Pending the reclassification of such primitive areas, the association recommends that they be protected from any use which would lessen their value as wilderness.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. Pasek?

STATEMENT OF LEONARD E. PASEK, VICE CHAIRMAN, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

Mr. PASEK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Leonard E. Pasek. I live in Meenah, Wis.

A private survey of business management officials in the forest products industries indicates that a substantial majority believe that some selected areas should be maintained as wilderness. The survey further indicates the belief that these areas should be determined and selected on the basis of competent research and review.

We find ourselves, in the National Association of Manufacturers, in complete agreement with these viewpoints; we are not opposed to the wilderness objective.

Our own National Association of Manufacturers Conservation Committee has studied proposed wilderness legislation over recent years and, as a result of our studies, recommended to our board of directors the following statement of policy, which was adopted on December 1,

1959:

RECREATIONAL AREAS, NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS, WILDERNESS AREAS Recreational use of Federal lands has become increasingly important, and Federal land management agencies should make long-range plans for recreational use of their lands.

National parks should include areas essentially in their primeval natural condition and in scenic quality and beauty so outstandingly superior to average examples of their several types as to make them of national importance and to make imperative their preservation intact and in their entirety for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of all people for all time. National monuments should be areas, usually smaller than national parks, that are of national importance as superlative examples of native flora or fauna, geologic phenomena, or archeologic or historic interest. The area of each park or monument should be a comprehensive unit, of no greater size than necessary to embrace and preserve these superior national values and provide proper space for necessary facilities appurtenant thereto.

Industry recognizes that some limited areas of Government-owned land remaining in their primitive state have higher value as wilderness areas than for other purposes. Selection of such areas should be determined by sound land management principles and practices. There is no necessity to establish a wilderness preservation system which would arbitrarily lock up vast areas into a wilderness classification. Further, the creation of any new Government agency is unnecessary, would conflict with present programs, and would establish the precedent of creating an agency within the governmental framework devoted to advocating the viewpoint of a special use interest. It is strongly recommended no further consideration be given proposed legislation dealing with wilderness areas until the report of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission has been submitted and analyzed.

You will note there are several changes in the present S. 174 since the adoption of this policy a year and a half ago.

We note that the bill before the committee, S. 174, does not call for the creation of a new Government agency, as did some previous bills, and we believe that this is a definite step in the right direction.

However, we do have certain other suggestions to make, which we think would be improvements on the present bill.

In this connection, it must be noted first that the proposed legislation would have a substantial impact on our national forests, which constitute a valuable economic asset of our Nation and comprise a significant portion of our national timber resources. Therefore, before proceeding, I would like to refer to the first three points of our association's policy statement on "Timber Resources," as follows:

1. Timber should be treated as a crop to be grown, harvested and regrown so as to produce the maximum sustained yield year after year. Each harvest should provide for establishing the next crop of trees.

2. Adequate fire prevention and fire control measures, as well as adequate protection against insects, diseases, overgrazing, and other destructive forces, should be incorporated and coordinated in both private and governmental basic management programs.

3. Multiple-use management practices should be followed so as to achieve the additional goals of watershed improvement, sustained yield of wildlife, and recreational opportunities.

I would like to point out that many business enterprises, such as timber companies, electric utility companies, and water utility companies are, under various arrangements, making their lands and waters available for recreational opportunities. Such opportunities include family picnicking, boating, swimming, hunting, fishing, and camping.

Under multiple-use management practices, it is possible to attain economic objectives, watershed improvement objectives, wildlife management objectives, and recreational development objectives in a manner that achieves not only compatibility of these purposes, but also permits each objective to contribute to the attainment of the others.

For instance, proper harvesting of trees provides an environment for wildlife that provides food and growth for these wild animals; on the other hand, excessive population of wildlife in the forest habitat is not ecologically sound, and the hunter helps provide a proper balance to the forest population. Thus, sustained yield and systematic harvesting of timber and wildlife go hand in hand.

I would like to turn now to an application of some of these principles to some of the features of S. 174. The chief points we wish to make are:

1. The bill covers too much land.

2. The policy of S. 174 is not clear in its relationship to multipleuse mangement of the national forests.

3. The bill applies conflicting procedures; it should provide for selection of wilderness areas by progressive inclusion after application of sound land management principles, rather than by a process of declassification following blanket inclusion.

4. If legislation is passed now, the Congress will have deprived itself of the benefit of the deliberations of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.

The bill covers too much land:

It should be recognized that the bill defines a wilderness 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" and as "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation."

In the light of our expanding population, need for economic growth, and problems arising out of our competitive economic and political status, it would seem very important that we not deprive ourselves of the use of vast land areas and the natural resources contained therein and thereon, especially under such severe restrictions as these definitions would appear to impose and especially to achieve an extremely limited purpose which appears to be to preserve in the words of the bill, "outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation."

In the President's special message to the Congress on natural resources, under part III, entitled "Forests," his first action point (A) was, "I urge Congress to accelerate forest development on Federal public lands both as a long-term investment measure and as an immediate method of relieving unemployment in distressed areas."

Without the benefit of any knowledge as to how the locking up of 55 to 60 million acres of Federal public lands will affect the peoples or their economy, we should not at this time adopt legislation which will almost irrevocably commit us in this direction. The report of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission will undoubtedly furnish us with much valuable information and analyses from which we can make intelligent decisions.

The policy of S. 174 is not clear:

We believe that the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, which includes provision for wilderness areas, represents a positive and constructive approach to this subject as opposed to the confusing statements contained in S. 174.

A very positive definition of "wilderness" is contained in subsection 2(b) of the bill, but under subsection 6(c) (2), there is authorized certain exceptions in regard to prospecting (including exploration for oil and gas), mining (including the production of oil and gas) water conservation works *** road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof *** and grazing of livestock where previously well established.

***

Perhaps this amounts to bringing us around full circle to multipleuse management, except that the multiple uses would be authorized by the President instead of by the appropriate agencies. If this is the case, it is evident that there is no need for the proposed legislation, since we already have multiple-use management with due regard for recreational objectives, including wilderness.

On the other hand, these exceptions may be administered so as to frustrate multiple use management. Why is the management function placed directly in the President? Why is timber harvesting not mentioned? Why is future grazing restricted? Is the criterion which requires

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

truly equivalent to the objectives of multiple-use management and would it not impose an impossible administrative burden on the President?

It is interesting to note that subsection 6(c)(3) provides that the boundary waters canoe area shall be managed

in accordance with the general purpose of maintaining, without unnecessary restrictions on other uses, including that of timber, the primitive character of the area, particularly in the vicinity of lakes, streams, and portages * *

This certainly suggests that the language of a sound wilderness bill should be limited to that quoted rather than create an unnecessary complex, cumbersome administrative machinery and an unnecessary "system" superimposed on other administrative units.

Perhaps some of the lack of clarity in the bill is best illustrated by: I. Subsection 3(b) (2) of S. 174 states as follows:

The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to but not in interference with the purposes for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11) and the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 Public Law 86-517 (74 Stat. 25).

II. Subsection 6 (b) of S. 174 provides:

Prohibition of certain uses. Except as specifically provided for in this Act and subject to any existing private rights, 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 other 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 for the purposes of this Act, including such measures as may be required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within such areas.

III. Subsection 6 (c) (2) of S. 174 provides:

The President may, within a specific area *** authorize prospecting * * * mining *** water-conservation works *** including road construction and maintenance

et cetera.

These three contrasting provisions certainly establish the point that the bill appears to be in conflict with itself.

The CHAIRMAN. On that point: Is there no qualifying language to the third item, which tries to remove the conflict that you are talking about?

Mr. PASEK. I do not believe so, as I read it.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it not have a little something about emergencies, there?

Mr. PASEK. That was under point two, where there is something about emergencies.

The CHAIRMAN. No; you quote from section 6(c) (2).

The President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting ***, mining * * *, and the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, 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.

Now, if you have one provision that denies, and the other which says the President can, if he deems it necessary in the public interest, go ahead with it, is that a conflict?

Mr. PASEK. Well, it is my understanding that the previous sections in the act do not allow for other areas this same freedom of action. Is that right, or not?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, yes, but if the subsequent statement is put in the bill to show if there is a need for some of these things to go forward, the President may do it, even though the administration of the Forest Service may not, is that a conflict, or a contrasting provision?

Mr. PASEK. As I studied the bill in preparing this testimony over the weekend, I got that impression. I think perhaps I got that impression because the bill accents the one single use of wilderness for this vast area.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right: Preservation. Then it comes back and says: However, if the President thinks the national interest is greater than this wilderness interest, he can unlock these things that have been locked up, as these witnesses have been saying. Now, is that a contrasting provision?

Mr. PASEK. As I say, as I got it over the weekend, I felt that giving the powers to the President to do this, instead of the Congress, made it a conflicting or contrasting provision.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. PASEK. In addition, there is a lack of consistency as to procedural requirements between agencies relating to inclusion or exclusion of areas, boundary adjustments, and other modifications.

The CHAIRMAN. You recognize, do you not, that you do have different administrative procedures in different agencies?

Mr. PASEK. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. When you try to combine national park lands and forest lands, there naturally are conflicts. Would you like to have those straightened out and made all the same, or would you like to leave the basic laws of the Park Service as they are?

Mr. PASEK. I think the points that we are making are best clarified in the Administrative Procedure Act, perhaps. That is the kind of thing.

The CHAIRMAN. In the Administrative Procedure Act?

What in

the Administrative Procedure Act deals with the management of forests?

Mr. PASEK. Well, in the method of review; how lands are either put in or taken out.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you expect to find a comparable provision in the national parks?

Mr. PASEK. Well, if the Allott amendment, for instance, the sense of that amendment, were part of this, I think it would establish that. This process of review by all interested parties not only includes the national interest, but, for instance, in the State of Idaho, the people of the State of Idaho perhaps should be heard.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I think the Forest Service is specifically exempted from the Administrative Procedure Act.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought so, but I bow to his judgment in that field.

Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. PASEK. We would certainly hope it would apply. I am not sure I was aware that it was excluded.

The CHAIRMAN. Ed, did you have a comment!

Mr. CRAFTS. My recollection, Senator, is that there is an exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act with respect to the man