In regard to economic aspects of outdoor recreation, the Commission's report states, at page 4, that:

"Outdoor recreation brings about economic benefits. Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also brings about desirable economic effects. Its provision enhances community values by creating a better place to live and increasing land values. In some underdeveloped areas, it can be a mainstay of the local economy. And it is a basis for big business as the millions and millions of people seeking the outdoors generate an estimated $20 billion a year market for goods and services." As previously pointed out, the wilderness concept imposes severe restrictions on the forms of outdoor recreation which may be pursued and on the extent of use for recreational purposes. Thus, wilderness areas will not provide anywhere near the economic benefits which would be provided by varied outdoor recreation facilities freely accessible to the general public. This is certainly an additional consideration to be weighed in the first instance by the Congress in making decisions as to the size and location of wilderness areas. The Commission's report points out, at pages 4 and 5, that:

"About 90 percent of all Americans participated in some form of outdoor recreation in the summer of 1960. In total, they participated in one activity or another on 4.4 billion separate occasions. It is anticipated that by 1976 the total will be 6.9 billion, and by the year 2000 it will be 12.4 billion-a threefold increase by the turn of the century."

In contrast to these billions of outdoor recreation occasions, wilderness areas by reason of their nature and location and lack of recreation facilities, will provide an extremely small number of outdoor recreation opportunities for the American public.

The Commission's report recommends, at page 8, that:

"Congress should enact legislation to provide for the establishment and preservation of certain primitive areas as 'wilderness areas.'"

On pages 131-132, the Commission's report repeats the recommendation that: "Congress should enact legislation providing for the establishment and management of certain primitive areas (class V) as 'wilderness areas.'"

We have no objection to this if it is intended to mean that the Congress should exercise its legislative responsibility in affirmative fashion and make certain which primitive areas should be preserved as "wilderness areas."

The Commission states that:

"The purpose of legislation to designate outstanding areas in this class in Federal ownership as 'wilderness areas' is to give the increased insurance of attaining this objective that action by the Congress will provide."

We wish to reiterate that we are not opposed to affirmative legislation by the Congress to designate outstanding primitive areas in Federal ownership as "wilderness areas." We are opposed to a blanket approach to the important question of designating wilderness areas and to a procedure whereby the Congress would be relegated to a mere veto role.

The public policy question involved in the designation of individual wilderness areas could not be better stated than it is at page 113 of the Commission's report in discussing what it refers to as "Class V-Primitive Areas" as follows: *** it must be recognized that there are some areas which meet the physical requirements of this class but which for economic and social reasons are more valuable for some other purposes."

The public policy question is also posed at page 117 of the Commission's report:

"Areas suitable for zoning as either class III (natural environment areas) or with class V (primitive areas) present an especially difficult problem. The former classification permits wider recreation use and also other uses, while the latter preserves truly primitive conditions. Class III should usually be given the preference where the need to make the area available for general recreation use or for economic utilization of its resources is clearly more urgent than the need for its preservation in primitive conditions. Where this situation does not exist, the class V choice should be preferred, since once primitive conditions have been destroyed, their restoration is virtually impossible." We submit that the Congress should determine the question of proper zoning or classification through the traditional process of affirmative legislative action. At page 71 of the Commission's report, it is stated that:

"The most promising means of providing an adequate supply of wilderness recreation appears to be very restrictive management in those areas set aside formally as wilderness areas, and augmenting these opportunities with 'quasi

wilderness' areas. Many of the latter are in the East and South, which do not have the larger undeveloped areas. Even if managed to allow other limited uses and more recreation development in some parts, they could provide a form of 'wilderness experience' that will satisfy a large proportion of those who seek it."

The Congress is surely the body which in the first instance should determine the balance between pure wilderness areas and "quasi-wilderness" areas.

The extreme approach to outdoor recreation represented by the strict wilderness concept was very clearly pointed out by Senator Ernest Gruening in his individual views on S. 174:

"Some of the more extreme, and, I regret to say, even fanatical, of my fellow conservationists would like to keep all of Alaska a wilderness-even to denying the accessibility upon which the enjoyment of wilderness is predicated. They oppose the harnessing of rivers and lakes for hydro. They are more concerned for a nesting duck and an anadromous salmon than for the economic welfare of a multitude of people. Their error, as I see it, is that they do not believe, as I do, that we conserve natural resources, whether wldlife, timber, watercourses, soil, and scenic beauty, not for themselves but for the future enjoyment of human beings. We preserve moose not for the sake of the moose but so that coming generations can ever see moose, photograph moose, hunt moose in undiminished supply. A wilderness that few, if any, can ever get to and hence enjoy, may furnish a snobbish and selfish pleasure to the few exceptional ones who can manage, at great expense not available to their fellow citizens, to get there, but it is not in keeping with what I deem the promise of our national park system, of our national forest wonderlands, and, indeed, of the proposed wilderness preservation system. Kings enjoyed such solitary monopolistic privileges in the Old World, in the days of feudalism, but they are unsuited to a contemporary and future democracy."

Still another reason why the Congress should affirmatively make the decision in the first instance as to the designation of wilderness areas lies in the fact that these areas will be deprived, perhaps irrevocably and in perpetuity, of the benefit of positive forest management. Positive forest management helps prevent erosion in many important watershed areas. Many forms of wildlife find food and shelter in healthy, growing forest that they cannot find in unmanaged overmature wilderness stands. Further, accessibility is really the key to forest recreation, and managed forests are accessible through their system of roads and trails for logging and fire-protection purposes. With the modern science of forest management, people no longer cut the forest and move on-they are growing trees as a crop, protecting them from fire, insects and disease. They are learning more about forest dynamics and the science of silviculture. They are learning how to improve the stands of timber and the rate of growth.

Good forest management is generally good wildlife management. Wildlife needs food, cover, water and freedom from excessive disturbance-all of which the managed forest provides. The small plants, shrubs and sprouts, the vines and the bushes which provide food and shelter for a great many of our North American wildlife species thrive in the open areas where new growth is getting started following forest harvests. Quite contrary to widely held belief, the overmature forest, the wilderness, does not provide ideal game habitat. Without space and light it is incapable of supporting the variety of small plants used as food by most desirable types of wildlife. For example, it is estimated today that the deer population in the eastern, southern, and northwestern sections of the United States and in eastern Canada is markedly higher than when the early settlers first came to our virgin wilderness. Favorable changes in habitat have resulted from man's opening up of these forests.

Forest lands, both private and public, which are managed for multiple use are accessible over the roads and trails maintained for management purposes. These lands serve a public purpose which cannot be met by inaccessible wilderness areas devoted to single-purpose use.

In conclusion, we believe that wilderness areas should be designated only by affirmative acts of the Congress for the following reasons:

1. It should be the legislative responsibility of the Congress to weigh economic development potentialities versus recreational potentialities.

2. It should likewise be the responsibility of the Congress to weigh the needs for mass recreation opportunities versus the restrictions placed on such opportunities by the wilderness concept.

3. The Congress should by statute fix the boundary lines of any areas designated as wilderness areas, just as it has historically exercised the legislative re

sponsibility of fixing the boundary lines of public land areas to be set aside for restricted purposes, such as national parks.

4. The Congress should make an affirmative decision as to the total amount, location and size of wilderness areas.

5. Although the Reorganization Act restricts the Congress to a veto in the case of reorganization plans, the factors to be weighed in the designation of wilderness areas are of a more substantive nature.

6. Affirmative and specific action by the Congress would insure that persons locally affected could testify before public hearings held by elected representatives.

7. The American people are entitled to have the affirmative judgment of the Congress, taking into consideration comprehensive natural resources surveys, as to whether a particular area should be statutorily restricted in its use. 8. The serious problems involved in the excessive ownership of land by the Federal Government compel the conclusion that the Congress should make affirmative, specific decisions as to what limited areas are to be preserved as wilderness areas on a nontaxpaying, non-income-producing basis.

9. The Congress should weigh the fact that wilderness areas will not provide anywhere near the associated economic benefits provided by varied outdoor recreation facilities freely accessible to the general public.

10. The Congress should make an affirmative decision as to which areas meet the physical requirements of wilderness areas "but which for economic and social reasons are more valuable for other purposes," as stated by the Outdoor Recreation Commission.

11. The Congress should make an affirmative decision on the "especially difficult problems" of areas "suitable for zoning as either class III (natural environment areas) or with class V (primitive areas)," as stated by the Outdoor Recreation Commission.

12. The Congress should make an affirmative decision as to whether it would be better to treat certain primitive areas as quasi-wilderness areas rather than as pure wilderness areas, as pointed out by the Outdoor Recreation Commission.

13. The Congress should assume the responsibility of affirmatively deciding which areas will be deprived of the benefits of positive, multiple purpose, sustained yield forest management.

14. Affirmative enactment of bills specifying wilderness areas would be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution which provides that "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States * It would be unfortunate if the Congress abdicated this power in any respect whatsoever.

*

We believe it would be far better if the Congress were currently considering a well-rounded declaration of outdoor recreation policy which would encourage "shared responsibility, not only between public and private activity, but among all levels of government," for meeting overall problems related to outdoor recreation and multiple use of all natural resources, rather than considering at this time sweeping bills affecting massive areas but concentrating on only one limited aspect of outdoor recreation. Pending formulation of a comprehensive declaration of outdoor recreation policy, the Congress may enact wilderness areas separately into law at any time it sees fit, providing a more orderly procedure than that presently contemplated. In the absence of an overall evaluation of the public policy considerations involved, we consider it unfortunate that wilderness bills are being considered essentially tieing the Congress' hands behind its back. The wilderness bills appear to create a presumption that all areas presently in a wilderness condition should be kept in a wilderness condition in perpetuity. We do not believe this to be so, and we believe the report of the Outdoor Recreation Commission says it is not so.

Section 3 (h) of S. 174 provides that no areas other than those mentioned in section 3 (b), (c), and (d) shall be added to or eliminated from the wilderness system except by "Specific, affirmative authorization by law ***" We submit this is likewise a highly desirable requirement for any statutory action on wilderness areas.

Therefore, we respectfully urge the Public Lands Subcommittee either to suspend consideration of blanket wilderness legislation until an overall outdoor recreation policy has been established, or to formulate an amendment which would provide that any statutory designation of primitive areas as wilderness areas should be only by affirmative act of Congress.

95399-63-16

We are very grateful for this opportunity to express our views on the important matters being considered by the distinguished U.S. Senate.

Senator METCALF. You may proceed in your own way.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, some questions have been raised as to the extent of mining and mineral potentiality of the wilderness and primitive areas, and I would like to make some observations in that connection and more or less try to relate it to some observations about some of the relationships between S. 4 and the problems of the modern manufacturing in a space-missile-electronics-nuclear energy age that we are in.

In 1961, the Russians discovered a new mineral in Kazakhstan, U.S.S.R. and named it Gagarinite in honor of the first man to orbit the earth. Gargarinite contains yttrium and rare-earth elements.

Rare-earth minerals are scattered about the world but are relatively scarce. In the past few years, research by Americans, Russians, and Japanese in particular has developed much more knowledge about the properties of rare-earth metals than was formerly known. It is evident that they will have a myriad of uses in technologies which are only now unfolding. They possess unusual characteristics at both very high temperatures and very low temperatures, both of which conditions will be encountered in space travel. They will be used in supersonic airplanes; space vehicles and missiles; as lightweight shielding against gamma radiation and thermal neutrons; in electronics; in metallurgy; in radioactive medical therapy; as good light amplifier material in optical masers; and in new methods of electric power generation.

For example, under Project Dyna-Soar, zirconium will be used at critical points of pilot-controlled glide vehicles. Use of zirconium to resist erosion in magnetomydrodynamic generators at 5,000° F. is foreseen. This involves direct conversion of heat into electricity. Zirconium's value as a nuclear construction material was highlighted when the U.S.S. Nautilus made the first submerged voyage beneath the north polar ice. Another of these rare earth metals, cesium will be used in the ion propulsion engine, in which thrust is developed by exhausting a stream of ions through a nozzle after the ions have been accelerated to about 300,000 miles per hour by passing them through electrical or magnetic fields. The engine is intended for use outside the earth's atmosphere. Four companies are working on various components of this engine and several prototypes have been built. Cesium is also being used in development of the plasma therionic converter which will transform the heat of a nuclear reactor core directly into electricity. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has estimated that the ion propulsion engine and the thermionic converter program would require more than triple the present annual consumption of cesium metal within the next few years. It is reported that a lithium-cesium-rubidium saline deposit is being developed in Esmeralda County, Nev.

As to another rare-earth metal, the 1961 Minerals Yearbook, prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, report that:

New technological achievements announced during 1961 could signify raw material, with subsequent lower cost to the user, would be required for new uses and for utilization research.

Yttrium is used in microwave devices for missile systems, nuclear reactors, medicine, metallurgy, ceramics, and chemistry.

The Minerals Yearbook also reports:

The Office of Mineral Exploration (OME) included tellurium among mineral products eligible for up to 50 percent Government financial participation of approved cost * * *. The continued search for new sources of tellurium was unsuccessful * * * The search by Government and private industry for tellurium sources continued * * *. Research advances in the applications of bismuth-telluride components in thermoelectric devices. Refrigerators, water coolers, icemakers, and air conditioners using these devices were on the threshold of production for homeowners.

Tellurium will be important in space vehicles to cool interior temperatures and as a source of power converted from solar heat. Tellurium is presently produced in the United States only as a byproduct of copper and lead operations in the Western States. Significant quantities of tellurium are produced by the U.S.S.R. in south central Siberia; the exact quantity is unknown, but the advanced degree of Russian use of the element in the thermoelectric applications indicates development of a large tellurium industry.

Senator METCALF. Would you mind if I interrupted?

Mr. CANNON. Surely.

Senator METCALF. How do you prospect for tellurium?

Mr. CANNON. How do you prospect for tellurium?

Senator METCALF. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. Well, in that connection I would like to refer to a statement submitted

Senator METCALF. Are going to cover that?

Mr. CANNON. Yes. I would like to get into some of the methods, modern methods of prospecting.

Senator METCALF. Surely. If you are going to cover that later on in your statement, I will defer the question.

Mr. CANNON. The 1961 Minerals Yearbook also reports:

The Office of Minerals Exploration (OME), offered financial assistance to explore for all types of beryllium ore, and participation in approved projects was up to 50 percent. A contract for exploration of beryl and columbium and tantalum minerals in Custer County, S. Dak., was completed and certified. A contract for exploration of beryllium minerals in Juab County, Utah, continued in force at the end of 1961. A contract for exploration of beryl and tantalum minerals in Taos County, N. Mex., terminated without certification in 1961.

The Bureau of Mines continued its comprehensive program on beryllium for the fourth consecutive year, and in 1961 the program was the largest the Bureau had ever undertaken on beryllium. It consisted of continuing a nationwide study to detremine the nature and extent of potential domestic beryllium resources, continuing metallurgical studies on developing milling methods to recover disseminated beryllium minerals from low-grade ores that someday may substitute for cobbed beryl, continuing metallurgical studies on the extraction and purification of beryllium and staring some studies on casting beryllium. Sensitive nuclear electronic instruments were widely used in the search for beryllium deposits— this is one of the techniques of modern prospecting for this type of mineral, sensitive electronic instruments

and in the Northwestern States use of a mobile spectrographic laboratory for detecting beryllium in samples of rocks was continued.

This is another technique, a mobile type of spectrographic laboratory. The exploration of certain mineral deposits in the Badger Flats area in Park County, Colo., was completed. Numerous occurrences of beryl in north central New Mexico were described.