classifications quite similar to what the National Forest Service does with its land. Mr. ASPINALL. But under any bill which has been proposed, with the exception of the first bills introduced into Congress and S. 4, it would be necessary then to come back to the Congress and get its approval of the establishment of those wilderness areas. Secretary UDALL. I think the chairman has stated the case, yes. Mr. ASPINALL. It just seems to me the authority which we granted the Secretary of the Interior is great enough so that, if the Secretary wants to set aside wilderness areas, it is in his power to do so. I think it is a much easier operation than to have to report back to Congress each time that he would, say, pick out a piece of land in the Yellowstone National Park or in the Rocky Mountain National Park, or any other park, and say this qualifies and "I want it determined to be a wilderness area." You can do it at the present time. Secretary UDALL. Yes, that is true. This could be done by classification. I do not consider, Mr. Chairman, this to be some crucial, divisive, decisive point in this legislation. It has been our feeling overall, however, that with regard to the park areas of the national parks and the wildlife refuge areas, it might be more helpful to have them remain in than out. Mr. ASPINALL. During the hearings on H.R. 776 and several other bills in the 87th Congress, you furnished for the record a tabulation of the maximum acreage, by States, of units of the national park and wildlife systems that might qualify as wilderness under the terms of the legislation then pending. In your letter of April 8, 1964, you stated that that tabulation was still your best estimate of the lands under your jurisdiction that might be subject to possible classification as wilderness in the pending bills. Unless there has been some change, I would ask that that tabulation be included as part of the record in these hearings along with the letters. Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letters and tabulation follow :) Hon. STEWART L. UDALL, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Dear Mr. SECRETARY: During the 87th Congress consideration of legislation for the proposed establishment of a national wilderness preservation system, you submitted a tabulation by States of the areas under your jurisdiction that might be subject to classification as wilderness under the bills then pending. This tabulation appears at pages 1146 et seq. of the hearings on S. 174, 87th Congress. and related bills, serial No. 12, part IV. It is requested that you review the tabulation referred to above and give us your best estimate of the lands that would be subject to possible classification as wilderness under S. 4, H.R. 9070 and H.R. 9162, 88th Congress. It is further requested that we be advised of the areas, together with the acreages thereof, presently awaiting classification or legislation for national park, national monument or wildlife refuge use that might, if concluded, be subject to classification as wilderness under the above-mentioned bills. Sincerely yours, WAYNE N. ASPINALLL, Chairman. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 8, 1964. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Dear Mr. ASPINALL: As requested in your letter of March 24, we have reviewed the tabulation of those areas which might have been subject to classification as wilderness under S. 174, 87th Congress. Although this tabulation, which appears on pages 1146 et seq. of the hearings on S. 174, 87th oCngress, serial No. 12 was submitted to you by us in May 1962, it is likewise our best estimate of the lands under our jurisdiction that would also subject to the qualifications that are set forth on page 1145 of the hearings. provisions of S. 4, H.R. 9070, and H.R. 9162, 88th Congress. This estimate is also subject to the qualifications that are set forth on page 1145 of the hearings. In response to your further request concerning areas awaiting classification or legislation for national park, national monument, or wildlife refuge use that might, if concluded, be subject to classification as wilderness, we offer the following list: 1. Canyonlands National Park. 2. Great Basin National Park_ 3. Valle Grande National Park (30,703 acres of the Valle Grande National Park proposal is now in Bandelier National Monument)-- Sincerely yours, Acres 258, 600 123, 360 60, 400 STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior. (The tabulation, together with an introductory note of explanation furnished by the Secretary of the Interior, follows:) WILDERNESS ACREAGES (MAXIMUM BY STATES) WITHIN JURISDICTION OF INTERIOR DEPARTMENT Mr. Aspinall requested that we submit for the record a tabulation by States showing maximum acreages of areas under the jurisdiction of this Department that would be subject to classification as wilderness. This question is related to item No. 3 to which we referred in our letter of February 2 to Chairman Aspinall. We include subsequently * * * a statistical table, with gross acreages, of those areas that in our present judgment are "subject to classification" as wilderness. Our list includes 24 national parks, 23 national monuments, and 13 areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System which includes national wildlife refuges and national game ranges. There are, of course, other areas in the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System that are not included in our list. It is reasonably clear that such areas for various reasons would not be considered subject to classification within the wilderness system. Consequently, their inclusion in this tabulation would not accurately represent the maximum acreage that conceivably might be included in the system. In reviewing our table on acreages, we wish to emphasize that we have included gross acreages of the particular areas. In the case of the national parks and monuments that may be recommended, the Secretary of the Interior would be required to eliminate from such designated wilderness areas those portions that are needed for development purposes. By what percentage these gross figures will be reduced cannot be estimated accurately at this time. In the case of the national wildlife refuges and game ranges, your particular attention is called to the fact that gross acreages cannot reflect accurately the probable extent of wilderness areas to be selected. For example, in the case of the National Wildlife Refuge System there are many man-made lakes and reservoirs for the purpose of water conservation for wildlife. Also land cultivation and the planting of grain is carried on in such areas in order to maintain wildlife populations. These activities are contrary to the wilderness concept. Consequently, at this stage, although we obviously have not begun the intensive review that will be called for under the terms of this bill, we have good reason to believe that a very large portion of the National Wildlife Refuge System probably will not qualify for wilderness status. Subject to the foregoing explanation, the following table of acreages is furnished. 1 1,792,520 acres are in California; 115,240 acres are in Nevada. 2 152,159 acres are in Colorado; 52,977 acres are in Utah. 330, 973 220, 345 26, 403 246, 748 3 Death Valley National Monument is partly in Nevada. See acreages under California. 4275,332 acres are in North Carolina; 236,383 acres are in Tennessee. 5 Dinosaur National Monument is partially in Utah. See acreages under Colorado. 2,039,217 acres are in Wyoming; 151,068 acres are in Montaña; 31,488 acres are in Idaho. Mr. ASPINALL. If there has been any change, will you furnish that to us so it can be made a part of the record? Secretary UDALL. I am sure there has not, but I will doublecheck it, Mr. Chairman. (The committee subsequently was advised that there had been no change.) Mr. ASPINALL. I understand that prospecting and the location of mining claims on public lands within national parks and national monuments with certain exceptions are prohibited. In order to make this record complete as of today, could you please furnish those exceptions for this record? Secretary UDALL. I would be very happy to. I could give you something generally, but I want to be precise and I will furnish it to the committee. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record when received? Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information follows:) Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 27, 1964. Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: In accordance with the request made during the April 27 hearings on the wilderness bill, there is enclosed a copy of a memorandum dated May 26, 1964, to the Acting Legislative Counsel from the Bureau of Land Management, which contains the information requested by the committee. Some of the data had to be obtained from our field offices. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. JOHN A. CARVER, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Interior. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, MEMORANDUM To: Acting Legislative Counsel. From: Chief, Office of Legislation and Cooperative Relations. Subject: Wilderness hearings. Your memorandum of May 1, asks to be supplied with information to enable the Secretary of the Interior to comply with the commitment made to a committee of the House of Representatives on April 27, 1964. 1. The following units of the national park system are subject to the U.S. mining laws: (a) Wilderness Act would apply : Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska, act of February 26, 1917 (39 Stat. 938; 16 U.S.C. 347 et. seq). Mining laws applicable to park lands on the date of enactment remain applicable. Death Valley National Monument, Calif., act of June 13, 1933 (48 Stat. 139; 16 U.S.C. 447). |