South Absaroka Wilderness Area: History: One ounce of gold produced in 1940. Potential: (a) Known deposits: Gold-one mine, with accessory lead, zinc, and copper, and one reported gold placer; molydenum—one deposit with accessory lead, copper, iron and arsenic. Stratified Primitive Area : History No recorded production. Potential: (a) Known deposits: None. Potential: (a) Known deposits: None. (b) Probable deposits: Gold-molybdenum-Kirwin gold-molybdenum district abutting northern border and may extend across; phosphate-reported in strata which may extend through southwest edge of primitive area. Teton Wilderness Area : History: No recorded production. Potential: (a) Known deposits: Coal-250 square miles of western part underlain by sub-bituminous coal of Jackson Hole coalfield; gold-placers reported along Pacific Creek. Mrs. Prost. I have just two or three other short questions, Mr. Cliff. The Forest Service has previously advised us that there are 192 miles of roads in primitive areas in Idaho, there are 71 miles in Colorado, and 91 miles in California Do you happen to have at this time, and if not could you furnish for the record, a tabulation by States of the road mileage in primitive areas? Mr. CLIFF. We will be glad to furnish that for the record, Madam Chairman. Mrs. PrOST. There are special provisions of law in 16 United States Code 482 (A), and succeeding subsections, relative to mining and the application of the mining laws to areas within national forests as follows: Prescott, Mount Hood, Lincoln, Coranada, Santa Fe, Coconino, and Kiabab National Forest. Is it the opinion of your Department that with regard to any wilderness areas now or hereafter established within those forests these provisions would be repealed or superseded by the provisions of S. 174 if it were enacted in its present form? Mr. CLIFF. It is our opinion that they would not be repealed. Mr. CLIFF. Madam Chairman, it wouldn't repeal the laws that you mentioned, but where it applied on the same area that we might have a primitive or wilderness or wild area this would be overriding. The provisions of this bill if enacted would be overriding on those particular areas. Mr. OLSEN. The law would be amended by implication, is what you are saying. Mr. CLIFF. I do not know if that is the proper wording, but for the classified wilderness type areas this bill, if it were enacted into law, would be overriding on those areas. It would be the one that applied, regardless of these special acts that were mentioned, where there is overlapping. Mrs. ProST. Is there any leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act at the present time within national forest areas classified as wilderness? Mr. CLIFF. I know of none, Madam Chairman. Mrs. ProST. And do you know of any demand recently for such wilderness type areas to be opened up for mineral leasing? Mr. CLIFF. Yes. There have been a number of inquiries and requests, applications, for mineral leases in wilderness type areas. These applications are made to the Interior Department, and if they affect national forest lands they are referred to the Department of Agriculture for comment and recommendation. It has been our policy on the wilderness type areas to recommend against the issuance of mineral leases. That would involve invasion of the surface of the wilderness type areas. Mrs. PFOST. So they have all been turned down? Mr. CLIFF. With the exception of one they have been turned down by Interior. Mrs. Prost. And one you have approved? Mr. CLIFF. There was one on the Teton Wilderness Area that was approved. I don't remember the date on that, but there was one. Mrs. Prost. Was that in recent years? Mr. CLIFF. It is within the last several years. I would be glad to get the detailed information on that and supply it for the record. Mrs. Prost. It might be well to give us an idea of the size of the area and approximately when, and what the circumstances were? If you can supply that for the record, we would appreciate it. Mr. CLIFF. We will be glad to do that. (The information requested follows:) DETAILED INFORMATION CONCERNING A MINERAL LEASE APPROVED IN THE TETON WILDERNESS AREA This lease was issued on October 1, 1946, for a 5-year period, covering 2,560 acres of national forest land, 2,240 acres of which were in the Teton Wilderness Area. It was issued by the Bureau of Land Management shortly before the present practices regarding such issuances were firmly established at all levels in the Departments concerned. The lease was renewed for a 5-year period after an appeal to the Director from the local manager's decision denying renewal. Renewal was found to be a legal requirement in this case. The lease expired on September 30, 1956. Our records contain no indication that any attempt was ever made to explore for or remove oil and gas from lands under this lease. Mrs. PrOST. We had testimony this afernoon that there is mineral leasing activity within some of the wildlife refuges and the game refuges. Could you please furnish for the record the extent of mineral leasing activity in all areas of the national forests which you have knowledge of, that would become part of the wilderness system under S. 174, indicating the acreages involved and the revenues being received? Mr. CLIFF. Yes. Mrs. ProOST. Will you be able to furnish that for the record also? Mr. CLIFF. As I understand your question, if we issued mineral leases in the areas which have been applied for, what is the loss of revenue? Mrs. Prost. That is right. Mr. CLIFF. What would be the loss of revenue? Mrs. Prost. What about leasing in wildlife refuges and game ranges? Mr. CLIFF. We have no responsibility for the administration of the mineral leases on the wildlife refuges. Mrs. PrOST. That is right, because those areas come entirely under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. I will withdraw that part of my question concerning the game refuges as it does not pertain to your Department. (COMMITTEE NOTE.-By agreement with the departments, all of the data were consolidated and included with material furnished by the Secretary of the Interior. See p. 1176.) Are there further questions from the committee members? Mr. Pearl do you have some questions? Mr. PEARL. No, Madam Chairman. Mrs. Prost. Do you, Mr. Witmer? Mr. WITMER. No, Madam Chairman. Mrs. PrOST. You have been extremely patient. We are most appreciative for your tolerance this afternoon. We have certainly tried everyone's patience, and we thank you so much for your wonderful cooperation. (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., the committee was recessed, to be reconvened at 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, May 8, 1962.) WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:50 a.m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Hon. Gracie Pfost (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mrs. PrOST. The Subcommittee on Public Lands will now come to order for the further consideration of the wilderness preservation sys tem measures. The first witness this morning will be Mr. John C. Mason, Deputy Counsel, Federal Power Commission, accompanied by Mr. William R. Farley, Chief, Division of Licensed Projects, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission. The Federal Power Commission's comments on this legislation have been received and were placed in the record during yesterday's meeting. You may proceed, Mr. Mason. STATEMENT OF JOHN C. MASON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM R. FARLEY, CHIEF, DIVISION OF LICENSED PROJECTS, BUREAU OF POWER, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; AND JAMES N. WOOD, ATTORNEY, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION Mr. MASON. Madam Chairman, I took the liberty of bringing Mr. James N. Wood, an attorney, with me this morning. Mr. Wood works on legislative matters. Mrs. Prost. You do not have a statement; do you? Mr. MASON. I do not have a prepared statement. As you have indicated, the Commission's reports, which were submitted on May 4 have been incorporated in the record. We came down for the purpose of trying to give you a little information on the relationship between this proposal for the wilderness system and the Federal Power Act. We were here yesterday and heard the testimony of Secretary Udall and Secretary Freeman and that question, as you know, came up on several occasions. I thought it might be helpful if I very briefly outlined the relationship between the proposed wilderness system and the Federal Power Act as we see it from the Federal Power Act angle. When the Federal Power Act was passed in 1920 it gave the Com mission jurisdiction and authority to issue licenses to non-Federal entities, States, and municipalities, or corporations and associations organized under State law, so-called non-Federal entities. It gave the Commission authority to issue licenses to them for waterpower projects to be located on public land and reservations. Now that is the part that we are interested in here today, although as a side issue the Commission also has authority to issue licenses for projects on navigable waters and at Government dams. At the time the act was passed in 1920 all public lands and reservations were subject to the Commission's licensing authority. In 1921 Congress by special act removed national parks and national monuments then in existence from the Commission's licensing authority on the theory there would be no waterpower development in those specified areas. Later that was amended to include national parks and national monuments subsequently authorized to be set aside. So the act today by its terms excludes national parks and monuments whether created prior to 1920 or whether created in the future. That is the only exception to the Commission's licensing authority of any consequence. As we looked at these bills when they were before the Senate we concluded that the reservations that would be created by the wilderness bills would be no different from the forest reservations or any other reservation as far as the Commission's licensing authority is concerned, and that is the way we originally interpreted the bill. However, we later learned that Interior and principally Forest Service intended the bills to exclude the Commission's licensing authority and at that point we then began to think about and later recommended a saving clause that would preserve the Commission's licensing authority in the wilderness system after enactment of the bills. That first saving clause that was recommended would have saved the Commission's jurisdiction in "wilderness," "wild," "canoe," and "primitive" areas as we understand them from the record. Our investigation, however, of the wild, wilderness, and canoe areas as designated by the Forest Service showed that in those areas as presently designated by the Forest Service, the hydroelectric potential; that is, undeveloped hydro, was minor, unimportant. There was very little in those areas that showed promise of development. However, in the primitive areas our investigation showed over 3 million kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectric capacity. These are not just sites that somebody knows are there, someone knows about; these are sites that have been investigated. We have a tabulation which, through oversight, we did not give to you with our report and I would be very glad to furnish it for the committee because I think it would be helpful in showing by site, State and project name this 3 million kilowatts of undeveloped hydroelectric capacity in the primitive areas. Mrs. Prost. I think, Mr. Mason, that would be very helpful to the committee. Without objection, it will be placed in the record following your remarks. (See p. 1240.) Mr. ASPINALL. Reserving the right to object and, of course, I shall not object. Is this pointed to the primitive areas concerned? Do |