Sponsors of S. 174 want this "negative" procedure because they know it will be easier to get their proposals through Congress.

If S. 174 is to come to a House vote, it should first be amended to specify regular, "affirmative" action of Congress. This would require that each proposal for wilderness classification be introduced in the form of a bill, with approval only by majority vote of both the House and Senate. Such procedure would assure adequate study and debate of the merits of the proposed wilderness areas. If Congress is going to accept the responsibility of making decisions on areas to be classified as wilderness it should insist on it right to "affirmative" control.

REVIEW OF IEMU COMMITTEE'S POSITION ON S. 174

The committee fully recognizes the special value of wilderness recreation for those people whose emotional and psychological nature requires this type of escape from the realities and pressures of modern living. We strongly support setting aside a reasonable acreage of wilderness on Federal lands, providing the needs of local citizens for the other multiple uses of these lands are not jeopardized. However, after thoughful study we are convinced there is no need for additional overly restrictive Federal laws to assure preservation of adequate wilderness. Specifically, we are opposed to S. 174 in its present form because we feel its basic defects have not been corrected, despite amendments prior to its passage by the Senate.

Previous reports by the committee have analyzed the wilderness bill in detail and have given many reasons for opposing it. Further comment on the four classes of land subject to transfer to the wilderness system if S. 174 is passed will clarify our position.

1. Existing wilderness areas.-The 6.8 million acres of wilderness areas in national forests have already been designated as "permanent wilderness" by the Secretary of Agriculture under regulations U-1 and U-2. Under the Multiple Use Act of 1960 these areas will be maintained as roadless wilderness by the Forest Service through administrative order-even if S. 174 fails to pass. Hence, the wilderness bill is not needed to assure preservation of these areas as wilderness.

2. Existing primitive areas.-The 7.9 million acres are now set aside in national forests as primitive areas under administrative order but are not yet permanently withdrawn from resource use. Under its present program, the Forest Service is following an orderly schedule of primitive area review with reclassification of extensive and adequate areas for permanent wilderness. If S. 174 is passed, all of the 7.9 million acres would automatically go into the wilderness system without adequate prior study. The areas would then be subject to review within 10 years; however, experience has shown that once an area is classed as "wilderness," working out reasonable boundary changes later is virtually impossible. These areas contain resources of family recreation, wildlife, minerals, and timber that will be urgently needed by our rapidly expanding population. Therefore, all existing primitive areas should be reviewed before wilderness classification.

3. National park areas.-The 20 million acres in national parks is the area estimated to now be of an essentially wilderness character-no roads or permanent campgrounds. In other words, only about 10 percent, or 2 million acres of the total national park system of 22 million acres is developed for recreation accessible to the average family. If S. 174 is passed in its present form, all of the 20 million acres of undeveloped area could be included in the wilderness system. Primary proponents of S. 174 have indicated they will work hard for including in the wilderness system a maximum acreage of the undeveloped national park areas. The Wilderness Society urges at least 20 million acres. On areas actually included, regulations of S. 174 would prohibit the building of additional roads, campgrounds, trailer parks, and other facilities so urgently needed to make the outstanding scenic and geologic attractions of the national parks available to the increasing number of Americans.

This problem is also of great concern to Mr. Laurence Rockefeller, Chairman of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. He stated in the December 16, 1961, Saturday Evening Post:

"I don't agree with the wilderness boys who want to put these natural areas in deep freeze for future generations. I'm for conservation and use * * Less than 5 percent of the Yellowstone is developed. They crowd all of the

tourists into this 5 percent. We need new thinking about the use of wilderness recreation lands."

This threat to future development of national parks is one of the dangers of S. 174 which should be eliminated. This could be accomplished by an amendment requiring the Secretary of the Interior to submit for approval of Congress a total long-range plan for national park system development before any area could be permanently classified as “wilderness”—rather than the piecemeal procedures of the present bill. Future generations of Americans deserve this protection of their outdoor recreation heritage.

4. National wildlife refuges and game ranges.-These preserves total 286 in number and contain 28.3 million acres. Under S. 174 all or part of these areas may be recommended for inclusion in the wilderness system within 10 years by the Secretary of Interior. Parts of these areas perhaps should be preserved as wilderness but just how much and which areas is subject to debate.

The Wilderness Society contends that more than 24 million acres "belong in our wilderness system." This proposal deserves serious study.

At present the wildlife refuges and game ranges are, in most cases, available for oil, mineral, and timber production and some livestock grazing—if compatible with wildlife and game use. That such use is compatible in many areas has been demonstrated.

A proper balance between timbered areas for cover and shrub areas for food. with adequate water and minerals, provides the ideal habitat for many species of wildlife. Timber harvesting is a highly successful method of improving big game habitat in certain areas by opening overdense stands to stimulate the growth of low shrubs which the animals must have for food.

A new, effective tool in big game habitat management is the application of plant growth regulator by helicopter to overgrown browse areas; this stimulates new shoots from the base of the shrubs, providing an increased supply of palatable and easily reached food for deer and elk.

In many parts of the proposed wilderness system the food supply for big game is being crowded out by heavy forest growth. In other areas the food species of shrubs are growing too large and coarse for the game animals to eat. This is especially critical in certain lower elevation winter range areas where the animals are driven by deep snow. Yet S. 174 would eliminate two of the most effective methods for solving the problem because it prevents timber harvesting and specifically prohibits the use of aircraft and other motor-powered equipment. The inclusion of too much of the wildlife and game preserves in overly re stricted wilderness areas could lock up needed natural resources, limit access for scientific study, and seriously interfere with intelligent wildlife management. Therefore, if S. 174 is to become law it should first be amended to specifically exclude wildlife refuges and game ranges until after a thorough inventory of all resources is made and a comprehensive plan for long-range management is prepared.

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IEMU COMMITTEE

At the McCall, Idaho, hearing on S. 174 held last October by Congresswoman Pfost, the IEMU Committee presented three proposals for amendments to S. 174. Since then, after further careful study and talking to resource users, recreationists, and local citizens, we have modified proposal No. 2 to include wildlife refuges and game ranges; also, we have added three more amendments to provide for future reevaluation of wilderness and nonwilderness resources, to assure protec tion of multiple recreation use of the national parks, and to provide for maintenance of existing private properties in primitive areas. The exact wording of the amendments, as finally adopted, would be left to Congress.

We are still strongly opposed to S. 174 because it is unnecessary and not in the best interests of Western States. However, if in its final judgment, Congress feels a bill is necessary to give adequate recognition to wilderness preservation. we urge that S. 174 first be amended:

1. To give Congress positive control of lands to be included in the national wilderness preservation system through affirmative procedures, rather than negative as under the present bill.

2. To specifically exclude national forest primitive areas and national wildlife refuges and game ranges from the wilderness system until a thorough inventory and a complete economic analysis of all values and resources has been completed, with final inclusion-by affirmative congressional action-of those areas determined to have their highest value as wilderness

3. To make possible, under more realistic regulations, a thorough inventory and evaluation of the mineral potential in wilderness and primitive areas. 4. To more specifically provide for future justifiable boundary changes of wilderness areas based on periodic review and reappraisal of relative values for wilderness and nonwilderness uses.

5. To require the Secretary of the Interior to submit for positive action of Congress a total long-range plan for development and use of the national park system before recommending any area for wilderness classification.

6. To eliminate section 4 entirely or specifically provide for the choice of "free will" sale of private lands or trade for Federal lands of equal value outside wilderness areas.

Our committee feels that these six proposals, if adopted, would provide much more clear and positive safeguards to assure a sound program of integrated multiple-use management of the public's natural resources involved. If S. 174 is amended in accordance with these proposals, we feel we could then conscientiously support the bill, providing it is not changed in some other way to make it incompatible with our views.

INLAND EMPIRE MULTIPLE USE COMMITTEE REPORT No. 1

FOREWORD

To All Users of Natural Resources:

If you are a citizen of the United States, you are a part owner of the lands administered by the Forest Service, and you have a personal interest in the proposals for reclassification of the 7,875,000-acre Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area. The Forest Service proposal is outlined in a brochure entitled "Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Proposal." Copies are available from the regional forester, Federal Building, Missoula, Mont.

Hearings to receive public views concerning the Forest Service proposal are scheduled for March 7 in Missoula, Mont., March 9 in Lewiston, Idaho, and March 14 in Grangeville, Idaho. Individual opinions may be presented at the hearings orally or in writing. Written comments may be sent to the regional forester, Missoula, Mont., before March 27, 1961.

These hearings are being conducted to give you a voice in determining how much and what kind of resources are to be developed and utilized in this vast area of primitive country and how much shall be designated as permanent, roadless wilderness, where access will be severely limited and certain present uses will be completely eliminated or severely restricted.

Everyone will be affected, directly or indirectly, by the decision finally made by the Forest Service; therefore, you have a vital interest in these hearings. The outcome will affect your job, cost of living, and recreational opportunities.

The following report is presented for your information. It was prepared by the Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee, a group working for sound, integrated conservation, development, and use of natural resources on both public and private lands. This committee firmly believes that wilderness is an important part of overall multiple-use resource management; it also believes the amount and kind of land classified as "wilderness" must be carefully weighed against the many other needs of society.

This report contains background data, analysis of this data, and a specific Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area proposal.

Your support of this committee's recommendations can be given through a brief oral or written statement. Be sure to request that your statement be included in the official record. Because of the extreme importance of this issue, everyone who possibly can should attend the hearings to make their views known.

Respectfully,

FEBRUARY 1961.

THE INLAND EMPIRE MULTIPLE USE COMMITTEE.

PROPOSED SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS AREA
(Map Adapted from Forest Service Brochure)

The Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee was formed at a recent meeting of natural resource managers to discuss the pending Forest Service proposal for reclassification of the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area. The committee has attempted to analyze all the multiple-use considerations involved-wilderness, recreation, fish and game, watershed, grazing, timber production, mining, and economic impacts. Careful study was made of type maps, timber volume estimates, national forest receipts, recreational use, and other data provided by the Forest Service. Reports of the Idaho Fish and Game Department were studied. Also, the opinions of local resource managers and users were sought.

In analyzing this information, the committee was guided by three general premises:

1. The multiple-use concept includes wilderness as a valid use.

2. Those areas having a higher use value as a wilderness should be retained in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area.

3. Those areas having a higher value for uses other than wilderness should be withdrawn, except where needed to preserve true wilderness characteristics. The committee gratefully acknowledges the cooperation of the Forest Service and the Idaho Fish and Game Department in making information available. The opinions and advice of many other persons is also appreciated. The committee accepts full responsibility for the use made of this information and for the interpretations and recommendations included in this report. Neither approval nor disapproval of the report by any of the information sources is in any way implied.

Additional copies of the report may be obtained from members of the committee and from:

1. Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee, Post Office Box 600, Lewiston, Idaho.

2. Idaho County Free Press, Grangeville, Idaho.

DETAILS OF PROPOSALS

Original Selway-Bitterroot primitive area

The Selway-Bitterroot primitive area is located in four national forests-Bitterroot, Lolo, Clearwater, and Nez Perce. The primitive area was established by the Forest Service in 1936. (Area encompassed by the heavy dashed line on the map in the front of this report.) This area covers a total of 1,875,000 acres, of which 50 percent, or 932,300 acres, are commercial forest land having the capacity for growing merchantable crops of timber. The total estimated volume of timber in this area is 6,916,480,000 board feet, of which 1,021,500,000 is Ponderosa pine, and the balance is Douglas fir, western larch, Engelmann spruce, grand fir, lodgepole pine, and western red cedar, with small volumes of other species. The history of this area is described by quoting from the Forest Service brochure: (1)

"In 1929 the Secretary of Agriculture put into effect regulation L-20. It provided for experimental forests and ranges and for a 'series of areas to be known as primitive areas within which will be maintained primitive conditions of environment, transportation, habitation, and subsistence with a view to conserving the value of such areas for purposes of public education and recreation.' The regulation prohibited construction or permanent improvements other than for administrative needs and certain types of occupancy. It allowed continued use of roads and of improvements in place.

"During the next 10 years, 73 primitive areas totaling 131⁄2 million acres were established under regulation L-20. Many of these areas, including he SelwayBitterroot, were selected with the idea that further study and possible changes would be necessary before some could be completely qualified as having true primitive conditions.

"Boundaries were drawn to include all parts of an area which might qualify. The boundary lines were, of necessity, based on then existing general knowledge of the area rather than on thorough, on-the-ground surveys. Also, at that time, there was less activity near the borders; little thought was given to establishing boundary lines that would protect the primitive environment from nearby developments.

"In 1939, after 10 years of experience in administering primitive areas, the Secretary of Agriculture issued new regulations. These provided for studies of existing primitive areas and directed that portions which qualified and whose greatest values were as wilderness, be classified as either wilderness or wild areas under the new regulations, U-1 and U-2. These regulations defined 'wilderness' more clearly and they require higher standards for wilderness areas. They also give added assurance of permanence."

Forest Service proposal for reclassification of the primitive area

1. Under the Forest Service proposal, a 1,163,550-acre Selway-Bitterroot area would be established from the existing 1,875,000-acre primitive area. In the proposed wilderness area 38 percent, or 447,400 acres, is commercial forestland supporting a total volume of 3,280,460,000 board feet. This is area A on the preceding map. See table 1 for details.