agement of-I am not sure whether it is national forest lands, but it is with respect to the management of public property that we administer in agriculture. Mr. PASEK. In section 4 of the Allott amendment: All hearings and proceedings conducted under this act shall be held in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act-- and then it gives the public law— And any act amendatory or supplemental thereto. This is the point which I was trying to make and probably have been rather clumsy in doing it. The CHAIRMAN. You said the bill had this lack of consistency. Mr. PASEK. Under present laws, ample provision is made for establishment of wilderness areas. 2. No justifiable case has been made for sweeping action at this time, as contemplated by S. 174. 3. The conflicting directives of S. 174, along with the administrative confusion which would result, clearly indicate the strong desirability of obtaining additional facts as to outdoor recreational requirements, including wilderness, before taking the nearly irrevocable steps called for by S. 174. 4. Therefore, we urge that the committee take advantage of current studies in order to give proper consideration as to whether S. 174 or any additional wilderness legislation is needed. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Allott? Senator ALLOTT. Just one question; and I just throw this out. Maybe you would like to comment on it. In your statement, which is a very thought-provoking statement, on page 5, you talk about certain provisions with regard to prospecting. As a practical measure, Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering about the situation of how an individual, for example, in wandering through a wilderness area, and having discovered there what he thought was an extremely valuable find of any mineral that was of great need, would ever find himself in a position to make an approach to the President, so that the President could make this finding. We all know that the President is a very, very busy man. And I think that there is a very deep question here as to whether or not this is anything but just words. I know it was not the intention of the writer of the bill to make it this way, but I do not know how any individual would ever find himself in a position to approach the President and get such a determination. I think it is something to think about when we mark up the bill. The CHAIRMAN. I do, too. I simply say that I think the President would probably do as he does in every other similar case, take the advice of the Cabinet officer involved. Mr. PASEK. Is there a procedure provided for that in the bill now? The CHAIRMAN. There is no procedure provided. There is nothing in law which says that the President shall submit bills on the recommendation of his Cabinet officers; but he does do it all the time. We all know that some recent appointments have been coming up to the Congress. They all come from the President of the United States. But I guess if you go back far enough, you would find that maybe a Cabinet officer had gone in and said, "I would like to have this man from Arizona to be my counsel." Now, there is nothing in the law that says the President has to pay the slightest attention to him. As a matter of fact, he does, and I think it is a good thing. I suppose you could spell all these things out. The provision that is in here, my assistant points out to me, was taken from the O'Mahoney-Allott amendment proposed a year ago. Are there other questions? Senator METCALF. I want to call your attention to page 2 of your testimony, wherein you say 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. I wonder if you would elaborate on that a little bit. Just what sort of impact are you talking about? Mr. PASEK. In our national forests and other Federal lands, we have what are now designated primitive areas-this is one example, at least for which the highest use has not been determined. And to lock these in at this time would certainly, we think, work to the detriment of the interests involved. And then, as we understand it, at least, it would be extremely difficult for any commercial enterprise, whether it be an individual or a company, to explore, satisfactorily to determine what are the assets of any area. Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this hearing— I meant to do this yesterday, and had I been able to be here, I would have asked to put this in the record at that time--I wrote to the Forest Service and requested some information as to the total acreage of national forest land in each wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe area, and within each estimated area of commercial forest land and noncommercial forest land. And I asked them to state the acreage of national commercial forest land which is not in the wilderness-type areas. This information is in these two mimeographed releases that are in front of every member of the committee. I ask unanimous consent to have the Forest Service letter and the two summaries made a part of the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be done. Hon. LEE METCALF, FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1961. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: In response to your letter of February 20 there are attached 25 copies each of tabulations showing: (1) The total acreage of national forest land in each wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe area, and within each, the estimated area of commercial forest land and noncommercial forest land, and (2) for States with such areas the acreage of commercial national forest land which is not in wilderness-type areas and the allowable annual cut and actual cut in fiscal year 1960 for each such national forest. Since our wilderness-type areas are managed primarily for the protection of primitive environment, we have not felt the need for detailed timber-type mapping and inventory. Many of the areas have never been cover typed so the acreage figures arrived at for commercial and noncommercial forest land within them are simply the estimate of local forest officers most familiar with the situation. We hope that this information will be sufficiently accurate to be useful to you. Sincerely yours, RICHARD E. MCARDLE, Chief. By EDWARD C. CRAFTS. National forests, commercial forest land, allowable annual cut, and fiscal year 1960 volume of national-forest timber cut in States which have wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe areas National forests, commercial forest land, allowable annual cut, and fiscal year 1960 volume of national-forest timber cut in States which have wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe areas-Continued National forests, commercial forest land, allowable annual cut, and fiscal year 1960 volume of national-forest timber cut in States which have wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe areas-Continued 3 Includes part of forest in New Mexico. • Estimates of the commercial area and allowable cuts not available. Includes part of forest in Nevada. • Includes part of forest in Oregon. 7 Includes part of forest in Utah and Wyoming. Includes part of forest in Montana. Includes part of forest in Washington and Montana. 10 Includes part of forest in Utah. 11 Includes part of forest in Wyoming. 12 Includes part of forest in Idaho. 13 Includes part of forest in South Dakota. 14 Includes part of forest in California. 15 Includes part of forest in Maine. 16 Includes part of forest in California. 17 Includes part of forest in Washington. 18 Includes part of forest in Idaho. 19 Includes part of forest in Colorado. 20 Includes part of forest in Wyoming. 21 Excludes part of Black Hills National Forest which is largely in South Dakota. |