include the Indiana plant. The only domestic beryllium concentrate producer reportedly plans to construct a plant in Japan or elsewhere to manufacture beryllium-copper alloys.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that the identified resources of beryllium in known deposits are estimated in excess of 80,000 tons of contained beryllium. U.S. consumption of beryllium is estimated at only 310 tons annually. With the demand for beryllium expected to increase at an annual rate of 4 percent through 1990, these statistics indicate that we have enough beryllium using present deposits to last 200 years.

There are seven grazing allotments on the entire Snake Division. Under both bills, grazing would continue at historic levels permitted before July 1, 1985. Under my proposal, however, a 45,000-acre national park preserve is established in the southern portion of the Snake Range to allow hunting to continue.

White Pine County contains 8,902 square miles of area, or 5,697,000 acres. The proposed 174,000-acre Great Basin National Park and Preserve would constitute a little more than 3 percent of this county, and 0.24 percent of the entire acreage of the State. Although the park preserve I am proposing is substantial, it certainly does not represent a vast portion of the State.

The need for this park is greater now than it has ever been. In a State where the population has doubled even in the last 10 years, we can no longer assume that these lands will remain beautiful and unspoiled. We must ensure their preservation.

Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you and thank Senator Laxalt for the opportunity to testify here today, and especially for your introducing the companion legislation.

Senator HECHT. Thank you very much.

I thank the two distinguished Congressmen for coming over today and testifying. Thank you very much.

Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HECHT. Will the Honorable Secretary Donald Paul Hodel, Department of the Interior, please come forward.

Mr. Secretary, before you start may I make a couple of comments? We are very fortunate to have a Secretary like yourself who always has time on any need for our State of Nevada. We have many people from the State that have come a long ways, and I want them to know how fortunate we are to have a westerner like yourself.

You and your entire staff, while we might not always agree on every matter, always have time and take tremendous amounts of time on our most minute problems, and I thank you publicly. Everyone in our State who has had any occasion to deal with you fully understands that.

Now you may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD PAUL HODEL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary HODEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say that it is a rare privilege for me to serve in this job and have the opportunity to deal with issues that affect Western States, and particularly Nevada. I have had numerous opportuni

ties to be there, and I can say truthfully that I love your State, and I have enjoyed my association with you and Senator Laxalt and the people I have met from Nevada, and I thank you for your kind remarks.

Senator HECHT. Well, you and your wife will have to come out and spend more time with us.

Secretary HODEL. I would love to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record, which I would like to summarize.

Senator HECHT. It will be included in the record.

Secretary HODEL. I also have with me, in the event you have any detailed questions which go beyond my level of knowledge on this bill, Mr. Denis Galvin, Deputy Director of the National Park Service, who will be testifying before you on the other matters before the committee today.

Let me just say in summary that we support the enactment of S. 2506. I want to commend you and Senator Laxalt for preparing what we believe is a very balanced proposal. The boundary has obviously been drawn carefully to include the special resources that are essential to a national park, while at the same time excluding some of those areas which would have created a very serious problem for us along the lines of what we had last year when we testified in opposition to the bill that was before the House.

As you said very well, Senator, the bill that was before the House and was passed by the House creates land-use conflict problems for us and land acquisition problems. We have a serious problem in handling the availability of funds to acquire land, and I think that we ought not to saddle a new park with a proposal which would be difficult for us to complement.

I think the proposal which you have made eliminates or avoids those problems. One of the prior witnesses said that if we create a national park in this area we ought to do it right. I believe that your bill does do it right, and that is why we are prepared to support that bill.

I will not recap the contents of the bill, as my statement does, but let me say that it is important to recognize that the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture have exercised a stewardship responsibility in this area which has preserved and protected the area to the point where today we are in a position to talk about it being included in the National Park System. I think it would be appropriate to commend them for the job they have done. We see three issues that we draw to your attention, Mr. Chair

man.

The first is the authorization for further development. The second is the authorization for land acquisition. The third is the issue of grazing.

I mention that this park contains limited visitor facilities. We have no present plans or can identify any need for expansion at the present time. We would do, pursuant to the bill, a general management plan with public involvement that hopefully would guide us about future management of the park.

I think it is fair to say that at the present time we feel it is unlikely that the National Park Service would be in a position to fund additional facilities for the foreseeable future. I think that the

support for this park which is there and is strong should be founded on the propriety and suitability of this area as a park, and not on the basis of unredeemable promises and projections about vast increases in tourism and facilities that would automatically follow a park.

With regard to land acquisition, it is my understanding that there is no private lands to be acquired. But, as Congresswoman Vucanovich correctly pointed out, we do have some mining claims which have to be determined as to their validity within the area, perhaps as many as 150.

I am also aware that there is significant potential mining in areas adjacent to the park, and we need to be sensitive to the fact that there have been occasions where great effort has been made to shut down mining activities adjacent to parks or other activities adjacent to parks. We need to be conscious of what the intention of the Congress is when a park such as this is created, that adjacent activities are or are not to be continued.

I think it is not practical to expect that we would effectively be in a position to acquiesce in mining within the boundaries of a national park. Sometimes it is suggested that we could permit a mining activity to continue, but I can say from hard experience that once we have drawn the boundary of the national park, we are enormously resistant to continued activity such as mining within those boundaries.

The final issue, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to grazing. We may find it very difficult to work out an exchange of allotments because the Forest Service has advised us that the allotments in the Humboldt National Forest which might be available are, as you have indicated, already used and therefore it would be only on the availability of such allotments outside that we could enter into some kind of exchange.

I would like to be able to work with Secretary Lyng and the Forest Service and try to come up with possible suggestions for inclusions in the statute with regard to grazing. I think it is important. The statute currently provides that grazing will be continued at the 1985 level. I think it is important that we be sure that what that statute means is clear and that it is not intended that the Secretary abbreviate or truncate that grazing opportunity in any way that is not consistent with the grazing rules applied in areas outside the park, if that is the intention of the Congress.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to try to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Hodel follows:]

STATEMENT OF DONALD PAUL HODEL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, RESERVED WATER, AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONCERNING S. 2506, A BILL TO ESTABLISH A GREAT BASIN NATIONAL PARK IN THE STATE OF NEVADA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

JULY 18, 1986

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss S. 2506, to establish the Great Basin National Park in the State of Nevada.

I am pleased to support the enactment of S. 2506.

I would like to personally commend the two Senators from Nevada for preparing a balanced proposal, one that provides for protection of the natural resources that make up the Great Basin region while at the same time is sensitive to the needs of the people who have traditionally used the area. Your proposed boundary has been carefully drawn to include spectacular resources while excluding patented mining claims and the wintering range of the mule deer. This should help reduce the cost of this national park, and makes it acceptable to this Administration, unlike other proposals put forward which we could not support.

For example, the House-passed proposal, part of the Nevada Wilderness bill, encompassed a much larger area, one with problems in both transfer and management. The resource use conflicts and private land acquisition resulting from such wholesale park authorizations have, in other areas, contributed to unending disputes over management and availability of funding to acquire land. We wish to avoid saddling any new park with such a burden. This proposal before us today avoids those problems for this area.

S. 2506 would authorize the transfer of approximately 44,000 acres of land located in the South Snake Range Unit of the Humboldt National Forest to the National Park Service and would establish the Great Basin National Park. Grazing would continue subject to such terms and conditions deemed necessary for good range management. Grazing permittees would be able to request the Secretary of Agriculture to negotiate an exchange of their grazing allotment out of the park. The bill includes a disclaimer with respect to the establishment of U.S. water rights, and it requires that any land be acquired only with the consent of the owner.

Mr. Chairman, there are many outstanding resources in the Great Basin physiographic region which covers so much of Nevada. Central to this proposal are the very special resources around the Wheeler Peak area, especially the bristlecone pine growing at the timberline. The bristlecone pine is believed to be the oldest living species of tree, older than the Giant Sequoia and the Redwood. The unusually high elevation of the Snake Range, another significant aspect of this area, makes it one of the few Great Basin ranges that experienced glaciation during the most recent Ice Age that ended some 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. A remnant ice field exists near Wheeler Peak from what was one of the largest glaciers in the Great Basin, unique not only to the Snake Range but also the region as a whole.

It is fitting that these resources should be included within the Great Basin National Park boundaries, as proposed by S. 2506, in order to provide for their protection, interpretation, and public enjoyment. Let me say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that had it not been for the stewardship of the professionals of the U.S. Forest Service and the people of Nevada, the integrity of these resources could have been