compromised. Their respect for these unique features should be commended, and their investment in the conservation of this resource has enabled us to be here today to recommend the creation of this, America's newest national park. The beauty of these magnificent resources has been truly a source of pride for the people of Nevada, and it will now be shared with the Nation.

Further, I would note that this park, upon enactment of S. 2506, could begin operation immediately. Existing funding, personnel, and facilities at Lehman Caves National Monument are already located within the proposed park boundary, and can form the nucleus of services for the new park. Immediately available to the park visitors, therefore, would be an existing visitor center and office building complex, a small gift shop and coffee shop, a cave trail, a 30-site picnic area, restroom facilities, and a water system. Further, as a result of the transfer of land from the Forest Service, there would also be available to visitors two primitive campgrounds, a trailer campground with 11 developed sites, three other campgrounds with a total of 81 developed sites, and restroom facilities. With this infrastructure in place, plus the fact that the area proposed by S. 2506 is already Federally-managed, we believe that the new national park can be established

without significant increased cost to the taxpayer.

There are three other issues, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, that I would also like to address: First, the authorization for further development; second, the authorization for land acquisition; and third, the issue of grazing.

As I mentioned, this park already contains limited visitor facilities. Uses in the area of the new park should, therefore, remain essentially the same as now. We

would nevertheless propose to prepare a general management plan, which includes public involvement, to help guide the future management of this national park and to identify any desired or needed future facilities. The close working relationship between the staff of this new national park and the adjacent communities will certainly be vital to a successful operation. It is important to me that we be candid in advising you, the Congress, and the communities, however, that it is unlikely that the National Park Service will be in a position to fund additional facilities for the foreseeable future. Support for this new park should be founded on the propriety and suitability of this area as a park and not on the basis of unredeemable promises of increased tourism and facilities.

With regard to land acquisition, it is my understanding that there is no private ownership of the surface estate inside of the proposed boundary. There may be valid mining claims, however, which constitute an interest in land. I believe we should proceed with the development of a land protection plan that will identify all valid interests in these lands. The land protection planning process, of course, will also involve the public. We will seek a consensus regarding the appropriate level of protection, and what, if any, interests in lands must be acquired.

With regard to the issue of grazing, Mr. Chairman, I understand there are a total of seven different grazing allotments within the entire 174,000-acre South Snake Range Unit of the Humboldt National Forest. Within all seven allotments, there are six cattle permits totalling 571 head of cattle, or 2,583 animal unit months (AUM's), and there are two sheep permits totalling 2,437 sheep, or 1,843 AUM's. Portions of six of these allotments are within the 44,000-acre proposed park boundary.

Mr. Chairman, the bill's approach to the grazing issue appears to be fair and equitable, but it may not be easy to work out. I have been informed by the Forest Service that negotiating exchanges for allotments now in the proposed park may not be practical since all allotments within the Humboldt National Forest are currently under permit. Therefore, I would like to work with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Committee to develop some alternative measures by which the grazing issue can be resolved in the statute. In any case, Mr. Chairman, I believe that statutory provision for continued grazing should be considered, and that continued grazing should not preclude designation of this area as a national park.

That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today to support the establishment of our 49th national park. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may have.

Senator HECHT. I have some questions, but first we have a colleague who has joined us.

Senator Rockefeller, do you have a statement?

Senator ROCKEFELLER. No, Mr. Chairman, I am just pleased to be here with you and with the Secretary.

Senator HECHT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, if the Congress were to pass the House version of the national park, or something very close to it in size, would you feel compelled to recommend to the President that he approve it, or veto it?

Secretary HODEL. Mr. Chairman, if the bill were essentially comparable to what is now the House bill, if it were not altered in significant ways, my leaning would be to recommend to the President that he veto that bill.

Senator HECHT. Thank you very much.

I have no further questions. Do you have any questions, Senator? Senator ROCKEFELLER. No.

Senator HECHT. Thank you very much, and thank your wife for being with us today.

The Honorable George Dunlop and Mr. Denis Galvin.

The Honorable George S. Dunlop, Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.

Mr. Dunlop, we understand that your statement was revised at the last minute, and that you were unable to provide the subcommittee with your testimony 24 hours in advance of this hearing.

We hope that you will be able to furnish your testimony on time in the future.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. DUNLOP, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. DUNLOP. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Like the other witnesses, I am delighted to appear before the subcommittee today. I am something of a new kid on the block. This is the first opportunity I have had to testify before this committee in my new capacity as Assistant Secretary, and it is an honor for me to do so before you.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Agriculture does not oppose S. 2506 as it is currently proposed. However we do have a number of reservations about the bill, many of which were addressed by the previous witnesses. I must say at the outset that we would strongly oppose any legislation that would establish a national park that is significantly greater in size such as is contained in other legislation that is being considered by Congress.

As you know and as has been discussed the bill before us today, S. 2506, would designate 44,000 acres as a national park. This would be the blue portion of this map that we brought along with us. The green is the entire area under consideration and is the entire area managed by the National Forest Service.

In this bill, jurisdiction of the area would be transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Interior. As has been discussed, the area proposed as a park is a portion of what we

call the South Snake Range Division of the Humboldt National Forest.

Within this parcel of approximately 174,000 acres, which is the green part, is the 29,000-acre Wheeler Peak scenic area which was designated as a scenic area by the U.S. Forest Service in 1959. That is the area that is in the dotted black lines. [Indicating.]

The 13,060-foot Wheeler Peak is the highest mountain located solely within the State of Nevada. As has been discussed, it is an area of high scenic, botanic, and geologic interest. In addition to those things, there are several high elevation lakes, ancient bristlecone pine forests, and other key attractions including the Lehman Caves National Monument which is adjacent to the Wheeler area near the top of the map where is now being indicated. [Indicating.] This Lehman Caves National Monument is presently administered by the National Park Service. The Forest Service manages four campgrounds within the proposed park that contain a total of 92 units that are in the scenic area. Mr. Chairman, these campgrounds average about 35 percent occupancy during the summer season at the present time.

Our reservations about the bill, S. 2506, stem from our longstanding commitment to the concept of balanced multiple use of our natural resources. There is no doubt that the area encompassed by S. 2506 has many outstanding scenic and natural features, and there is no question that these features should be managed to protect and enhance those values. It is simply our earnest opinion that the current management under the Forest Service provides for such protection.

Our concern is that passage of S. 2506 could reduce or foreclose management of the area for a number of other multiple uses currently being carried out in ways that do not detract from protecting and enhancing the natural and scenic value of the area. Examples, and they have been mentioned by previous witnesses, are hunting, livestock grazing, fuel-wood gathering, and similar activities.

I might say that we are also concerned that when an area is designated as a national park, as Secretary Hodel indicated, there does develop from many quarters sentiment to increase the size of the park, or to place other use restrictions on adjacent land. We would strongly oppose any such expansion.

With regard to the park proposal, I should say that we feel there are other management options which would be available which would protect the scenic values of the area and allow increased recreational use and retain the existing multiple use opportunities that I have identified. An example would be the designation of the area as a national recreation area administered by the Forest Service.

This could provide for national recognition and visibility to the scenic and recreational attributes of the area without the limitations on multiple use that would be associated with park status. For example, hunting would be permitted in a national recreation area. Grazing and mineral activities could be permitted if such specific activities were consistent with and did not detract from the primary purposes for which the recreation area was established.

65-854 0 - 87 - 2