Mr. SMITH. No, we have not taken a particular position in terms of the particular areas you are discussing. The reason why we have not evaluated this in specific terms is because 98 or 99 percent of most of the areas we are talking about are really in the West. This is why I am finding it a little bit difficult, because I am trying now to conjure up specific areas in the East.

I know the one in the Adirondacks and others not necessarily Federal.

Mr. PEARL. If I may, for the record at this point, Mr. Chairman, in reply to Mr. Marsh's question, furnish this information:

At the present time there are only two areas classified by the Forest Service for wilderness preservation; these are the 7,655-acre Linville Gorge Wild Area in the Pisgah National Forest, N.C., and the 5,400acre Great Gulf Wild Area in the White Mountain National Forest, N.H.

Now, in addition to that, the chairman was notified by the Forest Service on April 7, 1964, that the Forest Service proposes the establishment of the Shining Rock Wild Area in the Pisgah National Forest, N.C., with an area of approximately 13,400 acres. That one has not yet been established.1

The two States, North Carolina and New Hampshire, are the only two places where there are any forest service wilderness-type areas established or currently contemplated.

Mr. SMITH. Now, in further answer to the Congressman's question regarding national parks, this determination has not been made yet in the national park system, of any areas in these national parks in the East that would indeed qualify as wilderness. There is one obvious one, which would be the Everglades in Florida.

I am sitting here trying to mentally race through the other possibilities, and I would have to say that to the best of my knowledge, there are no identifiable wilderness areas. This does not mean they do not exist, but, to my knowledge, I am not aware of any at the present time that would be significant, or at least in terms of 5,000 acres or above. Mr. MARSH. I notice in Mr. Greeley's statement that by way of definition, they use the term "wild," "wilderness," and "primitive." Apparently they consider some of the areas in the Eastern portion to be wild, but not necessarily wilderness.

Mr. SMITH. Well, of course, they are essentially the same thing. The only distinction between "wild" and "wilderness" is in the acreage involved.

Mr. MARSH. Quantities involved?

Mr. SMITH. The "wild" is the smaller classification, minimum of 5,000 acres; "wilderness," I think is 100,000. The "primitive" areas are not so designated as yet. They are administered under the same Forest Service regulation-I think it is U-20-and the Forest Service treats the primitive areas under the same administrative detail as it does the other areas.

But the primitive areas are finally classified in either wilderness or wild, or general usage.

Mr. MARSH. Would you distinguish, in your western lands, between primitive and wilderness insofar as the position of your organization is concerned?

1 The Shining Rock Wild Area was subsequently established by the Chief, Forest Service, on May 7, 1964.

Mr. SMITH. Well, of course, our position of organization is that it is somewhat difficult, as far as primitive is concerned, because there has not been a final classification of these primitive areas. Until there is a final classification of the primitive areas to determine how much is wilderness, we may quarrel with that, say it is not enough. I do not think we would say it is too much.

But, nevertheless, this is at the time when we would render a specific judgment on that. We would say certainly in areas of the West, we would hope to take completely the wilderness and wild areas, and those areas in the primitive, which would ultimately come into the system of wilderness or wild areas.

Mr. PEARL. Mr. Chairman, if I may make just the further statement, since Mr. Smith mentioned the National Park System units in the East that might qualify, possibly we ought to go all the way and

cover that.

I had addressed myself before only to the units of the national forest, because I thought that Mr. Marsh's question was confined to existing wilderness-type areas. In the 87th Congress, the Secretary of the Interior submitted information as to lands under his jurisdiction that might qualify for wilderness, and we have been advised that that estimate still holds.1

In the eastern part of the United States, he indicated the Everglades National Park would have some lands that might qualify for wilderness; in Georgia, the Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge; then we come to a matter of definition, whether Michigan is far enough east for this purpose, the Isle Royale National Park, Michigan might have some area; in North Carolina and Tennessee, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park has areas that probably would qualify for wilderness. I think that is all that the Secretary of the Interior indicated. Mr. Smith. There is a possibility, is there not, Mr. Pearl, that Cape Hatteras might be included?

Mr. PEARL. The Secretary of Interior did not list that as one of the places that he considered as qualifying for a wilderness.

Mr. SMITH. I see.

Mr. PEARL. There are possibilities in other areas, but they are not indicated by the Secretary.

Mr. MARSH. Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. Our next witness is Mr. J. W. Penfold, conservation director, Izaak Walton League of America.

STATEMENT OF J. W. PENFOLD, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the privilege of expressing our views on this important legislation.

I am J. W. Penfold, conservation director of the Izaak Walton League of America.

The league has had a long history of support of the principle of wilderness preservation and over the past several years, we have ap

1 See tabulation, p. 1101.

peared before this committee on several occasions to express that support for wilderness under firm congressional policy.

There seems to be little more that we can add now that would be helpful to the committee, so we will not repeat what we have said before or what has been ably said by others. For the record, however, we state that we believe the Saylor-Quie-Cohelan bills, H.R. 9070, most nearly represent what we believe essential to providing meaningful protection for our irreplaceable remnants of wilderness.

It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the great many individual bills before you, although varying sharply in several key particulars, are largely the same in stated purpose and in definition. The language used in all is inspired and powerful. The language is impellingly clear: that it is in the interest of all the people that the values of wilderness-some wilderness-be protected and preserved for now and the future.

It is interesting, also, that the principle of the basic purpose as stated in all the bills is supported just about universally. We would have to interview a veritable legion of persons to find one claiming to be irrevocably and utterly opposed to the preservation of any wilderness at all. I have never found one.

In reality, the argument through the years has been over how much wilderness should be saved. In essence, the wilderness bills, since the first one introduced, have aimed at three objectives: To decide by congressional policy that wilderness should be preserved; to decide how much should be preserved in terms of all the needs and the wants of the people as we understand them; and the method or procedure whereby the decision shall be made to preserve a particular wilderness. Looking at these three elements, may we say first that we concur that Congress itself should decide what portions of our wild lands shall be kept wild. Congress alone is in a position to determine what in the long run most nearly meets the needs of the people. We want Congress to determine that this or that parcel of public land should be retained and managed as wilderness to best serve the long-range needs of the people, just as we do not wish the decision to open any parcel of prime wilderness to commercial exploitation to be made by any lesser authority.

No one knows how much wilderness we shall need. We do know that we cannot have any more than has persisted until today.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission gave much thought to wilderness as part of the whole outdoor recreation picture. It did not suggest some specific acreage that the country should preserve. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission made it quite plain, however, that wilderness is essential, and gave it a firm place in its classification of lands, resources and activities. Without wilderness, the system would be incomplete and inadequate.

The Izaak Walton League cannot suggest how much wilderness the country will need and can afford to preserve. We believe it is substantial in one sense, but small in terms of all the Federal public lands available for full development and use both commercial and noncommercial. We believe the Nation can afford to preserve the wilderness character of a portion of our national park, forest, and wildlife refuge systems. The bills before you provide that the Congress shall make the final determinations for each such portion.

There is an exception, however. H.R. 9162 and similar bills provide that Congress shall not make the decision on any piece of land on which someone chooses to file a claim under the present mining laws between now and December 31, 1973.

Under section 4(d) (2), any one individual citizen can file a claim and proceed to develop it, including use of the surface for ingress and egress, for prospecting, drilling, development, and production, for transmission and telephone lines, waterpipes, and the like. The individual thus cannot only utterly destroy the wilderness character of the lands covered by his claim, but also detrimentally affect great portions of the wilderness-and if strategically located with respect to the area, perhaps all of it.

There is nothing in the language of this section that requires Congress or any administrative official to determine whether the minerals coveted are important to the Nation, or are of a value comparable to or exceeding the values of the affected wilderness to the people as a whole.

We appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that there now exist on national forest wilderness, wild, and primitive areas unnumbered claims, each of which represents a property right for some owner. We do not propose that these existing rights be extinguished. We do not believe, however, that providing for the acquiring of new such rights on wilderness established by Congress is consistent with the purposes of the

act.

We appreciate also, Mr. Chairman, that the phaseout period which section 4(d) (2) provides is an effort to resolve the problem, and we certainly commend the effort. It does provide a cutoff date. It does in no way, however, guarantee that there shall be any de facto national forest wilderness remaining in the United States come December 31, 1973.

So we ask ourselves the question: Must we gamble all the wilderness, wild, and primitive areas in one package?

Can the problem be resolved in some manner which would surely protect some the wilderness, wild and canoe areas and confine the gamble to the primitive areas for that period during which they are to be restudied and reappraised?

Perhaps another method would be to withdraw national forest wilderness, wild and primitive areas from operation of the 1872 mining laws and place them under a mineral leasing system, as has already been done in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and providing that Congress itself, through its Interior Committees, shall have the opportunity to review applications prior to decision. Such a procedure, I believe, would meet the objection that ironclad protection might deny the people mineral resources essential to the economy.

We appreciate very much the privilege of presenting our views, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. Mr. Penfold, I want to thank you for your statement, too, and also I want to note that the committee not only welcomes your views, but wants to thank you for the fine service that you render as a member of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and the very fine information that you have produced at this time in your report.

I think your statement, while short, was very comprehensive and offers a great deal to us.

The gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. MARSH. I do not have anything.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Penfold.

Mr. PENFOLD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARING. The counsel advises me we do have a full committee hearing tomorrow morning, but we will take up again with the Subcommittee on Public Lands following the full committee. It will not be until after 10:30 anyway. We will try to finish what work we have in the full committee by 10:30, after which the Subcommittee on Public Lands is scheduled to meet.

Until then, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed.)

28-413-64-pt. 4--13