Roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II)


Material Information

Roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II)
Series Title:
Serial - Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ; no. 95-92, 95-92/pt.2
Physical Description:
2 v. : ; 24 cm.
United States -- Congress. -- Senate. -- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Forest reserves -- United States   ( lcsh )
Wilderness areas -- United States   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions.
General Note:
Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.
General Note:
Pt. 2, Oct. 1978.
General Note:
Pt. 1, Feb. 1978.
General Note:
At head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session. Committee print.
General Note:
CIS Microfiche Accession Numbers: CIS 78 S312-4, CIS 78 S312-23 (pt.2)
Statement of Responsibility:
printed at the request of Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 022533196
oclc - 03947348X
lcc - KF49
System ID:

Full Text
Ti~ ~ I

95th Congress 1COXXITTEE PRINT 2d Session







Publication No.959 PART 2

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources



HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut
JOHN A. DURKIN, New Hampshire PAUL LAXALT, Nevada
GRENVILLE GARSIDE, Staff Director and Counsel EL A. DREYFUS, Deputy Staff Director for Legislation D. MICHAEL HARVEY, Chief Counsel 7 W. 0. CRAFT, Jr., Minority Counsel


To Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natura2
On April 4, 1978, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources conducted the second in a series of roundtable discussions on the Forest Service's latest roadless area review an(1 evaluation (RARE II). The first such roundtable was held on September 21, 1977.
In response to Senator Church, I have again directed that the proceedings of these meetings be printed as a committee print so that they will be readily available to Members of the Senate and others who are interested in the issues raised by the study.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


Memorandum of the Chairman -------------------------------------- (III)
Byers, Hon. Bernard (Bud) State Representative, State of Oregon-------- 191 Church, H on. Frank, U. S. Senator from the State of Idaho 181
Cutler, Dr. M. Rupert, Assistant Secretary for Conservation, Research,
and Education, Department of Agriculture, accompanied by John
McGuire, Chief, Forest 184
Ewart, Kirk R., director, industrial affairs, Boise Cascade Corp---------- 193
Legowski, Mr., representing the International Union of Operating Engineers ----------------------------------------------------------- 195
Mahoney, Tim, resource policy analyst, the Wilderness Society- 196
O'Reilly, T. Mark, director of public relations, U.S. Ski Association ----- 189 Scott, Douglas, Northwest representative, the Sierra 198
Smith, Nels, Speaker of the House, State of Wyoming ------------------ 190
-Swensen, Jack, executive vice president, Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas
Association ----------------------------------------------------- 199
Udall, Hon. Morris K., a U.S. Representative From the State of Arizona-- 183
Additional material for the 217



The meeting convened, pursuant to notice at 1:30 p.m., in room 3110, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Frank Church, presiding.
Present: Senators Church, and Hatfield, and Representatives Baucus, and Weaver.
Also present: Fred Hutchison, legislative assistant to Senator Church, and Nancy Showalter, legislative assistant to Representative Weaver.

Senator CHURCH. I wonder if the participants in today's seminar would come up and take their seats at the table, please.
The hour of 1:30 having arrived, this meeting will please come to order.
On behalf of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the House Interior Committee, the Forests Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee, and the Department of Agriculture, I welcome you to the afternoon session of the Joint Congressional USDA Colloquium on the National Forest Roadless Area Review.
In addition to a number of Members of the House and Senate, Congressman Weaver and Congressman Baucus are present and others will be attending during the course of the afternoon session, we have some distinguished guests with us today whom I will introduce shortly.
Let me state at the outset and for the record that this seminar is neither an oversight hearing nor a legisative hearing. Rat her it is an informal session to discuss the present status and future stages of the second roadless area review and evaluation, the so-called IRARE II project which is presently being conducted by the Department of Agriculture on the national forests.
This colloquium is a followup to a successful experiment which the Energy and Natural Resources Committee conducted last fall. On September 21 the committee called together various conservation organizations, forest products groups and the Department of Agriculture to discuss the roadless area problem and the RARE II project in a roundtable format. As a result of that first discussion, some problems with the RARE II process which might not have surfaced (181)


except for the free flow of debate at the roundtable were subsequently resolved. We felt sufficiently satisfied with the results of that seminar to sponsor this second session today.
The workshops which each of you attended this morning at the Department of Agriculture have set the stage for the roundtable discussion this afternoon. You have given your consideration to some tough questions, such as: How can a consensus be developed for both the areas to be recommended for wilderness and for the areas to be released from further wilderness consideration and thus made available for other uses? What type of legislative package should be sent to Congress upon conclusion of RARE II? How should the decisions made by RARE II be implemented? Are there problems with RARE II which should be resolved before the release of the planned environmeRtal impact statement?
We will discuss these questions and others during the afternoon.
As we begin this second roundtable discussion, iwant to reinforce a couple of basic points which I stressed at the first of these meetings.
The sole objective of the RARE II program is to arrive at some final decisions about the future use of the remaining roadless areas within the national forest system.
To the degree that we can resolve the allocation decisions on some of these areas, we serve to implement two equally important objectives. First, we remove some of the uncertainty about the land base for nonwilderness forest uses such as timber harvest and, second, we assure that the wilderness values of key areas are in fact recognized, and these areas included within the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The inventory phase of the RARE II program has already identified some 66 million acres of roadless land in 37 States.
We can hope that the evaluation phase of the program will generate enough information and foster a consensus among forest user groups sufficient to settle a fair share of this total. But we will all be sorry, I think, if we harbor excessive expectations as to how much of the roadless area issue might be solved by RARE II.
As it has been set up, RARE II is a reasonable program which can achieve a reasonable result. It can get us well down the road to settling the overall roadless area issue-if we just let it. However, if we ask it to do too much, we are liable to strain the capacity of the process and strain the politics underlying the process, to such a point that the whole project will end in failure. That is a result that no one wants.
Therefore, in terms used by Assistant Secretary Cutler when he announced the mogram 1 year ago, we must put the focus on reasonable objectives and on procedures for arriving at the ultimate decisions to be made.
Another problem area which must be avoided, in my opinion, is the use of extravagant rhetoric. For instance, I have seen some recent advertisements which warn of economic disaster for the Northwest if all of the roadless areas in RARE 1I become wilderness. Such scare tactics only bewilder and confuse the people. No one, to my knowledge, has proposed that all of these areas be made wilderness. Furthermore, Congress makes these decisions, and there is no possibility that all the RARE II areas will be designated as wilderness.


Of course, there are areas of roadless land in the national forests that ought to be given full wilderness protection. Because they possess unique ecological values or superlative wilderness characteristics they should be made part of the National Wilderness System. Many such areas have minimal resource conflicts, and we should be able to designate them without too much conflict.
By the same token, there are other roadless areas which have no particular value as wilderness and which are not sought for preservation by anyone. They have other important values which we proceed to utilize including timber, minerals and nonwilderness recreational opportunities. For these areas as well, there ought to be a minimum of controversy.
The problem is we have not been making decisions on these relatively easy areas. To date we have seen virtually all sides arguing their positions on the basis of general principles without attention being given to the other person's point of view. And that brings me back to my first point.
RARE II, as I see it, has a very simple objective: To let a consenus on such areas be formed in a manner which will make it possible for Congress to take action to implement that consensus.
That objective is reasonable, and it does not require the resolution of the whole roaciless area issue in one fell swoop. That is a task which, in my judgment, exceeds the possible.
So, I want to counsel coolness, consensus and resolution with reasonable and not excessive expectations.
Having said that, I want to recognize the presence here of Assistant Secretary Cutler from the Department of Agriculture, who has been the chief architect of RARE 11 and, of course, Chief McGuire of the Forest Service wvho has been returned to good health. I am happy to see you back at work again, Chief McGuire.
Once we get the discussion going this afternoon, we are going to handle it much as we (lid at the roundtable that was held last September and let the discussion carry the meeting along. It won't be possible for me to attend the entire meeting this afternoon. I will try to get back if I can, but I am managing the seemingly interminable debate on the Panama Canal Treaty in the Senate Chamber, and I have to return to the Senate floor for that purpose.
Now, Congressman Weaver, would you like to say a few preliminary words?
Mr "WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement of my own, but Chairman U~dall, who is quite ill and unable to attend, asked me to read his statement.
Senator CHERCH. I am sorry, what is the matter with Mo?
Mr. WEAVER. I imagine the flu.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Udall follows:]
It has been more than seventy years since the forest reserves of this nation were transferred to the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. The National Forests, under the wise stewardship of the Service, have played a major role in fulfilling the country's need for timber, minerals, grazing, clean air and water, and recreation during these past seventy years. The first "Use Book" of the Forest Service, published in 1905, stated very clearly the goal of the Forests when it said, "The Forest Reserves are for the purpose of preserving a perpetual supply
26-7 50-78S-2


cl -'1-7-7 f C _- in -_'H--z' T-evenTir! a uct1cn of forest cover which nd LLr ce I r,-' c, Ls from unfair co. ipt iion
A: c-,-en n --e irmpo-_tant to The
inl_ iT b-- a
1: V Q': rl C! -h, Ruadle ;--- A_-ea Review
R A P, L I I I n short, The Fore, '
L T V dc
i Lhe hi_-h, :zr -- nd
f T *n -rhe
a a r (_-,
11 C)11P Th,,- v.' -LI', deal of T 'L T'- t--v to narrc)VN- the

T 'N C T-n or
a of-zh and

A L'7- 7-1 1 here. It is mv homt ITI -LES _i-, '-_-:---.andincanci

T-,:- F I h as a I-,: d -1 N is f k-, r z a lot of ou n a t o nal
A' by cooper-Ting:
Senator- ("HrRCH. '-Yow, I 1_iniie-nStand that the 'eleza- e z here renre(A --L I -erest gro-p -. and 'that ea,_-h a-oii-) has selecte(I a
se:a -1- five Prem _n
SQOkcSzman to make an op,7n-jr-r stateme-'at bv s',immax-zinz tlie worktmS mo=ncr as ;-,- knd of szpr'n-,I)oard for the 1scuz---.L a 1 t 7n, o (-) n.
B-- 'be ore we do that. I would like to recognize Assistant Secretary Cutler L-.Ld also Chief 'McGi.i-Te of the Forest Service for whaTe-v-er init; al statement they would like to make.


Dr. C -E 17 T k i '-\ I r C In =-n. and on b e h I f of Se r,-r,- t a rv
Bob "_\1rGuirP Pniv-zelf, I thank vou -vem- mlirli
to a publ'n Tn,--c,-' nc- on the status, of the Depart_7 1
Tnc,- 0 A -rea Review and Evalu -,.ti
e c on d on,
or RARE 11
At ih-:z -n -_,_ie RARE 11 pro-r-,j=. woiild Ion helpful to take
stock of 7-%e are while we are d-innop it7 and how we expect
it to wc;-k.RARE IT rc)-,,!cl be a reform- -!lrogra_ within the conte-_,k t of
t1_" r zzr)---o ,zp T-)
"'nr-T- -P z z for the national
Act and the Nat'cnal
RARE 11 1 'Iort o
t + a ni n o W nonwP
NV on tl-)e baz*s o' col_(lreE A R E 11 i Lot an e Iffr) r t to w(,rk m-Irz,,,-Tezz altIlOuah zpeinz the cor -T--t here t o V Make:- me wonder if we cannot
(J i";" in t h; z T) r) P z am verv optim,.-zfc at t ,s
'h" L -c A Z pin
tha, v 1 z r- e om e new s i i t of cooperation.


We do not expect to resolve all of the roadless area allocation issues in all the national forests this year, but we are committed to removing uncertainty about future uses on substantial parts of the roadless area inventory.
When the Carter administration took office, it began with a commitment by the President to assure that wilderness opportunities on the national forests would be more thoroughly evaluated and given more thorough consideration from a national perspective. As the President said in his environmental message last May, the National Wilderness Preservation System must be expanded promptly before the most deserving areas of Federal lands are opened to other uses and lost to wilderness forever.
Without lessening our commitment to other uses, we undertook to improve and strengthen our processes of considering the widernese and roadless areas. We also began with a commitment by Secretary Bergland who assured that commodity production opportunities on the national forests will be clarified through an expedited land use allocation process.
The Congress has confirmed in the strongest terms our decision to improve these processes. We have adjusted the Forest Service evaluation criteria to wilderness suitability in order to conform with the interpretations and criteria that the Congress has set in the Wilderness Act in its many decisions since then on wilderness proposal.
In working with the committees, we have developed a new wilderness management policy which helps to remove many of the misunlerstandings which made final decisions hard to reach. Having made these reforms and improvements in policy on wilderness evaluation, wilderness management, and land use allocation, there was an obvious need to get them into application in the field in a systematic and nationally consistent fashion, hence RARE II.
This is a national program looking at all the roadless areas. RARE I was not national in scope. It did not stress consistency in evaluation of areas. That lack of consistency led to a lot of controversy and to appeals of a kind that will be unnecessary as a result of RARE II. Our land-use planning work was so highly decentralized that assuring a high level of quality and full consistency with national policy became difficult and that resulted in challenges to the decisions. The fact that the chief has upheld a number of land-use plan appeals over the past 2 years demonstrates that we did have a problem that required prompt solution. RARE II is the framework for that solution.
The forest products industry and other groups dependent upon nonwilderness national forest system lands asked for some process that would accelerate decision aking on these land allocation questions. I know of no surer way to avoid controversy over land allocation questions and thus speed final decisions than to assure that our planning is of the highest professional quality. that it conforms fully to the criteria and standards of national policy, that it accurately reflects the policies and criteria that Congress has established and insisted upon. a(nd that it is applied in a nationally coi.stent fashion. That is what RARE II is all about.
It is USDA's response to the equally valid request of the wilderness groups who wanted our policies reformed and of the commodity and developed recreation groups who wanted our decisions made more promptly and with a better chance of finality.


The next thing I want to say about RARE II is that it is going to work. It is going to be completed on our original time schedule with proposals resulting in early 1979. We know everyone wants the process completed as promptly as possible. I would appreciate it if everyone involved would be confident in our commitment and would not continue pressing this point.
We will complete the program for one good and sufficient reason: that this is a directive Secretary Bergland and I have given the Forest Service and they are leaving no stone unturned in carrying out that directive.
Now, the more difficult question is what will be the results. I can promise that RARE II will be completed on schedule, but I cannot predict the results. Frankly, the quality of the results will depend far more on what those in this room from the various public groups say and do than anything either I or the Forest Service can do. 'My friends, the effectiveness of RARE II in resolving roadless area issues is up to each of you far more than it is up to me. I will do my part to assure that all the procedures and resources needed to complete the program are provided, but I cannot produce the consensus on which the substantive results of the RARE II program depend. Only you, and others representing national forest users, can accomplish that.
RARE II is not going to dictate which wilderness areas should be wilderness and which should be used for other purposes. Those results. are not preordained. They will not emerge from some smokefilled room in the Forest Service offices, nor will the Forest Service be able to recommend a set of results until public opinion is obtained as to which RARE II areas should be allocated for which categories: wilderness, nonwilclerness, or further study. The program will produce results only so far as a genuine consensus of public opinion can emerge. Consensus cannot be dictated. It must emerge through an evenhanded process sorting out those things on which people can agree.
RARE II will resolve those roadless areas which by consensus 'of public input are capable of being resolved. It remains to be seen 'how much of the roadless land can be resolved as it remains to be
-seen how far consensus will be reach. However, we don't naively expect unanimity, of course, and the Secretary and I are prepared to bite the bullet when the time comes late this year to make our final recommend ations. regardless of some residual dissidence.
Our part is to assemble the inventory of areas and be rigorous with gathering resource data on each area, so we have a capability of :assessing tradeoffs and opportunity costs. We have also generated some ideas about what particular kinds of areas are needed to help round out a wilderness system which is well distributed geographically and is representative of the ecosystems, land forms, and -wildlife habitat of the national forests.
We are asking to take this information and the ground rules of the RARE II process and help us work toward consensus on an areaby-area basis.
Now, let us review the three categories of recommendations which will emerge from RARE II, the so-called instant wilderness is not instant at all, of course. As the chairman indicated, we will only recommend insofar as some degree of consensus emerges, areas which are suited and desirable for addition to national wilderness preserva-


tion system. But only Congress designates wilderness, and it will have to consider each of these areas before RARE 11 is over. Therefore, the congressional public hearing process lies ahead for any wilderness establishment proposals and state Congressional delegation support is normally required to carry such lprop~osals forward into law.
Similarly, the nonwilderness areas are not going to be released or given away, they will continue to be administered with professional care by the Forest Service under laws which govern us and from the standards of quality management in which we take justifiable pride. RARE 11 will simply recommend another set of areas under existing and future land planning for which the wilderness opt ion will be considered closed.
There has been some talk about how roadless area designation "locks up" the national forests. We are protecting roadless areas only until we can fully evaluate them in our planning and for one goodI reason. TJhe American people, the Congress, and the President want us to. In 1972 the Forest Service completed RARE I. Some 56 million acres were inventoried as roadless under the program. and of that about 12 million acres were selected for further wilderness study; 44 million acres were not selected.
Now, much of that 44 million acres has gone through land use planning and nearly 12 million acres have been released to nonwilderness forms of management. They are among the most productive for nonwilderness forms of recreation, timber, range, water, and wildlife uses. Our planning direction focused on the highest value resource lands first. So, we have been releasing roadless land steadily on the basis of our normal planning procedures, and they have been effectively released because only a small percentage have been subject to further challenge on wilderness grounds, in each case because of the quality of the land-use plan involved. In improving the quality of our wilderness evaluations, we will be assuring that such challenges will not be necessary in the future.
A final thought about release of roadless areas for nonwilderness. area purposes. These areas must be formally handled at the end of the RARE 11 process. We could prepare legislation to effect their, release or some Executive order. I do think the industry groups will want to consider whether legislation to release wilderness areas is desirable. Given the various political circumstances in each State the potential for delays in passing such release le~rislation, area by area,. may be considerable. Remember that we have successfully released 25 percent of the RARE I areas since 1972; and this, of course, still has much to recommend it.
The other category is further planning, not to be confused with wilderness study. One way we are moving to accelerate decisions on wilderness is to avoid the extra step of wilderness study in those cases where we have enough public review to convince us that we can make a balanced and well-informed final land allocation recommendation. The further planning category is just what it says. It includes roadless areas for which we are missing important resource data, or for which no consensus emerges through the RARE 11 process. We will utilize our ongoing land management processes to develop the additional information and additional public review to reach a sound decision area by area. We will keep the acreage in this category to a minimum by accepting some criticism for making recommendations which may be unpopular in some corridors.


These lands will not remain in some endless limbo. Congress has ,given us some clear guidelines for land management processes, and we will soon be promulgating rules and regulations for that process. We will be completing land management plans for every unit under the new guidelines set forth in section 6 of the National Forest Management Act by October 1985.
The further planning needed for these wilderness areas will be accomplished within that time frame. We cannot make any predictions now about the number of areas or acreages going into any of these three categories at the end of the RARE HI process. We are waiting to see the results of public involvement. The RPA planning target is subject to change within the administration or by Congress, but it will be kept in mind as we develop our RARE II recommendations.
For RARE II to work, there is going to have to be a high level of trust among all of us, so that we can get on with our work and keep to the timely schedule. People in every State involved must share that kind of trust. The tactics of confrontation cannot produce agreement. During the public review period on the draft EIS, we will welcome comments about the alternatives we have developed. The most effective form of input, however, will not be merely choosing your favorite alternative and then getting lots of people to support it. Rather, comments on individual areas, one by one, will be the real driving force of the RARE HI decisions.
Let me leave it at this: You may ask how much roadless land we will resolve through RARE 11. 1 have no clear idea today, because we have yet to hear from the people, and we must hear from them. I hope they give us constructive, specific suggestions rather than blanket requests for all wilderness or no wilderness, which will be of no help.
I have faith in this kind of process. I know there are many roadless areas on our inventory which can, by general agreement, proceed to nonwilderness forms of use. I am equaG confident we will find some public support that other roadless areas be elevated to full wilderness status, and there are areas where we (10 not yet know enough or where public controversy is so high, that nothing approaching consensus could possibly emerge during this accelerated program.
What remains is to sort the resource of wilderness areas into these categories. You and your counterparts across America are the key to that process, and we in the Department of Agriculture thank you for your assistance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Chief M-,cGuire, do you have anything you would like to add?
Chief McGUIRE. This group heard from me this morning. I have nothing to add other than to reinforce what Secretary Cutler has already said.
Th ank you to all of you here in Congress for making this session possible.
Senator CHURCH. Senator Hatfield from Montana has arrived. Senator, is there anything you wculd like to say before we proceed?
Sen ator hATFIELD. No; I would just like to listen at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Senator CHURCH. Now, as I previously mentioned, there are five interest groups represented here at the table, and I understand each one has a spokesman.
If we were to begin with the recreation, range, and wildlife group, we have Mark O'Reilly and Marty Morache here. Who will speak for that group? Mark?
Mr. O'REILLY. Right.
Senator CHURCH. Why don't you lead off then?


Mr. O'REILLY. I would like to make just a few points; and, then perhaps if some of the other points which we discussed come up from the other user groups, I might later emphasize that we are in agreement.
One of the basic points which underlay all our discussion this morning was that the members of our group felt that the economic importance of recreation, wildlife, and grazing has not been adequately considered in the RARE II process. I realize that arguments could be made for the other side, but this was the general feeling we had.
Second, we feel that the post-draft environmental statement public involvement procedures should be designed to insure that specific information is elicited from participants in any public section to check the completeness and accuracy of the data base that the draft statement is based upon.
There was some feeling that in past public participation work shops-those who appeared-did not really have adequate information about what was expected of them. It might be helpful to have a preliminary session to inform, as well as pursuing the basic purpose of eliciting responses.
There was some feeling that one of the weaknesses of RARE II to date has been that people on both sides of all the questions which have been raised have been speaking in generalities. There was definitely a feeling that any further discussions, in order to be meaningful at all, would have to be cited specifically.
In other words, unless the question of a particular wilderness area is being discussed, it is very difficult to make any comments that are meaningful. Just exactly how this can be accomplished I am not sure, but we feel that it is quite necessary.
There was some feeling this morning that nonwilderness and further study lands should perhaps be released into-at least in some instances-formal land classification categories which would accommodate or exclude certain types of uses. I think the feeling is that some recreational, wildlife and grazing uses are compatible, whereas perhaps some sort of commercial use might be incompatible with those other uses, and that by creating a special management status for certain of these lands which is not complete wilderness classification, our interests would benefit.
In addition, there was some discussion to the effect that perhaps the Forest Service should seek additional policy guidance from Congress, that the Wilderness Act has left a lot of open questions and


suffers from a. wide diversity of interpretations, depending on what end you seek to serve by your particular interpretation. It was felt that the Resources Plannin : Act was good in providing guidance, but apparently it was not as complete as it might be in assisting public land managers to make decisions.
Some time was also spent discussing the importance, as you said, Dr. Cutler, of reaching a decision on schedule while maintaining the integrity of the RARE II process. In other words, simply to complete the process on schedule while tbrowing the approach, which has been worked out, out the window would be undesirable. Timeliness, also, as much completeness as can be fit into the time available is important.
Further, there was a feeling that this could be circumvented if there were too much administration tinkering with the RARE II process. There is some feeling that the administration is looking at RARE 11 critically, and that there are political considerations which may be in their minds which will prevent timely and complete disposition of RARE 11.
And, finally, it was the consensus of our group that the refusal of the Forest Service to select a preferred alternative is actually a disadvantage rather than an advantage.
We discussed what we considered to be the various responses for refusincr to select a preferred alternative and concluded that none of them were sufficiently important to cause those who have designed the system and who have used it to create these nine alternatives to not make a value judgment. While the members of our group might have some disagreement about how the decision was reached to select a preferred alternative, we felt that we should have the benefit of the isdom of those who have been most involved in the process. We would be willing to compromise some of our individual interests in order to have the benefit of that advice.
Dr. CUTLER. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you mean in the draft statement you would prefer to see a Forest Service proposed action identified?
Mr. O'REILLY. We were advised of these various draft environmental statement alternatives, and that no preferred alternative would be identified. We felt it would be better to have a preferred alternative. So, the answer to your question, is "Yes."
Dr. CUTLER. Thank you.
Mr. O'REILLY. Many other comments were made, but I think I will just leave it at that and perhaps pick up again later on some of the other comments that are made.
Mr. WEAVER [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Reilly.
We sball then move on down the table, unless another way is preferred, to the State and local government delegates, Nels Smith and my very dear friend, Bud Byers.
Mr. BYERS. Nels is going to lead off.
Mr. SNUTH. Mr. Chairman, I am Nels Smith, speaker of the house from Wyoming.
Our g-roup bad representatives of State legislatures, the Governors' offices of various States and also representatives from the National Association of Counties. I will describe the extent to which I think


we were able to develop a consensus. I will cover )art of it and then yield to Mr. Byers. With regard to the j)ostdraft environmental impact statement involvement, we definitely felt that the public should be involved. We propose a format which we think would hell) to head off some of the problems which occurred with the first phase, when there was some severe grrumbling about the mechanism by which the Forest Service was putting the program together.
We woulh suggest first a good preliminary public education of the issues and the areas involved, perhaps including field tri)s into these areas. Then go to hearings. Some concern was expressed in our meeting about the way the informational sessions earlier deteriorated into shouting matches, and we were quite concerned that the ground rules be laid out earlier in these hearings so that some meaningful exchanges could be developed, rather than confrontations between the varIous interest groups. And, of course, 'Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, that can be handled if you set it out clearly at the outset. But it certainly was a problem in the earlier sessions. And we would su'. est then that the forest supervisor's office and perhapss the district forester's office remain open for written comments for a period after that.
We would hope that there would be a second phase of the draft environmental statement, so that that could also be reviewed by the public.
In order to get the t.lpe of comments which would really pertain area by area as the Secretary suggested, we propose that the role of the forest supe- visor be strengthened in regard to gathering information and arriving at these decisions. He is the administrative officer in the area involved. We feel lie would be less subject to political pressures which tend to increase as any decision is brought up the chain of command. He would have the opportunity and, in fact, should have the obligation to try to get the various interest groups together, and we would hope-we may have been a little naive in so hoping-that the various interest groups in that forest could address those particular proposed areas, and if they could arrive at a decision we hope that decision could be honored on up the chain of command.
If he cannot get a meeting of the minds, obviously he will have to then make his recommendations based on the best information available to him, but we do strongly urge that the preliminary decision be made at this level.
He certainly will be in a position to develop an accurate data base, he will know the area involved and this so-called grassroots appeal, I think, would have political appeal to those of us who have been in the process as long as many of us have.
We have some suggestions relative to proposed legislative alternatives, your point No. 3 in the charge to 1)articil)ants, and I will yield to Bud Byers on that.

Mr. BYERS. Mr. Chairman, our suggestion is that a national omnibus bill, the goal of which would be to establish an overall system, not just a collection of wilderness areas, should be drafted by (.'ongress using the suggestions that have been developed at the local level.


And, again, I cannot overemphasize the importance that was felt in our group for decisions at the local level, from people who are out on the ground, who know the users on both sides, the economics, and understand the problems better than anybody else.
We believe that there should also be national legislation on the nonwilderness areas in order to finally resolve this question. Those areas that should be multiple-use areas, should not be subject to future studies, and they should be designated so that we can get on with the business of utilizing these lands for their best use for the public.
We also believe, that the number of areas and the size of the areas designated for future study should be minimized. In using the proper criteria to establish those before they are even left out of the decision one way or the other, and that only goes to areas with factual problems, and I mean actually factual, concrete disputes where they arise, should be placed in this category.
We believe that this point tends to be a scapecroat in an area and excessive amounts might be left there for future studies, and this process would continue to go on and on.
Mr. WEAVER.Mr. Byers, are you sayin g that you want all 66 million acres in the bill, except for the amounts that you say should be minimized?
Mr. BYERS. Correct, except those that as we used in the charts, the yellow area and even then I think we should be concentrating to make sure that we minimize the amounts that are in the yellow area of our charts.
We believe also that the deadlines must be met all the way down the line. And, also, the deadline of 1985 be met on those that are left in that "no-man's land" out there at the time that this is established.
Then we go on to the issue of the pitfalls. I think my fellow cochairman has brought some of those out, but I will go back again, because they were the last item we discussed. The public, we believe, must be educated as well as possible. We think a lot of the problems have arisen because of emotionalism and the lack of real knowledge of the problems that are out there. In many cases we believe that there is some common ground that can be found. We also think the people on both sides of the issues that are adversaries at this point should be told that, You come in and agree that you do have some common grounds and if you don't establish this, somebody is going to make a decision for you, and you may or may not like it." The monkey has to be put on their back 'I that they are going to have to decide, and make it pretty clear, so that we can go on with business.
We have felt also that one of the problems might be the lack of understanding of the nine alternatives. We think that somewhere alon(r the line there may be some way of simplifying it to make it so that those people who are using it out there can better understand and can work with it and use it. I know that some of u,; bad some questions about it ourselves and we have been working with the issue for some, time and feel that we are better informed than a lot of people who will have to be working on it.
We believe that national averages have been used instead of local figures in many cases, and it goes back to this thing of using the local areas in finding out just how important they feel the economic part


or whether it should be multiple use or skiing areas or whatever. So, these are some of the things that might help) solve some of the problems, and, of course, help to minimize the conflict.
If these people will sit down together and say, "All right, we have to make some concessions both ways," then we may make some headway. That pretty well concludes our findings and our views.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you very mIuch, Mr. Byers. We will move down the table to Mr. Legowski and Mr. Ewart.
Mr. EWART. 1Mr. Chairman, Mr. Legowski and I are cochairman of our group. Mr. Legowski represents the International Union of Operating Engineers. I am Kirk Ewart with Boise C(ascade Corp. I am here today in my capacity as chairman of NFPA Lamndwithdrawal Task Force. Today I speak not only for the forest products' industry, but for labor, homebuilders, and building material (dealers. We all appreciate the opportunity to come to this second RARE If symposium because we think there is potential for better understanding of the objectives of RARE II. We have been asked to address six questions which I will do so in a minute.
First, though, I would like to emphasize some basic thoughts we have on the subject of RARE II. First, industry and labor are committed to guiding RARE I to a timely and successful conclusion. RARE II, if successful, has the potential of p)roviding us with a stable land base for much needed long-range planning for both wilderness allocation and resource development.
Second, our overriding objective is to insure that RARE II results in final decisions, and not in challenges, and further delay which only prolong the agony of employment instability, building material shortages, community uncertainty, and inflationary consumer impacts.
Third, final decisions on all roadless areas must be consistent with the Forest Service's goals under the Resources Planning Act. The RPA must be a framework for balancing the resource outputs and wilderness allocations as determined by RARE II. For example, because of this planning process the Forest Service has already experienced a shortfall in meeting timber sale targets. Three hundreds twenty-eight million board feet was lost in fiscal 1978 and 385.7 million board feet is estimated to be lost in 1979. Far more serious impacts are predicted for early in the 1980's.
Sunday's Washington Post reported that the Sierra Club is prepared to sue if the Forest Service increases the harvest of old growth timber in the West. It is also reported that in Vermont 30 percent of the timber over 5 inches in diameter is unsuitable for conversion into products, and it is contemplated that it will be harvested to produce energy. The Star, the same day, quoted Worldwatch in saying our food and fiber producing lands are already declining in productivity. I mention these three points only to remind all of us that we are making decisions in RARE II which will determine how bountiful timberlands can be forever. These decisions could result in further inflationary impacts on the consumer through increased housing


costs, as well as the costs of other forest products. We, therefore, urge that the final environmental impact statement include a clear and supported statement about how RARE II decisions will affect Forest Service ability to meet long-range timber needs.
Now, let me address your six questions.
First, how can consensus be developed and measured? Definite decisions based on accurate data and public input are a must for the public to make intelligent choices. The public must also be aware of the tradeoffs involved, and the impact their performance will have on the economic and other resource needs of the country which are already identified by the Resources Planning Act process.
The second question, what kind of legislation should be introduced upon conclusion of RARE II? We recommend that legislation address not only those areas to be designated as wilderness, but also those areas to be designated for nonwilderness. It must be legislated that these nonwilderness lands are immediately available for commodity or other resource uses, and that no further consideration need be given to wilderness allocation. This will lead to a certainty needed for the Forest Service to carry out full resource management of these areas and not have decisions on these areas subject to challenge.
Also, we urge that studies of areas determined to be subject to further planning be g-,iven a clear deadline by the legislative package, in other words, a sunset provision.
We commend Congrress for its interests shown thus far in House Concurrent Resolution 543 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 65 regarding RARE 11. We will continue to work with you as legislation is developed to implement the recommendations of RARE 11.
How should implementation of the nonwilderness areas proceed? Implementation of the RARE II results can best be achieved by rapid and thorough application of the land management planning principles of the National Forest Management Act of 1976. Any resulting land use decisions must be integrated with resource output goals under the Resources Planningr Act.
Another concern we have is that thus far there is no clear demonstrable link between RARE 11, RPA, and the consumer. There must be an assurance that RARE 11 decisions will not prevent the Forest Service from meeting its RPA goals for timber and other resources.
Additional concerns relate to the draft EIS. in this draft the Forest Service will display a range of alternatives for RARE 11 with a spectrum of wilderness and nonwilderness allocations. These alternatives recently were adjusted because initial response from the field indicated a heavy emphasis on nonwNilderness with a consequently lower for wilderness and wilderness studies.
We agrreed with the Forest Service that the alternatives used did not represent the wide range required for display under NEPA. I would like to emphasize, however, that we feel that the additional alternatives (10 not have the same status as the original eight alternatives. The criteria for these were established before it was known what the acreage results would be. The original criteria were established in an unbiased manner by the Forest Service to round out the national forest contribution to the wilderness system.
Thus, the results of the original eight alternatives since they were not influenced by subsequent events must be given the most weight


and credibility. We placed reliance upon your original professional judgment as to how these alternatives should be structured. The last minute adjustment is unsettling and reflects poorly on the basic process for development of options. The draft EIS must point out very clearly that the new alternatives must be added solely to the extent, range of alternatives to meet your appraisal of legal obligations under NEPA.
You mentioned this morniin that the decision criteria would be spelled out in the draft EIS. This can be useful for public review only if the public has a good understanding of how to deal with their criteria and what will be applied to them. You must very quickly tell us the rules of the game and stick to them through this process, so we can properly advise and encourage the people whose jobs an(i livelihood depend on these results.
The final concern that we have is standing out in the r ongass National Forest in Alaska, where the administration has circumventedl the ongoing Forest Service planning processes. We urge that the Tongass land use management plan be implemented before recommendations are made on wilderne...s designations in southeast Alaska.
You have now asked us to identify what the pitfalls are to successful conclusion of RARE II. A major pitfall is the very real possibility that RARE I decisions will be challenged and thus delay indefinitely the implementation of those decisions. To avoid this the Forest Service must provide as stable and accurate draft and final EIS as possible and assure that this final decision is based upon accurate and complete data, objective tradeoff analysis, and sufficient public input and consistency with RPA goals.
Now, you have asked how the public should get involved.
It is important that there be ample opportunity for the public to respond to the draft EIS. We encourage the Forest Service to hold information sessions throughout the country this summer to explain the draft EIS and supplemental information. We would hope that these sessions would be held not only in the locations affected but also in the urban and suburban areas as well. It is vital that the public has a thorough knowledge of what is involved in order to prepare and
I l
make comments.
That concludes my remarks. I would like Mr. Legowski to add anything he sees fit.

Mr. LEGOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am here on behalf of General President J. C. Turner of the International Union of Operating Engineers. At the outset I would like to indicate that we concur in the remarks and statement of Mr. Ewart. I would also like to make a few comments of my own.
First, labor is firmly convinced that RARE IT must succeed. We are seriously concerned about the failure of our Nation to meet the energy and housing needs of our people. Emotional rhetoric and obstructionist tactics will not solve our growing problems. We desperately need to evaluate our economic needs and preserve our heritage.


We are seriously concerned about spiraling inflation in the lumber industry, artifical shortages created by the lack of a cohesive, stable land use program which would release much needed timber to provide reasonably priced housing. And we are concerned about the unemployment problems plaguing the building industry, particularly in areas of our Nation desperately in need of rebuilding.
Bearing these concerns in mind, the public must be made aware of the consequences if we fail to arrive at a meaningful consensus on RARE 11 programs. We look to you distinguished gentlemen in the Congress to guide and support an intelligent balanced wilderness program which will satisfy the economic and reasonable needs of the reasonable people in our N*ation.
I thank you.
Mir. WEAVER. Thank you very much.
We will proceed now to Mr. Doug Scott and Mr. Tim Mahoney.

M.\r. MAHONEY. Mr. Chairman, Chief McGuire and Assistant Secretary Cutler put us in their shoes this morning and asked us to put together a consensus on a short-time table, and we were not able to address every point. We tried to address as many as we could rather than make any type of a formal presentation. I am going to try- to interpret from my notes what the interest groups that met this morning had to say, and then I am going to allow Doug to pick up any 7 pieces that I might drop.
First of all, I think the record of the conservationists is a good one in terms of cooperation and positive work with the RARE 11 process.
I (10 not believe that there is any evidence of wilderness supporters trying to attack the process itself, either here in Washington or in the field. Nor have we said one thing in Washington and had our supporters say- other things in the field. Such an attitude, we think, would go along way toward killing RARE 11.
The wilcerness supporters, however, are not just along for the ride. Since RARE 1, 12 million acres of roadless land that qualified for wilderness has been released through land use planning. A very small fraction of this land has been challenged in administrative appeals. Of course, the conservationists who filed those appeals never made the (decision in the appeals. Any decision that the planning may have been faulty was a decision of the Forest Service itself.
Nevertlieles the great majority of that 12 million acres had been planned, and it is unencumbered, 'On the other hand, 12 million acres of land were protected at least temporarily as a result of RARE I. Thes exist in every Western State. In every case there are lands which have hia(1 considerable wilderness support. They are many wilderness supporters' favorite areas. Wild erness si supporters have trusted the Forest Service to take these lands, throw them back in the RARE 11 p)ot along with all the other nonselected lands remaining and make a fair decision on this quick timetable.
We fear that RARE 1II, in trying to (10 a goodl job on a quick timetable, may have brought about expectations which are too high. RAR-%E I1 cannot (10 more than it was designed to do. It cannot take


the place of a detailed global plan as many of the speakers have said. We think no single interest will be completely happy with the results. We believe it will be impossible to eliminate all the controversy from the results, but we seek to reduce the controversy and to identify y those lands which are needed immediately, and those which are not good policy in not attempting to make all decisions for all resources right now.
Good policy will be to identify those areas that need rapid decisions and those areas which have solid resource conflicts in an attempt to reduce emotionalism and make sure that the involvement of the public is quite specific.
In this way, I would say that most of the groups which met this morning believe that we cannot artificially structure the middle category to be either large or small. It must respond to the term consensus.
We feel that the public involvement process in the RARE II program should be geared to provide facts, detailed, site-specific data for individual areas, and that it must be based heavily on a written record which can be examined. We also feel that the process should not provide forums for grandstanding and should attempt to maximize consensus. We think that the presentation needs to be scrupulously balanced and objective on the part of the Forest Service, so that wilderness supporters as well as those who may make their living on nonwilderness commodity use, will find it to be fair.
In that respect we do not believe the Forest Service should at this time have, a preferred alternative. 'Moreover, we believe that the range of alternatives given in the draft environmental statement should be balanced and objective. We believe that that is the only way in which wilderness supporters will feel that they are getting a fair presentation. In this instance, we find a criticism of the process to be that in the rush to produce the draft environmental impact statement and the rush of not being able to field check data or be able to run programs and then check them and then go back and make corrections that the alternatives have been skewed slightly and that despite efforts by the Forest Service to move toward preventing a more balanced series of alternatives that there is still a bias.
In particular, we see that there are low wilderness alternatives, and there are moderate wilderness alternatives, but we do not see an alternative which reflects the minimum amount of acreage necessary to satisfy the commodity uses. If RARE II is being challenged because it is not responsive to local economic needs, then we believe the process has a responsibility to show exactly those areas which would fulfill immediate economic needs and no more.
I think this would do two thin(rs. We believe that would bell) reduce the debate based on misinformation or emotionalism. We will know that not every area has an equal resource state or an equal economic consequence.
AVe will help segregate those areas which all supporters will be shown need to have decisions made and made quickly and those in which we have the luxury of further time. Additionally, it will show to the wilderness community that there is no bias in the presentation of the draft and that wilderness in Oregon or in Colorado or in Alabama will be looked at on its merits based on public involvement.


We (10 not think you can ram a decision down the throats of the public. Wilderness is probably the most political of all decisions that the Forest Service must make, andl that is one reason that we are here today. Thus, if there is not acceptance, if there is not trust on behalf of all parties, RARE 1I will fail.
With regard to the release areas, it is our idea that to try to legislate release from further wilderness consideration will be an unnecessarily cumbersome and time-consuming process which will have two detrimental results on the economics of small towns throughout the West. First, we believe it will be a cumbersome process that will take a long time, going area by area, through the legislative process. Second, we believe it will result in a lot of special considerations, a lack of uniformity, and a vulcanization of the planning effort for the future. Rather, we believe that these areas should be allowed to be developed immediately according to existing plans, existing multiple-use plans, timber management plans, and action plans; but that since all planning is dynamic and since the 1975 RPA plan is not our last, that timber needs and wilderness needs will change over time and that these areas shall go through land management planning in the future. g
Our people qre concerned that released areas could be entered immediately, and in the instance of timber or minerals or energy development, development could start immfedliately. But, on the other hand, wilderness implementation through the Congvress will not be immediate. We are concerned that at the end of the RARE II process that bills could hanruish before the Congress or despite the best efforts of the For-est Service to achieve consensus among all interest groups, many interest groups, such as those represented at this table, will not support that legislation but will, after having worked through the RARE process, attempt to defeat wilderness legislation. Our people are concerned that unless this consensus is reached that that political process before the Congress will not be achieved. We think that means that we must, despite our problems on portions of the RARE II program, put forward our trust in meetings like this, our confide-nce in the Forest Service and the administration to do a fair job and state our feeling that RARE II will only achieve as much as the public designs it to achieve.
I will let Doug pick up the discussion at this point..


Mr. SCOTT. I would just like to make three very brief remarks if I may. First, we support the timely completion of th RARE II program and as far as we are concerned, that is our last wordl on the subject. We want you to meet the January 1979 deadline. You have our support in doing so, and we hope that no one will meddle with you meeting that deadline.
'We think the commitment to a quality product is unprecedented in the Forest Service's history and that they are doing a very fine Job. I think they merit an expression of appreciation for their response to all sides who raise concerns on virtually a day-to-day basis.


Second, I want to re-enforce the first point that Mr. Mahoney raised relating to the outcome of the RARE I program. Since RARE I was completed, the nonwilderness interests have secured the release of 12 million acres of lands that in 1972, under the purist definitionn were wilderness. Since 1972 and as a result of RARE I, the wilderness groups have achieved not the first acre of designated wilderness. The wilderness that has been designated (luring the last 5 years has come not as a result of that first RARE program. It's quite fair to say that 12 million acres went one way and we are reconsi(lering the, 12 million acres of wilderness stu(dy areas that were achieve(i in RARE 1.
I guess we can live with that on the simple proposition that for most of those RARE I wilderness study areas there is-as the Forest Service knows-very minimum resource conflicts. T[ha t's the hidden point about RARE I. That's why there is hope for consensus if people speak honestly of the facts, area by area. There aren't any resource conflicts of a timber kind, water kind, or developed recreation kind if people are reasonable in a great many of these 67 million acres. We can't treat them all as if they weie hallowed cathe(Iral groves because in Colorado they are not. The same is true for other kin(s of resources. There are some real trade-offs, but those trade-offis aren't being addressed in RARE II, and that's really our fundamental concern. The RARE II analysis is superficial and one-dimensional. It looks at the question of how many trees do you have there-choosing the timber trade-off-and the cost to society of not having those trees.
It does not look at the investment side of what a)ny third-year economics student would do with a benefit-cost analysis. For instance, we should ask what does it cost to get trees on marginal l'nds where the access problems are much more difficult an(l the associated impact on other multiple use values are much higher, as opposed to other rational investment strategies on other forest land,.? That trade-off is not being addressed at this point in the RARE II program. We must all understand that that will color the reaction of our organizations to the results.
We will do our part in the conservation groups to strive fcr a cansensus. We will urge our members and our folks at the grassroots to focus on the areas of wilderness quality that they want. Whether there are trees, whether there are other alternative resource values or not and to speak for wilderness. We will expect a similar kind of rational behavior from all other sides and in that spirit we want to see your program succeed.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you very much.
I will proceed to Mr. Swensen and Mr. La Grange.


Mr. SWENSEN. Mr. Chairman, in all the opening remarks, I think, Representative Baucus used the one word that is perhaps of greatest concern to all of us in the energy industry, represented in our workshop group this morning, an( that word is uncertainty. We thought RARE I would give us a measure of certainty and it didn't. We are mcre optimistic about RARE II. But I might say that even as RARE II is



moving ahead, other agencies are also proceeding with their own programs so that what we are addressing here today is a piecemeal a))pproach.
The Forest Service, of course, with RARE II, the Bureau of Land Management beginning its own wilderness program, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service each have their own programs. And the Congress is moving ahead in programs of its own initiative. As a preface we might say that we are one Nation with one Federal Government and we would like to see the adoption of one wilderness policy.
Now, to some of the points that were discussed in response to the questions we were asked to address. I am going to change the order slightly, because I think it leads to some conclusions we would like to suggest.
First is the concerns we have with the RARE II process and second, how we can deal with them. There are many concerns. They reflect in large part the uncertainty which we have felt.
There is no clear-cut definition, for example, as to the concept of multiple-use and from different officials within the Forest Service we get different answers, all the way from multipe-use being both a backpacker and a horseback rider to the more elaborate concepts which we believe were intended in the original mandate.
We have a great deal of uncertainty and unrest over what the RARE II process is doing and the delay of the exercise of contractual rights. On the matter of leases which are suspended, we believe that if a lease is valid then its provisions should be on order and that if it is suspended for any reason then the term of the lease should be extended accordingly, and the payment of rentals suspended.
There is a very serious concern among our group as to the overall problem of access which is very crucial, in mining and energy industries and to restrictions on access to private lands which are checkerboarded within Forest Service lands.
Turning to the question of what type of legislation might be suggested to the Congress in the wake of RARE II, we think that any legislation proposed should be in accordance, should be a reaffirmation of the intent of the Congress expressed in 1964. I want to quote just a portion of one paragraph. "Nothing in this act shall prevent within National Forest Wilderness areas any activity including prospecting for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with preservation of the wilderness environment."
Obviously a great deal of prospecting can be carried on in complete compatibility with the wilderness environment. In fact, we want to stress that point and I was happy to hear Mr. Mahoney stress it in his, comment too. In consideration of what is to be wilderness and what is to be nonwilderness, we need to debate and decide on the basis of facts. Detailed, site-specific information can be obtained and deteninti( froi minerH i an more es)ecially for oil and gas only if lal r11an gras only i
you 2o in and look. And tle only way von can be certain in the case of oil and gas is to (rill.
We believe that legislation shoubl, include also a specific time frame for tflr cl(assificntioin ofs iis thle study categ.ory. Everything not i Hlded1 in the wilderness cntgo(r-, we lievee should be released at tl-at time for multiple use within a specified time following the issumce' of the reports.


To avoid some of the pitfalls which we believe can come in the wake of RARE II we also suggest that there is a very strong possibility always of further litigation no matter how much consensus is achieved. The probability that RARE II and the results of its work could be stalled indefinitely by this kind of threat, leads us to recommend that the Forest Service seek from Congress legislation similar to the legislation authorizing the construction of the Alaska pipeline which mandated completion of the minimum assessments which the ('ongre has called for setting out obtainable means of production and dictating an end to legal challenges.
The development of a consensus of' any kind, we believe, will be difficult if not impossible unless every facet of potential land use is considered. Desirable as wilderness is, and believe me, those of us meeting in our group were just as enthusiastic about enjoying it as anyone else, we believe it can't be determined that wilderness is the highest and best use of the land unless we know what all of the uses of the land are.
The capability of the land to support grazing, or timber p)rod( ct ion, can be determined by looking, and recreational use can be forecasted. But only through exploration can the oil and gas and mineral values of the land become known.
If our investigation shows that there are no appreciable mineral or oil or gas values, then it's very easy to agree on a wilderness designation. The mineral effects of exploration, and they can be very minimal, will soon disappear. When an area is declared wilderness it should be made a full wilderness closed to all. The release of land from wilderness designation should be the forerunner, we believe, to continued, careful, management by the Forest Service or by other agencies of the Government. And that exercise of the multiple-use mandate of the (ongr,'should continue.
I will summarize by saying that there are four points that we would like to stress, in our presentation, to you today. First, that land in the yellow category, the further study category, should be opened to exploration and production to determine what is there. If later these lands are declared suitable for wilderness then complete the mining, complete the oil and gas production when the reserves are depleted. Do this under normal operating conditions, let the land revert to wilderness.
This we think is fully in accord with the "manage around" concept which is already included in the RARE II considerations.
We think the termination date of 1983 for exploration of production is totally unrealistic and contemplating a wilderness review of the magnitude that is involved here with some 66 million acres, we think that date ought to be repealed or certainly extended by at least 50 years.
I want to emphasize again that where leases have been sIsp)en(le(d we believe they should be extended. And finally, recognizing that acces is the mot crucial w ,-tion to 11 of the extrac(tive indif e :,1, pt-r'lt restrlitlons d(1)n't recognize that mining ald oil .and gal work, are in this ti me of a natii:1 ene,'wr ern(,,-t *. tt a tie wpi l we have sei'yt'- ban1,-otI-pVI,,' ft problems. roteni t he h Ia I(I 1) t "t 1' the i,,e(t to deV-eloo :'e
Mineral aid ,',e, ":
Il. WEA7,. \[r.-Mr. >we, thank yi,!i \-,,rl miich. A vote ha jih- I)(:,: (::ii,'1 1i: the II',),!se uri (>o:cre~s.iaI1 B';ucl- aip? I will


have to leave. We will turn the meeting over to Secretary Cutler to proceed with any questions that you may have and we will be back ,s soon as possible.
Dr. CUTLER [presiding]. Mr. La Grange, would you like to pick u1p the ball?
Mr. LA GRANGE. I don't have anything to add to Mr. Swensen's remarks.
Dr. CUTLER. ] would add one comment to Mr. Swensen's remarks about the obvious concern for the national economy. Everyone involved in the RARE 11 process should recognize that it is being conlducte(l as an administrative planning process by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. Recommendations wiil be made from the Chief and Secretary and the Secretary will be responsible for recommendations to the President. Before the results of RARE 11 become an administration position the normal course of events dictates that the Secretary makes the recommendation to the administI'ratioii. This does not become an administration position until an inter (ipartmental review process takes place consisting of review chaire(l by the Office of Management and Budget and participated in by all of the other departments of the Federal Establishment incil ding t1:e Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation, Environmental Quality, Evironmental Protection Agency, and so forth.
So the up-shot of RARE II from the standpomnt of the Carter administration will be a consensus, there we go again, of the views on this subject by this diverse group of Federal Departments. So, from that standpoint you have the administration's assurance that there will be this kind of interdisciplinary review.
Now, I think it's undecided today as to what form the administration's forwarding to Congress of the RARE II products will take. It may become a piecemeal approach in which case the Department of Agriculture would respond to the individual requests of Members of Congress or the legislative drafting service perhaps on a State-byState basis and at the time the committees of Congress appeared interested in holding hearings on those bills, legislative reports would have to be drafted by particular agencies and they would be subject to the administration's interdepartmental review. Conceivably a more omnibus approach could be taken, possibly in the context of the preparation of the President's 1979 environmental message, where we may see the results of RARE II embodied in the President's next environmental message and here again we find ourselves in an interdepartmental review of the proposed administration position.
So be assured that there will be review beyond the Department of AgTiculture before the administration's position is provided to Congress and we anticipate that, at least as far as wilderness designations are concerned, the congressional hearing process will continue as usual.
As you can see, there are a variety of additional public involvement opportunities beyond what is provided in the RARE II process.
I don't have a clear format on my agenda for proceeding from this point. I find myself in a position that's not unfamiliar to me. The first of these colloquia found me in the chair too, and I rather enjoy playing the legislative role although I am part of the executive branch.


Chief McGuire has made an interesting suggestion that may appeal to quite a number of you and that is that we take a 10-minute recess.
[Whereupon, a short recess was held.]
Dr. CUTLER. Moving right along. The Department of Agriculture would like to acknowledge with thanks the suggoestions made by the panelists and would like to urge the panelists now to interact among, themselves. We have been assured that congressman Weaver, and Senator Church will be returning soon. Meanwhile, we have picked up several interesting possibilities for discussion,-, such as the pros andI cons of an omnibus bill to dispose of the RARE 11 results.
Another question, concerns the ideal form of public involvement between the publication of the draft statement and the final statement? Another is whether or not the draft statement or a supplementary statement, between the initial draft statement and final statement, should have a preferred alternative specified in it. I would invite you gentlemen to pursue these questions among yourselves and simply proceed in a manner so that the reporter can keep track of who is speaking. Make your signs visible to the reporter and ask each other questions, if you like.
Kirk Ewart.
Mr. EWART. Dr. Cutler, I would like to make a comment on your request for, a legislative solution to RARE 11. We feel strongly that a, legislative solution is demanded in RARE 1I. We think not only should the legislation create wilderness areas, but it should also define areas that would be available for multiple-use without further wilderness consideration. We think that legislation should take the form of regional legislation rather than omnibus legislation. The legislation should coincide with the, I believe, 2.3 areas you plan to address, specifically in your environmental impact statement.
The data will be collected on that basis, the public input will be categorized on that basis and it gives you, and the Members of Congress a leg up in their consideration. As f ar as their preferred alternatives I think the agency is required by its public charge to offer its expertise to the citizens and present a preferred alternative for the resolution of the RARE II land allocation in concert and harmony with the RPA goal as set forth in the existing program document.
Dr. CUTLER. Chief McGuire might like to respond to that.
Chief MOGUIRE. What do the rest of you think about this idea of a bill or a set of bills dealing with both the proposed wilderness areas and the nonselected areas. What, for example, and you brought this up, Bud, what should be (lone while we are waiting for Congress? Should everything be left in limbo and if it's not, wouldn't we be reducing congressional options? These are the kinds of questions that are a little bothersom-e to me.
Mr. BYERS. Yes, Chief. Of course I understand what you are saying. I think everyone would like to get on with the utilization of that land and if, in fact, it is tied up in Congress for sometime we may be sitting around waiting, you will be waiting and the industry will be waiting to see what is going to hap pen.
The only thing is that we do feel that the consensus among us was that, gee whiz, if we don't do something to really designate it then we are going to be looking at more challenges. That's the reason we came down on it.
Chief. MCGUIRE. Doug.


Mr. SCOTT. It seems that people need to look on the wilderness sidle before we get too far down the road of addressing~ determined opinions of how to (10 this release business. It's not something wi th very few exceptions, that's been (lone before. I wonder if it is wise to tempt anyone who disagrees with the release, and who seeks a controversial wilderness area, to use blocking release legislation as a means of getting what they desire or vice versa. It just seems to me that there are problems in packaging these things on a multiple State basis. In some of the earliest wilderness bills that the Johnson administration sent up to Congress they mixed them and for' no reason at all You had a Florida wilderness proposal and an Oklahoma proposal in the same bill. It got introduced by the Oklahoma Congressman and the guy ]In Florida. got a little annoyed.
I just, wonder if people advocating legislative release don't want to ask themselves a question. We have had many controversial questions come up on some of this wilderness legislation. I can name you some wildlerness proposals that don't have a chance of passing in the near futture and they have been up on the Hill for nearly a (decade.
I suspect that would be true in many cases of proposed release areas andl the limbo that you speak of would be a good long limbo because I don't see why we would not insist that the release areas be maint ained with all their options open for as long as the wilderness was in limbo. We have some wilderness proposals that have been in limbo because of opposition from other groups and other political circumstances for an awful long time.
The same thing could happen with this legislation and the result would be a two-front war instead of a one-front war. I suggest, gentlemenl that this is a subject worth giving considerable thought to. Also one of the g reat things about legislation is that you have got to loet it, passed and it's all very well to say what we would send it up in a little package, hit how it gets passed is quite another question.
Mr. EWART. Chief McGuire, Dr. Cutler, Mr. Baucus, if Mr. Scott is correct that there would be a two-front war in releasing land for multiple use without further consideration using legislative vehicles, I am quite sure that war could be fought through administrative appeal procedures and litigation. Those options are available for those who would stop development of these lands if they were that controversial.
I am not really concerned about that two-front war that Mr. Scott peaks of because if development is to be stopped by attempting to block legislation it can also be stopped through administrative appeals and court action.
Mr. BAIJCUS. I have a question I would like to ask. It seems to me the chances of reaching a consensus are better the more that all of you either as individuals or representing various groups can work together rather than waiting for either the Forest Service or Congress to reach some kind of evolutions here. So I wonder to what degree you think that you can, among, x-ourselves, work out a consensus in these areas that can be designated for different uses so that it's not a solution opposed by the Congress. In other words, what degree of this do you think can be resolved?
Mr. 0'REILLY. The first comment I made was that the public involvement procedures which will govern the hearings this summer should be designed to illicit specific information. lIn other words, unless


discussions are site specific we will never know where there is an agreement and where there is a disagreement. In the past, everyone has-talked in general terms and I think that until you get down to treating individual cases there is absolutely no way to ascertian where there is consensus and where there is substantial disagreement. It seems to me that the Forest Service is in a position to create a forumi in these hearings, which will facilitate this.
It would be simpler if they would take the bull by the horns in that regard. It's difficult for all of us to get together individually for practical reasons as well as other reasons that are less c8Lpable of definition. But the Forest Service, I think, could push us all in that direction to make sure that when we (rot together to talk that's what was talked about, individual cases rather than g-enerali ties.
Mr. BAUCUS. Any reactions?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Baucus, I think that it can be (lone provided it's done on a level no higher than the forest supervisor. I am assuming~ this will be (lone with the guided hand of Forest Service since their land is involved. But I believe that you can get the local people, the timber industrx-, the livestock industry and environmentalists toge there' if you use the local people to make a decision and objectively evaluate it.
The farther you get up the line the more you are subject to pressure from the national organizations who are held back for wilderness or held back for grazing or held back for timber, but I think if you could keel) the decision initially made at the local level with people who are going to have to live with it for the next generation and then honor that (decision as far as possible, clear up to the final bill, you will have a workable situation.
Mr. MAHONEY. I have a question for Mr. Smith. This sounds an awful lot like the public involvement that went through the land-use planning process which as some groups would say was not adequate because it resulted in appeals or people living dlownstate and not liking what someone did upstate or people in ':Connecticut not liking what someone in Colorado did. One of the ways in which RARE 1I is supposed to improve on local land use planning is to get a broader representation so that the person in Connecticut would have a say. 1 have heard Mr. Ewart say that he believes there should be more public involvement in urban areas and suburban areas which is something we don't disagree with. How can you justify such localized planning'"without a return to the land use planning concept determined in each wilderness?
.N1r. SMITH. I would say that you can justify it by virtue of having the individuals most knowledgeable about the area having the initial input and making the initial decision. I would suggest very strongly that if you make that~ decision about the lands, in a specific area initially by those people most closely involved with the lands, and those aren't only ranchers aind loggers and the local chapter of your organizations, than there is legitimate input. I honestly have to say that there is justification for giving a higher priority to the wishes of the people who are on and next to that land. Someone whose desires to set aside wilderness may have been motivated by one trip to my area of the Black Hills, where he drove through some of the p~rettiest country he had ever seen in his life, parked his camper in the camp-

i ; the most I)e-lut'fil th, -, I have ever zeen.
-Z C, T-) lie was act-i-Iftliv or- Porest S=*e I and
coricept. I say that in all sint h,,Pper Z.
Mr. WE-kVFR Q-7 inz",. Thank vou ven- mu(Ili. I am crlad that
CD,.-.,_,,_,es;-man BaucuS wLas able to cret, here before I was. When I left I
r- o, on a-_eaz ol
zom a-reement. Evervbo,1v has a=Oed that:
r-', (W 10 7n2 pillme; A,
'be 1 must Ue on
e a-r- e e m on t s
T bv
t 'he
D v, n -a mr of other e a s of acrreempTit or
M z ues t, L OMA to foc -is. "Mr. "Mahnney.
n have a e;zi-io L
n. la-le you were out TI-T-C
0--le was on the le_--.Lation of non:i 0 (j De -f that the Fore; St=,rn should
the draf t en environment al im r,--(,t statem I J C I Z1 _ou just m-_,ntioned.
sa4d we h-ve some conr e-nz
C -a e- v,-e
k. to ac L __nZ
*commc),!ae our dezirez, m:,-Y-' in th __e Of
a i on of the draf t EIS or the re
_T_ T
Service were -not able to say today this is our pree, 1, r. E w a r or his group, be willing to give
L_Ie, Fore;- L :1!!!, 77 i (" e the ,]'Lme to develc -t'
'% f." -nr- we ad -ez zerl this
E Wc I wou -J an Swer --z- by sav* cl,
our tie gro,_ip. The timber S,,Ipply :n
---n many areas. You crentlemen know thz
-t I-er mee-ina- Good millzz are
r4T T J:, C) r S
0 Tj Z n beca,_:Sn or 'ack of tinaber :z-uPT).N. our -er-vice hazz
that the Forest
f ) r__ ID, If -I d a t at hlaiid in :-;;z computer bank;--o-) -Ln L_ _-matlve ,vhich it jilld con- : ,er '0 R R":' H an' would be my b Pf
ive De very parallel to the coals, t4ey
e B ource and Ean.- nz A t.
o-.,--- -or be au flil machine a7e, D-1-Cha-e-1 f or you f r)" k t o rrenera e that alterhould to vo,,.- i --zt s 1-i T) r- r
VOU S fore
e ru t;
_rS Ive H
-ho, (rU4,
e a --Ln a t ve. T1.1 e.z: e men are ( Iarred by voi and the
r) mee- 11-e RPA e7rcalz- could, come damn close, I thirik, to
u crj,, C embrace as a pref e. a'
UT -. .1
-Z_ L 11. the preferred
First I NvoAd disagTee t'
.r Z: T- --ent in on a L L .1 m e n g n" a
L:.-. 1? Q LI- them to 1 ve U- Me:I IV c- rn 1), t vv e (J'( i.-k tliem to te"
C.) ail in
_C Z o t t, o

A.lot of people Lave been czav*n-r th'i wiis tl-,e 1):-eferred --i te-nai' E but it was not meant to be and Z not.
\1r. EWART. 'Mr. Chairman, might I a,- kj Could it be if thev have th proper instructions froni -you'
Chief McGUIRE. Well!, 5Urel with the proper instruction-w- thRt is what we did with RARE 1. We went to the folrle :-t Superv,*-0---- --S I r. Smith has sliggested a: .d attemipte(I to wo-k wit, a e
adv.ont.,) -e icour,,z e, -1".Iirelvincrz-olel -on t 1-i e z uperv: o' t L w: mav not ,:et a z ivel et 'I -rp- w)k a
R balanced a z-vzstem as voii m---,:1-t cr Eat.onal look tit crettin,:-r rep,,,(,,zent ,tions of E1(1() ---11---k-L -M :-IV ha-ve A.
venous forms and v a o,,-i s w I (' e h ab it t s. Y
overall sv;zteni4.;-. There is z ometli.LT-r to be on e,--\L(1 I Z, L sta re, we v.-ant to hea--, your views on 'liv.!,a I. we be We
I I- +
W()u4.1d1:ke to 1 cep t-r, op, :l mina point.
I -\'-. and
\11% W -k-VER.Wou'(1 you comment on that fact,
an-voLe el-, e, of course, on this rep'.'eSentationa.1 'dea of vaT,- ous eco-1 1>
'%I!-. ENVART.Well, Nfr. Chairrnan. the Fore t -d RARLE
II bv having 2110 -c)me meetings a---ound t'-'e
-i+c t, to resp n- -I Ij
the cltlzen-.- vho zt-tended those n --"t J
I Lev t z1-it t.-I-.0 w,ilderne SS-z ;--vsz teni S-11c! look !'ke and 1 (1 L h av e t 111 e a,-Jn11)ers irI(Tht here t hand, as I they 1 (1 L t of ecosvstems were all t"at impo:-t 11The Fol-e -,. -ervice has decided that a b-.rO,.d rep
,variou-S eco-svistems is important. -- ,s I recall those 111I'Ve
allocated by the various re;.*ons. You have so many here you can
have or thi's and four oi -vou have crot some in w.'iderne,- z,
a re as r ght now.
I have to believe that even t.--o,..-h, the outcome not be
perfect t'hat the personed expert*-Se of' the people on the C T C interpret theSe instructions to an alternative v.-cc-1-d
repl-e- -eni the eco,-%--, -tems -if that's and -still pe --e- ion
to appi-o-Limate i t contrib,11t.on-s to-Nva:'d the RPA c-oz,"i ( il'v in t.mber. but, in NvildeTmess aLd the other resources L-om ."-e land.
Mr. WEAVER. Anyone el'S.e? '-\fr. Swensen.
Mr. SWENSE-N. I just want to empha-size a -airi that in Search:--- for this balance of various ecozvstems and so forth t r V
! ,houlun't fall comp'ettlv on the lands: admini Srere i 1-1V the Fo-'e:: t Servl(.e. It there are otl= Federal acrencies, and I waS ven- plea-ek,., t1lat -Mr. Cutler reS-,pon(!.t-,d to my comment that ihere be
intera,:-encv action on th',z, but I think- that that nee(l.s to be Ized when we -.r.- ta'.kinl. about the need for balanced representa-,*OL.
Mir. WEAVE-11. -Mr. Scott?
Ir. SCOTT. There are two things that that sug.-e-ts to me. It we are LoLn(r t.o fool fur-ther with the alternatives amdI I don*t think the alternatives represent a fa-.r ranze of the poz -ble '.-- po--zition-S, I thinkthey %voT2 by thi;, latest '.j,,dstment, b-11it I dion7t tri--nt- il y repre zent a fair of the alternative ot tne roZl.,k-e- s za,- Las.
If Nve are to fidtlle With them then I Nvii'l -ve vo,,i one.
cook up an alLernative thar ;ives us on the of C-,Mber tiie
Maximum amount of Nv d'ernes cor. --. -tent NN-"T11 -1 ---c,-t lnve ztment
,- strategy for meetmcr the RPA c-oalS lor t*mber1,.,,),i-ve-az L.
-VI: J.- IL ilk
\1r. _kV R. I would e to ask '.\fr. Ewar- to :omni nt on T ho -L.


Mr. EWART. Mr. Scott is speaking to a benefit-cost ratio analysis as a basis for selecting wilderness, I assume.
Mr. WEAVER. What did you say maximum
Mr. SCOTT. For meeting the 1975 RPA timber goal while maximizing wilderness on the basis of a benefit-cost analysis.
Mr. EWART. All right. I happen to beoieve, and this is my personal offer to you that the benefit-cost ratio system of evaluating forest products investment is not correct. It's rather complicated, complex, when one starts discussing this but the benefit-cost ratio in excess of 1 to I is a good investment.
If you get more benefit than cost you have made a good investment. We feel, and in our own business circles we deal not in benefit-cost ratio because we think it's meaningless, we deal in net present value over time which is, I think, Mr. Chairman, you understand what I am speaking about.
In order to evaluate some of the land I think Mr. Scott is referring to we would need to use not existing standing inventory data for net present value evaluation or benefit-cost ratio, but manage the yierdI tables which would express the potential of those lands were they accessed and managed as they could be if funds and personnel were available for that purpose.
And our indications are in some of the things we have done in our corporate circles that some of the land people have been discounting for years as poor fielders, if they are properly managed, one gets surprising returns.
And on the net present value concept wisely applied which the committee of scientists called for by the 1976 act is coping with right now on the regulations to do that, I wouldn't be troubled by that.
Mr. WEAVER. Yes, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. O'REILLY. I would like to point out a problem I have with the discussion that's going on now and it relates to the comment I have made twice before. We are sitting here talking generalities again and I recognize we are talking about preferred alternatives as to whether one should be selected or not which is in itself somewhat of a generality, but nonetheless I am not here to advocate maximizing timber output and I am not here to advocate maximizing wilderness designations. I am concerned about public lands for recreation. And since they are talking about generalities and economic formula for deciding when an investment in timber management is reasonable or it isn't, very frankly I could get up and leave while this is going on.
If we were talking about a particular wilderness proposal, I happen to represent a skiing group which had absolutely no potential for skiing whatsoever, you wouldn't hear a word from me.
In other words, if there were some potential for skiing I might advocate that that be considered as a possible use of that land. All of these other gentlemen would have other things to say about their own particular interests and we would not be talking about generalities. We would be talking about specifics for that particular wilderness proposal.
And I think until we put ourselves in a position where that's what we are talking about we are all spinning our wheels and wasting our time.


Mr. WEAVER. I think you make a good point, but we are going to have to approach this data on some premises of how we value it. Therefore, it's good also to find out where the areas of disagreement and agreement are.
Mr. O'REILLY. I understand that, but I can also tell you that no one has ever solicited from my particular recreational group and probably from any other recreational group any ipt)it as to what exactly are the criteria that might or might not be representative of potentially good skiing areas, for example.
Now, the Forest Service has got evaluation criteria like that but there has been very little dialog between my grolt) and the p)eoI)le in the Forest Service who do that sort of thing and I suspect there has been very little (lialog about the activities of the other grouIps who were represented in the recreational area this morning.
Mr. WEAVErz. That's a very good point. I am really pleased you spoke up. I would like to have Mr. Smith, and Mr. Byers comment on this economic consideration because, of course, this affects your revenue and all, the idea of economic considerations an things ill evaluating the lands.
Mr. SIITh. it very definitely does, Mr. Chairman, and that's certainly one of the things, in fact, that I wrote down. When vou, and I guess I am talking about the issue rather than the procedure, but you adversely affect the economy of the area when you desig-nate a wilderness area.
Mr. WEAVER. Excuse me.
Mr. SMIITH. You adversely affect the economy of the surrounding area, the governmental units, there around, by a designation of the wilderness area.
Mr. WEAVER. No; that's a value judgment.
Mr. SMITH. No, sir, that's a fact in the State of Wyoming. You deny to school districts and counties the 25 percent rebate from the sale of timber which occurs therein and practice has shown-reduced the dollar amount of the 25 percent rebate of grazing fees. You cut off from your local economies the sales of ranch vehicles, logging vehicles, chain saws, and the spinoff benefits that come from that.
Mr. WEAVER. So you believe the economic benefits
Mr. SM ITH. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. WEAVER. I was wondering if it was more costly to get the timber than the timber was worth. Would this be a consideration'?
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, they have a procedure that takes care of that, called bidding, anybody who bids more than the timber is worth before he gets it out is going to lose his financial backing and won't be there.
Mr. BYERS. Jim, I think that, in some of that area they are talking about we have fragile areas that certainly should never be touched and I am the first to admit that. I think that some of those areas have been lost in the past with the problems they have with erosion and lack of ability to reforest and so forth and much to our disappointment.
But economics, basically one of the reasons I am here, and one of the reasons that we are, of course, pushing for the early time schedule in this thing, is because the economic impact study which was done in the State of Oregon, at my request, by the Department of Forestry and RARE II (:an and is costing us, until it's resolved, $500 million a year in the State of Oregon.


Mr. WEAVER. RARE II is costing Oregon $500 million a year? This year, now?
Mr. BYERS. Yes. This was (lone by the Department of Forestry in conjunction with Dan Goly's group, the Department of Economic Development, and also with every bit of information that we could grlean. I have a copy of that report here and I will be happy to leave it with you.
Mfr. W\EAVER. My understanding is that we have not lost one single sale thereto. Chief would you comment on that?
Chief McGUIRE. Just talking strictly timber you look at the schedule anld you could probably find some delayss but overall in 1978 we estimated that Ralre 11 could affect a total of 328 million feet. We were able to do some adjusting but not necessarily in the same S--tate or the same forest to geot our whole program up to 12.234 billion this year. So it's a potential local problem all right, and you could, lperi-aps find some areas in Oregon where we haven't been able to find] replacement timber and you have a problem.
Mr. BYERS 1 did send a copy over to Rex of the research that was (lone on that.
Mr. WEAVERi. Thank you very much. One real fast question, Mr. Ewart, the sunset provision that you mentionedl, where did the sunset on?
M1r. EWART. I have been advised that the Montana Wilderness Study Legislation requires that the planning be completed in 3 years.
Mr. WEAVER. Oh1, this didn't have to (10 with IRARE II?
Mr. EWAwR. Yes; it dlid. Ii am borrowing from that concept and savingr that I am scheduling from study, it should be studied in a time frame and not stretched on.
Mr. WEAVER. The limbo aspect is what you are talking about?
Mr. EWART. Yes ,sir.
Mr. WXEAVER. All I am trying to do is stimulate the discussion here.
M1r. BALTC-S. If there were a sunset provision that applied to both released areas, if there is such a category, and to wilderness designated areas after 10, 15, 20 years. I am Just trying to think of new ideas here to find some solutions. Any reaction to that at all?
XIr. S I IT H. Mlay I respond to that? If you came across a situation where you found a need to change titles you just run through an amen(tat ory bill, but to use the 01l1 cliche it would take a Federal Act to change it. There would be a good deal more certainty available than there is under the present situation.
Mr. BAIJCUS. I mention this because I think through the years there is a tendency for Congress to pass a lot of bills in a crisis and conditions change and the legislation may have made sense earlier and no longer makes sense at a later (late. I am trying to figure out some way not to have a lot of (lead wood1. That's the basis of the sunset approach rather than changing it affirmatively.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you, as a 16-year veteran of the legislative process, there ain't nothing* permanent unless it's in the Constitution.
.Mr. WEAVER. Tfhe ladies even want to change that.


Mr. SMITH. I do sincerely believe that there is mieit to two procedures which sets up, in effect, an omnibus bill and on a no smaller than regional status and 1 can give you a couple of examples in my own area as to why that's necessary, region 2 of the Forest Service in Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, two forests, in this region, one for sure, maybe two cross State lines. If you go with an omnibus bill, which should meet the objectives of the wilderness advocates, because you can't free up any land an1 return it for multilpleuse management without also designating wilderness,, you sho0uld( have some appeal.
if you go with separate bills you play the "you move my bill and will move your bill game," but you just can't leave the gruy hanging out in the cold if your interests are all in one package.
1 think that would have mutual appeal. As to Mr. 'McGuire's question of how do you handle the thing administratively while the legislative battle is going on, it would seem to me that you would proceed on the basis of this is what we are going to nominate for wilderness. This is what is clear to us. We can return to multiple use management and maximize those areas to the extent you can. I obviously have myJprefer'ence as to which sides to maximize and then get that middle ground, further planning areas included in the bill. You submit the package bill, the legislators from the various States are going to do some amending and moving around but basically you will have a package.
Incidentally, the yellow areas, the further plann'ing areas, could be recovered by a mandate that final recommendations from the Forest Service would be forthcoming before the 1985 deadline. To me it seems like a logical way to proceed if we are to seek a real solution to this hassle we have been in for as long as I can remember. And even then we may not be completely out of the woods, but at least we will be better off.
We are still going to run into such things as the planning scheme which is coming out of Denver in the form of what's called a key value concept which many of us feel flies right in the face of multiple use management requiirements and is causing great concerns in the areas involved in region 2, because what that says is that the forced lands will be managed with wildlife as a key value.
The draft we are now working with contains a statement such as this and remember this is for the management of the multiple use lands. It contains the statement, "when conflicts arise between wildlife and other uses which cannot be mitigated at reasonable costs, wildlife shall take precedence." That's frightening to those of us who believe that multiple use says you harvest your timber in such a way to leave grazing for wildlife and" livestock. You manage your livestock grazing and range developments in such a way that wildlife shares also. That concept scares us. But this is the sort of thing you are going to have to resolve.
Mr. WEAVER. I appreciate that Mr. Smith. That was excellent. We have limited time left and I would like to allow people in the rear if they have something they would like to say for the record here and I would like to point out that the record will be open for 2 weeks from today for writte-n statements. Anyone can submit a written


statement either to Senator Church or myself, which will be placed in the record, but is there anyone in the rear, now, who would like to say something.
Mr. NISTLER. I represent the Home Builders in Oregon. The Home Builders are concerned that in order to get an adequate supply of timber over the next 20 to 25 years just to give an example, this year we reached the 2.1 housing starts which was a record year and we ran out of supplies.
We anticipate in the next 20 years that the 0.6 average to reach our goal. My question would be to you, Chief, is the Forest Service in a posit ion or are we going to be able to obtain this goal to meet our housing needs?
Chief McGUIRE. In our long-range plans, RPA as we refer to it, we set some goals which were sent to Congress and have not been modified. One of the reasons for those goals was to make sure that the National Forests make a fair share contribution toward our Nation's housing needs. We will be taking- another look at these goals during the next year and we will send a new long-range Renewable Resources Program to the Congress in 1980.
I hope in the 1980 program we can all take a closer look at the housing problem that the N 'ation is facing, the postwar babies have been getting married and will be buying houses between now and, say, the middle eighties.
M1r. WEAVER. Mr. Ewing.
.Mr. EWING. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I had the benefit of being to the last meeting and I have come to this one and normally would you think you would be more enlightened after having- been to two sessions but I seem to be more confused on a couple of statements.
This morning Zane Smith stated, RARE II is not a wilderness planning act. That was a breath of fresh air. I appreciated that because I was confused about the wilderness area designation. ]However, Il heard this afternoon my friend Dr. Cutler, one, he said RARE II will not dictate which should be wilderness and which should not be. Apparently from that statement this is a popularity contest with no view to the RPA goals and good of the Nation.
Then Dr. Cutler said and this is from the prepared statement in which I assume you are speaking for the administration, "The national wilderness must be preserved before opening it up to other uses." What is the administration's position with regard to the role of the wilderness land.
Dr. CUTLER. The fact is in the land use planning process, RARE 11 or no RARE 11, the first resource that has to be identified before we can go on to plan for other developments of uses is wilderness.
In the absence of wilderness decision we find ourselves making mistakes as to areas that should be designated for wilderness. There is no implication in this step-by-step process that an inordinate amount of wilderness will be there design nated, only that a systematic approach to land use planning calls for the identification first of a kind of area that cannot, within our lifetimes, be restored to potential wilderness status if we make a mistake and develop it first and decide that in retrospect perhaps it should have been wilderness.
So that Isn't uniquely an administration position. That's just a fact of planning.


Arnie, what was the first question that you asked me?
Mr. EwiNG. Evidently there were three approaches to it and the one that I felt was the proper one is Zane said this was not wilderness act and I wanted to see how that fit with the administration's position.
Dr. CUTLER. Well, that is the administ ration's position, of course. This whole RARE 11 program as I just described it i>, the first step in the planning process called for under RPA and the N\ational Forest Ma~znagement Act.
Obviously it's somewhat an expedited process and in that sense has some pitfalls associated with it. We all have to take some risks. The cost of not taking those risks was made evident in the previous administration where no one wanted to bite the bullet and address the question of land allocation in the National Forest System. T he result of which was, in many cases, appeals and litigation and inability to make those decisions.
So we are taking some risks, we are taking them with our eve:, open. We are going down this road together and what I meant by RARE II not dictating wilderness is simply and literally the fact that, the Congrress has to decide wilderness designati ons; the executive branch does not.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Ewing, is your confusion cleared up? I want to make sure you don't go home still confused.
Mr. EwING. I want to ask if we are considering all RPA goals instead of trying to fulfill one need first and then with what's left fulfill other needs.
Mr. WEAVER. Does anyone else care to ask a question or make a statement. Identify yours elf please.
Mr. STUMP. My name is Keith Stump, with the Alaska Loggers Association and in reference to a statement that M'\r, Cutler just made in saying that wilderness resources have to be identified first, I presume, that's making~ the assumption that if you develop any other resources that the area is no longer available as wilderness.
Dr. CUTLER. I stated, "within our lifetimes."
Mr. STUM-\P. That's not necessarily true in Alaska as the admi-nistration proposals for wilderness do have substantial areas that have had development, mining, timber harvesting in the last 50 to 100 years.
Also, the systematic inventory and planning process the Forest Service is going through in Alaska, oi' rather they did until the Administration made their representations prior to completiono h land use plan, and I was wondering how you fit that in with your advocacy of a land use systematic inventory and planning process.
Dr. CUTLER. Thle Tongass National Forest Land Use Management Plan is still underway and the results will1 be available to us soon, and they will be made available to the Senate as it considers Alaska d-2 and other land use legislation.
If I had not participated in the development of the administration position on the Alaska legislation that legislation would have gone on without us.
There wasn't much point in sticking our heads in the sandl and saying just because we don't have the final data on our idealized land us;e study, we can't comment and participate in this process. That would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. So we did participate. We


were reluctant initially to see southeast and south central Alaska National Forest land issues combined with the interior Alaska d-2 issue in the legislation, but when it became obvious that the southeast, and south central areas would be added to that legislation anyway, we felt that it was logical that we give the House committee our best judgment on what was an appropriate program there for land allocation.
We will be much more confident of our recommendations to the Senate when we receive results of the land use planning process.
Mr. WEAVER. Thank you very much.
Mr. CRAIG. George Craig from' an Francisco.
Mr. Chairman and Dr. Cutler, we are really concerned and have every reason to be in that the timber supply in California for the last fiscal year was 22 percent below what it was 10 years ago on the average over a period of 10 years.
One of the areas of difficulty has been the failure of both the Congress and administration to push for a resolution of the primitive area question and we are having timber sales stopped by our friends in the. Sierra Club, with the aid of the Parker Decision, because Congress and the administration have not acted on areas that have been before the Congress for more than 4 years. Is there something that you can do about that?
Mr. WEAVER.Well, you are asking the Congress to make a decision,, I think. I guess the Congress can. It's within their constitutional power.
Mr. CRAIG. It's overdue Mr. Chairman.
Mr. NETZORG. lam Leonard Netzorg representing the Western Forest Indust-Iries Association. I understand that we should have in this country a balanced National Wilderness Preservation System. Assumin(r that's the case could you give me your best judgment as, to what portion of that system ought to come out of National Forest lands? What portion from Fish and Wildlife lands and what portion from the BLM? 1 Prefer your judgments as those who have studied this deeply and who are interested, in a balanced system. I was curious as to the land allocation.
Dr. CUTLER. Len that's a real trap and you know.
Mr. NETZORG. I think we are entitled to an answer to that. I mean no disrespect but I do think we are entitled to know. We have sat here and heard John talk about balancing the systems and so on. I have read faithfully all the documents you turn out from your office, and the Chief turns out from his, but I have not come across that answer.
I have no particular allegiance to the Forest Service or to the forest products industry. I do have an allegiance, however, to the general public and we really don't care when we go in the wilderness whether you manage it or whether the BLM does. So, at this point if we could get that answer we would appreciate it.
Mr. 'WEAVER. Leonard, I would like to say we in the Congress, as anywhere else, make decisions constantly. What we have heard today from Mr. Ewart, Mr. Swenson and so many others, is that you want certainty. We have to make decisions based on what resources we have in this country and yet we have no real inventory of timber on private lands in this Nation, and I would like to see this industry get behind a bill and appropriation so we can get a thorough inventory of timber on the private lands, so we know what we are dealing with.


So we know what we have got here in this country, so we can make ,decisions determined by economic considerations as well.
My question is a little bit of a trap too, and so I am not going to ask it. I am just going to make that statement. You are asking us to make decisions without an accurate data base, and I think your question is fair. You need to-we need that data base.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Bob Robertson, National Association of Independent Lumbermen. Mr. Weaver, in response to your response to Leonard Netzorg's statement, isn't it a little unfair not to focus on the fact that the Federal Government is the steward of these resources which belong to all of the people of this country and for all of the purposes for which RPA sets out in the law. If my memory serves me correctly, in terms of addressing ourselves to that stewardship and the quality thereof, that last year even though the bulk of stand. g softwood, saw-timber lies on the National Forest lands of this
country, our U.S. Forests, in a boom market, produced only 27 percent of the lumber for domestic consumption. At the same time we were importing an equal percent from our neighbors to the North.
What about the qiiestion? Is that too ideological?
Mr. O'DoNNELL.Jim, O'Donnell from Spokane, Wash., I want to answer Mr. O'Reilly's question about being specific. I come from an area that has a lot of forests, a lot of roadless areas in the. northeast corner of Washington. We have got two species of wildlife that are on this list of 29, namely, the caribou and the moose.
The only place they are found in Region 6 is that area. All three alternatives in that list, list these two areas because of those species. The public was asked to question back in 1977 regarding wildlife. I was given an answer by Secretary Cutler regarding biologists and yet they continue to talk about roadless areas in relation to wildlife.
At some point prior to the EIS in June there has to be some scientific information put into that computer to determine what is good for those species of wildlife. If you wait until after the June 20 deadline you are going to end up with the motion taking over and they won't serve the communities of the public and so forth.
Dr. CUTLER. I understand what you are saving and remember all the exchange that we had at the previous colloquium. with respect to the need for vegetative manipulation. I will talk to Zane about that. I think we are just about finished.
Is there any member of the panel who would like to make a comment now?
Mr. LAGRANGE.Mr. Chairman, the Resources Planning Act just affects surface management of the national forest lands. It affects the access for develop ment, of course. We talk about an assessment of economic value and one of the problems is that some of the resources can't be assessed with any practical certainty. I just.want to point out that you can't balance the economics of the mineral resource potential because that's merely a subjective thing where this is being balanced against a tree you can count or how good the scenery is or the number of ski resorts available.
This is a thing that deserves some rather serious consideration of how these areas provide our country with mineral resources and the need for access to that, and how those areas can be left open so these resources can be developed within our current economic system.
Mr. WEAVER. Any other comment. Mr. Scott?


Mr. SCOTT. I would just like to reinforce and totally agree with what was said by Mr. O'Reilly earlier, about being area-specific. I think that's really the key to this whole thing. We will succeed if we can find the areas that can be identified for wilderness or for non-wilderness on the basis of a substantial consensus of opinion, with everybody having their say.
Mr. O'Reilly's group would speak with the areas they care about and the Department of Energy would speak about areas as potential energy sites and the Sierra Club will speak about the areas they care for as potential wilderness on an area-specific basis, I think that helps sort out a consensus. While you were out of the room, Congressman Baucus asked the question, would it help if we all went off in a group someplace and tried to agree. And there have been some proposals for one or two meetings around the country, in which supposedly members of the regional groups would get together and divide up the pie.
I must say we won't participate. We can't speak for the individual American people who brought before the forest supervisor or some public hearing suddenly decide to speak up for the particular values they associate with a particular area. We haven't done any survey to say that we speak for the wilderness conservation interests of America. We speak for our organizations. So that kind of forced consensus, specific though it may be, seems to me to violate the spirit of this program, whereas, if people can look at the inventory, and speak about the areas they care about and then look at how the lists sort out that that will lead to a decision for opening up, I believe, a great many of the roadless areas to other uses, and putting a great many of the roadless areas into a wilderness category with a minimum of hurrah. We won't have to worry about the releases, because they will be released unchallenged. Those 12 million acres are released now. Twelve million acres were set up for wilderness study in RARE I and are now being reexamined.
Some of those alternatives don't even go up and 12 million acres of the other wilderness areas have been released today with no challenge from us and the balance is cared for here.
Mr. WEAVER. Anyone else?
Mr. EWART.Mr. Weaver, those areas by the stroke of a pen here in Washington could become wilderness very quickly unless we have been careful to develop our resources. I would like to say that on behalf of the forest products industry, the homebuilders, the retail lumber dealers, and the others, we appreciate you, Mr. Weaver and Chairman Church for providing this opportunity, one more time, to share our views with you. In a few short months the whole RARE II
*11 be here again and the terrible, terrible gut-rending tradeprocess wl n .J
offs that I imagine will be before you.
Mr. WEAVER. Mr. Ewart, thank you very much. It's been very helpful to me because I didn't know what kind of consensus or differences were emerging in this country, and I think now we are starting to at least understand those and find out where we are.
Dr. Gitler.
Dr. CUTLER. I don't have anything in conclusion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WEAVER.With that I thank everyone for coming and participating in this seminar. I know I greatly appreciate it and it is conchided. You have 2 weeks from today to furnish any other material that you wish to have included.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.]




Mr. George Craig, Exec. Vice Pres., Western Timber Association, 212 Sutter Street, San Francisco, California 94111. Mr. Paul F. Ehinger, Senior Vice President, Edward Hines Lumber Company,
Suite 240, 1500 Valley River Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97401.
Mr. R. Kirk Ewart, Director Industry Affairs, Boise Casecade Corporation, Box 50, Boise, Idaho 83728.
Mr. Arnold Ewing, Exec. Vice Pres., Northwest Timber Assoc., 1355 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401.
Jim Clark (For Richard Bennett), Bennett Lumber Company, Box 49, Princetonldaho.
Mr. Randy Harris, Pres., Idaho Forest Industries Council, Producers Lumber Company, Boise, Idaho 83706.
Larry Blasing (For Howard McDowell), Inland Forest Research Council, 320 Sarings Center Building, Missoula, Montana 59801.
Mr. Bronson Lewis, Exec. Vice Pres., American Plywood Assoc., 1119 A Street, Tacoma, Washington 98402.
Richard Snyder, Exec. Vice Pres., National Lumber & Building Materials Dealers Assoc., 1990 M Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20036.
Mr. Jim Craine, Exec. Vice Pres., Federal Timber Purchaser Assoc., 3900 Wadsworth Blvd. No. 201, Denver, Colorado 80235.
Mr. Joseph McCracken, Exec. Vice Pres., Western Forest Ind. Assn., 1500 S.W. Taylor Street, Portland, Oregon 972035.
Mr. Jim O'Donnell, Exec. Vice Pres., Northwest Pine Assoc., 237 Peyton Building, Spokane, Washington 99201.
Mr. Ernest Becker, Sr. Pres. National Assoc. of Home Builders, 15th & M Streets, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005.
Mr. Bob Robertson, Exec. Vice Pres., National Assoc. of Independent Lumbermen, 1051 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
John Hall, National Forest Products Assoc., 1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Gene Bergoffen, National Forest Products Assoc., 1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036. (For Ralph Hodges)
John Collier, Vice Pres. of Public Affairs Southern Forest Products Assoc., P.O. Box 52468, New Orleans, Louisiana 7010-2. (For W. R. Ganser)
Jay Power, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Charles Nichols, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Lynn Daft, Assoc. Director, Domestic Policy Staff, Room 216 Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20500.
Ms. Gail Harrison, Assist. to the Vice President, for Domestic Policy, 286 Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20501.
Don Crabill, Deputy Assoc. Director for Natural Resources Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Rm. 8202 726 Jackson Place, Nw., Washington, D.C. 20503.
Richard Seibert, Director of Natural Resources, National Assoc. of Manufacturers, 1776 F Street, Washington, D.C. 20006.

Charles Boothby, National Assoc. of Conservation Districts, 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20005.
William Greiner, Exec. Vice Pres., Soil Conservation Society of America, 7515 N.E. Ankey Road, Ankeny, Iowa 50021.
Boyd Rasmussen, National Assoc. of State Foresters, 6768 Baron Road, McLean, Virginia 22101.

Jim Evans, National Assoc. of Counties, 1735' New York Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006. (for Bernard Hillenbrand, Exec. Director)
Linda Bennett, National Assoc. of Counties, 1735 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Honorable Bernard Byers, 3221 South Main Road, Lebanon, Oregon 97355. (for Senator Ted Hallock)
Honorable Bill Grannell, House of Representatives, State of Oregon, 438 No. Wood Road, North Bend, Oregon 97459.
Honorable P. Scully,' House of Representatives, State of Montana, P.O. Box 1172, Bozeman, Montana 59715.
Honorable Nels J. Smith,' Speaker of the House of Representatives, State of Wyoming, Sudance, Wyoming 82414.
Jerry Norris, Westerni Director, Council of State Governments, 165 Post Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108.
Nominated by Western Governors Conference Governor Straub is leader of Governors Group: Gov. Straub, Oregon; Gov. Evans, Idaho; Gov. Lamb, Colorado.
Will represent Governor Evans: Carey Jones, Special Assist. to Governor Evans and Martel Morash of Governor Evans' staff.

Mr. Douglas Scott, Sierra Club, 330 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE., Washington, D.C. 20003.
Mr. John McComb, Sierra Club, 330 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE., Washington, D.C. 20003.
Mr. Holway Jones, Sierra Club, 1365 Skyline Park Loop, Eugene, Oregon 97405.
Mr. William Towell, Exec. Vice Pres., American Forestry Assoc., 1319 18th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Dr. Evis J. Stahr, Pres., National Audubon Society, 950 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.
Michael Zagata, National Audubon Society, 950 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.
Mr. William Duddleson, Senior Assoc_, The Conservation Foundation, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036 (For Mr. William Riley).
Mr. Dave Brower, Founder, Friends of the Earth, 529 Commercial Street, San Francisco, California 94111.
Mr. Dave Foreman, Washington Representative, The Wilderness Society, 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Mr. Roger Scholl, The Wilderness Society, 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20006.
Mr. Tim Mahoney, Resource Policy Analysis, The Wilderness Society, 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Mr. Jack Lorenz, Jzaak Walton League of America, 1800 Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
M\r. Tom Barlow, Natural Resources Defense Council, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Dr. William Hyde, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Luke Popovich, Director of Information, Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Washington, D.C. 20014. (For H. R. Glascock).
Robert D. Day, Director Resource Policy, Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Washington, D.C. 20014.
Todd Bacon, Project Director, Public Lands Institute, 1740 High Street, Denver, Color ado 80218. MIEASOLANGS

Mr. Frank Ikard, Pros., American Petroleum Institute, 2101 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20037.
Jack Swenson, Exec. Vice Pres., Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Assoc., 345 Petroleum Club Building, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Joyce MAorgan (For Keith Knoblock), American Mining Congress, 1100 Ring Building, 1200 18th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Dave Schaeno, Vice Chairman, Public Lands Committee, Independent Petroleum Assoc. of America (IPAA), 1101 16th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Frank R. Lee, Fxec. Director, Independent Petroleum Assoc. of Mountain States (IPAM-,), 1214 Denver Club Building, Denver, Colorado 80202.
1 These people were nominated by Western Council of State Governments.


Carl Mote, Exec. Vice Pres., Northwest Mining Association, Chamber of Commerce Building, West 1020 Riverside Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99201.
Dave Delcour, AMAX, Inc., 13949 WV. Colfax Avenue, Golden, Colorado 80401.

Kenneth R. Hampton, Deputy Director, National Wildlife Federation, 1423 16th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Pat Goggin, National Wildlife Federation, 1412 16th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Mike Nolan, American Horse Council, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006.
C. WV. MceMillan, Exec. Vice Pres., For Washington Affairs, American National Cattleman's Assoc., 1001 Lincoln Street, Box 569, Denver, Colorado 80201.
Derrick Crandall, International Snowmobile Ind. Assoc., 1800 M. Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20036.
John Davis, Exec. Dir., National Recreation & Park Assoc., 1801 Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
Bill Bonde, Exec. See., National Wood Growers Assoc., 600 Crandall Building, SalIt Lake City, Utah 84101.
Mark O'Reilly (For Robert Thomson), United States Ski Association, 1726 Champa Street, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Bill Lightkep~ (For Darryl Carper), United 4WD Association, 1630 S. Tudor, Albany, Oregon 97321.
Dr. Fred Evenden, Exec. Dir., The Wildlife Society, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20014.
Robert Rasor, Assoc. Dir., Legisative Dept., American '-\lotorcyclist Assoc., P.O. Box 141, Westerville, Ohio 43081.
Dan Poole, Pres., Wildlife Management Institute, 1000 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20003.
Cal Conniff, Pres., National Ski Area Association, P.O. Box 83, West Hartford, Connecticut 06107.


RARE II Percent net
RARE II acreage national forest
State areas (m~iions) acreage
1. Alaska --------------------------------------------------- 23 17.485 84
2.ldh-------------------------185 8.174 40
3. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- 233 6.537 44
4. Mnaa-----------------------182 6.521 38
5. California------------------------------------------------- 327 6.336 31
6. Wyoming------------------------------------------------- 102 3.921 42
7. Utah----------------------------------------------------- 130 2.949 37
8. Oregon--------------------------------------------------- 175 2.836 18
9. Wsngo-----------------------75 2.087 23
10. Nevada--------------------------------------------------- 65 2.060 40
11.Arzn------------------------92 1.859 17
12. New Meio----------------------81 1.763 19
13. New Hampshire -------------------------------------------- 14 .268 39
14. West Virginia---------------------------------------------- 22 .239 25
15. North Dakota.---------------------------------------------- 12 .217 20
16. Virginia -------------------------------------------------- 27 .209 13
17. North Carolina --------------------------------------------- 29 .208 14
18. Geri------------------------22 .202 24
19. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------- 25 .181 7
20. Florida --------------------------------------------------- 19 .135 11
21. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------ 20 .120 19
22. Wisconsin------------------------------------------------- 23 .109 7
23, Michigan ------------------------------------------------- 12 .087 3
24. Texas---------------------------------------------------- 16 .079 10
25. M, nnesota------------------------------------------------- 16 .076 3
26. Missouri -------------------------------------------------- 10 .075 5
27. Albm------------------------17 .063 10
28. South Daoa----------------------5 .059 4
29. Vemn------------------------6 .056 22
30. Penyvna----------------------15 .034 7
31. Oklahoma------------------------------------------------- 4 .027 9
32. South Carolina --------------------------------------------- 9 .027 5
33. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- 6 .019 8
34. Kentucky-------------------------------------------------- 2 .018 3
35. ebak------------------------2 .016 5
36. Louisiana-------------------------------------------------- 2 .011 2
37. Mississippi-------------------------------------------- 3 .008 1
38. Puerto Rc-----------------------1 .010 35
Toal-----------------------------2,009 65.081 ------Note: Areas overlapping State line may be double counted.


Denver, Colo., April 11, 1978.
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I recently attended the Joint CongressionalUSDA Colloquium. on RARE II as the representative of the United States Ski Association, a volunteer organization of approximately 100,000 members representing an estimated 8 million alpine and nordic skiers in this country, which is recognized by the International Olympic Committee as the official voice for organized skiing in the United States.
We believe in the multiple-use management of public land-, for the mutual benefit of conservation, recreation, and commercial interests. In our view, extensive single-use classification serves only to disrupt the established land management planning process and is not in the long run public interest. At present, public land managers are unduly influenced by pressures from preservationist groups. Under the administrative guidelines set up for RARE 11, "wilderness" has become a catch-all phrase having no accepted legal definition. The guidelines are logically invalid and would so greatly increase the amount of qualifying "wilderness" land that the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will be defeated.
For example, in order to meet the 5,000 acre requirement for qualification as a RARE 11 study area, the Fred Burr area, Deerlodge National Forest, Montana (Code 1435), includes not only an area proposed for the expansion of Discovery Basin Ski Area, but also the upper portion of the chairlift and approximately 10% of the existing intermediate ski run. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from the. area manager, V. J. Gamroth, to this effect.
USSA's particular interest is in the availability of public lands for skiing facilities and the opportunity for the development of winter recreation areas by private investors in a responsible, environmentally acceptable manner. Thus, we. favor removing any potential winter sports sites from the roadless area inventory until their suitability for future development can be studied. Under RARE II, inadequate consideration is being given to the need for winter sports sites despite a projected increase in the demand for skiing of 9267 by the year 2000. The combination of a growing interest in the sport and virtually no increase in the facilities will seriously degrade the quality of the skiing experience.
The example of Discovery Basin Ski Area evidences a lack of concern for the need for developed recreation on public lands. Wilderness use represents only a small portion of our recreation needs. The National Forests should be available for a variety of recreation opportunities and experiences, ranging from primitive and dispersed uses to those enjoyed in highly developed recreation complexes. It is undisputed that there are people who desire the wilderness experience just as there are those who desire the resort experience. Both are legitimate recreational demands, and facilities should be provided to insure that both groups' needs are met without attempting to impose one group's value System on the other.
The potential for development of skiing facilities, particularly for downhill skiing, depends upon a unique combination of natural elements, including suitable terrain and adequate snowfall. Although some studies of National Forest lands to determine the existence of potential skiing sites have been done, they have not been sufficiently sophisticated or comprehensive to be considered adequate. Yet despite an obvious lack of concern for recreation values and inadequate information on potential winter sports sites, irrevocable decisions will be made bv the end of this year.
However sound RARE 11's objectives may be, its prejudice in favor of wilderness classification will have unfortunate soci l and economic consequences.
Sincerely, T. MARK O'REILLY,
Director of Public Relations.


Anaconda, Mont., March 5, 1978.
Executive Director,
National Ski Areas Association,
West Hartford, Conn.
DEAR CAL: Thank you for your letter of February 28.
Relative to your last paragraph, I would offer you the following information: Area Code 1435 Fred Burr consisting of 6700 acres in RARE 11 but only includes an area as proposed for expansion at Discovery Basin, but also includes part of our existing permit area.
The upper portion of our chair lift and approximately 10% of our existing intermediate ski run has been located into the aforementioned RARE II area.
Why? As you are aware, each area must consist of at least 5000 acres in order to qualify as a RARE 11 area. Due to the positioning of private land (bordering) the proposed area, it was necessary for the Forest Service to include part of our permit area and proposed development area to qualify on the 5000 acre limitation.
Yes, I am damned up-set and so are my partners. Our plan is to appeal to the Regional Forester and then to the Secretary of Agriculture; and if necessary, we will further pursue the matter with our company attorney in Federal court.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call or contact me.
Yours truly,

Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Washington, D.C., April 18, 1978.
Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: On behalf of the .5,000 members of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, I am pleased to submit herewith their statement for the record in regard to the Joint Congressional-USDA Colloquium. on the National Forest Roadless Area Review. You wifl find two copies enclosed.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on this important national issue.
On behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America I am pleased to have this opportunity to present comments on the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation, Phase II (RARE 11) which are to be included in the record of the Joint USDA/Congressional Colloquium. of April 4, 1 978.
The Colloquium. was an excellent opportunity for the Forest Service to carry out its program of public involvement in RARE 11 since it provided a national forum for discussion and expanded the number of active participants in RARE II evaluation. It also afforded public participants an orderly context in which to present views to members of Congress soon to be confronted with the task of deciding the outcome of RARE II recommendations. IPAA was pleased to have been included among the seven organizations comprising the minerals, oil and gas task force of the Colloquium.
There are some 5,000 independent explorers and producers of crude oil and natural gas who comprise the IPAA membership. Many of them operate in the Western states and are actively involved in leasing public lands for exploration and development activities. In that same area, Forest Service lands currently under study in RARE II overlie some of the richest potential oil and gas depo4s


known today. Access to explore and drill this potential acreage is basic to the future of the independent oil and gas producer as well as to this nation's economic future.
We support the Forest Service goal of reaching decisions on RARE II lands quickly so that non-wilderness lands will be available for multiple use activities. However, haste to complete the program for the sake of making quick decisions should not preclude thorough study and evaluation basic to rational management decisions on National Forest lands. Careless work on RARE II could be a costly mistake in more ways than tax dollars. Independent producers urge that sufficient time be taken to collect thorough and credible data on the mineral, oil, and gas potential of all RARE 11 lands so that wilderness trade-offs are intelligent and do not aggravate further the national energy problem.
The Roadless Area Review and Evaluation has not been an examination of just "roadless areas" but rather has included many areas with roads and other nonwilderness features; consequently, lands which should now be available for multiple use have been tied up in the RARE II study process. The Forest Service has expanded the meaning of wilderness beyond that intended by Congress. The phrases "untrammeled by man"; "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements"; "affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of mail's work substantially unnoticeable"; "has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation" (See. 2(c) of the Wilderness Act) have all been ignored arbitrariiv with the effect that unqualified lands have been added to the RARE II studv. The Forest Service has confused the definition of wilderness and the intent of C ngress by including in the study areas marred by activities which are prohibited in other wilderness areas. This duplicity, of application is contrary to the intent of the wilderness review and a manipulation which erroneously stretches the statute.
Forest Service interpretation of "wilderness" has deterred consideration in RARE II of any criteria other than wilderness criteria. If, as RARE II officials have said recenilv it is not a wilderness planning process but one option among many land use planning options, wilderness consideration should not stop those multiple uses which are compatible with wilderness-such as exploration and development for critically needed oil and gas supplies. As Dr. Thomas C. Nelson, Deputy Chief of the Forest Service said at the IPAA Annual Meeting in October, 1977, ". . oil, gas and mineral production, in some cases, is the highest and best use of the land."
Many specific discrepancies have surfaced since RARE 11 was instituted. In a memo dated June 27, 1977 to Regional Foresters, Forest Service Chief John NIcGuire instructed that "Area:--, of significant current mineral activity . should not be included [in the RARE 11 inventory] . Do not include arew3 with significant leases issued under the 1920 Leasing Act (O&G, Geothermal, Coal, Phosphate, etc.) . This has not been the policy. According to theDepartment of Energy RARE 11 Energy Resource Assessments. Fore-,t Service Region 4 contains 156 high-value tracts, the highest concentration being in the Idaho-Wyoming portion of the Overthrust Belt. USGS estimates undiscovered recoverable oil and gas resources within this region to be between 1.5 and 3.0 billion barrels of oil and 7.3 and 12.0 Tef of gas. All 1.8 million RARE II acres in that area were rated "very important" in the DOE report. These areas were not onlv included in the inventory but also are not currently available for exploration or development because of unreasonable access restrictions. "Current mineral activity" has been narrowly interpreted. This policy is contrary to the continued multiple use concept intended during the inventory and is obviously contrary to the national interest.
A later memorandum to regional personnel dated June 30, 1977 sheds further light. "Significant leases" was clarified to "include other areas otherwise meeting the inventory criteria and covered by leases without 'a no surface occupancy' stipulation only if the development and occupancy rights have not been exercised., If and when 6'ese rights are exercised, the area or portion affected will be deleted from the inventory unless specific provisions can be made to avoid surface occupancy which would make the area unmanageable for its natural conditions." This clearly authorizes abrogation of contractual rights expressed in existing leases an(] imist not be tolerated as federal policy.
The Wilderness Act empowers theSecretary to protect the "wilderness character of the land consistent with the use of the land for the purposes for which they are leased, permitted, or licensed" (See. 4(d) (3)). Ftirthermore, "Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any actit4t y, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources-


if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment" (Sec. 4(d)(3)). The Act speaks for itself. The legislative history also clearly shows that while wilderness potential is not to be sacrificed to permanent impairment, mineral exploration activities should be permitted. The inclusion in the Wilderness Act of these "Special Provisions" from which the above quotations were taken states Congress's intent that these activities continue; it should not be ignored.
Another discrepancy between interpretation and practice appears in Chief McGuire's memorandum of June 27, 1977, in which he states: "WXe should look openly at features or uses traditionally considered nonconforming recognizing that we can be more innovative in 'managing around' the o 1jcctionable features to minimize their impacts and ensure optimum wilder ne >cqulity . ." (emphasis added). If the Forest Service can "manage around" objectionable, nonwilderness features, why can it not allow very critical exploration and( drilling activities which have minimum, short-term impact on the land? Furthermore, the Wilderness Act states:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, . all laws prtam ing to mineral leasing shall, to the same extent as applicable prior to the effective date of this Act, extend to those national forest lands designated by this Act as 'wilderness areas"; subject, however, to such reasonable rcynlations gov(,rilng ingress and egress as may be prescribed liy the Secretary of Agriculture consisbl t with the use of the land for mineral location and dl& r lopment and exploration, drilliog, and production, and use of land for facilities n ccssary in extloriug, drilling,
producing, mining, and processing operations, including whcre esscitnal thfe us/ of mechanized ground or air equipment and restoration as near as practicable of the surface of the land disturbed in performing prospecting, location, and, in oil and gas leasing, discovery work, exploration, drilling, and production, as soon as they have served their purpose . ." (emphasis added).
This special provision was included to insure that the use of the land for mineral exploration, drilling, development and production would not be prohibited notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act. Wilderness should be protected, but should not preclude these special activities. Section 4(d)(3) clearly anticipates surface disturbance during these activities and provides for "restoration as near practicable of the surface of the land disturbed." The Forest Service has ignored Congressional intent and interpreted its authority beyond the language of the Act by prohibiting disturbance of the surface, hence the "no surface occupancy" stipulations.
The basis for this over-extension of authority has been the phrase "subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture . . The Forest Service has ignored the rest of the phrase: "consistent with the use of the land for mineral location and development, etc.. Disallowance of it amounts to capitulation to a small minority of preservationists who have threatened suit should these activities be allowed, specifically in the Overthrust Belt.
"Reasonable regulations" have prohibited the mechanized ground equipment specifically provided for in Section 4(d) (3). This is yet another example of Forest Service abuse of its wilderness protection authority. In some cases, mining operations are continuing only because the developing interests have been allowed to use a helicopter. While the Administration professes an interest in helping the independents compete agaist larger, more diversified interests which can afford such equipment, this practice portrays quite another story.
Regulation of ingress and egress to wilderness areas for multiple use activities compatible with wilderness preservation has amounted to prohibition for independent producers. This prohibition takes the form of leases with a "no surface occupancy" stipulation and of drilling permits which cannot be obtained for leases without such stipulations. An administration which has devoted the last year to developing an energy policy designed to solve our energy crisis and improve the economy should be encouraging development of our natural resources, not shutting out those who already have the desire, the expertise, and the contractual rights to do so.
If agreement cannot be reached on legal grounds, certainly logic is on the side of multiple use, especially where compatible with wilderness preservation. The Forest Service has stated many times that RARE II is designed to consider all resource data so that the land use planning process is balanced and consistent with multiple use concepts. The closed-door policy regarding exploration on RARE II lands negates this by disallowing the discovery and assessment of potential resource values. It is entirely possible to fly over an area and count trees. It is easy to see grazing potential. Mineral assessment is not so easy. The


2 2 6 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
3 1262 09118 7178
surface of the lands does not yield data necessary to make a thorough and competent evaluation of subsurface potential. Exploration activities (which have historically caused minimum impairment and which have been followed by successful restoration within a relatively short time frame) must be allowed so that intelligent trade-offs can be made.
The Department of Energy was given sixty days in which to complete a minerals evaluation of all RARE II lands. That is not enough time to adequately assess even one tract, given accessibility and use of proper equipment, let alone try to compile data on all tracts. Several Forest Service regions contain lands for which there was no available data and are currently thought to be of low potential. What would the assessment of the Overthrust Belt have been just a few years ago? The Department of Energy prefaced its report by saying, "All of its major elements . could have been done with greater reliability and precision had more time been available," and expects to "have additional opportunities in subsequent stages of RARE II to refine its estimates. . ." Hopefully, such opportunities will be available so that these lands are not irretrievably lost to oil and gas exploration by premature classification as wilderness.
The U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines were also called upon to provide energy potential data. The Geological Survey was so displeased with its data that it has not been released to the public. In requesting that it be made public, I PAA has learned that US GA personnel were forced by time constraints to present much of the information orally without supporting documents at four meetings with field personnel as they looked over RARE II maps and charted areas with energy potential. Some of the results were jotted down in note form; very little was documented. This is an embarrassment to those who have a long record of preparing detailed, verified, competent data. It casts a shadow over the validity of the entire RARE II process.
The Forest Service repeatedly has stated that during the public evaluation phase, beginning in June with the release of the Draft Environmental Statement, detailed multiple use data will be considered, with a balanced management system as its goal. We support this idea and look forward to the opportunity to provide such information. It is our hope that members of Congress will also study the socio-economic impacts of wilderness withdrawal when the time comes to make the final decisions legislatively. Most certainly Congress should make its decisions only when full data on resource potential is available. Such information will never be available if RARE II study lands lock out exploration.
The Forest Service is to be commended for its program of involving the public in the formulation of evaluation criteria to be used in the next RARE II phase. It is our understanding from discussions with Forest Service officials that nearly 50,000 responses were received on this subject. It is unthinkable that such valuable input was ignored, yet current evidence points in that direction.
Another concern among independent producers is that there is no vehicle for releasing from RARE II those lands determined as non-suitable for wilderness. While the Forest Service is empowered with the authority to include these areas within the protective arms of the wilderness study, instant release remains a question. It would seem logical that the non-suitable lands are within the realm of Forest Service land use planning. Thus, when an area is determined nonsuitable for one type of management, it should be immediately available for another, in this case, multiple use; this should apply especially to those areas for which available data indicates multiple use potential. The entire Overthrust Belt is one such area and should be released immediately.
The Forest Service will draft a legislative proposal addressing its recommendations for disposition of RARE II lands. Independent producers believe that these recommendations should include a reaffirmation of Section 4 (d) (2) and 4 (d) (3) of the Wilderness Act providing for the gathering of information about minerals, mineral leasing, development, drilling, producing and processing within wilderness areas. It should also reaffirm that existing contractual rights will be honored on study areas. To allow adequate time to thoroughly study and verify natural resource potential, especially energy, the January 1, 1984 sunset on minerals activities on wilderness lands required in See. 4(d) (3) should be repealed. Surely this clause would have been omitted had Congress foreseen in 1964, the date of enactment of the Wilderness Act, the serious national energy crisis we face today. This sunset will serve no purpose but to eliminate vitally needed exploration activities. Finally, the legislative proposal should contain an assurance that RARE 11 decisions will be consistent with national policy goals. In preserving national forest lands for the enjoyment of future generations, policy-makers must not deprive these future general ions of the essential energy resources necessary to a strong and healthy economy.