cedure for classifying and administering suitable wilderness areas of the national forests, parks, and wildlife refuges are in the broad public interest.

A large segment of the citizenry is enthusiastic about this plan to dedicate isolated islands of natural Americana as a national resource. The people realize that time is a critical factor, and that Congress must act soon in order to provide an effective and workable program for administering worthy areas of wilderness.

Much thought and study have been given to the need for wilderness preservation. Members of Congress have devoted a tremendous amount of committee and personal time to this proposal over the past several years. Lengthy hearings have been held both in Washington and in the field, numerous witnesses have been heard, and thousands of pages of testimony taken. All principal points of opinion have been expressed and reviewed again and again, and it is time to act. Many revisions have been made in earlier drafts of the wilderness bill to accommodate valid objections and to benefit from constructive suggestions. The differences of opinion that may exist now among persons who actually are informed about what the wilderness bill really will and will not do are predominately a matter of personal philosophy. Concessions have been made by both sides, and the remaining differences are not so great that they cannot be resolved and put before the House of Representatives. It is hoped that the committee will proceed to mark up the wilderness bill and to send it to the House floor so that it may be debated fully and acted upon during the current session.

The institute would prefer the enactment of a wilderness bill along the lines of S. 4 or H.R. 9070 and similar bills. It is realized, however, that H.R. 9162 and companion measures were introduced in behalf of the administration following consultation with the leadership of this committee. This latter bill seeks to resolve the few remaining differences of opinion, especially about the continuation of mining in the national forest areas of wilderness. The institute's further comments will be directed to H.R. 9162 and to the changes that the committee might wish to consider in order to improve the bill as drafted. Most of these changes are corrective in nature.

Section 3(b) of H.R. 9162 provides a procedure for review of the suitability of preserving currently designated national forest primitive areas as wilderness, and for the submission of recommendations to the House and the Senate by the President. It calls for affirmative action by the Congress on the President's recommendations to classify primitive areas as wilderness. It is not clear from the language of H.R. 9162 whether the primitive areas would continue to be administered as primitive should Congress fail to act on a recommendation of the President within the 10-year period provided. The committee is urged to rewrite this section to make clear that primitive areas will continue to be administered for their wilderness resources until such time that the Congress has acted on a recommendation of the President.

Similar clarification should be made in section 3(c) regarding parks, monuments, and other units of the national park system as well as portions of wildlife refuges and game ranges under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The purpose of both section 3 (b) and (c), as conservationists view H.R. 9162, is to establish a procedure for the review and designation of suitable primitive, park, and wildlife areas as wilderness. Any inference that status quo protection is not to be conferred on these areas, pending final action by Congress, should be avoided.

S. 4, H.R. 9070, and some of the other wilderness bills would permit the prospecting for minerals in national forest wilderness areas and would provide for a continuing inventory by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines to determine the kind and extent of minerals that may be present. Extraction and processing of minerals would be permitted in national forest wilderness when the President makes a determination that the national interest would be served by such activity. This would place mining on a par with prospecting for water, establishment and maintenance of reservoirs and water conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities deemed by the President to be in the national interest.

The mining and mineral leasing laws are far from perfect, as the records and reports of this committee attest. Largely outmoded and ineffectual in many respects in protecting the public's interest in the lands and resources it owns, the laws sometimes have served the purposes of persons and organizations who wished to obtain control of public lands for purposes other than for mining. The "weekend miner" has given the legitimate miner an unsavory reputation,

and all sorts of administrative difficulties have arisen as a result of weaknesses in the laws.

As drafted, H.R. 9162 contains little real protection for the public from the filing of thousands more spurious mining claims in national forest wilderness, wild, and primitive areas. "Mining locations and patents to mining claims lying within the boundaries of said wilderness areas shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto ***," H.R. 9162 stipulates. Does this language mean that persons who obtained patents to mining claims in national forest wilderness years ago, and never actually used the claims for significant mining activity, are suddenly required to become miners?

The further stipulation in H.R. 9162 that title to minerals in a national forest mining claim "together with the right to cut and use so much of the mature timber therefrom as may be needed in the extraction, removal, and beneficiation of the mineral deposits, if needed timber is not otherwise reasonably available***” will not protect vital units of wilderness from incompatible uses. The proviso prevents a determination from being made between the value of undisturbed wilderness to the national interest and the production of minerals, which the country already may have in ample supply. The mining language of H.R. 9162 automatically assumes that minerals, no matter how common, are of infinitely greater value than wilderness.

The institute believes that the language of S. 4 and H.R. 9070 and similar bills amply protects the mining interests and gives them equal treatment with all other activities that ultimately may be permitted in national forest wilderness. We sincerely hope that the committee will mark up a wilderness bill promptly and report it to the House floor where it can be debated and voted on its merits. All of the Members of Congress should be permitted to give full consideration to the wilderness question.

STATEMENT OF RALPH D. HODGES, JR., CHIEF FORESTER, NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

I am Ralph D. Hodges, Jr., chief forester with the National Lumber Manufacturers Association, with headquarters in Washington, D.C.

This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association, a federation of 17 regional species and product associations representing the lumber manufacturing industry in all parts of the United States. Members of the associations federated with NLMA account for a major part of the lumber production of the United States and a substantial part of commercial timberland ownership.

The lumber industry-including owners, managers, and employees in the thousands of lumber communities in which our industrial plants are locatedis completely dependent upon forest resources for the raw material with which it serves the national need for lumber and wood products. Consequently, the industry is deeply concerned with any legislation which affects the forest, and has given careful attention to the provisions of pending wilderness legislation.

THREE CATEGORIES OF WILDERNESS LEGISLATION

The 20 wilderness measures may be divided into 3 main categories for discussion: (1) Bills like S. 4 which has passed the Senate; (2) H.R. 9070 and similar bills; and (3) bills similar to H.R. 9162.

The lumber industry strongly opposes S. 4, as stated in testimony on February 28, 1963, before the Senate Interior Committee. Industry's main objection is that this measure would allow primitive and other areas to be included in the wilderness system without congressional review. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to dispose of and make rules respecting the property of the United States. The lumber industry believes that Congress should retain that right. H.R. 9070 is somewhat more acceptable than S. 4, but it needs considerable modification. A major objection concerns the review period for national forest primitive areas. The lumber industry believes that the 5-year review period provision of H.R. 9070 is too short a time considering the large acreages in primitive classification and the many factors to be studied.

The 10-year review period provision of H.R. 9162 is considered a bare minimum.

DINGELL BILL OVERCOMES SOME OBJECTIONS

One of the outstanding proposals of H.R. 9162 is its provisions for public hearings, for executive review of primitive areas, and for their final designation as wilderness by act of Congress.

SUGGESTIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 9162

The lumber industry offers the following suggestions and amendments to H.R. 9162 for committee consideration:

1. The lumber industry recommends that the title of the bill be changed to read "to establish national wilderness areas" and that all further references to "system" or "National Wilderness Preservation System" be deleted and replaced by the term "national wilderness areas." Use of the word "system" could lead to the impression that this is another land management agency superimposed over parts of the national forests, national parks, and wildlife refuges.

2. Provide clear guidelines for the management of present national forest primitive areas following expiration of the proposed review period if no positive congressional action has been taken. The lumber industry urges that these primitive areas revert to multiple-use, sustained-yield management under provision of the Multiple-Use Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–517).

3. Amend the provision for inclusion of national park and national wildlife refuge areas as wilderness to indicate minimum size of area suitable for preservation by inserting in section 3(c), page 5, line 16, following the word "portions" the phrase "comprising 5,000 or more contiguous acres."

4. In section 3(d)(1) (C) include by name the Federal agencies concerned with wilderness designations which should be invited to submit their suggestions on wilderness proposals. The Federal natural resource agencies should be specifically named because they have the responsibility to the people to provide their best professional advice on each area proposed for wilderness as to its highest and best use of society. If its best use is forestry, the Forest Service should be the agency to say so.

5. Insert after line 9 on page 7 the following language concerning periodic review of wilderness areas:

"The Secretary having jurisdiction over lands designated as wilderness areas shall assure that each wilderness area is reviewed at least once every twenty-five years after its designation in order to determine the suitability and desirability for continued classification and preservation of the area as wilderness. In doing this he shall obtain written comments from each of the Federal agencies enumerated in the preceding section of this Act, and request comments of the Governor of each State and the county governing board of each county in which the lands are located. If the Secretary determines that any modification of the area should be affected, he shall proceed in accordance with the requirements of the subsection following immediately below."

6. In line 5, page 8, strike out the words "interference with" and substituting therefor "addition to" and pluralizing the word "purpose." This would provide similar treatment for the national forests and the national parks. Further down the page lines 18 through 20-the bill provides: "Nothing in this Act shall modify the statutory authority under which units of the national park system are created." It should be made clear that expansion of wilderness must not be a reason for increased Federal land acquisition.

7. In line 20, page 9, before the word “of” insert the words "protection and management." This language encompasses all of the functions of land management and would constitute congressional direction to the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of wilderness areas in the national forests, that he protect them so that the purpose of wilderness designation is fulfilled.

8. Provisions in section 5(b), pages 14 and 15, affecting an individual's right of access to his lands needs clarification, especially the phrase "by means which have been or are being customarily enjoyed with respect to other such areas similarly situated." The language is completely circular and should be modified. The Federal Government can initiate condemnation proceedings to gain access to its property. However, the private landowner has no such rights. His rights of access should be made clear in this section.

9. Amend section 5(c) on page 15 to include for private owners the same right of land exchange authorized for the States. There is no provision in any wilderness measure for exchange, where feasible, of private lands within wilderness areas for public lands outside wilderness areas. Inclusion of this authority would provide for blocking up ownerships in many areas and would

greatly facilitate improved efficiency in land management. Such land exchange authority would be beneficial to Federal, State, and private land managers. Of the 20 wilderness bills under consideration by Congress, the lumber industry finds the Dingell bill, H.R. 9162, less objectionable and will support this measure if the aforementioned suggestions and amendments are incorporated into the bill.

THE LUMBER INDUSTRY APPROACH TO WILDERNESS

The lumber industry is not opposed to establishment of wilderness areas if there is a demonstrated public need and lands are best suited for that purpose. At the present time, 14.7 million acres of national forest lands are classified as "wilderness type" areas (wild, wilderness, primitive, and canoe areas) and Government statistics show that less than 2 percent of the Nation's forest land recreationists use wilderness areas. In addition, about 90 percent of our national parks are maintained in a wildernesslike condition without roads. Over 22 million acres of national park lands and 24.4 million acres of national wildlife refuge lands in tracts over 5,000 acres could be added to the wilderness system under proposed wilderness legislation. The small public use interest in established wilderness areas raises a question concerning need for additional wilderness classification.

Many of these areas are wilderness in character and have little economic value outside wilderness use. However, the proposed legislation would embrace areas which do not fit the definition of wilderness, and in the public interest would be better managed for multiple use including timber production. Department of Agriculture figures (February 23, 1961) indicate that 4.7 million acres of commercial forest land are included in national forest wilderness type areas. Wilderness measures now under consideration would allow no timber management except in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

Consideration of lands to be set aside for wilderness recreation purposes must be balanced with acreage required to support an expanding population. Many timber dependent communities of the West rely strongly on the national forests for their livelihood. For example, more than 70 percent of all commercial forest land in the 12-State western pine region is Government controlled and provides the bulk of the raw material need for timber dependent communities. Any change in land classification must be closely analyzed to determine the effect on these communities.

Prior to classification under any wilderness measure, full weight should be given to the basic policy under which the national forest system is managed; that is, "to be devoted to its most productive use for the permanent good of the whole people." This policy also emphasizes as a basic principle that multiple land use should guide the management of the national forests. Also it should be remembered that timber is a living, renewable resource. It cannot be preserved beyond its allotted lifespan. Mature timber left to die and rot in wilderness areas represents not only a wasted crop but a loss of jobs and taxable wealth to the Nation.

STATEMENT OF MILES P. ROMNEY, MANAGER, UTAH MINING ASSOCIATION

Proposals for large-scale, exclusive use withdrawals of the public lands as wilderness areas have been supported largely by reference to the "population explosion."

The following analysis of the trends of population growth and natural resource consumption from 1870 to 1957 clearly illustrates that there has occurred a "minerals demand explosion" which has dwarfed the "population explosion" by the factor of over 9 to 1. This intense utilization of mineral resources not only made the population growth possible, but also provided the materials upon which our industrial might, our standard of living level, and our quantity of leisure time were founded and upon which they all vitally depend.

Accessibility of the public lands to meet present mineral needs and to meet the anticipated substantially expanded needs, demands careful consideration of any disposition of the public lands which might adversely affect this Nation's ability to meet those needs.

We feel that the following material presents a pertinent documentation of the vital position filled by mineral resources; and that it factually establishes the need for greater, rather than restricted, access to the public lands for the purpose of finding, developing, and mining the ever-increasing quantity of minerals needed to sustain the American way of life. Any wilderness legislation should give adequate consideration to insuring the opportunity of meeting those needs. 28-413-64 pt. 4-22

TREND OF MINERAL CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES 1870 TO 1957 AND PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000

(By Miles P. Romney, manager, Utah Mining Association, April 27, 1944) Consumption of minerals in the United States increased far more rapidly than consumption of any other natural resource in the period from 1870 to 1957, according to a very recent publication of Resources for the Future, Inc.1 Projected consumption of natural resources to the year 2000, presented in another publication by the same organization, shows minerals leading all other natural resources in the trend of increase in consumption from 1957 to that date. This statement and the following analysis of the historical trend of natural resource consumption is made with full recognition of the fact that each general category of such resources has had a vital role in the economic development and in the mode of life, or standard of living, in the United States. Each has filled unique basic needs. However, the utilization of some resources in the industrial growth has been more expandable than others. The need for food in the United States has tended to follow fairly closely the population trend. Increases in actual food consumption, slightly exceeding population growth, probably reflect consumption of higher priced foods rather than more food per capita. We are now living "higher on the hog," so to speak-more strawberries and fewer beans. Forest products, the basic material in times past for all construction, began to be replaced in the late 1800's by minerals and metals, and therefore per capita consumption of lumber has experienced a marked reduction over the years.

The mental exercise of contrasting grandfather's personal possessions with our own, as well as his facilities for transportation, communication, and industrial activity, serves to make understandable the tremendous increase in consumption of minerals and metals between his time and ours.

Individual and public equipment and facilities, as well as production equipment, have all experienced tremendous changes in their character, variety, and volume since industrialization began to materially expand following the Civil War. Minerals and metals were vital to this expansion for both the material with which to build the machines and appliances and for the fuels to power them. The spectacular growth in mineral consumption clearly reflects this intimate association of metals and mineral fuels in the industrial expansion.

PERIOD 1870-1957

Assigning a factor of 1 to the volume of each category of natural resource consumed in 1870, the consumption in 1957 had increased by the following measures: consumption of mineral resources had increased 41 times, consumption of timber products had increased 1.57 times, consumption of agricultural products had increased 5.22 times.

During the same period and by the same measure the gross national product had increased 19.43 times; population had increased 4.3 times.

Manufacturing, or value added by manufacture, is measured in the publication by an index of output. This index changed from 4 in 1870 to 145 in 1957, reflecting an increase of 36.25 times.

The above increase trends are for total consumption with respect to natural resources, and for total output with respect to gross national product and manufacturing.

On a per capita basis, consumption trends were as follows: mineral resources from $9.64 in 1870 to $92.35 in 1957; timber products from $57.60 in 1870 to $21.10 in 1957; agricultural products from $125.25 in 1870 to $152.25 in 1957. Thus, per capita consumption of minerals increased 9.6 times; forest products decreased to 36 percent of 1870 per capita consumption; and agricultural product per capita consumption increased 1.22 times.

The gross national product increased 4.52 times per capita and the manufacturing output index increased 8.42 times.

Mineral consumption trends show a very close parallelism with both manufacturing and gross national product output trends.

"Trends in Natural Resource Commodities," Resources for the Future, Inc. Published by Johns Hopkins Press, 1962.

2 "Resources in America's Future," Resources for the Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins Press, 1963.