If the bill comes out of committee, the House will vote on it at the next session of Congress early in 1962.

A subcommittee is holding public hearings on the bill at McCall, Idaho, on October 30 and 31, at Montrose, Colo., on November 1, and at Sacramento, Calif., on November 6. The McCall hearing will be in the Masonic Hall beginning at 10 a.m.

Persons desiring to present statements on this bill may do so by appearing in person at the hearing or by mailing written statements for inclusion in the record. See the attached announcement for details.

If you cannot prepare a statement in time for the subcommittee hearings, you may still write to the Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall, chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Also, your U.S. Representative should know your opinion on this important bill.

Opposition to S. 174

SUMMARY

The Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee, after careful study of S. 174, as amended, and passed by the Senate, is still opposed to the enactment of this bill into law. Reasons for this opposition are discussed later in this report; they are briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Specific laws to set aside and protect wilderness areas are unnecessary.

(2) S. 174 does not promote the best interests of the Western States so dependent on Federal lands.

(3) The amended bill fails to correct the basic defects of the original S. 174.

(4) It places too much emphasis on the limited-use value of wilderness and jeopardizes a sound program of integrated multiple use of public lands. (5) It is in direct conflict with the Multiple Use Act of 1960 which already provides for wilderness as an authorized recreation use of national forest lands, along with the development of timber, minerals, water, forage, and wildlife.

(6) It would exclude too much land from recreation use accessible to the average family.

(7) It places too large an area of unstudied land in a national wilderness preservation system at the outset.

(8) It does not give adequate recognition to the large area of wildernesstype country in national parks already reserved by law.

(9) It fails to provide adequately for mineral prospecting and evaluation. (10) Its regulations on wilderness would supersede the administrative regulations of the Government agencies administering these lands. Recommendations: The committee urges the U.S. Forest Service to step up and improve its program for inventory and evaluation of all resources in the remaining primitive areas, followed by realistic reclassification into wilderness and integrated multiple-use areas. Also, administrative regulations for primitive and wilderness areas should be modified to permit and encourage a more rapid, thorough inventory and evaluation of the mineral potential of these vast areas of public land.

The committee reaffirms its contention that there is no real need for specific wilderness laws. The above recommendations can be carried out by the Forest Service under existing laws if Congress provides the necessary direction and appropriations.

However, if S. 174 is enacted into law in its present form, its inflexible regulations will supersede the administrative regulations now guiding the Forest Service in the administration of primitive and wilderness areas. Therefore, if the final will of Congress is to enact wilderness legislation, S. 174 should be amended to provide positive safeguards for the Nation's natural resources and to assure a sound program of integrated multiple use on the public lands involved. Amendments to S. 174 are recommended along the following lines:

(1) To give Congress positive control of lands to be included in the national wilderness preservation system through affirmative procedures, rather than negative as under the present bill.

(2) To specifically exclude national forest primitive areas from the wilderness system until a thorough inventory and complete economic analysis of all values and resources has been completed, with final inclusion by affirmative congressional action of those areas determined to have their highest value as wilderness.

(3) To make possible, under more realistic regulations, a thorough inventory and evaluation of the mineral potential in wilderness and primitive

areas.

ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE BILL, S. 174

The bill provides for a national wilderness preservation system to be created out of national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges and game ranges.

A total of over 55 million acres would be set aside for the extremely limited use of wilderness recreation. This is an area larger than the State of Idaho. Over 71⁄2 million acres would be national forest lands now classed as primitive; 34 million of these acres are in Idaho.

The bill defines wilderness as follows: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's works substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

S. 174 stipulates that "there shall be no commercial enterprise within the wilderness system, no permanent road, nor shall there be any use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, or landing of aircraft nor any mechanical transport or delivery of persons or supplies, nor any temporary road, nor any structure or installation, in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the area Provision is made for the use of aircraft and motorboats where already well established. Other exceptions may be made for emergencies involving the safety and health of persons within the area. Grazing of livestock is prohibited except "where already well established." Mineral prospecting and mining by methods which are incompatible with the wilderness regulations are prohibited, except through special permission of the President of the United States.

These regulations mean that with very few exceptions wilderness areas may be entered only by foot or horseback, that there can be no permanent camps, resorts, or lodges, that power equipment of any kind cannot be used.

ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENTS

Several amendments were made to the bill, S. 174, before it was passed by the Senate. While these amendments improve the bill in several respects, they also make it appear less harmful than is actually the case.

A summary of the essential features of the amendments, with comments by the Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee, follows:

1. As in the original bill, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to review the suitability of each national forest primitive area for continued preservation as wilderness. An amendment has reduced the period during which review is to be made from 15 years to 10 years.

Comment: On the surface this appears to be an improvement because it would speed action on review. However, this could lead to hasty, inadequate study, particularly of the mineral values. The primitive areas are so vast (71⁄2 million acres) and inaccessible (few roads) and would be so restricted by S. 174 regulations (no motorized equipment allowed) that it would be virtually impossible to make a thorough survey of all resources within 10 years, unless special appropriations and programs were assured by Congress. Otherwise, the job would have to be rushed through with inadequate funds and personnel.

It is significant that S. 174 makes no provision for speeding the resource inventory so urgently needed, nor does it instruct that a thorough economic analysis of all values be made.

2. As in the original bill, S. 174, the Secretary of Agriculture is to report his primitive area review to the President. The President is to present his recommendations to Congress. An amendment provides that the President may (not

required to) alter the boundaries of the primitive area and recommend return to ordinary national forest status, any land not predominantly of wilderness value. Also, if Congress rejects a recommendation of the President and no revised recommendation is presented within 2 years, the primitive area shall cease to be a part of the wilderness system and shall be administered as ordinary national forest land. Further, any primitive area on which a recommendation for inclusion in the permanent wilderness system has not become effective within 14 years shall be returned to ordinary national forest status.

Comment: Again, these appear to be good amendments in that they would force review of the primitive areas and clarify the status of lands rejected by Congress or not acted upon in the required time. However, the same danger exists here as in item 1 above the pressure for hasty, inadequate inventory and analysis of values.

Wilderness extremists, with lobbying headquarters in Washington, D.C., have already convincingly demonstrated their power in pressuring for inclusion in wilderness large areas of land actually having a higher value for uses other than wilderness. These extremists, the majority of whom are poorly informed on and unsympathetic to the dependence of Idaho and other Western States on natural resources, would wield even greater power if the primitive areas are further restricted by a Federal law. The national forest primitive areas should be specifically excluded from the wilderness system until after a thorough, comprehensive inventory and economic analysis of all values is completed. Otherwise, working out reasonable and essential boundary adjustments would be extremely difficult and wasteful of human time and energy.

3. One amendment to S. 174 stipulates that after boundary changes, wherein certain lands may be excluded and others added, the net size of the primitive area recommended for permanent wilderness shall not exceed the original size of the primitive area in question.

Comment: This, too, is a good-sounding amendment, and it does place a limit on the size of any primitive area to be classified as wilderness. However, it also sets the stage for including in wilderness much national forest land presently managed for multiple use.

Many of the existing national forest primitive areas are far too large to be adequately protected and administered. The disastrous fires this last summer in primitive and similar inaccessible areas proved conclusively the need for better access for modern firefighting equipment.

There should be assurance that the overly large primitive areas will be reduced in size before permanent classification as wilderness. S. 174 does not do this. These primitive areas were established by the U.S. Forest Service during the 1930's, primarily on a basis of inaccessibility rather than genuine wilderness values. At the time of these set-asides, the primitive areas were inaccessible mainly because they had not yet been reached by the natural progress of road development. The true multiple-use values of the areas were not (and still aren't) known because an adequate inventory has never been made.

Standards of multiple-use values have changed since the primitive areas were first set aside. Modern logging methods make possible the sustained-yield harvest of timber considered completely uneconomical to utilize 20 years ago. The primitive areas contain many stands of high-quality timber which are dying and rotting away because of lack of roads. This is a tragic waste of a needed natural resource.

There are enough sawmills already built in most areas of the West to handle the lumber which can be grown on both primitive and nonprimitive areas. Through more intensive, integrated utilization and manufacture of a greater variety of products, the forest industry has been able to expand in recent years. This expansion must continue if the rapidly increasing population is to be provided productive and gainful employment.

There must be assurance that the bulk of the commercial forest lands presently contained in primitive areas will be made available to the forest industry if the present level of employment and economic productivity is to be maintained. S. 174, even as amended, still gives no real assurance that these urgent needs will be met.

4. An amendment provides that the recommendations of the President on areas to be included in the wilderness system shall become effective if "neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives shall have approved a resolution declaring itself opposed to such recommendation." The original S. 174 required a concurrent resolution of both the Senate and House opposing the President's recommendation. In other words, in the original S. 174, undesirable wilderness

classifications could have been made permanent more easily than under the present amendment.

Comment: While this amendment does strengthen the veto power of Congress, it is still negative procedure. The danger still exists that undesirable recommendations could slip by if Congress were too busy at the time to write opposing resolutions. If Congress is going to accept the responsibility of making decisions on areas to be classified as wilderness, it should insist on a normal affirmative procedure wherein areas to be placed in the permanent wilderness system must be specifically approved by both the Senate and House. This would stimulate a more active debate on the merits of each wilderness proposal, as well as requiring each Congressman to openly declare this position. Such procedure would eliminate the danger of enacting wilderness areas into being by default through failure of Congress to take any action as would be the case under the present amendment. It can be argued that this affirmative action would require too much of the time and energy of an already overburdened Congress. However, few things are more important to the American people than intelligent utilization of our natural resources. The business of natural resource management is extremely complex. Extreme caution must be used in locking up areas of our natural resources for any restrictive, limiting use. It is noteworthy that S. 174 places emphasis on the intangible, vague values of wilderness, rather than on assurance that the many tangible values in existing wilderness-type areas will be intelligently protected, developed, and utilized under an integrated multpile-use program.

5. Mineral prospecting: An amendment provides that prospecting may be done which "is not incompatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment." Comment: This amendment is advanced as being the answer to the objections mining people had to the original S. 174. Actually, the amendment accomplishes nothing because it effectively blocks any prospecting other than by the simplest hand methods. The use of power equipment, the building of roads, the use of helicopters for transporting men, equipment, or supplies, all are prohibited by the definition of "wilderness" and the specific limitations contained elsewhere in the bill.

In order to carry out prospecting by other than hand methods, personal authorization of the President of the United States must be obtained. The President "may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting" (and certain other activities, including the building of roads) "upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial, * * *."

No specific provision is made for the staking or patenting of mineral claims, or whether this will even be permitted.

Who is going to invest time, energy, and money in such a poorly defined, risky proposition?

S. 174, even as amended by the Senate, poses a serious threat to the development of the tremendously important mineral resources which would be locked up in the vast area of the national wilderness preservation system.

6. Land use commissions: An amendment provides for a land use commission, appointed by the President, for any State having more than 90 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government. The commission is to be composed of five persons, with no more than three members of the same political party. Three are to be residents of the State concerned. The commission has no powers other than to advise and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on use of federally owned lands in the State. It can make recommendations to the Secretary as to how the federally owned lands can be best utilized, developed, protected, and preserved. The commission's reports and recommendations are to accompany any recommendations the Secretary makes to Congress pertaining to the Wilderness Act.

Comment: This amendment appears to provide for a stronger voice by local people in public land-use decisions affecting them. However, it is unlikely this would be accomplished as the amendment is now written. In its present form, this amendment is unfair to nearly all Western States.

In the first place, Alaska is the sole State qualifying for a land use commission because it is the only one having more than 90 percent of its land in Federal ownership. Many other States have large percentages of their land in nontaxpaying Federal ownership. Many of these States have even more at stake than Alaska because they have a more highly developed industry dependent to a large

77350-62-pt. 1-6

degree on resources from Federal lands. This problem is illustrated by the following table from the minority report of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee:

Proportion of Federal lands in 11 Western States and Alaska which would be reserved for single-purpose use by Senate bill 174

Secondly, all five members of the Commission are appointed by the President, with no specific instructions as to how these members are to be selected except that no more than three can be from the same political party, and three shall be residents of the State concerned. This places too much authority in the President and does not assure balanced local representation. A more realistic procedure should be made for selecting the local members, e.g., one member to be selected by the Governor of the affected State and one each by the State's Senators.

Another weakness of this amendment is its failure to provide for a voice in advising on use of national forest lands under the Department of Agriculture. While this may not be particularly important to Alaskans where most of the lands proposed for wilderness withdrawal are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior, it is highly important to citizens of other Western States where much of the land in question is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service. This is particularly true in view of the strict regulations imposed on national forests by S. 174. To be equitable, the land-use commission should advise the Secretary of Agriculture in the same way now provided for advising the Secretary of the Interior.

In the event of a wilderness law, land use commissions-properly formed and staffed-could strengthen local influence in public land problems. This would be especially important for Western States having large areas of public land but comparatively few votes in the House of Representatives.

This weakness in the House is one good reason why a wilderness bill could be detrimental to many Western States even with a land use commission. The majority of wilderness extremists live in heavily populated Eastern States and in the more populous west coast States such as California-States having a preponderance of votes in the House.

The disadvantage of land use commissions is that they further complicate an already complex governmental machinery. They would probably be unnecessary if S. 174 is otherwise amended to assure positive, affirmative congressional action on wilderness set-asides. However, if the affirmative amendment fails, then careful consideration should be given to expanding the land-use commission amendment to apply to all western public land States, and also to broaden it along the lines discussed above.

BASIC REASONS FOR OPPOSING S. 174

(1) S. 174 would limit economic growth of communities dependent on the multiple use of surrounding public lands of multiple-use quality set aside for wilder

ness.

The people of Idaho need the income and recreation that would be provided by placing into multiple-use management those areas best suited for this purpose.