sequently, at this stage, although we obviously have not begun the intensive review that will be called for under the terms of this bill, we have good reason to believe that a very large portion of the National Wildlife Refuge System probably will not qualify for wilderness status. Subject to the foregoing explanation, the following table of acreages is furnished. Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument__ Colorado National Monument_. Dinosaur National Monument__ Great Sand Dunes National Monument___ Total FLORIDA Everglades National Park_-- GEORGIA Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge----- 11,792,520 acres are in California; 115,240 acres are in Nevada. 2152,159 acres are in Colorado; 52,977 acres are in Utah. 4, 235, 572 51, 333 260, 018 13, 547 17, 692 * 205, 136 2 36, 740 584, 466 1, 400, 533 330, 973 Death Valley National Monument is partly in Nevada. See acreages under California. 275,332 acres are in North Carolina; 236.383 acres are in Tennessee. Dinosaur National Monument is partially in Utah. See acreages under Colorado. 2,039,217 acres are in Wyoming; 151,068 acres are in Montana; 31,488 acres are in Idaho. Mr. ASPINALL. In addition, if not included in these figures, can you indicate the acreages of areas presently awaiting classification or legislation for national park, national monument, or wildlife refuge use as of the present time? Secretary UDALL. These are lands we are considering at the present time in the Department? Mr. ASPINALL. Yes. Secretary UDALL. I would be very happy to. Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, I would ask this information be made a part of the record at this point. Mrs. ProST. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information follows:) PENDING ACTIONS FOR NEW NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS There are four prospective areas that we believe will fit this category as follows: (1) Allagash National Recreation Area, Maine, comprising 296,500 acres. (2) Between-the-Lakes National Recreation Area, Ky., and Tenn.; 65,182 acres are in Tennessee; 130,365 acres are in Kentucky. (3) Canyonlands National Park, Utah, comprising 332,000 acres. Mr. ASPINALL. In my letter of January 12, 1962, I requested an identification of uses that are now allowed, within areas under your control, that might be incorporated within the wilderness system, which would be prohibited under S. 174 as passed by the Senate. Your reply of February 2, 1962, indicated that section 6, which is at page 13 of the act, would preserve existing uses within areas selected for wilderness status and that this provision would cause no serious difficulty in administration of the areas. For the record I would like to have your specific comment on the preservation of (1) the acquisition of mineral rights in the Mount McKinley National Park, the Death Valley National Monument, the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and the Glacier Bay National Monument, all of which have specific legislative authorization for continued applicability of the mining laws; (2) applicability of the Mineral Leasing Act to wildlife refuges and game ranges; and (3) acquisition of mineral rights under the mining laws within game ranges. Secretary UDALL. I would be glad to furnish that. Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, I would ask the information furnished with relation to the questions proposed be made a part of the record at this place. Mrs. Prost. You have heard the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Colorado. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. (The information follows:) MINERAL RIGHTS IN MOUNT MCKINLEY NATIONAL PARK In general, our views on the "use" question, as indicated in our letter of February 2, remain the same. Concerning the specific question regarding mineral rights in Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska, the act of February 26, 1917, establishing the park, provides that such establishment shall not modify or affect the mineral land laws then applicable to lands in the park. A 1931 statute contains authority for the regulation of surface use of mineral land locations in the park. Regulations for this purpose are contained in 36 CFR 7.44. In the circumstances, mining as prescribed by the Congress under appropriate regulation is now a recognized activity within the park. Consequently, if this legislation is enacted, we would naturally propose boundaries for any wilderness area that would avoid the inclusion of active mining operations whenever possible, in keeping with the wilderness concept outlined in this legislation. We would not, however, attempt or consider that our action in so doing would modify any authorization heretofore granted by the Congress with respect to mining within the park area. MINING RIGHTS IN DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL MONUMENT In the case of Death Valley National Monument, the act of June 13, 1933, extended the mining laws to the monument subject to the surface use of locations, entries, or patents under regulations of the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR 7.26). We believe this enactment would not alter the present mining authorization and we anticipate no difficulty in this regard. (COMMITTEE NOTE.-The following opinion was also made part of the record:) PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL OF LAND IN DEATH VALLEY NATIONAL MONUMENT FROM MINING LOCATION FOR VARIOUS PUBLIC PURPOSES When a statute simply provides that the mining laws are extended to a national park or national monument, the land within that park or monument is subject to withdrawal from mining to the same extent and on the same basis as similar land subject to the mining laws outside a park or monument. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Washington, D.C., April 12, 1962. M-36585 To: Director, Bureau of Land Management. You have asked whether there is authority to withdraw from mining location approximately 35,800 acres of land in the Death Valley National Monument for the preservation of administrative areas needed for camp grounds, housing, water supply, historic sites, archaeological areas, and paleontological areas in view of the provisions of the act of June 13, 1933 (48 Stat. 139; 16 U.S.C., sec. 447). Land within national parks and monuments is generally closed to mineral location (16 U.S.C., sec. 1 et seq.; 36 C.F.R. 1.27). It is necessary for the Congress to pass legislation specifically authorizing mining in order that such activities may be carried on within any particular park or monument. Such legislation has been passed with respect to one park and three monuments. One of the three monuments is Death Valley National Monument to which the act of June 13, 1933, extended the mining laws. The effect of a statute extending the mining laws to a specified park or monument must be carefully considered. The act of June 13, 1933, stated that the "mining laws of the United States are extended to the area included within the Death Valley National Monument in California, or as it may hereafter be extended * * *." This is simply putting the lands within the monument in the same status as regards mining as Federal lands outside the monument to which the mining laws apply. In effect the 1933 act merely removed from lands within the Death Valley National Monument the general prohibition against mining in monument lands. The executive has general authority to withdraw from mining location lands otherwise subject to the mining laws. (40 A.G. 73.) If the lands now lying within the Death Valley National Monument lay outside its boundaries, those lands would be subject to the mining laws without special legislation and at the same time capable of being withdrawn by executive action from mining location. We know of no reason why mining on lands within the boundaries of a monument should be more carefully protected than mining on lands outside the boundaries of a monument. There is no statutory language to support such a distinction, and we know of no persuasive justification for it. All that the 1933 act did was to make the mining laws as applicable to the monument lands as to land outside the monument. When the mining laws were made applicable to the monument lands, the executive's right to withdraw the land from mining location became equally applicable, in the absence of legislation to the contrary. Consequently, in determining whether these lands within the Death Valley National Monument may be legally withdrawn from mining location, the same standards should be applied as those applicable to the withdrawal from mining location of lands lying outside a national monument. These are the legal standards to be applied. There are, of course, a number of policy considerations which must be kept in mind. The Congress obviously considered that Death Valley had particular value for mining purposes, or it would not have departed from the normal practice of prohibiting mining within a national monument. A former Secretary of the Interior gave his support to the legislation extending the mining laws to Death Valley. This expression of congressional interest and the Department's previous acquiescence are particular considerations which should be kept in mind in determining whether parts of Death Valley should be withdrawn from application of the mining laws, but they do not constitute a legal barrier to such a withdrawal. The legal standards to be applied are those applicable to such withdrawals on the public domain subject to the mining laws outside national parks and monuments. THOMAS J. CAVANAUGH, Associate Solicitor, Division of Public Lands. ACQUISITION OF MINERAL RIGHTS IN GLACIER BAY AND ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MONUMENTS In Glacier Bay National Monument and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monuments, the acts of June 22, 1936, and October 27, 1941, respectively, allow the location, entry, and patent of mineral deposits with the right to occupy and use the surface reasonably incident to the mining or removal of minerals. These activities are carried on under general regulations 36 CFR 69.11 and 43 CFR 185.33 h-o. Unlike Mount McKinley and Death Valley, where a patent may be obtained to the surface, in Glacier Bay and Organ Pipe Cactus no patent to the land may be obtained. Enactment of S. 174 in its present form would not alter the foregoing special provisions for mining activities because of subsection (c) (2) of section 3 wherein it is provided that the inclusion of any area of any park within the wilderness system shall in no manner lower the standards evolved for the use and preservation of the area in accordance with the 1916 act and "the statutory authority under which the area was created." In our judgment, where the Congress has made special provision for a particular use in a park the provisions of that law would remain applicable. Concerning the second portion of Mr. Aspinall's question-applicability of the Mineral Leasing Act to wildlife refuges and game ranges, the application of the mineral leasing laws pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 181 is subject to regulations, 43 CFR 192.9, relating specifically to the leasing of wildlife refuge lands and game rangelands. These regulations now define our present leasing policy and procedures. These procedures provide that offers for oil or gas leases covering wildlife lands will be accepted and no leases covering such lands will be issued except in those particular instances where it is determined by the Geological Survey that any of the lands in question are subject to drainage. In those cases, the Bureau of Land Management, with the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to process an offering inviting competitive bids in accordance with the existing regulations relating to competitive oil and gas leasing activities. From the foregoing, it is clear we believe that any operations under the mineral leasing laws and regulations that may be authorized or permitted in accordance |