Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

From our hearings in the field we realize that the question of the private uses to be made of this land enters into the thinking of the local people. What private uses would continue in the recreation area, for example?

Dr. CRAFTS. Mr. Chairman, all of the private uses that are permitted in a national forest may continue in a national recreation area, including timbering, mining, grazing, and so on. Really, the fundamental and principal difference between the two is that if it is a national recreation area, there is legislative recognition that the use of the land for recreation is the priority use and that the other uses must be compatible and are secondary to the primary uses as designated in a national recreation area.

As a matter of fact, in these two proposed national recreation areas in the Senate-passed bill, and one in the administration bill, there are not now any significant timber uses or grazing uses. There is some hunting use, there is cabin use, there are recreation developments, and this sort of thing.

Mr. TAYLOR. Hunting, fishing, timber harvesting, and mining would continue in the recreation area pretty much as at present?

Dr. CRAFTS. I think that is correct; yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. What about skiing?

Dr. CRAFTS. Skiing will continue and may be developed in a national recreation area, just as it may be developed in a national forest. Of course, skiing is a recreation use and this would be given high priority.

This is one reason that Ruby Mountain right south of Ross Lake, was included in the recreation area-because this is considered to be a very fine skiing area.

George just advised me that the Senate-passed bill requires a special study of the skiing potential in the recreation areas. I might say that this is another reason. The winter sports aspect is one of the reasons why the Granite Creek area was left out of both the administration bill and the Senate-passed bill. It is because there are ski opportunities on these slopes as well. The other reason, of course, is the highway.

Mr. TAYLOR. Under this legislation the Department would have authority to provide skiing facilities or enter into concession contracts with private concerns to provide it?

Dr. CRAFTS. That is right.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now what change, if any, would be made in the private uses of the wilderness area?

Mr. HARTZOG. That portion of the area put in a national park, Mr. Chairman, would not permit hunting, but most of the hunting, as was explained by Congressman Meeds yesterday, is in the Stehekin area which is proposed for the national recreation area and, therefore, hunting would be permitted according to applicable Federal and State

law.

Dr. CRAFTS. And there is some hunting on this side of Ross Lake, which would also be in recreation area.

Mr. TAYLOR. What changes would be made in uses permits in that section designated as wilderness?

Dr. CRAFTS. In the first place, this is designated as wilderness in both bills. There is a slight difference in boundaries. This has for many

years been the Northern Cascades Primitive Area under Forest Service jurisdiction and converting it from a primitive area to a wilderness area under the law would cause no change.

The Eldorado Peaks area is not now in a wilderness or primitive area classification-that part south of the Skagit River. This proposed Pasayten Wilderness is in the eastern part of the Northern Cascades Primitive Area. This Picket Range area and this Eldorado Peaks area become part of a national park [indicating].

My understanding is, within a specific period of time under both H.R. 8970 and S. 1321 the Park Service will be required to study this national park, to ascertain what portion of the national parks should be recommended to the Congress for wilderness areas.

Mr. ASPINALL. But this legislation itself does not establish any wilderness area within the proposed national park area?

Dr. CRAFTS. That is correct; none whatsoever.

Mr. TAYLOR. But it does establish other areas as wilderness areas? Dr. CRAFTS. It establishes the Pasayten Wilderness Area-it converts this area from a primitive area into a wilderness area and it would make two small additions totaling, I believe, around 10,000 acres to the existing Glacier Park Wilderness Area under the administration of the Forest Service.

Mr. SAYLOR. There are two additions down there. You say they comprise 10,000 acres jointly?

Dr. CRAFTS. That is approximately right; yes, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. What private-use changes would be made in that area if converted into a park?

Dr. CRAFTS. Do you mean in this area?

Mr. SAYLOR. That area of the North Cascades National Park.

Dr. CRAFTS. The changes that would be made in that area are that hunting would be prohibited. The recreational use would continue; there would be a somewhat different type of development proposed by the Park Service than by the Forest Service for the other recreational uses. Mr. Hartzog has a development plan which he can explain to you. There is no timbering in here. Therefore, there would be no change in the timbering. There is no grazing in this area. There are about a half a dozen sheep allotments which have been inactive, nongrazed for a number of years. There is one cattle allotment running partly here, and partly outside the park, and that has either been inactive or it has a very small number of head. There might be one-half of one cattle allotment that would be affected. There is a permit for the grazing of, I think, about 20 or 30 head of stock in the Stehekin Valley. George would have to tell you what would be handled on that. Those are the changes as I know them.

Mr. TAYLOR. There would be no timber harvesting, no grazing, no mining, and no hunting as in other national parks?

Dr. CRAFTS. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLOR. However, at present you say there is no timber harvesting in that area?

Dr. CRAFTS. In the national park area.

Mr. TAYLOR. How about mining?

Dr. CRAFTS. There are many mining claims. There are about 9,000 acres, I believe, of mining patents. An ownership status map shows

these. The largest areas of patented mines are up in here in the El Dorado area.

The preexisting rights would be honored in the establishment of the parks. Things such as valid claims and mine patents.

Mr. TAYLOR. Do you intend to gradually extinguish these mining patents?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and if I may amplify on what Dr. Crafts has said, I would like to call your attention to the fact that all of the privately owned lands are in this area that is proposed as a national recreation area in the Senate bill. There is no privately owned land within these two units of the national park under the Senate-passed bill. They are all in the recreation area or in the lower recreation area. You could continue private compatible uses.

Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't get an answer to the question of whether you had a plan to terminate the mining patents.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, we do. All private rights within the national park are to be terminated.

Mr. TAYLOR. HOW?

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, there are 1,880 acres involved in mineral patents within the Senate-passed 1321. There are 1,880 acres in the bill introduced by Mr. Meeds, which the committee is considering. The first step we follow in this after Congress takes action on this is to ask the Bureau of Land Management to validate the mineral claims. Many of them we believe on their face are not valid. In other words, the required work has not been done, but this is a process, an administrative process that is carried out pursuant to the public land law of the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. ASPINALL. Do you expect to take as long to validate these claims as it has taken to handle some of the oil shale claims in the Green River oil shale area?

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that. I don't believe any of those are in the national parks.

me.

Mr. ASPINALL. I thought you knew about everything that bothers

Mr. HARTZOG. No, sir; I left the Bureau of Land Management 21 years ago.

Mr. KYL. They were in process then.

Mr. HARTZOG. Then those that are determined to be valid, we would purchase. In other words, much of the privately owned lands within some of the older national parks the Congress has established really came into private ownership through valid patents for minerals. These would be purchased as would any other private lands within a national park, or within a national recreation area. As long as the use is compatible, we wouldn't try to eliminate it until the owner wanted to sell.

Mr. ASPINALL. Dr. Crafts, I believe, wanted to make a correction. Dr. CRAFTS. Mr. Hartzog made it for me. I said approximately 9,000 acres of mining patents and counsel pointed out to me the estimate is 1,880 acres.

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman Meeds recommended, as I understood it, some hunting in this national park. This is normally not permitted. What is your reaction to that?