Senator ALLOTT. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Cliff. What percentage of the people are using the wilderness areas? Of those who use your public land? The figure was given here 2 years ago and 4 years ago in the hearings as less than 2 percent.

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir. It is less than 2 percent. This past year it was a little over 1 percent of the total man-days use of the national forests within the wilderness areas.

Senator ALLOTT. About 1 percent.

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. Of the people who used lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture used the wilderness areas. Mr. CLIFF. That is correct.

Senator ALLOTT. Now, what percentage, if you use the 8 million figure, what percentage, Mr. Cliff-well, the 6 million figure, correct that-now in the wilderness areas, what percentage of the land under your jurisdiction does that constitute?

Mr. CLIFF. Well, the figure I gave you was for the wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe areas combined, which comprised 14,318,000 acres, or about 8 percent of the total national forest system.

Senator ALLOTT. About 8 percent of the total forest system.
Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir.

Senator ALLOTT. All right. I would like to ask one question. Time is going on. And then I will desist.

What areas have been withdrawn or what areas have been set aside as wilderness areas or set aside in one of these preferred categories that you set out in the Secretary's letter since the hearings were closed in this matter in the Senate in 1961, if any?

Mr. CLIFF. 1961?

Senator ALLOTT. In other words, what changes have you made in lands which would affect the lands contemplated to come under jurisdiction of this bill since 1961?

Mr. CLIFF. We have recently reclassified two primitive areas, the Selway-Bitterroot primitive area in Idaho and Montana mentioned previously in this hearing.

Senator ALLOTT. And how was that reclassified? From what to what?

Mr. CLIFF. It was reclassified from a primitive area to a wilderness area, but not all of the area was so classified. The total area of this primitive area was 1,875,000 acres. We classified as wilderness 1,240,000 acres. We declassified and restored to regular multiple-use management about 447,000 acres. We left in primitive area status the balance for future study and determination.

Now, the other one that we have taken action on recently was the reclassification of the Anaconda-Pintlar primitive area in Montana to a wilderness area. This action was taken within the last 6 months. Senator ALLOTT. Isn't it a little unusual, Mr. Cliff, that when legislation is pending to determine the status of this matter, that this land would be reclassified by the Secretary?

Mr. CLIFF. I don't think so. This is clearly within the Secretary's authority and, of course, some form of wilderness legislation has been pending for 5 years or more. This job needs to be done. These areas need to be looked at and the determination made as to their management. We felt that we should not be restricted in orderly review and

95399-63-4

reclassification of these areas pending an indefinite passage of the wilderness bill.

Senator ALLOTT. Would you say there is-would you say this is ordinary practice of the departments of Government to make decisions of this sort when legislation is pending governing the very subject matter of it?

Mr. CLIFF. I don't know if it is ordinary practice or not, but the Department of Agriculture felt that in this case it was justified that this be done. For one thing, in the

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may say something on that point. Would the Senator yield?

Senator ALLOTT. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Montana.

Senator METCALF. In justification to the Department the AnacondaPintlar, which is entirely in the State of Montana, has been under survey and discussion for several years. It has, the reclassification into wilderness area, has approval, almost unanimous approval, of the State of Montana and it would have been a great disservice to the people who wanted it reclassified if they had waited until we were able to convince such opponents of this legislation as the Senator from Colorado is that we couldn't have a wilderness area there until we passed the wilderness bill.

Now, as for the Selway-Bitterroot area, one of the reasons that the Senator from Idaho and I were so interested in this bill was so that there would be an early reclassification of that area. Some of it, in my opinion, should never have been incorporated into the wilderness, into a primitive area. They went along on boundaries that were section line boundaries rather than natural boundaries. The reclassification that the Department of Agriculture has made was made after many hearings out there in the field, discussion with the Congressmen and the Senators from both States, and in an orderly process that I think that all of us who were directly concerned with it must defend. My only comment is that I feel that I would have had more to say, a little bit greater weight would have been given to my opinion, than was given by the Secretary had he had to come back to this committee and get approval, the affirmance of the committee; but I hope that the Secretary of Agriculture will go forward with another wilderness area, with reclassification from primitive to wilderness area, in that same territory because it needs to be reclassified whether this bill passes or not.

Senator ALLOTT. Well, the Senator has just made a very fine argument for the amendment which was offered by the Senator from Colorado and I hope he will see fit to support it when the time comes around. Senator METCALF. The Senator I hope will not stay awake until the Senator from Montana does because he will have a long sleepless period if he waits until I vote for his amendment.

Senator ALLOTT. This makes a total, Mr. Cliff, then, of how many acres that have been classified into the wilderness since these hearings were closed in 1961?

Mr. CLIFF. There is one other area that we had, that we took action on since the hearings were closed in 1961. On the 22d day of November 1961 we reclassified the La Garita Primitive Area in Colorado to a

wild area status and it consists of 49,000 acres. This was done after the public notice and there was no objection to it coming from the people of Colorado after due public notice.

The three actions which I have told you about add up the SelwayBitterroot, one of 1,240,000 acres, the Anaconda-Pintlar of 157,803 acres, and the La Garita is 49,000 acres which has been reclassified from primitive area status since the fall of 1961 to wild or wilderness area status.

Senator ALLOTT. That makes 1,445,800, if my arithmetic is good; 803.

Mr. CLIFF. I didn't add it.
Senator ANDERSON. 843.

Senator ALLOTT. 843. There are no fours in that column the way read it.

he

So that I can get this completely straight, the letter of February 21, 1962, from the Secretary of Agriculture, on page 4 the figures given now represent the correct figures in the respective classifications of wilderness, wild, primitive and canoe, is that correct?

Mr. CLIFF. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Burdick? Any questions?

Senator BURDICK. No questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Simpson?

Senator SIMPSON. No questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Mechem?

Senator MECHEM. No, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Dominick?

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you a couple. I want to go again into this right of a veto or other actions of Congress if we pass this bill.

Let us take, for example, construction of transmission lines across public lands. I would presume that regardless of who is involved in building these, whether as public, Federal lines, or REA or private utilities, that if they were scheduled in accordance with the development of a reclamation project to go across a wilderness area, that they couldn't be so constructed under this bill.

Mr. CLIFF. It is my understanding that

Senator DOMINICK. Unless the President took action.

Mr. CLIFF. If this bill were passed in the form it was introduced, then the uses for transmission lines or water developments or mining would have to receive the approval of the President. However, I think there would be

Senator DOMINICK. Just stop right there, Mr. Cliff.

Mr. CLIFF. I think there would be a question if Congress passed a subsequent law authorizing such use in the wilderness area, in any specific wilderness area, and I imagine that law would prevail. Congress has the right, as I understand it, to pass a law anytime setting up a wilderness area under present authority, setting up a wilderness area or discontinuing it or modifying it, or to permit some use in it if they so see fit.

So if Congress authorized the construction of a transmission line or a water conduit in a wilderness area, I am not a lawyer but I imagine that it would become the law of the land.

Senator DOMINICK. On the assumption that you don't have a later bill, and I am not sure that you are right on this because I am not sure of the effect of this wilderness bill on overall management of public lands, but on the assumption that you have existing reclamation laws, would this situation in effect-in effect it gives the President the power to veto any authorized reclamation project as far as this type of construction is concerned?

Mr. CLIFF. Well, I hesitate to express a legal opinion. I am not qualified to do so, but my layman's judgment would be that this bill, if passed, would supersede the previous acts of Congress.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman

Senator ANDERSON. Certainly.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Cliff, under the existing law, the wilderness, wild and primitive areas are open to mineral exploration and development under the general mining law. Under the present provision of this particular

Senator ANDERSON. I don't believe they are. I think they are subject to mining under the regulations of the Department of Agriculture which are extremely strict and-I'm sorry, I may be wrong. Go

on.

Senator SIMPSON. In any event, under this proposal exploration in these areas under the proposal of S. 4 would be barred and the mineral deposits would be lost, would they not?

Mr. CLIFF. Under the provisions of this bill, prospecting would be permitted but the prospector would not be permitted to make a location of a mining claim.

Senator SIMPSON. Doesn't that do violence to the multiple-use theory of the Department?

Mr. CLIFF. Pardon?

Senator SIMPSON. Doesn't that do violence to your multiple-use theory of the Department?

Mr. CLIFF. I don't think so. The Multiple Use Act itself which was passed by Congress in 1960 recognized that the wilderness preservation was not incompatible with the multiple-use principle. The multiple-use principle doesn't mean that all uses occur on all lands at the same time. It does mean that these major uses would occur on a major area of land, probably not necessarily concurrently. But the wilderness use does permit of hunting and fishing and watershed protection, grazing, so that there would be multiple uses in a wilderness area even though some commercial uses would be barred.

It is true it would be restricted use but Congress has already de-clared that it would not be incompatible with the multiple-use principle.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Metcalf?

Senator METCALF. No questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Cilff.

I want to put in the record at this time an article from the-I think this appeared in the Washington Post but it was from the Los Angeles Times Bureau to the Washington Post, dated February 23, discussing this skiing situation in San Gorgonio. It might have already been called to your attention but just so there won't be any mistake, I want to put it in because it presents the case of the skiers very strongly.

(The document referred to follows:)

[From Jim Murray's column, the Washington Post, Feb. 25, 1963]

LOS ANGELES WANTS SKI HAVEN

LOS ANGELES, February 23.-Skiing is something that I can take or leave alone, I mean, if I'm going to break a leg, I'd just as soon do it off a bar stool as a snowbank.

But there is a group in Washington, D.C., which is trying to lease from the Government 4,000 acres of snow so they can erect a ski area where they can guarantee you can break your leg on a lacquered barrel stave 4 months a year.

Heading the Washington invasion is Vincent X. Flaherty, the man who brought major league baseball to California. Vince was born and raised there, so he should know his way around-at least better than he knew California when he landed here and commenced thumping for big league baseball.

Now if they wanted 4,000 acres of downtown Dallas or even uptown Pocatello, I would suggest they all go read the published papers of the Teapot Dome case. But what they want is the tip of Mount San Gorgonio which is currently inhabited by four eagles, a crashed plane, the abominable snowman and, for all I know, Judge Crater. All you can get there is a good view of Palm Springs if that's your idea of fun.

It's 11,502 feet high and it's the only place in southern California where it can snow even when the sun's out. If it doesn't have snow, neither does the polar cap. But the best part is it's only 88 miles from Los Angeles City Hall.

At present, it just sits there while an estimated 300,000 southern California skiers study road maps to Mammoth, Aspen, Banff, and points north and wonder if their insurance covers them more than 100 miles from home. There are closer-in areas but they get snow only when we get rain and in the past few years you would get more skiing in the Sahara.

The decision to lease the land is Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman's, although all you can sow at that altitude is a splintered femur or two and the only people who get rich on ski slopes are bone surgeons.

The Los Angeles group is ready to finance all or any part of the project and is inviting many Californians (who have made a futile 16-year fight for San Gorgonio) to participate in the financing. They want them to have a strong voice in the operation of the winter resort-if and when Secretary Freeman gives the green light.

Ordinarily, the only way to get the U.S. Government to give up real estate is to invade, but the only thing they do with San Gorgonio now is keep it under surveillance by the Forest Service-I guess in case the snow burns.

A Los Angeles financier named Ben Weingart who got sick of looking at all those beanfields east of Long Beach a few years ago and built the community of Lakewood on it, throwing up overnight an inhabited area about the size of Des Moines doesn't covet the mountain for any of the usual reasons. He just wants that part of it you couldn't get to except on a snowplow or a parachute the acreage above 8,500 feet. The consistent snow line in southern California is 8,500 feet. Below that you may need snow skis at the top of the run and water skis at the bottom.

Weingart proposes to spend not less than $5 million and as much as $10 million to develop the area for skiing and to fill in the dry lake there for skating, including an all-important 400-meter Olympic training course of which there are only two in existence in this country. He will want a 40-year lease. Uncle Sam can keep the snow.

The thought of using San Gorgonio for anything but avalanches always brings out the beast in the nature lovers, but when last seen there was no heavy traffic up the slopes. In fact, there are more pedestrians on the walls of Everest than San Gorgonio. Tree lovers can rest easy because 9,000 feet is above timberline. In fact, where the ski run will be, the airlines are the only ones who should worry because, at those altitudes, ski jumpers will be bigger navigational hazards than head winds, and TWA may have to maintain its own snow patrol.

There isn't much of anything at those heights now, including oxygen, and San Gorgonio is, by power of Congress and the laws of nature, officially a wilderness area. I can't say the skiers will spoil this any. From what I have seen of them, they qualify as wildlife any old day. Particularly when they start sticking that poker in the wine and autographing each other's leg casts.

It's not inconceivable that the boon to California could be another winter Olympics to go along with the summer one we hope to get in 1968. The last one