That would have been a spectacular blunder indeed. And yet, this is precisely the blunder that is proposed by S. 174. For obviously this enormous area that will be blanketed by the wilderness system has had little or no appraisal of its mineral potential. And no hasty, casual appraisal is possible. Time and much effort are required. Furthermore, this bill so completely restricts prospecting by unswerving emphasis on absolute wilderness preservation, that there is neither incentive to prospect, nor are adequate means to prospect allowed. In the interest of resources for the future, therefore, all large areas under consideration for single-purpose withdrawal, whether it be for wilderness or other highly restrictive use, should be carefully inventoried not only as to surface resources, but also as to potential for mineral production. There is only so much land, and an honest, thorough assessment of its potential mineral resources seems only a commonsense precaution, prior to withdrawal. Thank you. Mrs. Prost. Thank you. [Applause.] Are there questions of Mr. McConnel? The next witness is Mr. Keane, of Wallace, Idaho. You may proceed, Mr. Keane. STATEMENT OF JAMES P. KEANE, ATTORNEY, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF DAY MINES, INC., WALLACE, IDAHO Mr. KEANE. Madam Chairman, Mr. Olsen, ladies and gentlemen, I will try to follow the chairlady's wishes here and not repeat what has previously been said. I am James P. Keane, an attorney residing in Wallace, Idaho, and a lifelong resident of Idaho, appearing on behalf of Day Mines, Inc. If S. 174 becomes law, 65 million acres of Federal land will be made subject to the wilderness system. In Idaho alone, there are two primitive areas, the Selway-Bitterroot and the Idaho, separated by the Salmon River, which cover an area of approximately 5,000 square miles. This area is 158 miles long and 48 miles across. Without roads not even the wilderness advocates would be able to use but a small proportion of this vast area and it would be locked up for any other use. Only a small percentage of this area could be utilized by those few who either have the physical ability to endure miles of hiking over rough terrain, or those who have the financial means to employ guides and horses. It is my opinion that this bill is legislation in reverse. As presently written, primitive areas, national parks, national wildlife refuges, and game ranges are included in the wilderness system. Then the President makes a recommendation to Congress whether all these areas or portions of them should remain in the wilderness system. If either the House or Senate does not reject the President's recommendations by resolution, then the President's recommendations become law. The logical and constitutional way would be for Congress to act affirmatively on each of these areas by separate bills, as is done in other legislation. In numerous instances in the national parks, national wildlife refuges, and game ranges and primitive areas, the conditions do not meet the standards to be incorporated in the wilderness system. For example, in the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area in Idaho, the Forest Service deleted vast acreages when reclassifying this area from a primitive area to a wilderness area under the present regulations. As the bill is proposed, the total area will be incorporated in the wilderness system, and remains so if the President does not delete portions of these areas. In regard to mining, the bill, as presently passed by the Senate, provides that a person can prospect in the wilderness system "in a manner which is not incompatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment." This is a nebulous right which would not be utilized by anyone. The prospector must allow the wilderness to retain its "primeval character and influence" and to preserve "outstanding opportunities for solitude" "with the imprint of man's works substantially unnoticeable." If a person were to dig a hole even 2 feet square this would not be compatible with the wilderness environment; nor would obtaining rock by use of a pick from an outcropping be compatible with the wilderness environment; nor would any other modern system of prospecting be permitted; and the only type of prospecting that could be done would be to examine the outcropping or sample of a rock that might have fallen loose. Very little information, if any, could be obtained under such restrictions nor would anyone expend any time or money prospecting in this manner. Even if a person would discover minerals in areas under the wilderness system, the only way he could mine these minerals would be by obtaining the President's authorization. In my opinion, it would be impossible to obtain a conference with the President on such a matter, let alone obtain the President's authorization. A few short years ago the United States was involved in a national crisis. A large bonus was paid to anyone who could produce uranium. The major portion of the uranium discovered came from an area which prior to that time might have been defined as wilderness. It is certainly not impossible that another national crisis will occur and a demand for minerals which are not presently commercial will be needed. There is very little, if any, geological information presently known about any of the primitive areas. Certainly before these vast acreages are "locked up" a geological survey should be made to determine whether these areas might not be more important for our national economy. Under this bill, mining would lose a preemptive right to locate mining claims in national forests which include primitive, wild, and wilderness areas, a right which it has enjoyed since 1897. This is being done without anyone having any appreciable knowledge of what valuable mineral may exist in the areas withdrawn as wilderness. It is our position that such withdrawals should not be made until there has been a geological evaluation of the areas in question, and where this is impractical, existing rights under the mining laws should be preserved until such evaluation can be made. One point I would like to make is this: We are presently in a world situation. All the testimony has been directed primarily to the Western States or the United States. I feel that this is probably an 77350-62-pt. 1-14 international question. We are in a worldwide economic race with Russia at the present time. Khrushchev has made the statement that he is going to overtake our production within a few years. In Russia presently there are over 400,000 people who are exploring and performing geological surveys of their land. In the United States it appears to me we are taking the opposite view. We are closing them up for economic purposes. Likewise I would like to make this one comment after listening to the testimony here. The advocates of this bill-and I am not trying to be critical of them, I can certainly see their viewpoint-but many of them have stated that this is public land and it belongs to all of us. With that, I agree. Likewise they criticize the opponents of the bill on the basis that they are after their own private financial gain. Let me submit to those people that the same people that are after the financial gain are the people that have made the United States what it is today and are the people that will keep us ahead of Russia, I hope, in the economic race. Thank you very much. [Applause.] Mrs. PrOST. Our next witness will be Mr. G. M. Brandborg, of Hamilton, Mont. You may proceed, Mr. Brandborg. STATEMENT OF G. M. BRANDBORG, VICE PRESIDENT, WESTERN MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, HAMILTON, MONT. Mr. BRANDBORG. Madam Chairman, Congressman Olsen, ladies and gentlemen, I am G. M. Brandborg of Hamilton, Mont. I am vice president of the Western Montana Wildlife Federation and a director of the Montana Wilderness Association. I am speaking in behalf of the members of these two organizations. From the years 1913 to 1955 when I retired, I was employed by the U.S. Forest Service. My entire Forest Service career was spent working in the national forests in which are now located the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, the Anaconda-Pintler Primitive Area, and the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area. I assisted as forest supervisor with Forst Service coworkers in establishing the existing boundaries of both the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area and the Anaconda-Pintler Primitive Area. Speakers at this hearing, representing large commercial interests and the press, have repeatedly argued that there must be access roads for fire control in our last remaining areas of wilderness in Idaho and Montana. Those people fail to recognize that if we are going to preserve these areas as wilderness we cannot gridiron them with roads-if you have roads, you do not have wilderness. The severe fire season of last summer did not demonstrate the need for roads to control fires in the areas of wilderness which we have in Idaho and Montana. The Nez Perce National Forest, according to a recent press release, reported 333 fires during the 1961 season; 126 of these fires were within the Moose Creek District which is all within the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area in Idaho. The largest fire in this roadless area was controlled with a burned area of only 1,240 acres. The next largest fire in that area was controlled with a 350-acre burned area. The largest fire was reportedly 15 miles from the nearest road. The Bitterroot National Forest experienced a similar occurrence of fires within that part of the SelwayBitterroot Primitive Area located within its boundaries. The point is that none of the several hundred fires in the primitive area reached extreme proportions. The acreage of burned area was relatively small. In contrast to this was the experience with the 1960 Saddle Mountain fire on the East Fork of the Bitterroot Valley. This fire started within 3 miles of the paved highway and burned entirely in an area outside of any primitive area. This fire ran out of control for several days and finally burned to and across U.S. Highway 93. It then extended itself up to another improved highway from which it was accessible and from which men and equipment could be rushed to the firelines. More recently in the 1961 fire season, we witnessed the Sleeping Child holocaust which devastated more than 20,000 acres. This fire started within a very short distance of a road end. Men and equipment, including bulldozers, were placed on this fire within a short time after its discovery. The experience with these two and many other large conflagrations clearly illustrates that roads, despite their important place in land management outside of our areas of wilderness, are not the only answer to fire detection and suppression needs in critical fire years. My experience as supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest during many severe fire seasons demonstrated to me that it was and still is possible to control fires within the Selway-Bitterroot Primitive Area without road access. Such control without roads need not involve excess sacrifice of forest lands to fires. My experience in the early years prior to the development and widespread application of chemical fire retardants, the use of helicopters, and ready availability of airplanes and smokejumpers as they can be so successfully used today, shows that fires in the back country wilderness land can be controlled quickly and efficiently. While I do not profess to be an expert in fire suppression, I yield to no one in matching the days and weeks I have spent on firelines in remote, inaccessible areas. I would like, therefore, to recommend to this committee that in resolving the question as to need for roads that it carefully analyze the history of past fire suppression successes in both roadless areas and in those areas readily accessible by road. The U.S. Forest Service, with which I was proud to serve, and the many retired old-line professional firefighters who, like myself, served during the critical and extremely hazardous fire years of 1929, 1931, 1934, and 1940, will gladly provide information and documentary data to counter the argument that roads are necessary to control fires in our small remaining areas dedicated to wilderness. As you know, Madam Chairman, the bill, S. 174, provides specific safeguards to permit construction of roads when, in an emergency, it becomes necessary in the public interest to control outbreaks of fire or forest disease within areas of our wilderness system. I wish to state, as one who has had the rewarding experience of managing the largest single unit of wilderness area in the United States, the Selway-Bitterroot primitive area, the passage of S. 174 as recommended by the President, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Chief of the Forest Service is essen tial if we are to preserve this and other units of our priceless wilderness heritage. Without the legal framework which this measure provides, we will witness the gradual but steady erosion of these irreplacable wildlife and scenic assets. Thank you. Mrs. ProST. Thank you, Mr. Brandborg. [Applause.] Are there questions? Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Brandborg-I call him "Brandy"-he has lived his lifetime in my district. We were on the State board of education together when I was attorney general of Montana. You stated that roads are not the key to successful fire detection and control. What, in your judgment, are measures necessary for fire control in areas such as the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness area? Mr. BRANDBORG. I am confident if the Forest Service was adequately financed for detection and suppression needs, that they could adequately cope with it. As they develop the technological facilities I referred to in the statement, the helicopter and retardants, they would be able to hold burned areas to the very minimum. Last, but not least, however-and I think this is important to the committeeneither the Forest Service or Members of Congress should forget the need for employment of the woodsmen, the lumberjack, the type of skill which in reality is the very backbone of the suppression and control of forest fires by the Forest Service and private agencies. Does that answer your question, sir? Mr. OLSEN. A little, but I am just wondering if this business of chemicals has not done quite a good deal in suppressing fires already. I had in mind one that was close to the capital city at Helena and long hours before they could get men on the fire, although it was right at the city limits, they hit it with some kind of retardant. Mr. BRANDBORG. It was a borate? Mr. OLSEN. Yes, it was wet borate. Mr. BRANDBORG. There is no question about that. That is the thing I think additional funds are needed to develop, expanding smoke jumper units and greater use of helicopters. If the Forest Service has that, I am confident the hillsides in Idaho and Montana would forever be green and suffer the very minimum of burn. Mr. OLSEN. This would not apply only to wilderness areas, but anywhere. Mr. BRANDBORG. All areas. Mr. OLSEN. Chemistry and aircraft would be a great help. Mr. BRANDBORG. No question about it. The Forest Service has made wonderful progress. Mr. OLSEN. Do you think they need bigger appropriations? Mr. BRANDBORG. There is no question about it. If we are going to keep the countryside green, we have got to pay the bill. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you. Mrs. PFOST. Our next witness is Mr. Stewart, of Coeur d'Alene. He is not here. Mr. Otto Myer of Athol. Is he here? Apparently not. Mr. Alvin Benson. He apparently is not here. Mr. Allen R. Avey, Kettle Falls, Wash.-is he here? (No response.) Then Mr. Jack T. Crollard is our next witness. |