sad day when

this committee provides a forum for one group of citizens to accuse

and malign another group but does not invite the accused to testify

and answer such charges. Even though the Wildlands Project is

specifically named in the subject of this hearing, they were not invited to testify until last week when the minority learned that

there was no intention to include them in today’s panel. At that

point we were able to secure an invitation for them, but given the

tardiness of the request, the Wildlands Project was unable to be

here today.

Nonetheless, I have a written statement from them to be submitted at the appropriate time for the record and also a written

statement from the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Rahall, and I would hope that in the future we will see a more balanced use of the Committee’s resources and time. My dad always

used to say, if you are going to have a fight, you have to have everybody there. And I don’t know—this is not necessarily a fight,

but the fact is if we are going to single in on one group as the consequence and source of the problem we are talking about today, I

think it is not only fair but appropriate that that organization be

represented and that questions from this Committee be directed to

them as well.

6

With that, Mr. Chairman, and with two items to submit to the

record, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Ranking Democrat,

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

The stated purpose of today’s hearing is to review the impacts of environmental

regulations on energy and mineral development, and specifically how the Wildlands

Project factors into this concern.

For those who may not have heard of it before, the Wildlands Project is a group

of scientists, conservationists and others supporting the prevention of species

extinctions and ecosystem degradation. Started in 1991, the organization uses

science to map a network of connected wildlands to provide habitat for species on

private and public lands in North America.

The organization also recommends science-based management prescriptions for

specific areas. According to the Wildlands Project’s website, ‘‘Private land owners

within proposed conservation planning areas are not bound in any way by our recommendations, but are encouraged to participate in voluntary actions to protect

landscape linkages and native species.’’

The Wildlands Project supports biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, and believes

they should be protected and restored. Although the Wildlands Project encourages

policies and private actions that support this goal, the organization does not lobby

Congress and has been involved in only one Endangered Species Act-related lawsuit.

It is, therefore, difficult to understand why this organization is considered to be

such a ‘‘bogeyman’’ by some.

Some of the testimony submitted by the witnesses today appears to incorrectly assume that the Wildlands Project is somehow orchestrating what other groups or citizens are doing around the country on conservation issues. While the Wildlands

Project may in theory support some of these efforts, it is inaccurate to view this

group as a grand architect of all the conservation efforts outlined in the testimony.

With regard to environmental laws, it is important to remember that Congress

enacted environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, in order to mitigate the adverse effects of activities such as energy and mineral development. Regulations by federal agencies are developed and implemented pursuant to the goals of

the legislation enacted by Congress.

I am very skeptical about the ostensible reason for holding this hearing, that is,

that the Wildlands Project is somehow hampering energy development on public

lands. The truth is, judging by statistics and recent press reports, environmental

regulation and environmental organizations are having no discernible effect on domestic energy and mineral production. For instance, nearly 90 percent of federal oil

and gas resources are open to oil and gas activity. Oil and gas activity has been

surging upwards on western federal lands, to such a degree that there are growing

tensions and concerns being voiced by ranchers and other landowners afraid of the

long-term impacts such activity will have on their water supplies.

In addition, the vast majority of federal lands are open to hard rock mining and

coal production in the United States increased in 2004 by 39.7 million short tons,

which is a nearly 4 percent increase over 2003, according to the Energy Information

Administration.

In other words, domestic production of energy and mineral resources remains

robust.

Energy and mineral extraction activities can, if not managed properly, have devastating effects on the environment. This is not a values statement—it is a fact. The

cost of reclaiming federal lands from historic hardrock mining has been estimated

to cost between $32 and 72 billion dollars. There are an estimated 16,000 miles of

western streams contaminated by mining wastes. So, it is reasonable for citizens,

communities and organizations such as the Wildlands Project, to look at proposed

energy and mining projects with skepticism. Despite that, I know of no place in the

country where the Wildlands Project is hampering mineral production.

In closing, I would note for the record that it is a sad day when this Committee

provides a forum for one group of citizens to accuse and malign another group, but

does not invite the accused to testify and answer said charges. Even though the

Wildlands Project is specifically named in the subject of this hearing, they were not

invited to testify until last week when the Minority learned that there was no intention to include them in today’s panel. At that point, we were able to secure an invitation for them, but, given the tardiness of the request, the Wildlands Project was

unable to be here today. Nonetheless, I have a written statement from them to be

7

submitted at the appropriate time. I would hope that in the future, we will see a

more fair and balanced use of the Committee’s resources.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much.

We will turn now to our first panel. If all of you will rise, we

have a procedure here that we swear in our witnesses before any

testimony, and we have to give you an oath as a requirement here.

Would you please raise your right hand?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. GIBBONS. Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses

stated an affirmative response to that request.

The first panel today is going to consist of Mr. Thomas G.

McDonnell, President, McDonnell Angus Ranch, McDonnell &

Associates, representing the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; Teresa A. Conner, Manager, Environmental Resources

Department, Queenstake Resources USA, Incorporated, representing Women’s Mining Coalition; Mark Mathis, Executive Director, Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy; Dorothy Boorse,

Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology Department, Gordon College,

representing Noah Alliance.

We will begin with Mr. McDonnell. Welcome. The floor is yours.

If we could have each of you limit your comments to 5 minutes,

your full and written remarks will be entered into the record without objection.

Mr. McDonnell?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. McDONNELL, PRESIDENT,

McDONNELL ANGUS RANCH, McDONNELL & ASSOCIATES,

REPRESENTING THE NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS

ASSOCIATION

Mr. MCDONNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of the examples I am going to be talking about deal with the livestock industry; however, they have a lot of relevance to the mineral and

energy industry. I did spend 10 years in mineral and mining, so

I am quite familiar with the industry.

I first became involved in the Wildlands Project in 1994, and I

began reviewing the documents put out by Dave Foreman and Michael Soule ́ and Reed Noss. And I came to the simple conclusion

that an avalanche of petitions to list new species, a number of appeals, a large number of the cases litigating the stoppage of

mineral development, mining, grazing, and recreation, that these

activities were not isolated events, but they were a well-coordinated effort to establish a reserve system.

In the Wildlands Project, Dave Foreman, he sits there and he

makes the statement that the national parks and the wilderness

areas that we have are currently nothing more than outdoor zoos.

And he had a vision in there of interconnecting all the wildernesses

we see over here and removing in use the intervention of industrial

humans, off limits to human exploitation free of artifacts of civilization. And he envisioned putting this in place to eventually cover

half the North American continent.

How he proposed to do this was establish a series of core reserve,

core protected, core wilderness areas, connecting them with migratory corridors, and then surrounding them with buffer zones.

8

In 1994, there were 35 groups listed as being involved in the

project. At that time they were mapping and beginning their efforts

to litigate and legislate all these areas toward wilderness. In the

West, they looked at areas when they were mapping that were

100,000 acres or larger; in the East, 50,000 acres or larger. And

they identified those, and then they began efforts to begin expanding them and interconnecting them. Private property in these areas

was then also mapped and targeted for acquisition either by Government or by land trust groups.

Today, like I said—in 1994, there were 35 groups. The California

Wilderness Coalition on their website today list 180 groups involved in their effort to re-wild the Sierra Nevada Mountains of

Nevada and California.

We have seen them use a variety of different methods. By 1995,

11 of the 34 known groups were involved in litigation. A couple examples of those are the Hells Canyon Preservation Council, while

I was working as Director of Natural Resources for the American

Sheep Industry, litigated the removal of sheep grazing from the

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area in Washington and Idaho.

The Oregon Natural Resource Council began litigating the removal

of cattle grazing from areas of Washington and Oregon, saying all

these uses were incompatible with the designations. We have also

seen them use a variety of acts, NEPA, asking them, say, to remove all grazing until NEPA analysis could be completed.

This file here is over 100 different suits filed on grazing by these

groups to remove us from Federal, State, and sometimes from private properties.

We have also seen these groups abuse probably one Act in particular, and that is the Endangered Species Act. And in my personal experience, I have seen them use it in four different ways:

number one, the citizen suit provisions; number two, the listing

provisions; number three, the critical habitat provisions; and, finally, the delisting provisions themselves. And I would like briefly

just to go into a few of those.

We have seen them try to list everything from the simple rattlesnake to the Alaskan wolf. I see today they are trying to list the

polar bear probably to stop the ANWR. They have thrown frivolous

listings out there, anything that they can do to stop development.

The critical habitat designations, every petition to list, every suit

to get the species listed, they sat there and asked for the maximum

amount of critical habitat. And what they have done is they have

basically pulled the Secretary’s authority to designate habitat away

from them and placed it into the courts.

Third, what they have done is they have sat there and affected

the delisting process. We sat there and had a decision come out of

the liberal Oregon courts that we cannot delist the wolf until it has

fully recovered throughout its habitat in historic numbers. Basically what this means is we will never get the wolf delisted, and

it has implications not just on the wolf but all species. And what

has happened with these groups is they have distorted the intent

of the Endangered Species Act far beyond what Congress intended

it to do. They have sat there and they have removed administration

of the Act from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Act is totally

dependent on the courts.

9

And with that, I would like to go ahead and conclude that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonnell follows:]

Statement of Tom McDonnell, President, McDonnell Angus Ranch, McDonnell & Associates

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before this subcommittee on the Wildlands Project. My name is Tom McDonnell, owner of McDonnell Angus Ranch

and President of McDonnell and Associates, a private consulting firm specializing

in natural resource issues. Today I am speaking on behalf of the New Mexico

Stockgrowers Association, however, some of the experiences I pass on to you are

from the sixteen years I served as Director and Associate Director of Natural Resources and Policy for the American Sheep Industry Association. When Dave Foreman moved from environmental terrorism, or monkey wrenching as he referred to it, to paper wrenching: the tying up of economic activity with litigation and appeals, I natural followed his progression. Dave Foreman’s Earth First!

organization had taken credit for the arson destruction on one of the sheep industry’s larger auction barns in 1989, the destruction of the California Woolgrower Office, and numerous acts of sabotage on ranches across the West. I learned to take

his statements seriously. In 1994, I was one of the first in industry to review a document drafted by Dave Foreman with the assistance of Reed Noss and Michael Soule. In a technical review

of the Wildlands Project, I concluded that the avalanche of petitions to list new

species, the appeals and litigation to stop mineral development, mining, grazing,

and recreational activities were not isolated instances but rather well coordinated

activities aimed according to the Projects text at establishing a ‘‘regional reserve

system which will ultimately tie the North American continent into a single Biodiversity Reserve.’’ Dave Foreman referred to National Parks and current wilderness areas as nothing more than ‘‘outdoor zoos.’’ He envisioned vast areas of interconnected wilderness

free from industrial human intervention, off-limits to human exploitation, and free

of the artifacts of civilizations including roads, dams, power lines and overflights.

In the Wildlands Project, Dave Forman called on no less than half of the North

American continent being returned to Wilderness. Over the next 100 years, Foreman called on the establishment of systems of core wilderness areas where human activity is prohibited. These core protected areas

were to be linked with biological corridors and surrounding these core protected

areas and corridors, buffer zones were to be established and managed to restore ecological health. Civilization was to be limited to islands of human activity outside

these buffer zones.

In 1994, thirty-five activist groups were know to be mapping, litigating and legis- lating their way towards Dave Foreman’s vision of a single Biodiversity Reserve.

Areas with state and national parks, BLM and U.S. Forest Services lands, and National Wildlife Refuge over 100,000 acres in the West or 50,000 acres in the East

were identified and work begun to move these areas into wilderness or similar designations. In the West alone, 38 areas were identified where road closures would

create roadless areas of one- million or more acres. Any private property providing

gaps between roadless areas was to be targeted for acquisition by government or

land trust organization, and any attempt to utilize resources within areas identified

for roadless designation were to be litigated. Since 1994, the number of activist groups supporting the Wildlands Project have grown. The California Wilderness Coalition website, for example, lists 180 different

groups as supporting their effort to ‘‘rewild’’ the Sierra Nevada Mountains. These

groups have used a variety of methods to remove the ‘‘artifacts’’ of civilization. Hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits have been filed to remove and prohibit use of

these ‘‘identified roadless areas,’’ and to enlarge their expanses. By 1995, 11 of the

34 known Wildland Project groups had litigation filed against the Departments of

Ag and Interior and the EPA. The Hells Canyon Preservation Council successfully

litigated sheep grazing as being an incompatible use within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and is now seeking to remove motorized boating. The Oregon

Natural Resource Council is currently litigating cattle grazing as being incompatible

with scenic rivers and monument designations. These activists have attempted repeatedly to have grazing removed under federal agencies failure to conduct NEPA.

But the one piece of environmental legislation most abused by these groups is the

Endangered Species Act.

A study of the Wildlands Projects is one of abuse of the Endangered Species Act

itself. Wildlands Project groups have abused the Act in four major ways. First is

the citizen suit provision of the Act itself, not only filing suits with the intent of

10

halting all economic activity, but also filing suits to halt protection and recovery of

the species itself. Second, Wildlands Project groups have abused the Section 4

listing process by repeated petitioning for the listing of any species that may halt

economic development. Third is the designation of critical habitat. With nearly every

petition to list, comes a request for the designation of the maximum amount of critical habitat possible. If the Secretary deems the benefits of not designating critical

habitat outweigh the benefits of designation unnecessary, this is litigated. If critical

habitat is designated, then the litigation of all economic uses with that habitat is

initiated. Finally, once a species is recovered, removing the species from the list is

made almost impossible by litigation. The fact is, the citizen suit provision of the

Act has effectively removed control over the Endangered Species Act from Congress

and the administering agencies, and handed that control to the courts. Citizen suits

by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s own admission have bankrupted not only the administration of the program, but they have bankrupted Congress’ intent of the Act

and have served to bankrupt entire segments of the U.S. economy. By 1995, Wildlands Project groups had petitioned for the listing of literally hun- dreds of species. To give Congress some examples of abuse, the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation has petitioned to list the common timber rattlesnake with critical habitat in 31 states, millions of acres of white pine, and the Alaskan wolf. In each of

these cases, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service found the petitions either unwarranted or

unsubstantiated with scientific fact. But not until limited personal and financial

resources were expended addressing the petitions, often times in court. Two species

which wildlands project groups were successful in listing, were the Prebles jumping

mouse and the Sierra Nevada bighorn. DNA analysis has recently determined that

the Prebles mouse is not a unique species, or subspecies, but not before critical habitat designations and recovery plans cost the Colorado economy alone an estimated

$4 billion.

It took industry two years to obtain a DNA sample from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the Sierra Bighorn after the Wildland Project group Friends of the Inyo

successfully petitioned the listing of this bighorn. Nuclear DNA analysis now suggests that the Sierra Bighorn is neither distinct nor a subspecies. Yet the bighorn

are being transplanted into regions of historic livestock grazing, and used to remove

grazing use. At this time, 60,000 domestic sheep have been removed from domestic

grazing allotments and another 60,000 head are targeted for removal. Economic impacts on the sheep industry could run as high as $100 million for a subspecies or

distinct population of a species that isn’t.

Delisting has also been problematic. The grizzly bear in the Northern Continental population met all recovery criteria in 1982. Once delisting looked probable in 1991,

the Biodiversity Legal Foundation petitioned to list other populations from threatened to endangered and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was lobbied to rewrite its recovery plan. In the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, USF&WS implemented the

principles of the Wildlands Project outlining the establishment of at least six populations in protected recovery zones in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington and

possibly Colorado, and the connection of these island populations of grizzly with migratory corridors, one of which is 240 miles long. Despite the fact that hunting,

recreation and poaching are responsible for over half of all grizzly bear mortalities,

and sheep grazing, which accounts for less than 9 percent of mortality, is cited as

the biggest source of grizzly conflict and is targeted for removal from core grizzly

habitat. Wildlands Project groups have also successfully litigation the halt of most

mineral and energy development on the front-range of Montana and Northern Wyoming within grizzly habitat.

Not only has it been impossible to delist the grizzly bear, but a recent Oregon

court decision has made it impossible to delist the wolf and possibly any other

species. Efforts to delist the gray wolf were met with legal challenge by Wildland

Project groups in the liberal Oregon courts. After a January ruling that the wolf

could not be delisted until it was recovered throughout its habitat in historic numbers, its may be impossible to delist the wolf until populations in New England, the

Appalachians and the Southwest are recovered. Furthermore this case makes it

questionable whether any species can now be recovered or delisted.

The Endangered Species Act states that the Secretary shall consider the designation of critical habitat using best scientific data and evaluates the economic impact

of such designation, and other relevant impacts. The Secretary may then exclude

any area from critical habitat if the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits

of the habitat. The Oregon wolf case demonstrates effectively how Wildlands Project

groups have pull this authority well away from the Secretary. With each petition,

Wildlands Project groups are requesting and litigating the designation of the maximum amount of habitat possible, not for conservation of the species, but to enable

their control of resource use. Congress must take measures to strengthen the

11

Endangered Species Act so it can achieve its intended purpose. The listing and

delisting mechanisms of the Act must be addressed so only species in need of protection are listed, and once recovery is achieved, these species delisted. The citizen suit

provisions of the Act must be reviewed to address the avalanche of frivolous litigation that only serves to halt economic use, and does nothing to conserve the species.

Critical habitat and recovery plans must be addressed. All conservation efforts are

better served through incentives and landowner cooperation, rather than threat of

litigation and the iron hand of the courts, rules and regulations. Thank you once again for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the New Mexico Stockgrowers Association.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. McDonnell. We will turn now to Ms. Conner. Welcome. It is nice to see you again. The floor is yours. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF TERESA A. CONNER, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, QUEENSTAKE

RESOURCES USA, INC., REPRESENTING WOMEN’S MINING

COALITION

Ms. CONNER. Chairman Gibbons and distinguished Members of Congress, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. My

name is Teresa Conner, and I am here in my capacity as manager

of environmental resources for Queenstake Resources USA, Incorporated. I am also representing the Women’s Mining Coalition as

their immediate past president and current——

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you want to pull your mike just a little closer, please, so everyone can hear? Thank you.

Ms. CONNER. Is that better? I am not used to this. I am sorry. I have a bachelor’s degree in mining and geological engineering from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and I

have over 24 years of experience in the mining and petroleum industries primarily in Alaska, Nevada, and New Mexico. I have

worked for the Federal Government, small, mid-tier, and large

mining companies, and a consulting firm, and briefly had my own

consulting business. My work has predominantly centered around

permitting, both for exploration and development, and mine engineering. I am a member of several professional societies and organizations.

I became aware of the Wildlands Project roughly 13 years ago.

Because of the incredible scope of the project and its potential impact on future access to natural resources and their ultimate development, I have followed their progress since that time.

Mined materials and the products created therefrom are necessary for everyday life. From the toothpaste we use each day to

the homes we live in and the transportation we use, as well as the

tools we use for both work and play, we could not function as a society without the basic materials that the mining industry supplies.

This being said, this most basic of industries is being continually

threatened on various fronts, not the least of which is the current

and possible future limits to access to areas of potentially economic

mineral deposits. The Wildlands Project epitomizes this threat to

the mining industry.

In my written testimony, I have noted some more specific information on acreages impacted by mining, but suffice to say that this

number if substantially smaller than that proposed to be locked up

by the Wildlands Project.

12

The Wildlands Project proposes, as Mr. McDonnell said, to lock

up huge segments of the land mass of the United States. Roughly

50 percent by their calculations should be preserved as wild areas.

These areas would not only be off limits to any type of natural

resources exploration and development, but basically to people as

well.

In the literature that the Wildlands Project has produced over

the years, they describe how to create their ‘‘core reserves and primary corridors.’’ This, of course, requires looking at the distribution

of ‘‘rare species and community types,’’ with the intent to manage

these core reserve areas in such a way that puts ‘‘biodiversity

first.’’ There are literally hundreds of cases of appeals, listings of

threatened and endangered species, litigation, legislation, regulations, and management plans that are a direct result of numerous

environmental organizations working in unison and toward the ultimate goal of the Wildlands Project.

The basic tenet of the Wildlands Project is that wildlife cannot

co-exist near mining operations or any other human-created activity, and that they require immense land masses in order to survive.

I am here today to let this Subcommittee know that this could not

be further from the truth. There are countless examples of wildlife

not only co-existing but flourishing at and near active mining operations. Let me provide you with one example from the perspective

of a mining company.

Queenstake Resources, who I work for, is a mid-tier gold producer. We operate four underground gold mines in the Jerritt Canyon area of the Independence Mountain Range in northeast Nevada. The majority of our operations is on U.S. Forest Service-managed lands.

In the Independence Mountain Range, the northern goshawk is

one species that has received considerable attention over the years.

In 1997, the species was proposed for listing under the ESA. Studies of the northern goshawk in the Independence and Bull Run

Mountains in the Humboldt National Forest started in 1991

through the joint efforts of then-operator, Independence Mining

Company, and the U.S. Forest Service. Since that time, there have

been numerous studies conducted and data collected that do not

support listing the northern goshawk as an endangered species.

Had the northern goshawk been listed, there would have been huge

impacts not only to our Jerritt Canyon mining operations, but

across the West. Large tracts of land would have been locked up

needlessly.

Queenstake Resources and our predecessor companies at the

Jerritt Canyon Mine have developed, with the Forest Service, management guidelines that we continue to adhere to today. The Master Base Plan of Operations for exploration activities, approved in

1994, includes several mitigation measures, but the one I would

like to talk about today is guidelines on how we address the northern goshawk. These measures include temporal and spatial restrictions to avoid any effects to the Post Fledgling Area of the northern

goshawk. These restrictions require that Queenstake not conduct

disturbing activities from March 15th through June 1st annually.

At that point, a determination of nest activity or inactivity is made.

This requires that we do an annual survey to check these nesting

13

areas. If there is no activity, then we can proceed with our exploration work. If a nest is active, however, we cannot work until at

least 6 weeks after fledging, or into mid-August, which is, of

course, as you know, prime exploration time during the summer.

These restrictions, however, have become second nature to our exploration geologists, and it is understood that drilling or any related activities cannot occur until they are satisfied. In my experience, there are several examples of how mining op- erations can co-exist with wildlife. As I have just described, that is

just one example. In light of the impacts of environmental regulations on energy and mineral development and how the Wildlands Project plays into

that picture, I have a few recommendations for the Subcommittee’s

consideration.

First, in revisions to the Endangered Species Act, we need to en- sure that sound science be utilized, and we need to have actual,

verifiable field data that backs that up.

Second, prior to designating critical habitat for species, the com- pletion or amendment of recovery plans should be required. Third, an economic impact analysis should be required when any restrictions are developed in conjunction with listed under the Endangered Species Act. And, finally, because of the potential impact of the Wildlands Project, I would strongly urge this Subcommittee to review all

available information on this project and determine its true merits. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Conner follows:]

Statement of Teresa A. Conner, Manager, Environmental Resources Depart- ment, Queenstake Resources USA, Inc., Women’s Mining Coalition, Past

President and Current Advisor

Chairman Gibbons and distinguished Members of Congress:

Thank you for the invitation to testify before this Subcommittee today. My name is Teresa Conner. I am here today in my capacity as the Manager of Environmental

Resources for Queenstake Resources USA, Inc.. I am also representing the Women’s

Mining Coalition, as their immediate past president and current advisor. I have a bachelor’s degree in Mining and Geological Engineering from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. I have over 24 years of experience in

the mining and petroleum industries primarily in Alaska, Nevada and New Mexico.

I have worked for the federal government, small, mid-tier and large mining companies, a consulting firm and briefly had my own consulting business. My work has

predominately centered around permitting, both for exploration and development,

and mine engineering. I am a member of several professional societies and organizations, including Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., the Nevada

Mining Association, the New Mexico Mining Association, the International Society

of Explosives Engineers, the Women’s Mining Coalition, and the American Association of Professional Landmen.

I became aware of The Wildlands Project roughly 13 years ago. Because of the incredible scope of the project and its potential impact on future access to natural

resources and their ultimate development, I have followed their progress since that

time.

Overview:

Mined materials and the products created therefrom are necessary for every day

life. From the toothpaste we use each day to the homes we live in and the transportation we use, as well as the tools we utilize for both work and play—- we could

not function as a society without the basic materials that the mining industry supplies. This being said, this most basic of industries is being continually threatened

on various fronts, not the least of which is the current and possible future limits

to access to areas of potentially economic mineral deposits. The Wildlands Project

(TWP) epitomizes this threat to the mining industry.

14

Land Statistics:

Currently, there are approximately 320,000 acres of land either under an ap- proved mining plan of operations, or under a pending plan of operations, as estimated by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Just the BLM

alone manages approximately 262 million acres of public land in the west. Even if

you assume the entire 320,000 acres to be on BLM land, it amounts to only one

tenth of one percent! In reality, mining impacts a negligible amount of public land. By comparison, there are over 43 million acres of land set aside by the BLM in their National Landscape Conservation System. This system includes National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas,

National Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Historic and Scenic Trails. This

amounts to over 16 percent of the total BLM-managed lands. My point in mentioning these statistics, is that The Wildlands Project proposes that huge segments of the land mass of the United States, roughly 50 per cent by

their calculations, be preserved as ‘‘wild’’ areas. These areas would be not only off

limits to any type of natural resources exploration and development, but to people

as well. As I have indicated, there are already a substantial number of acres of publicly-managed land that is currently set aside in the form of National Conservation

Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and

Scenic Rivers and National Historic and Scenic Trails, as well as several other types

of protected areas.

Use of the Endangered Species Act and Other Laws as Tools:

In the literature that The Wildlands Project has produced over the years, they de- scribe how to create their ‘‘core reserves and primary corridors’’. This of course requires looking at the distribution of ‘‘rare species and community types’’, with the

intent to manage these core reserves areas in such a way that puts ‘‘biodiversity

first’’. There are literally hundreds of cases of appeals, listings of threatened and

endangered species, litigation, legislation, regulations, and management plans that

are a direct result of numerous environmental organizations working in unison and

toward the ultimate goal of The Wildlands Project. The basic tenant of The Wildlands Project is that wildlife cannot co-exist near mining operations, or any other type of human-created activity, and that they require immense land masses in order to survive. I am here today to let this Subcommittee know that this could not be further from the truth. There are countless

examples of wildlife not only co-existing, but flourishing at and near active mining

operations. Let me provide you with one example from the perspective of a mining

company. Queenstake Resources is a mid-tier gold producer. We operate four underground gold mines in the Jerritt Canyon area of the Independence Mountain Range in

northeast Nevada. The majority of our operations occur on U.S. Forest Service-managed lands.

In the Independence Mountain Range, the northern goshawk is one species that

has received considerable attention. In 1997 the species was proposed for listing

under the ESA (62 F.R. at 50896). Studies of the northern goshawk in the Independence and Bull Run Mountains in the Humboldt National Forest started in 1991

through the joint efforts of then-operator, Independence Mining Company, Inc. and

the United States Forest Service (USFS). Since that time there have been numerous

studies conducted and data collected that do not support listing the northern goshawk as an endangered species. Had the northern goshawk been listed as a threatened and endangered species there would have been huge impacts not only to our

Jerritt Canyon mining operations, but across the west. Large tracts of land would

have been locked up needlessly.

Queenstake Resources and our predecessor companies at the Jerritt Canyon Mine

have developed, with the USFS, management guidelines that we continue to adhere

to today. The Master Base Plan of Operations for exploration activities, approved

in 1994, includes several mitigation measures, but the one I will describe today outlines how we will address concerns regarding the northern goshawk. These measures include temporal and spatial restrictions to avoid any effects to the Post Fledgling Area (PFA) of the northern goshawk. These restrictions require that

Queenstake not conduct disturbing activities from March 15 to June 1 annually. At

that point, a determination of nest activity or inactivity is made. This requires an

annual survey of nesting areas in order to determine activity or lack thereof. If

there is no activity in a nest, then work can proceed. However, if a nest is active,

no work can occur for at least 6 weeks after fledging, or approximately mid-August.

These restrictions have become second nature to our exploration geologists and it

is understood that any drilling or other related activities cannot occur until they are

satisfied.

15

Conclusion:

In my experience, there are several examples of how mining operations co-exist

with wildlife. The northern goshawk is only one of those examples and indicates

that it is not only possible, but a commonplace occurrence. These types of success

stories do not just happen in Nevada. At mining operations all across the United

States successful management for wildlife values are happening everyday. For those

of us involved in these operations, we see absolutely no need for the wide-sweeping

and totally unwarranted proposal of The Wildlands Project to set aside roughly 50%

of this country’s landmass for the sole purpose of ‘‘rewilding’’ our nation.

Recommendations:

In light of the impacts of environmental regulations on energy and mineral development and how The Wildlands Project plays into that picture I have a few recommendations for the Subcommittee’s consideration. First, in the current effort to

reform the Endangered Species Act, it is imperative that sound science be utilized

when assessing the need to list a species as threatened or endangered. For all proposed listings actual, verifiable field data that demonstrates the presence of a

species should be required. In conjunction with this, there should also be a requirement for independent scientific review. Second, prior to designating critical habitat

for a species, the completion or amendment of recovery plans should be required.

Third, an economic impact analysis should be required when any restrictions are developed in conjunction with a listing under the ESA. Finally, because of the potential impact of The Wildlands Project, I would strongly urge this Subcommittee to

review all available information on this project and to determine its true merits.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Ms. Conner.

We turn to Mr. Mathis, and I apologize for mispronouncing your

name when I introduced you earlier as well.

STATEMENT OF MARK E. MATHIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CITIZENS’ ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY

Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Chairman, that is quite all right.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Mark

Mathis, and I am Executive Director for the Citizens’ Alliance of

Responsible Energy, and this is a nonprofit organization based in

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Eric Sevareid once said, ‘‘The chief cause of problems is solutions.’’ Sevareid understood what many people don’t know or never

learned, and that is, bad solutions can crush an economy and even

a Nation.

Today we are facing a crisis, or at least that is what we are told.

Our environment is in distress. The air is polluted. Our waterways

are cesspools and wilderness is vanishing. According to the

Wildlands Project we are in the sixth great extinction of plant and

animal species, and the chief cause of this catastrophe is energy

production and the burning of fossil fuels. But not to worry, antidevelopment activists have the solution. Huge tracts of land must

be set aside for the re-wilding of America. We can replace oil, coal,

natural gas and nuclear power with renewable energy sources. All

we have to do is invest our money, technology and willpower in

order to make this happen.

Only problem is the crisis is largely made up, and the so-called

solution is steering us toward a very real crisis. Our air and water

are significantly cleaner than they were 30 years ago, according to

the Environmental Protection Agency. The U.S. has a massive

amount of wilderness, and according to a U.N. report, earth has

more species diversity today than at any time in history.

16

Renewable energy sources hold promise but also present big obstacles. As much as we would all like to stop burning fossil fuels,

we will actually be using more of them in at least the next two decades. Over that time period, 39 percent more oil, 40 percent more

natural gas, 34 percent more coal, and we’ll be using 50 percent

more electricity over the next two decades.

These are the facts, and yet most of the public and many in Government are deceived. Yes, we are facing a very serious problem,

but it is not environmental degradation, it is domestic energy production.

Mr. Chairman, as you noted, we currently import nearly 63 percent of our oil, which makes up the greatest portion of our trade

imbalance. That weakens our economy and threatens our national

security. This need not happen. The improved technologies have

made fossil fuel production much safer, cleaner and environmentally friendly. More than ever we need to be opening up public

lands to energy production, but instead overly restrictive regulations are shutting down our ability to produce the energy we need

for absolutely everything that we use. We must stop this dangerous

charade, and we can begin by reforming the Endangered Species

Act.

In the last 30 years, 1,262 species have been listed as endangered with less than 1 percent actually being recovered. That’s because the Act is not being used to recover species, it is merely a

tool used by anti-development activists to remove people and industry from the land. All over the West energy production is being increasingly restricted. According to the American Petroleum Institute, half of all natural gas in the Rockies is currently effectively

off limits. In my own State of New Mexico, extremists pressured

the BLM to impose severe limits on energy development on Otero

Mesa.

The BLM issued the most restrictive resource management plan

in its history. Only 84 producing wells are allowed on 2 million

acres, 2 million acres. Surface disturbances will be one-one thousandth of the total area. Some 36,000 acres were set aside for the

endangered Aplomado Falcon, which hasn’t even lived in New Mexico for the last half century. By the way, this endangered falcon

can be found in large numbers throughout all of South America, all

of Central America, all of Mexico, and parts of Texas.

And so what was the environmental response to this highly restrictive resource management plan by the BLM? They were outraged, and so they filed suit against the BLM. This is just one case

among hundreds across the West. Anti-development groups are

fighting energy exploration in any new area where it is proposed.

Their lawsuits have drained resources, intimidated Government

agencies, and deceived the public. Even worse, activists have given

Americans false hope in renewable power that is decades away

from making a meaningful contribution to our overall energy

supply.

Every day companies responsibly develop energy supplies while

protecting our air, water and soil. Yes, there are impacts, but these

impacts are manageable, and the benefits from this energy production cannot even be measured.

17

We can’t do anything without fossil fuels. Take away even half

of our foreign energy supply and we would very soon find out what

a real catastrophe looks like. We’ve got a serious energy challenge

in front of us. In order to meet that challenge we’ll first need to

dispose of the non-solution of overly burdensome restrictions on

energy development.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this meeting today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mathis follows:]

Statement of Mark Mathis, Executive Director,

Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy

My name is Mark Mathis. My address is 8419 Vina Del Sol Dr. NE, Albuquerque,

NM 87122. I am a former television news reporter and anchor. I’ve been a media

consultant for the past eleven years. Two and a half years ago I began consulting

with the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico. It took only a short period of time for me to understand the great frustration endured by energy producers. They are under constant attack by anti-development groups posing as environmentalists. Much of the time the accusations and rhetoric dispensed by these

groups is greatly distorted if not entirely false. Within a year’s time I could see that

something needed to be done. It was at that time that I began contemplating starting a non-profit organization for the purpose of educating the public about energy

issues. I believe a better-informed public will result in government leaders making

better decisions concerning our national energy policy. I have some experience in

standing up for the public. In 2001, I formed an organization called ‘‘The 505 Coalition’’ to fight a new and unnecessary area code from being implemented in New

Mexico. As a result of the efforts of the 505 Coalition rulings by the federal and

state governments were rescinded, saving an estimated $50 million in public and

private funds. I wish to apply that same type of activism to the critical task of safeguarding our nation’s energy supply.

The Wildlands Project

To date, the most comprehensive environmental coalition to appear on the scene

is the Wildlands Project. This coalition is the most radical in purpose: to ‘‘re-wild’’

America, that is, to gradually remove people and raw material production from the

rural United States with no definite stopping point. In their own words:

‘‘The Wildlands Project calls for reserves established to protect wild habitat, biodiversity, ecological integrity, ecological services, and evolutionary processes. In

other words, vast interconnected areas of true wilderness and wild lands. We reject

the notion that wilderness is merely remote, scenic terrain suitable for backpacking.

Rather, we see wilderness as the home for unfettered life, free from human technological and industrial intervention.’’

‘‘Extensive roadless areas of native vegetation in various successional stages must

be off-limits to human exploitation.’’

‘‘To function properly, nature needs vast landscapes without roads, dams, motorized vehicles, power lines, over-flights, or other artifacts of civilization, where evolutionary and ecological processes can continue. Such wildlands are absolutely essential to protect biodiversity.’’

The Wildlands Project has proposed to set aside at least half of North America

for ‘‘the preservation of biological diversity.’’ The resulting ‘‘wildland reserves’’ would

contain:

• Cores, created from public lands such as national forests and parks, allowing

for little, if any, human use

• Buffers, created from private land adjoining the cores to provide additional protection;

• Corridors, a mix of public and private lands usually following along rivers and

wildlife migration routes; but would allow no cities, roads, homes, businesses,

no aircraft over-flights, or natural resource extraction, i.e., an ever expanding

area of America would be depopulated and de-developed.

A decade ago, such proposals would not have been taken seriously. Even today

this kind of proposal would seem highly unrealistic to a lot of people. However, such

grand visions are not accomplished over night. They happen incrementally. Even

though the term ‘‘Wildlands Project’’ is not widely known, it still presents a formidable threat to private property ownership, mineral and resource extraction, and national security. Countless anti-development organizations are pursing the goals of

Wildlands without specifically using the term.

18

In the late 1990s, the Clinton administration adopted aspects of The Wildlands

Project philosophy pushed largely by Vice President Al Gore. In Mr. Clinton’s term

we witnessed a moratorium on road construction in undeveloped areas. There were

proposals to breach dams on the Columbia River. The expansion of the Endangered

Species Act continued unabated.

The Wildlands Project is technically a coalition strategy project with a single lead

organization: North American Wilderness Recovery, Inc. (2000 revenue: $1,451,459),

originally based in Tucson, Arizona, but relocated in 2000 to Richmond, Vermont.

The organization is an outgrowth of a 1981 Earth First! idea called the North American Wilderness Recovery Project.

North American Wilderness Recovery has been supported by foundation grants

since before its exemption 1992, particularly by Doug Tompkins’ Foundation for

Deep Ecology, in annual amounts ranging from $50,000 in 1992 to $150,000 in 1996

and 1997. The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund gave $75,000 in 1996 and the

Educational Foundation of America gave $50,000 in 1997. (Financial data provided

by the Center for Defense of Free Enterprise)

A Public Deceived

We have entered the great information age. Media is all around us in television,

radio, newspapers and magazines. We’ve got CDs, DVDs, MP3s, and satellite TV.

With our computers and the Internet massive amounts of information is just a few

mouse clicks away. We can learn about the most obscure subject in great depth

without ever leaving our homes. And yet, in the midst of this sea of information,

many Americans are either ignorant or misinformed about some the most fundamentally important issues to their lives. This is the great irony of the 21st Century. We don’t live in the information age. We live in the age of disinformation.

I believe the most critical and misunderstood issue of our time is the balance between energy development and the environment. We all know we need energy for

our daily lives’ electricity for lights, appliances, computers and hundreds of other

devises. We know we need gasoline for our cars, jet fuel for airplanes, diesel for big

trucks and ships and all kinds of other fuels such as propane and butane. We depend on this energy for absolutely everything, and yet hardly ever think about

where this life-sustaining power comes from.

While Americans sit in their comfortable homes with every conceivable necessity

and luxury, they watch the morning news. There’s another protest about ‘‘environmental destruction’’ caused by fossil fuels. Then they read a newspaper story about

the rapid and catastrophic loss of endangered species. Then it’s off to work where

a radio ad informs them that some ‘‘pristine’’ wilderness is about to be destroyed

by oil and natural gas development. While cruising along the highway they see a

billboard warning them of the dangers of nuclear power. They press on the gas, take

a swig of bottled water and shake their heads at those awful energy companies that

are ruining their lives.

From every direction, Americans are being fed a litany of lies and distortions. As

preposterous as it is, people have been trained to despise the energy sources that

are the foundation of unprecedented health, longevity and prosperity. Americans

have been fed so much disinformation for so long that they no longer trust their

own experience. They just assume the disinformation is true and those assumptions

are rarely if ever challenged.

Because the public is so misinformed, a relatively small number of people who

participate in vocal, well organized and very well funded activist groups are given

undue influence over public policy. They demand unreasonable regulations and restrictions on energy development and they get a lot of attention from the press.

For example, The Wildlands Project and other activist groups claim we are in the

‘‘6th great extinction of species.’’ However, a 1995 United Nations report states that

there have never been so many species as there are in the modern era.

On The Wildlands Website Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich is quoted

as saying:

Although the Wildlands Project’s call for restoring keystone species and

connectivity was met, at first, with amusement, these goals have now been

embraced broadly as the only realistic strategy for ending the extinction

crisis.

It’s surprising that The Wildlands Project would give Ehrlich such a prominent

place on its website. Ehrlich is not so much famous as he is notorious for making

doomsday predictions that do not come true. In 1981 Ehrlich predicted that we

would lose 250,000 species every year. The widely discredited futurist claimed that

half of all species would be gone by the year 2000 and that all species would be

dead between 2010 and 2025.

19

True environmentalists, such as GreenPeace founder Patrick Moore, cite biological

evidence that less than one percent of species may be lost in the next century.

Moore left GreenPeace many years ago because he said the environmental

movement was ‘‘basically hijacked by political and social activists’’. Moore was

interviewed for the segment ‘‘Environmental Hysteria’’ by Showtime’s Penn & Teller

program. Moore told Penn & Teller that these phony environmentalists, ‘‘came in

and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business and very little to do with science or ecology.’’

The Wildlands Project and other groups that support the same anti-development

agenda are effective in spreading disinformation through their skill in using the

news media. They know that they can make outrageous claims and the chance that

those claims will actually be challenged is very small. They know that journalists

typically don’t know enough about these complex issues to even ask the right questions, let alone to challenge the sensational assumptions. Reporters are not given

enough time or resources to do more than simply repeat the activists’ claims. Of

course, some reporters are believers in the obstructionist movement and their bias

heavily influences their stories. But more than anything, the press cannot resist

emotional, sensational, fear-based claims. It’s their bread and butter in the 21st

century.

Journalistic arrogance, of course, is another problem, and not just with renewables. Syndicated columnist Stanley Crouch recently informed readers of The New

York Daily News, ‘‘The recent congressional vote for Arctic drilling would not have

been necessary if we had maintained commitment to developing nuclear power as

an energy source.’’ It apparently didn’t occur to Mr. Crouch that there’s no such

thing as a nuclear-powered car, tractor-trailer or airplane.

I have considerable knowledge in this area of media manipulation. I was a news

reporter for nine years in four states and I’ve been a media consultant for more than

11 years. In my book, Feeding the Media Beast, I devote a chapter to ‘‘The Rule

of Emotion’’ and another to ‘‘The Rule of Repetition’’. Anti-development groups are

very good at using these powerful rules to their advantage.

The Renewable Deception

Supporters of the Wildlands Project philosophy are big supporters of renewable

energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. They continually urge the public

and government leaders to reject fossil fuels and to embrace the energy sources of

the 21st century. These kinds of politically correct statements receive broad approval because they sound so good. However, the fact is renewable energy sources

running our world is nothing more than pure fantasy for at least several more decades and probably longer.

Professional obstructionists and even some politicians have led people believe that

a greater investment in wind and solar power will somehow make us less dependent

on foreign oil. That’s ridiculous. Wind turbines and solar panels generate electricity,

which does nothing to replace the oil that fuels virtually all forms of transportation.

Even the electricity generation of wind and solar power is minuscule at this point,

contributing less than one half of one percent to our electricity needs.

To the uninformed, this distinction may seem trivial. In reality its importance

couldn’t be greater. We don’t have an electricity problem in this country (though we

could use more power plants and an upgraded grid); we have a deadly serious liquid

fuels crisis that threatens our economy, our national security and indeed all that

we hold dear.

There are other groups such as the Energy Future Coalition and The Governors’

Ethanol Coalition made up of governors from 33 states. These organizations want

Congress to increase a federally mandated use of ethanol above the 5 billion gallons

required by 2012. These governors score points—and votes—by appearing to actually be doing something about our thirst for foreign oil and desire to have a cleaner

environment. Farm belt governors score double points because 95% of ethanol is

made from corn.

However, this is just another energy deception. It takes more fuel to produce and

deliver ethanol than it provides, meaning we import more foreign oil, not less. While

ethanol is advertised as burning cleaner than gasoline, on balance it actually produces more and worse pollution. Ethanol emits higher levels of NOx emissions contributing to smog, and it makes gasoline evaporate faster, reducing its value while

increasing pollution. It also must be shipped separately and mixed at distribution

terminals, which simultaneously drives up costs, fuel usage and emissions.

20

The Big Hammer: The Endangered Species Act

No single tool has been more effective in advancing the goals of The Wildlands

Project than the Endangered Species Act. Say ‘‘Endangered Species Act’’ and most

Americans believe this is a federal law that protects species in danger of becoming

extinct. While that was the original intent, today the Act has very little to do with

protecting species in trouble. It is simply a tool for anti-development groups posing

as environmentalists to shut down any and all uses of public land, energy development being number one on the list.

One of the fundamental flaws of the ESA is that species do not recognize state

boundaries. If a species is determined to be ‘‘endangered’’ in one state it may become

listed as such even though an abundance of the species exist in other parts of the

country or in other nations. For example, the Aplomado Falcon is listed as endangered in New Mexico when the species hasn’t even existed in the state for the past

half century. The Bureau of Land Management has restricted energy development

on 36,000 acres on Otero Mesa just in case the falcon decides to come back. Even

worse, the falcon can be found in great abundance on the entire continent of South

America, throughout Central America, all of Mexico, and into Texas. An additional

88,000 acres on Otero Mesa are off-limits for other conservation concerns. Dozens

upon dozens of cases such as this can be found all across the country.

Another big problem is that once a species is listed it is extraordinarily difficult

to get it de-listed. In the 32-year history of the ESA only 10 species have been removed from the endangered list because of ‘‘recovery’’. Even then, critics charge that

some of those species were saved by private efforts and other activities such the

banning of DDT.

In New Mexico, the Gila Trout was first listed as endangered in 1967. The U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service proposed downgrading it to threatened in 1987 but under

pressure withdrew the proposal. Another request came in 1996. It didn’t happen.

Today the USFW is attempting a third time but is running into stiff objections from

anti-development groups.

Enforcing the ESA is very expensive to taxpayers as well as private property owners. In the west, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates it will cost about $30

million to $40 million every year to protect the endangered southwestern willow

flycatcher. Unfortunately, this kind of outrageous expense for species protection is

the rule rather than the exception. Remember, there are 1,262 Endangered Species

and obstructionists are filing lawsuits and lobbying hard to have more added all the

time.

There are many other flaws in the Endangered Species Act such as the fact that

in many cases access to land is restricted based on the ‘‘Best Available Data’’, which

often stands for ‘‘BAD’’ data because data are incomplete and sometimes non-existent. Another flaw is the fact that private landowners lose use of their land because

of an endangered species and they receive no compensation from the government.

There are more problems, however the intent of this testimony is not to make suggestions on how to fix the ESA, but simply to point out that the Act is highly flawed

and yet very powerful in restricting access to land for all purposes, most importantly

to energy development.

Energy is Everything

It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of oil and its powerful brother,

natural gas. Without them our world would be completely different, more different

than any of us can possibly imagine.

Look around you and try to spot a single item that would still be there if oil were

not. When people think of oil and natural gas, they typically consider its obvious

uses—gasoline for the car, a lubricant for the engine, and a power source for electricity generation and the heating of homes. What about rubber for tires, shoes, and

seals on refrigerators, ovens, and car doors? Consider the importance of asphalt, fertilizers, pesticides, and glue. What would life be like without magic markers, lipstick, pantyhose, credit cards, dental floss, toothpaste, baby bottles, telephones, TVs,

computers, soccer balls, paint, and synthetic fibers for today’s clothing?

The vast quantity of everyday items that contain some byproduct of petroleum is

astonishing. Take these products away and our world would come to a sudden and

catastrophic end. If somehow we could instantly remove the contribution of petroleum to our world you would find yourself standing naked and unsheltered in an

open landscape among millions of other naked and unsheltered souls.

It’s a little unnerving just to think about it. There’s only one thing more important to our survival than oil and natural gas, and that’s oxygen. Yes, water, food,

clothing, and shelter are essential, but in today’s world the vast majority of the population cannot get these life-sustaining necessities without petroleum.

21

Yet, in spite of these sobering realities, the a misinformed public stands by while

access to oil and natural gas are denied under the pretense of ‘‘environmental protection.’’

Oil & National Defense: A Sobering Reality

Oil—as well as all other energy sources—is directly tied to the success and survival of the United States of America. The same can be said of any other country.

Fundamentally, no society can endure—let alone prosper—without two things: an

adequate and affordable food supply and the availability of affordable energy. Because our food supply is almost completely dependent on oil, petroleum is the most

important commodity we have.

While it’s quite clear that our economy and standard of living are completely dependent upon oil, it may be less clear that petroleum is a key ingredient in our freedom, too. Without adequate fuel supplies for fighter jets, battleships, tanks and

other armored vehicles America would be vulnerable to any nation that wished to

take what we have as their own, and that includes our liberty as well.

Allied forces defeated the Axis powers in World War II for a variety of reasons—

brave men and women, intelligent military leaders, and a home-front that made

great sacrifices to give the military all that it needed while still running a nation.

However, no level of bravery or sacrifice would have mattered if the United States

hadn’t had sufficient oil supplies to fuel victory.

Freedom isn’t free. It takes enormous sums of bravery, skill, passion, human ingenuity and the fuel to make it all work.

A Promising Alternative: Oil Shale

One of the most promising alternatives to oil is what’s called ‘‘oil shale’’. The potential resource is enormous. It’s estimated that there is over 200 times more oil

shale than there are conventional reserves. Better yet, the United States is estimated to have 62% of the world’s potentially recoverable oil shale resources at 2 trillion barrels. According to The World Energy Council the largest of the deposits is

found in the 42,700 km2 Eocene Green River formation in north-western Colorado,

north-eastern Utah and south-western Wyoming.

The name is actually a misnomer because it does not contain oil and it is not

often found in shale. The organic material in oil shale is kerogen and it’s contained

in a hard rock called marl. When processed, kerogen can be converted into a substance similar to petroleum. During this process the organic material is liquefied

and processed into an oil-type substance. The quality of the product is typically better than the lowest grade of oil produced from conventional reserves.

Unfortunately, oil shale poses several significant problems. Processing of oil shale

requires significant amounts of energy and water. It also produces massive amounts

of waste product. In the 1970’s major oil companies in the U.S. spent billions of dollars in various unsuccessful attempts to commercially extract shale oil. However, as

the price of conventional oil rises the economics of shale oil will improve. When that

happens we can expect groups supporting The Wildlands Project philosophy to

mount a well-funded and well-organized protest. As always, disinformation will lead

their plan of attack.

A Difficult Task

Getting the American public and government leaders to focus on the critical importance of responsible domestic energy production is no easy task. Re-educating the

public about the nation’s true environmental condition will be even more difficult.

However, CARE was formed to address these issues because the stakes are extraordinarily high. The stability of our economy and the foundation of our national security are directly tied to our ability to produce domestic energy. It is bad public policy

to continue to become more dependent on foreign and often unstable governments

to fulfill our energy requirements, especially when environmentally responsible production is a reality today.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Mathis.

And now we’ll turn to Professor Boorse. The floor is yours. I look

forward to your testimony.

22

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY BOORSE, PH.D., ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR, BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GORDON COLLEGE,

REPRESENTING NOAH ALLIANCE

Ms. BOORSE. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress. You have my

written testimony and I’ll speak more briefly this morning. I’m an Associate Professor of Biology at Gordon College. My remarks today stem from two perspectives: one as a scientist and

the other as a person of faith.

Before turning to scientific questions, I would like to stress that people across the spectrum of religious life take the issue of protecting endangered species profoundly seriously. I am one example

of this. I have come today not only to talk about the science, but

also because I feel called by my faith to be here. As a scientist I

am not an expert on the Wildlands Project, but I am an ecologist

who can explain the importance of corridors. Corridors between

core areas provide a number of ecological services to conserve

species. These include increasing genetic diversity, providing space

for wide-ranging species. and allowing recolonization into areas

where species have become extinct.

Another way to understand the importance of corridors is to con- sider the serious, negative ramifications of the converse, habitat

fragmentation, which has a gigantic impact on wildlife and ecosystems. For example, regionally floods occur at higher numbers

and in—and have a greater impact, and erosion, including large

mud slides, increase as a result of the removal of vegetation. Right

now in the Amazon, the large fires that are in the new are larger

than they would have been because of the habitat fragmentation.

And the people who live there and use the resources of the Amazon

are also being harmed, as is the wildlife.

Habitat loss is widely recognized as the leading cause of species

endangerment. Without habitat conservation, our society’s priority

in protecting species from extinction, which is reflected in our Endangered Species Act, will be impeded. The Endangered Species

Act has acted as a safety net to prevent extinction and help a number of species stabilize, but habitat must be protected.

These are not the only reasons to care about the environment.

I personally believe that God has created the world for His own

glory and given humans the task to care for it. Throughout the

Judeo-Christian tradition, the role of nature in glorifying the Creator is a repeated theme. Species have value not only because we

as people think so, but because it is clear that God thinks so. In

addition, Christ calls us to a radical departure from the culture

around us. We are exhorted not to seek fame and fortune, but to

live lives focused on self-sacrifice and the task we have been given,

including in my opinion, managing the rest of species.

I’m not alone in viewing caring for creation, including endangered species, as an important part of my faith. While I speak for

myself, the Committee should recognize the breadth of engagement, and members of the religious community to the protection of

all of God’s creatures. For example, a new collaboration of faith

groups has recently been established called the Noah Alliance, who

I am representing today. Work is also occurring in the Jewish and

mainline Protestant communities to be a witness for the protection

23

of fragile species and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has

recognized this as an area of concern. You may expect to hear from

people of faith, as we all together, witness with passion and resolve

about the importance of endangered species.

I, myself, in the mid ’90s, wept when I had heard that the Ivorybilled Woodpecker had been declared finally extinct, and very recently was thrilled beyond belief to find that that was not true. I

wake up in the morning, like many people, and I care about

whether species are being preserved. And when I go to bed at

night, I still care about that.

From personal experience, I know other people in the religious

community share this commitment.

I would like to conclude by saying that we cannot fulfill our responsibility to care for the world, with which we have been entrusted, without understanding it. As scientists and Christians, I

believe passionately that we need to be caring for habitats and for

the species that use them.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boorse follows:]

Statement of Dr. Dorothy Boorse, Noah Alliance

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I am an associate professor of Biology at Gordon College, in Wenham Massachusetts, with a Masters degree in Entomology from Cornell University and a Ph.D. in

Oceanography and Limnology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Gordon is

a Christian four-year liberal arts college in the Protestant tradition, but my comments are my own and do not represent the college. My remarks today stem from

two perspectives: one as a scientist and the other as a person of faith who is concerned about being a steward of all creation.

Before turning to scientific questions, I would like to stress for the committee that

people across the spectrum of religious life take the issue of protecting endangered

species profoundly seriously. I am an example of this; I have taken time to join you

today to share some of my scientific knowledge, but also because I feel called by my

faith to be here. I will talk about this more later in this testimony.

As a scientist, I am not here as an expert on the Wildlands Project, but as a

broadly trained ecologist with interests in both aquatic and terrestrial ecology. Specifically, I can address the questions: What is the ecological importance of corridors

and problems of habitat fragmentation? And why should we care about protecting

at-risk species and their habitat?

Corridors provide a number of ecological services to conserve at-risk and endemic

species. For example, the movement of individual members of species increases genetic variation; corridors provide more adequate space for wide-ranging species,

such as the Florida panther; corridors allow recolonization of habitat patches where

small populations may have been lost; and habitat linkages enhance the pollination

and propagation of plants. Amphibians such as salamanders, for instance, often

need to travel between upland over-wintering sites and breeding pools. Corridors

can increase their survival during travel, particularly during dry periods, when open

areas are more dangerous.

Another way to understand the importance of corridors is to consider serious negative ramifications from the converse: habitat fragmentation. Considerably disturbing or destroying intact habitat has significant effects on wildlife. Habitat fragmentation makes it more difficult for species that require interior habitat to travel,

increases the likelihood of individuals being injured when they attempt travel (primarily through injury by cars), and enhances the ability of non-native species to

move into an area. The presence of introduced, invasive species correlates very

clearly to habitat fragmentation through roads and other human use, often with severe impact not only on imperiled species but also on regional economies. For example, purple loosestrife is clearly connected to roadways, and the likelihood of infestation of zebra mussels in lakes is associated with their level of visitation by boaters.

In addition, certain species, such as white-tailed deer and ragweed, thrive on edges

of habitat fragments and can become over-populated, part of a phenomenon called

the ‘‘edge effect.’’

24

Habitat fragmentation has a big impact on how ecosystems work. A good example in the news right now is the Amazon where there are gigantic forest fires, burning

out of control. These fires are exacerbated by the edge effect. In one 1993 study,

90 percent of burning fires in Amazon basins were in forest edges. Forest trees are

also more likely to be harmed by air pollution when forests are fragmented. In addition, habitat fragmentation has a significant impact on regional water issues and

erosion. Because habitat fragmentation often involves removal of vegetation, soils

are disrupted. Some desert soils, for example, have a top layer called the

cryptobiotic crust composed of microbes and heavy particles; if you break this crust,

you get erosion. Habitat loss is widely recognized as the leading cause of endangerment. Some benefits from enhanced habitat through corridors occur quickly; others take longer.

However, they all demonstrate that adequate habitat must be protected in order to

conserve threatened and endangered species. Much like homes for people, habitats

provide basic necessities for fish, plants, and wildlife: food and water, areas for

breeding and propagation, and shelter. For us to fulfill our responsibility to protect

fragile species, we must ensure that critical habitat is safeguarded. Without such

attention to habitat conservation, extinctions will increase, and our society’s priority

in protecting species from extinction, reflected for example in the Endangered

Species Act, will be impeded. The Endangered Species Act has acted as a safety net

to prevent extinctions and help a number of species stabilize, but for the Act to fulfill its potential, habitat must be protected.

Conserving habitat also is vitally important for people. Pragmatically, we use resources from the environment that we will later wish we had treated better. Reports have shown this to be true in fisheries, where, for example, Nature has reported that 90 percent of large predator fish have been cleared from the seas in the

last 50 years. Ecosystems services such as purifying water and air, or dampening

floods and holding soil in place, are performed by natural systems and are impossible or extremely costly to replace with technology. In addition, healthy ecosystems

help protect species that are vital to agriculture, industries such as outdoor recreation, medicinal breakthroughs, and even our own oxygen supply. Moreover, if you

care about the poor and oppressed, you have to care about the environment. Often

the poor are most harmed by environmental degradation and least able to solve it.

In short, we are all part of a complex and marvelous web of life, and the well-being

of current and future generations depends upon us taking good care of it. But utilitarian rationales are not the only reasons to care for the environment. Nature brings us joy and pleasure, as well as at times declaring the glory of God.

I am also here representing a Christian stewardship ethic. While I am an evangelical Christian, I realize we live in a society with a wide range of beliefs. Today’s

testimony reflects my own deeply held beliefs; others may care about creation for

alternative reasons.

I believe God has created the world for His own glory and given humans the task

of caring for it. While we have the right to use its resources, this right is always

in the context of our responsibility as stewards; the ownership of all remains in

God’s hands.

Throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition, the role of nature in glorifying the creator is a repeated theme. Species have value not only because we as people think

so, but also because it is clear that God thinks so. In addition, as a Christian I see

that Christ calls us to a radical departure from the culture around us. Christians

are exhorted not to worry about personal financial gain, not to seek fame and fortune, but to live lives focused on the tasks we have been given. One of these tasks

is to care for the world left in our management.

I am not alone in viewing caring for creation, including endangered species, as

an important part of my faith. While I speak for myself here, the committee should

recognize the breadth of engagement and commitment by members of the religious

community to the protection of all God’s creatures.

For example, a new collaboration of faith groups has recently been established

called the ‘‘Noah Alliance,’’ and one member of this Alliance is the Academy of

Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists. A draft statement being prepared by the Academy reminds us that ‘‘[t]he beauty, joy, and health of human life on earth depend

deeply upon the wide variety and great richness of plant and animal life God has

provided. This abundant life brings immense and continuous praise to God (Psalm

148), leaving all people without excuse about knowing God’s divinity and everlasting

power (Romans 120).’’ Work is also occurring in the Jewish and mainline Protestant

communities to be a witness for the protection of fragile species, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has identified this as an important area of concern. This

broad, multi-faceted faith community chorus is being raised at both national and

local levels. They are making materials available to congregations across the counVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:02 Oct 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\21883.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
25

try, working to meet with policy leaders, talking with the media, and talking with

each other.

You can expect to hear from many people of faith as they witness with passion and resolve about the importance of protecting endangered species. I wept at the

thought of the ivory-billed woodpecker being extinct and praised God when we

learned it was not. I wake up in the morning and care about species; I go to bed

at night and still care about them. From personal experience, I know that many in

the religious community share this commitment. I would like to conclude by emphasizing that we cannot fulfill our responsibility to care for the world with which we have been entrusted unless we understand it.

For me, this is the connection between my faith and science. As an ecologist, I and

my scientific colleagues are passionately convinced that to protect species, we need

to provide them with ways to remain connected. As a person of faith, I am equally

passionate and feel called to speak out for such connections as well as other protections for habitat and the overall environment. Thank you again for this opportunity

to provide such witness.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Professor. I appreciate each

of the witness’s testimony here today.

We will turn now to a 5-minute time of questioning and answering by the members of the panel. First let me begin by asking Mr.

McDonnell whether or not he feels in his experience that there is

an association with Government agencies with this whole philosophy of re-wilding the United States, and whether or not you feel

from your experience, you or I or anybody in America could get an

unbiased opinion, unbiased answer, unbiased solution from one of

these agencies, wherein the people are associated with this

wildland philosophy or re-wilding America philosophy? Do you

think the Government and agencies that are responsible for management of land could give us an unbiased opinion?

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, let me give you two examples where Federal agencies are involved in the Wildlands Project. Probably the

best one is the grizzly bear plan. The grizzly bear right now is halting all energy development along the front range of Wyoming and

Nevada, some of the biggest natural gas reserves known in the

United States. The grizzly bear up there recovered in 1982 in the

northern continental population. We’ve been trying since 1982 to

get a delist, but always run into a lawsuit.

In 1991, all recovery criteria was met. We began proceeding with

efforts to delist it through the Interagency Grizzly Bear Task

Force. The Wildlands Project’s groups immediately began appealing

and litigating.

They came out with a 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, and

what it called for is basically the establishment of 6 core areas of

grizzly populations in 5 States. It also called for the establishment

of corridors, the one going from the bitter roots of Idaho, Montana

to the Washington population, was 230 some miles long, a corridor

that was impossible for a grizzly bear to use. Yes, we have seen the

establishment there.

The other areas in your district or your area of Nevada, Mr.

Chairman, and that’s the Sierra Nevada bighorn. Right now I am

faced with the removal of 120,000 sheep in that area. And what

they have done is they have sat there, and number one, listed a

species that we even question is even a species. We finally got a

DNA sample from it and we find it’s no different than any other

bighorn. Number two, what we’re seeing is we’re having them

transplant this bighorn—this is the Forest Service of the U.S. Fish

26

and Wildlife—into areas of historic grazing, and then saying we

have conflict, that the livestock must be removed. They tell us that

they’re putting them there so they can get their little core areas of

bighorn critical habitat, and then that they can go ahead and establish their migratory routes.

Yes, the Wildlands Project is being implemented by some Agency

people.

In terms of will they come out and admit it, for the most case,

maybe over a beer, but in front of the public, never.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask before I begin, from everybody, because

we have a diverse group here and I want to get just an answer to

a question. It may be just a quick answer from everybody because

I only have about a minute and a half left in my 5 minutes here.

Are you personally, or any of the organizations that you represent or companies you work for, anti-environmental or anti the

preservation of species in this country? Mr. McDonnell, I start with

you. You can answer.

Mr. MCDONNELL. No, the answer is no. In fact I think our industry has done more in the last 20 years to work workable solutions

to natural resource management, solutions that work for the benefit of both man and the environment, and I think that’s probably

true of most organizations.

Mr. GIBBONS. Ms. Conner?

Mr. MCDONNELL. My answer would be no as well. The mining industry is extremely willing to work with the Federal agencies and

the State agencies that we deal with to enhance wildlife habitat in

our areas, and that’s what we do on a daily basis.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Mathis?

Mr. MATHIS. Absolutely not. You know, the interesting thing

about oil and natural gas exploration in particular, which is pretty

prevalent in my State of New Mexico, is that the people who live

in the areas where the production takes place are very happy with

that production and are very happy with the protection of the environment. Now, there are impacts, there are mistakes. These things

happen. This happens to be the real world. And so those things are

dealt with, but where the big protests come, where all the lawsuits

come is they come from organizations that are in many cases outside the State, and certainly they get their funding from outside

the State, or when they are within the State, they would come from

say the City of Santa Fe and not from Artesia or from Farmington.

The people who live in the areas where this production takes place

are very mindful of environmental protection and the industry is

very good at taking care of the environment and certainly is concerned about preservation of species.

Mr. GIBBONS. I am going to have to change the question just a

little bit for Professor Boorse because I know where she is on

environmentalism. She has already testified. Let me ask you the

question, are you against development of oil, gas or any other fossil

fuel energy in this country?

Ms. BOORSE. Thank you for asking that. No, I would say no. In

fact I appreciate the comments of my colleagues at this table and

I applaud the efforts that I have seen in all three of their industries as many have been very responsible, as they have been trying

very hard. My concerns are with the ones that are not responsible.

27

Mr. GIBBONS. Sound very reasonable group that could work

together.

Turn now to my colleague, Mr. Grijalva.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of questions. Let me begin with Mr. McDonnell.

Part of the issue with the Wildlands Project is the relocation of

people kind of theory that goes out there, part of the conspiracy of

thinking that goes on with this issue. But realistically, considering

the spread of population across this entire country, do you think it

is reasonable to assume that all these people would be removed

from their properties, and how in the world would that be done?

Mr. MCDONNELL. Number one, sir—and I thank you for that

question—is a third of the United States is already into Federal

properties, and if you look at all the protected properties across

State and private conservation groups such as Nature Conservancy, probably half. There is no big need to remove the people.

What I have seen is you remove the economic base and the people

move on by themselves, and this is more what I am seeing with

the Wildlands Project, entire timber communities being shut down

and people having to relocate elsewhere.

And the economic impacts of some of these actions have been tremendous. You take the Pebbles Jumping Mouse in Colorado and

Wyoming where I live. They listed it. We found out through DNA

evidence it’s no different than the Common Jumping Mouse. We’re

moving toward delisting, but it’s already cost in Colorado alone $4

billion, and it may be another two years before we get the thing

delisted.

The economic impacts of some of these actions are tremendous.

The spotted owl with the——

Mr. GRIJALVA. That is a good point if I may follow up on where

your thought is going. In page 2 of your testimony you say the

Wildlands Project has abused the listing process.

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yes.

Mr. GRIJALVA. On page 3 you recommend the listing and

delisting mechanisms of the Act must be addressed, so only species

in need of protection are listed. Yet the General Accountability Office looked at the issue and found in 2003 that the listing decisions

are based on best available science. The GAO said: Further evidence that listing decisions are scientifically sound is provided by

the fact that only 10 of more than 1,200 domestic listed species

have been delisted based on new scientific information that

surfaced.

Given that, given your train of thought and given the GAO report, is the GAO wrong?

Mr. MCDONNELL. Are they wrong? Number one, they said in regards to best available science. And to me that’s kind of deceiving

because best available science means whatever’s available. It

doesn’t mean it’s necessarily good science.

Yes, I do think they’re wrong in the sense that we to address the

issue of scientific evaluation. There’s a joke out there in the community that best available science is B-A-D, bad science in many

cases.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you.

28

Mr. Mathis, just one request. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mathis, in his

written testimony provides numerous quotations for various

sources throughout the statement, and there are no footnotes or citations for my office to be able to follow up on, and if it would be

OK that those footnotes and citations to some of the information

could be provided for the record, I would appreciate that very

much.

Mr. MATHIS. Absolutely.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Mathis, just a general question.

Do you support the tenets of the Wilderness Act, and do you see

any value in the preservation of land and natural resources for

generations to come? That is my question.

Mr. MATHIS. Absolutely. We have large percentages of land in

the United States currently that are set aside for wilderness, and

when you look at the development of the United States, many

people would be surprised that we’ve only got about 5 percent of

the country that’s urbanized. We do have large open spaces.

But when you’re talking about something like species extinction

or any other environmental issue, you’ve got to balance that, and

that’s what we need in this whole debate is some balance, and we

have to understand that just because there’s activity in an area,

that doesn’t mean that, OK, the wildlife is just going to run, it’s

going to become extinct, and it’s just—to use the word that activist

groups constantly use—destroyed. I can e-mail you a photograph of

a bird sitting inside of a pump-jack on an oil well.

Mr. GRIJALVA. And, in return, I would like to provide those citations and information given the Aplomado Falcon in Otero Mesa,

that there have been sightings in—confirmed sightings in 1990,

1999 near Deming, 2000, 2004, east of San Antonio, New Mexico.

Those are citations in the literature which BLM used as a criteria

to set aside those 35,000 acres. Yet, in your testimony you say

there has been no sightings in 50 years.

Mr. MATHIS. There is no nesting pair that has been—that you

can point to and say, hey, there’s a nesting Aplomado Falcon pair.

That’s not been found. And I have—one of the problems that we

have with the Endangered Species Act is the fact that wildlife does

not recognize State boundaries. So what sense does it make to say,

OK, we need to restrict 36,000 acres from energy development just

in case the Aplomado Falcon comes here, when it’s in huge abundance from the tip of South America all the way to Texas?

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you.

My time is up, and thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you.

Ms. Drake.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to thank each of you for being here, and

reading the testimonies last night I thought this would be a very

interesting and informative group.

I would like to start with Mr. McDonnell. And I think I am just

following upon the previous question, but when you were talking

about lands being targeted for acquisition, is there any thought in

there that would be done through an eminent domain process or

it would be done in seller/willing buyer because of the loss of this

base of jobs and people would have no other recourse?

29

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, from what I have seen in the acquisition

of private property, that they’re proceeding in several ways. Number one, critical habitat, and of course using Federal monies to get

it designated critical habitat. There are Federal monies to purchase

that.

Mrs. DRAKE. Is that through an eminent domain process?

Mr. MCDONNELL. Not necessarily. The other thing, probably the

bigger way is through the land trust themselves, and that’s going

out and purchasing, and we all know how Nature Conservancy and

the large number of land trust groups there are. That’s probably

even bigger than the Government acquisition.

But the willing seller, that’s kind of a question. I really haven’t

seen the eminent domain. I’ve seen the willing seller, but why that

seller is now willing, that’s the big question. A lot of times it’s economic.

Mrs. DRAKE. I would also like to ask you, because we know a

goal of the Wildlands Project is 50 percent of these lands to be kept

open, and you’ve already stated that almost one-third are Federal

lands. Have we ever made the effort to see what is that percentage

if we go with State-owned properties, local-owned properties or

properties that may be undevelopable because of zoning requirements, wetlands rules, things of that nature? Have we ever made

that effort to—I think you did make the statement we are probably

at 50.

Mr. MCDONNELL. Some groups have, and the simple fact, there

are almost no lands in the United States that are free of Government regulation in some way. They’re either owned by them or

there’s some type of regulation governing those, whether it is wetlands. If you take all the critical habitat for the United States on

all 2,000 species now listed, you basically blot out the entire land

mass of the United States. That’s how deep this regulation gets.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you.

Ms. Conner, would you agree with us, because we have seen pictures when we were discussing the energy bill, of the changes that

have taken place in our Nation in the last 100 years, that we truly

did do things wrong and we are doing things completely different

today. And we have seen the pictures of the caribou at the Alaskan

pipeline. So would you not say that, yes, we have done things

wrong, but we have learned they were wrong. We are doing things

completely different?

I have personally visited where we have done some of the coal

mines in Pennsylvania that have been reclaimed and are beautiful

parcels of land now.

Ms. CONNER. Yes, I would totally agree with that. 100 years ago,

yes, we did do things wrong and we did them badly. We’ve learned

a lot from that experience, and regardless of whether it’s oil and

gas or mining, which I have been involved in both.

I have seen on the North Slope what you’re talking about, caribou under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, for example. Out at our mining operation we have elk that wander through the area, and it’s

because of the way we do our reclamation. It’s because of the way

we organize our operations. We’ve learned a lot and we do things

drastically differently than we used to.

30

Mrs. DRAKE. And I think what you hear today is that we all have

the same goal, we want to protect our environment, but we also

want to make sure that our needs are met.

And, Dr. Boorse, just real quickly. I am wondering if this were

1950 and we were discussing building the interstate highway system whether your group would be sitting here saying we should not

do that because it will fragment and the species will not be able

to cross, and I just always think that we could not build those

highways today with the rules that are currently in place. Can you

comment on that? I know that is an odd question.

Ms. BOORSE. You know, I wasn’t born then so I’m not really sure

what I would have thought in the 1950s. I think at that time there

wasn’t a sense of urgency that there is today, and I think——

Mrs. DRAKE. Well, if we were building them today, if we did not

have them, and the impact that certainly crisscrossing the country

with major highways would have in what you have just described

about animals.

Ms. BOORSE. Could I think about that and answer that in

writing?

Mrs. DRAKE. Sure, you can get back with us.

Ms. BOORSE. Thank you.

Mrs. DRAKE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. We will try to have a second round of questioning

for every member as well, so you will have an opportunity to think

about it and give us an answer.

Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No questions.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. Mr. Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have two great

people from New Mexico, neither of whom live in my district, but

we are recruiting them every day.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you for your testimony and for your hard

work.

I think that my first question might be for Ms. Boorse. Do you

believe in the Bible where it says that man should have dominion

over the plants and animals, yes or no?

Ms. BOORSE. Yes, I do.

Mr. PEARCE. So if it comes down to having dominion over the

plants, are we to cut timber or are we not to cut timber?

Ms. BOORSE. You know, you can cut some timber, but you can’t

cut everything, and that’s I think the difference between having dominion in the sense of tending a garden, and having dominion in

the sense of misusing something.

Mr. PEARCE. Have we exercised judgment in our stewardship of

our forests in the West?

Ms. BOORSE. I didn’t hear that. Say that again?

Mr. PEARCE. Have we exercised stewardship and exercised good

judgment in our stewardship of the forests of the West?

Ms. BOORSE. I don’t think we exercised as good judgment as we

might have.

Mr. PEARCE. And how would we have improved that?

31

Ms. BOORSE. One would have been during the period of time

when people did a great deal of logging all the way from New England across the Midwest and then into the Pacific——

Mr. PEARCE. But the last 50 years has been OK?

Ms. BOORSE. I am not a forester and would prefer not to speak

as an expert on that, but I would say——

Mr. PEARCE. Well, you are here speaking as an expert on ecology,

and I am asking is it better for fires to burn the West down or is

better for us to cut trees?

Ms. BOORSE. Actually, there’s a lot to know about forests and

fire.

Mr. PEARCE. Is it better for us to burn the forests down like we

are doing in the West now, or is it better to cut trees?

Ms. BOORSE. I would not like to see it as that dichotomy. I——

Mr. PEARCE. It is that dichotomy. We burn down about a million,

2 million acres every year, even more in my State. I fly over hundreds of thousands of acres. In our State we start putting out fires

about 100 years ago, and our arid climate would support about 50

trees per acre. Now we are up to 2,500 trees per acre, and they are

small diameter, so they are kind of kindling to get the fires up to

the top of the trees, and so now we have cap fires that kill the forests, instead of burning among the trees. Our tree rings show us

that historically fires would burn about every 8 years, clear out all

the small brush. We had pretty good habitat. I have walked among

some of those forests with 2,500 trees per acre, and I guarantee

you, a pig cannot crawl through there, much less a spotted owl fly

through there. And so I am wondering where the stewardship is.

Ms. BOORSE. I think you may have answered your own question.

It sounds like we have not done a good job in forestry in the Pacific

Northwest.

Mr. PEARCE. No, this is the Southwest I am talking about. This

is New Mexico, Arizona.

Ms. BOORSE. The Southwest.

Mr. PEARCE. That is where we don’t get much rain.

Ms. BOORSE. But to answer your question about fires, in the

great Yellowstone fires, one of the things that we saw was that the

fire suppression that happened in the first half of the century in

the 1900s had a tremendous negative effect, causing even greater

fires that we could not control in the second half of the century.

So our fire plans have not been good.

What you are describing, with many saplings squashed together,

is not good. But some of that comes from the incursion of roads and

habitat fragmentation. Not all of that is the fact that we are not,

as I think you are describing——

Mr. PEARCE. Is the grazing of animals that are domesticated

worse than the grazing by elk; say, livestock versus wild animals?

Ms. BOORSE. That somewhat depends on the animal. As a broad

statement, I would not say so.

Mr. PEARCE. But you would understand that people who agree

with you philosophically are using the argument to drive the

ranchers out of business in the West, take them off of public lands,

stop the grazing, because they declare grazing by domesticated animals to be more harmful than grazing by wild animals? Would you

32

agree or disagree with that position by people who are on the same

side of the issue as you?

Ms. BOORSE. I think the issue is more than two sides.

Mr. PEARCE. No, I am just asking if you would agree or disagree

with the people who are taking the livelihood away from the ranchers in my state, saying that the grazing by domesticated animals

is worse than grazing by elk.

Ms. BOORSE. I would not agree with that you have just said, as

a broad statement.

Mr. PEARCE. Then would you work with us to make changes to

the Endangered Species Act when people are using it as a tool

against people? Would you work with us to try to find the common

sense balance that would allow us to have dominion over the plants

and animals, but would also allow us to keep the obstructionists

and the extremists from trying to move agriculture completely out

of the state, and oil and gas out of my state?

Ms. BOORSE. I would want to see what changes were proposed

to the ESA. But if I was to propose changes, I would want to propose that the voice of scientists in particular be listened to. And I

know that the Ecological Society of America and the National Research Council produced some reports on the ESA and how it

worked. And I know that there was a recent letter from a large

group of scientists, including 62——

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. McDonnell, have scientists been involved in the

discussions that declare that grazing by cattle is worse than grazing by elk?

And I see my time has elapsed. It will be my last question, Mr.

Chairman.

Have scientists been involved on the other side of the issue, declaring that? I mean, Ms. Boorse is saying that we have somehow

omitted scientists out of it. Are the scientists that come up with the

opinion that to me doesn’t make much sense, but maybe they——

Mr. MCDONNELL. Typically, what we have seen is these groups

throw out the allegations, and then, of course, with industry then

you have to go in. You have to bring in the scientists who do the

monitoring, who look at the natural resources. And then they become involved, but mostly because it is the industry that is bringing them in to defend their position in the allegation alleged

against them.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask Mr.

McDonnell—and I apologize for being late, so I may have missed

some things—but with regard to the Wildlands Project, have you

discussed how the state and Federal governments could work better together?

Mr. MCDONNELL. Have I discussed that? In what way do you

propose they work better together?

Mr. GOHMERT. That is what I am asking.

Mr. MCDONNELL. Well, in the Wildlands Project—I am not quite

sure how to address this. I think right now we are seeing states

and the Federal Government work better than we have ever had.

With revisions in NEPA, with revisions in forest planning, I do

think we are getting much better cooperation between the two entiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:02 Oct 21, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\21883.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
33

ties; new memorandums coming out with CEQ on local involvement. I would say that level of interrelation between the agencies

is probably as good or better than I have seen it in years. Especially in the last three years, we have really moved better toward

cooperation. Does that answer your question?

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you noted that you feel like they are working better together. But if I could ask Ms. Conner, do you see areas

where the Federal Government could do a better job in working

with state governments?

Ms. CONNER. I can’t think of any examples offhand. In Nevada

I work with the Forest Service and the state government, and I

think over the years, the last number of years, they have actually

started to work better together. There was a time in the ’90s or so,

it was more butting heads kind of thing. But I think today there

is more of an understanding, if you will, of the different ways they

fit together. And today I think we are actually doing a better job

overall.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, let me ask Mr. Mathis. Do you see anything

we could be doing better as the Federal Government to work with

state governments?

Mr. MATHIS. Before I answer that question, sir, we do have a situation in our state that is a classic example of non-cooperation. We

have the Bureau of Land Management that has come in after many

years of study on Otay Mesa. And they came in and they issued

this resource management plan they have worked on for many

years that is—their claim—the most restrictive plan ever issued.

And we are talking about numbers where you can have 86 producing oil or natural gas wells on this 2 million acres. You know,

in oil and gas country, that is nothing. I mean, you go up to San

Juan County——

Mr. GOHMERT. Sure.

Mr. MATHIS.—to an area that is smaller than that 2 million

acres, and they have 26,000 wells there. This is not going to help

us to sustain ourselves when it comes to oil and natural gas; which

we are using a lot of, and we are using more all the time.

So we have the BLM that has issued this resource management

plan; but yet we have the state government, the Governor in particular, who is suing the BLM. Governor Bill Richardson is suing

the BLM because this plan is not restrictive enough in his opinion.

So I would say, as far as how to get these two entities to get

along better, I wish I had an answer for you. I don’t. So much of

what we see here, you know, it’s intractable politics.

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you think it would help if we said Governors

could not run for President until after they——

[Laughter.]

Mr. MATHIS. I think I would go for that.

Mr. GOHMERT. I’m sorry. I will withdraw that question. I am

sorry.

Mr. MATHIS. That would be helpful.

Mr. GOHMERT. And Dr. Boorse, do you have any observations in

that regard?

Ms. BOORSE. Governors?

Mr. GOHMERT. State and Federal Government working better

together?

34

Ms. BOORSE. Not other than the broad conversation that I would

love to see state and Federal Government also work with citizens.

Because I think what I am hearing, and has already been reflected,

is that there is such a level of frustration that people are not sure

that we are working toward the same goals, and that getting citizenry on board with the things that the Federal and state governments are doing and explaining why it matters and making sure

that stakeholders feel honored, and at the same time that habitat

goals are met, has to be a part of that process.

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. Melancon has indicated that he

wants to wait a little bit and listen to more of the testimony, so

we will go back through a second round with questioning here.

And I guess I would have perhaps a question of science for Professor Boorse. If we were to use DNA, as Mr. McDonnell has said,

about distinguishing between species that are truly unique and

non-unique, would that be a criterion that you would accept for

identifying species that should be protected that are within a subset, a category of truly unique species that are separate and apart

from other species? Should that be one of the scientific changes to

the ESA that allows for a distinction to be recognized between a

group of species?

Ms. BOORSE. I would want to see the exact proposal before I

agreed to that, necessarily. DNA analysis is one of many tools. But

one of the places where it would probably be a problem would be,

for example, with salmon, where salmon not only differ in terms

of their DNA but, with those with very similar DNA, differ in

terms of their abilities, different habitats. And we could easily

over-estimate their similarity and lose large chunks of salmon. And

you know how important that is in the economics of the Pacific

Northwest.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, in some cases, species are listed only because

there are a small number available at that location; and yet, in another location, as we heard in the testimony, there is a number of

these animals or species in some other location that would not

allow for qualification as an endangered species. So is it regional,

or is it indeed the species itself that is unique that makes it worth

saving?

In other words, is it an area, or is it the species? Because if it

is DNA similar in this area, and DNA similar in this area, it is not

a unique species. It is just one has few to no species in it; the other

has a lot. So why can’t, in the instance of the bird that Mr. Mathis

talked about earlier that is in South America versus New Mexico,

it be distinguished by DNA?

Ms. BOORSE. I don’t know the specifics of that bird example. I do

know the species are listed because they are known to be in decline. And I would presume that the species has been found to be

in decline even in the areas where it occurs.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me go back and talk to Ms. Conner. You spend

a lot of money each year with your company doing scientific studies

with regard to species that affect the ability of your company, the

ability of your industry, to produce the needed minerals, etcetera,

that this world—actually, more than just the United States; it is

35

the world—needs. What happens to those studies? What happens

to that science?

Does it become part of the determination of whether or not the

species is indeed in a critical condition? Or does it just get shelved?

You spend a lot of money on it.

Ms. CONNER. Yes, we do. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prior to my starting to work for Queenstake, as I said, in the

’90s there was a great deal of effort and a great deal of studies that

were undertaken to look at the northern goshawk in the Independence Range. And that work actually was utilized, as I understand

it—again, I was not there; but that work was utilized to help show

that the northern goshawk was not potentially threatened or endangered. So in this case, it did not just go and sit on a shelf somewhere, but it was used in our case to show that there was not a

need for listing the species.

Mr. GIBBONS. Was the species ultimately listed?

Ms. CONNER. No. But we are still having to spend tens of thousands of dollars each year in order to continue our nesting surveys

that I spoke of, just to ensure that.

Mr. GIBBONS. And if I may, the continuing study that you spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars on, does it show a decline of the

species because of your operation?

Ms. CONNER. No. It does not.

Mr. GIBBONS. And are people still attempting to list that bird as

endangered?

Ms. CONNER. Not at this time.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. I am just trying to grasp hold of whether we are

talking about endangered species or the Wildlands Project.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me explain. We are not here to address

the ‘‘bogeyman’’ concept. What we are trying to find out is the impact of environmental regulations, the impact of proposals by some

groups on the economic standards of America.

Mr. MELANCON. Well, if that is the case, then I guess, Ms.

Boorse—and I am not familiar with the Noah Alliance, per se—but

in my concern in Louisiana, and as far as the concern for the whole

country, I want to protect the environment and the fisheries and

the estuaries and such as that. But we seem to have gotten ourselves into this labyrinth of regulations that stymies. And every

time I listen to people that talk about jobs that are going to other

countries that have the resources and leaving, taking the good jobs,

I am concerned that we are regressing.

Is there some way to put together the environmental groups to

sit down and try and find some rational way to better the Endangered Species Act, to better the way we analyze it, to make it a

faster process? Or is it just that you have some of them that just

want to stay out there and not sit down and talk about those

things? That may not be a fair question, but you are the person

here, so I am asking you.

Ms. BOORSE. I can’t speak for every environmental group, but I

can say that I, as an individual, and the groups that I do know

that are especially in the faith community, have peacemaking and

36

getting along as a very high priority; and care of people, and care

of the environment, as not being opposed.

And so, I care deeply that the people of Louisiana have jobs, and

hope that we never are in a position where we have to choose between jobs for people in Louisiana and protection of the species

God gave us. But we do have to do both. And I would love to be

a part of that conversation.

Mr. MELANCON. And I would hope that we could. Maybe that is

something that we need to do that maybe hasn’t been done, is sit

down, or get the agencies to sit down, and try and start formulating how we can work together better; rather than every time

somebody says, ‘‘Well, we think we want to do something,’’ there

becomes this human outcry and protest, rather than sit down and

see if we can work through them. Yes, ma’am.

Ms. BOORSE. And I absolutely agree with that, and think that we

have somewhat lost the ability to have a civil discourse that leads

to a positive end point in this country.

Mr. MELANCON. You have been watching the Congress on CSPAN.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GIBBONS. Ms. Drake.

Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Boorse, I doubt you

have had time to think about my question, and certainly we appreciate you getting back with us in the future, but the reason I have

asked the question is I think we are at just as critical a situation

right now with energy production as we were with developing highways over these last 50 years. We all know that 63 percent of our

oil today is imported.

You heard in this Committee today the Chairman talk about

China. There is not a committee that I attend here that China isn’t

brought up in almost every single meeting of every one of those

three committees. And I think that energy production for us is a

huge national security issue.

I think, from what we talked about today, we all agree we have

to protect our environment for our children. But I believe that if

decisions we make today are going to impact our national security

in the next 10 to 20 years, and that if we fail them and lose our

freedom and democracy, that is the greatest gift that we give to

them.

And so that is where I am coming from. Because every time I ask

the question of experts, ‘‘What is going on with China? Why are

they positioning themselves? Why are they building ten times the

ships that we are building, even though they are doing that with

less money?’’, the answer is always, ‘‘Resources.’’

So I guess my question to you, because I have read that over 80

percent of the American people support the Endangered Species

Act, I wonder how many of them would support it if they thought

they were endangering our national security, or if they thought

they could be getting into an environment where the energy is not

available to them and they are either going to be paying much

higher gas prices or are in an environment where you don’t have

the electric power. Like, let’s say, on Mondays, Virginia doesn’t

have electricity, and on Tuesday, Ohio doesn’t have electricity—as

soon as people don’t have access to that.

37

And I guess the biggest question is, do you feel as strongly as

I do that we really are at a crisis point and we have to make decisions for the future now that will allow the North American continent to be energy independent?

I guess we could start with you, Ms. Conner, because I am very

fascinated by your work and the permitting that you have done

over the years, because I think that is a huge issue that is a stumbling block for us. But at the industry level, are people worrying

about that? I don’t think the American people are. I think we have

been very lulled into a sense of security that I don’t believe is

there.

Ms. CONNER. Well, I would agree with you. I think, you know,

the average person goes, fills up their car with gas, and, you know,

they don’t worry about where it is coming from. But I think those

of us in the various industries, especially energy-related industries,

we are all very concerned about that.

On the mineral side, as an example, it is important for us not

to rely on foreign sources. We need to be looking on our own

ground. And we have enormous amounts of energy and minerals

here, and we should be concentrating on that. But the foreign dependence thing is an issue, and I think it should be seriously——

Mrs. DRAKE. Well, and to follow up on that, I would like to ask

Mr. Mathis, is there one environmental regulation or law that you

see as having the greatest negative impact on energy production in

our country?

Mr. MATHIS. Well, without question, that is the Endangered

Species Act. What you are seeing is, I mean, environmental groups

will say, you know, ‘‘We have got ‘X’-percentage’’—and that number

varies— ‘‘90 percent that’s open to oil and natural gas drilling.’’

And that is not true because you can have places that are effectively off limits because for one species you can’t drill an oil well

during, you know, the first three months of the year; for another

species, you can’t drill for oil beginning in March, and you can’t

drill until June. And you have all these overlapping times in which

you are allowed to drill.

And what you wind up with, in many cases, is such a small

window that they can’t get in and drill the well within that window; especially considering the economics of the industry where

you may not be able to get a rig—I mean, you can’t time it exactly,

because this country is run by independents that don’t own the

rigs. That is a subcontracted issue.

Mrs. DRAKE. So the biggest issue is the law itself, or misuse of

the law? Or both?

Mr. MATHIS. I would say both. But I think it is just that the general public doesn’t understand. When you poll 84 percent of the

people and they say, ‘‘Yes, we are in favor of that’’—because it

sounds good.

Mrs. DRAKE. Right.

Mr. MATHIS. ‘‘Endangered Species,’’ it sounds like we are being

responsible. What they don’t understand are things like I spoke of,

where you have a species that is crossing a state line.

You know, the Aplomado falcon, I use that as an example because any species is going to have an expansion and a contraction

of its habitat. That is just nature; I mean, things are constantly in

38

flux. And so if during an expansion period it just barely comes over

the line in the State of New Mexico, well, suddenly we have to restrict all of this energy development, because this falcon might

want to come back here. Well, that is nonsense, especially when

the habitat exists for thousands of miles to the south.

Mrs. DRAKE. I would like to thank all of you, and Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mrs. Drake. Mr. Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mathis, how much

has the grazing herd on public lands decreased, the cattle grazing

herd, in the last five years, in your guess? I wouldn’t expect you

to know exactly. Is it increasing, or decreasing? I’m sorry, Mr.

McDonnell.

Mr. MCDONNELL. It’s been decreasing. Especially in your state,

Mr. Pearce, we have seen the BLM, Forest Service, cutting allotments 50 percent or more. And that is something that we have

been working with the agencies, because at this time there is a lot

of under-utilized resources. But it is decreasing on Federal lands.

Mr. PEARCE. Decreasing, sometimes up to 50 percent. And these

are economic units. That is, a permit is an economic unit that is

either inherited or purchased; is that right?

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yes.

Mr. PEARCE. And it is purchased at a certain level of grazing.

And without adjustment to that price, the agencies are reducing

the number of animals that are allowed to graze on it?

Mr. MCDONNELL. That is exactly right.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Now, Mr. Mathis, I’m sorry, what has caused,

in your guess, the price of gas to go from about $2 ten years ago,

five years ago, to about $7 to $8 now? What is the leading factor?

Mr. MATHIS. It is restriction on access. We have historically done

very well with natural gas in this country. It was stabilized at

about $2 for many years. And now it has shot up, as you mentioned, Mr. Pearce, up to $7. And what it is, is access, getting to

it.

As I mentioned in my testimony, the National Petroleum Council

has said that effectively more than half of all natural gas in the

Rockies is off limits. More than half.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Ms. Conner, if you were to take a guess at the

number of gold mining jobs today versus ten years ago, what would

your guess be? And it is OK to guess.

Ms. CONNER. That is a——

Mr. PEARCE. Is it decreasing, or increasing?

Ms. CONNER. Well, in all honesty, right now, because of the price

of gold, I would have to say that the number of jobs have increased.

But at this point in the game, we are having a hard time finding

qualified individuals.

Mr. PEARCE. Right. It is the price of gold. What is driving the

price of gold up?

Ms. CONNER. Your guess is as good as mine.

Mr. PEARCE. It is what?

Ms. CONNER. Your guess is as good as mine.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. What is driving the price of copper up?

Ms. CONNER. Of copper?

Mr. PEARCE. Uh-huh. That would be China. That is my guess.

And I suspect that China is demanding all resources.

39

Ms. CONNER. They are.

Mr. PEARCE. It is helping to drive the price up, too.

Ms. CONNER. Yes, they are.

Mr. PEARCE. So the fact that we have a little higher price right

now and a few more jobs in some of the mining industries is actually an indicator of a threat to our economy. China is driving up

all resources because they are gobbling them up. And they are gobbling them up because they are producing things that we are buying. And as we buy, we increase the size of their economy and decrease the strength of ours.

Dr. Boorse, you heard about access and you heard about the restrictions during the different parts of the year. If scientists said

that we should not allow drilling in the first three months and the

last three months and before nine o’clock, in order for the lesser

prairie chicken to procreate—which is exactly what they have

said—would you think that this Nation should suffer the price of

natural gas increase? Or should we try to find ways to help those

poor lesser prairie chickens to find some other way to mate? Would

you support artificial means of helping those chickens procreate, or

would you say that the scientists who have restricted the drilling

are more correct?

Ms. BOORSE. I am not sure what my options are. Artificial insemination for the prairie chicken?

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, you have heard the testimony. They say you

have to not allow drilling to occur during a period of year because

that is when the chickens breed. And so I am saying, should we

accept a higher price of gas, or should we find a way for the lesser

prairie chicken to breed, and go ahead and drill?

Ms. BOORSE. Well, I would want to know more specifics about for

example——

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Is extinction a part of God’s plan?

Ms. BOORSE. That is a fabulous question.

Mr. PEARCE. Is it due to man, or is it part of God’s plan?

Ms. BOORSE. Can you just give me a second?

[Pause.]

Ms. BOORSE. Throughout the history of the natural world, extinction has occurred, and that has surprised a lot of people. In fact,

Thomas Jefferson said that fossils couldn’t actually be real things,

because God would not have created something and then let it go

extinct. But in fact, we know that is not true. We know lots and

lots and lots of things have gone extinct.

But we also know the rates of those extinctions. And the rate of

today’s extinction is between 100 and 1,000 times higher than any

extinction rate in all of history. So it is sort of like asking if a meteor comes and hits you on the head and you get very badly injured, is it different than if I hit you on the head and you are badly

injured? God has a right to do things that we don’t have a right

to do. And we don’t have a right to do it at the pace it is occurring.

And so I would say, yes, extinction is part of God’s plan, but He

gets to do it.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has elapsed. Let’s

make an observation. If extinction is occurring at such a more

rapid rate now, why are fossil fuels declining in numbers rather

40

than increasing in numbers? I will leave that for a future discussion.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just curious, Dr.

Boorse. You know, we have been talking about the U.S. and what

we can do, since we all have an interest in protecting the environment. But I am curious, are you familiar with how environmentally

friendly nuclear powers in the world are, such as China, the former

Soviet Union, India, how environmentally friendly they are?

Ms. BOORSE. I know that eight of the ten most air-polluted cities

in the world occur in China. And I know that the single most

polluted lake in the world occurs in a former Soviet republic where

you cannot——

Mr. GOHMERT. I am sorry, what was the last thing you said? The

most what?

Ms. BOORSE. Most polluted lake in the world.

Mr. GOHMERT. Lake?

Ms. BOORSE. Occurs in a former soviet republic. And so I am

aware that those two in particular have a pretty negative environmental record.

Mr. GOHMERT. OK. Thank you. Well, I have been in the former

Soviet Union 30 years ago, and that was my impression. They

didn’t do much to take care of the gifts God gave them.

But I guess my observation is—and I will close, Mr. Chairman—

but it seems like one of the best things we can do for our environment is make sure we are strong enough to stay a super power and

not let some of these mean-spirited countries that hurt the environment take over from us. So that may need to be our number-one

priority. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert.

You know, I would say—and if any of you disagree with me, I

would certainly be interested to hear it—that throughout the

course of history, the industrialization of this country, there have

been abuses by industries of the environment and of species. But

also, since the course of ESA has been enacted, there have been

abuses from a well-intended law called the ESA, for purposes other

than what it was intended to be used for.

To me, I think it is only common sense that we try to work and

try to strengthen areas. For example, we have worked over the last

half a century to get businesses and industries that utilize

resources, natural resources, to be better environmental stewards.

I think everybody would agree with that. We have worked very

hard.

But we also need to work to make sure that the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, works to do what it was intended to do, which

is recover species; not be used, not be abused, to prevent every occurrence, every utilization, every usage of a resource in this country. Because I don’t think that is the intent of the law, and I think

one is as bad as the other. Abuse of the environment is as bad as

abusing environmental laws.

Does anybody disagree with that?

[No response.]

Mr. GIBBONS. I wouldn’t think so. You know, I guess I have a

question as a scientist. And maybe I should go over to Professor

41

Boorse. The Permian die-off—you are familiar with that, as a biologist—what percentage of species in this world were extinguished in

the Permian die-off?

Ms. BOORSE. I don’t know the exact number, but it was very

high.

Mr. GIBBONS. Ninety-five percent, somewhere in that neighborhood. So extinction is part of mother nature—God’s plan for the

world, and species as well. And we would have a very difficult time

in this country to preserve habitat if the dinosaurs were still here

competing with human beings; wouldn’t we?

Ms. BOORSE. Could I just reiterate that while extinction is part

of God’s plan, it is His prerogative, in my opinion. And much as

our own mortality is in God’s hands, but we do not lightly take

lives of other people.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, and I would also say in the same realm, the

same philosophy, that extinction of human beings, this should be

looked at. I mean, the development and the quality of life of humans on this Earth is as important as the development and quality

of life of species, as you have said. So if we do nothing, if we sit

back and let mother nature take care of everything, then the

human species will fail.

Ms. BOORSE. In reality, humans will fail if we abuse the environmental systems that we depend on.

Mr. GIBBONS. Goes back to what I said in the beginning; doesn’t

it? That we have to have a working relationship between both the

environment and laws that are used to protect those environments.

You know, and I guess maybe Mr. Mathis, let’s talk to you, because you are an individual that has some concept and ideas of

how this ESA—what would be the goals that you would envision

that the Endangered Species Act should have for both protecting

species and allowing for the development of economic resources

that help with our economy, help with the quality of life for human

beings on this Earth?

What are the broad goals? I know you have said in your testimony you didn’t want to get into the micro details. Just give me

some broad goals.

Mr. MATHIS. Well, the broad goals, the number-one goal would

be to return the ESA to the law that it was intended to be; which

is ‘‘Let’s recover species.’’ What we have learned over the last 30

years is that setting aside these large tracts of land for critical

habitat has not been effective. You know, when you look at 1,260-

some species and you can say, ‘‘Well, we have only recovered fewer

than a dozen,’’ clearly, that is not working.

So we need to remove things such as the thing that I have

harped on in this testimony, which is the species crossing state

lines. That doesn’t make any sense. Let’s look at the species itself;

not look at it regionally. And let’s use hard science. Let’s make sure

that the species is indeed unique in the environment.

And then we have to start setting some priorities. I mean, if it

turns out that you have this particular species of fly, and that is

just genetically different than another 50 species of flies in just

some little way, are we going to restrict the production of energy

that runs absolutely everything in our lives, to protect this one fly

42

that is just genetically partially dissimilar to another one? I think

that we are way out of whack here. We have to set good priorities.

And the last thing I would mention is really good science. What

we have had is a situation where a whole bunch of species have

been taken off of the list, they have been de-listed, because the

original counts were so bad. Originally, ‘‘Oh, we have only got 250

of this creature.’’ Well, then we find out we have a million. And so

we have to go in and have really good scientific, verifiable data.

And you should not restrict development, you should not restrict

grazing and energy production, you should not restrict these

things, until you have good, quantifiable, peer-reviewed data that

says, ‘‘This is a real problem and we really have to do something

to protect this species.’’

And one last thing is a lot of species can benefit from doing

things proactively; not just setting aside a piece of land and saying,

‘‘OK, we just hope that they somehow survive. We are not going to

touch it.’’ You know, let’s get involved, like we used to do 50 years

ago, to bring back species like the wood duck; where people erected

nests, artificial nests, for the wood duck, to bring it back. It was

almost extinct, and now they are everywhere. It is the most prolific

duck species that we have.

We can help these species. Just setting aside land, saying, ‘‘This

is critical habitat, let’s not touch it,’’ that is not going to work. And

we have to have good science. And when you have a seven-year

drought in the State of New Mexico and that has caused the number of prairie chickens to decrease, we are not going to let oil and

natural gas production on this land; when we can’t prove that it

is going to harm them at all; when in fact it has been a seven-year

drought and lower grasses and more predation and even just these

animals dying of thirst?

I mean, you have to get to the cause. Is this mining, is this

ranching, is this energy development actually harming the species?

Let’s get peer-reviewed scientific data to do that. Then we can go

from there.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. And I think the last point you made

was exactly the question I had asked Ms. Conner, about her efforts

to monitor the falcon in her area versus the mining activities. Was

it the cause; is it a cause? And it seems not to be a cause.

I am curious about the fly analogy, because I am looking today

as we consider mosquito abatement programs, where we spray vast

areas for mosquitos. At some point, we may make the mosquito an

endangered species, and then we will all be in trouble when it gets

down to that point.

Does anybody have any additional questions they want to ask?

Mrs. Drake? Mr. Pearce?

Mr. PEARCE. I will pass, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me thank our witnesses, then, because

you have spent time here today to endure the questions and the

ideas of this Committee. And I want to submit that it is the responsibility of this body to conduct oversight on the issues, the laws,

and the regulations that affect the energy and mineral production

in this country, which are the cornerstone of the economy, the cornerstone—if not the keystone—to the quality of life we have in

America.

43

And we have heard today from our witnesses there are realworld impacts. We have talked about the grazing industry, the

mining industry, the oil and gas industry. And we have talked

about the environment as well on this. And these environmental

laws and regulations, of course, play a unique part in our world,

as they should. But they also can be abused and play a detrimental

role in the development of these areas for continuation of the

American economy.

And I appreciate the comments of my friend from Arizona, when

he came here today and referred to the Wildlands Project as a single group, a ‘‘bogeyman.’’ He may be unaware that this group is

actually a coalition. It is made up of numerous organizations

which, if those of us on the Committee want to look at the background information, we will list those organizations and many

more that belong to this.

But I want to clarify that, contrary to the statements that he

made earlier, this hearing is an examination not about the men

and the women who are part of that organization; but for the

record, the Wildlands Project organization was invited to testify

today. They were not excluded. They were not intentionally denied

participation in this Committee. They were invited, at the

minority’s request. And their scheduling prevented them, particularly that organization or that coalition, from attending. And I believe that, of course, Noah Alliance was here to testify as an alternative to their participation. And we welcome the alliance from

being here to testify, as well.

I do want to submit for the record two recent news articles highlighting two separate examples of organizations which support the

concepts of the Wildlands Project, outlined, as we said, throughout

their goals and their ideas. And these two articles for the record

are the Billings Gazette out of Billings, Montana—let me find the

date. OK, it was a June 15th, 2005 article, ‘‘BLM Fidelity Appeal

Federal Court Ruling,’’ by Claire Johnson, the staff writer for the

Gazette. And I would submit that for the record.

I also want to submit an AP article dated February 17th, 2005,

‘‘Group Seeks To Shield Polar Bear,’’ by Dan Joling. Like I said, it

was an AP article with regard to the Center for Biological Diversity, and the effect on the polar bear and the goals of that organization.

So without objection, those two articles will be entered into the

record, as well.

[The articles follow:]

billingsgazette.com

BLM, Fidelity appeal federal court ruling

By CLAIR JOHNSON of The Gazette Staff

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and an energy development company have

filed notices to appeal a federal court decision that ruled invalid a statewide environmental analysis on coalbed methane development.

BLM said it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals whether the district

court erred in ruling that the agency violated the National Environmental Policy

Act by not considering phased development as part of its statewide analysis, court

records said. The 2003 study was conducted jointly with the State of Montana.

44

Planning appeal

BLM also said it will appeal the district court’s action granting partial summary judgment to the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe and to the Northern Plains Resource Council, which sued the BLM, and ordering BLM to prepare a supplemental

environmental study. BLM spokesman Don Smurthwaite said Tuesday that the Department of Justice filed the notice to protect the government’s options for a formal appeal later. An appeals notice by Fidelity Exploration and Production Co., a subsidiary of MDU Resources Inc., deals with a portion of a district court injunction issued in the

case. Fidelity, which has between 450 and 500 producing coalbed methane wells

near Decker in the southeastern Montana, intervened in the lawsuit.

NPRC, a conservation and agricultural group, and the tribe sued BLM, alleging that it violated federal law by not adequately studying the potential effects of coalbed methane.

U.S. Magistrate Richard Anderson ruled in February that the BLM violated the law because the study did not consider an alternative in which development would

be done in phases, such as limiting the number of rigs operating in an area or developing one area at a time. The judge invalidated the study and ordered BLM to conduct a supplemental re- view on phased development.

Ruling for BLM

The judge also ruled for BLM on other issues. Anderson said he could not find that BLM’s treatment of water re-injection or injection alternatives for water produced by drilling for the gas was unreasonable. BLM also did not violate the law

by conducting two studies—one in Wyoming and one in Montana—instead of one for

the entire Powder River Basin.

And as a whole, the statewide study ‘‘adequately considered the impacts’’ of coal- bed methane development in the basin, Anderson said in an advisory opinion. As part of the case, Anderson issued an injunction in April in which he adopted a BLM proposal to allow some development to proceed while it conducts additional

study of phased development. The proposal allowed 500 new wells a year in about

289,000 acres of the 4.1 million-acre development area, court records said.

NPRC and the tribe filed an emergency appeal of the injunction with the 9th Cir- cuit. The appellate court granted the request, effectively preventing BLM from approving coalbed methane projects in Montana and preventing Fidelity from drilling

additional wells. The case is set to be heard by the appellate court in September. Fidelity raised two issues in its appeals notice. One is whether the district court

erred in requiring BLM to restrict water management plans for federal wells to prohibit surface discharge of untreated ground water produced by drilling. The second

challenges the court’s requirement that BLM not approve drilling permits unless the

operator has certified that water well mitigation agreements are in place for all

wells and springs.

Bruce Williams, Fidelity’s vice president of operations, said Tuesday that state

law requires the company to have offered water well agreements to any party within

a mile of any well. The company is contesting whether it actually has to have the

agreement, he said.

Williams also said Fidelity filed an emergency request this week with the appellate court seeking reconsideration of its ruling to halt coalbed methane development

pending review.

The company is seeking clarification of whether the injunction applies to all coalbed methane wells or only to wells drilled on federal leases and for reconsideration

of its injunction, Williams said. Fidelity is asking that the entire panel of judges

hear its request.

Group seeks to shield polar bear

The Associated Press

February 17, 2005 10:58 a.m.

By Dan Joling

[Picture not shown] A female polar bear and her cubs rest on the ice in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The Center for Biological Diversity, a * conservation group, filed a formal petition yesterday, seeking to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.

ANCHORAGE—A conservation group filed a formal petition yesterday seeking to

list the polar bear as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species

Act.

45

Polar bears could become extinct by the end of the century because global warming is melting away their sea-ice habitat, contends Kassie Siegel, lead author of the

154-page petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity.

She contends the United States must quickly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to

a fraction of current levels or polar bears will become extinct.

‘‘Greenhouse-gas emissions can be drastically cut with sound policy changes that

will not decrease quality of life, such as by increasing fuel-efficiency standards for

automobiles,’’ she said. ‘‘But we must act now.’’

In Alaska, there are two populations of polar bears, said Rosa Meehan, chief of

the marine-mammal management program for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

the agency that must respond to the petition.

The Beaufort Sea stock off Alaska’s northern coast is estimated at 2,000 animals.

‘‘That stock is stable or perhaps increasing,’’ she said, based on long-term mark

and recapture studies.

Less is known about the Bering-Chukchi stock off Alaska’s northwest coast. The

population is shared with Russia. A 1998 estimate put their numbers at 2,000 to

5,000.

‘‘We don’t know the status of that stock,’’ Meehan said. ‘‘It’s in a very remote

place, so it’s difficult to count.’’

The two stocks are adjacent, and biologists surmise that—with sea-ice conditions

that are similar—the Bering-Chukchi stock is in the same condition as the Beaufort

stock.

‘‘We don’t know that,’’ Meehan said. ‘‘It’s just a guess.’’

The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for unlimited harvest by subsistence

hunters. Killing them in Russia is illegal, Meehan said, but some are killed, and

the amount is unknown.

A treaty to manage the bears jointly with Russia was signed in October 2000 and

has passed the U.S. Senate.

‘‘We’re waiting for implementation legislation to get that up and running,’’ Meehan said.

Polar bears are the largest of all bear species. They live only in the Arctic and

are found only in areas where sea ice occurs for a significant portion of the year.

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 19 recognized populations

of polar bears within the jurisdiction of five countries. Besides Alaska, they are in

Canada, Norway, Greenland and Russia.

Polar bears use sea ice for feeding, mating and maternity denning, Siegel said.

They feed primarily on ringed seals.

The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are 22,000 to 25,000 bears worldwide.

Siegel said seasonal sea ice is breaking up earlier each spring and forming later

in the autumn. This means polar bears have less time to hunt ringed seals and

must endure longer periods of fasting on land, she said.

The petition cites global warming as the primary threat to polar bears but also

lists Arctic oil and gas development, high levels of contaminants such as PCBs in

polar-bear tissues and overrenting of some populations in Canada, Greenland and

Russia.

Listing under the Endangered Species Act would provide broad protection to polar

bears, including a requirement that federal agencies ensure that government actions

not ‘‘jeopardize the continued existence’’ of polar bears or adversely modify their

critical habitat.

The petition sets off a 90-day review by the Fish and Wildlife Service and an evaluation of whether further study is warranted, Meehan said.

If the agency decides the petition has merit, biologists nine months later would

present a 12-month finding and decide whether a listing was warranted.

Public review, evaluation of public comment and a final decision would take at

least one more year, Meehan said.

Mr. GIBBONS. With that, if there are no other questions from the

panel, and no objection, I will adjourn the hearing right now.

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Nick J.

Rahall, II, follows:]

46

Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, Ranking Democrat,

Committee on Resources

This hearing is another in a series of hearings the Committee is having on the

impact of the Endangered Species Act on development. Today we will look at the

law’s effect on the energy and mineral industries.

One of the witnesses testifying today is Dr. Dorothy Boorse of the Noah Alliance.

She is a professor of biology. She also is an evangelical Christian.

She will explain why corridors and habitat are important for species conservation

from both of those perspectives.

Of particular interest to me is her perspective on our responsibility to care for

God’s creatures.

Dr. Boorse and I share the principle that humans should tread extremely cautiously when the fate of threatened or endangered species lies in our hands.

Congress will likely debate provisions to amend the Endangered Species Act in

the near future, and we must not take lightly our responsibility to care for God’s

handiwork. Any efforts to amend the law should be undertaken with great care and

reverence.

Her message today, is therefore extremely important. I encourage everyone to listen to Dr. Boorse. And I thank her and commend her for coming to Washington,

D.C., to testify on such short notice.

[A statement submitted for the record by Kim Vacariu, Southwest Director, Wildlands Project, follows:]

Statement of Kim Vacariu, Southwest Director, Wildlands Project

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments. The Wildlands

Project has a small staff, and due to previous commitments, we are not able to be

present at the hearing. We trust this statement will answer your questions about

the Wildlands Project, our views on the Endangered Species Act, and related

matters.

The Wildlands Project: Mission and Goals

The Wildlands Project is an organization of scientists and citizens deeply concerned about the loss of species and the degradation of ecosystems. These losses not

only imperil our natural heritage, but also threaten the long term health of our society and economy. The Wildlands Project is dedicated to bringing the best science

to bear on these problems and using that science as a foundation for collaborative

solutions that restore and protect our nation’s biological health. Through the science

of conservation biology and dedication to the Wildlands Project’s mission—to protect

and restore the natural heritage of North America through the establishment of a

connected system of wildlands—we are demonstrating practical and achievable opportunities to bring a natural, healthy balance back to our faltering ecosystems. We

believe that healthy environments mean healthy futures for people, wildlife, and the

places they call home.

The Wildlands Project’s Collaborative Approach to Conservation

The Wildlands Project’s accomplishments are globally recognized for their scientific credibility, inclusiveness, and results-based orientation. The vehicle for

achieving our conservation goals of protecting and restoring native species and ecosystem health is a series of ‘‘Wildlands Networks’’ that connect existing and proposed protected lands with one another via wildlife corridors. The elements that

comprise Wildlands Network conservation plans—mapping of protected areas and

landscape connections, native species analysis, and proposals for management of

lands and waters—is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed science.

Our credibility as conservation plan ‘‘implementers’’ is based upon the Wildlands

Project’s ability to build bridges between various stakeholders. Because large-landscape-scale Wildlands Network planning encompasses both public and private lands,

managed by a wide range of local, state, Native American, and federal governments,

and private owners, the Wildlands Project views the collaborative approach to conservation as essential.

Examples of our collaborative efforts include:

• Workshops bringing private property owners in conservation planning areas together with state and federal agencies, and private organizations that offer advice and financial incentives for landowners to conserve the ecological values of

47

their properties. These opportunities assist landowners in maintaining traditional operations and ownership while providing enhanced habitat for wildlife. • The Wildlands Project-sponsored Border Ecological Symposium held this year in

Tucson focused on the impact of border security infrastructure and activities on

cross-border wildlife movement. The symposium was attended by representatives of the U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, University of Arizona scientists, conservation organizations, and elected officials,

including staff from the offices of U.S. Representative Rau ́l Grijalva, U.S. Sen- ator John McCain, and U.S. Senator Jon Kyle. The symposium has generated

ongoing dialogue among these parties, conservation organizations (including the

Wildlands Project), and the Department of Homeland Security. • Support for and participation in the Arizona Wildlife Linkage Working Group,

a collaboration among Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Forest Service,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management to design a

state-wide wildlife linkage map to be used in planning future wildlife highway

crossing structures. Collaboration among this wide range of stakeholders generates effective and achievable solutions to conservation challenges—solutions in which public and private decision makers can have a high degree of confidence.

Achieving the goals set out in Wildlands Network conservation plans will require

many decades and the efforts of ensuing generations of Americans. We see our task

as beginning the process now, before more natural diversity is lost. No American

wants to tell the next generation that it will never see wild salmon or grizzlies in

their natural homes because we failed to care about our natural heritage.

There are short-term benefits to Wildlands conservation planning as well, including the enormous contribution made to local economies by wildlife- and nature-related amenities, and the prevention of a further decline in species resulting in listings under the Endangered Species Act. The Wildlands Project-inspired collaborations now underway are key to averting the habitat destruction and fragmentation

that underlie such listings.

The Wildlands Project and the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act represents the best of America. It is a strong statement of our nation’s values. We are a people who treasure nature. Many Americans

come to this value based on religious belief. Protecting God’s creation is an important part of their faith. Other Americans see our wildlands as the theater of evolution, home to the processes that ultimately sustain all human societies both materially and spiritually. For most Americans, it is both.

The Endangered Species Act plays an integral role in protecting natural diversity,

and it has been extremely effective at doing so. The world’s most respected scientists

tell us that we are in the midst of a great, human caused extinction episode rivaling

several pre-historic extinctions caused by natural events. We are losing species at

more than 1000 times the historic background rate. As the eminent biologist, Michael Soule ́, said, it is ‘‘not just about the death of species, but about the death of

birth.’’ The Endangered Species Act is the miner’s canary. It sounds the alarm when

harm threatens. It allows us to prevent extinction. Because of the Endangered

Species Act, we still have bald eagles—the symbol of our nation—plus wolves,

grizzlies, California condors, salmon, and hundreds of other magnificent native

species.

The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants, and fish that are

on the brink of extinction. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to be good

stewards of our environment and leave behind undiminished the great natural legacy that we inherited from previous generations. We all know that one of the most

effective ways to protect that natural legacy is to protect the places where vulnerable species live.

According to recent polling, 86% of Americans believe in a strong Endangered

Species Act. It is one of the most popular laws in our nation’s history. The

Wildlands Project shares this view. We are working with communities to design

habitat conservation approaches that will help protect species where they live before

they become endangered. Defensive tactics to save species are often required, but

we must do more to get ahead of the curve. Therefore, the Wildlands Project advocates for a stronger Endangered Species Act that has as its centerpiece scientifically

credible requirements for critical habitat protection because, in order to protect

species, we must protect their homes.

The Endangered Species Act is a powerful tool to protect our natural heritage—

a heritage Americans clearly want protected. Although the Wildlands Project rarely

48

litigates and does not lobby, we see the Act as essential to conservation and maintaining the quality of life in America.

The Wildlands Project and Energy Development

Wildlands Project conservation planning is aimed at achieving conservation goals.

Our plans provide for both strictly protected areas and for ‘‘compatible use areas’’

where some types of resource extraction can occur based on their impacts to species

and ecosystem processes. The debate over potential conflicts between protecting ecologically important lands and developing them for energy and mineral resources has

a long history.

We find highly instructive the thoughts of a previous, conservation-minded Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt:

‘‘Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so.’’

(Annual message to Congress of 1907)

‘‘Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will,

if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion

them by saying the ’the game belongs to the people.’ So it does; and not

merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The ’greatest good

for the greatest number’ applies to the number within the womb of time,

compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our

duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn

generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger

movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially

democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.’’

(A Book-Lover’s Holidays in the Open, 1916)

The Wildlands Project and Our Detractors

The success of the Wildlands Project in promoting continental conservation

through the design and implementation of Wildlands Network conservation plans

has, as have all innovative new approaches to major societal challenges, garnered

detractors. In the case of the Wildlands Project, criticism aimed at us has often been

unusually overstated. Maps published and copyrighted by the Wildlands Project

have been re-drawn and distributed with erroneous, misleading content. Websites

have been created that not only misrepresent our goals and products, but have actually claimed to be our own official website. Claims have even been made—

completely without basis in fact—that we are representatives of the United Nations,

working to impose the Convention on Biodiversity. The Wildlands Project’s

materials, maps, and conservation work can be found at our website,

www.wildlandsproject.org.

Thank you for allowing us to provide these comments to the subcommittee.

Æ