"primitive" status of the area should not be dropped, in my opinion, merely by the passage of time and inaction of the Congress. In this regard, I am in full agreement with the position of the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of the Budget, who will testify subsequently. On the subject of mining, I believe we all recognize that, basically, mineral activity is inconsistent with the wilderness concept and with maintenance of a wilderness area in its natural condition; however, we recognize that our treatment of this feature should be as equitable as possible in the light of what we are trying to do and the interests of those individuals who may be affected by our actions. As provided by S. 4, mineral activity would be authorized in certain cases where the President makes a determination of the need for its continuance. H.R. 9162, however, would permit mineral activities to continue for a 10-year period where such activities are now allowed. In the circumstances, it appears that some compromise may be desirable, as determined by your committee. I realize this is a tough problem you face, and I do think, based on my talks with the members of this committee and the Senate committee, this issue can be compromised and is, indeed, compromisable. It has been debated now for a good many years. I do think the wilderness concept along with the national park concept is one of the great conservation ideas that has emerged in this country. I think we ought to consider ourselves in one sense, fortunate that we have such an abundance of land that we can consider such legislation as the wilderness bill. Someone recently described one of the great countries of the world, a small country, the United Kingdom, as a country that had run out of land. I hope that we never run out of land in this country, but one way to preserve the right kind of land pattern, I think, is the consideration of legislation such as this. I would like to say, too, that as far as this committee and this Congress is concerned, when one considers such major bills as the conservation fund bill and this bill, and many of the other water and land conservation bills, I think this committee has an opportunity and the Congress has an opportunity to make a record in the conservation field that will certainly give it a big footnote in history. I also want to say that, with regard to those on the committee who have spent so much time in the recent years working on the details of this legislation, conducting the hearings that are referred to, and I refer to the chairman of this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee, and Congressman Saylor and others of you here, I think you are all to be commended for your patience and for the atmosphere of statesmanship which has been developed. To conclude, it is our purpose to cooperate with and assist your committee in every way in bringing about a solution to the wilderness question that is in the highest public interest. I am hopeful that as the result of your past consideration of this matter, your field hearings, and the broad scope of the committee's experience and knowledge, a suitable bill will emerge. I do believe this will be the Congress and this will be the committee that helps to write wilderness legislation this year. You have my best wishes in your endeavors. 28-413-64pt. 4-4 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BARING. The chairman of the full committee. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I am always glad to have the Secretary before this committee because he does have an understanding of legislative responsibility, and he has an understanding of this particular committee's work because he was a member of it for so long. Mr. Secretary, you were kept advised, were you not, of the work that was carried on between President Kennedy's staff and the chairman of this full committee during all of 1963 relative to the wilderness legislation? Secretary UDALL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We were not only kept advised, but we participated in some of the negotiations that took place. Mr. ASPINALL. The final bill that came out of that work was the bill that is closer in form to the Dingell bill than any other bill that has been presented. This showed not only a spirit of compromise and cooperation on the part of the administration, but it also was a great joy to me to be able to work with those who were working for the President at that time. Now, of course, Mr. Secretary, the British Isles have some wilderness areas, but they are all owned by individuals. Isn't that right? Is not that the difficulty in England? Secretary UDALL. That is part of the problem, yes, although I think you know that they probably would class as wilderness land which we would not think too much of. It is very fortunate that we have in public ownership some of these areas, because, if we did not have them, if we did not have the foresight to put some of the finest areas in public ownership to protect watersheds and for other reasons, we would not have the opportunity today to even consider this legislation. Mr. ASPINALL. The British Isles are very pretty, very beautiful. They have a lot of woods and they have a lot of areas of which, in proportion to the area of the British Isles, very well correspond to a lot of our beautiful areas we call wilderness, as well as other areas of the West. The difficulty is the matter of ownership. The matter of ownership, of course, carries with it the values and the interests of the majority of the people. Over there it carries with it the values and interests of the individual private owners. What I think all of us are seeking to do with this legislation as near as possible is to see to it that these values stay in the possession of the people generally, for the public rather than to get into private ownership. I think that is what we have in mind. But, as we think in terms of the people who own these areas, we must also think in terms of the values that go to the majority of the people and not as they go to a minority of the people. I think perhaps this is one of the most difficult things for this committee, or for the Congress, to take care of; because we have conflicting rights of sometimes conflicting users involved. Now how do we bring those rights together? At the time of the report by this committee in the 87th Congress there were, in wilderness-type areas, 14,675,358 acres of land; 6,822,400 acres were classified as wilderness, wild, and canoe and would have qualified as wilderness areas under the bill that was reported by the House. As indicated in Committee Print No. 20, which is before the committee, the total acreage of wilderness-type areas in National Forests has been slightly reduced and today is 14,581,272 acres.1 As I understand, Mr. Secretary, this reduction has been made during the last year and few months by reason of the fact that some primitive areas have been studied and the area which was classified as wilderness, wild, or canoe has been so classified and accepted in most instances by the administrative authorities, and that part which did not qualify has been returned to regular National Forest area status. Is that correct? Mr. UDALL. Yes; that is true. I have followed with considerable interest this evaluation of Secretary Freeman's. I noticed in the New York Times only yesterday a story with regard to some further changes in one of the wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevadas. I think this is an indication of the type of process and type of evaluation that will be needed as we move on down the road if this bill is passed. Mr. ASPINALL. As I remember, and I hope Mr. Pearl of the staff will correct me if I am wrong, there is only one recommendation for wilderness classification for this committee's comment that is still outstanding. Isn't that right, Mr. Pearl, just one remaining request that has come up from the Department of Agriculture? Mr. PEARL. Yes, sir; there is only one-the proposed Shining Rock Wild Area, that has reached the final stage and is still outstanding awaiting comment.2 Mr. ASPINALL. So we only have one case outstanding at the present time, and we don't know whether that involves a controversy or not. At the present time there are 8,944,762 acres of land classified as wilderness, wild, and canoe, that would be immediately covered in as part of a wilderness preservation system as proposed by any of the pending bills. In other words, we have gone from 6,822,400 acres in the last Congress to 8,944,762 acres now if we can come into agreement. Since the Secretary of Agriculture, like you, has been submitting proposed land reclassifications to the committee in advance, it shows to me that there has been quite a close working relationship between the executive departments involved and the congressional authorities. Would you agree with that? Secretary UDALL. I must say that the relations we have had on this joint executive-legislative approach has shown we can work together very well, and I know of no outstanding controversies that my Department has with the committee at the present time. Mr. ASPINALL. As far as the bills that are under consideration at the present time are concerned, with the exception of S. 4, about the only controversies that we have are in those fields having to do with the national park program, mining in the forest areas, as you have already brought to our attention, and the continuance of the present status of primitive areas. Are there at the present time any areas within units of the national park system or of the national wildlife 1 On May 7, 1964, this figure was increased to 14,594,672 acres with the addition of the Shining Rock Wild Area, Pisgah National Forest, N.C. (See p. 1139 for complete tabulation as of May 7, 1964.) 2 Chairman Aspinall on Apr. 30, 1964, advised the Secretary of Agriculture that there was no known objection to establishment of this wild area. system that are designated to remain roadless or to be preserved for their wilderness attributes? Secretary UDALL. The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, I think there have been some designations, but again we have not completed our overall study, and we would propose to do that if there is a wilderness bill enacted. Mr. ASPINALL. Wouldn't you do that anyhow, Mr. Secretary? Secretary UDALL. I assume that this would be done. I know one of the long-range plans that Director Hartzog, the Director of the Park Service, is talking about is part of the concept that we would be undertaking. The question is really whether superimposing the wilderness concept of the wilderness bill on our present framework, whether this might be helpful, and it has been our view that it would be helpful in terms of an overall framework. (Pursuant to a subsequent order, the following letters are included at this point of the record:) Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: We are pleased to reply to your letter of September 30 concerning the delineation of wilderness areas within units of the National Park System. At no time have we established and delineated wilderness areas with precise boundaries within any unit of the National Park System. As you know, large tracts of land in many of the parks are wilderness in fact although not in name through the formal designation of boundaries. This is, of course, a fact that has resulted from administration of the parks in accordance with the purpose of the act of August 25, 1916. Because of the emphasis given in recent years to the preservation of wilderness values and as a part of its internal procedure of master planning, the National Park Service of this Department has initiated a pilot program of identifying this de facto wilderness in two or three parks in each region except, of course, the National Capital Region. To date, preliminary data have been received from the field in the form of overlays to the general development sheet of the master plans for Big Bend, Glacier, Grand Canyon, Olympic, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia, Zion, Mount McKinley, Isle Royale, and Grand Teton National Parks. We wish to reiterate the tentative nature of the data which we have assembled. This study was undertaken, not for the purpose of establishing official wilderness areas, but primarily to assist in the internal program of master planning for parks. We appreciate your interest in this matter and will be pleased to furnish such additional available information as you may request. Sincerely yours, STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Hon. STEWART L. UDALL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1964. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In order to clarify the record of hearings on legislation for the establishment of a wilderness preservation system, it is requested that we be advised whether there are any portions of wildlife refuges and game ranges that have been designated as "wilderness areas" or whether there have been any portions of such refuges and game ranges designated as "roadless." Sincerely yours, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 18, 1964. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are pleased to furnish you with the following information in response to your letter of April 30 asking whether any portions of wild life refuges or game ranges have been designated as "wilderness areas" or as "roadless." The Department has taken no action that would officially designate any portion of any areas within the national wildlife refuge system as either wilderness areas or roadless areas. With the ever-diminishing areas available for wildlife conservation purposes, it has been essential for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to manage intensively all of its lands for wildlife conservation. This requires varying degrees of manipulation but includes some areas which need little or no development. Some of these have been administratively set aside as natural areas for comparative and scientific purposes by the Bureau. None, however, are considered to be, nor are they administered as wilderness areas. Sincerely yours, FRANK P. BRIGGS, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Mr. ASPINALL. But does not your authority in your general law and in your authorization of every national park facility go far enough so that you could set aside for wilderness purposes any area which you found to be qualified as a wilderness area? Secretary UDALL. I think in terms of the power being lodged there, probably we could make classifications and could put them down. But, of course, this would be Executive action and it would be subject to change. I think the real problem arises, Mr. Chairman, not so much with the true national parks, but with national monuments, and there are many of these, and some of them are very large. They were established by Executive proclamation, and you do not have the guidelines with regard to wilderness there that you do with national parks. This is where the wilderness bill might provide some further help. Mr. ASPINALL. Wouldn't it be far better to come into Congress with legislation asking that a national monument which qualifies should become a national park by congressional authority? Secretary UDALL. I think it is our feeling that many of the national monuments should remain national monuments. I personally think quite a few of them ultimately will become national parks, but I think some probably will not. Mr. ASPINALL. What you are advising us, in effect, is that a national monument which does not qualify because it does not possess the necessary attributes as a national park will now be given a more sacrosanct quality or status than even a national park has. Isn't that what you are saying? Secretary UDALL. No. I think what we are going to need to do in the future, as I look at the park system, is to decide which of the national monuments should become national parks, and I think there are several that qualify. With regard to those that remain, I would hope that those areas that should remain wilderness, and of course the national park system is primarily dedicated to wilderness values, that there would be determinations made, and that there would be |