tives and perfect them in terms of legislation and add to that a direction to report back to the Congress early next session the specific recommendations and bases upon which a procedure might be established. I might point out, Senator, that today in the continental United States, and our Park Service people can correct me, we have something in the neighborhood of 14 million acres in the national park system. We have an additional 7 or 8 million acres, I believe, in our offshore areas, a total of something like 22 million acres. But beginning with the establishment of Yellowstone Park in 1880, today we have just 14 million acres in our national park system. We have a working base for the wilderness system embracing today nearly 14 million acres. Mr. Crafts and his people in Forest Service, I believe, have indicated that they cannot at this stage determine what portion of the primitive areas involving some 8 million acres would be found to be wilderness area. But certainly that would be a major accomplishment at this time, and it would be translating the policy declaration into a positive and a material act that could point to wilderness areas blessed by the Congress. Senator KUCHEL. Is that what you mean on the first page of the Secretary's letter: This Department has concluded, however, that a delimiting of the immediate effect of the pending legislation accompanied by some simplification and clarification of its provisions can result in a proposal which could be enacted now? Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; it is. I would like to emphasize the fact that whatever is proposed must be practical of attainment. I feel personally, from my conversations with user groups, including our Bureau of Land Management, public land user groups, and numerous citizens who have promoted this legislation, that it is fear of the unknown or the uncertainty or the scope or the direction of this legislation as it now stands. I encounter very few people who say "No; we have no use for wilderness." But it is the imposition of a major resource policy step on our existing land management, land use, land conservation and development statutes, the relationship of this proposal to the total program. Without the public understanding you cannot have the public acceptance and perhaps cannot derive the necessary support in the Congress. The procedural step for future establishment, of course, is much more vigorously argued, I think, than the other two objectives at this time. Senator KUCHEL. That is all, Senator. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Senator Kuchel. Senator Jackson? Senator JACKSON. Mr. Abbott, would you be good enough to supply for the record the parks and monuments that would come within the section 2 (b) of the bill? I don't mean now, but would you make it available? I will read (b): At the times and in the manner hereinafter provided for, the wilderness system shall include each park and monument in the national park system on June 1, 1958, embracing a continuous area of 5,000 acres or more, without roads, and such additional units of the national park system as the Secretary of the Interior shall designate. I mean just so we will have for the record what we are talking about. Mr. ABBOTT. Our Park Service people, Senator, have expressed in previous hearings before this, and in submissions to the House committee, some question as to the definition of this term "continuous area." I would respond by saying we will do our best to supply the information you are seeking. I think it will necessarily have to be qualified. Senator JACKSON. Well, with whatever statement you wish to accompany it with. Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir. (The following information was subsequently received:) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. Senator JAMES E. MURRAY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., August 7, 1958. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: In the course of the hearings of July 23 on S. 4028, a bill to establish a national wilderness preservation system for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes, this Department was asked to supply the committee a listing of the areas of the national park system which, under the provisions of section 2 (b) of the bill, would be made a part of the national wilderness preservation system. We are pleased to comply with the committee's request and are enclosing a listing of those parks and monuments which appear to qualify for inclusion in the wilderness system. The listing is necessarily tentative in nature because of the absence of any experience in applying the acreage formula of the bill and because of the possible need for land surveys to determine acreage in borderline cases. If further information is desired, we will be happy to furnish it to you. Sincerely yours, ROGER ERNST, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. LISTING OF PARK AND MONUMENT UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM POSSIBLY QUALIFYING FOR INCLUSION IN THE WILDERNESS SYSTEM UNDER S. 4028 NATIONAL PARKS 1. Big Bend (Texas) 2. Bryce Canyon (Utah) 3. Carlsbad Caverns (New Mexico) 4. Crater Lake (Oregon) 5. Everglades (Florida) 6. Glacier (Montana) 7. Grand Canyon (Arizona) 8. Grand Teton (Wyoming) 9. Great Smoky Mountains (North 10. Hawaii (Territory of Hawaii) 20. Wind Cave (South Dakota) 21. Yellowstone (Wyoming-MontanaIdaho) 22. Yosemite (California) 23. Zion NATIONAL MONUMENTS 1. Arches (Utah) 2. Badlands (South Dakota) 4. Black Canyon of the Gunnison 5. Canyon de Chelly (Arizona) 6. Capital Reef (Utah) 9. Craters of the Moon (Idaho) 17. Lava Beds (California) 22. White Sands (New Mexico) Senator JACKSON. If you read on in that section, there is the following paragraph in section (b) that I wanted to ask you about: Not later than ten years after the date of this Act or within two years after the unit has been added to the wilderness system, whichever is later, and ninety days after giving public notice in accordance with section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, the Secretary of the Interior shall designate within each unit of the national park system included in the wilderness system such area or areas as he shall determine to be required for roads, motor trails, buildings, accommodations for visitors, administrative installations and so on. Can you do it within that time? Mr. ABBOTT. Senator, among the amendments that we have proposed for clarification are those which would change the section you have just read to read: Not later than ten years after the enactment of this Act or within two years after the unit has been prescribed for addition to the wilderness system and similarly in lines 6 and 9 where it refers to designation by the Secretary within each unit of the national park system, it would be— to be included in the wilderness system. I think our people with those amendments proceed within the provisions of that paragraph. Senator JACKSON. I am, of course, tremendously interested in that provision, because I fought long and hard to maintain our boundaries in the Olympic National Park. We have some great wilderness areas. There is a conflict, as there is in a lot of these areas, as to where the road should go, and so on, and what areas should be left out, as far as roads are concerned. I am not so sure that those decisions can be made within a limited period of time. There is a big controversy. Even the conservationists themselves get into a big argument. Those who have more lung power both ways, that is, climbing and speaking, they want certain areas excluded. As they get older they may change their minds, however. I am just wondering if we can, within a very limited period of time, reach all these agreements. That is what I am getting at. Mr. ABBOTT. The question you have raised, Senator, I think reflects exactly why the Department, with respect to future designations, would favor, and I believe the advocates of this bill so understanding it would be inclined to agree, would favor, whatever forums are necessary for development of the same type of question that you have raised. Those who would be affected by it and have an interest in it have suggested that we pursue this third objective. Senator JACKSON. You already have wilderness areas set up within the parks now under existing authority. Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir. There are tens of thousands of acres that, as our park people have indicated, fall into the wilderness definition, and they have been maintained as such with the background, of course, of all the legislation directing the management of the national parks. Senator JACKSON. That is all. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Abbott. I just want to ask you one question before we recess for lunch. The chairman of the committee, Senator Murray, suggested we recess at noon. You mentioned the confusion among the user groups over this legislation. I gathered from your oral testimony that you are familiar with public-lands history. I have heard a great deal about your knowledge in this respect. To your knowledge, has there ever been in the entire history of this United States, the setting aside of any reserve, be it national park or national forest, where all the so-called user groups, except the recreationists, did not protest? Mr. ABBOTT. Sir, if there were an example in the past, or should an example arise in the future, I have a gentleman to whom I am responsible who would probably sign up for another year. I believe it has never happened. If you are talking about unanimity, you do not get it. Senator NEUBERGER. I am not talking about unanimity, but overwhelming protest by the user groups, except for the recreationists. Mr. ABBOTT. I would say, Senator, that there are exceptions and there must be exceptions, in the very nature of the varied activities. You find within what you categorize as recreationists, a wide variance of opinion. I am sure you have sat in on some of the association's meetings and certainly seen their minutes and their correspondence. Happily, they have divisions within their own groups as to their users. Senator NEUBERGER. What I am talking about is this: To my knowledge, and I am sure it is far less than yours, whenever it has been proposed that national forests be created or that national parks be created, almost universally the people in that area, and their allies throughout the country who are interested in grazing, mining, lumbering, et cetera, almost universally protest. Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I can think of experiences before the committee I served before going to Interior, the counterpart in the House of this committee, where the contrary was true with respect to national park units. We had overwhelming support from local groups who came in wanting to see established national parks. I can cite as examples the Virgin Islands national parks, those that have recently been established or authorized. I am talking about people in the area, sir. Senator NEUBERGER. My experience does not extend to the Virgin Islands. I would like to go there some time. Mr. ABBOTT. I am speaking of action that this committee has taken in this or the preceding Congress. And the national battlefield site proposed at Horseshoe Bend, Ala. Senator NEUBERGER. I am talking about national forests, where there are commercial forests, potential commercial mining, and so on. In other words, what I am talking about, too, is when the national forests were set aside by this man, Gifford Pinchot. Was there any user group except the recreationists that favored what Pinchot was trying to do? Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, I think there were. I think there were lumber industries and timber industries, portions of them, who very strongly supported the creation of forest reservations. I do understand, and I think history recites, that there was a good deal of protest from some user groups. But it is by reason of these very competing demands, Senator, that we feel that, if you do not achieve universal support, at least those who are uncomfortable with the thought are entitled to an understanding of what is proposed to be done. That is really what I am trying to say. We want a bill, not an argument. It is the question of seeking the complete action at this time or taking that which is attainable. It is intended as a constructive suggestion. Senator NEUBERGER. Have you a question, Mr. Wood? Senator Anderson has a number of people who are very interested in Mission 66 of the Park Service in New Mexico. They have asked him to find out if the passage of this bill would have any limiting effect on the extension of roads or the proposed addition of facilities in the parks in the West. Mr. ABBOTT. That, Mr. Wood, is a rather tough question, and the section to which Senator Jackson referred, relating to those units within the national park system or portions of them which would be included, would anticipate a determination as to what developments would go forward, because it is left to the Secretary of the Interior. You may note on page 6 it is to designate within each unit of the national park system those areas to be included, such area or areas as he shall determine to be required for roads, motor trails, building, accommodations for visitors, and so forth. That would leave room for a determination within the time provided, I believe, as to what future requirements would exist, and those areas, presumably, would be excluded from those recommended by the Secretary. Mr. WOOD. When the original bill, S. 1176, was introduced, it created a lot of fears among people out West because of the great scope of the bill and the mentioning of public domain. We had a lot of protests on that bill. They are afraid that there might be something in this bill which would permit the Department of the Interior to designate large areas of public domain as wilderness areas. What do you think the likelihood would be of that? Mr. ABBOTT. I can speak to the provisions of the bill which occur under the heading of "Other Units," and boil it down. The pending legislation would provide for establishment as wilderness areas such areas other than the Indians, wilderness, the national parks, the wildlife and national forest areas, as the head of the administering agency concerned might designate. That would include, if lands are so classified, public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. I am certain that would embrace those lands, if designated by the administering agency. Mr. WOOD. Do you think there is adequate provision for review and hearing on any areas to be designated so that the people who are interested can be heard if they are being affected? Mr. ABBOTT. Well, adequacy, of course, Mr. Wood, is perhaps a relative question. Provision is made for public notice in the legislation, which we believe to be highly desirable. The hearings anticipated or hearings which would be held under procedures of the Department of the Interior and which are provided for in this bill for agriculture, where protests have been received, might be adequate. The hearings to which I made reference earlier would be aimed at developing before an attempt to finalize procedure in a given area, to determine what needs existed. Reference was made to the fact that there was some concern that you would isolate or landlock other Federal or non-Federal lands. |