Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000822 <br /> <br />.. ',- <br /> <br />must be remc~red that Congress can, in creati~g new wilderness areas <br />by statute, r~quire more or less stringent restrictions for a~y par- <br />ticular wilderness area than exist in the ,'Ii\?Cr.~2ss Act i tsel f. <br /> <br />~ In the proviso in section 603(c), ~mich follons the "existing <br />uses" language, the Secret<lry is direct<:d to "t,,};2 any action required <br />to prevent u:1I1ecessary and undu," d(2'grad3tion .of the la."1ds and their <br />resources or to afford environ:eental protection." T;-~e existing use <br />qualification must be read in the context of ~~is qualification. <br /> <br />]I Of course, use of such equipment may have disgu<llified an area from <br />initial study of ~lilderness under the terms of 5 603. In many cases, <br />in fact, major mining activities ~ay have destroyed the wilderness char- <br />acteristics of ~~e area in qJestion, thereby lisiting the possible cir- <br />cumstances in which the exception in ~ 603(c) ap?lies. <br /> <br />y .It is possible, .of course, to argue that only the acreage actually. <br />being disturb€~ and not the entire mininJ clai~ should be exem?t. This <br />seems to us too strict a limitation and besides would be very difficult <br />to administer. <br /> <br />lQ/ Congress has else.mere created such a moratori~ by explicit <br />statutory lan;Juage. See "Hining in th<! Parks Act," 16 U.S.C. 5 1903. <br /> <br />11/ See footnote 3. <br /> <br />2 <br />