It is our contention the basic issue today is not that we should not have this wilderness area, but what limit should be set on it. Our feeling is, if that kind of use is now made of the present primitive areas, let's hold the 14.5 million acres, managed by the Forest Service since 1932, in this case, according to the records, as free as ever for all of our progeny.

Therefore, our point is: Let's hold the wilderness to this amount of area and not go and possibly take in the 65 million acres we have heard quoted that could fall under this bill.

Lastly, the legislation should provide and require that the affected agencies of the Federal Government, administered by men who are highly trained in the proper land use, should present their independent recommendations on proposals to establish areas of wilderness.

If it is necessary to have any wilderness legislation at all, it is of the utmost importance that the above points be included in the legislation. This will insure that the will of the people through their elected Representatives will not be forsaken, and that their property, the public lands, will be so administered so that the permanent good of the whole people will be served.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Hoffmann.

Are there questions?

Mr. ASPINALL. I have a question, Madam Chairman.

As I understand your statement, Mr. Hoffmann, you would be willing to continue the present status of the primitive and wild areas by statutory authority; but, if there were to be any new ones, then they should be surveyed in the beginning and an affirmative action taken by Congress. Is that correct?

Mr. HOFFMANN. Yes, sir; very definitely.

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, the witness just before you had some objections to the present procedures relative to the management of existing wild areas. I would like to read into the record at this point that in Colorado we have four primitive areas, and they have been reclassified over the years and designated as "wild" with a greater restriction on usage.

When these proposed changes were announced by the Forest Service, there were no substantial objections at all. So little, in fact, that if any objection was heard, the Department did not hold hearings on these proposals.

These areas and the dates of reclassification were: 1949, for the Mount Zirkel-Dome Park Area; 1953 for the Rawah Wild Area; 1956 for the Maroon-Snowmass Primitive Area, which was redesignated as the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wild Area; in 1957, the West Elk Wild Area.

In other words, you would say, Mr. Hoffmann, that perhaps there is a need for some kind of statutory provision so that we know exactly what we are doing, rather than to proceed as we have been doing in the past?

Mr. HOFFMANN. Yes, sir; I would say so. And statutory provisions that grazing, as it now stands in the areas, continue. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL That is all.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Hoffmann.

Mr. HOFFMANN. Thank you.

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mr. Thomas L. Cavanaugh. And will Mr. Lloyd Eichler come forward, and then Mr. Ray E. Gilbert will be next.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. CAVANAUGH, PUBLISHER, WESTERN

SLOPE ADVERTISER, GRAND JUNCTION, COLO.

Mr. CAVANAUGH. Madam Chairman, I am from the Western Slope Advertiser. We primarily represent the hunting and fishing in Colorado, and in our own area, and we are for a wilderness bill, if this bill provides for hunting and fishing in national forests, national monuments, and national parks. If it does not contain this, then we are against it. But primarily our hunting and fishing is our livelihood. Mr. ASPINALL. Do you have a statement?

Mr. CAVANAUGH. I do not have a copy of it; no, sir. As far as I am concerned, if the hunting and fishing is included in the bill, then we are for it.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Cavanaugh.
Are there questions?

Mr. Lloyd Eichler. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD EICHLER, EAGLE, COLO., MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COLORADO FARM BUREAU

Mr. EICHLER. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, the Colorado Farm Bureau welcomes the opportunity to come before this committee with our views relating to wilderness areas and proposed legislation relating thereto; specifically S. 174, as passed by the Senate during the recent session of Congress.

My name is Lloyd Eichler, of Eagle, Colo., member of the board of directors of Colorado Farm Bureau, which represents 14,229 farm and ranch families in Colorado.

Colorado Farm Bureau does not oppose the creation of wilderness areas as such, but we are concerned as to the content of S. 174 or any other wilderness legislation which allows the creation of the areas.

We in the West are concerned with the total land area which is already public domain, the amount of this land which might be designated as "wilderness areas," and, therefore, the kind and extent of the development which may be allowed on land designated as "wilderness," who shall have the authority to make such designations and who shall determine what, when, and by whom such developments and utilization are to be accomplished.

As to the designation of land as "wilderness," we believe that Congress should retain its authority over public lands. Therefore, any area established as a wilderness area should be done so by a specific act of Congress. Proposals to designate areas as wilderness should receive the closest scrutiny of Congress. Such an approach has proved satisfactory in determining national park areas, and there is no reason why an area by area approach cannot work equally as well in determination of wilderness areas.

Utilization of public domain has been established by law and by regulation through various agencies over an extended period of time.

Before wilderness designation is extended to any public domain, a complete analysis of the present uses of the land and consultation with all affected agencies should be accomplished. We believe that such requirements should be written into the law.

To assure that proper consideration is given prior to a decision on setting aside an area as wilderness, we believe that the law should require the establishment of a commission to look into the best use of any public property that is being considered for designation as wilderness area.

A vital question also involved in this legislation is that of water resources development and maintenance. Farm Bureau has long advocated a policy of upstream structures for both flood prevention and water resources development. While the proposed legislation in its present form does not rule out the possibilities of construction and maintenance of reservoirs, it disregards the development of water resources for irrigation and speaks in broad terms of public interests. We have a question as to what will happen to maintenance programs for those reservoirs which already exist in wilderness areas or on lands which could be declared wilderness, as well as the question as to the future development of reservoirs which are considered small and insignificant in comparison to huge reclamation projects. Some consideration must be given to means of access for maintenance equip

ment.

We consider the question of present and future water resources development as one of the most vital phases of proposed wilderness legislation. We recommend that present and future development be safeguarded with specific language written into the law.

We thank you for this opportunity to state our viewpoints and give our recommendations.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Eichler.

The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Eichler, how do you feel about the present so-called wilderness areas and the safeguards which have been adopted for their use? Do you feel they are adequate? Or should they be improved upon, or changed, or amended?

Mr. EICHLER. I feel at the present they are adequate, but should not be extended any.

Mr. CHENOWETH. There has been some criticism of the fact that the present areas are not permitting the proper use for entry to do certain repair work, cleaning of ditches, and that type of work. Do you have that view?

Mr. EICHLER. I am not familiar with too many of these wilderness areas. The one I am familiar with, I do not know if there is any maintenance needs to be done on it.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You are not opposed to wilderness legislation, provided the necessary safeguards are adopted?

Mr. EICHLER. That is right.

Mr. CHENOWETH. And you feel they should go further than those contained in the present statutes relating to this type of area?

Mr. EICHLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Thank you.
Mrs. ProST. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mrs. ProST. Back on the record.

Mr. Ray E. Gilbert is the next witness; and Dr. Roy F. Carpenter, of Grand Junction, Colo., will please come forward.

You may proceed, Mr. Gilbert.

STATEMENT OF RAY E. GILBERT, DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, BEAR CREEK MINING CO., DENVER, COLO.

Mr. GILBERT. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ray E. Gilbert, of Denver, Colo. I am speaking on behalf of my firm, the Bear Creek Mining Co. I am an economic geologist, in charge of my company's considerable mineral exploration activities in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. As such, I am concerned that some 26 large blocks of public land, in those States, totaling over 4 million acres, would be withdrawn by S. 174 from exploration and development under our mining laws. I would like to explain briefly a few of the technical considerations that underlie this concern.

In contrast to the forester, or the average vacationer, when an economic geologist looks at land he is concerned with the resources of the subsurface. The geologist feels that where a mineral deposit exists, it is likely that the subsurface values are by far the highest ones present in the land, and that they certainly cannot be ignored. A major mineral deposit is a unique and irreplaceable thing; it may only occupy a few hundred acres of land and yet have far-reaching importance in the growth and security of the West and of the Nation as, for example, does the copper of Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana, the lead-silver of Idaho, or the molybdenum of Colorado. Being a professional, the geologist recognizes that total land resources consist of not only known and potential resources, but also of resources that may be developed in the future. The evaluation of total mineral resources, of any area, therefore involves three steps:

First, the surface must be studied, by means of the geologic, geophysical, and geochemical instruments and techniques available today. This would permit measurement and evaluation of those rocks and minerals which are currently considered to be valuable and which are evidenced at the surface.

Second, it is necessary to evaluate not only the surface outcrop of the deposit, but also portions which may be covered by soil, or by valley-fill gravels, or by lava flows. Although evidence from the overlying or surrounding surface may be helpful in subsurface evaluation, such potential as may be present cannot be either proved or disproved until the underlying rocks have been drilled and sampled. The third phase of total evaluation, that involving resources for the future, is the most difficult. From the standpoint of the geologist there are a number of important factors which are so uncertain that they cannot be absolutely resolved, almost regardless of any degree of foresight. Before we risk cutting ourselves off from the possible future resources in substantial acreages of prospective ground, I would like to emphasize the degree of risk involved.

In order to do so I would like to refer to some maps of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, and I believe I can illustrate my points adequately by examples from this region. On these maps

pre

figures 1, 2, 3, and 4-I have shown the distribution of base and cious metal mining districts in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah, as well as the general location of some of the other valuable products mined in these States, and the location of volcanic fields and present wilderness-type areas.

What items must we consider in trying to decide what resources may be needed in the future?

1. Consideration of the future value of any resources is necessarily a function of the supply. The United States now depends upon imports of about 33 strategic and critical materials for which domestic reserves are estimated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines to be adequate only for about 20 years or less. The finding of resources such as the tungsten of the Boulder, Colo., area, the columbium and rare earths of the Powderhorn, Colo., area, or the manganese of New Mexico is of great importance to our domestic reserve situation.

2. Changing demands can happen for a number of causes-for example, new uses created by scientific discovery. Such uses can make very valuable materials out of what were formerly overlooked or considered laboratory curiosities. I need only mention the importance of uranium development to all of the four States shown on the maps. 3. Changing technologies result in increased demands. In our day, the intensifying of agriculture and the use of plant foods has brought to our area recently the Nation's newest and biggest potash development in Utah, additional potash production in southeastern New Mexico, and development of Wyoming and Utah phosphate rock. Mounting industrial use of soda ash has brought several new basic industries to southwestern Wyoming.

4. Population shift and growth demands new local production of common minerals where no production existed before. The vast gypsum deposits of Albuquerque, N. Mex., area have recently been developed to provide wallboard to a growing western market.

5. Another problem in attempting to evaluate every mineral resource that may be present in an area is the fact that new technology frequently changes materials that were formerly ignored into productive resources. The considerable efforts of the Bureau of Mines and the petroleum companies to develop economic processes for extraction of petroleum from oil shales are well known. A technological breakthrough in this case could overnight change vast acreages of previously useless shale rock into a very valuable fuel. In a similar vein new electric drying and high-tension separation processes promise to permit dry dredging of gold-bearing placers in numerous areas where water is not available.

6. The geologist recognizes that the future will put new tools and techniques at his disposal which will permit far more thorough appraisals than are possible today. The development of the beryllometer in the last few years has already resulted in some geologic surprises. Deposits of what were previously looked on as unusual beryllium minerals were found in a common type of volcanic rock not before considered as a likely host for beryllium mineralization. Current exploration for beryllium is underway at Topaz Mountain, Utah. In summary, a very long list of examples of this sort could be made. I hope, however, that the few given are enough to demonstrate the importance of keeping open the doors to all our resources.