PAGENO="0001" 137! SAN GABRIEL, WASHAKIE, AND MOUNT JEFFERSON ~WILDERNESS AREAS ~ HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OIN PUBLIC LANDS OTHE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE: NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON 5. 2531 A BILL TO DESIGNATE TH~ SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS, ANGELES NATIONAL ~`SP, TN PIlE STA~ OF CALIFORNIA S. ~63O A BILL TO DESIGNATE `rIl~ STRATIFIED PRIMITIV~ Aiti~A AS A PART OF THF~ WASHAIcIE WILDERN~, U~iTOFO RE KNOWN AS THE SOUTH ABSAROKA WILDERNESS, SJIOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST, IN THE STATE OF WYOMING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES AND S. 2751 A BILL TO DESIGNATE THE MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS, WILLAMETTID, DESOHUTES, AND MOUNT HOOD NATIONAL FORESTS, IN THE STATE OF OREGON FEBRUARY 19, AND 20, 1968 4 GOVE~NME~T pr'~ PROPE~~RUT~ERS, THE S i~E IJV~R~W ~ OF SOUTH JERSEY UBRAR~. * CAMDEN N. J~ 08102. Printed for tue use or the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Y ji ~ 11,8. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 91-953 WASHINGTON: 1968 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mezico THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California ALAN BIBLE, Nevada GORDON ALLOPT, Colorado FRANK CHURCH, Idaho LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska PAUL S. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK B. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon CARL HAYDEN, Arizona GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin LEE METCALF, Montana JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel E. LEwIs REm, Minori~g Counsel PORTER WARD, Professional Staff Member S SSUBOOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado ALAN BIBLE, Nevada LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska PAUL S. FANNIN, Arizona CARL HAYDEN, Arizona LEE METCALF, Montana (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page S. 2531 1 S. 2630 2 S. 2751 2 Executive communication 3 STATEMENTS Alderson, George, Washington, D.C 170 Bell~ Torn, Wyoming Coordinating Council and Wyoming Wildlife Federa- tion 133, 201 Bentzen, Lyle W., president of Wyoming Recreation Commission 123 Blackburn, George F., Washington, D.C., metropolitan area 183 Bonney, Lorraine G., Sierra Club study team 185 Bonney, Orrin H., Sierra Club 49, 204 Brandborg, Stewart M., executive director, Wilderness Society 84 Clapper, Louis S., chief, Division of Conservation Education, National Wildlife Federation 82 cliff, Edward P., Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 6 Corkran, David H., III, historian, Berkeley, Calif 193 Grump, William, district game division supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 147 Cutler, M. Rupert, assistant executive director, Wilderness Society 84, 202 Daniel, Frank C., secretary, National Rifle Association of America 172 Geer, Lucius, geologist, Signal Oil & Gas Co 154 Gutermuth, C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute 39 Hatfield, Hon. Mark 0., a U.S. Senator from Oregon 37 Hathaway, Hon. Stanley K., Governor of Wyoming 121 Helfrich, Prince, Blue River, Oreg 103 Ives, Robert T., Sierra Club 49 Kuebel, Hon. Thomas H., a U.S. Senator from the State of California 3 Lester, Evelyn, Takoma Park, Md 102 Loeb, Joseph, attorney, Signal Oil & Gas Co 154 McGinnis, Miss Helen, Hyattsville, Md 117 Marshall, Robert R., Pomona, Calif 95 Miller, James R., Dubois, Wyo 197 Morse, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon 166 Myers, J. Sutton, Dover, Del 164 Pomeroy, Kenneth B., American Forestry Association 44 Quigley, James M., vice president for special relations, U.S. Plywood- Champion Papers, Inc 174 Reoce, Dan R. Portland, Oreg 97 Rich, Arthur, A., California vice president, Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs 101 Scott, Douglas W., Ann Arbor, Mich 106 Shoemaker, Mrs. Alice, Dubois, Wyo 130 Shoemaker, Leslie E., Wyoming Outfitters Association, Dubois, Wyo. - - - 126 Smith, Spencer M., Jr., secretary, Citizens Committee on Natural Re- sources 194 Tepfer, Sanford, Sierra Club 49 Tupling, Lloyd, Washington representative, Sierra Club 49 Vivion, Vern, cochairman, Wyoming Public Land Users coordinating Committee 179 Walcott, Francis J., San Francisco, Calif 189 Williams, Lawrence, vice president, Federation of Outdoor Clubs, Milwau- kie, Ore~ 99 Woolley, Carwin A., executive vice president, Pacific Logging Congress, Portland, Oreg 105 Worf, William A. U.S. Forest Service 6& Wright, Arthur `f., conservation consultant 44 Wyoming Stock Growers Association 18Z (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv COMMUNICATIONS Atwood, Olin D., president, WyQming State Gem and Mineral Societies: Letter to Hon. Frank Churnh, chkinhan, Public Lands Subcommittee, Paga dated February 17, 1968 133 Cliff, Dr. Edward P., Chief, Forest service: Letter to Hon. Clifford P. Hansen, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming, dated February 5 1968 32 Conway, Grant, Brookmont, Md.: Letter to J. Herbert Stone, regional forester, U.S. Forest Service,, dated November 21, 1966 171 Day, Ernest E., National Wildlife Federation: Letter to, Hon. Frank Church, chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, dated February 16, 1968 163 Hagenstein, W. D., executive vice jpresi~ent, Industrial Forestry Associa- tion: Letter and statement to Hon. ]~`rank Church chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee - - - * - - 101 Hansen, Hon. CliffOrd P., a U~S. Sénat~r from Wyoming: Letter to a con- stituent , - 22 Hayden, Hon. Carls' a ThS. Senator from Arizona: Letter to Hon. Frank Church, chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee ` - - ` - - 18 King, A. E., commissioner of public lands, State of' Wyoming: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs CoIn- mittee, ~dated February 14, 1968 ` 125 Knudsen, `Gene D.,. Wil'la~ètte Industries, Inc., Portland, 0mg.: Letter to Hon. Frank Church, chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, dated February 19, 196& - - hr `~1cGee, Hon. Gale W., a U.S. Senator from Wyoming: Letter to Hon.. Frank Church, chaithian,' Public Lands Subcommittee - -- - 33 nelson, M. M., Deputy Chief~ Forest Service, Department of Agriculture: Letter to Hon. Clifford P. Hansen, a 1J.S~ Senator from Wyoming, dated February 15, 1968 `23 Petersen, Erroll M., CM Ranch, Dubois, Wyo.: Letter to Tom Bell, Wyoming OutdOor Coordinating Co'uneil, Lander~ Wyo., dated Feb- ruary 15, 1968 134 Rahm, Neil H., regional foresters northern region, U.S. Forest Service: Letter to Hon. Clifford P. Hansen, a U.S. SenatOii from W~rni'ng - - - 27 Smith, Palmer, Sea~tle, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Frank' Church, chairman, Public Lands Stibootuthittee, dated l~'ebruary 21, 1968. 164 Trejo, H. L., Carbon County Conservation Club, Rawlins, Wyd.: Letter to Hen. Frank Church, chairman, Public L~iid~ StibrOmmittee, dated February 12, 1968 1~4 P. E. Yarborough, Diamond G Ranch, Dub~1s, Wyp.: Letter to Tom T3ell, Wyoming State Journal, Lander, Wyo., dated February 10, 1968... ` 134 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION "Dubois' Fighting for Its Life," editorial, Wyoming State Journal, Feb- ruary 12, 1968 198 "Interdependence," editorial, Riverton Ranger, February 15, 1968- - 200 "Proposed Washakie Wilderness," ~ucstions by the staff of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and answers by the Department of Agriculture - - 200 "San Gabriel Wilderness Area," Congressional Record, dated October 12, 1967 4 APPENDIX (Statements and communications were received from:) STATEMENTS Back, Joe and Mary, Dtibois, Wyo - 217 Beamer, R. W., executive secretary, Wyoming Mining Association 209 Gordon, Robert R., president, Wyoming Council for Economic Devel- opment 214 Kearl, W. Gordon, Laramie, Wyo , - 209 Noble, Richard R. and Louise, Cora, Wyo 218 PAGENO="0005" V PAge Noyes, Winninette A., Eugene, Oreg~ - 219 Rea, Bayard D., Casper, Wyo 2J~6 Stickel, Roy W., Dubois, Wyo 218 Wyoming Outdoor Coordinating Council 207 Oo~uNIo~v~o~s Albanese, John, president, Wyoming Audubon Society, Casper, Wyo~_~ - 223 Albers, Henry, Lander, Wyo 305 Allen, James A., West Covina, Calif 224 Allen, Mrs. Loretta, West Covina, Calif 302 Amrein, Mr. and Mrs. Yost U., Claremont, Calif 302 Anderson, J. Arvid, Riverton Valley Irrigation District, Riverton, Wyo_ - 308 Anderson, Dr. Jear~, Eugene, Oreg 301 Anderson, Keith E., Cora, Wyo 301 Anderson, Mary Hill, Cora, Wyo 301 Angel, Jenifer W., Palo Ajto, Calif 301 Angle, Mr. and Mrs. Ivan, San Francisco, Calif 300 Atkins, W. C., Pomona, Calif 300 Astler, Charles E., president, Wyoming Natural Resource Beard 221 Back, Mary, Dubois, Wyo 299 Barnes, Hal, Agriculture and Conservation Comu~jssion, Califorx~ia Dc- partnient Headquarters, American Le~jo~, Sar~ Francisco, Calif 296 Barr, Mrs. Catherine, Redding, Calif 299 Beck, Dr. Ronald J., Puyallup, Wash 299 Becker, Robert E., Renton, Wash ~98 Berry, Bla~ce, Fort Smith, Ar1~ 298 Bixby, Miss Florence L., Pasadena, Calif 297 Bock, Dr. Raymond F., chairman, Conservation Committee, Pima County Mediçu~ SQciety, a~cl secrei~ary, Arizo~ia Oper~ Space P~oteetive Counsej.. 297 Borzea, Glenda, Rock Springs, Wyo 297 Borzea, John C., Reck Springs, Wyo 297 Bowler, Bruce, Boise, Idaho 296 Boyce, Frederick J., secretary, Sublette County (Wyo.) Wildlife Federa- tion 296 Boyesen, George, Society of American Foresters 224 Boynton Gladys D 296 Braude, Marvin, councilman, Los Angeles, Calif 295 Breneman, Herbert N., Wemme, Oreg 294 ]3rowne, Majorie M., Northbrook, Ill 295 Browning, Miss Kathleen G., Olympia, Wash 294 Bucaria, Garvan P., Redmond, Orç~g 294 Bullard, Maurice L,, Corvallis, Oreg 293 Eurch, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur, Berkeley, Calif 293 Burger, Rev. Robert F., Port Townsend, Wash 293 Burnett, Ronald B., Portland, Oreg 292 Cannon, Garnett B., president, Standard Insurance Co., Portland, Oreg. - 224 Case, Evelyn H. Saratoga, Calif 292 Cassazza, 4lice ó., Sierra Madre, Calif 292 Cassazza, John T., Sierra Madre, Calif 292 Catlow, William V., Bellingham, Wash 291 Chapin, Mrs. Charles A., Rancho Santa Fe, Calif 306 Oherbeneau, Louis A., chairman, Public Lands and Wilderness Com- mittee, Mile High Chapter, Izaak Walton League, Denver, Cob 291 Chiltender, David L., San Gabriel, Calif 290 Christenson, 0. K., director of planning, Regional ~lanning Commission, Los Angeles County, Calif 289 Clites, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne, San Diego, Calif 290 Clover, George N., president, Wyoming Onttitters Associe~jen 220 Cole, Robert S., Olympia, Wasl~ 289 Coleman, Charles, Eugene, Oreg 288 Cooper, James W., CQoper, Davis & Co., Los Angeles, Calif 288 Cordy, Mr. and Mrs. 288 Courtney, Mrs. Phyllis S., Milwaukie, Oreg 287 Craig, B. Reginald, Salem, Oreg 288 Creamer, Neale E., Los Angeles, Calif 286 Davis, C. D., manager, Oregon timberlands, Simpson Timber Co., Albany, Oreg 225 PAGENO="0006" VI Page Davis, T. H., I~2i~ho Falls, Idaho ~ 286 Delbrück, Mary Bruce, Pasadena, Calif 286 Dickel, Dr. Herman A., Portland, Oreg 285 Dickhaus, Reynold V., Bellingham, Wash 285 Dickinson, Mrs. Helen, Blue Jay, Calif 285 Douglas, Philip A., executive secretary, Spirt Fishing Institute, Washing- ton, D.C 225 du Plessis, Louis A., Richiand, Wash 285 Dustin, Thomas E., chairman, Public Lands Committee, Izaac Walton League of America, Fort Wayne, md 226 Duveneck, Frank 284 Duveneck, Josephine 284 Egland, M. A., Eugene, Oreg 284 Ehinger, Paul F:, vice president, Edward Hines Lumber Co., Westfir, Oreg. 227 Elder, J. W~ Auburn, Calif 284 Eubanks, Wallace D., Sun Valley, Calif 283 Ewing, Arnold, North West Timber Association, Eugene, Oreg 283 Farber, Lionel, Mill Valley, Calif 305 Fayen, Arthur W 283 Pelter, Mrs. Irene A 282 Fettes, J., Grand Coulee, Wash 303 Fisher, James G., Salem, Oreg 282 Pitzhugh, Mrs. Louis J., Calgary, Alberta, Canada 282 Plender, Mrs. Emily, Dubois, Wyo 281 Franklin, Mrs. L., Camas, Wash 306 Frost, Nedward, Cheyenne, Wyo 221 Gale, Charles W., director, Regional Park and Recreation Agency of the Mid-Willamette Valley, Salem, Oreg 227 Gardner, Mrs. Gladys, Bend, Oreg 280 Gayman, Evelyn, conservation chairman, Desomount Club, Los Angeles, Calif 228 Gell, Dr. Elizabeth Ann Morris, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa. - - - 228 Gibbons, Mrs. Diane Porter, Victoria, B.C 280 Gibbons, Sidney Gore, Victoria, B.C 280 Glabe, Elmer F., president, Food Technology, Inc., Chicago, Ill 228 Goff, Thomas L., Portland, Oreg 280 Googins, John L., Moraga, Calif 279 Green, Joe T., Casper, Wyo 278 Green, Mrs. Willomae, Casper, Wyo 278 Grimm, Gary 0., Eugene, Oreg 279 Haig, Mrs. Neil, Seattle, Wash 278 Haines, C. Lawrence and Margaret M., Dubois, Wyo 307 Hammond, John L., Portland, Oreg - 277 Hango, Mrs. Betty W., Los Angeles, Calif 277 Harrang, James P., Eugene, Oreg 229 Herbert, Harlan B., president, Lake Region Audubon Society, Lakeland, Fla 230 Heyde, Dr. Edward C., Vancouver, Wash 275 Higgins, Carroll, and Lucile, Portland, Oreg 277 Hunter, Don L. Obsidious, Inc., Eugene, Oreg 276 Johnson, Dr. G. M., Bismarck, N. Dak 230 Johnson, Dr. G. M., North Dakota Chapter, National Wildlife Federation, Bismarck N. Dak * 231 Johnson, Joan L., Lake Forest, Ill 275 Johnson Paul C. Lake Forest, Ill 275 Jones,Albert F., San Leandro, Calif 274 Jones, Mrs. Casa, San Francisco, Calif 274 Jones, Clark H., San Bernardino, Calif 274 Jones, Leonard N. and Cora G., San Francisco, Calif 273 Joslyn, J. W., Conservation Committee, Pasadena (Calif.) Post No. 13, American Legion 231 Kahin, Mrs. Margaret M., director, Ring Lake Ranch, Dubois, Wyo~. - - - 273 Karl, Fred W. San Diego Calif 273 Klemann, Robert B., Delray Beach, Calif 273 Knudson Gene D., executive vice president, Willamette In4ustries, Inc., Portland Oreg 272 Koenig, John 0., Twenty-nine Palms, Calif 272 Krieger, Mr. and Mrs. Milton 272 PAGENO="0007" VII Page Lee, Edward B., Wheaton, Ill_ 271 Lindstrom, Deanne R., Gainesville, Fla 270 Lindstrom, John D., Gainesville, Fla 270 Litt, Michael, Portland, Oreg 270 Lodewick, Robin, Obsidians, Inc., Eugene, Oreg 276 Loughran, Lois, corresponding secretary, Sea & Sage Branch, National Audubon, Society, Santa Ana, Calif 270 Luca, Mrs. Susan, Berkeley, Calif 269 Luthman, Vernon A., Anchorage, Alaska 269 Lyon, David L., Mount Vernon, Iowa 269 MacBryde, Bruce 267 MacIntosh, Richard P., Alameda, Calif 305 Mager, T. Russell, Pocatello, Idaho 304 Mann, Peter R 266 Mark, Robert K., vice president, Stanford Conservation Group, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif 234 Marshall, John E., Seattle, Wash - 266 Marsters, Donald C., Portland, Oreg 266 Marston, Burton W., Laramie, Wyo 221 Martin, Stephen G., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oreg 265 McClymonds, H. P., Fish Camp, Calif 268 McClymonds, J. D., Fish Camp, Calif 268 McCown, George E., Boise, Idaho 268 McGehee, Dr. Thomas P., Roseburg, Oreg 267 McKinney, Sam D., director, Outdoor Program, Portland State College, Portland, Orcg 232 MeMahon, Dr. Leo J., Lander, Wyo 234 McNatt, Miss Norma 267 McNutt, Guy E., Vancouver, Wash 267 Meany, Phillippe 265 Meyers, Judge Robert K., Visalia, Calif 264 Miller, Fred N 265 Miller, Dr. Marian Hayes 265 Miller William F., Portland, Oreg 264 Moen, Stephen A., Eugene, Oreg 264 Monahan, G. L., Cascade Pole Co., Tacoma, Wash 235 Montgomery, Dr. R. W., Visalia, Calif 235 Moody, Earl F., Monrovia, Calif 263 Moody, Stuart, Berkeley, Calif 263 Morehead, Harold L., La Crescenta, Calif 263 Morsello, Gerald Paul, Prineville, Oreg 263 Moser, Mary C 263 Moser, That. C 263 Mounsey, William B., chairman, Wilderness Worksj~op, Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council, Denver, Cob 235 Mulcahy, Daniel E., Elk City, Idaho 262 Munchheimer, 1)r. Kurt H., Rio Dell, Calif 262 Munford, George W., Grayling, Mich 261 Myers, Alice, Los Angeles, Calif 261 Myers, Mrs. Anna Lai.ira, Covina, Calif 304 Nicolaysen, Mary Hester, Casper, Wyo 307 Noble, Carroll R., Noble's Angus Ranch, Cora, Wyo.. - - 261 Noble, Christina A., Noble's Angus Ranch, Cora, Wyo - 261 Nordstrom, William A., Portland, Oreg 260 Norman, Richard W., Norman & Stanish, architects, Portland, Oreg 260 Noyes, Richard M., Eugene, Oreg 260 Nyc, Mrs. Ruth E 259 Oberteuffer, Mr. and Mrs. W. H., Lake Oswego, Oreg 258 O'Malley, Harold, Lander, Wyo 258 Ostrem, Douglas D., Dallas, Oreg 257 Paige, Ronald F., Department of Parks and Recreation, County of Los Angeles, Calif 256 Pence, Nina, Kiamath Falls, Oreg 256 Pfeiffer, Mrs. Paul, Santa Cruz, Calif 256 Pierce, John G 256 Pomeroy, Kenneth B., chief forester, American Forestry Association, Washington, D.C 236 PAGENO="0008" VIII Page rosekan~y, Dick, timber manager, Frank Lumber Co., Mill City, Oreg. 255 flaines~ Miss V. Sydney, Seattle, Wash 300 Remley, David A., University of New ~Mexicoi Albuquerque, N. Mex - - 255 Reynolds, Stephen C., University of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg 237 Riney, Mrs. Inez, conservation chairman, Mount St. Helens Club, Long- view, Wash 237 Roberts, Arthur M.~ forest counsel, Western Forestry & Conservation Association, Portland, Oreg 232 Rocchi~ Ann, Greenbrae, Calif 254 Rogers, Charles, Riohland, Wash 303 Rose, Catherine, South Pasadena, Calif 254 Rosen, Irving L., Chicago, Ill 254 Roth, Arthur J., Los Angeles1 Calif 254 Ruby, Mike, Sierra Club, Seattle, Wash 238 Russell, Bruce H., Portland, Oreg 253 Ryther, Thomas E., San Francisco State College, San Francisco, Calif.. - - 252 Salera, Dr. Dante, Cupertino, Calif 252 ~aretsky, Richard, Los Angeles, Calif 252' Saxton, Robert H 251 Schindler, G. E., New~ Pi~ovidence, N.J 251 Selseth, Bernice M., Chicago, Ill 251 Seiseth, Ole, Chicago (IlL) Chapter, Isaac Walton League of America_ - -- 251 Secord, Reed, Reno, Nev 251 Sharp, Harold G., Oakland, Calif 250 Siddall, Mrs. A. C., Lake Oswego, Oreg 249 Sims, Raymond L., Creswell, Oreg 249 Smith, Dale, Lander, Wyo 248 Smith, Kay Lovelace, Chicago, Ill 248 Snow, Donald D., Seattle, Wash 248 Soderland, Mr. and Mrs. A. G., San Diego, Calif . 248 Sollie, Paul, Twisp, Wash 247 Squier, Anne W., Portland, Oreg 247 Stanford, Dr. Thad C., Salem, Oreg 247 Steveson, Linda, Bakersfield, Calif 240 Stewart, F. H~, vice president, Bohemia Lumber Co., Cottagegrove, Oreg~. 246 Stratford, H. R., Diamond 0 Ranch, Dubois, Wyo 246 Summer, Emory, University of Oregon, ~ugene, Oreg 248. Swanson, John, Berkeley, Calif 305 Swedberg, Mr~ and Mrs. Kenneth C., Cheney, Wash 245 Tank, Dr. Robert K., Redmond, Wash 244 Taylor, Lyle A., West Oovin~, Calif 243 Taylor, Mrs. Ruth M., West Covina, Calif 242 Tyler, Phil, Mount ~Tood, Oreg 242 Van Wagenen, Richard W., Washington, D.~ 241 Vivian, Mrs. Belle, Los Angeles, Calif 241 Wahi, Miss Marcelia S., Seattle, Wash 241 Wales, Edward M 240 Ward, Mary H 241 White, Burdette K., Idyliwild, Calif 238 White, Dr. `Elizabeth B., Cailam Bay, Wash 304 White, L. Dennis, Auburn, Wash 240 Willers, William B., Wisconsin State University, Oslikosh, Wis 238 Wilson, Monte D., University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 240 Zalesky, Philip H., Olympic Park Associates, Inc., Seattle, Wash 240 Zimmerman, Fern, Santa Ana, Calif 239 Zimmerman, T. Price, Portland, Oreg 23~ REsoLuTIoNS Board of Supervisors, County of Los Angeles, Calif 257 Columbia River Section, Society of American Foresters 224 PAGENO="0009" Ix PAGENO="0010" x PAGENO="0011" `H \~ H ~ PAGENO="0012" I 7,, \ N N ~-` PAGENO="0013" SAN ABRIEL, WASHAKIE, AND MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS AREAS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1968 U.S. SENATE, PUBLIC LANDS SuBcOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The s bcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 3110, N w Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman of the s bcommittee) presiding. Prese t: Senators Frank Church (Idaho), Lee Metcalf (Montana), Thomas H. Kuchel (California), and Clifford P. Hansen (Wyoming). Also resent: Senator Mark 0. Haffleld (Oregon). Staff embers present: Jerry T. Verkier, staff director; Stewart French, chief counsel; Porter Ward, professional staff member; and E. Lewi Reid, minority counsel. Senat r CHURCH. The hearing of the subcommittee will please come to order. This the time duly noted and set for hearings on three bills, S. 2531, S. 2751, and S. 2630. In 19 4, Congress and the President established the National Wildern ss Preservation System. Under provisions of the Wilderness Act, Pu lic Law 88-577, suitable additions may be made to the system with the approval of Congress. The fi st of these to come before the Congress since 1964 was the propose 143,000-acre San Rafael Wilderness Area of California. A bill esta lishing the San Rafael was passed last year by the Senate, but is st 11 pending final House action. The us we consider today would add three new areas to the Wildern ss System. S. 2531 proposed establishment of 36,137 acres to be ca led the San Gabriel Wilderness in California. S. 2751 would create t e Mount Jefferson Wilderness of 96,462 acres in Oregon. The third bill, S. 2630, would combine the existing South Absaroka Wilder- ness wit the Stratified Primiti~te Area and some adjacent lands to establish the WasI~akie Wilderness of 679,520 acres. Now think at this point, if the committee has no objections, we will mci de the text of these three bills, and also the message from the Presiden requesting them, in the record. (The ocuments referred to follow:) [S. 2531, 90th Cong., first sess.1 A BILL To designate the San Gabriel Wilderness, Angeles National Forest, In the State of California Be it e acted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America i$ Congress assembled, That, in accordance with subsection 3(b) of the Wi1dernes~ Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 891), the area classified as the (1) PAGENO="0014" 2 Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area, with the proposed additions thereto and deletions therefrom, as generally depicted on a map entitled "San Gabriel Wilderness-Proposed", dated March 17, 1967, which is on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, is hereby designated as the San Gabriel Wilderness within and as a part of the Angeles National Forest, comprising an area of approximately thirty-six thousand acres. SEC. 2. As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, the Secretary of Agriculture shall file a map and a legal description of the San Gabriel Wilderness with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives and such description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typographical errors in such legal description and map may be made. SEC. 3. The San Gabriel Wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in aecordanoe~ with the provisions of the Wilderness Act govern- ing areas designated by that Art as wilderness areas, except that any reference in such provisions to the effeótive date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a referench to the ei~eotivc date of this Act. SEC. 4. The pre~7iOus classification of the Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area is hereby abolished. (S. 2630, 90th Cong., first sess.1 A BILL To designate tha Stratified Primitive Area as S part of the Washakie Wilderness, heretofore known as the South Absaroka WildorneSs, fihosh~n6 National Forest, in the St5te of Wyoming; hnd for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in accordance with subsection 3(b) of the Wilderness Act of Septeffiber 8, 19~4 (78 Stat. 591), the area classified as the Stratified Primitive Area, with the proposed additions thbretO and deletions therefrom, comprising an area of approximately one hundred and ninety-six thousand acres as generally depicted on a map entitled "Washakie Wilderness- Proposed," dated June 15, i967~ which is on file and available for public inspec- tion in the offic~ of the Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, is hereby designated for addition to and as a part of the area herbtofore known as the South Absaróka Wilderness, which is hereby renamed as the Washakie Wilderness. SEC. 2. As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, the Secretary of Agri- culture shall file a ittap and a legal description of the Washakie Wilderness with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the Hottse of Representatives, and such description shall have the saute force and effect as if included its this Act: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typo- graphical errors in such legal description and map may be made. S~c. 3. `rhe Stratified Primitive Area additi~n to the Washakie Wilderness shall be administered as a part of the Washakie Wilderness by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas designated by that Act as wilderness areas, except thaj any reference in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this Act. SEC. 4. The previous classification of the Stratified Primitive Area Is hereby abolished. [S. 2751, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To designate the Mount Jeffart~oh Wtlderness, Willamatte, Deschutes, and 3lotint hood National Forests, In the State of Oregon Be it enacted by the Senate and House of R~presentatisss oj' the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, lii accordance with subsection 3(b) of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 891), the area classified as the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area, with the proposed additions thereto and deletions therefrom, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Mt. Jefferson Wilderness~- Proposed," dated August 1967, which is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Chief, Førest Service, Department of Agriculture, is hereby designated as the Mount Jefferson Wilderness within and as a part of Willamette, Desehutes, and Mount Hood National Forests, comprising an area of approxi- mately ninety-seven thousand acres. PAGENO="0015" 3 SEC. 2. As soon as practicable after this Act takes effect, the Secretary of Agricultu e shall file a map and a legal description of the Mount Jefferson Wilder~. ness with he Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United States Senate and the ouse of Representatives, and such description shall have the san~e force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of clerical and typo aphical errors in such legal description and map may be made. SEC. 3. The Mount Jefferson Wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary of Agricul ure in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas desi nated by that Act as wilderness areas, except that any reference in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to be a reference o the effective date of this Act. SEC. 4. The previous classification of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area is hereby ab lished. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1967. Hon. Hu ERT H. HUMPHREY, President of the Senate, Washingt n, D.C. DEAR R. PRESIDENT: Just 60 miles from the Los Angeles metropolitan area lies a wil erness of rocky cliffs and deep canyons inhabited only by rare California condors, eer, and other wildlife. Just la t February I asked the Congress to declare this area-the San Rafael Wilderne s-a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, both for the enjoy ent of our own and future generations and as a symbol of man's respect for natur `s work. The W lderness Act of 1964 gives us the authority to preserve this region and others lik it. When I signed that Act in September 1964 I noted that it was a major co servation measure which would preserve millions of "acres of this vast continent in their original and unchanging beauty and wonder." I now ropose that three additional areas-in California, Oregon, and Wyo- ming-al o be proclaimed wilderness areas. This action will not cost the American taxpayer penny. But it will enrich the lives of every citizen. £he Fe eral Government already has jurisdiction over these lands. They have been the ubjects of open hearings and intensive studies and have been recom- mended y the Secrejary of Agriculture for inclusion in the wilderness system. These hree areas are admirably suited to become additions to that system. The pr osed San Gabriel Wildnerness in California is a part of the Angeles National orest and comprises some 36,000 acres of primitive mountain terrain some 35 iles northeast of the City of Los Angeles. It is uninhabited and provides much nec ed opportunities for hiking, fishing, bunting, camping, and other public use. The M . Jefferson Wilderness ~rould comprise 96,000 acres now included within the Willa ette, Deschutes, and Mt. Hood National Forests, some ~0 miles from Salem, 0 egon. This wilderness contains the second tallest peak in Oregon, nearly 150 lakes, 160 miles of trails, and good fishing and hunting. The pr posed Wasl4akie Wilderness, Shoshone National ~`prest, Wyoming, in- cludes ne ny 680,000 acres. This area provides excellent hunting, a rugged region for bikin , and an opportunity to discover petrified remains of ancient forests. I urge he Congress to preserve these priceless national assets by approving their mel sion in the wilderness system. Si cerely, LYNDON B. JouNsoN. Senat r CHURCH. I would like to call on the distinguished Senator from C' lifornia, whose bill is first on the agenda this morning, for such re arks as he would care to make. Mr. Kuchel. STAT MENT OF HON. THOMAS. H. KUCH~L, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senat r KUCHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to appear oday before your Subcommittee on Public Lands, to testify in behal of S. 2531, which I introduced, to designate the San Gabriel Wildern ss, Angeles National Forest, in my State of California. PAGENO="0016" 4 It would establish a superb wilderness of some 36,137 acres. The proposed San Gabriel Wilderness Area is located in the San Gabriel Mountams ineastern Los Angeles County, Calif., about 5 miles north- east of Metropolitan Los Angeles. * This fine wilderness example lies within 50 miles of approximately 6 million people. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have long advocated the creation of recreational areas in close proximity to areas of popula- tion concentration. The southern California area presents a prime opportunity and need in this regard. People are more likely to use recreation facilities when they are within easy driving distance from their homes and offices. While it is essential that we preserve our superb natural areas that are remotely located, it is also essential that we retain these superla- tive examples of untrammeled nature existing close to metropolitan areas. As our population grows, nationally, and certainly in California, the demands on our recreational facilities will increase. Therefore, as I have often said, we must set aside the needed areas now, not only to satisfy the present demand, but to deal with our re- sponsibilities for providing for the future's requirements. It is encouraging that my San Gabriel Wilderness proposal has the support of all concerned Federal and State administrative and re- sources agencies, as well as receiving the enthusiastic support of responsible national and local conservation groups. I am happy to add that the total proposed wilderness area is within the Angeles National Forest, and therefore no private land will be acquired by virtue of this designation. I have no doubt that this committee will see the merit and wisdom of this proposal, recommended as it is by the administration, and supported as I say by public and private people interested in sound conservation. I ask consent that some comments I made in the Senate last fall when I introduced the bifi be incorporated at this point, Mr. Chairman, in the record. Senator CIIURCJI. Without objection, the comments will be in- corporated. (The document referred to follows:) [From the Congressional Record, Washington, Oct. 12, 1967] SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS AREA Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, on February 8 of this year, I had the pleasure of introducing a bill, S. 889, which would establish the San Rafael Wilderness Area in the Los Padres National Forest in California. The San Rafael bill is the historic first proposed addition to the Wilderness Preservation System established by the 1964 Wilderness Act. 5. 889 passed the Senate on May 2, 1967, and is currently pending in the House, where I understand passage is imminent. I now introduce for appropriate reference a bill to establish the San Gabriel Wilderness Area in the Angeles National Forest of California. The proposed San Gabriel Wilderness is located in the San Gabriel mountain range in eastern Los Angeles County, approximately 35 miles northeast of the city of Los Angeles. This fine wilderness example lies within 50 miles of approximately 6 million people. The proposed San Gabriel Wilderness comprises some 36,137 acres, including 34,807 acres currently designated as the Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area. The additional 2,490 acres proposed to be added to the primitive area acreage is contiguous to the primitive area and is also totally within the Angeles National Forest. Thus, no private land nor other public land would have to be acquired in order to establish the San Gabriel Wilderness Area. PAGENO="0017" 5 Underlying all of the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness is a granitic formation which has been cut to form deep, steep-walled canyons. Elevations range from 2,150 feet on the banks of the west fork of the San Gabriel River to 8,000 feet on Waterman Mountain; a greater portion of i~he area lies above 5,000 feet. This mountainous area has temperatures ranging from an approximate low of 20 degrees to a high of 100 degrees. Precipitation averages 32 inches a year and pri- marily occurs between November and March. During this period snow occurs at elevations above 4,000 feet but does not last long because the periods of freezing weather are short. As in the proposed San Rafael Wilderness Area, the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness is most attractive for use in winter and spring, owing to the very hot and dry summer and fall. During the summer and fall the danger of fire is great, the vegetation being explosively flammable, the temperature high, and the humidity low. The San Gabriel Wilderness is covered primarily with dense chaparral, with some low-grade, noncommercial timber covering approximately one-quarter of the area. While the area abounds in small wildlife, the higher elevations and peaks are part of the natural range of the big horn sheep. Some black bear and innumer- able deer reside in the area. Both Devil Canyon and Bear Canyon, located within the proposed wilderness, furnish good fishing for native rainbow trout. Since fire is a constant threat during the summer and fall months, certain fire control measures are necessary. While closure of the area during critipal months is often required, the threat of lightning fires dictates that firefighting forces must be provided good access over trails from the well-maintained peripheral roads and by helicopters which will land on small, hand-constructed clearings within the area. In addition, aerial fire detection activities will be increased and some fire- proofing will be done in spots where visitors tend to rest, eat, or camp. It is encouraging that the proposal which I introduce today has the support of all relevant Federal and State administrative and resources agencies. My pro- posal is also enthusiastically supported by a very great number of fine national and local conservation groups, including: The Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, the Southern California Chapter of Nature Conservancy, the California State Division of the Isaac Walton League of America, the Southern Council of Conser- vat~ou Clubs, many area chapters of the Audubon Society, the Southern California Section of the Society of American Foresters, many local counsels of the Boy Scouts of America, the Desomount Club, the National Parks Association, the California Council of Landscape Architects, as well as many other fine conserva- tion, garden, and riding clubs. Mr. President, I am honored to propose this fine addition to our ever-growing wilderness preservation system. As I said when I introduced S. 889: "The preservation of significant areas of land in our country in their natural state is mandatory. These areas provide present and future generations examples of the workings of nature unimpeded by human invasion. The areas are just as they would be if man had never come upon the earth. As the availability of such areas is reduced by the advance of man, the value of retaining them is amplified." I today echo my belief in those words, and encourage my colleagues to join me in urging the rapid consideration and passage of this most worthy measure. I ask that the bill be appropritely referred. The Acting President pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred. The bill (S. 2531) to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness, Angeles National Forest, in the State of California, introduced by Mr. Kuchel, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Senator CHURCH. I want to thank you, Senator Kuchel, for your remarks. I wonder if there is any other member of the committee who would like to be heard at this time on this bill or any one of the bills on the agenda? We would be happy to accommodate Members, if any are present. Senator Hansen, do you have any comment you would like to make? Senator HANSEN. I don't have any comment, thank you, Mr. Chairman, with reference to the bill that the Senator has discussed. I would like to say that I have introduced the Washakie Wilderness bill. This proposal recommends that 189,024 acres of the Stratified Primitive Area in the Shoshone National Forest, State of Wyoming, and 7,366 contiguous acres designated as wilderness by act of Con- gress and be added to the national wilderness preservation system. PAGENO="0018" 6 This proposal further recommends that primitive area status be lifted frOm 14,906 acres now included in the Stratified Primitive Area. This proposal further recommends that the existing South Absaroka Wilderness, 483,130 acres, which is immediately adj acent to the Strati-. fled Primitive Area, be combined with~ the 196,390 acres included in this report. The total added acreage therefore, would be 211,296 acres. It might be mentioned parenthetically that by including these acreages, all of which are in the Shoshone National Forest, ,we will have some 53 percent of the Shoshone Forest included in wilderness. I am here today and I will continue to be present at these hearings, so long as they may be in session, to hear from all of those witnesses who are back here. I know a number of people from Wyoming and other interested individuals as well are present. It is my purpose to listen closely to what Is said and then to try to make up my mind and my judgment independent'y of anyone else, so as to represent, as best I can, first, the people of the State of Wyoming, and then secondly, the broad national interest. I will be submitting for inclusion in the record a number of pieces of correspondence, some resolutions and some statements of position, and I ask unanimous consent at this time, Mr. Chairman, that such material as I will submit be included in the record. Senator Onuncu. Certainly. Senator HANSEN. I have no further statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Senator Hansen. Our first witness is Edward P. Cliff, the Chief of the Forest Service. Mr. Cliff, it is always nice to see you. STATEMENT OF EDWARD P. CLIFF, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. CLIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Senator CHURCH. If there is anyone, Ed, you would like to have sit with you, feel free to call them. Mr. CLIFF. Thank you. I have some fellows backing me up here, but 1 will try to manage by myself. Senator CHURCH. All right, I am sure you will do well. Mr. Cti~. I am pleased to speak for the Department of Agri- culture in support of ~ 2751, S 2531, and S 2630 These bills would designate the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, Willamette, Deschutes, and Mount Hood National Forests in Oregon; the San Gabriel Wilder- uess, Angeles National Forest in California, and the Washakie Wilder- ness, Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming, as units of the National Wilderness Preservation System. We in the Department of Agriculture have been working hard to implement the provisions of the Wilderness Act. We believe we have made good progress. Regulations and policy guidelines for the admin- istration and use of these areas have been published; field review has been completed and public hearings held on 12 o.f the 34 National Primitive Areas which must be reviewed by 1974 to determine their suitability or nonsuitabiity for inclusion in the Wilderness Systen~. PAGENO="0019" 7 The proposals before you today are three of these on which our review has been completed. As required by the Wilderness Act Secretary Freeman reviewed these three proposals and forwarded his recommendatjoi~s to the President. President Johnson submitted them to you. His recommendations are embodied in 5. 2751, 5. 2531, and S. 2630. Our progress thus far would not have been possible without the fine cooperation and assistance in the review process by the Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines in the Department of Interior. We are grateful for this. Strong public interest expressed at the field hearings and the large amount of citizen testimony also assisted us in developing our final recommendations. Before discussing the three Wilderness Proposals before you today, I would like to describe to you some of the principles we consider in determining suitability or nonsuitability of an area of land for wil- derness. The first step is to test primitive area and contiguous lands against the criteria for wilderness set forth in subsection 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. We recognize that these criteria are subjective, but when taken together they do provide a good basis for testing the qualifications of an area for wilderness. The land must pass that test. Our recommendations have to be based on conditions as they exist now, and not on conditions that might exist 50 or 100 years from nowj In developing some of the proposals you have before you today, we could not include certain areas because they do not meet the criteria presented in the Wilderness Act. One measure of suitability for wilderness is a weighing of other public values. For example, if these areas are not included in the Wilderness System, we would be able to construct water systems, sanitation facilities, and other similar structures which are pro- hibited in wildernesses. This would permit us to accommodate a far greater number of campers, hikers, horseback riders, and other back-country users, and better provide for their health and safety. Wilderness designation has an impact on other citizens needs too. The social and economic welfare of many Americans and the stability of many communities depends upon the carefully planned manage- ment and utilization of national forest resources. Timber must be grown and harvested. Watersheds must sometimes be modified to improve and stabilize water yield. This may mean conversion of vegetative types or erection of snow fences. Sometimes it is necessary to reseed or modify national forest ranges for the benefit of permitted domestic livestock. We need to carry out programs to better fish and wildlife habitat. This could involve trout stream improvement, vegetative type conversion, and wildlife watering installations. And throughout the national forests millions of hours of healthful outdoor recreation and enjoyment can and must be pro- vided for by the development of winter sports areas, campgrounds, picnic areas, and other special recreation facilities. These are all practices or installations which, while needed and appropriate in many places, do not conform with the criteria estab- lished for the designation and management of wilderness. We cannot 91-~953---68-----2 PAGENO="0020" 8 have them and wilderness too in the same area. We believe the value of the wilderness resources in the three proposals before you is greater than the possible benefits from other important resource use and activi- ties which will be forgone. Another consideration is the factor of need. Approximately 9 million acres or about 5 percent of all national forest lands are already in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Another 53~ million acres or about 3 percent of national forest lands are in primitive areas that are being studied for possible inclusion in the system. In addition there are a number of other areas with wilderness characteristics that we will also study. The Department of the Interior is also studying areas for possible inclusion in the Wilderness System. Taking all of this existing and potential wilderness into account, we strive to arrive at proposals which result in a reasonable balance between the need for wilderness and the need for nonwilderness recreation and other resource uses and activities. Once the basic wilderness unit is selected the placement of boun- daries becomes very important. Our 44 years of experience in the administration of wilderness has taught us that a properly placed boundary helps assure that the quality of the wilderness resource within the unit will remain high. National forest visitors appreciate having the boundaries on prominent topographic features which they can easily recognize. This prevents accidental disturbances of the wilderness atmosphere. We have also found bound aries are best placed on features such as ridges or rims which, in themselves, act to shield the wilderness resource inside from the effect of nonwilderness activities outside. These concepts have been followed to the extent possible in developing the three wilderness proposals before you. THE PROPOSED MOUNT ~1EFFERSON WILDERNESS The proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness is part of the Willarnette, Deschutes, and Mount Hood National Forests. It is located within the Cascade Range in part of Jefferson, Lynn, and Marion Counties in the State of Oregon. The area lies approximately 60 airline miles southeast of the city of Salem and extends along about 25 miles along the Cascades in a generally north-south direction. This proposed wilderness takes its name from its most prominent peak, 10,427-foot- high Mount Jefferson, Three Fingered Jack is another prominent volcanic peak in the south end of the area. The proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness will be an outstanding sample of Oregon's timber heritage. The area is 87 percent forested and about 70 percent of the forested area supports virgin timber of gold to excellent commercial quality. The area proposed for wilderness has an estimated commercial timber volume of 1.35 billion board feet. However, most of this volume has never been included in the calculations of allowable harvest for the three national forests involved because it has been included in the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area since the early 1930's. The proposal will have only a very minor effect on the timber available to support nearby dependent communities and industries. You will find more detailed information on timber and other resources and on our plans for administering the proposed wilderness in the re- port of Secretary Freeman. PAGENO="0021" 9 I would like to discuss the reasons we have chosen the particular boundaries of our proposal. Each area that I will describe is shown on the map on page 14 of the Secretary's report, and will be pointed out on the large display map before you. Our initial proposal for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness contained 95,450 acres. It was announced to the public in August of 1963, and a public hearing was held in June of 1964. However, because classification action was not completed before the Wilderness Act was enacted, a new hearing was held on the proposal in October of 1966. Sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of reclassi- fying the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area to wilderness. The boundary of the primitive area is indicated on the display map by an orange line. Following the hearing we concluded that our proposal should be enlarged by 1,012 acres to include areas designated 12 and 13 shown in dark green on the map. Area 12 includes the very scenic upper portion of Firecamp Lakes Basin. The boundary we recommend in this area will allow the de- velopment of much needed horse packing stations and campgrounds outside the wilderness. These facilities will provide a jumpoff point for the use of the wilder- ness. We will be able to construct the sanitation and other improve- ments which are badly needed for public health and safety and to protect the site and other values found in this small but very scenic basin. Area 13, encompassing 595 acres, was added to include an addi- tional mile of trail into Pamelia Lake which passes through majestic old growth Douglas-fir. A portion of this trail is shown in the photo- graph on page 17 of the Secretary's report. In our original proposal we recommended 11 separate areas not presently in the primitive area for addition to the wilderness. They are shown on the map, with black vertical lines, as areas 1-11. Our reasons for suggesting these inclusions are: Area 1 (491 acres) North Fork Breitenbush River, includes a series of waterfalls and several small lakes with high wilderness value. Area 2 (819 acres) South Fork Brietenbush River. This area was added to maintain the wilderness character of the upper reaches of the river, Trails follow both the north and south ridges to Jefferson Park. Area 3 (479 acres) Pamelia Lake. This addition includes Pamelia Lake and about 1 mile of Pamelia Creek. It provides a wilderness entry to the alpine areas through a dense stand of mature Douglas-fir timber. Area 13, which I discussed earlier, is an extension of this addition. Area 4 (216 acres) northeast of Lake Ann, and Area 5 (367 acres) Pine Ridge, were proposed to place the boundary on recognizable features. Area 6 (5,447 acres) Santiam Pass.. This major addition extends the boundary to identifiable features approximately one-half mile from the Santiam Highway. The alpine timber types and open meadows make this an ideal area for wilderness use. Area 7 (600 acres) Little Lake, was proposed for addition to place the boundary on recognizable topographic features. Area 8 (229 acres) Canyon Creek, includes wilderness values in the glacial cirque at the head of Canyon Creek. PAGENO="0022" 10 Area 9 (903 acres) Cabot Lake Trail. This addition will protect wilderness values in the Cabot Lake-Carl Lake Basin and provide a wilderness atmosphere along a primary access trail. Area 10 (3,970 acres) Candle Creek. This addition includes the Jefferson Creek and Cabot Creek lava flows. These extensive lava flows surrounding an island of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and white fir trees contribute exceptional wilderness and scientific values to the area. Area 11(380 acres) Pyramid Butte. This area was added to include Pyramid Butte and more of the Oregon Skyline Trail, both having significant wilderness values. Areas A through IT were recommended for exclusion from the primitive area for the following reasons: Area A (106 acres) Northwest Corner; Area B (305 acres) Wood- pecker Ridge; and Area C (156 acres) Grizzly Ridge were all suggested for exclusion to place the boundary on recognizable topographic features. Area D (1,440 acres), Minto Creek. This major exclusion includes parts of Lizard and Bingham Ridges. The highest public value for the area will be realized if it is developed for resources other than wilderness. Area E (629 acres), Marion Lake. This area is primarily valuable for recreation and is included in the Marion Lake Scenic Area as shown on the map. This new 1,596-acre scenic area includes Marion Lake, Marion Falls, and Lake Ann. Area F (270 acres), Turpentine Peak, was excluded to place the boundary on recognizable topographic features. Area G (522 acres), Minto Burn. This excludes an old burn with limited wilderness values and places the boundary on topographic features. Area H (56 acres), Skyline Road. These two small changes will ex- clude the existing Skyline Road and will place the boundary on recog- nizable topographic features. Our proposal for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness represents a net increase of 12 percent in the area dedicated ~o wilderness purposes. The brown shad ipg on the display map shows those areas which some groups and individuals who testified at the hearing recommended for exclusion from the administration's proposal. Areas 10 and J were recommended for exclusion because they con- tain a substantial volume of commercial forest land which could be managed for timber production. We concluded that the unique wilder- ness values present here outweighed the timber values. Areas 6, 7, K, and L were recommended for exclusion because some groups felt these areas should eventually be developed for winter sports. We have carefully studied the winter sports potential here. The areas rate only marginal or submarginal in meeting the charac- teristics necessary for successful commercial ski development. Winter sports needs for the foreseeable future can be accommodated by the expansion of existing winter sports areas outside of the proposed wilder- ness and by the development of potential sites elsewhere in the Oregon Cascades. Area I. (7Q0 acre~) was recommende4 for exclusion by the Con- federated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. The area is a PAGENO="0023" 11 part of 61,360 acres of national forest lands in the "McQuinn Strip." It is a long narrow sliver parallel to the Cascades Crest. Under the Act of July 3, 1948, all national forests receipts which are derived from the McQuinn Strip are paid to the Warm Springs Tribe. The tribe is concerned that the inclusion of this portion of the strip in the wilderness will diminish the benefits they would derive from it. Area I has been managed as a part of Mount Jefferson Primitive Area for nearly 30 years. It containS practically no commercial timber. The potential receipts from the McQuinn Strip would not be affected by inclusion of area I in the wilderness. We concluded, therefore, that it should not be recommended for exclusion. The areas shown in blue on our maps were recommended by a number of groups and individuals at the hearings as expansions of the administration's proposal. Area 14 encompasses some 26,000 acres along the west side of our proposal. We did not include area 14 in our recommendation for several reasons. Timber has been harvested in three different parts of the area, and high standard access roads have been constructed. This work is located in the South Fork of the Breitenbush River, in Whitewater Creek, and on the slopes into Marion Creek. These areas deafly do not qualify as wilderness under the criteria set forth in the Wilderness Act. Marion Lake, within area 14, has significant recreation and scenic importance. It is presently heavily used and additional facilities such as water systems, sanitation measures, tables, and fire grills are needed to assure the health and safety of users and protect the resources. Senator CHURCH. Ed, what is the access now to Marion Lake? Mr. Cliff. The road goes to within a short distance from the lake, as shown on the map. The road terminates before it gets to the area, and the access is by trail. It is a high class trail, about three or four feet wide, and everybody has to hike in to the lake. Senator CHURCH. What distance is it from the end of the road tG the lake itself? Mr. CLIFI?. It is about a mile. Mr. WORF. It is a little more than a mile. About 2 miles. Mr. CLIFF. About 2 miles. I stand corrected. Senator CHURCH. About 2 miles. Do you have figures that would indicate the visitor days at the lake? Mr. CLIFF. Yes sir. In 1967, based on trail counts, Marion Lake received 10,000 visitor-days use. It is very heavily used. We predict that that use will triple by the year 2000. It will double by the year 1976, and that is the reason why we feel that it should not be included in the wilderness. It is not an untrammeled area. It is being heavily trammeled, and we need to get in there and provide sanitation facilities, and water and fire grills, and other recreational improvements, to accomodate the use that is already being made there, and to protect the resources of the area. In recognition of its value, we have set it aside as a scenic are~i. There will be no road access, and there wjll be no timber harvesting in the basin. PAGENO="0024" 12 Senator CHURCH. Under the scenic area concept, are you planning to construct campground facilities around the lake itself? Mr. CLIFF. Yes, I think we need to do something to control the use in there, and to prevent people from polluting the lakes, and we need fire protection facilities. We will keep them just as primitive as we can. There will be only trail access. The lake is now heavily used by motorboats. We would like to phase out the use of the motorboats, but there are hundreds of boats that now use the area. Senator CHURCH. How do they get to the lake with the motorboats? Mr. CLIFF. They pack them in or tote them in on boat carriers, and they pack the motors in on backpack. There are over a hundred boats stored up there over the winter. It is a heavily used area, and it is going to be more heavily used. Senator CHURCH. Are there any boathouses or anything of that kind that have been constructed around the lake? Mr. CLIFF. I understand there is one boathouse. There is also a guard station. Senator CHURCH. Are there any sanitary facilities now in existence there? Mr. CLIFF. Yes, there are some. There have to be some. But we need more. Senator CHURCH. Thank you. Mr. CLIFF. Continuing with my statement, we estimate that there were 10,000 visitor days of use in this small Marion Lake area in 1967. In view of all these factors, we recommend that this area not be in- cluded in the wilderness. The Regional Forester has designated 1,596 acres around Marion Lake as a scenic area. It will be managed for recreation purposes without roads or timber harvesting. Another major factor in our decision not to include area 14 is the very substantial volume of high quality commercial timber it con- tains-over 900 million board feet. The harvest from the area will generate nearly 600 man-years of employment per year. The inclusion of area 14 in the wilderness would have a serious adverse effect on the economy of adjacent communities. Demand for national forest timber in the Santiam Valley is exceed- ingly heavy. The proposed wilderness already contains a very sub- stantial amount of high quality timber land. There are no ecological associations found in area 14 which are not already represented in the proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness. We did not recommend inclusion of area 15 because of plans to develop road access and campgrounds at Square and Long Lakes. This recreation development in close proximity to the north Santiam Highway will provide adequate sanitation facilities needed to protect these heavily used areas. It will also provide a base camp for day use of the wilderness. Area 16 does not offer a suitable boundary and would add little to wilderness values already present in our proposal. PROPOSED SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST This proposal results from a review of the Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area, Angeles National Forest, in California. PAGENO="0025" 13 It encompasses 36,137 acres of the rugged and beautiful San Gabriel Mountains, approximately 35 miles northeast of Metropolitan Los Angeles. Two major canyons cut deeply into this area, which lies on the north side of the west fork of the San Gabriel River. Its live streams are covered by a canopy of hardwood trees of many species. The canyon slopes are covered with impenetrable brush, taller than a man on a horse. The ridgetops and scattered pockets along the slopes contain mixed conifer stands. From the sharp high peaks a large portion of the Los Angeles Basin is visible. We believe that this small but significant area will be another good addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. A more detailed description of the proposed wilderness is contained in the Secretary's report. The proposed wilderness contains extensive stands of dense and highly flammable brush and fire control will be a major consideration in management. The south half of the primitive area was burned over by the gale fire in 1957. Firebreaks have been constructed outside the west and north boundaries and there is a natural rock barrier along the east side. The area is surrounded by high standard surfaced highways on three sides and a good gravel road on the fourth. Twenty small helicopter landing spots have been developed within the area to permit rapid access by firefighters. These will be retained. Safety zones will also be cleared of excess fuel around the more popular camping spots. The San Gabriel Wilderness proposal was presented for public consideration at a hearing in Altidina, Calif., on July 27, 1966. The views presented were unanimously in agreement with the Forest Service proposal. Accordingly the area included in S. 2531 is identical. with the proposal presented at the hearing. The proposal includes one area not previously in the primitive area, and recommends that five small areas within the primitive area. not be included in the wilderness. These areas are shown on page 9 of the Secretary's report and on the display map before you. Area A encompassing 2,490 acres in Bobcat Canyon is recom~ mended for addition. It is suitable for wilderness and has a well- defined boundary. There are no important resource uses which would be foregone by wilderness designation and the area has no potential recreation development sites. Areas 1 and 5, of about 5 acres each, are private land on the edge of the primitive area, and therefore should not be included in the wilderness. Areas 2 and 3 encompass a 500-foot strip along the Angles Crest Highway and Crystal Lake Highway. The deletions will provide for future highway maintenance and management needs. Area 4, containing 632 acres along the west fork of the San Gabriel River, is recommended for deletion because it contains an improved road and therefore does not qualify for wilderness. Also a planned area future flood control development will encroach further on this area. Senator CHURCH. Before we move on to the proposed Washakie Wilderness could we see the map of San Gabriel another moment, please? PAGENO="0026" 14 Did you have at your hearings, Ed, any serious dispute about the boundaries of this San Gabriel Wilderness? Was there substantial support for including any other areas that you have not discussed, or was there considerable agreement as to boundaries? Mr. CLII?F. No, there was unanimous opinion on this one, I am glad to say. There were no proposals for additions, or for deletions. Senator CHURCH. And you have actually added more than you have deleted in this case, have you not? Mr. CUFF. Yes, that is true. It amounts to 1,200 acres more, in round numbers. Senator CHURCH. There is no serious controversy that you are aware of concerning this proposal? Mr. CLIFF. None whatever. It had the endorsement of the Federal agencies concerned, and of the State and local agencies, as well as of oitizen groups. Senator CHURCH. Fine. Thank you. PROPOSED WASHAKIE WILDERN~SS, SHOSIJONE NATIONAL ~OREST, WYO. Mr. CLIFF. The proposed Washakie Wilderness results from study of the Stratified Primitive Area, Shoshone National Forest, in Wy- oming. The proposal recommends (1) that 189,024 acres of the Strati- fled Primitive Area and 7,366 contiguous acres be added to the Na- tional Wilderness Preservation System, and (2), that primitive area status be lifted from 14,906 acres now included in the primitive area. We also recommend that the existing 483,130-acre South Absaroka Wilderness lying immediately adjacent to the Stratified Primitive Area be combined with the 196,390 acres of the Stratified Primitive Area recommended for wilderness classification. The combined area, totaling 679,520 acres, would be named the Washakie Wilderness, as a memorial to the great Chief Washakie of the Shoshone Indian Tribe. The proposed wilderness is part of the Shoshone National Forest in Fremont, Hot Springs, and Park Counties, all in northwestern Wyoming. It is approximately 200 miles northwest of Casper and 80 miles southeast of Yellowstone National Park. The area o~ers opportunities for unusual adventure, challenge, and excitement, and experience in self-reliance, initiative, and judgment in human safety and survival. Its unusual geology and the petrified remains of forest, ferns, and animals are its most unusual features. An important consideration in developing our proposal for the Washa- ide Wilderness is the relation of the Stratified Primitive Area to other wilderness and primitive areas in Wyoming. Wyoming has a relative abundance of designated wilderness and primitive areas. Only one State, Idaho, has more than Wyoming's 2.4 million acres. Nearly 28 percent of the national forest land in Wyoming is in wilderness or primitive area. About 29 percent of the proposed wilderness (56,685 acres) is for- ested, and 62 percent of these forested acres are of commercial quality. A public hearing on the proposal was held in Riverton, Wyo., on December 8, 1966. Sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of desig- nating the Stratified Primitive Area as wilderness and a number of those who testified recommended a wilderness encompassing over ~50,000 acres more than our proposal. PAGENO="0027" 15 The various areas involved in these recommendations are shown on page 18 of the Secretary's report and on the display maps. Areas F and 5 (2,598 acres) in Horse Creek: These areas were not included in the original Forest Service proposal. However, further study in light of the views presented at the hearings revealed that these areas are suitable for wilderness. Their inclusion would extend the wilderness for nearly 2 miles along a major access trail and place the very scenic Boedeker Butte in the wilderness. The proposed boun- dary follows major and minor ridges and water courses that are well defined on the ground. The administration's proposal recommends that the following areas now a part of the Stratified Primitive Area not be included in the Washakie Wilderness. Area 1 (8,602 acres), Middle Fork of Wood River. This drainage contains approximately 900 acres of patented mining claims in the Dundee Mountain-Bald Mountain-Smuggler Gulch area of the Stratified Primitive Area. The studies made~ by the Geological Survey and Bureau e~ Mines revealed that there is potential for copper, meliyWenum, and other minerals outside the patented lands in this drainage. Active explora- tory work is being done in this district. The boundaries of the proposed wilderness~ in this area have beea placed on natural ridges and streams which are readily recognizable. Area 2 (634 acres), Lean-to Creek. This area is not included in our proposal because it is primarily valuable and needed for recreation development. Areas 3 and 4 (3,443 acres), Lincoln Point-Wiggins Fork. Areas 3 and 4 are now part of the Stratified Primitive Area but we recommend they not be included in the proposed wilderness. Those who recommend against this suggest that the areas include outstandingly scenic lands, under the escarpment, which should be included for their scenic, esthetic and natural foreground values. They suggest that the boundary be placed along the foot of the slope. Our primary consideration is the need to establish a satisfactory boundary. In the Wiggins Fork and Caldwell Creek areas we have recommended a boundary which follows a series of small ridges and drainages to connect prominent topographic features. The proposed line w:ill be readily recognizable by users and will prevent accidental violations of the wilderness. The boundary is placed on features which provide the best possible shield for the wilderness resource inside from nonwilderness activities outside the boundary. A line could be drawn to include the face of the escarpment, but it would require extensive surveying and signing to make it recognizable to the visiting public. Area 3 also contains lands which are needed to meet long term public needs for auto access recreation and to provide a take-off place for travel into the wilderness. Area 6 (1,331 acres), Parque Creek and Ramshorn Basin. We recommend that area 6 not be included in the wilderness because it faces into areas from which timber has been harvested. The existing boundary follows an indefinite line across the face of a slqpe. The proposed boundary follows prominent topographic features. The Ramshorn Basin will be an important recreation area, and will~ be managed for other resource use. These nonwilderness activities would erode the wilderness resource on the slopes of area 6. PAGENO="0028" 16 The following areas, contiguous to the existing Stratified Primitive Area, are recommended in our proposal for inclusion in the wilderness. Area A (1,472 acres), South Fork of Wood River, was recommended in order to place the wilderness boundary on good topographic features. Area B (3,296 acres), East and West Forks of Sixmile Creek; was proposed to include the scenic upper basins on the west side of the Ramshorn. We were able to establish the boundary on good, definable topographic features. The following were recommended by various groups and individuals during the hearings as expansions of the administration's proposal. Area C (4,260 acres), Middle Fork of Wood River, lies in the same drainage areas as area 1. As I explained earlier, this Wood River area was not included in our proposal because of private holdings and existing and potential mining activity. Area D (8,130 acres), Bear Basin. Proponents for this expansion urge that it should be given wilderness designation primarily because it is important elk habitat. One reason for not including this area is the fact that it is penetrated by approximately 2 miles of road into Bear Basin. Another reason is that a recent national forest recreation survey identified a recreation development site on this area which will be needed to meet projected public demand. The area is important elk range, and elk do migrate here through it in the spring and fall. We have identified the important elk calving areas in that portion of the Shoshone National Forest. None of them are located with area D. There is no evidence that wilderness designa- tion is essential to the maintenance of elk herds. The necessary co- ordination between recreation and elk management is achieved by careful advance planning. In Wyoming, we work closely with the State game and fish department in these efforts. Area E (1,740 acres), Double Cabin. Proponents of this expansion urge that it be included as a foreground area and elk habitat. However, these lands do not qualify for wilderness because they contain sub- stantial areas from which timber has been harvested. Area F-i (2,000 acres), Lincoln Point. Area F-i was not included because it does not qualify for wilderness. Timber has been harvested some quite recently, on both sides of Lincoln Point, on the slopes into Cartridge Creek and on the slopes into Wiggins Fork. Areas G, H, and I (2,120 acres). Proponents of these expansions urge that they be included as foreground area and because they are elk habitat. Area G has a boundary that is difficult to recognize and it faces into areas where timber has been harvested. The boundaries for areas H and I would not be recognizable on the ground unless they were heavily signed. A portion of area I was logged over for railroad ties between 1920 and 1926. Areas H and I also contain commercial timber. The Washakie Wilderness Report indicates that operable timber volume in these areas is about 10 million board feet. This is an error. That volume is the total operable volume found in Fivemile and Sixmile Creeks, only a part of which lies within areas H and I. Area J (30,240 acres), East and West DuNoir Creeks. Proponents of this expansion point out that it is prime, wild habitat for important elk herds, and it also serves as a migration route of PAGENO="0029" 17 these herds to and from vital winter feeding areas such as the East Fork Elk Winter Pasture. They also stress the scenic beauty of the area. They express concern that timber harvesting in these areas would destroy valuable elk habitat, and that public travel which would occur on access roads would disrupt elk migration. Area J contains about 13,575 acres of commercial quality timber with an estimated volume of over 100 million board feet. About 30 million board feet of this timber is operable under present market conditions and logging methods. The presence of commercial timber in this area is not the reason we did not include area J in our proposal. The area we have proposed for wilderness contains a much greater commercial timber volume. One of our principal reasons for not including area J is that nearly all of the mature lodgepole pine stands throughout the drainages of both East DuNoir and West DuNoir Creeks were logged over in the period between 1920 and 1926. These operations involved the cutting of most of the trees which were of a size that could be hewn into railroad ties. Some of that early logging also took place within the spruce fir type. Sled and wagon roads were cut through the timeber for access. Most of these roads nre still plainly evident, although many are no longer passable be- cause of fallen timber. However, a number of miles of these roads are regularly used with four-wheel-drive vehicles by hunters, fisher- men, and other recreationists. Other evidence of timber harvesting is still plainly noticeable because of the stumps, campsites and skid-. ways. In view of this evidence of human activity, these areas, even though very scenic, do not qualify for wilderness under the criteria of subsection 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. This subsection defines "wilderness" in part, as an area "retaining its primeval character and influence * * * with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable." The past logging and jeep roads in area J have left substantially noticeable imprints of man's work. Area J no longer retains its pri-. meval character and influence. The inclusion of area J in the proposed wilderness would lower the quality of the wilderness system. It would have the effect of lowering the quality level to which the act directs us to manage all wilderness in the system. In addition to the question of suitability of these areas, we con- sidered other J)ublic values, particularly future recreation needs. Most of area J offers outstanding back country recreation oppor- tunities. In addition, the recent National Forest Recreation Survey identified five development sites within area J as being necessary to meet public needs for auto access type family recreation. Oppor- tunities for recreation use on adjacent national forest land will become increasingly important to protect the park values in nearby Yellow- stone and Teton National Parks from being lost due to overcrowding. After adoption of our Washakie Wilderness proposal, nearly 53 percent of the Shoshone National Forest will be managed for wilder- ness. Most of the remaining 47 percent, including the DuNoir Basins, should remain available for general recreation and other resource uses. PAGENO="0030" 18 An additional factor is the DuNoir Glacier, within area J-the only glacier in Wyoming not already in a designated wilderness, primitive area, or roadless portion of a national park. This is the only opportunity we know of in this general area to make a glacier easily accessible for general public study and enjoyment. There are no ecological associations or types in area J or any of the proposed expansions which are not already well represented within our proposal or in other nearby designated areas. Wilderness designation is not necessary for the maintenance of elk herds. Elk do migrate through the DuNoir drainages in the spring and fall, just as they do through many other parts of Wyoming national forests and just as they do through the areas below the proposed expansions. Normal recreation use and roads do not disrupt these migrations. Thousands of elk migrate each year to the Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole. Most of these elk cross a number of roads including at least one oiled highway. If a special circumstance in the DuNoir area is found necessary to justify it, the forest supervisor has authority to close specific roads, trails, and areas to vehicular traffic for the period of the migration or to otherwise modify the management and use of the area. Our local forest officers have determined that there are no major elk calving areas with area J. Further, even if some elk calving did take place here, wilderness designation is not essential for the manage- ment of such areas. Timber harvesting in patches and strips benefit elk by increasing the amount of desirable habitat. In making our review and recommendations as provided for in the' Wilderness Act, we have carefully followed our basic multiple use charter which directs us to manage all the renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination which will best meet the needs of the American people. We urge enactment of S. 2751, S. 2531, and S. 2630. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. `Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much, Ed. I would like to ask this question, first of all: Taking into consideration the additions and deletions that you propose in this last case, what kind of a net re- duction is involved in the size of the proposed wilderness area as compared to the former primitive area? Mr. Cliff. About 7,600 acres, Mr. Chairman. Senator CHURCH. Out of a total of how many acres? Mr. CLIFF. A little over 200,000 acres. Our proposal would be' 196,000 acres. Senator CHURCH. I have a letter here that has been sent to me by Senator Carl Hayden, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I want to' read you the letter and then ask the questions that he requests me to ask for the purposes of this record. The letter reads: DIiAR FRANK: It has come to my attention that there has been an erroneous interpretation of the intent of Congress by the Departments of Agriculture and luterior with respect to miueral leasing provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, particularly as it is being applied to leasing applications in the Washakie Wilder- ness area. I have been advised that the Forest Service will not approve the issuance of oil and gas leases within a wilderness area, or proposed wilderness area. If this is true, in my opinion, their action is contrary to the expressed provisions of the Wilderness Act, and I feel that this situation should be corrected. PAGENO="0031" 19 I regret that because of other commitments, it will not be possible for me to be present on Monday, February 19th, and participate in the subcommittee hearings on S. 2630, the Washakie Wilderness bill. In my absence and to clarify this matter, in order that we may be assured that the Wilderness Act will in the future be administered in accordance with the intent of Congress, I will appreciate your asking the appropriate administr~i.. tion representatives the following questions: Now here are the questions: First, "Have any U.S. oil and gas leases with the right of surface entry been issued in wilderness or proposed wilderness areas since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964?" Mr. CLIFF. No. There have been no' oil and gas leases issued in wilderness or primitive areas with the right of surface entry since the passage of the Wilderness Act. Possibly there may have been a case of an exploratory permit where directional drilling from outside the wilderness area would be possible, but I don't know of any cases that have been approved. Senator Cnuncii. So your answer to Senator Hayden's first ques-. tion is "No?" Mr. CLIFF. That is right. Senator CHURCH. His second question is, "What is the practice of the Forest Service when requested by the Department of the Interior for its recommendation to an application for a Federal oil ~nd gas lease within a wilderness area?" Mr. CLIFF. Well, as you understand, Senator, the oil and gas leases are issued by the Interior Department, after referraI~to the De~pai~tment of Agriculture where national forests are concerned. The Department of Agriculture has the opportunity to recommend for or against the issuance of a lease or permit. Even before the Wilderness Act passed, it was our policy to ree~ ommend against oil and gas leasing in primitive areas, and wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act provides that policies and authorities in effect at the time of the passage of the act continue. We have continued out policy of recommending against applications for oil and gas leases in established wilderne~s areas and primitiv'eareas, except where these resources could be exploited by directional ~rilling from outside. It is possible in places, and it is common practice in the ~i4 and gas industry, to extract oil and gas by directional drilling. We have not objected to that, but we have objected to the construction of r~ads, the use of drilling equipment, and all the other *disturbance~ that would result from oil and gas exploration with other types of drilling. Senator CHURCH. The practice you are following now is consistent with the practice that you followed prior to passage of the Wilderness Act. Is that correct? Mr. CLIFF. That is right. That is absolutel~r correct. Senator CHURCH. Does the Department of A~gricultupe possess a veto power in connection with the decision as to whether or not an oil and gas lease will be issued, under. the present law? Mr. CLIFF. It is not an absolute veto power, as I understand it. The Secretary of the Interior has final authority to issue these leases on the lands derived from the public domain. We have an advisory role, but in every instance, the Secretary of the Interior has followed the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to these lands. PAGENO="0032" 20 On acquired national forest land, which are mainly in the East and are not involved in these wilderness areas, the Secretary of Agriculture does have a veto power. The Secretary of Agriculture has final say on whether or not there will be oil and gas leasing on the acquired national forest lands. Senator CHURCH. The third question is as follows: ~"If all applica~ tions for U.S. oil and gas leases with the right of surface entry have been rejected by the administrative agencies, what is the basis of such rejection in the face of the clear directive and the legislative history of the leasing provisions of the Wilderness Act which permit oil and gas leasing until December 31, 1983?" Mr. CLIFF. Well, the legislative history as we understand it, said that the authorities and the policies that were in effect at the time the act was passed would be continued. At that time, we had a firm policy and it was our practice to recommend against mineral leasing in primitive and wilderness areas. It is our feeling that the oil resources outside of these areas should be fully exploited before moving into a precious wilderness area. This is our basic reason. We don't believe that we are violating the intent Qf the law. Senator CHURCH: To be certain that I understand your position, you are testifying that, prior to the passage of the Wilderness Act, there existed a discretionary right on the part of the Federal Govern~ ment to either lease or not to lease, but this differs from other mining laws, where the locator of a mining claim has certain rights by force of law which are not subject to denial by the administrative agencies. You are testifying further that, prior to the enactment of the Wild.~ erness Act, it was the practice of the Forest Service to recommend against the issuance* of oil and gas leases in primitive areas, and that yOu have continued that practice since the passage of the act, and find nothing in the act that would compel the Forest Service to change the practice. Is that your position? Mr. CLIFF. That is a very good statement of our position, Senator Church. Senator CHURCH. Now the final question Senator Hayden asks is as follows: "Under the current procedure of the administrative agencies in rejecting oil and gas lease applications, how would it be possible for wilderness areas to be explored for oil and gas possibilities prior to December 31, 1983?" Mr. CLIFF. Well, I presume that the only way they could be ex~ plored is by studying the geological structure in the areas themselves, and in adjacent areas. The adjoining areas that are not in wilderness could be explored, or the areas within a wilderness could be explored by directional drilling from the outside. In the case of the Washakie, we had an application from a major oil company involving an area on the eastern end of the Washakie. They wanted to go in and explore for oil in that area, Considering all of the values involved, and the probability of oil's being there, based on Geological Survey reports, we recommended against it. We might have recommended against it, even if the probabilities of finding oil had been ~somewhat better. But the Stratified Primitive Area is mainly made up of igneous material, heavy stratas of igneous material, laid down in a horizontal plane. You will recall that the PAGENO="0033" 21 Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines did make a survey of this area, and their report is available. The Geological Survey reports, as I understand them, indicated that the sedimentary formations were very deep, and hea~vily overburdened With the igneoi~s, ~nd that the likelihood of oil and gas in this area is not very good. Signal Oil Co. feels that it is worth a chance to go in and explore. That is where we differ. Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much. Senator Hansen, do you have any questions? Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pursue some of the questions that Senator Church has been asking, just a bit further. You spoke, Dr. Cliff, about the ways in which an oil company could go about making some projections on the possibility that oil might be found within a wilderness area. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's assume that an oil company did indeed test the area indicated by the letter C on the map. I think one of the oil companies does indeed have some leases in this general area. It may be south of there. I am not certain, but I think it is in that Area, and possibly in the cross- hatched area on the map, a~nd they also have some l~ses, I believe, or at least are interested in the area southeast of section 1, on the other side of the wilderness. Supposing they were to drill these two areas on either side of the eastern extremity of the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area, and were to develop oil and were to present geologic evidence indicating that this structure, this anacline goes right through the wilderness. What then would be the position of the Forest Service, in receiving an application for an oil lease in the wilderness area? Mr. CLIFF. Well, that is a hypOthetical question, but first we would ask them to see what they could do in extracting oil under- neath there with directional drilling from the outside. If the evidence indicated that the oil and gas resources were of such overwhelming nature and national importance that they trans- cended the value of wilderness, we would have to take this into account and consider the facts as presented. We do have authority to permit the exploitation of oil and gas in a wilderness or primitive area if it is justified under the circum- stances. Up to this point, we have not felt that it is justified. I think we would have to take a hard look ~t all the facts, and the national needs, including wilderness needs, and try to form sOme judgments. Of course, we would be assisted in this by our colleagues in the De- partment of Interior, who are the real experts in the oil and gas business. Senator HANSEN. I understand you, then, to say that you do have the authority to permit exploitation of oil and gas within a wilderness area, but whether or not this would be done would reflect your considered judgment as to the importance of the development of this resource, compared to the damage that would be done other important resources that are preserved and protected by the wilder- ness designation? Mr. CLIFF. That is correct. Senator HANSEN. I have no further questions on that. PAGENO="0034" 22 If I may, let me preface several statements and questions I have b~* readiffg into the record from a letter that I wrote to one of my constituents not too many days ago. It may be helpful at this point in setting'the stage for the consider- ations that I would like to share with you, Dr. Cliff: I am persuaded that we must look at the total picture of the recreational uses and potential recreational uses and abuses in the entire State of Wyoming. I am impressed by the fact, for instance, that 53 percent of the Shoshone National Forest will be either the primitive or wilderness status under the present proposal. Further, at least3,7i7,384 acres, including the Robles area, the Grand Teton the Yellowstone park, within the Immediate vicinity of the proposed wilderness, Washakie Wildei~ñess, are ~dready designated fOr preservation in the wild state. This becomes relevant when we look at the extreme pressure which Grand Teton and Yellowstone are getting mr recreational uses. This pressure becomes greater every year, and Park Service and rorest Service plannere are rapidly coming to realize that the national forests surrounding these parks must ie called upon to bear some of the heavy use burdens that now fall on the parks. FGr this r~ason the Park Serv4ce wishes to retain some areas surrounding the boundaries of prOpQsed wilderness for multiple use purposes. I think this locuses attention upon the timbering that is an im- portant use-but only one of the important uses-to which forest areas are oftentimes put. In this regard, I intend to follow through by exercising continuing legislative oversight in the development of these timbering resources. I am convinced that some of this area that we are talking about here this morning is very de1i~ate, it is very tender, it can be eas~1y damaged or destroyed, and I am certain that a lot, of the people who have seen the timber operations in. this part of the Shoshone Forest are deeply disturbed over what they have seen. They tell me that the erosion `has increased very markedly, that there h~s been much more cutting by some of the thwide~storins and cioiul bursts that we have .in this area, now that the timber has been removed, than was the case before. They are cencerned also about the fact that, while generally an area of rather heavy snowfall, there are areas, because of the short growing sea~on, and because of the scarcity of moisture during the growing season, that do not bring about the regenerative forces of nature so as to re-timber an area as quickly as might otherwise occur in other parts of the country. Becáu~e of this, I would like to' ask you and' the Forest Service to keep me apprised, if you will, of your plans fo'r timber sales and tirn~ ber development in this area, and I would like to know `ahead `of time, before the fact, rather than after the fart, if I ma~y, so as to be better apprised, to see as best I' can, that the Multiple Use `Act `is indeed being followed. I say that because there has been widespread concern `over the timbering operations in this area. I would like to introduce at this time into the record an eight-page letter that was written to me by M. M. Nelson, the Deputy Chief of `the Forest Service, wherein he treats in detail a number of questions I have raised, `and that have been raised b~ others as to the justification for the Forest Service's position on the different tracts that are in controversy, either `within or outside `the area as proposed by the Forest Service. PAGENO="0035" 23 I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that it be inserted into the record at this point. Senator CHURCH. Without objection, it will be so included. (The document referred to follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTflRE, FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D.C. February 15, 1968. Hon. CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR HANSEN: This letter is in response to your request that we provide additional information about the proposed Washakie Wilderness. Specif- ically, you asked for the Forest Service reasons for not including within the pro- posal 13,858 acres in the Middle Fork of Wood River identified as Areas 1 and C; 30,240 acres identified as Area J in the headwaters of East and West DuNoir Creeks; Areas 3, 4, and F-i, encompassing 5,443 acres in the Lincoln Point and Wiggins Fork area; and 8,130 acres identified as Area D in the Bear Basin area. The above letter and number designations refer to the map on page 18 of Secre- tary Freeman's report on the proposal, a copy of which is attached. All of these lands were proposed for inclusion by the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and others at the administrative hearing held in Riverton, Wyoming, on December 8, 1966. These proposed additions were carefully studied. A discussion of each area in- cluding our reasons for not recommending their inclusion in the Wilderness Systeul are as follows. Area 1 and C Middle Fork of Wood River Area C was never in the Primitive Area. Area 1 is presently in the Primitive Area but is recommended by the President for declassification. This drainage contains approximately 896 arces of patent mining claims in the Dundee Mountain-Bald Mountain-Smuggler Gulch area of the Stratified Primitive Area. The studies made by the U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines, De- partment1 of Interior, during the summer of 1965 revealed that there is exploration potential for copper and molybdenum outside the patent lands in this drainage. The patent mining claims and the mineralized area lie in the Kirwin Mining District in which there is activity in exploratory work. Mining development on the patents and exploration, with its accompanying access, would be incompatible with wilderness values. This area is not an essential part of the proposed Wilderness. The boundaries of the proposed Wilderness have been placed on natural ridges and streams which are readily definable. East and West DuNoir Creeks (Area J) These areas have never been part of the Primitive Area. The primary justification given by proponents of this addition was that it is prime, wild habitat for important elk herds, and it also serves as a migration route of these herds and others to and from vital winter-feeding areas such as the East Fork Elk Winter Pasture. They also stressed the scenic beauty of the area. Concern was expressed that timber harvesting in these areas would destroy valuable elk habitat, and the public travel which would occur on access roads would disrupt elk migration. A principal reason for not recommending the inclusion of Area J in the Wilder- ness is the fact that nearly all of the mature lodgepole pine stands throughout the drainages of both East DuNoir and West DuNoir Creeks were logged over in the period between 1920 and 1926. These operations involved the cutting of most of the trees which were of a size that could be hewed into railroad ties. Those trees too large or too small for that purpose were left standing. This resulted in the removal of from 30 to 60 percent of the volume, depending on the stand, Some of that early logging also took place within the spruce-fir type. Much of the logging was done in the winter. The ties were skidded to the streambanks and floated out with the high waters from the spring snowmelt. Sled and wagon roads were cut through the timber for access. Most of these roads are still plainly evident, hut many are no longer passable because of fallen timer. However, a number of miles of these roads are regularly used each summer with four-wheel- drive vehicles by hunters, fishermen, and other recreationists, The evidence of timber harvesting is still plainly noticeable because of the stumps, chips, camp- sites, skidways, etc. 91 9531-6S--------3 PAGENO="0036" 24 In view of this, these areas, even though very scenic, do not qualify for Wilder- ness under the definition provided by Congress in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act which says in part: A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitiation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable. . . ." (Italics added.) We would object to an interpretation that the past logging and recently used jeep roads in the DuNoir Drainages represent "primeval character or influence" or are "substantially unnoticeable," because it would lower quality standards for the entire Wilderness Preservation System. The criteria used in determining suitability or nonsuitability for inclusion of lands in the system is also our guide for administering areas once they are included. For example, the Wilderness Act permits ". . . any activity, including prospecting for the gathering of information about minerals or other resources if such activity is carried on in a manner com- patible with the preservation of the wilderness environment." It would be dif-~ ficult, therefore, to tell a miner that his use of a motor vebicle to make a few trips into a Wilderness for prospecting purposes would leave evidence more "noticeable" or less "compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment" than the old timber-cutting and well-worn four-wheel-drive roads found in the DuNoir Drainages. In addition to the question of suitability of these areas, we considered other public values, particularly future recreation needs. The National Forest Recrea- tion Survey completed in 1960 identified five development sites within Area J as being necessary to meet the public needs for auto-access-type family recreation by the year 2000. As you know, the main access routes from the east to Yellow- stone and Teton National Parks pass through the Shoshone National Forest. Opportunities for recreation use on adjacent National Forest land will become increasingly important to prevent National Park Values from being lost to over- crowding. In 1964, a formal planning effort by the Froest Service in cooperation with the Park Service was initiated for the areas surrounding Yellowstone and Teton National Parks. During these planning efforts, the Park Service people have pointed out that by 1972, if their planned recreation developments are on schedule and the current upward trend in use continues, they will reach maximum capacity for taking care of people in the parks. Overnight use will, therefore, have to be accommodated on private or National Forest lands outside, the parks These accommodations need to be located so that people can spead the night there and still visit the parks on a daily basis. The potential recreation sites in Area J are especially important in meeting this need. Those in Areas 2, 3, and D are also important. If Congress adopts the President's proposal for the Washakie Wilderness, nearly 53 percent of the Shoshone National Forest will be managed for Wilder- ness purposes and will not be accessible to the majority of Wyoming's vacation visitors. We believe most of the remaining 47 percent of the Shoshone National Forest should remain available for general recreation purposes rather than being managed for Wilderness. One additional factor that should be considered is that the DuNoir Glacier, within Area J, is the only major live glacier in Wyoming not already in a desig- nated Wilderness, Primitive Area, or roadless portion of a National Park. There is an opportunity, if it is left out of the Wilderness, of making this glacier acces- sible for public study and enjoyment by constructing a good, high-standard hiking trail from a future nearby road. Area J also contains about 13,575 acres of commercial-quality timber with an estimated volume of over 100 million board feet. About 30 million board feet of this timber are considered operable under present market conditions and logging methods. About half of this operable volume (15 million board feet) would be removed in the first harvest cycle. This timber resource is important to established industry at DuBois, Wyoming. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that Wilderness designation is necessary to the maintenance of elk herds in that area. Elk do migrate through the DuNoir Drainages in the spring and fall, just as they do through many other parts of Wyoming National Forests and just as they do through thc~ areas below the proposed additions. 1-lowever, experience does not support a corclusion that PAGENO="0037" 25 normal recreation use and timber management activities will necessarily disrupt these migrations-certainly the existence of roads or timber-harvest areas, in themselves, would not. As you know, there are several thousand elk which migrate each year to the Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole. Most of these elk cross a number of roads including one oiled highway. If a special circumstance in the DuNoir area is found to justify it, the Forest Supervisor has authority under Secretary of Agriculture Regulation U-6 (C.F.R. 251-25) to close specific roads, trails, and areas to vehicular traffic for the period of the migration or to otherwise modify the management and use of the area. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department could also adjust hunting regulations as necessary to prevent disturbance of migration in the fall. These measures would be worked out in cooperation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel and would be included in the Ranger District Multiple-Use Plan. Local Forest Officers, in cooperation with personnel of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, have determined that there are no major elk-calving areas within the proposed addition. Further, even if some elk-calving did take place within the proposed addition, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that Wilderness designation is essential for the management of such areas. On the contrary, a majority of the elk-calving in Wyoming takes place on lands not of wilderness character. We recognize that there may be a need to modify management and use activities during the calving season. We do this in other National Forest areas. These measures are worked out in cooperation with the personnel of the State Game and Fish Department. It should be pointed out that elk on the summer range depend upon a com- bination of open areas for feeding and nearby timber for cover. Thus, timber harvesting in patches and strips benefits the elk by increasing the amount Of timber-opening edge available. Forage production is also increased because of better sunlight and moisture conditions. In regard to the elk-wilderness relationship, it is interesting to note that the Umatilla National Forest in eastern Oregon reports nearly twice as many elk as any other National Forest land in the Nation (an estimated 30,800 head): yet, it has no designated Wilderness and is, in fact, served by a road system; and timber harvesting programs are carried on over most of the Forest. There is one roadless area covering about 100,000 acres in the northern portion of the Forest, but the elk are distributed throughout the Forest. The Umatilla National Forest contains 1,188,882 acres. In contrast, the Teton National Forest, which encompasses 1,729,322 acres with 563,460 acres designated as Wilderness, and the Shoshone National Forest, which encompasses 2,458,648 acres with 1,286,174 acres presently designated for Wilderness purposes report an estimated 13,200 and 12,600 elk respectively. An estimated 5,740 elk were harvested from the Umatilla National Forest in 1966; while in the same year, the combined harvest from the Teton and Shoshone National Forests was 5,910 elk. Some of those who proposed the addition of the DuNoir Drainages to Wilder- ness expressed the need to control the use of over-the-snow vehicles in order to prevent the disturbance of `wintering elk herds. Such machines are prohibited in Wildernesses. However, while the area recommended for inclusion does offer good snowmobile terrain, it is not used by the elk in winter. its Closure to snow- mobiles would, therefore, have the' effect of forcing those machines into lower country where they would interfere with wintering elk. Access road develop- ment in Area J would increase the value of the DuNoir Drainages as snowmobile terrain. The Forest Service recognizes the importance of big game on the National Forests. We work closely with the personnel of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in achieving a proper balance between the game animals and their habitats and in coordinating other National Forest uses and activities with wildlife needs. As an aid to this work, we have recently completed a very com- prehensive game range analysis for that portion of the Shoshone National Forest which includes the Stratified Primitive Area. Areas 3, 4, and F-i (Lincoln Point-Higgins For/c) Areas 3 and 4 are now part of the Stratified Primitive Area but are recom- mended for declassification by the Forest Service. Area F-i has never been included in the Primitive Area. Proponents of these additions suggest that the areas include outstandingly scenic lands, under the escarpment, which should be included for their scenic, esthetic, and natural foreground values. They suggested that the boundary be placed along the foot of the slope and on presently unsurveyed section lines east and south of Lincoln Point. PAGENO="0038" 26 Area F-i was not included in the President's proposal to Congress because it does not qualify for Wilderness under criteria set forth in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. Timber has been harvested, some quite recently, on both sides of Lincoln Point on the slopes into Cartridge Creek and on the slopes into Wiggins 1?ork. A primary consideration in the Forest Service decision to not recommend Areas :3 and 4 for Wilderness was the need to establish a satisfactory boundary. Our 44 years of experience in administering designated Wilderness has taught us much about the proper location of boundaries. We have found that far fewer admini- strative problems occur if the public is able to readily recognize the boundary on the ground. In Wiggins Fork and Caldwell Creek areas, we have recommended a boundary which follows a series of small ridges and drainages to connect prominent topographic features. The proposed line will be readily recognizable by users and will prevent accidental violations of the Wilderness. A line could technically be drawn to include the qualifying country on the face of the escarpment, but it would take extensive signing and/or fencing to make it recognizable to the visiting public. Another principle of Wilderness boundary establishment used here is the de- ~irability of placing the boundary on features which provide the best possible shield for the wilderness resource inside from nonwilderness activities outside the boundary. Ridges or high, rocky rims usually serve this purpose best. Area 3 also contains lands which are needed to meet long-term public needs for auto-access recreation. The inclusion of the qualifying portion of Areas 3 and 4 in the Wilderness would increase the number of acres in Wilderness status, but it would add little to the enjoyment of visitors within the Wilderness. Bear Basin (Area D) This area was never a part of the Stratified Primitive Area. Proponents for its inclusion argue that it should be given Wilderness designation because it is im- portant elk habitat. A major reason for not including the area in the President's proposal is the fact that it is penetrated by approximately 2 miles of road into Bear Basin. The National Forest Recreation Survey also identified one recreation development site which will be needed to meet projected public demand in the year 2000. The area is not an integral and essential part of the proposed Washakie Wilderness. The area is important elk range, and elk do migrate through it in the spring and fall. With the help of local Wyoming Game and 1~ ish personnel we have identified the important elk-calving areas in that portion of the Shoshone National Forest. None of them are located within Area D. As stated earlier in our discussion of the DuNoir Drainages, there is no evidence that Wilderness designation is essential to the maintenance of these elk herds. Any conflicts which might occur between recreation and elk management will be resolved by special provisions in the Ranger District Multiple-Use Plan developed in cooperation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. In urging all of these additions, a number of those who submitted views at the Forest Service hearing in Riverton expressed the concern that Wilderness should not consist of only "rocks in the Crest Zone." The proposed Wilderness is charac- terized by deep, narrow valleys exposing strata which were built up by volcanic activity. Broad flat-topped mountains and plateaus separate these valleys, and the unique geology is one of the area's principal charms. The area was not chosen as a forested Wilderness or to represent all ecological associations in Wyoming's mountains. However, we have carefully studied all proposed additions; and there are no ecological associations found in any of them which are not already well represented in the proposed Washakie Wilderness, the adjacent Teton Wilderness, or in other Wildernesses or Primitive Areas in the National Forests of north- western Wyoming. Approximately 29 percent of the land proposed by the President for addition to the Wilderness System is forested, and 62 percent of that forested area supports timber of commercial size. A report prepared for Congress in 1961, when it was considering Wilderness legislation (5. 174), shows that the Wilder- nesses and Primitive Areas in Wyoming, other than the Stratified Primitive Area, contain 828,600 forested acres (38 percent of their total area) and that 44 percent of these forested acres support commercial-quality timber. That same report shows that approximately 10.8 percent of the commercial-quality timber acrei~ge on the National Forests of Wyoming is in Wildernesses or Primitive Areas. Total recreation visits to the Shoshone National Forest in 1966 was 715,200 visitor-days (12 patron hours make one visitor-day). Of this, 120,800 visitor-days or 16.9 percent of the total was made in the Forest's two Wildernesses and three Primitive Areas. The Stratified Primitive Area was the least popular. It received PAGENO="0039" 27 only 5,700 visitor-days use (4.7 percent of the total wilderness use) even though it includes 15.8 percent of the designated acres on the Shoshone National Forest. You also asked us to provide you with information about the timber resources available for harvest by irnjustry in the Dubois area. The installed capacity of the Dubo:is mill is 52 million board feet annually. It can feasibly draw timber from the Wind River Working Circle on the Shoshone National Forest, a portion of the Teton National Forest, and a portion of the Bridger National Forest. The total combined allowable harvest on the Bridger and Teton National Forests is 70 million board feet. However, the portions of those Forests within reach of the DuBois mill have a combined allowable harvest of only about 45 million board feet. In addition to the Dubois mill, five other mills with a combined capacity of 51 million board feet annually are competing for the timber on the Bridger and Teton National Forests. The Wind River Working Circle of the Shoshone National Forest has an allow- able harvest of 19.6 million board feet. Your interest in this important and complex multiple-use question is appre- ciated. Please call on us again if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely yours, M. M. NELSON, Deputy Chief. Senator HANSEN. I would like to ask for the inclusion in the record at this point an excerpt of a letter from Mr. Neil H. Rahm, regional forester of the northern region, wherein he responds to some questions that were asked by me and referred to him by the Chief of the Forest Service, Dr. Cliff, who is here with us this morning. I want to refer specifically to one part of his letter. I read now from Mr. Rahm's letter. Am I pronouncing his name right, Dr. Cliff? Mr. CLIFF. Yes. Senator HANSEN. He says: The Park Service pointed out that by 1972, if their planned recreation develop- ments were on schedule, and the upward trend in use continued, they would have reached maximum capacity for taking care of people over night in the park. We then reviewed the available national forest land along park entrance roads which were located sufficiently close to the park, where people could spend the night, either in camp grounds, trailer courts, or motels, and still visit the park on a daily basis. These areas were then identified on forest service plans as "hold areas," to be reserved until such time as the need developed for more public accommodations. We also have to consider the extent of private lands available for future public service development. It was decided at this meeting that we should prepare a joint map for the entire area, and indicate on this map existing and potential overnight accommodations and capacities for both Park Service and Forest Service lands. This map was completed in 1967, but it is now being revised by region two to include additional information which we over looked in the first go around. I would like at this time to present and ask unanimous consent for the inclusion in the record of the map to which I have just referred. Senator CHURCH. Without objection, it will be included by reference. Senator HANSEN. Before I left Jackson, Wyo., my home town, to come back for this session of the Congress, I spent most of an after- noon with the supervisor of the Teton\ National Forest, and he ex- plained in detail what the Teton is d ing, along with and in con- junction, I think, with the Targhee, the Custer, the Gallatin, and the Shoshone, to make it possible for people who come out to visit this great northwestern part of Wyoming, and the contiguous areas in your State of Idaho, Senator Church, and in the State of Montana to enjoy this great area, without being forced to get reservations ahead of time, If they propose to visit either Grand Teton or Yellow- PAGENO="0040" 28 stone National Park, which as I have already indicated by the year 1972 would be completely filled, they would have to go on a reser- vation basis, unless expanded use can be made of this area. The superiutetident of the Teton National Forest told me what was being done, and I was quite impressed with that, and the map that I have, introduced into the record points up what is being done. Now I understand, Dr. Cliff, that some of the reasons for excluding certain areas that have, been proposed for inclusion on the south and the southwest sides of the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area were among others, that you think these are important to the overnight accommodations and picnic areas that people must use. Am I right in that? Mr. CLIFF. That is right. And this is especially true with regard to the DuNoir drainages. There are five identified potential sites in the DuNoir Creek area. There is one in Bear Basin that will be needed for recreation use by people who want auto access. We have been engaged with the Park Service for several years now, analyzing the coordinated development plans of the national parks and the surrounding national forests, just as you have described. A number of organizations have been urging this regional planning approach, and the development of public facilities outside the national parks, and in the national forests. As you can see by the map, the Yellowstone National Park is almost surrounded on three sides by wilderness and primitive areas, and there are just corridors coming up from the east that give access. Our present national forest-developed facilities are taxed to capac- ity right now. We can develop more along those corridors, but the best sites have already been developed. If we proceed with this regional plan, we are going to have to go out further, over Togotee Pass on the Washakie side and the Wind River side, to develop some of these facilities. This is one of the principal reasons we feel that these areas should not be included. We have to preserve opportunities for this recreation use. Senator HANSEN. Dr. Cliff, we have a great many values-a great many interests and concerns that we must keep in mind. You have referred to the presence of game and wildlife in this area, and there will be persons testifying specifically on these problems before these heatings are concluded, but I would like to hear from you, if I may, as to whether the Forest Service has given adequate consideration in your judgment to the proposals that it has made and which are em- bodied in the bill that I have introduced, adequate for the management of the elk, deer, bear, mountain sheep, moose, and fish that are in these areas, and the availability of these important wildlife resources to the public. Mr. CLIFF. Yes, we have, Senator. We hired a full-time wildlife biologist in 1963 to work on the Shoshone Forest, and specifically at Dubois, in this area. He has been studying elk migration and the elk calving areas, the elk habitat problems, as well as other wildlife needs in this area, for the past 5 years. We have given strong attention to this for many years. We have identified the principal elk calving grounds and the migration routes. We have worked with the local game people on this. Of course, I don't agree that you need to set up a wilderness area every place you have an elk migration route, or a calving ground. Most of our elk PAGENO="0041" 29 range in the west is outside of wilderness, and some of our best and most productive herds are outside of wilderuess. Some of our most critical problems of harvesting, proper harvest- ing of the elk crop, are in wilderness areas, and- Senator HANSEN. Why is that? Mr. CLIFF. Well, it is because wilderness and primitive areas are relatively inaccessible, and we don't get the hunting use that is needed to properly harvest game crops. Right north of the two DuNoir drainages, is the 450,000 acre Teton Wilderness. There are no livestock in there, except packer stock, and one of the most critical big game management problems we have is in that Teton Wilderness because it does not get adequate harvesting. There are problems of over protection of these big game herds that have to be dealt with, and two of the notable ones are in this general area-the northern Yellowstone herd and the Jackson Hole herd. There are other examples where in the West, some of our best and most productive elk herds are in areas which are developed and used for multiple purposes, and they are accessible. The elk migrate, and they calve, and they can be protected without the wilderness designation. I could name dozens of situations if I had time, and give you the evidence that this is the case. So I don't give much credence to the argument that you need wilderness status to protect elk habitat. Senator HANSEN. One of the concerns that I have heard expressed a number of times is the effect that a timbering operation will have upon game hunters. Under that broad overall question, two state- ments immediately come to mind. One is that the elk habitat, or the game habitat, will be changed rather markedly with a timbering operation. No. 2, that as a timber- ing operation proceeds, if it is done in the manner that I think most of us have seen put into application in this part of the country, it will bring with it the opening up of an area with innumerable roads. Now what, in your judgment, will be the effects of these two situations on the management of game animals? Mr. CLIFF. Well, in the first place the opening up of the dense forest stand, by timber harvesting, if it is done properly, will improve forage for big game. There are many examples of this across the country. You get a growth of shrubs and lesser vegetation that is desirable for big game. You increase the so-called edge effect-the mixture of openings and edges-which is desirable for big game habitat, if it is properly done. I can cite many examples of this, where it has been beneficial to deer and elk, particularly. Now the other impact, the one of roads, which makes the elk range more accessible, of course exposes the big game animals to more hunting, which in many cases can be desirable, It exposes them to some interference that was not there before the roads were built. These things can be controlled. The control of hunting is a function of law enforcement and game regulation. This can and is being done, all the time, by State game departments, by fixing the seasons and bag limits, and limiting hunting, if necessary, as I pointed out in PAGENO="0042" 30 my testimony, if there is possibility of interference with game on migration routes or during calving, this can be avoided by the timing of other resource use, by closing certain roads, or by closing certain areas during the critical period. So it is a matter of management and law enforcement. Game management is a profession that can be practiced, and it can be practiced on land that is even very close to civilization. It has been demonstrated all over the Eastern United States, and all over the West, as well. Senator HANSEN. From some observations over the years, I think one of the really useful tools that we have recognized in Wyoming insofar as game and fish management is concerned is the memoranda of understanding that might be entered into between State officials and Federal officials. I joined with some other Senators in proposing legislation which would clearly define and leave no doubt as to the intent of the Congress insofar as the management of a game and fish and wildlife within State boundaries is concerned, but that, as the present time, is simply some legislation that is before the Congress to be considered and I hope to be acted on favorably. But in the meantime, would you look with favor upon working out cooperative wildlife management arrangements, wherein the State of Wyoming specifically in this area could be right on the ground, and could have a full say, or at least be heard in what it believes ought to be done in the way of management of our wildlife resources? Mr. CLIFF. Senator Hansen, we do look with favor on these kinds of arrangements, and we do have those kinds of arrangements right now. The Forest Service has not been a party to the argument or disputes over control of resident game in the various States. Senator HANSEN. We appreciate that, I might add. Mr. CLIFF. Our regulations and policies recognize the role and the right of the States to manage the game animals themselves. We have cooperative agreements with all of the States in which national forests are located. We consider our role to manage the habitat on the lands for which we are responsible. We have close working relationships with the States, and we have these overall memoranda of understanding. In a number of places, we have memoranda of understanding covering specific areas, specific herds, and we encourage this. We want to go just as far as it is necessary and desirable in this direction. Senator HANSEN. One of the growing and one of the very important recreation uses that is going to be made of this entire northwestern Wyoming mountain area is what we call snowmobiling. Have you given any consideration to the impact that this particular use may have on the economies of the towns in northwestern Wyoming, of the impact it may have on game migrations and wintering areas, and the con&ibution it can make toward a full year-round use of these areas by the recreationing public? Mr. CLIFF. Yes, we certainly have. Snowmobiling is something relatively new. It is becoming very popular in many places. Of course, we don't permit snowmobiles in wilderness areas, or in primitive areas. These are prohibited, the same as any other mechanized method of travel. We do permit snowmobiling outside of wilderness areas. PAGENO="0043" 31 People like to get into some of these back areas, and if there are roadways or trailways, they can be used in the wintertime without damaging the terrain. Snowmobiling could be permitted in these areas that we have proposed not be included. I don't think it would have any effect on the elk migrations in the areas themselves. The elk are wintering outside of these areas. They are down below. The snowmobiles have access to these areas now. We may have to do something about controlling the use of snowmobiles on the winter elk ranges, but the winter ranges are outside of this wilderness or outside of any area that anybody has proposed for inclusion in the Washakie Wilderness. Senator HANSEN. You are saying that this particular use might build up on these elk winter ranges to the point-~- Mr. CLIFF. It could. They have to go through the wintering areas to get to the high areas, and there could be interference. But whether these wilderness proposals are approved or rejected there would be no impact on the elk wintering ranges. Senator HANSEN. I want to get a little more information, if I may, on your timbering practices. I think I am somewhat familiar with the economic importance of timbering to Wyoming and the number of jobs that it provides. But I am concerned about the manner in which this timbering is being accomplished. Do you think that there is any threat posed by your present timbering management practices to this area that I think is really in pretty delicate balance? Mr. CLIFF. Well, I don't know what specific area you think is in delicate balance. Senator HANSEN. The area from the East and West DuNoir Creeks, and the area that has been recommended by some for inclusion in th~ system, and the area which you do not recommend be included. Mr. CLIFF. Certainly one of the things that we have been conscious of for many years is the watershed relationship. We don't want to do anything in the way of timber harvest `or road construction or anything else which will damage watershed ~ alues. rrhis consideration is paramount in our multiple use planning. Senator HANSEN. Do you have the authority, sufficient authority, adequate authority, in your judgment, to take whatever steps are necessary in order to see that the total landscape is protected and held secure adequately? Mr. CLIFF. Yes, we do. We have all the authority we need, and we exercise that authority. The greatest conflict between the timber~ harvesting and the maintenance of esthetics is the impact of certain harvesting practices on the landscape. Some species, and lodgepole pine is one of them, are managed best through even-age management. This involves clear cutting in patches or strips, and this is `objectionable and abhorrent to many people. ` Clear cutting or patch or strip cutting temporarily disturbs the landscape But it is the only way we can properly regenerate a disease- free forest in this forest type. Selective cutting of lodgepole pine results in diseased progeny if you have disease already established as we do in this area. PAGENO="0044" 32 I am sure we can handle the watershed aspects. As a matter of fact, we can improve water yields by timber practices. We have demonstrated this. On the other hand we withhold from operation any areas which cannot be managed without watershed damage. The impact on esthetics is more difficult, but I think this can also be handled. One of the outstanding examples is right in your own Jackson Hole, where we have done this kind of management. Har- vesting is fitted into a pattern of natural openings that look very normal and natural from just a little way off. This is the sort of landscape planning that we are trying to do on our timber sale areas everyplace. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce at this J2oint in the record a letter from Dr. Cliff written to me the 5th of February, which deals specifically, I think, with some of the points he is now making. Which also includes citations on the appropriate parts of the Federal Code which, as I understand, spell out in detail the grant of authority that you have to do the job that you think is necessary and indicated and adequate in order best to protect the natural resources. Senator CHURCH. Without objection. (The letter referred to follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D.C., February 5, 1968. Hon. CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, U.S. Senate. DEAR SENATOR HANSEN: This is in response to your January 18 letter in which you said that it was your understanding that the Forest Service has been working on a classification for some Forest Service lands to be described as "near natural areas". The term "near natural areas" was once used to describe a broad category of National Forest lands which were specifically designated for management in a near natural condition. We no longer use this term. However, National Forest Wildernesses and Primitive Areas do meet this description. Attached is a map brochure showing the location of all National Forest Wildernesses and Primitive Areas and a copy of the regulations governing their administration and use. We also have authority under Secretary of Agriculture's regulation U-3 (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 251.22) to classify areas to be managed primarily for recreational use substantially in their near natural condition. Examples of areas set up under this classification are scenic areas, geological areas, archeological areas, historical areas, and botanical areas. Attached for your information is a list dated January 1, 1964, which gives a brief description of all such areas which had been so designated at that time. Secretary of Agriculture's regulation U-4 (Title 36, Code of Federal Regula- ~`tions, Section 251.23) gives the Chief of the Forest Service authority to establish a series of areas to be known as "research natural areas". These areas are to be retained in a virgin or unmodified condition except where measures are required to maintain a plant community which the area is intended to represent. Attached for your information is a list of experimental forests, experimental ranges, and research natural areas. Your continuing interest in the National Forests is appreciated. If you have additional questions, please call on us again. Sincerely yours, EDWARD P. CLIFF, Chief, Forest Service. Senator HANSEN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Senator. I have received a letter from Senator McGee from Wyoming, which has been called to my attention this morning. It is directed to me, PAGENO="0045" 33 and it reads as follows. I think I will read the letter into the record, Tile asks that it be included, and also, the text of an amendment that he proposes to the bill. I think while you are here, it would be well to read the letter, and then ask for your comment on it, so that we may have the record complete with respect to it, insofar as the posi- tion of the Forest Service is concerned. The letter reads: Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed you will find an amendment to S. 2630, to designate the Stratified Primitive Area in Wyoming as a part of the Washakie Wilderness. In effect, my amendment to S. 2630 would add roughly 40,000 acres to the Forest Service proposal as found in the bill. The basis for offering the amend- ment is founded on two concepts: The first of these is that while there is some controversy over this additional acreage, it is better to err on the side of too much rather than too little. The second concept is to bring to the attention of the committee not only the con- troversy but the pertinent data which could resolve the controversy. In short, to test the validity of the amendment. As I understand it, such testing is one of the chief functions of a committee hearing. The five areas which my amendment seeks to add to the acreage described in S. 2630 are the upper east and west DuNoir Creek area- That would be the area J on the map, would it not?- the Lincoln Point Area- That would be F-i on the map- the Wiggins Fork Area- Is that designated as area 3? Mr. WORF. Correct. Senator CHURCH. Area 3 upon the map: And the Bear Basin Area- Which is designated as area D on the map. It is argued that the DuNoir Basin is an elk habitat which needs the protection of wilderness designation. The other areas are submitted on the grounds that the boundary line should extend down the escarpment and approach, rather than following the peaks and ridge lines. I ask that you include this letter in the record, as well as consideration of the enclosed amendment. The insights and judgments of the Public Lands Subcom- mittee will be of the utmost and abiding interest to me. Indeed, I shall count on your findings as a basis for my own conclusions. The letter is signed by Senator Gale McGee, and included with the letter is a proposed amendment. Without objection, the proposed amendment will be included in the record at this point, (The amendment referred to follows:) AMENDMENT TO 5. 2630 A BILL To designate the Stratified Primitive Area as a part of the Washakie Wilderness, heretofore known as the South Absaroka Wilderness, Shoshone National Forest, in the State of Wyoming, and for other purposes To amend S. 2630 to include the following areas designated on Map "B" on page 18 of the U.S. Forest Service report "A Proposal-Washakie Wilderness- Shoshone National Forest-Wyoming": Area J. (Upper East and West DuNoir Creek.) Remainder of Area F-i. (To include Lincoln Point.) Remainder of Area 3. (Wiggins Fork.) Remainder of Area D. (Bear Basin.) Senator CHURCH. I wonder, Ed, if you could give us your comment on Senator McGee's amendment? PAGENO="0046" 34 Mr. CLIFF. Well, Mr. Chairman, my testimony and the examination by Senator Hansen went into all of these proposals in some detail. We just don't think that the DuNoir Creeks qualify as wilderness under the definition of the Wilderness Act, because of past activities, and present evidence of the handiwork of man. Furthermore, as I have just elaborated, we don't believe that wil- derness designation is either necessary or desirable for the protection of the elk migration routes. This is rather a function of management, and of law enforcement. Furthermore, the DuNoir drainages contain at least five identi- fiable areas that need to be developed for public recreation of the type that can be reached by automobile. Lincoln Point, as I testified previously, has been cut over on two sides. Wiggins Fork, area 3, presents some interesting problems relat- ing to definition of boundaries. When the Stratified Primitive Area was set up, that line was drawn on a map, and as you can see, it doesn't follow any topographic features, or even landmarks. It is just an arc placed around that basin. It can't be identified as presently drawn, without a great deal of engineering and surveying, and then it would have to be heavily signed for people to recognize it. There is one recognized public recreation area that needs to be developed at the north end of the corridor, as a jump-off place for travel into the wilderness. That area may look level on the map, but there are not many public use sites that are desirable for development in it. We could, as I testified, define a line under the escarpment, but it would not be easily accomplished. This is unsurveyed country. There is no General Land Office survey of this particular area. The Bear Basin area, area D, is already penetrated by a road, and there is one needed public recreation site in there. A part of area D, the part lying to the west, has wilderness char- acteristics, and if a proper boundary could be defined which segregated that part from the part penetrated by the road, it might justifiably be added. We wouldn't have very much quarrel with adding part of the Bear Basin area, if we could get a desirable boundary line. I think that completes my comments on Senator McGee's letter. I appreciate hearing it. I think with what I have said, and with the testimony that has already been given our analysis is defined, and I am sure that the witnesses that will follow will give their analysis of the same situation. Senator CHURCH. Do you know of any other natural boundary in the area D portion, other than the one you have settled upon, that would meet your requirements? Mr. CLIFF. The road goes into the basin, about the center, as in- dicated by the pointer on the map. The part that might be added lies to the west. Senator CHURCH. To the west of the road? Mr. CLIFF. West of the road, and we would have to find someplace that you could define as boundaries-preferably on topographic fea- tures. We considered that, and decided, that the boundary we have recommended best, and the most feasible boundary in the area. This is elk range, and elk do migrate through it. But we didn't consider this a compelling reason to put it in the wilderness. PAGENO="0047" 35 Senator CHURCH. The very dark green area on the map, which is designated as 5 and F, I understand the F part was originally pro- posed by the Forest Service for exclusion from the area. Mr. CLIFF. That is correct. Senator CHURCH. But as a result of the local hearings, the Forest Service decided to include it. Mr. CLIFF. In our original proposal, we proposed to exclude both 5 and F. Senator CHURCH. I see. Mr. CLIFF. After the hearings, and after taking another look at the situation on the ground, we decided we could find suitable boundaries, and that this area, indeed, rates wilderness classification, so we added it after the hearings. Senator CHURCH. This is encouraging to me, because it demonstrates that local hearings do, in fact, have utility and that you are listening to the testimony of local people. Sometimes, you know, the Forest Service is accused of making up its mind about matters of this kind, and then holding hearings which are purley perfunctory, but I think that accusation is not well founded. This is indicative of the fact that you are holding hearings with the purpose of accumulating all of the testimony possible from people who are interested, whether they live close by or afar, and that you are taking that testimony into account in the final decisions that you reach. I must say that that certainly commends itself to me. Mr. CLiFF. Thank you, Senator. We try to do the best job we can of analysis before the hearings. As you will see as you proceed with these hearings on wilderness, we have made changes after the hearings have been held. We made some changes on the Mount Jefferson after the hearings were held-rather small areas, but significant areas- and this is the case in a number of others Senator CHURCH. I think this is very important, because it is extremely difficult for us to sit in Washington and to look at a set of maps, and to listen to the testimony, and to make a judgment from here, and for that reason, we included provisions in the wilderness bill that call for local hearings in the field in order to give the people who are interested the maximum opportunity to make their case. If that mechanism is functioning properly, then you come here with the presumption on your side, and I think that is how we have to proceed. We want to hear from any of those who feel that you have made the wrong decision, and who want other areas included. Of course we will give whatever they have to say careful consideration, but your case has the presumption with it, as long as we are convinced that you have, in fact, been conducting these local hearings in the way that was intended by the Congress when those provisions were written into the bill. That, at least, is my own view of how we need to approach this matter, because it would be a mistake if we were simply to try and substitute ourselyes in place of the Forest Service, at this point, unless a very strong case can be made before us that some serious mistake has occurred. So I am glad to know that you are modifying your original proposal in the light of local hearings, as you move along. Very well, have you any further questions, Senator Hansen? PAGENO="0048" 36 Senator HANSEN. No, I don't think I have. I just might add one word, by way of my personal endorsement of what you have said about local hearings. I think it is apparent to everyone, and certainly quite specifically apparent to those who have come from Wyoming to testify at these hearings today, that we have a very complicated problem facing us. We have perhaps more factors involved in the consideration of where these boundary lines should be drawn than any place, I would guess, that might be proposed for inclusion in the Wilderness System in the United States. I say that first of all, because the strong magnets of Yellowstone and Teton are bringing ever-increasing numbers of people to this area. The Park Service says that by 1972 they are going to be abso- lutely filled up, and unless other provisions can be made to care for the people who come out here, they are going to have to limit access to these two great national parks. We have game animals-we have a great variety of game animals; we have fishing; we have timber; and we have recreation, both summer and winter, all of which are involved, including this snow- mobiling to which allusion has already been made. So it certainly is an extremely complicated set of ingredients that go into the total mix, out of which we hope can come a solution which will meet and answer the demands that can be put .upon this area, and take into consideration as well the needs that we know are going to be ever- increasing in size and pressure as we move toward the end of this century. I am looking forward to hearing from the other witnesses. I know that we will have a lot of conflicting testimony, and I want to compliment you, Dr. Cliff, for having been most responsive to our questions this morning. Mr. CLIFF. Thank you. Senator CHURCH. Yes, and I reiterate that. We thank you for your fine testimony. Mr. CLIFF. Thank you. Senator CHURCH. It is 20 minutes past 12 and I think that now we should adjourn for the lunch hour. The committee will resume its hearings on these three bills beginning at 2 o'clock this afternoon, when we will hear from the citizen witnesses who have come. From the Floor: Mr. Chairman, may I make a request that the Forest Service maps be left for continuing discussion? Senator CHURCH. Yes, of course they will be left. The Forest Service maps will be left, for the reference of other witnesses. Very well, the hearing stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m., Senator Lee Metcalf presiding.) Senator METCALF. The subcommittee will be in order. This is a continuation of the hearings on S. 2531, S. 2751 and S. 2630. We are honored and privileged to have as our first witness this after- noon one of the coauthors of S. 2751, the Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield. PAGENO="0049" 37 STATEMENT OF HON. MARK 0. HATFIELD, A U.S. SENATOR rEOM THE STAT~ OP OR]~GON Senator HATFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to appear before you today in support of S. 2751, to establish the Mount Jefferson Wilderness within the Willamette, Deschutes, and Mount Hood National Forests in Oregon. I am extremely pleased that this 85;000-acre primitive area, protected under regulations of the De- partment of Agriculture since the early 1930's, is now being considered for wilderness designation under the 1964 Wilderness Act. It will make an outstanding addition to our National Wilderness Preserva- tion System. The proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness is an area with rushing streams, placid lakes, alpine meadows, volcanic peaks, and active glaciers. It contains nearly 150 lakes and several miles of crystal- clear streams. Nearly 160 miles of trail lead the hiker or horseman through green mountain meadows splashed with the colors of the lupine, Indian paint-brush, asters, and the delicate monkey flower. In early morning or late evening a traveler may surprise a stately bull elk, a feeding deer, or other species of wildlife. Spectacular vistas await those who want to climb the many peaks and buttes. Mount Jefferson with its flanking glaciers and the three spires of Three Fingered Jack offer special challenges to the climbers. Designation of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness will preserve for all time a portion of the primeval timber heritage out of which the great State of Oregon grew and which is still the mainstay of our growing economy. When the pioneers arrived they found a beautiful land where lush green forests stretched from the shining crests of the Cascades to the Pacific Ocean. Within these forests our forefathers built the cities and towns of which Oregon is so proud today. The forest crops are being harvested and our foresters are carefully hus- banding the land to be sure that future generations will have a sus- tained yield of wood products. Nearly 90 percent of the proposed wilderness is forested and 70 percent of those forested acres are representative of the high-quality timber that has made our wood products industry so great. However, inclu ding this timber in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness will have little effect on the timber supply now available for industry. Most of it has been included in the primitive area since 1930, and has not been included in the allowable cut for the national forests involved. There have been suggestions that the proposed wilderness be ex- panded by about 30,000 acres to include lands along its west side and along the Santiam Highway. Many have urged that these addi- tions are needed to provide a greater "buffer" for the primary wilder- ness attractions such as Jefferson Peak. I believe accessibility is one of the great assets of this area. It provides unique wilderness opportunities that can be easily approached with a family car over good, standard roads. Another major consideration is the high timber values in these proposed additional areas. If they are added to the wilderness the amount of timber available to support the important local timber industry would be reduced by nearly 11 million board feet annually. Serious economic hardship could result if the available timber supply PAGENO="0050" 38 was reduced by that amount. In view of this, and in view of the pres- sures currently being created by the export of logs, I recommend no enlargement beyond the area which would be added by the bill I introduced. It is important that future generations of Americans will have the opportunity to walk through the ageless forests that greeted out forefathers. Designation of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness will guarantee this opportunity. I urge enactment of S. 27~31. Thank you very much, Mr., Chairman; I want to indicate that I am most anxious to have the testimony that you have set forth here in your agenda as part of the record, and will certainly be most in- terested in reviewing this record with the other members of your subcommittee at a later date. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Senator. This is a sig- nificant statement. As 1 understand it, your point is that this area incorporated in your bill has been a part of a primitive area for more than three decades. Senator HATFIELD. That is right. Senator METCALF. And therefore, it is not considered under a sustained timber yield operation, but any additions would seriously curtail the timber supply in the particular area. Senator HATFIELD. Yes. Of course, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the bill does enlarge what has been primitive area up to this time by a few thousand acres. At a later time, I would like to discuss with the committee that part which has created some difficulty with certain Indian lands. A very small portion of the proposed increased area does include certain Indian lands that I think the committee would be interested in going further into detail on. But the proposed bill, as it stands, does enlarge the former primi- tive area, and none of this has been under a timber harvesting pro- gram, but any addition would bring into the wilderness designation certain acreage and certain lands which are under sustained yield, and would be available eventually under the conservation programs practiced by the forestry department for our timber industry. Of course, as you know, Mr. Chairman, timber provides the most jobs in our State and, therefore, we are keenly interested in not only the preservation for recreational purposes of certain timberlands but we are equally concerned that people in our State can have gainful employment. Recreation, after all, should be a program for those who are wage earners, as well as for people who are independ- ently wealthy, or* are in professional pursuits. I think that if we do not provide enough jobs and job opportunities the wage earner will not be able to enjoy recreational activity on unemployment com- pensation checks or welfare checks. Senator METCALF. Well, for awhile, I thought you were describing some of the area in Montana. Thank you very much. Senator HATFIELD. Thank you. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Senator Metcalf, for starting the hearings this afternoon. I am sorry, Senator Hatfield, that I missed your statement, because I usually am richly rewarded by everything you say. Senator HATFIELD. Thank you very much, Senator. PAGENO="0051" 39 Senator CHURCH. Having completed the testimony of the Govern- ment this morning, we begin this afternoon with our citizen witnesses, the first of whom is Mr. C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Institute, who has often testified before this committee, and who is always welcome. STATEMENT OF C. R. GUTERMUTH, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. GUTERMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure for me to be the leadoff citizen witness here today. I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Management Insititue, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The institute is one of the older national conservation organizations, and its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest for more than 50 years. I can be quite brief, Mr. Chairman. Like other of* the national con- servation organizations, the Institute is pleased that these proposals to confer wilderness status on selected public lands have been for- warded to the Congress. We are disappointed, of course, that the Congress has not already been able to designate the first wilderness under the terms of the 1946 act. The initial proposal, the San Rafael Wilderness, has encountered some serious differences of opinion here in Congress. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from this experience is that more effort should be made on the field level to reach an accord between the Federal agency involved, State agencies, and interested groups and individuals. It may be possible to resolve some of the boundary disputes and other of the more obvious difficulties in advance of the final consideration of the legislative proposals. These difficulties ought to be worked out on the ground. We realize that the Federal agencies experienced some delays in getting their wilderness review programs into operation. Those early problems seem to have been largely overcome, and it is hoped that many more submissions will be forthcoming. The only recommenda- tions that have been received so far are from the Department of Agriculture, and we wish to commend that Department and the Forest Service in this regard. S. 2531, San Gabriel Wilderness.-There is widespread agreement on the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness and it is hoped that the bill can be approved without delay. We heard a splendid presentation from Ed Cliff this morning, indicating that there is practically no dispute or concern about that particular bill, and we hope it is enacted promptly. 5. 2630, Washakie Wilderness.--The Washakie Wilderness pro- posal presents some of the difficulties to which I just referred, Mr. Chairman. Our staff has no firsthand knowledge of the country. Some of us have flown over and driven around much of it, but we do not have the intimate knowledge possessed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, and many of the others who have commented on the proposed wilderness boundaries. For this reason,, the institute is forced to look to these agencies and local conservation groups for guidance. It is understood that there is agreement to exclude certain acreage currently within the existing primitive area. rfhese are identified as 91-953--68----4 PAGENO="0052" 40 areas 1, 2, and 6. This decision is based on the presence of mining activities, roads, logging, and difficulties in establishing an easily recognized boundary line. These exclusions are agreeable to us. Simi- larly, we agree with the inclusions of areas A, B, and F, recommended by the Forest Service. It is hoped that a decision will be made to retain in the wilderness area the relatively small acreage that has been protected for years under the primitive area designation in the Caidwell Creek and the north fork of Wiggins Creek drainages. These areas, according to the biologists of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, are vitally important to elk. These small areas would be excluded by 5. 2630. Also, we are persuaded by the position of the Wyoming wildlife agency to urge the inclusion within the wilderness of much of the acreage in the Bear Creek Basin and in the east and west forks of the DuNoir River. I will not repeat the strong justification that is made for the inclusion of these two areas in the January 1967 state- ment of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, which appears on pages 58 and 59 of the Forest Service's Washakie Wilderness proposal. The argument made in behalf of retaining the wilderness character of these areas is compelling. It is realized that the inclusion or the exclusion of certain areas is largely a matter of value judgment. In Bear Creek Basin and the east and west forks of the DuNoir River, it is believed that the recommendations of the Wyoming agency should receive priority consideration. 5. 2751, Mount Jefferson Wilderness.-Again, Mr. Chairman, we do not have firsthand knowledge of the Mount Jefferson area. Some national and regional groups are recommending the extension of the proposed wilderness boundary line to the westward as a means of buffering against civilization's approach on the relatively narrow area. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, and I am aware of no serious objections, we would favor inclusion of the Lake Marion area, the Square Lake area, and the Firecamp Lake area in the wilderness. In addition, we would ask that the committee fully explore with all of the witnesses having on-the-ground knowledge of the area the proposed westward extension of the wilderness boundary beyond that recommended by the Forest Service. From my own long experience with the members of this committee, I am positive that they will want to be assured that the boundary line on the western side complies with the expectations of Congress as expressed in the Wilderness Act. Thank you very much. Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutermuth, for your testimony. I understand from your statement that you favor the three propos- als, as the Forest Service has presented them, but would like this committee to examine the possibilities of certain additions that are suggested. Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right. Senator CHURCH. But your organization is not sufficiently familiar in detail with these areas to take a stronger position than that; is that right? Mr. GUTERMUTH. I have spent considerable time out in that country myself, Mr. Chairman, on Public Land Law Review Commission PAGENO="0053" 41 tours this summer, so while I, am quite familiar with the country and many of the problems, the point is that I am not in a position, and I don't think any of our people are in a position,, to actually recomn~end where these boundaries should be. Senator CHURCH. Yes. Mr. GUTERMUTH. I am a little bit concerned, however, that in some of the proposals that have been considered, and in these hearings, the boundaries have been designated up on the crest of mountains, in one place, and then the next time they go to some other natural barrier, like a stream, or, in fact, some kind of other distinguishable line. It occurs to me that there ought to be some uniformity in all of these selections, as to some type of a definite boundary, rather than to be fluctuating in all of the various areas that are considered from time to time. We have a lot of them before us, and I am in hopes that maybe a little bit more uniformity can be worked into the boundary designa- tions that are going to be selected, not only here, but in all of them, as we move along. Senator CHURCH. Any questions, Senator Metcalf? Senator METCALF. No, except that I want to say that for all the years that I have been in Congress, both in the House and here, Mr. Gutermuth has been testifying for these programs that are in the public interest, and certainly, your testimony will be given a great deal of consideration. Mr. GUTERMUTH. Thank you, Senator Metcalf. Senator CHURCH. Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. Mr. Gutermuth, I am impressed with the last statement you have just made, that is, your appeal for greater uni- `formity or some accord that might be reached on the designation of boundaries. I have studied the proposal of the Forest Service, and could you point out, with the map there on your left, or however you would like to, wherein you would take exception with the factors, with the criteria that has been used by the Forest Service in designat- ing boundaries? Mr. GUTERMUTH. Well, I don't think, Senator Hansen, that I would want to actually attempt to point out where they are. The thing that disturbs me is that in some areas they have recommended that the boundaries go down the crest of mountains, and some promon- tories along the line, and in other places, they pick an entirely different form of boundary. One would think that there is some impelling reason for this selection in the various localities, but I believe that there is a way in which they could select boundaries that would be a little bit more uniform and would be applicable to all of these areas. Of course, on the long, narrow strip in the Mount Jefferson area we have met with the various people who have intimate knowledge of the area, and there is considerable question as to whether or not that western boundary is the exact location that it should be. There is a great desire on the part of many people who are knowl- edgeable in those areas, while we are always going to be confronted with timber values and other problems that Senator Hatfield just spoke of, the fact still remains that as we move along in this country, with the increased population, we are going to be very thankful for ~1l of these acres that have been set aside. So here you have a desire PAGENO="0054" 42 on the part of people to not necessarily just pick the crest of the ridges as boundaries, but to move over to where they would afford greater protection to this narrow strip of land, and I believe that there is a certain wisdom in that. Some of those precipitous slopes there are not adaptable to good mining, or good timbering operations. At least it would be costly. On the other hand, in concluding, maybe I should say that I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Forest Service, `and the way in which they have carried on their program, and they have been good custodians of our wilderness areas over these many years. I have a great faith in them. Senator HANSEN. It was my understanding that some of the points the Forest Service had in mind, in going along the crest of a water- shed, or following a stream, was the obvious advantage that it would be to all and sundry in being able to determine where the boundary of a wilderness was; whereas, if they were to select arbitrarily, say, a line that had not been as yet surveyed, along a mountain slope, or through a valley, that this sort of designation would require first a survey in order that it might be established, and then a description, and, following that, a decision. And personally, I found some merit in following streams and watersheds as natural boundary lines, that I should think most anyone could easily discern and follow. Now, is it your thought that these criteria could be replaced by some other system? Mr. GUTERMTJTH. No, I don't have a better system, but what dis- turbs me a little bit is the fact that in one place, they have designated the crest of prominent ridges, and they hold that this positively must be' this boundary, in this particular instance. In the next case they will move over into a valley, and in another case they will pick a river, we will say. And they say in each case, "Now, this positively must be the boundary." I am inclined to think that the reasons that impelled them to select a river valley, for example, as a good obvious marker, could in a great many cases be the case, rather than the ridge. In this particular case, Mount Jefferson, as I understand it, they have selected a ridge as being the western boundary of this area, and they say that this positively must be the boundary line. But in reality, I am not familiar enough with it to point it out, it is conceivable that some of those rivers could just as well be a good boundary line in this particular case and those precipitous slopes along the western side of this ridge be avoided and thus afford greater protection to the Mount Jefferson Area. Senator HANSEN. I wouldn't argue at all that we should be re- stricted in our designation of wilderness areas by the place that God happened to put a stream, or build a mountain range. Mr. GUTERMUTH. No. Senator HANSEN. But, on the other hand, I should think we can all recognize that when you ~re describing areas such as wilderness `areas, we don't have an area that will be entirely surrouftded by watershed, nor do we usually find one that would be circumscribed by streams, so that both systems, I should think, might very well have to be used. I don't think, and I am simply repeating now, that we ought to look at an area and say, "Well, it has got to be here, because here is PAGENO="0055" 43 a stream," or "here is a mountain range." But on the other hand, if we can agree generally upon where it might be, and what we might want to include, then I should think there is some merit in using natural features that occur, rather than arbitrary lines that would have to be determined by a survey. I say that because in my own country, we have had a number of surveys, and they don't always parallel each other. I know one time, a group may find this to be the line, and later on, as is the case right north of my little town of Jackson now, the line coming from the north doesn't run into the line from the south. I don't know who is right, but I know that the two lines just don't join, and this, of course, is one of the problems that I suspect the Forest Service contemplated when it chose, rather than to designate lines along section lines, in unsurveyed country, that they thought there would be some obvious advantage in streams and ridges. Would you agree generally in that? Mr. GTJTERMUTH. Yes, that is right. That is in line with what I had in mind, but what disturbed me a little bit was what I call the more or less arbitrary decision, that in one particular case a ridge must be the boundary, and in the next case it is some other distin- guishing formation. Now, if a stream is a good, distinguishable boundary in one locality, and there happens to be another good stream in another locality that we are considering, I can't see why a stream, if it is the perfect boundary in one locality, couldn't as well be a perfect boundary in one of the others. That is the point I was trying to make. Senator HANSEN. Yes. Of course, I think you have already said that your organization was not intimate and familiar with this area, and you didn't care to make any specific suggestions as to what might be included or excluded on the basis of your knowledge. Was that right? Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, except as I tried to bring out in my state- ment, I am inclined to think that these areas in the Washakie, areas J and D, we advocated that they consider the views of the Wyoming department. I listened carefully to the testimony this morning. I have a difficult time taking very much issue with anything that Ed Cliff says, because he is not only a truly outstanding forester but a great wildlife man, and a great friend of wildlife and conservation, a person whom I admire very much. On the other hand, I think there is ample evidence to show that where we have had areas opened up with a lot of roads and other forms of human encroachment, you will find that the elk population, pretty much, as I recall, go down, and while you can control certain aspects of the public use of these areas, I still think that the consideration and the recommendations of the Wyoming department should be weighed very heavily by this com- mittee because I believe that they are on pretty sound ground. Now, it isn't just a question of whether or not roads are going to interfere with the migration routes of the elk. It is not a question of whether they could not give adequate protection to an area during the calving season. It is just the overall human use and the cutting that is going to go on in there, and all other activities are going to be the things that will control this elk population up to a point. Those are the factors that I would like to see considered by this committee. PAGENO="0056" 44 Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutermuth. Are you finished, Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. Yes, I am. Senator CHURCH. Our next witness is Mr. Kenneth B. Pomeroy, the chief forester of the American Forestry Association. Mr. Pomeroy? STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. POMEROY, THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, with your permission, I would like to file this statement in support of S. 2531, S. 2630, and S. 2571, and then take just a moment to tell you why our association is interested in these proposals. Senator CHURCH. Yes, the statement will be included at the end of your oral presentation. Mr. POMEROY. We have some 55,000 members in the American Forestry Association, and these people have a great variety of interests. The one thing that binds them together is the feeling of conservation through wise use, and one of these uses is the enjoyment of wilderness. Each year, many of our members will visit wilderness areas in 11 of the States. This year, there will be about 25 such trips, and none of them will be in any of the three areas being considered here. How- ever, we do have six trips into Wyoming, three into the Teton- Yellowstone area, and three into the Wind River Mountains. While these people all enjoy and cherish wilderness, they also appreciate the need for other uses of the forests. A study of the proposals for the San Gabriel, the Mount Jefferson, and the Washakie Wildernesses indicate that thoughtful consideration has been given to maintaining a balance of major uses. Therefore, we endorse these proposals. Thank you. Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Pomeroy. Any questions? (The prepared statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. POMEROY, THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman, The American Forestry Association is a nationwide citizen conservation organization composed of 55,000 members. The purpose of the Association is the advancement of intelligent management and use of forests, soil, water, wildlife and all other natural resources necessary for a quality en- vironment, healthy outdoor recreation, and the well being of all citizens. Preservation of a portion of the country's wild lands in a National Wilderness Preservation System is a highly desirable conservation activity. We offer our support for S. 2531, S. 2630, and S. 2571 to establish the San Gabriel Wilderness in the Angeles National Forest of California; the Washakie Wilderness in the Shoshone National Forest of Wyoming; and the Mount Jefferson Wilderness in the Willamette, Deschutes, and Mt. Hood National Forests of Oregon. We concur in the recommendations of the U.S. Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the boundaries to be designated for these three wilderness areas and urge favorable action by your committee. Senator CHURCH. Our next witness is Mr. A. T. Wright of the National Capital Wilderness Study Committee. Mr. Wright. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR T. WRIGHT, CONSERVATION CONSULTANT Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Arthur T. Wright of Alexandria, Va. I am a conservation consultant PAGENO="0057" 45 with particular interest in the preservation of wilderness. On this occasion, I represent the National Capital Wilderness Study Commit- tee, a group of lay conservationists who reside in metropolitan Wash- ington, D.C., and who are actively interested in the promotion and extension of the National Wilderness Preservation System as founded by the Wilderness Act of 1964. We support the Forest Service's recommendation for the San Gabriel Wilderness and wish to commend the agency for enlarging the size of the wilderness area beyond that of the existing Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area. It is a real pleasure to support without qualification a Forest Service proposal which contains max- imum wilderness acreage. With respect to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, we believe that the 28,000 acres of additions sought by Oregon conservationists, mainly within the Forest Service's area 14 on map B, page 14 of brochure, should be approved by this committee, which acreage, when added to the Forest Service proposal of 96,462 acres, will create an outstanding wilderness area of about 125,000 acres. The Forest Service's exclusion of acreage contiguous to the primi- tive area which it roaded and logged during a period of wilderness review, when all such activity should have been withheld pending a final determination of this west side buffer zone's best use by the public, must be questioned. Such predetermination of the course of future events as regards wilderness designations gives to the Forest Service an unfair decisionmaking advantage over the Congress and the public-an advantage which Congress probably did not intend it to exercise. With the expertise which they surely possess, Forest Service officers can readily identify potential wilderness system additions and, if unsympathetic, can proceed by management decisions to assure the nonwilderness outcome they desire. If such irreversible decisions are made hastily, without adequate study, the Nation surely will suffer the consequences of the mistakes which can be made in such circumstances. Turning now to the Washakie Wilderness proposal, we support the additions recommended by Wyoming citizens and conserva- tionists, particularly the upper DuNoir Basin addition of about 29,000 acres. We agree with the view expressed by the Wyoming people that Congress did not intend that the wilderness system be confined solely or even primarily to "goat rock"-type wilderness, and instead that it must surely have been the congressional intent that wilderness areas encompass all ecological types including forested areas. Forested lands have exceptional wilderness value and, as pointed out by the Wyoming citizens, provide needed biological "edge effect" between developed areas and the barren high country. As has been noted, these unroaded forest lands are of extreme im- portance to the resident elk herds. Now, Mr. Chairman, on this point, I might digress from my written statement here to mention that I didn't think that this morning's testimony by Dr. Cliff adequately gave very much atten- tion to the resident elk herd problem, vis-a-vis elks in migration. As I understand it, resident elk herds will leave a roaded and cut area, even though the area may remain on a migration route, and while it is true that they will use the area for that purpose, it does PAGENO="0058" 46 create, when they gather in other areas, the Yellowstone elk problem, where there are so many of them that they have to be harvested. This is due to the creation of an artificial hunting situation, which isn't really hunting at all, the point being that if resident herds can remain in areas which are not roaded, or logged, that you have better hunting for the hunters Continuing now with the written statement-If the Forest Service plans to permit the roading and logging of the upper DuNoir Basin (area J) and the Fivemile and Sixmile Creek areas (areas H and I), we find this hard to understand, in view of the fact that these areas are at high elevations where the forests stnig~gle to exist on steep slopes of rocky, shallow soil susceptible to erosion. These lands con- stitute a critically important watershed for the Yellowstone River, and should not be disturbed. We see little difference here between the Washakie and the Mount Jefferson situations regarding the exclu- sions of timberlands from the wilderness areas. For example, on page 7 of the Forest Service's Mount Jefferson brochure, the Service says, "Timber production potential at lower elevations is good. It is rela- tively poor at higher elevations because of the shallow, rocky soil and the short growing season." Timber production also must be poor at the higher elevations in the Washakie and, if harvested, would prove very costly to the American taxpayer in terms of the cost of construct- ing logging roads and reforesting the area in exchange for the little timber-sale revenue to be derived from it. It is our hope that this committee will see fit to rely on the soundly based and objective views of the Wyoming citizen-conservationists. May I digress again for a moment, sirs, to address myself to the problem raised by Dr. Cliff this morning, with respect to Yellowstone National Park and the need for accommodating greater numbers of people, because of the overflow situation there. They need to accom- modate people in the Washakie area by means of having recreational areas. Now, it seems to me that this is tantamount to saying that you can't have wilderness, because of a need to overcome or to handle the overflow crowds in Yellowstone Park. And this, I think, is an unsound reason for not putting land into wilderness protection. These areas can also be roaded and logged, even if they are recreational areas, and this could be just simply another reason for developing an area beyond its potential. I also have this point to make in that regard, as I am not at all sure the American tourist is going to settle for something like a recreation area in the vicinity of Washakie in lieu of going to Yellowstone. If Yellowstone gets the big publicity play, and this is where people want to go, I am not sure just how well they will take to second-rate substitutes, which I think you could call, in this regard. I think of the Yosemite National Park situation, where Camp Perry is heavily overused, and other camping sites in the park are relatively unused. This is simply because of the tendency of people to go where there are many more people, and where they find the best scenic advantage. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, you have touched on some very important matters that the committee will consider. Senator Hansen? PAGENO="0059" 47~ Senator HANSEN. I might just ask one or two questions. Having lived in Jackson Hole, and having watched the elk out there for a number of years, I am not sure that I know too much about it. We do find migrations taking place in Jackson Hole that seem to be contrary to your testimony. For instance, there has been some hunting within Grand Teton Park, worked out cooperatively, under the law, as it must be, between the Park Service and the State game and fish commission, and I know one of the reasons for that is that unless some pressure is applied within the park area, the two agencies, the State Game and Fish Commission, and the Park Service as well, feel that more and more elk might tend to migrate down from Yellowstone and from the Teton Wilderness area, to the refuge just immediately north of the town of Jackson, through Grand Teton National Park. But by keeping some pressure on there, the migration route can be kept fur~ther east than the forest land, where open hunting can be permitted. Now, I call attention to that, because this is an area that is tra- versed with roads, and it certainly receives the impact ,of a great many visitors. I think last year, we had over 2~ million visitors in Grand Teton. Would this seem to be at variance with your contention that roads would drive elk out of an area? Mr. WRIGHT. Well, it would seem so, sir, from what you say. But it seems contrary to what I understand from Wyoming people; that is, that the resident elk herds do not stay in an area which is highly developed, and this is distinguished from the migration situation. And I understand, too, that this is the way some of the Wyoming Game Commission people feel about it, as well, and I have no exper- tise in this in my own right, but simply that which I understand from those whose opinions I respect. Senator HANSEN. If you have been in Jackson Hole, and very probably you have been- Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. If you have driven from the Grand Teton Lodge down to Jackson at night, if you have done this in recent years on the east side highway, it is not at all unlikely that you might have run into some elk right on the highway there. Have you? Mr. WRIGHT. I have seen them from the highway, yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. These apparently-I like to think of this group of elk as a little group, not excessive in numbers, but they seem to be building up in there-spend the day along the Snake River, in the timber there, in a very narrow little stip of land. I suspect it is not more than a mile, and I am sure in most places it would be much less than a mile in width. They stay there during the day, and they will come out into the elk ranch meadows and along the highway there at night. Now, would this be of interest to you? Mr. WRIGHT. Sir, isn't that par to the area? I mean, would this necessarily pertain in area J, for example? It seems to me that there is very little evidence that elk all act uniformly, or that a resident herd in a comparatively remote area would not be seriously affected by roading and logging. I think this is a possibility. Senator HANSEN. I wouldn't know. All I ~can say is that the longer I live there, the less sure I am of what I do know about them. PAGENO="0060" 48 I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator METCALF. Mr. Wright, this morning it was suggested that area J isn't of wilderness quality. It is crisscrossed with roads, and it has been logged off, and isn't under the definition that we normally have of a wilderness area that is in its primitive and primeval state. In view of the fact that we need the area for other recreational op- portunities, wouldn't it be better to preserve the quality of the wilder- ness and leave area J off? Mr. WRIGHT. I don't think so, Senator. I have to rely on the regenerative capacity of nature, and the fact that the future act is for the future, perhaps even more so than it is for the present, and that we have to come up with a real sound wilderness system, one which will have adequate acreage, and adequate extent for future generations of Americans. I just simply don't feel that, because of the minor intrusions which now exist in this area, that this is a reason for keeping it out of wilderness designation, because in time, perhaps not too long a time, I think that area J will be a real good wilderness. I might a4vert to the Shenandoah National Park situation. As you probably know, the National Park Service has a wilderness proposal for Shenandoah National Park over here in Virginia. Now, that area was once inhabited by mountain farmers, and the land had been overhunted, and all the timber had been cut, and there were few fish in the streams. The land, in short, had been badly used, and in the 35 years since that park has been created, you now have mature forests, abundant wildlife, a good watershed, and the land has re- covered. So you now have, in Shenandoah, a real good wilderness area, one we think will be a good wilderness area, and we have to rely on this. In my estimation we simply cannot afford to be stingy in putting lands into wilderness for this reason, and what is more, Senator, while it might be an oversimplification, wilderness is a little bit like money in the bank. What Congress gives, Congress can take away and, if later de- velopments require, we can go through the same procedures of the Wilderness Act to take land out of wilderness that we are going through now to put it in. Senator METCALF. So you feel that the point that was made this morning is that the intrusion has been so slight that if area J is in- cluded in the wilderness area that in a relatively short time it will return to its wilderness characteristics. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. As I understand from Wyoming people, that there have been tie cut camps and other intrusions in other areas of the Washakie, and they have pictures which show nothing but a few old stumps remaining there. But timber is maturing now, and looks like wilderness country. I think this is so, yes, sir. I just don't believe we can afford to be purists in our attitude toward wilderness. Otherwise, we will be short changed out of good wilderness land. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for a most helpful testi- mony, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Our next witness is Mr. Lloyd Tupling, repre- senting the Sierra Club. As I understand it, Mr. Tupling-you are an old friend of this committee-that you are going to have some other people from the Sierra Club with you. PAGENO="0061" 49 STATEMENT OF LLOYD TUPLING, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SIERRA CLUB; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT T. IVES, CLAREMONT, CALIF.; SANFORD TEPFER, EUGENE, OREG.; AND ORRIN H. BONNEY, JACKSON HOLE, W~O. Mr. TJJPLING. Yes, I think, in discussing the Sierra Club position, I would like to have Mr. Ives from California and Mr. Bonney from Wyoming and Mr. Tepfer. Senator METCALF. Will you call them forward and identify them, please? Mr. TUPLING. I have here Mr. Robert Ives, from California, who will speak on San Gabriel Wilderness; Dr. Sanford Tepfer, of Oregon, to speak on Mount Jefferson Wilderness; and Mr. Orrin Bonney, who will speak on the Washakie Wilderness. Senator METCALF. Go ahead and present your testimony in any way you see fit, Mr. Tupling. Mr. TTJPLING. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Lloyd Tupling. I am Washington representa- tive of the Sierra Club, whose 60,000 members make up one of the Nation's largest outing organizations. The Sierra Club has 21 chapters throughout the United States. The Sierra Club was organized in 1892 by John Muir and his associates. The basic objective of the Sierra Club in 1892 was "to explore, enjoy, and protect our Nation's scenic resources." In 1968, the objectives of the Sierra Club are unchanged. The Sierra Club, by appropriate action of its membership, supports legislation to establish the San Gabriel, Mount Jefferson, and Washakie Wilderness Areas. Our members, with intimate knowledge of these areas, have appeared at the field hearings conducted by the U.S. Forest Service to discuss the land areas to be included within the proposed boundaries. With me today are Sierra Club members who will present statements on each of the wilderness area proposals. They will detail the basis of Sierra Club's case for fixing the content and perimeter of each area. They have relevant, personal knowledge of San Gabriel, Mount Jefferson, and Washakie terrain and resource assets. The 33,647-acre San Gabriel Wilderness Area proposed by the Forest Service has the full endorsement of the Sierra Club. We com- mend Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California for his sponsorship of S. 2531, the bill which will designate as wilderness a unique section in southern California which is only a drive of an hour and a half from our Nation's vast population concentration in the Los Angeles vicinity. The San Gabriel Wildnerness, when established, will reflect the sincerity of Forest Service officials in fulfilling the protective philosophy of the Wilderness Act. Field hearings were held by the Forest Service on the San Gabriel proposal in June of 1966. It is interesting to note that support for the proposal was unanimous. This unanimity is significant to the other areas we are discussing today because it brought out that: 1. The San Gabriel area contains no commercial timber; 2. The San Gabriel area has no commerically significant mineralization; 3. The San Gabriel area has no private land holdings within its boundaries; PAGENO="0062" 50 4. The San Gabriel area l~as no conflicting uses. In the context of these arguments, it almost seems that the San Gabriel Wilderness has little to recommend it other than its existence for the enjoyment of humans who can appreciate the intangible assets of wilderness, and for occupancy by the flora and fauna to whom nature has assigned this segment of geography. I do not mean to depreciate the San Gabriel area as worthy of wilderness status. But I wonder about a viewpoint which achieves unanimity because Nature has not endowed a particular piece of terrain with consumable elements. A parsimonious Nature has made San Gabriel a wilderness area by acclamation. I raise this point because the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area and the Washakie Wilderness Area which we seek to protect do not evoke unanimous support. Both areas have merchantable timber, there is some mineralization, there are conflicting uses. Yet the 241,000-. acre Washakie Wilderness Area and the 124,000-acre Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area-sought by Sierra Club members-are no less co- hesive and integrated than the unamimously supported San Gabriel. Are we to penalize the protection of two superb sections of scenic grandeur because Nature was generous in distributing her largesse there? Poverty of consumable assets cannot be the standard for finding total agreement on wilderness boundaries. Consideration will be given to the value of intangibles-the values that cannot be measured in board feet of dollars per ton. The eco- nomic value of these timber and mineral assets is extremely impor- tant but they do not completely fulfill the requirements of American society in the last half of the 20th century. Looking to the future, a noted scientist, Dr. René Dubos, has said that survival of our system may not depend so much on sustaining a minimal standard of living as on the quality and diversity of our urban environment. He points out that besides food, shelter, clothing, and other physical requirements, it is just as important that human life have "an environment in which it is possible to satisfy the long- ing for quiet, privacy, independence, initiative, and open space. These are not luxuries but constitute real biological necessities." When we talk about wilderness, we are talking about man's rela- tionship with his environment. We are dealing with a resource which will determine the quality of life in the United States, now and in the future. For these reasons, we are proposing boundary adjustments which will add t.o the wilderness protection and the wilderness value of the Mount Jefferson and Washakie Areas. Our proposals will not add to allowable cut or to mineral production, but they will not diminish the quality of life in the United States. That concludes my statement. I would like to submit for the record some additional material, setting forth information regarding the 1\4ount Jefferson Wilderness Area. Senator METCALF. Without objection, that material will be incor- porated in the record at this point. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF THE SIERRA CLUB This statement is presented on behalf of the Sierra Club, a national conserva- tion organization with a total membership in excess of 60,000 individuals. Many PAGENO="0063" 51 Oregonians are members of the Pacific Northwest Chapter, one of the largest and oldest non-California chapters of the Club~ The Sierra Club has had a long history of active concern for the wilderness and scenic qualities of the Oregon Cascades in general and the Mount Jefferson Area in particular. Beginning in 1959, we have supported successive proposals of Oregon conservationists for a study of the scenic and natural features of the Oregon Cascades by the National Park Service. We have supported over the years proposals by Oregon conservationists for wilderness classification of por- tions of the Oregon Cascades, and have protested actions of the Forest Service which have resulted in losses of the opportunities for a wilderness recreation experience losses which we consider to be excessive. In 1962, 1964, and 1966, we supported the recommendation of Oregon conservationists for a substantial enlargement of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area and its reclassification into Wilderness status. Representatives of the Sierra Club have appeared and testified on its behalf in support of these recommendations at the hearings held in 1964 and 1966 on the subject of the reclassification of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area. Our position today on the proposal for reclassification of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area into a Mount Jefferson Wilderness is essentially the same as it was when we appeared before the Forest Service at its hearings in Salem, Oregon in 1966. We believe that the maintenance of lands in their primeval untouched state is a matter of great cultural value and importance not only to the people of Oregon, but also to the nation. We have become increasingly alarmed at the rate loss of wilderness and opportunities for a wilderness recreation experience in the State of Oregon. We believe also that the protection and maintenance of substan- tial portions of lowland old growth Northwest forest is also a matter of great importance to the nation, particularly in view of the continuing program of state, private, and federal agencies charged with the management of our timber re- sources to eliminate such old growth stands and "return the land to production", as they put it. We do not question this aim for most of our timber lands, but we do believe that our old growth forests must be managed to serve social as well as economic values. We are particularly alarmed at the loss of such lowland old growth forests in the State of Oregon, and see some of the forest lands surrounding the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area as offering what may be the last major opportunity in Oregon for preservation of this resource. We see wilderness and scenic beauty as natural resources coming from the land, and of increasing impor- tance in a nation that is already 70 per cent urban. It is against this background of concern, and for these reasons, that we are in support of a proposal of Oregon conservationists to add some 30,000 acres to that area of land proposed by S. 2751 to be established as the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. We are wholeheartedly in support of 5. 2751 and feel that it has many commendable features. It is a substantial step forward in the right direction, towards assuring that the State of Oregon will have in the years to come a signifi- cant wilderness resource. However, we believe that it is necessary to place under the protection of the Wilderness Act all of the lands surrounding the present Mount Jefferson Primitive Area which qualify for a Wilderness status. Briefly, we urge the addition of the following lands to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness as proposed in 5. 2751: 1. The valley of the North Fork of the Breitenbush. This is the area labeled "A" on the attached map. It is a two mile slope containing numerous lakes, ponds, meadows, and small streams; the valley is in a wilderness primeval forest. The skyline road to the north forms a suitable physical boundry along the north valley wall at an elevation of about 4,400 feet. The unroaded portion of ~the North Fork of the Breitenbush is still a wilderness valley and represents an opportunity to preserve a portion of what all Oregon once looked like. 2. Firecamp Lake and the valley of the South Fork of the Breitenbush. The lakes area is a high elevation plateau, too fragile to sustain the impact of heavy roadside recreational use. One of the two Firecamp Lakes is lucluded within the 5. 2751 proposal for Wilderness, but not the other. The Forest Service plans to build a road to this other lake. The lakes are cradled in a small three-sided basin, formed by an especially scenic ridge. The lakes offer a fine view of Mount Jef- ferson and are an integral part of the wilderness and a physical part of the mountain itself. The South Fork of the Breitenbush was invaded by logging roads after the primitive area was first being considered for reclassification as wilderness. We recommend that the wilderness boundary bend around the end of the existing road, proceed downstream, and the over the western upper slope of Triangulation Peak. The enclosed area contains numerous streams, scenic and PAGENO="0064" 52 heavily forested slopes, high country meadows- and an enclosed steep walled valley. The interior of this addition is at least as much of a true wilderness as a great deal of the high country within the Primitive Area boundaries. This is the area labeled "B" on the map. 3. The valley of Whitewater Creek. In 1961, the Forest Service announced that it was considering reclassification of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area and solicited comments from interested citizens. However, before this agency had the opportunity to review all the comments, many of which included recom- mendations for addition of this valley to the proposed wilderness, they conducted a logging sale to take place far up this valley at the very base of Mount Jefferson. We feel very strongly that the large cuts and the logging road which remain in the primeval forest in this place are one of the most unfortunate examples of insensitivity to scenic and wilderness values in the entire Northwest. It is most unfortunate that this timber sale was conducted in this place by the Forest Serv- ice even before any hearing were held on the proposal to reclassify the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area. In order now to achieve better protection for the fragile high country meadows of Jefferson Park, and to protect the scenic beauty of the natural setting of Mount Jefferson, we propose that the Wilderness boundary here be moved about three miles west to Cheat Creek, to permit the logging road to revert to nature and the logged area to grow back. We think this addition is absolutely necessary to protect the heavily overused high country at this point of the Wilderness, which now is only three miles wide. There is ample precedent of inclusion of the existing road within the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. The Forest Service often maintains that clear cuts and logging roads are temporary, because the trees grow back and the roads can revert to nature. There is no reason why this cannot be the case here. Formerly roaded and logged areas now within the Great Smoky National Park have been proposed by the Park Service for Wilderness classification. There are other areas and units of our national parks and national forests which will be so pro- posed in the future. We think that the essential point to stress here is that the Wilderness is much too narrow for its own protection, and that only a moving back of the boundaries will protect it adequately. In view of the fact that the logging road was constructed and the forest was clear cut during the period that the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area was being considered for reclassiflca- tion, we suggest that the wisest course here would be to include this valley within the proposed Wilderness. This is the area labeled "C" on the map. 4. Woodpecker Ridge and Minto Mountain. This is the area~ labeled "D" on the map. Woodpecker Ridge is just to the south of Whitewater Creek, and has a gentle rounded top. Its western slope has been logged, but the northern and southern flanks are still wild. The view from the slopes of Mount Jefferson looking down Pamelia Creek now is an outstanding view of a scenic wilderness forest valley with no apparent marks of man. If the southern slopes of Wood- pecker Ridge are logged, this view (already an extremely rare sight in Oregon) will b~ lost. The foreground of Minto MoLintain is also especially scenic, with alpine meadows, creeks, and rock outcroppings. The valley of Minto Creek is also extremely scenic, and the entire area should be included as a buffer zone to provide wilderness protection for the higher country beyond. 5. Bingham Ridge, Marion Lake, and Big Meadows. This is the area labeled "E" on the map. Bingham Ridge is a steep-sided plateau rising between Minte Creek and Marion Creek; its western slopes have been logged. The plateau is forested and the slopes are extremely precipitous and of high scenic quality~ Marion Lake is a little over a mile in length and is one of the few remaining lakes- of substantial size available for wilderness preservation in the Northwest Coastal Region. The Forest Service proposes Scenic Area classification for Marion Lake. Since motorboating is an already existing use of the lake, it is still permissible to include this area in the Wilderness and of the auspices of the Wilderness Act. Of all the major alpIne lakes in the region, Marion Lake alone remains as a wilderness lake. It is recommended strongly that the lake and its approaches be included in the Wilderness. At Marion Lake, the boundary cuts sharply to the west. The boundary proposed by the Forest Service extends down to elevations around 5,000 feet, leaving a western slope of another 1,400 feet out of the Wilder- ness. Most of this slope is now roadless and undeveloped. It contains meadows- and a thick tangled forest. It is some of the wildest country on the entire west side of the Primitive Area. The Big Meadows road forms a clearly defined physical boundary for the area. It is recommended that the boundary parallel the road, and if exchangeable, the PAGENO="0065" 53 private inhoiclings to the south of Big Meadows. The slopes above the road are virgin primeval forest, still untouched. 6. Square Lake-Long Lake. This is the area marked "F" on the map. Square Lake is located about a mile by trail above the Santiam Highway. Unwise motor vehicle access, now partially blocked off, has resulted in some exessive impact at the lake. Long Lake is almost untouched. These lakes are easily accessible, but off the beaten track and far too small to sustain high capacity outdoor recrea- tion demands. They are well suited to Wilderness type use. The sum total of all these proposed additions is approximately 30,000 acres, which would make a Mount Jefferson Wilderness of about 125,000 acres. Many of our members feel that this is hardly enough; and they point to the tremendous increase in use of Wilderness in the Oregon Cascades-a use which has about doubled in the past seven years. In the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area alone, over 6,800 persons visited the area in 1966, and stayed an average of 4.2 days, according to Forest Service figures. At page 7 of the Forest Service Proposal for a Mount Jefferson Wilderness, is stated an estimated trend in use indicating an increase of about 20 per cent per year. Such a trend would mean that use of the Mount Jefferson Area will double about every five years. Unless the area is larger, as presently proposed, a serious saturation point will be reached quite soon. EFFECT ON THE TIMBER INDUSTRY The primary source of opposition to the creation of a Mount Jefferson Wilder- ness larger than that area proposed for establishment by S. 2751 has been from groups and individuals who fear the impact of this proposal upon the timber industry. We, on the contrary, believe that the additions we have proposed are not only extremely modest from the standpoint of wilderness opportunities in Ore- gon, but also insignificant in their impact on the local timber industry. The great bulk of the areas proposed by us to be added to the Wilderness bdundaries set forth in 5. 2751 are forested, and do contain commercial stands of timber. We estimate that there would be a reduction in the annual cut of the Detroit and Mill City Ranger Districts of the Willamette National Forest- the districts comprising the wilderness on the west side-of about 10.9 million board feet. This represents about an 11 per cent reduction in the annual cut of 98 million board feet in both of these above mentioned Ranger Districts. This sounds like a significant amount, until it is considered in the context of the entire Willamette National Forest. This forest embraces an area of 1.6 mil- lion acres, of which 1.3 million acres are commercial timber land, now open and available for cutting. The Willamette National Forest has an inventory of 48 billion board feet of saw timber. The annual allowable cut of the Willa- mette National Forest is 615 million board feet per year. This one forest cuts each year almost half the amount of timber that is cut each year in the entire state of Idaho, often though of as a timber producing state. The Willamette National Forest is the largest timber producing forest in the entire United States. A reduction of 10 or 11 million board feet per year in annual cut might be significant in other national forests, but it is not in the Willamette. This reduction would be approximately a 1.8 per cent reduction in the annual allow- able cut of that forest. The Forest Service estimates that one million board feet of timber will employ 1.3 loggers or about 3.2 millworkers. If these figures are accurate, all proposals to expand the proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness would affect some 45 to 50 jobs in the forest products industry in the local area. The effect of this withdrawal of commercial timberland upon these users of the forest should be balanced against the effect on the increasing number of re- creation users if the area in question is not put into the Wilderness. As noted above, these users are increasing at the rate of 20 per cent per year. `These are people who seek a wilderness experience. They will continue to seek this experience on whatever land is available. It follows that if more land is available, more persons can enjoy a wilderness experience, and the number of persons doing so is far greater already in the Mount Jefferson Area than the number of per- sons who might be affected by the removal of some timber supply. To be noted also in this context is the fact that there already has been a substantial drop in employment in the timber industry of the local area. In August of 1967, the Simpson Timber Company closed a plywood plant at Lyons, and a veneer plant at Idanha. These two communities are those nearest to the west side of the Mount Jefferson Area, and the total number of jobs lost by these two closures PAGENO="0066" 54 alone was 400, or eight to ten times what might be effected by a withdrawal for Wilderness purposes. These plants closed not because of a lack of supply, but because of a weak plywood market. It is also instructive to compare the effect of this withdrawal upon the tim- ber economy of Oregon as a whole. The State of Oregon has an existing inven- tory of some 536 billion board feet (international 1/4-inch rule). In 1966, 8.9 billion board feet of timber was cut in Oregon, 3.2 billion of it coming from the national forest. The simple point of all this is that an 11 million board feet annual cut lost by dedication to wilderness recreation is hardly a matter of economic importance to the nation, the State of Oregon, or even to the local economy. We are greatly concerned that Oregon has been shortchanged in its dedicated lands, and may not he able to provide for the recreation demands of the future. Bonneville Power Administration studies predict `that tourism and recreation will replace timber and agriculture as Oregon's primary industry by the year 2000. If Wilderness use continues to increase at the present rate, seven times as many persons will be seeking what remains of wilderness recreation op- portunities in Oregon as Seek it now. And yet for all this, there is set aside in Wilderness and Primitive Areas in Oregon now only 750,000 acres of national forest land. This is less dedicated land than presently exists in the North Cascades Primitive Area of Washington State alone, not to mention all the other dedicated areas in that `state. The State of Oregon, with half again as much total land as the State of Washington (62 million to 43 million acres) has re- served in all national parks, state parks, and Forest Service areas only a total of 970,000 acres, or only about One-third as much as its smaller sister state (2.5 million acres). The State of Washington by contrast has set aside nearly 6 per cent of its total land area, and most persons in that state do not `think this is enough. Here in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area proposals, we have a chance to add some small po'rtion to Oregon's inventory of wilderness. The present proposal for a Mount Jefferson Wilderness, while commendable as far as it goes, do'es no't appear reasonably designed to obtain the preserva- tion of a suitable area as Wilderness. Focal points are too close to roadheads, some scenic corridors are excluded, wilderness valleys are excluded, and alpine lakes are excluded. Precipitive construction of logging roads and timber sales have caused a gross loss in `the wilderness resource at the very time that this area has been under consideration for Wilderness classification. Despite these losses, there is still an opportunity to create a viable Wilderness unit. The additions recommended will add significantly to the Wilderness. Prime- val forests, valleys, ridges, rivers, and streams will be added. The additional areas have value not only as wilderness but alSo as buffers for focal points beyond. While commercial forest lands are involved, `the nation, the region, and the State can afford the loss-our commercial forests exceed the foreseeable de- mands upon them. On the other hand, the area within the boundaries of S. 2751 is not likely to meet, for very long, the foreseeable demands for wilderness recrea- tion. If its present narrow border's are not widened and expanded, overuse will soon make it incapable of offering the type o'f environment proposed to be created by this bill. Mr. TUPLING. Now, at my right is Mr. Robert Ives, who is here. from California ~to present the Sierra Club statement on San Gabriel Wilderness. `Senator METcALF. Mr. Ives, we are delighted to have you here, and to hear your testimony on the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness Area. Mr. IVES. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert T. Ives and I live at 264 East Green Street, Claremont, Calif. I am appearing on behalf of the Sierra Club, a national conservation organization with some ~6,000 members, many of them from southern California. Our main office is at 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco, Calif. The Sierra Club has been dedicated to the preservation and enjoyment c~f wilderness for 75 years, ever since the club . was organized in 1892 by John Muir. I am chairman of the club's southern California regional conserva- tion `committee. I would like to express the club's support for Senate bill 2531, to designate the San Gabriel Wilderiiess as an addition to PAGENO="0067" 55 the National Wilderness Preservation System. This support is based on studies of the area that were made by the natural science section and the conservation committee of our Angeles chapter. I myself have hiked in the area, both in the canyons of the lower portion and on the pine slopes of the Mount Waterman ridge in the upper portion. The club supports the proposed acreage of 36,137 acres and the pro- posed boundaries, which in mosit cases extend close to existing roads. The club is pleased to note the addition of 2,490 acres in the Bobcat Canyon area to the wilderness proposal. We support the proposal because we believe it important to pre- serve several substantial representative samples of each biome in as natural a state as possible. A substantial portion of the proposed wil- derness lies in the chaparral community characterized by dought- resistant shrubs that burst into flowers in the spring, dry out in the summer and fail, and spring up again from underground stems after fires. The canyon bottoms support a streamside community with trees characteristic of more northerly forests such as the White Alder and the Big Leaf Maple. The transition zone of the upper slopes contains several species of pine, incense cedar, white fir, and big-cone Douglas fir. We note the presence of rainbow trout in the area, California mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, brown bears, raccoons, coyotes, and grey foxes. We urge that the number of heliports designed for fire protection be kept as small as possible. We understand that most of these are and will be located on ridgetops. We wish to encourage the Forest Service to keep them as small and as inconspicuous as possible. Finally, we urge the Forest Service to keep the dirt road to the south running along the west fork of the San Grabriel River in its present modest status, with locked gates to preclude general vehicular usage. The wilderness proposal is a good one. We are pleased to support it. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Tires. Do you have any questions of Mr. Tupling and Mr. Ives, Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. No; I don't. I think, though, Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate to introduce and to ask for inclusion in the record at this time a working paper that has been prepared by the Forest Service, under the direction of William A. Worf, which con- tains some interesting statistics. It is headed "Wildernesses, Primi- tive Areas, and National Park Wilderness Areas in the Vicinity of the Proposed Washakie Wilderness." Under the national forest wildernesses are included the four areas, Bridger, North and South Absaroka, and the Teton, with a total of 1,780,994 acres. Proposed for addition in the Washakie proposal is 196,390 acres. Primitive areas still being studied in Wyoming are the Glacier, 177,000 acres, and the Popo Agie, 70,000 acres. In Montana, the Absaroka, the Beartooth, and the Spanish Peaks, for a total of 590,800 acres are under study, and in the Grand Teton and Yellowstone Parks, a total of 1,850,000 acres for a grand total of 4,418,184 acres. Without objection, I would like to ask that this be included in the record. Senator METCALF. Without objection, that will be incorporated in an appropriate place in the record, to be selected by the staff. (The information follows:) 91-953---68-5 PAGENO="0068" 56 Wildernesses, primitive areas, a'nd national park roadless arec~s in vicinity of the propose~d Washakie WilderBess National National forest wildernesseS: forest acres Bridger North Absaroka 351, 104 South Absaroka (to be renamed Washakie) 483, 130 Teton 563,460 Total 1, 780, 994 Proposed for addition: Washakie proposal 199,390 PRIMITIVE AREAS STILL BEING STUDIED Wyoming: Glacier 177, 000 Popo Agie 70,000 Montana: Aisaroka 64,000 Beartooth 230,000 Spanish Peaks 49, 800 590, 800 National park roadless areas: Yellowstone 11, 700, 000 Grand Teton 1150, 000 Total 1, 850, 00 Grand total 4, 418, 184 1 Very tentative figures to be firmed up as a result of studies currently underway by the National Park Service. Senator METCALF. Who is next, Mr. Tupling? Mr. TUPLING. The next witness, Dr. Sanford Tepfer, of Eugene, Oreg. Senator METCALF. Dr. Tepfer, delighted to have you before the committee. Mr. TEFFER. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to sub- mit the formal written statement, but I intend to expand it, with my own remarks, rather than reading it directly. Senator METCALF. Without objection, your statement will be incor- porated in the record at the conclusion of your remarks. Mr. TEPFER. Thank you. I am Sanford S. Tepfer. My address is 2011 Elk Drive, Eugene, Oreg. I am professor of biology and head of the department of biology at the University of Oregon in Eugene. I have just retired as chairman of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Sierra Club. My statement represents not only my own views, but also the con- sensus of my department and the views of the Pacific Northwest chapter, containing approximately 1,550 members. Most of these reside in western Oregon and western Washington. I would like to address my attention first to the philosophical ques- tion of total need for wilderness in our society, at some time in the future, when we are dealing with much greater populations than we have present now. To me, the controlling arguments about how much should be in- cluded within the boundary of the proposed Mount Jefferson wilder- PAGENO="0069" 57 ness is a question that must be determined in the light of future popu- lations, rather than present-day economics alone, I am not trying to say that we can ignore economic arguments. I am simply saying that it is impossible to have too much vision. I would speak to the idea that we have to make our decisions now if we are going to preserve anything as wilderness. Any decision made at this time to exclude areas that are proposed for wilderness is an irrevocable decision, because those lands will be placed under the multiple-use, sustained-yield logging, and very quickly, once a road- Senator METCALF. Well, now, we discussed this a moment ago, and we had an area J which was recommended to be incorporated in a wilderness that had been logged over, and has a network of roads. Mr. TEFFER. Yes; but not with present-day logging methods, with all the machinery, and all the blasting, and all the roads. Senator METCALF. It doesn't always result in the fact that a logging or logging operation destroys an area for future incorporation into the wilderness. Mr. TEPFER. That is right; but it is never quite the same as if you get it before it has been logged. Senator METCALF. Then we should take area J out. Mr. TEPFER. Area J in the Washakie? Senator METCALF. Yes. Mr. TEFFER. All I know about area J is what I heard this morning, sir. From what I heard of area J, I think that the intrusions have not been sufficient to exclude it, but if you look over the logged-over country in western Oregon, I think you would say that it would be a long time before you could even think about it in the same fashion. I will get back to that point, though, on another matter, in a minute. I am saying that if we draw the line for preservation at a time of any future national emergency, the Congress makes the line, the Con- gress can move the line. You are saving the trees, and they will be there. You are saving the land, and you can change the decision, if necessary, although, I hope it would never be necessary. Most of the discussion in the Jefferson has to do with the west side areas that are designated by No. 14 in pale blue on the map. I would like to speak first in connection with the statement made this morning that one of the functions of a wilderness area is to pre- serve an example `of the forest heritage. WeH, the Mount Jefferson Wilderness indeed will preserve a seg- ment of the forest heritage of Oregon, according to the present bound- aries, but most of the commercial forests of Oregon are Douglas-fir forests, and very, very little of the forest that is set up for preservation is indeed Douglas fir forest. Somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of it are; but the rest of it is Alpine and sub-Alpine types, other species. There are mountains, glaciers, meadows, beautiful, magnificent country; but the forests are not, in fact, representatives of what the forests were in western Oregon, because that is high country. Most of the effort in setting lines on area 14 was to include some of the somewhat lower elevation Douglas-fir forest. Not the best of it. The best of it is already open to logging, and that is fine. The next point is the question of jobs. The statement was made by the Forest Service that, if area 14 were excluded, we would lose 600~ PAGENO="0070" 58 some-odd jobs in the lumber industry in Oregon. Well, that may very well be true. I have no way of challenging that figure. I would ac- cept it. I think that we need to look, in the first place, at the duration of those jobs, and the answer, of course, immediately is, "This is sus- tained yield logging, the jobs will go on forever." Don't you believe it. We don't log with a mule anymore. We have machinery, and further ahead into the future, fewer jobs are involved in the same kind of logging. That must be balanced against the jobs that an increase in the recreation industry would provide in the future, and the recreation industry buildup in the State. Admittedly, lumber is the major industry in Oregon. I have just heard a figure that it represents 47 percent, but it is falling all the time in its relative importance in the State. It is bound to continue to fall. It is the nature of the trends in our population, in our industrial base, and in the in- creased time for recreation that people have that provides for greater demands on the wilderness, greater demand on the other recreational facilities. Senator METCALF. You say lumbering is falling as far as the employ- ment of people is concerned, but not as a major industry as far as pro- duction of dollars worth of goods. Mr. TEFFER. That is right. I think that it is falling in terms of its percent of the total, as other industries are building up. The lumber industry is not growing and other kinds of industry are. I have a figure that Oregon has reserved only seven-tenths of 1 percent of its commercial timber for preservation; that is, reserved from cutting seven-tenths of 1 percent. A comparable figure for the State of Washington is 8 percent. I don't know what it is in other States. All that we are asking is a very small increase in this very small percentage of commercial timber that is in fact reserved. Obviously, all we can do is ask. It is the Congress that has to make the decision. I would like now to direct my attention to the small areas including lakes, area E, Marion Lake, on the west side, shown in pink, area 15, on the southeast corner, representing a small section with two im- portant recreation lakes, Square Lake and Round Lake. The Forest Service wishes to exclude these from inclusion in the wilderness, so that they can be developed for mass recreation. They are rather heavily used. They are relatively near to roads, although you can't drive into them. I would make this plea: That they be included in the wilderness so that they will have legal protection from despoliation in the future that they would not have if they were not in the wilderness. It would in no way inhibit the present level of use, nor an increase in the level of use. The Forest Service doesn't intend to put a road into Marion Lake. They said so this morning. Why can't we include it in the wilderness? An argument may be, "Well, there are so many people there, we have to build toilets." Why can't you build pit toilets in the wilder- ness areas? There are pit toilets in wilderness areas all over the coun- try. I can see no reason for that as an excuse. There is no question of commercial logging in either of these two areas. Next, one of the major problems in the entire Mount Jefferson Wilderness at this time of reclassification is the shape of it. Not the total size, but the shape. It is long, it is narrow, and it has a vulnerable PAGENO="0071" 59 center. It has a narrow waist. It is hemmed in on the east by the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, and we can't control the development of that. It is shown up there in the upper right-hand corner of the map. It is hemmed in on the west by commercial timberland that is al- ready under development and will remain under development. Well, what is the problem? The problem simply is that one of the most beautiful spots in this wilderness, and one of the most important ones for recreational use, is an area known as Jefferson Park. Jefferson Park is a high mountain meadow, with lakes, located just north of Mount Jefferson, above the headwaters of White Water Creek, flow- ing to the west. At that point, the wilderness area is something in the neighborhood of 3 miles wide. This has made Jefferson Park now so accessible that it is subject to heavy 1-day use, and it can't stand it. A fragile mountain meadow in the wilderness is just as subject to overuse as Yosemite Valley is. The same sort of problems can occur. We who believe in preservation foresaw this problem and in 1962, when the Forest Service said it was studying this region for reclassi- fication, we begged them not to log the valley of White Water Creek on the west, that part outside the boundary of the wildnerness. Area No. 14 is traversed by road. We asked that that not be logged, that this would open up Jefferson Park to heavy and destructive use. Before it was possible even to hold the hearings held in 1963, the Forest Service built the road and took out the first logging cuts. Im- mediately, the use of Jefferson Park has gone up enormously, and the place is simply wearing out. Therefore, at this time, and this is in reference to your comments on area J in the Washakie, we are asking that the wilderness be put back down the White Water Road, and close the road. Now, that isn't the same kind of wilderness there, but we think it should be included in the area of wilderness to keep out the motor vehicles, to slow down the wearing out of the most magnificent mountain meadow area in there. It is necessary to protect it, in our opinion. Of course, that com- promises the standards of what constitutes wilderness. That has been logged, just a couple of years ago. That is, there are sections logged, not the entire area, and there is this one road in it. It would be a long time before it would be wild again, but it will reduce the usage. Jefferson Park can stand fairly heavy use, but not as heavy as it is now getting. We have a problem, then, of viability on size and shape that must be considered for a small wilderness area like this which would be less important in some of the larger ones in Wyoming. I would also like to call your attention to the fact that a point was made this morning that the Forest Service was to be congratulated for paying attention to local hearings, and local opinion. They certainly didn't listen to us on White Water, because we predicted what would happen, and it did happen. The last hearings that were held by the Forest Service in Salem in 1966 had a vast predominance of testimony for the west side enlargements that we are asking for now. My last point is that the decision is up to the Congress. It is ir- revocable in one direction, as far as I am concerned. If you draw that line on the west side, you can never move it westward within our life- time. If it were necessary, you could still move it eastward. PAGENO="0072" 60 Thank you gentlemen. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Tepfer. Your prepared statement will be printed at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF SANFORD S. TEPFER, THE SIERRA CLUB I am Sanford S. Tepfer, 2011 Elk Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97403. I am Professor of Biology and Head of the Department of Biology at the University of Oregon. I have just retired as chairman of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Sierra ~Illub. My statement represents not only my own views, but also the consensus of my department, as well as of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of approximately 1550 members, of whom about 1250 reside in Oregon and Washington, about 550 in the Willamette Valley region extending south from Portland. Speaking for these groups and for niyself, I am asking your commiteee to amend S. 2751 establishing the Mt. Jefferson wilderness, to increase the size of the proposed wilderness from the approNimately 95,450 acres in the Bill to about 125,000 acres. I commend the committee for adding two areas now included in the bill but not proposed by the Forest Service. I believe that there are valid agruments for adding several other areas, listed in order of priority, 1. Several areas along the western boundary of the .proposed wilderness, including: a. The remainder of the Firecamp Lakes region. b. The North and South Forks of the Breitenbush River. c. The valley of Whitewater Creek. d. Woodpecker Ridge, Pamelia Creek, Minto Mountain, Bingham Ridge, Big Meadows. 2. The region around Marion Lake, also on the western side. 3. Square and Long Lakes, on the southern boundary. The boundaries that we propose are shown in testimony submitted by many outdoor organization representatives. Those interested in outdoor recreation and in wilderness preservation have been struggling through hearings for many years in an attempt to convince the Forest Service that recreational and other values, including the economic ad- vantages of a recreation industry, should be deemed paramount in this highly scenic region, with commercial logging restricted to forest lands farther re- moved from the majestic volcanoes of the Cascade Orest. When reclassifica- tion was first proposed by the Forest Service many years ago, we submitted recommendations to add much of the critical area now suggested. The Forest Service responded by logging and road building in the valley of Whitewater Creek, then proposed reclassification essentially as they propose today. We pro- tested the logging of the disputed area to no avail. At the request of outdoor clubs, a formal hearing was held in 1964. Shortly afterwards the Wilderness Act be- came law, and the study and reclassification procedures had to be repeated. At hearings held in Salem in 1966, proponents of the enlarged wilderness outnum- bered opponents four to one. I would like to give both specific and general arguments for amending the bill to enlarge the area. High mountain wilderness is extremely fragile. It can be destroyed by overuse by people and by pack stock as easily as a meadow can be overgrazed by cattle or sheep, and it is just as difficult to restore it. The scenic grandeur of Mt. Jefferson is traditionally enjoyed by outdoorsmen from camp- ing sites in Jefferson Park, the name given to an area of fine meadows and small lakes located just north of the mountain. At this point the proposed wilderness area is only about 3 miles wide. On the east lies the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. The boundary cannot be extended in this direction even though the tribe intends to log their lands shortly. On the west lies the valley of Whitewater Creek, logged and roaded in spite of our protests right up to the boundary proposed in this bill. The Whitewater Road makes the fragile Jeffer- son Park country accessible for short picnic-like trips, thus increasing its use enormously. We are making the unusual recommendation that this valley, al- though roaded and logged in part, be included in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness. A mistake made earlier need not destroy the wilderness if the Congress acts to~lay. Marion Lake, as well as Square and Long Lakes to the south, can stand rather heavy recreational use, provided motorized access is prevented. If these areas PAGENO="0073" 61 are added to the Wilderness Area they will help take the pressure off of Jeffer- son Park. The principal specific arguments for the addition of the other west- side areas is to preserve some of the Douglas Fir country. The proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, like the small Mt. Washington Wild- erness, the Diamond Peak Wilderness, and much of the Three Sisters Wilder- ness, contains relatively little timber of prime economic value-such is the re- sult of conflicts of interest. The great forests of Oregon `are the Douglas Fir forests. More of them should be preserved to record for future generations what this grand forest was like. More general arguments could be applied to the enlargement of other wild- erness areas presently ready for reclassification and permanent wilderness status, but I shall confine my remarks `to Oregon, with which I am familiar after 13 years of hiking, backpacking, skiing, and paddling down wild rivers. I must remind the committee that most of the former great stretches of wild- erness have now been committed to sustained-yield logging by the construction of a nearly complete network of logging roads, and the cutting of various sections along those roads. The former wilderness now has a moth-eaten appearance when viewed from the air, or from nearby mountain tops. Once committed to economic exploitation of its timber, which is indeed a renewable resource if properly managed, it is not available for the kind of recreational values that we are seeking, those of a wilderness. Fifteen years ago, it would have still been possible to make vast extensions of wilderness area boundaries. Today this is no longer possible. We are able only to ask for pitifully small extensions of areas such as the Mt. Jefferson to include as yet untouched nearby lands within protected bound- aries. With the continuation of clear trends for increases in population, and for increased use of wilderness well beyond what the expansion of popula- tion, and for increased use of wilderness well beyond what the expansion of population would explain, it is now reasonable to make these relatively small extensions that are still possible. In studying Forest Service figures on the amount of timber that will be pre- served if the present bill is enacted, please note `that mose of this timber is of the less desirable alpine and subalpine types. Only 3100 acres of large, old growth Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine will be preserved. The rest is relatively poor timber, hemlock, subalpine firs, lodgepole pine, and other species. We have calculated that Oregon has reserved only seven-tenths of one percent of all its commercial `timber land from cutting (4 billion board feet out of an estimated 536 billion board feet.) Can't we afford to reserve a bit more? We believe that the future economic benefits of the trees in the expanding recreation industries in Oregon greatly outweigh their value as lumber. If a national emergency ever exists that would require great increases in timber usage, it would always be possible, by Act of Congress, to reverse a decision made at this time for in- creased preservation. Once land is roaded and logged, it will not ever be wilderness in our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children. The forest will grow back indeed, but in neat packets suited for harvest rather than in wilderness. A negative decision on our request is an irrevocable one; an affirmative decision is only pro tempore. In another ten years the dedicated and protected wilderness areas will `be the entire wilderness remaining. Any lands that are to be preserved must be pre- served now. Gentlemen, the decision is yours. Mr. TUPLING. Mr. Orrin Bonney will discuss Washakie. Senator HANSEN. Before Mr. Bonney starts, may I just take this occasion to say that we were delighted to have him here today. He is well known in Wyoming, and I think certainly deserves commendation for the excellent work he has done on the Wind River Mountain Range. He is probably the most expert in knowing about all of the peaks, the access trails to those important back-country areas up there, Senator Metcalf, and I am very delighted and pleased that he can be here today. He is a man that has traversed this country, and though not every- one may necessarily agree with him on his conclusions, I can say that PAGENO="0074" 62 he speaks from firsthand knowledge, and I am delighted that he can be here to testify today. Senator METCALF. Mr. Bonney, we are looking forward to your testimony. Mr. BONNEY. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and persons here today, I think the Senator has probably introduced me pretty well. I live in the Jackson Hole country of Wyoming, not too far from the Senator in the summertime, and we both love the Wyoming country, and want to see everything done that can be done for Wyoming, both of us. Senator METCALF. If you work as hard for Wyoming as Senator Hansen does, then I am sure you will try to do everything for Wyoming. Mr. BONNEY. I am speaking for the Sierra Club, but I can't divorce from that my own feelings on the State and the desire to preserve the nature of it, so I may get my own feelings mixed into it somewhat. First, I would like to commend the Forest Service for putting the Boedeker Butte area into this proposal. This occurred subsequent to the Riverton hearing. With all due regard to the Forest Service, they recognized an error had been made, and they put out their brochure showing Boedeker Butte as a typical area of the wilderness which ought to be preserved, and the picture they put in their brochure didn't show that. Everything that was in the picture was excluded from the area. Now, I make mistakes myself and try to correct them, too, so they have corrected the mistake, and they put Boedeker Butte in the pro- posal. At the moment I am just elaborating on my remarks. I have a written document to go into the record, and it is long, and I don't want to read it. Senator METCALF. It will be incorporated in the record. Mr. BONNEY. I don't want to take up your time with it, but I would like to make some comment here. I think that our discussion of Boedecker Butte points up one of our great problems concerning where to put the boundaries. The Forest Service, as they did on Boedecker Butte, ran their line on the top, practically precluding the whole scenic area, like defining the boundaries of the Mall by the top of the Washington Monument. You don't have anything, and they didn't have anything here on Boedecker, nor on some of these others, because they went to the top of the buttes and the top of the pinnacles. I don't know whether anybody here is familiar with surveying, but I don't think a surveyor could get on top of some of these pinnacles. I am a mountain climber, and I would have difficulty. I don't think a surveyor could get there to survey these boundary lines. You can ask any surveyor, and he would tell you he would much rather be working on these lower points, which we have designated on our map. These are all high points easily seen on the ground. A sur- veyor would be much happier getting out on those outlying points and laying out his line than he would scrambling along the tops of the pinnacles. The Forest Service., in this brochure, characterize this Washakie wilderness as a country characterized by deep, narrow valleys, some of them true canyons, and broad flat-topped mountains and plateaus. PAGENO="0075" 63 They go on to describe how it was built up from volcanic material, how it is deposited in horizontal layers, and these are cemented by water action. They say they are extremely unstable, and break down irregularly, resulting in steplike cliffs and buttes. But the Forest Service also says this, and I think this is important to the whole matter of Washakie boundaries: The narrow valleys, with the narrow strips of timber in the bottoms adjacent to precipitous canyon walls, create a primitive charm. Numerous small parks and side drainage offer chances for complete sechi~sion. I agree with the Forest Service, and what they have said, that it is these narrow strips of timber at the base of the great escarpments that give the area its charm. You can turn to the proposal which the Forest Service has prepared. You can look at the picture not only of Boedecker Butte, which I mentioned, and also look at Norton Point, You know what their boundary does on Norton Point. Here is beau- tiful scenery. This is a view from the campground, the development at Double `Cabin Campground. Here is this beautiful scene, with Norton Point pinnacle rising up, and all this forest covered pinnacle. What does the Forest Service do in the boundary lines? I don't think that Dr. Cliff himself this morning realized what they are doing there. I don't think he has been there to see this country and had checked the boundaries and seen what it was. They have come clear up above all this timber to lay out their points. Senator METCALF. You are indicating the timber in the picture about halfway up the slope? Mr. BONNEY. Yes. Senator METCALF. Where the timberline is? Mr. BONNEY. Yes, and they have gone above that. Theoretically, they can get some of the timber values, but even there the timber is of very little value. It is hard to reach. As you get toward timberline, the timber gets more scrubby and scattered, but still there is some timber in there. Where there is a narow valley cut, they will take that out, but they ruin the whole country when they go in, as they did when they tim- bered in area J. Over in the DuNoir, only about the eastern third of that was tim- bered. The rest is virgin. Some of the most beautiful timber in Wyo- ming is there in the entire western part of that blue section on the map. They went in with tie hatchets. They took a tree big enough to make a tie out of, cut it down, chopped it, and hauled it out with teams and floated it down the river. Nowadays it is an entirely different technology. In fact, I contend that the technology has deteriorated rather than improved. They go in there with big machines and bulldoze out everything. Some of the people from Wyoming will show you pictures of where they have just taken out every tree, every sapling, every shrub. Everything that is on the ground has been bulldozed out. The trees that we would make two-by-fours out of in any other part of the country are burned. All they make from that timber is two-by- fours. That is all U.S. Plywood makes. They take big trees that can make dimension luthber and everything. What they can't take, they bulldoze into a pile and burn. The ground is stripped bare. That is one PAGENO="0076" 64 thing that the Wyoming people have been complaining about. They are complaining about it in this DuNoir area. We had the hearing at Riverton, and it was apparent that these boundaries should be extended. I did not have a chance to count the statements that came in. They came in to the Forest Service and are supposed to be sent to Congress. They were kept in Denver, and have never been sent to this committee or this Congress, as the Forest Serv- ice said they would do, and as the law provides they should do. They are still in Denver. They should be here, so that you gentlemen on the committee would have a chance to see the record, and see what the people there said, and see what the Forest Service said. Of the people who testified at Riverton 61 percent were in favor of extending these boundaries to include the DuNoir. You pick up the newspapers from Wyoming, and see the headlines in the front pages of everybody, realizing what is at stake, demanding that this should be preserved. There are people who can show you pictures where the old tie cut- ting took effect, and it has all returned pretty well to nature. It shows the effect of nature. That is what the Wilderness Act is, the effect of national forests, where the influences of man are diminishing. That is true, even in the old eastern section shown on the map. Down below is a great need for recreation areas. There must `be added facilities. We must have increased recreation areas in the national forests. From where you sit, you probably can't see the green area. That is all forest area, the lines on the map there. There are vast areas of timber, so that we don't need to disturb these scenic strips of timber. Right below the East DuNoir is Trail Lake. That is an `ideal recrea- tional area. In the old days of the tie cutting, they built a darn on a lake there. Now it is filled with waterfowl and trumpeter swans, and there is a jeep road in there that I could not drive with my high- wheeled International. It could be made into a road, and people could get in there, and they could establish a very beautiful and fine recrea- tional area there. The people could go from there back up into the timber, and into the country up higher that is beautiful and scenic. There are several other areas there, all outside the proposed area. I don't think the Forest Service, if they showed you the plans, showed any of these areas within that colored area there. Trail Lake would he ideal for recreation. It is easy to reach. They could build a road there inexpensively, and there are many other places there where they could do it, The other line, still talking about these strips of timber along the escarpment-if you can indicate the forest line which follow the high summits of peaks. That is the forest line. The lines that we have drawn are there. Show the lines that the conservationists and the Wyoming people have advocated. They pick up the high points. There will be a pin- nacle sticking up outlining these main scenic features, and we run from one of those to the `other. We come out to the low part, and the outlyers, and not take in the rim and the top of the peaks. Now, I think these public hearings not only in Riverton, like the Forest Service had, but hearings as we have here are of great benefit. They are one great chance for the American public to say what they think and what thy feel, and it gives a chance for both the bureaus PAGENO="0077" 65 and the Congress to consider what the people themselves are thinking, and what they are feeling. It also gives us some opportunity to hear what the other side has to say, and we can think about it. Maybe some-* times they are right. On section E we have pretty well determined to agree with what you might say the other interests, the Forest Service and others, say. We originally had that area there, but now we are willing to give it up. It is going to be desirable for recreational uses at Devil Lake, and it is perfectly all right with us to take that out of the proposal. I ±hink that was a result of the hearing, and we heard what the other side had to say about it,so that it sometimes works both ways. Now, what is the value of all this? There is a lot of eyewash in this thing, but really the problem here, and the difference, is on timber. I don't kid myself about it. There are a lot of things said, but timber is the real problem here. These interests want to go in and cut the timber, and we feel that it will completely destroy the beauty of the country, completely ruin one of the greatest economic values that Dubois and Fremont County has. Over in the ~Jackson Hole country, Teton County, we have our scenic benefits there. We are probably the most prosperous or nearly the most prosperous county in the whole of Wyoming, although our population, Senator, is something like 2,000. Senator HANSEN (presiding). A little more. Mr. BONNEY. Maybe I shouldn't put it that low, but of all the coun- ties in Wyoming, we are fourth largest in the sales tax receipts that go to the county. That is for a small county. That is because of the two and a half million visitors tha:t the Senator mentioned. Dubois pays that, and Fremont County, and the big advantage over this is not the few sticks of timber that they get out there, but the future of people coming in to see the wild herds of animals, and these scenic features. What is the timber worth? I will just have to take their figures. In their brochure, in this J area of the DuNoir, I understand there is an appraisal of similar timber in that section of maybe 55 cents a thousand cubic feet. I understand there have been timber sales advertised in the newspapers there of similar timber with a $2 minimum per thousand. They say here in their proposal that they have submitted to this Con- gress that there is 30 million commercial feet of timber in there. Gentle- men, do you know what that represents, at 55 cents a thousand? That is $1~,500. That is the dollars and cents involved. If you take the $2, at 30 million feet, you have $60,000 involved, as against the economy of the whole town of Dubois and against the economy of all of Fremont County, and Wyoming, too. Wyoming gets lots of sales tax. Part of their government is suj~- ported by the visitors that come there in the summertime, and support it. All that is balanced against this little, measly, in the entire DuNoir, $60,000, if you take the minimum that they are advertising that timber for; $60,000. It is gone forever. Left like it is, it will support the Wyoming economy, and Fremont County, and the town of Dubois, for generations. But take it away, and in a few months it will be gone, and it is gone forever. This genera- *tion can't restore it, and the next generation can't. That is what we are talking about. PAGENO="0078" 66 Now, coming out on these outlyers, and getting these little thin strips of timber, the Forest Service says that will be 10 million board feet of lumber, and it is necessary .to the timber industry of Dubois. They say that is necessary. Ten million feet of lumber at 55 cents is $5,500, necessary to the lumber industry of Dubois, or, if you take the $2, 10 million feet at $2 is $20,000, necessary to an industry the size of U.S. Plywood & Champion Paper. Actually, I think the lumber industry should be ashamed of itself. There are vase areas, which I don~t know whether you can see on the forest map, there, all over this section of Wyoming, in the Wind River district, and we have not asked for them. We have asked only for this little minimum, very little of it have we asked for. We have left the whole thing to the lumber industry. We have not sought to be greedy, as they have sought to be. We should get together. We should get along together there. But they have to have everything. There is one other thing that I would like to speak to here. I think, from some of the remarks that Senator Hansen made this morning, that he wants to watch this same thing, too. It became apparent at the Riverton hearing that the large proportion of the people in Fremont County wanted this east and west DuNoir preserved. The Forest Service representatives were there, and knew that that was in issue, that this was something that had to he decided. They knew that under the Wilderness Act the decision should be made in this Congress, before this body, and I don't think they should attempt to make this decision and cut this timber oil? before it can be decided here. I am willing to go with the decision of this body, but I am not will- ing to have this all determined and have it all become moot before it has a chance to be discussed and determined here. Now, I don't know whether this is true or not, and the Forest men would have to verify it, but I have been told since I came to Washing- ton on this trip that the Forest Service is already coming up from Long Creek, and gone over into Wolf Creek drainage, where she is pointing out on the map, and made an attempt to cut there, and tried to forestall any action by this Congress to put that into the wilderness. I am sure that the Senator has asked for that information, and I think it should be forthcoming from the Forest Service. It should be determined if they have gone in on any of this area that we are discussing. If they have, they should be stopped, and certainly no further tim- ber depredations should take place until Congress has the opportunity to make the decision. Concerning the elk, I think sometimes I am like Senator Hansen. I don't quite understand the elk. I live in the town of Kelly, and I have gone home from Jackson one night in probably late September or early October, and I had to wait until 250 elk crossed the road in front of me, so that I can't say that elk never cross the road. However, there on one side of the road was the elk refuge pasture, where they raise the hay for the elk, and on the other side the pasture itself. They were not under pressure from hunting. It was the fall of the year, when the elk naturally come down. In the wintertime you can go on the elk refuge, and it seems as if they are as tame as cattle. You go in the mountains in the summertime, and you cannot get near one. PAGENO="0079" 67 It is maybe a different habit at the time of year, or something, but I think that once you do come in with lumbering operations and disturb their summer range, and their migrstion routes, and bring it under pressure of hunters, or build jeep roads into area J and let a half dozen hunters go up on the first day of hunting season, that the elk would be scattered up in the hills, and might never come down that migration route again. Wyoming has gone to a lot of expense in an area south of this pro- posed Wilderness area where the Wyoming Game Commission has bought an elk pasture. They bring the elk in there and feed them in the winltertiine, so that they won't come down and get on the ranches and cause trouble there. I do think the elk would be disturbed, particularly by the timber cutting, and by the type of roads that they build there. Maybe they are used to our Jackson Hole country, and know they have lots of friends there in the wintertime. I don't know. Anyway, it is a free meal, so that that probably influences them in coming down to the elk refuge. I believe my written statement will take care of most of my other comments, and I will be glad to answer any questions. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Bonney, I want to thank you very much for an excellent statement. I have before me a copy of your prepared statement that is very comprehensive, and I know that the members of the committee will study it carefully, because they recognize the background from which you speak, and will be impressed, as I am, with what you say. May I just make one or two observations? I am sure you will be the first to want to have the record straight, and I think it ought to he noted that Teton County shares in part of the sales tax take in Yellow- stone Park, so that what we get there does not reflect simply the tax or exclusively the tax collected within Teton County. A number of years ago, with the passage of the sales tax, the question of what do we do about Yellowstone Park was posed, and for the good fortune of my county, Teton and Park County, the sales tax receipts from the park are divided between those two coulTities. I know that you would want me to point that out. I might also say that the Forest Service does not have in its presen- tation the detail, the specific statements that you referred to, that were taken at the Riverton hearing. There is this one paragraph: I will read now from the Forest Service brochure entitled "A Pro- posal, Washakie Wilderness-Shoshone National Forest-Wyoming": Thirty-one percent of the statements favored the Forest Service Proposal, with a majority of these specifying that the Wilderness not be increased beyond this size. Sixty-one percent favored the Forest Service Proposal plus part of or all of the additions proposed by the Wildlife-Sierra-Wilderness Society group. Two percent were in favor of Wilderness classification for the Stratified Primi- tive Area but were opposed to anything larger, Three percent were opposed to Wilderness classification for any of the area. Three percent did not state a position on any of the proposals. In addition to that, I am told that the Forest Service does have on hand, and it is available for perusal by this committee, a complete transcript of the Riverton field hearings. Copies of all organizational statements made at the Riverton hear- ing, and also individual statements submitted to the Forest Serv- ice are on file both in Denver and here in Washington, and are avail- PAGENO="0080" 68 able to this Interior Committee. I would not be surprised at all but what the Forest Service would be glad to show any particular state- ment to anyone who may be back here, and who would have a partic- i~ilar interest. Mr. B0NNIiY.That is excellent. I am glad to know that. Senator HANSEN. I knew you would be. You do raise a good question, a question that I have heard ex- pressed many times, I think it probably strikes more at the heart of this controversy than any other one thing. That is, What does the Forest Service plan insofar as the utilization of the timber is concerned? I note that still here this afternoon, is Mr. Worf. I don't mean to put you on the spot, Bill, but would you feel that you might respond to the question that was posed by Mr. Bonney, as to what the Forest Service has in mind in its immediate or in its early plans, say, within the next year or two, insofar as the utilization o~ the timber in the east and west DuNoir area is concerned? Would you feel able to respond to that? May I identify for the record Mr. William A. Worf, of the Wash- ington office of the U.S. Forest Service. I might say parenthetically that Mr. Worf has been supervisor out there, and I know he is familiar with this area. I appreciate your willingness, sir, to respond to that question. Please feel free to talk about the plans of the Forest Service with re- gard to the utilization of the timber in area J, and also, if you would, what you would con1~emplate in areas such as that indicated on page 6. If you would, you might also indicate what the Forest Service plans in the form of timber development in the Wiggins Fork area, area generally E and F, 1 and 3. Would that be right~ Mr. Bonney? Mr. BONNEY. Yes. STATEI\~ENT OF WILLIAM A. WORF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE Mr. WORF. First I will speak about area J The total volume of timber in the area J, as was pointed out by Chief Cliff this morning, is about 100 million board feet of commercial quality timber. l,Ve believe that under present market conditions, and present condi- tions of equipment, that only about 30 million of that is operable. In the first harvest cycle we would harvest approximately 15 million feet. This would be over several years, not immediately, not all at one time. There are no sales that are being offered in that area at this time, and we have no immediate plans to offer a sale. There is one road about 2 miles long, and a sale within the area that was offered before thehearings. Senator HANSEN. That is on East or West DuNoir? Mr. WORF. It is not in the DuNoir Range, it comes up on this Bon- neville Creek area, right here, on the map. It comes about 2 miles into area J. ~Senator hANSEN. Was this sale made prior to this hearing, or the Riverton hearing? PAGENO="0081" 69 Mr. WORF. I will have to Ohec~k the exact date on that, but I am reasonably sure it was prior to the Riverton hearing. As I say, the 15 million feet would be removed during the first harvest cycle. As far as the Wiggins Fork area is concertied this area below the primitive area boundary now in Wiggins Fork was harvested in an insect control project a few years ago. Senator HANSEN. For my benefit, for the committee's benefit, those areas would be F-i and E? Mr. WORF. In F-i and E, and other portions outside of those; yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. I see. Mr. WORF. It is very unlikely that there would be any timber harvesting, or there would be very little timber harvesting in areas 3 or 4, because these are the steep, rocky slopes which would not be con- sidered operable under present conditions. Senator HANSEN. Do I understand you, then, to agree generally with what Mr. Bonney has said about inadvisability of trying to harvest the timber on an area that is as straggled as I assume that to be? Mr. WORF. On the steeper, rockier slopes, this is correct. I think those slopes, and most of the slopes within the area 3 would be of this nature. There are some of the flatter areas that might possibly be managed for timber purposes. Does that answer your question? Senator HANSEN. I think that answers the questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Worf. STATEMENT OP ORRIN BONNEY-Resumed Mr. BONNET. I might say that the topographic map was prepared by Mr. Shoemaker; and we had that at the Riverton hearings. It was sent here, and probably should become part of the record, to show where these lines are. The forests, actually the trees, appear on there in green, and the two different boundary lines. This was what was submitted at Riverton, however, and like I say, we backed off on some of it since. Senator HANSEN. Without objection it will be incorporated into the record by reference. It may be that if it was presented at the Riverton hearing, that a copy of this map would also be on file with the Forest Service. Am I right in assuming that, Mr. Worf? Mr. WoRF. This is the only copy. This is the copy from that hearing record. Senator HANSEN. I see. In reference to another hearing in which I have a real interest- not that it pertains to the hearings on the Washakie-but since you are here, I would like to ask you for your opinion of a proposal that was endorsed by the Dubois City Council, a resolution endorsing the build- ing of a road into an area from which could be viewed the Gannet Mountain, Dinwoody Glacier area. Mr. BONNET. I don't feel that the road should go beyond what is already constructed in there. That would be over the top of Whiskey Mountain, or somewhere near there. PAGENO="0082" 70 Senator IT~NS~N. That is ~ny general idea. Mr. BONNEY. I am told that it is up through ~he reservation from Horse Ridge. At the end of Horse Ridge, as has just been pointed out to me, is probably one of the most scenic spots in the entire United States. But I feel it would be ruined by a tourist road up to that point. I would much rather see it stay .as it is. The moment you put in a road, you have the pressure on it, just li1~e you do at Old Faith- ful in Yellowstone. They can get in here by pack train or hiking. I have been there, and carried a pack all the way into that area o~ Horse Ridge, and really enjoyed myself because I was back there where it was all natural. There are very often mountain sheep in that area that can be seen in the summertime. There are many things there that would be com- pletely destroyed by the effects of civilization, which a road always brings. Senator HANSEN. You are saying, then, that you would not favor the intrusion of a road into that primitive area. Is that right? Mr. BONNEY. That would be my feeling on it and that, in the boun- daries of the primitive area there, there should be no road beyond those boundaries. There may be some justification for some adjustment of those boundaries. They can't be adjusted very much, because the ridge defines them on the west, and the Indian reservation defines them on the east and south. On the glacier area, there cannot be much change in boundaries, but I would not be in favor of seeing a road go in there. We may have to take another look at the northern boundaries, and talk to the people in the county and see where they feel they should be, but I don't believe a road should go in there. Senator HANSEN. Just one further and final question, Mr. Bonney. In your judgment, are the values that you see endangered, and those which you seek so earnestly to preserve, jeopardized almost exclu- sively by the timbering? Is this your main concern for asking that extra areas be included in the wilderness system, or are there other factors, as well? Mr. BONNEY. There would be two main factors there that would disturb it. One would be the tin~bering, which will certainly destroy it forever, and it is not worth it. There is just not enough involved in the timber and, of course, if it is put in the wilderness classification it can never be timbered. That is a protection against change of attitude in the Forest Service, or anywhere else. It is a full and final protection, and just one man can't say, "We have changed our minds. We are going to timber it off." That protects it, the act of putting it in the wilderness classification. The fact that there are no roads in there protects it from being overrun by people. I believe in having the people see this proposed wilderness, and be- lieve in building these recreational areas. There are numerous recrea- tional areas, and we have not included any of those within the boundaries that we feel should be established as wilderness. At Double Cabin you can go right in there, and are on the boun- dary of the wilderness area, but there is an area there that should be developed so that people can come there and hike into the wilder- ness. There are numerous other areas suitable for development, also. PAGENO="0083" 71 Senator HANSEN. Maybe I am in error, but it was my understand- ing from the testimony presented this morning that there are four specific locations within area J, on the extreme western edge of the Forest Service proposal, that the Forest Service believes should be developed as campsites. Am I wrong about this? Mr. BONNEY. Dr. Cliff did not point out the location of those sites. I don't know whether there is anybody here that can point them out. If I were picking the sites, like I mention,ed previously, one would be Trail Lake. The other sites I would pick out would be at fairly low elevations above what we used to know as the Pickett Ranch. I think it is now known as the Diamond G. It would be easy to get a road in there and is not too rugged. But there are numerous sites that could be developed in there without ever going into what should be the wilderness area. In fact, it would be difficult to get a road into most of that country. Brooks Lake is right on the border of it. That is an established recreational area. Pinnacles Campground is one of the projected sites. That is on the western side of Pinnacle Buttes. Brooks Lake Falls is an existing campground, and those are all on the route to Yellowstone, so that people can camp overnight. Senator HANSEN. I refer again to the Forest Service manual, and on page 24, under areas not recommended for wilderitess, they speak of area J. East DuNoir Creek and West DuNoir Creek contain areas where timber has been harvested, four-wheel drive access, special use improvements, and potential recreation sites, which must be developed to meet projected public needs. I may be in error as to the number of sites. Somehow I was think- ing there were four. Would you know, Mr. Worf, if that is right? Mr. WORF. There are five. Mr. BONNEY. Could you point them out, Mr. Worf? Mr. WORF. Not from memory, no but they are all within area J. Sellator HANSEN. I don't think I have any further questions. I certainly do thank you for your statement, Mr. Bonney. We ap- preciate your coming here. Your prepared text will be printed at this point. Mr. BONNEY. I appreciate having the opportunity, Senator. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF ORIUN H. BONNEY AND LORRAINE G. BONNEY, ~HE SIERRA Ci~UB STRATIFIED PRIMITIVE AREA-SIERRA CLUB STUDY, AUGUsT 1960 THB PROPOSAL Senate Bill No. 2630 and House Bill No. 13560, 90th Congress, propese to des- ignate the Stratified Primitive Area as part of the Washakie Wilderness, here- tofore known as the South Absaroka Wilderness, in the Shoshone National Forest, State of Wyoming. We will discuss here only that portion now known as the Stratified Primitive Area since the other portion now known as the South Absaroka Wilderness has already been established by Congress as part of the wilderness system. We will refer to it as the Stratified Primitive Area, and our discussion will pertain thereto, and to the proposed additions and deletions. PAGENO="0084" 72 PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing was held in Riverton, Wyoming, December 8, 1966. The ma- jority of the views expressed, and particularly those of the residents of Fremont County, Wyo., were in accord with the findings of the study team as expressed herein. Prior to this hearing the U.S. Forest Service had submitted a proposal and bad invited persons interested to appear at the hearing and to submit written statements upon the premise "Any views submitted will be included with rec- ommendations of the Secretary of Agriculture to the President and to Congress." However, these were not submitted to the President, and at the present time (February 1, 1968) have not been submitted to Congress, but, on `the contrary, have heen left in the files of the regional forester of the Denver office. One of these was the full and complete report by the Sierra Club study team. It is not known whether this was because the majority of the public views felt that a larger area should be preserved than did the Forest Service. PERSONNEL OF SIERRA CLUB STUDY TEAM The Sierra Club studies were made by a team of nine members. They all did it as a public service, without compensation of any kind, and all of them paid their own way from their homes to Wyoming. None of them had any con- flicting commercial or other interests. All, were experienced backpackers and outdoorsmen. They were selected as best qualified for the study from a list of some sixty volunteers. The leader, Orrin H. Bonney, graduate of the University of Colorado, has been a practicing lawyer for forty years. lie has explored, and is known as an au- thority on the Wyoming hack country and wilderness. With his wife, Lorraine, he is the co-author of Guide to tibe Wyoming Mountains and Wilderness Areas, and other books on Wyoming. He is a former officer of the American Alpine Club, and is a member of the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Alpine Club of Canada, and other organization's. Lorraine Bonney, co-author of the above books, graduate of the University of Alberta, and world traveler, was a member of the team. The Bonneys divide their residence between Kelly, Jackson's Hole, Wyoming 83011, and 625 East 14th Street, 1-louston, Texas 77008. Three members of the team had forestry experience. Dave Corkran, now working on his Ph. D. and teaching at San Urancisco State College, worked for the forest service seven summers in Oregon. Jim Brundy, legal resident of Cheyenne, Wyoming, a graduate of Harvard College (B.A. 1963) and the Univer- sity of California (M.A. 1965), is now doing statistical and computer program- ming for the U.S. Forest Service. Jim Underwood is now attending Syracuse Forestry School; be was also assistant leader of National Outdoor Training School at Lander, Wyoming. Other members of the team were Nancy Baggott, of Los Angeles, B.A. in physical geography; Robert R. Marshall, B.S. in Electrical Engineering, aero- space industry and teaching; Jean Searle, Los Angeles, prominent in conser- vation studies and working on a local newspaper; and Francis Walcott, an active Sierra Club member and secretary of the Sierra Club Council. It was a competent group, giving intelligent study and consideration to the problem of what should be included in the wilderness. The information and study made by the team was then referred to the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club, and to the Council of the Wilderness Society at their annual (1966) meeting, and to the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, and was given full discussion and consideration by these organizations. Each member of the study team was also encouraged to submit without restriction his own personal ideas to the hearing officer, independent of the group findings. THE STUDY The study team made an eleven-day reconnaissance into the Stratified Primi- tive Area and adjoining Shoshone National Forest lands, north of Dubois, Wyoming. The team approached and entered the area via six different road- beads, thoroughly covering the perimeters and much of the interior. In addition to this, five members of the study team made other trips into the region. PAGENO="0085" 73 The area, with fantastic scenery and a petrified forest attractiiig knowledge- able roekhounds, is largely undisturbed by world publicity and tourist throngs. This "Never-heard-of-it-before" aspect adds to the charm of wilderness adven- ture here. The study team concluded: (1) That the existing Stratified Primitive Area should be classified as a Wilderness Area; (2) That the boundaries should be corrected and extended to include the bases of all escarpments and the related scenicfeatures; (3) The Wilderness Area should be extended westward to become contiguous with the Teton Wilderness Area in order to protect the still wild DuNoir Valley, and no timbering should be done on the DuNoir extension. Timbering operations on the DuNoir would jeopardize the established wildlife range and `the elk migration route to the East Fork Elk Winter Pasture. The Sierro Club hopes to protect this primeval forest and `the elk herd. The boundary corrections and the DuNoir extension recommended by the Sierra Club hopes to protect this primeval forest and the elk herd. The Forest Service proposes to combine Stratified Primitive Area with the existing South Abs'aroka Wilderness, the combined area to be identified as the Washakie Wilderness Area. The Sierra Club believes this will be satisfactory and desirable. rouzsr RECOMMENDATIONS The Forest Service recommends that 189,024 acres of the original 203,980 acres of `the Stratified Primitive Area, and 7,360 contiguous acres, be designated as wilderness by Act of Congress and added to the National Wilderness System. Area J, East and West DuNoir Creeks, 30,240 acres The DuNoir E~vtension.-To include the entire Pinnacle Buttes escarpment Upper West DuNoir Creek, Dundee Meadows, Kisinger Lakes, most of the Wolf Creek drainage, Murray, Clendenning, and Froms Lakes, the entire DuNoir and Coffin Buttes escarpment. The Sierra Club strongly recommends this addition. This addition would be defined by a line beginning on `the Teton Wilderness Area north of Brooks Lake, then going west and south of Bonneville Pass to and below the west side escarpment of Pinnacle Buttes, which will be included within the wilderness; then to the bydrographic divide betwe'en Wolf Creek drainage and the Brooks Lake-Long Creek drainage which will be followed to the point designated on the topographical may as VABM Picketts (elevation, 9,544. feet, Section 1, T44N, R109W) ; thence easterly across the valley. Local opinion.-The local sentiment in Wyoming also supports the Sierra Club recommenations' as to the DuNoir extension. The Wyoming Wildlife Federation recommends that the NuNoir Valley should be included within the wilderness designation and opposes timbering operations there. Mr. William I. Crump, District Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission covering this region, definitely states: "We have be'en opposed to the DuNoir valley timbering proposal . . . Both drainages of the East and West Forks of DnNoir . . . support resident herds of elk at this time. I feel these herds will be forced into more remote areas leaving a void in this excellent elk habitat if timbering operations are conducted in these drainages." The ranchers interviewed on the DuNoir favorably support the wilderness designation and are in fact actively opposed to the timbering operations there. Description of the DuNoir Extension-The extension starts at Bonneville Pass, a broad, perhaps mile-wide meadow with grazing cattle. Both sides of the pass are heavily wooded and very attractive. Dun'dee Creek and tributaries descend from the pass to lower me'adows in a beautiful network of streams. There is minimum evidence of a few sel~ct trees being taken for saw timber along the ridge above West DuNoir Creek. A jeep road runs south from Murray Lake in Dundee Meadow to Picket Ranch (now managed by Perc Yarborough and called Diamond G). This jeep road could be closed an'd the forest would soon revert. The upper DuNoir is better forested and the lumbering threat is greater than any other section we saw in the present Stratified Primitive Area. The Forest Service is presently attempting to obtain roa'd rights of way into the West DuNoir. Fast action will be necessary to save this part of the country as wilderness. Present timbering activity is still south on `the Long Creek drainage. About 800 cattle graze on the DuNoir. There is some evidence of old tie~hacking PAGENO="0086" 74 throughout Dundee Meadows, and in tile area between Spruce Creek, Basin Oreek and West DuNoir, principally along the trail fro~u Dundee Meadows to Kisinger Lakes, and in the upper 1~kvst DuNoir drainage. Dave Corkran (former field employee of the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon for seven summers, now working to complete his Ph.D. at University of California, Berkeley, and currently teaching at San Francisco State College) reports: "There are about 2,500 acres of potentially valuable timber land in the extension. Logging was done a the end of the last century, and the effects are still evident. The quality of new growth timber is uneven, though the forest here has made a significant beginning toward recovery of its original character. The return of this region to its natural state and Its preservation as wilderness are desirable from ecological, scenic, `and recreational standpoints. East DuNoir drainage serves as a migration route for elk from the South Absaroka Wilderness Area to the East Fork Elk Winter Pasture on B~ar Creek, one of the major reasons for limiting the region to Wilderness usage. As the largest timbered area in the contempl:wte4 Stratified Primitive Area, the two drainages would b~ vital to reproducing in microcosm the ecology which once characterized `the Rocky Mountains, or to be more exact, the latter day dei4vitive of that ecology." On September 12, 1966, Orrin and Lorraine Eonruey visited Kisinger Lakes via Pinnacle Trial (from Brooks Lake) and reported the following: "The Wolf Creek drainage and region of the Kisinger Lakes is wild and natural, scarcely affected by man. Numerous elk were heard bugling their mating call." Not only is there a small permanent elk herd here, but the elk migrate through this valley from higher elevations `to winter pasture at the Wyoming Game and Fish grounds on Bear Creek. Over in the East DuNoir drainage, Trail Lake would be the ideal end-of-the-road wilderness entrance. The lake `area itself could be iuacje into a wildlife refuge. The lake was once an old tie dam and fluame used to accumulate water for the spring movement of hand-hacked railroad ties down the creek, giving it a stark attrnetion that tells the story of the historic past. It now serves no practical use. The study team noted a pair of trumpeter swans `and hundreds of ducks on the lake. It could be made accessible for a roadhead. It is a natural as an unimproved recreation site; at a low enough elevation so that fishing could be made attractive there. Extending the wilderness to include the DuNoir will also make it more accessible as a wilderness experience for more individuals who can see and enjoy its unspoiled nature. The extension will bring the wilderness within hik- ing distance over existing trails from Brooks Lake, which section has already `been 4eyeloped by the Forest Service as a recreational area, in~1uding `the exti~emely popular Brooks Lake and Brooks Falls campgrounds, and `the pro- jected Pinnacles Cai~pgropnd. These trails include: Brooks Lake to Bonneville Pass, 4 miles; Brooks Lake to Dundee Meadows, 6 miles; Brooks Lake via Pinnacle Trail to Kisinger Lakes, 6 miles. Circle Trip: Brooks Lake-Bonneville Pass-Dundee; Meadows-Kisinger Lakes, returning via Pinnacle; Trail to Brooks Lake (or reverse direction), 20 miles. The wilderness would not he as accessible from any other point except where equalled at Double Cabin. Furthermore, the use of this access point at Brooks Lake would obviate the necessity and tre'mendous expense of building other access roadheads to give the average visitor a `true wilderness `experience. `There is little, if any, merchantable `timber on the East DnNoir part of the extension. The attached map shows the U.S. Forest Service appraisal of the timber resources on the West DuNoir extension. We have colored in green those patches of timber deemed merchantable by `the Forest Service. While these patches of timber within the recommended extension are valu- able, the `harvesting of this minor percent certainly does not justify the loss of the wilderness character of the entire area, destroying i'ts recreation and scenic values, diminishing its potentiality for waiter conservation, and loss of game habitat. Today, the most valuable par't of the Wyoming economy are its scenic at- tractions and it's tourist trade. Teton County comprising Jackson's Hole, with i'ts two and a half `million summer visitors, is one of the four `most prosperous counties in the state. Other sections of the state need `to attract visitors to the scenic `attractions. In the Wind River Ranger District adjacent to the Stratified Primitive Area the Forest Service has come in for increasing criticism of the timbering methods permitted there, and for its lack of response to public opinion on the matter. PAGENO="0087" 75 Not only have the methods been destructive of the scenic and recreational values, but they have been excessively wasteful of the timber resources of our great public domain. No use wl~atsoevei,- is made of any of the forest products except the largest prime virgin saw timber and this is now being converted into 2 x 4's (elsewhere, usually culled from small logs) rather than being made into top grade dimensional lumber. Everything else is completely stripped from the timbered sections and de- stroyed. The use of huge crawler type machines has brought about this de- teriorating rather than advancing forest technology. It has resulted in the destruction of all younger tree growth, all shrubs, grasses, erosion of hundreds of years of soil accumulation on the slopes, jeopardizing of water resources, and eliminating wild game. Instead of following the multiple use principle, this strip timbering has been a single use of the forest and a one-shot use at that. The theory (or wishful thinking) that the timber stands will restore themselves naturally and uniformly has not been demonstrated in actual practice in the Wind River Ranger District. The Forest Service has put forth extensive Smoky Bear publicity that a forest is harmed and will not restore itself after a fire sweeps through it. Cer- tainly it would be hard to believe the timber would recover from this greater and more complete destruction! Another result of any timbering operations is the building of roads which end up in jeep trails, the diminishing of game resources, accumulation of litter, and complete loss of wilderness character. Master plans of management in the Wind River Range District, presumably submitted to and approved by top authority, provide that all roadways and water courses shall be screened and protected from timbering operations. These have not been followed in actual practice. One need only drive from Dubois to Double Cabin Campground and Recrea- tional Area at the boundary of the Stratified Primitive Area to see the destruction of hundreds of acres down to the very edge of the road and to the last sapling, to know that not even a screening of the roadside has been followed. It would be tragic indeed if this happened to the beautiful DuNoir country. The timber cutting in the Wind River Ranger District is now on a planned 30 year cycle of complete cutting (on a 200 to 250 year maturing growth cycle) with one dominating company, U.S. Plywood (formerly Teton Studs), whose capital resources give it a practical monopoly and free hand on the designated timber stands. This small segment-4he DuNoir Valley-should be left out of and protected from this complete, vast, and wholesale harvest. Fremont County, as part of our beautiful Wyoming, should have this asset left for its economy after the timber operations have ti~ken their toll, closed their mills, abandoned their unpainted, ramshackled buildings, and moved on. Area D, Bear Basin AdditIon, 8,130 acres The Sierra Club strongly recommends this addition. The so-called road alleged by the Forest Service has been practically obliterated. There was so little tnace of it when the area was visited by the sierra Club study team, it could in no sense be used by any sort of vehicle. Bear Basin is known as an elk calving area, and would be greatly harmful to big game values if not placed in the wilderness, which it essentially has always been. The Bear Basin addition would take in the escarpment and steep terrain south and west of Castle Rock, including the three streams which flow into Beah Basin from the east. It also encompasses the Mount Kent escarpment and all those streams flowing into Bear Creek from the Mount Kent area, as well as the headwaters of Bug Creek. This area has little commercial value. The spectacular relief makes it ideal for wilderness enjoyment. There is suitable area outside the recommended wildern~ss for the recreation needs of campers and hikers. Forest Service boundary description which excludes, or fails to add, the follow- ing areas: Area 3 Exclusion, Wiggins Fork, 3,117 acres; Area 4 Etxclusion, Lin- coln Point, 32fi acres; Area F-i Addition, Lincoln Point, 2,000 acres; Area E~ elusion, Parque Creek, 1,331 acres; Area G Addition; Area H Addition, Head- waters Fivemile Creek, 700 acres; Area I Addition, 1,300 acres. As the principal reason for these differences, the Forest Service states: "Places boundary on natural topographical features . . ." The Sierra Club vigorously objects to all of these differences. Essentially the problem of these differences is the means used to define the boundary. PAGENO="0088" 76 What the Forest Service has done is to move the boundaries back to the high points of the escarpment plateaus, trimming back the present boundaries to ex- clude the sculptures left in the weathered stone of the escarpment sides and the faces of spectacular pinnacles, all of high scenic value but of no commercial use. Setting forth this wilderness in their brochure (page 3), the Forest Service says: "The country is characterized by deep narrow valleys, some of them true canyons and broad, flat-topped mountains and plateaus. . ." "The narrow valleys, with the narrow strips of timber in the bottoms adjacent to precipitous canyon walls, create a primitive charm. Numerous small parks and side drainages offer chances for complete seclusion." Yet, the Forest Service, by its boundary designation, has sought to eliminate these narrow strips of timber adjacent to the precipitous canyon walls which they say creates a primitive charm and characterizes the area. It is the elimination of the precipitous escarpment and the narrow strips of timber that the Sierra Club and other conservationists object to most vigorously. The small patches of virgin timber at the base of the great cliffs enhance the whole wilderness picture and `should i~o't be left outside the wilderness for future exploitation. One can look at any of the pictures anywhere in the arch, whether in the For~st Service b'ro'cliure or otherwise, and see that the boundaries should be `determined b~ outli~rs and not the summits or rims the grdat scenic features. The entire feature should be included within the wilderness `and the boundaries `should be extended a reasonable distance away from the base to protect the feature. There are ample outliers on the ground `by which a wilderness boundary can be defined, ~r section lines can `be followed; these `have `always been used to defi'ne land boundaries for the entire state of Wyoming as well as elsewhere and should present no particular problem. Also, experienced surveyors have recently `suggested `to the study team that the boundary could be more readily laid out on the ground if it were simplified by using straight lines tied into the usual section lines, hs most surveys were made' with these as a basis. It was als~o pointed out that the tips of prominent pin- nacles were extremely difficult of access to use as ground survey stations, and that lower, more accessible terrain was more desirable t'o lay out `a boundary survey. The preferable boundary descriptions are illustrated by the `Co'mparisohs on the attached topographic map (Snow Lake). Extending the boundary out to include the forested slopes will `also protect forever the greatest `resource which this forest can furnish-water. While there are patches of timber valuable for saw logs, saw timber is not the most important item in this forest. It is, in fact, a minor one. Phe Forest Service states in their brochure for `a Wa5hhkie Wilderness: "Water: A continuous flow of quality water from the drainages under consid- eration fo~r Wilderness represents an important public value. `Stability of water supply i's the major economic contribution `an'd public service to the dependent downstream lands and users. Mechanical disturbances that would up'set the balance of nature ~w'ould be avoi'ded within the proposed Wil'dernesis. Wilderness management will not change `the water yield or quality." In their official pamphlet covering this portion of the S'h'oshone National Forest, the Forest Service statds: "Without an adequate forest or vegetative cover to re~nlate run off or stream flow, t'h'is objective, and protection of our basic resource, the soil, cannot be accomplished." For this reason alone "The narrow strips of timber in the bottoms adjacent to the precipitous danyon whl'ls" `should be included `within the wilderness boundaries `and preserved to avoid the "mechanical disturbances that would upset the balance of nature." Area 3, Ea~clusion, Wiggins Fork, 3,117 acres At least the portion of `the slopes cast of Wiggins Fork wi'thin the original primitive area boundhry should be retained in the wlid'ernes~ classification (shown a's 3 on the Forest Service map). If the law providing there `should he no timber catting within the original primitive area has been follo~we'd by the Forest Service, this area certainly should retain its wilderness clas'sific'athn. If th'e law has not been followed by the Forest Serv'ce, this `still `does no't preclude it~ quhliflcation under the Wilderness Act. There h:a's been some timbering in Area E suggested by t'he conservationists, and it may be excluded. PAGENO="0089" 77 Area 6 Erelusion, Parque Creek, 1,331 acres The Sierra Club recommends, as does the Forest $ervice, that the boundary exclude Ramshorn Basin and the jeep road leading up from the basin. Ramsborn Basin is the logical roadhead, recreational site, and wilderness access I)Oiflt. The existing jeep road could be rebuilt and made suitable for passenger cars as far as Ramnshorn Basin, with a minimum expenditure. However, here again, there is no excuse for excluding from the wilderness the area indicated as 6 on the Forest Service proposal because this likewise excludes the narrow strips of timber adjacent to the precipitous canyon walls and follows the tips of the scenic features rather than the natural features which are outliers. Forest Service Jikuelusion, Area 1, Middle Fork Wood River, 9,4.98 acres One of the reasons given by the Forest Service for excluding this area of the existing primitive wilderness system is the fact that it contains 896 acres' of patented claims. The Sierra Club has no objection to excluding the 896 acres but it does not seem justifiable to exclude 9,498 acres on the basis of 896 acres which merely project into the Stratified Area. Mining exploration is not excluded by the Wilderness Act; most of the possible exploration in the region of the excluded area has been completed, including one tunnel of 2500 feet that was run into the mountain in early days, and millions of dollars recently spent by American Metal Climax Company-all without showing minerals in commercial quantities. The Bureau of Mines' appraisal (August, 1966 report) was "that there is no basis for making such a projection," that a discovery of significant minerals will be made at Kirwin extending into the adjacent primitive area. From the entire Kirwin Mining District, practically all of which lies outside the included area, there is a record of only one carload of ore shipped since the district was first prospected some seventy-five years ago. Future exploration is remote. It must be admitted that Middle Fork Wood River exclusion sought by the Forest Service does not have as great values to the wilderness system of the region as the East and West DuNoir Creeks which the conservationists and local people feel are so essential. STRATIFIED PRIMITIVE AREA-SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST HISTORY Stratified Primitive Area was established March 25, 1932, under Regulation L-20 and comprised 147,000 acres. In 1950-Si, 55,000 acres on the Wood River drainage was detached from South Absaroka Wilderness Area and transferred to Stratified, making a present total of 202,000 acres. Advance mapping techniques revise this figure to 203,930 acre's. The country today is still substantially as stated in the 1932 designation: characterized by deep narrow valleys and broad fiat-topped mountains and plateaus. . .. The many narrow valleys, with the close association of narrow strips of timber in the bottoms with adjacent precipitous cliffs; the feeling of Seclusion secured in the numerous small parks and side drainage; make it an area of unusual charm, well worth keeping as nearly as possible in a primitive state." Gravel and unimproved roads from Dubois, about 28 miles to the south, take one to the fringes of the area. Its Wood River drainage is reached from Meeteetse, about 35 miles to the east, much of it over indifferent rutted roads. Stratified Area is part of Shoshone National Forest, and lies in `parts of Fre- mont, Hot Springs, and Park Counties, Wyoming. It extends along the south edge of the Absarok'a Mountains for about 40 miles from east to west and is about five to ten miles wide. Its rugged topography rises from elevations of 8,000 feet on the valley floors to 12,000 feet, with rocky flat-topped buttes whose vertical sides tower some 1,500 feet above timberline, cirques carved `by glaciers, and orna- mented with permanent snowflelds; the valleys are ribboned with whitewater streams, tributaries of the Wind River, whose headwaters have cut deeply into the south edge of the Absaroka's. A long, spectacular escarpment monumented with numerous pinnacles and buttes forms a walled barrier along the southern portion of the area. Valleys with braided stream beds and heavily `timbered flanks pene'tra'te back into the bluffs becoming narrower and steeper at higher elevations. Timberline is at 10,300 feet, although in many places `th'e sheer relief places it at much lower elevations. The area comprises parts of two superimposed mountain ranges of dontrasting rock typ8s. Gool~gists have been able to trace out the actual relief of the earlier Washakie Range with its topography and original erosion, making it one of the PAGENO="0090" 78 most interesting and scientific geological studies. The older Waohakie Range is composed of rocks of pre~Oambri'an, pale~osoic, and mezo~o&c ages which were folded and dissected by erosion in the beginning of the tertiary period seventy million years ago. It is exposed along the south border of the area near Horse Creek and Wiggins Fork. The Wasb'akie Range was covered by volcanic sediment comprising the present Absaroka Range. These were layered In successive eruptions from Mount Wash- burn area in Yellow~tone Park and Lava Mountain near Togw'otee Pass. These rocks filled the valleys of the Wia,shakie Range `and overtopped its highest peaks forming a plateau which was then subjected to erosion. The layers can be seen in the canyon walls and have given the name "Stratified" to the area. Remnants of ancient forests which were buried in the volcianic debris have be- come petrified, usually by molecular `displacement of th~ ~rigln'al eell,s, the wood becoming agatized. There are also numerous limb casts. The petrified wood may be found on the gravel bars of alm~st all the streia'm's, but particularly at the head of Frontier Creek, where' even large standing petrified tree trunks and fallen logs are found. Precipitation in the area averages twenty to thirty inches annu'ally, occurring mostly a's snow in the winter. Heavy summer thunder ~bo~wers are frequent. Tem- peratures fall from -30 or -40 degrees in winter to +80 degrees in summer. The comparatively heavy precipitation causes rapid erosion and maintains a continuous stream flow. Also in Shoshone National Forest `and adjacent to Stratified Area on the north is the South Absaroka Wilderness Area of 50~,552 (net) acre's already within the wilderness system. We understand the Forest Service will recommend that these two areas be combined `as one contiguous `area and under one name with the iiame Wa'sh'akie Wilderness Area suggested for the combined area. The Stratified Area is part of `the largest untamed wilderness in the central Rocky Mountains. Designated contiguous boundaries `Comprise the following: Acres Stratified Primitive Area 202, 000 North Absaroka Wilderness Area 359, 700 South Absaroka Wilderness Area 505, 552 Teton Wilderness Area 563,460 Grand Teton National Park 310, 350 Yellowstone National Park 2,221, 773 Total 4, 162, 835 Here, the traveler may wander for weeks with his pack outfit In a region of scenic splendour, abounding in wild game and fishing, and undisturbed by modern civilization. RESOUR~IES Watcr.-Water is pro.ba~bly the most economcially valuable resource of the Stratifie~1 Primitive Area. Run-off from the region provides irrigation moisture for the farms and ranches in the vicinity north of Dubois. The area is part of the watershed which feeds Boysen Reservoir. Probably owing to the soft, porous nature of the local rock, there are no suitable dam sites within or immediately adjacent to the Primitive Area. The area itself has no agricultural value. Timber.-About 30% of the proposed wilderness area is covered )y timber. Much of this is affected by high altitude growth conditions, and most of the forested areas have little commercial value. Pockets of potentially merchantable timber, mostly spruce, fir, and lodgepole pine, exist in the Norton Point region, on Frozen Lake Creek, and around the headwaters of East and West DuNoir Creeks. In the latter drainages, extensive tie-hacking and logging at the end of the nineteenth century impaired the timber producing capacity of the area, though good potential continues to exist. The original designation of 147,000 acres in 1932 showed the following estimate of dominant cover types: Acres (a) Timberland ~iearing commercial stands 3, 000 (b) Timberland bearing non-commercial stands 42,000 (c) Barren areas 62,000 (d) Brush areas other than sagebrush 1,200 (e) Sagebrush 600 (f) Grassland 37,000 Total 146, 400 PAGENO="0091" 79 Grazing-High ridges and lower meadows provide forage for sheep and cattle. Sheep grazing is limited to the eastern drainages of the Primitive Area. Allot- ments for 5,000 sheep exist around the East Pork of the Wind River and on Bear Creek. There are allotments for 4,700 sheep on Wood River drainage, and 1,200 sheep on Owl Creek drainage. Cattle are being grazed near the mouth of Frontier Creek, on East and West DuNoir Creeks, and in Ramshorn Basin. Cattle grazing is mostly outside of the present boundaries of the Primitive Area. There are allotments for 300 cattle near Wood River Guard Station. There is no overgrazing. Wildiife.-The Stratified Primitive Area is the chief summer range of the Wind River elk herd, probably about 1,500 head. The recommended DuNoir Ex- tension and the western edge of the area, along DuNoir Creek, serves as a migra- tion route for elk from the South Absaroka Wilderness Area to the East Fork Elk Winter Pasture. Deer are plentiful. There are some moose, and Bighorn sheep appear to be making a comeback. Fishing.-Fishing may be considered as only fair, the best streams being Fron- tier Creek, Wiggins Fork, East Fork, and Emerald Creek. Due to the geological formations there is an almost entire absence of lakes. Sudden and heavy deple- tion of the fishing resources may occur at any time, due to the terrific cloud- bursts which periodically sweep down from the enormous areas of bare, steep rock at `the `headwaters of all the drainages. The Kisinger Lakes, up the West DuNoir valley, were stocked by plane the summer of 1959 with five inch grayling. The records of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission indicate that this is an area of severe winter kill, so subsequent recommendations were not to stock these lakes. Prior to that time brook trout were planted, and they too may have winter killed. Orrin Bouncy fished Kisinger Lakes for about one and a half hours in September 1966 and found no sign of fish. Minerals.-With the possible exception of the Kirwin area, commercially valuable minerals are limited to the low grade semi-precious stones and exotic pi~ces of petrified wood found in certain areas, especially in the Petrified Forest along Frontier Creek. The Petrified Forest has been closed to mineral entry. The Kirwin area has been subjected to sporadic but intensive mineral explora- tion for the last eighty years. No commercially valuable deposits of ore have been discovered within or adjacent to the Stratified Primitive Area. The U.S. Geological Survey's 1965 mineral survey of the area and its environs found little evidence of valuable minerals in significant quantities. The results of the American Metal Climax, Inc., explorations undertaken in the 1a~t two years are confidential. But there is no a~tivity in the Kirwin area which suggests that American Metal Climax, Inc., has found commercially valuable quantities of ore. Taken together, the U.S.G.S. report and the lack of intense activity in the Kirwin area strongly suggest that there are no commercially significant mineral deposits within the present or contemplated boundaries of the wilder- ness area. Except for the strip about one-half mile wide between Dollar and Dundee Mountains, the U.S.G.S. summarized their study in `the area in 1963 as follows (p. E25): 1. No minable concentrations of minerals were discovered during the pres- ent investigation. 2. No minable concentrations of minerals have been discovered by prospec- tors over a 75-year period. 3. No significant amount of ore has been mined elsewhere in the southern Absarokas. 4. Extensive zones of highly altered rock, commonly associated with ore in most productive districts, are lacking in the Primitive Area. 5. Possible deposits of bedded nonmetallic minerals such as coal and phosphate in the Primitive Area would be too deeply buried by barren rock to be exploitable now or in the near future. 6. Intrusive rocks' are likely `to have rendered any possible oil and gas reservoirs unproductive. 7. Sand and gravel deposits are small and of poor quality. The report states (p. El) : "Deposits of coal, bentonite, and phosphate are found outside the Primitive Area In the same sedimentary formations, that underlie parts of the Primitive Area. If deposits of these materials exist within the bounds of the Primitive Area, they are so deeply buried under a thick blanket of younger barren rocks that they would be uneconomic to mine at the present time. PAGENO="0092" 80 ~`Older rock formations, from which oil is produced in areas adjacent to the Stratified Primitive Area, extend beneath the Primitive Area as do structural features such as anticlines which favor the accumulation of oil and gas. How~ ever, intrusive magmas have penetrated these formations in all parts of the Primitive Area, and the intrusions have greatly reduced the possibility of the area ever becoming a source of oil and gas." The U.S. Bureau of Mines reports (p. E55) : "The investigation of the Stratified Primitive Area by the Bureau of Mines did not disclose any evidence of significant mineral occurrences within the area." Recreation and ~S'cientifle Resources.-Preserved in its natural state, the Strati- fied Primitive Area is well adapted to the needs of the hunter, camper, backpacker, hiker, photographer, roekhound, and the requirements of students of geology, pet- rification, plant ecology, botany, entomology, and mammalogy. Its natural beauty is of high quality. The impressive and frequently awesome cliffs and pinnacles emphasizes the wildness of the region. The easily climbed peaks offer fine views of the rough topography of the area as well us panoramas of the Wind River Range to the south and the Teton Range to the west. The rugged and wild crests of the Absaroka Range rise to the north. One day of strenuous hiking is enough to place one in the midst of wilderness, where he may find scores of wildflowers, an abundance of wild life, and an exciting panorama of peaks, snowfields, and meadows. Trails-Excellent trails exist within the area. They extend up Horse Creek, Frontier Creek, Wiggins Fork, Emerald Creek, Greybull River, Beer Creek, East Pork Wind River, and East and West Fork DuNoir Creeks. These are connected with east and west trails and other trails within the Shosbone National Forest so that extended ~ircle ~aek trips are possible. The study team felt that the standards of the existing rails adequate, and are most suitable for the area and to maintain its wilderness character. Prin- cipally, the trails should be kept clear of deadfall but no effort should be made to change the grade or increase the width and clearance. Alternate to Calls 9 to 15: (Snow Lake) thence northwesterly to the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of section 13, T44N, 11106W; UNIT E-6,500 ACRES thence northwesterly to the northeast corner of section 2, T44N, 11106W; thence west along the north line of section 2 and section 3, P44W, 11106W, to point of juncture with the most easterly channel of Frontier Creek; thence northerly along the east bank of Frontier Creek for approximately 0.6 mi. to a point opposite a side stream flowing into the creek from the west whose headwaters are near Point 10,568. BOUNDARY ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF PROPOSED WASHAKIE WILDERNESS IN WYOMING (1966)-AS PROPOSED BY THE SIERRA CLUB Description (from east to west) is based on latest USGS maps. Map name is in parenthesis. UNIT D-8,240 ACRES (Kirwin) Beginning at a point in T43N, R1O4W where the boundary of the Wind River Indian Reservation intersects the southeast corner of section 3; thence southwest approximately 1/2 mile to a point of intersection with a side stream flowing west into the East Fork of the Wind River; thence southwesterly along said stream to the East Fork of the Wind River; thence northerly along said river approximately 1/4 mile to the mouth of the side stream flowing in from the northwest; thence northwesterly along said stream to a point of juncture with the south side of section 5, T43N, 11104W; thence west to the southwest corner of section 1, T43N, 11105W; thence northwesterly approximately 2 miles to Bear Creek thence southerly along the west bank of Bear Creek to the south side of sec- tion 5, T43N, 11105W; thence northwesterly along a hydrographic divide between side streams for approximately 21/2 miles across into the drainage of the Wiggins Fork of the Wind River to a point of intersection with the east side of 11106W; * * * * * * * PAGENO="0093" 81 (Snow Lake) thence northwesterly to the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of section 13, T44N, R1Q6W; UNIT E-S,560 ACRES thence northwesterly to the northeast corner of section 2, P44N, R106W; thence west along the north line of section 2 and section 3, T44N, R106W, to point of juncture with the mostly easterly channel of Frontier Creek; thence northerly along the east bank of Frontier Creek for approximately 0.6 mile to a point opposite a side stream flowing into the creek from the west whose headwaters are near Point 10,568; * * * * * * * thence across the creek and up said stream to a point of intersection with the north boundary of T44N; thence southeasterly toward the southwest corner of section 3, T44N, 11106W, to a point 1/4 mile removed from the west side of section 3; thence south to the north side of the southern ~ of unsurveyed section 21, T44N, R106W; thence southwesterly to the southwest corner of the southeast 1/~ of section 21, T44N, R1O6W; thence west to the northwest corner of the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of section 30, T44N, R106W; thence south 1 mile (Indian Point) UNIT F-2,800 ACRES thence west 1 mile; (Ramshorn) thence northwest 1 mile; (Five Pockets) thence west across Horse Creek to point 9566; thence northwesterly along the hydrographic divide between Horse Creek and Parque Creek to Point 10173; UNIT G-3,000 ACRES Added to Forest Service Unit B of 3,080 acres makes a total of 6,080 acres. thence southwesterly to Point 9753; (Ramsborn) thence southerly to Point 10081; thence southerly to a point 1/4 mile south of Point 9925; thence westerly to Point 9369; thence southwesterly to a point 1/4 mile north of Point 9897; thence northwesterly to Point 9918; thence northwesterly to Point 9781; (Esmond Park) thence northwesterly to the southeast corner of section 36, T44N, 11108W; thence west to the southwest corner of the east 1/2 of section 35, T44N, R1O8W; thence north 3 miles; UNIT 11-30,240 ACRES thence west to the northwest corner of section 21, T44N, R1OSW; thence southwesterly to the southwest corner of section 20, T44N, RIO8W; thence west 1 mile; thence south 2 miles; (Kisinger Lakes) thence southwesterly approximately 11~4 miles to VABM 9544 (Picketts) thence westerly along the hydrographic divide immediately north of Long Creek through Points 10150 and 10109 to Point 10089; thence west to Point 9224; thence north to Point 9659; thence approximately 11/~ miles northwesterly to Point 9565; (Dundee Meadows) thence again northwesterly approximately 11/2 miles to a point of intersection with the west side of R109W at Point 9243; thence west 1,4 mile; thence north to the Continental Divide; thence easterly along said divide to a point of meeting with the boundary proposed by the Forest Service. PAGENO="0094" 82 Senator HANSEN. Next we will hear from Louis S. Clapper, chief, division of conservation education, National Wildlife Federation. Mr. Clapper, please be seated. We are delighted to have you. STATEIYEEI'IT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, CHIEF, DIVISION OP CONSERVA- TION EDUCATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. CLAPPER. I will try to make this as brief as I can. I am Louis S. Clapper, chief of the division of conservation educa- tion, National Wildlife Federation. Our organization has its national headquarters here in Washington, D.C., at 1412 16th Street NW. By way of identification, the National Wildlife Federation is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation objectives through educational means. The federation has affiliates in 49 States. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2 million persons. We are pleased to be invited to comment upon these bills which would add three significant areas to the national wilderness preserva- tion system, in accordance with procedures set out in Public Law 88-577 of 1964. A few explanatory remarks should be made here at this time before going briefly into details of the proposals. The National Wildlife Federation endeavors to pursue a policy of reasonableness in the management of natural resources. Our organi- zation was active among the original supporters of the wilderness concept, believing substantial amounts of this type of land must be set aside and preserved for a multitude of public benefits. Complementing this position, we have recommended that suitable streams be set aside as wild or scenic rivers. Then, in a somewhat sim- ilar manner, we were among the initial proponents of multiple-use management, recognizing that other types of outdoor recreation, in- cluding fish and wildlife, livestock grazing, irrigation, lumbering, mining, and hydroelectric power production, as well as watershed pro- tection, are legitimate and desirable activities or uses for certain types of public lands, including national forests. Of course, some of these uses are compatible. Some are not. However, we recognize and appreciate the often difficult task that the Forest Service has in reviewing areas for possible addition to the wilderness system. Many decisions must go into the development of recommendations for wildernesses. For the convenience of the public, and for ease of administration, there is a question about whether wilderness area boundaries should be located along easily identifiable physical features. i~ so, should these be located along mountain crests, or at the base of escarpments, or located along slopes? Are elk disturbed and driven out of areas by vehicular traffic? Where should roads be located to help hunters gain reasonable access to game ranges, including those inside protected wildernesses? How much timber should be set aside for lumbering, an activity important to local economics? What about second-growth wilderness, and all-but-obliterated, one-time human developments? Should the same conditions apply equally to potential wildernesses in the Eastern United States as to those in the West? PAGENO="0095" 83 The National Wildlife Federation, Mr. Chairman, still is in the process of developing criteria whereby some of these alternatives, and others, can be judged. We expect to complete this work at our national convention in March. We then will have a yardstick to use in measur- ing some of the areas of controversy. Therefore, we will not have recommendations on all of the various proposals under consideration today, hoping to supplement this state- mont with added information at a later time. Now, we should like to outline a few brief recommendations, At the outset, we should say that we believe all of the three areas under con- sideration today merit addition to the wilderness system. Therefore, as we see it, the questions are not so much on "if," but of "how much" and "where." First, we wholeheartedly endorse S. 2531, establishing the San Gabriel area. As best we can determine, this proposal is virtually with- out oppos~tion, and everyone is in accord with the Forest Service rec- ommendation. This would be to enlarge the present Devil Canyon- Bear Canyon Primitive Area in the Angeles National Forest of Cali- fornia, to contain 33,647 acres. Located so near the Metropolitan Los Angeles area, this wilderness can serve an exceptionally useful function. lilt offers a wide variety of plants and wildlife to appreciate and enjoy in a highly scenic, moun- tainous area. We hope the Congress can act speedily upon this proposal. Second, we support the Forest Service's proposal for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area, as outlined in 5. 2751, with one recom- mendation for change. We compliment the Forest Service for deciding to add areas 12 and 13-417 acres and 595 acres respectively-to the original proposal of 95,450 acres. In summary, the Forest Service rec- ommends that 14,701 contiguous acres be added to the 81,761 acres presently included in the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area. It is our suggestion that the 1,596-acre Marion Lake Scenic Area also be in- ciuded. This is a fine lake in a beautiful setting. While the lake has a fairly heavy usage by boaters, our people in Oregon concur with Forest Service plans to phase out the use of motors, and to close the trail to motorized vehicles. This 2'/2-mile trail is easy to negotiate, and vehicles are unnecessary. At this time, we neither recommend nor oppose the proposals that area 3 also be added to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. Spec- tacular mountains in the Cascade Range, coupled with beautiful sub- alpine meadows, handsome stands of `trees, glistening snowfields, lakes, and wildlife, make this one of the most attractive wilderness areas in the Pacific Northwest, and we also urge its early approval. Third, we recommend establishment of the Washakie Wilderness Area in Wyoming, combing parts of the Stratified Primitive Area with the existing South Absaroka Wilderness Area. It is our understand- ing that there is general agreement between the Forest Service and groups in Wyoming on the merit of several additions and deletions to the existing proposal, and we shall limit our comments to some of the points in controversy. Our field representative, Mr. H. R. Morgan, has been able to view portions of the Stratified Primitive Area and the regions near it, and we are making two principal recommendations at this time: PJC~~L 11~J~L LW~Z~ ~JL U11~(A,L'~(A~) (~/~.) j'~. "J~"~'~~ ness designation by the agency plus first-hand investigation of any contiguous lands which qualify for wilderness protection under the criteria of the Wilderness Act. We appreciate this opportunity to present testimony today on three outstanding wilderness proposals prepared by the Forest Service- proposals for the San Gabriel Wilderness in California, the Wash- akie Wilderness in Wyoming, and the Mount Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon. SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS AREA The Wilderness Society urges favorable action without amendment on 5. 2531, the measure to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness in California as a unit of the national wilderness preservation system. We are pleased to be able to support without qualification the Forest Service's strong proposal, which encompasses all of the Devil Canyon- Bear Canyon Primitive Area, plus substantial acreage within Bobcat Canyon and another small drainage on the southwest. The proposed San Gabriel Wilderness, part of the Angeles National Forest, is located in the San Gabriel mountain range in eastern Los Angeles County. Only 35 miles northeast of the city of Los Angeles, the area may be reached by means of secondary roads from U.S. Highway 66. Elevations within the proposed wilderness range from 2,150 feet along the west fork of the San Gabriel River to 8,000 feet on Waterman Mountain. Rugged and relatively undisturbed, its rough terrain and heavy brush cover tend to limit most horse or foot travel to trails. It is apt to continue to offer ~ts visitors the experience of solitude, even though it lies within 50 miles of approximately 6 million people. PAGENO="0096" 84 1. That the north, or upper, part of area J be added to the current Forest Service proposal. This generally would include the area north of a line running east from Brooks Lake to take in Bonneville Pass and DuNoir and Coftir~ Buttes, but excluding the roaded area along Bonneville Creek and the location for recent timber cutting. . 2. That all but the southeastern one-fourth of proposed area D be included with, or added to, the current Forest Service proposal. Our primary reason for recommending the addition of these areas, Mr. Chairman, other than for the acknowledged scenic and recrea- tional assets, is to protect wildlife habitat. Just as we recognize and respect the Forest Service for its competency in forest management and protection, including fire control, we recognize and respect the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission for its competency in the man- agement and protection of elk, moose, bear, and bighorn sheep; species which reside in this area. This State agency has concluded that road development is detrimental to wilderness types of wildlife, especially the highly valued elk, and recommend these additions to the wilderness area. On this we concur. At tins time, we neither recommend nor oppose the other additions which have been suggested by other conservation groups. Hopefully, these other recommendations can be developed within a relatively short time, and, if so, they shall be submitted to the committee, if it hasnot already acted on S. 2630. Thank you again for the opportunity of making these observations. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Clapper. Mr. CLAPPER. Thank you, sir. Senator HANSEN. The next scheduled witness is Mr. Joseph Pen- fold. I have not seen him yet. I guess he isn't here. We will have diili~him1~i±t~rnn~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ,. ~ 88 Concerning the history of the development of this proposal, The Wilderness Society has followed closely the development of the pro- posal for the establishment of the Mount Jeffersoi~ Wilderness Area for several years. We have cooperated since early in the 1960's with Oregon conservation groups and the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs in working for its designation as a wilderness area. Our members and cooperators, thogether with the Forest Service, early recognized that the Mount Jefferson area has many important wilderness values whioh are outstanding within both regional and national perspectives. Mount `Jefferson is the second highest peak in Oregon, while Three- Fingered Jack, another volcanic cone, rises to an elevation of 7,841 feet to dominate the landscape in the southern portion of the area. Lava flows, elongated volcanic plateaus, glistening glaciers, and snowfields are among the outstanding scenic and geologic features of this wilderness country. Some 150 lakes dot the area, with their sur- rounding subalpine meadows, and beautiful parks and basins. Leading from the lowlands to this picturesque Oregon high country are outsianding stands of true fir and mountain hemlock, Douglas-fir, lodgepole, ponderosa pine, and white fir forests. High-quality fish and wildlife populations are important features of this wilderness, which lies only 60 miles southeast of Salem, Oreg., and 105 miles from Portland, and is within a 2- to 3-hour drive of over a million people. A 52,000-acre Mount Jefferson Primitive Area was established in 1930. In 1933, it was enlarged to 85,033 acres. No boundary or acreage changes have been made since then. In December of 1961, the Forest Service proposed administrative reclassification of this primitive area to wilderness area status. Citizen conservation groups recommended then that the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area be increased in size to 117,000 acres, whic'h included all of the 85,033 acres of the primitive area plus 32,000 acres of con- tiguous lands. The Forest Service wild area proposal, made in August~ 1963, called for an acreage of 96,944. At the request of citizen conservationists, the Forest Service con- ducted a public hearing on June 2, 1964, at which citizen groups recom- mended establishment of a 117,000-acre wilderness unit. No formal action was taken by the Forest Service or the Department of Agri- culture to administratively designate this area as a wilderness area prior to September 3, 1964, when the wilderness act was passed, and the authority to designate wilderness areas was vested in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize this point: Since 1961, when the first administrative reclassification proposals were advanced, and the citizen proposals for modest enlargements were submitted, some of the finest virgin forests within these additional areas proposed by conservationists have been logged, and a permanent road system has been built into part of this area, which only a few years ago quali- fied without question as wilderness. This road construction and logging by the Forest Service has seri- ously impaired the heavily forested wilderness within some of the most important proposed additions along the west side of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area, and appears to have been clone in a conscious effort by the Forest Service to prevent the addition of these lands to PAGENO="0097" 89 the wilderness area, a procedure not consonant with the intent of the Wilderness Act, which gives to Congress the prerogative to determine wilderness boundaries. Because of its narrowness, and the proximity of road access to its entire northern section, it is important to include within the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area's boundaries protective buffer zones, and all possible remaining unspoiled stands of timber along this boundary, as shown in area 14 of the Forest Service map which you see before you. The Forest Service's management of some of these lands, which has permitted intensive road building and logging in this period when reclassification studies were under way, should not go unchallenged, and should not preclude needed extensions of the wildefness area boundaries that will permit full protection of remaining wilderness lands. In review, them~, the 28,000 acres proposed by the Wilderness Society for addition to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness as recommended by the Forest Service are within three main areas. The Square Lake and Long Lake area in the southeastern corner, and adjaceri~t to the Santiam Highway-U.S. 20: Estimated to be 1,600 acres in size, it includes two subalpine lakes best suited for wilderness use, rather than intensive recreation devel- opment. They offer high quality wilderness experience within con- venient walking distance for older people and family groups. Intensive recreation facilities of the type proposed by the Forest Service for these lakes can be provided on other nearby national forest lands which do not qualify for wilderness status. The Marion La/ce area.-This 1,600 acre unit, which the Forest Service has proposed be designated as a scenic area, would become over time a serious intrusion, if not placed within the wilderness area. This subalpine lake, over a mile in length, is one of the few remain- ing large bodies of water available in the Cascades for preservation within a wilderness. The approach to Marion Lake from the Big Meadows road also should be included in the wilderness area. The west side buffer zone.-Extending south from the North Fork of Breitenbush River to the southwest corner of the wilderness, it includes portions of firecamp lakes, the north and south forks of Breitenbush River, the valley of Whitewater Creek, Woodpecker Ridge, Pamelia creek, Minto Mountain, Binghamn Ridge, and Big Meadows-some 26,000 acres in all. This unit is a high value buffer zone, essential to this narrow wilder- ness. It includes the scenic approaches of low level Douglas fir forests, which the Forest Service has excluded because they are classed as high-value commercial forest land. The Society believes that the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area should include these areas of forest land, because of the importance of having beautiful, representative stands of timber that round out the total ecology of this wilderness environment. It is within this unit of de facto wilderness, particularly in White- water Creek and the north fork of Breiten'bush River, that the Forest Service has carried on, since 1961, intensive timber development and timber logging. PAGENO="0098" 90 We recommend that this area be included as a part of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. We realize that in order to place the re- maining natural forest lands within the wilderness area, the Forest Service may find it necessary to include small connecting units that have been clear cut or roaded. These contiguous areas are, and should be, a part of this wilderness. These areas can revert back to a near- natural condition, and man's influence will not dominate the landscape for the next generation and those to come. . For example, Mr. Chairman, the Mission Mountains Primitive Area in Northwestern Montana was logged in the mid-1950's because of a severe spruce bark beetle infestation. This logging was done on both private and National Forest lands under the direction of the Sec- retary of Agriculture. These lands are slowly reverting back to a natural state, and man's influence there is becoming less apparent. Another example of lands which in the past have been severely cut, but which are now part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, is the area within the Shining Rock Wilderness Area of North Carolina, where recovery of the vegetation is occurring very rapidly. If the decision is not made now to include these lands in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area, an intensive road system and clear-cutting pattern will develop over most of this 25,000-acre area within the next 10 years. Therefore, the decision should be made now as to whether these lands are to be included in the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System. Determination of the exact acreage suitable for addition can be done by the Forest Service, at the request of this committee. The west side buffer zone should include all of the as yet untouched contiguous lands, but would probably exclude most of the permanent roads and clear cuts except where needed to connect units of unspoiled forest. This concludes our recommendations with regard to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. THE WASHAKIE WILDERNESS AREA The Wilderness Society is vitally interested in the establishment of the new Washakie Wilderness, as provided for in S. 2630. We agree, however, with local conservationists, citizens, and groups such as the Wyoming Outfitters Association, the Dubois Chamber of Commerce, and the Upper Wind River Cattlemen's Association, among others, that the preliminary proposal by the Forest Service does not afford enough protection for the prime elk range and scenic approaches to the wilderness against the encroachments of logging and roads associated with logging operations. We are happy to join with these local groups, and with other na- tional organizations who have worked with Forest Service personnel, to think through the questions raised by the differences in boundaries between the official agency proposal and the increased acreage advo- cated by the citizen groups as belonging in this unit of the national wilderness preservation system. Our purpose here is to describe the activities and findings of wilder- ness conservationists in the area, to point out the national scope of the PAGENO="0099" 91 conservation values involved in the Washakie Wilderness proposal, and to support the recommendations of citizen groups who are urg- ing that the Congress exercise its prerogative of improving upon this proposal in order to assure that the public interest will be served. During the month of August 1966, a study team supported and led by the Sierra Club, with cooperation and participation of the Wilderness Society, made a thorough reconnaissance of the Stratified Primitive Area and surrounding wilderness lands. As a result of that study, the Wilderness Society heartily supports the proposal of the Forest Service to reclassify and to include within the national wilderness preservation system most of the acreage of the Stratified Primitive Area. The society and its cooperators recommend the designation of addi- tional wilderness lands not proposed for inclusion in the wilderness area under the Forest Service proposal. Strong testimony was presented by Wyoming citizen groups-the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, the Wyoming division of the Izaak Walton League, the Wyoming Outfitters Association, the Dubois Chamber of Commerce, the Upper Wind River Cattlemen's Associa- tion, and others-and regional and national conservation organiza- tions at the December 8, 1966, hearing in Riverton, Wyo., on the preliminary Washakie Wilderness proposal of the Forest Service. These groups urged establishment of the wilderness area with ex- tension of its boundaries to include West DuNoir Creek and East DuNoir Creek, the Bear Basin unit, and other contiguous areas. Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to carefully study the proposal as submitted by the Forest Service to the President, and then trans- mitted by the President to the Congress. We have found that in the effort to appraise public reaction, and we recognize that this at best a very difficult responsibility for any agency to carry out, that the Forest Service has erroneously listed the positions of some organizations. I speak specifically of the Wildlife Management Institute's posi- tion, as listed in this summary, and the fact that the National, Sierra Club headquartered in San Francisco, with an office here in Wash- ington, was not listed at all, although it played a very important role at those hearings. It is very difficult for an agency to go through the volume of testi- mony that was received in the course of that hearing, and subsequently in the form of written statements and correspo~dence, and I would urge you to carefully review this record, or ask that your staff review it, because there is much fine detailed information there that cannot possibly appear in the summary as has been presented by the agency. These recommendations and the principal differences between proposals of conservation groups and those offered by the Forest Service are being discussed in detail by other witnesses. Summarizing very briefly, and referring to the markings on a map to be presented to the committee by the Wyoming Outdoor Coordinat- ing Council, the Wilderness Society advocates a Washakie Wi1derne~s unit of approximately 730,000 acres, whidh includes the present Stra- tified Primitive Area, 189,024 acres; the present South Absaroka Wilderness, 483,130 acres; and additions contiguous to the Stratified Primitive Area along East and West Forks of Six Mile Creek, area B, PAGENO="0100" 3,296 acres; Horse Creek, area F, 2,598 acres; and the South Fork of Wood River, area A, 1,472 acres. We agree with the exclusion of the Lean-To Creek area, area 2. These areas are included in the wilderness area provided for in S. 2630. Their addition to the wilderness area is supported by conserva- tionists on the basis of the field studies and further reviews of the areas since the time of the administrative field hearing. However, the same series of posthearing field reviews have brought out more strongly than ever the need for firm protection under the wilderness law for the following contiguous lands not included in the Forest Service proposal: 1. East and West DuNo'ir Creek, area J, 25,00O to 30,000 acres just west of the Primitive Area. The visits of study teams and other conservationists to the upper East and West Forks of DuNoir Creek drainages have proved to their satisfaction that some of the most superb wilderness values of this region lie in this area, which includes Kisinger Lakes. It is high country of truly unspoiled wilderness beauty, with simple but adequate trails. Another very significant reason for saving this wild unit is that it is the home of an important elk herd, and is used as a major migration route of elk as they travel to and from their winter feeding areas. Mr. Chairman, before coming to Washington some 14 or 15 years ago, I was employed by the wildlife research unit of the University of Idaho, the Idaho Fish and Ganie Department, and the Montana Fish and Game Department, and the U.S. Forest Service, on a seasonal basis over 4 or 5 years on various big-game and range studies. I am familiar with what happens to good elk range when we suffer an intrusion of a logging road network. Certainly there are, as a rule, elk that remain in the area, but the quantity of elk that are produced by such roaded and logged areas usually drops severely. I think we can see this in evidence in many parts of northern Idaho, where in the depression years, with the support of the Civilian Con- :servation Corps, the Forest Service built hundreds of miles of roads. We can contrast this country, which in the ecological sense is com- parable to that of the unroaded sections of the Clearwater, and the production of elk does not compare in any shape or degree. Yes, you do have elk hunting in the northern roaded areas, but it is not in the qu'antity nor in the fine quality that we find in the back country of the Clearwater, particularly in the Bitterroot area. From our experience, and the people in our organization who are biologists concur fully with the Wyoming Fish and Game Depart- ment, we were shocked to learn that some of this area J unit has been roaded and logged since the December 8, 1966, field hearing, at which citizen conservationists asked that this area be included in the wild- erness, thus practically eliminating the opportunity of the Congress to include some of this area when it decides on the area's boundaries. We feel strongly that the economic benefits from such logging would in no way justify the destruction of this beautiful region, and the dis- location or elimination of a large number of elk and other wildlife. Scientific studies and experience in Colorado and other areas sup- port the belief that networks of logging roads~-even more than Tog- ging itself_would cause a large part of the present elk herd to be driven out of this area, which is now prime elk habitat. PAGENO="0101" 93 We would hope that close scrutiny of the economy of logging in this mountain region, together with a careful examination of its present and future wildlife and wilderness values, will show the necessity of preserving this comparatively small but superbly wild Upper DuNoir Valley as part of the proposed wilderness area. Where recent logging and logging roads have penetrated this unit of 30,000 acres, it may be necessary to exclude some of these lands. Car~fu1 study of this 30,000-acre unit may reveal penetrations of recent logging and logging roads which preclude inclusion of 3,000 to 4,000 acres within the proposed wilderness area boundaries. As much as possible of this undisturbed back country should be included, however. I would like to say that the early-day logging within area J `con- sisted largely of tie `hacking, tha't the logging `was carried out `during the winter period, `and much of the material was taken out over the snow, with minimal damage to the landscape, to the native vegetation. Thus, we see that after some 30 years, there is very little evidence of this activity in the area. Except for an occasional stump, it is har'd to realize that this i's not pristine, that it has ever been destroyed. There are what are referred `to as jeep roads. These are very limited in extent, and it is certain that they could be closed, or that they would very quickly revert to trail status. 2. Bear Basin, area D, 5,000 to 8,000 acres on the southern `border of the primi'tive area. Conservationists originally recommended the higher acreage figure for inclusion in the proposed wilderness. Later study has resulted in a somewhat reduced recommendation, because of some road penetra- tion in the area. We strongly urge, however, that the size of this `addition not be reduced below the 5,000-acre level, because this acreage is needed to protect critical elk habitat and other wilderness values. The other citizen-proposed additions along the southern fringes of the Stratified Primitive Area are recommended for inclusion, because they represent important approaches to the wilderness environment which are not only a part of the scenic resource, but have a bearing on the stability of the soil and the prospering of the elk herd. These valuable fringe areas should not be trimmed away from the wilderness country of which they are an integral part: 3. Caidwell Creek-Wiggins Fork, areas 3,4, E, and F-i. Some 4,000 to 6,000 acres of additions are advisable here to pro- tect critical elk habitat and important timbered fringe areas. We are aware that there has been some recent logging within area E, and these tracts would be excluded. 4. Parque Creek, Ramshorn, Fivemile, and Six Mile Creeks, areas 43, 0, H, and I. Some 7,000 acres of worthy additions to the Washakie wilderness are found here, including foreground for the magnificent Ramsho'rn, which is the dominant scenic feature along the southern boundary of the `area. Tmportant elk migration routes would also be protected from disturb- ance by these small additions. The Stratified Primitive Area region is a wild country ~f broad, flat-topped mountains and plateaus cut by deep canyons formed of `the eruptive material from the volcanic area of Mount Washburn in PAGENO="0102" 94 Yellowstone National Park and Lava Mountain at the head of Wind River. Many steep and narrow valleys, partially clothed with alpine-type forest growth, give this region-only 20 miles north of the town of Dubois and 80 miles southeast of Yellowstone National Park-the qualities of seclusion and unspoiled charm. It abounds in wildlife, large and small, including not only important populations of elk, but also numbers of deer and moose. One outstand- ing feature of this area is the great amount of petrified forest remains that are to be found on the gravel bars of nearly all of its streams. While practically all forest types common to the Rocky Mountain region are found in the stratified area, with the exception of Douglas- fir, the steep sidewalls of nearly all of the valleys do not encourage forest growth. Because of the frequency of cloudbursts, the existing undisturbed timber cover is of great importance in retarding the torrential runoff, and in protecting the watershed. Headwaters of the South Fork of Wood River, and the East Fork of Wind River-both tributaries of Yellowstone River-originate here, and this supply of clear, high quality water is in itself a great public value best protected in its natural condition for downstream uses. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer a personal observation from what I have seen in areas of this high elevation type, where we have h~d logging of marginal timber, lodgepole, Douglas-fir, at elevations 7,000 to 10,000 feet. Usually we find timber in these sites growing in unstable soil, such as we have here. We find that the small streams run black or brown with every heavy rain, and with the heavy melt of the winter snows. I think we want to look very closely at what will result from logging in these marginal sites at high elevations to our priceless watersheds, and to our priceless native fisheries. Our native fisheries bring many people into most of these mour~tain canyons, and I think we should not underestimate their importance to the economy of the State and the local communities. I also want to comment, Mr. Chairman, on this reference that we see today to regional planning. This involves the displacement of some of the users of Yellowstone National Park, which most of us love very dearly, to contiguous na- tional forest lands. Most of us, as we have appeared at various hearings over the coun- try, and before the Congress, have urged such regional planning. We have advocated this as a means of relieving the great pressure on our national park wilderness lands, but it seems inconceivable to me that in the face of so much in the way of opportunity for locating alternate camping facilities, that so much will be dependent upon the 45 to 50 thousand acres that we might propose at this time for addition to the Washakie Wilderness Area. It seems inconceivable, with the lovely drives that we have around the community of Dubois, that we are confined to area J for the place- ment of five of these camping areas. The area south of the wilderness area, as we see it proposed by the citizens' groups. is ideally suited for such campgrounds, and other recreational facilities, the facilities that would accommodate the pub- PAGENO="0103" 95 ii; the people that need a place to camp, and a lovely view of the wilderness. In addition, from such locations, I think people would have an in- valuable experience of walking into the wilderness, maybe back to the camp at night, but all of this would accrue to the advantage of the local economy, and we would urge that alternate sources for such mass recreation facilities be fully explored before it is decided to use any part of these locations that we propose to be parts of the wilderness area for such facilities. With its rugged and spectacular scenery, its many steep and secluded valleys clothed in summer with gorgeous displays of plant life, its 16 lakes, and uncounted streams flowing through both alpine meadows and canyons, and its untamed wildlife to be viewed and studied, the Stratified Primitive Area is unquestionably worthy of preservation in its present natural condition. When added to the South Absaroka Wilderness, and rounded out with the additions we have suggested, this unit will guarantee a great wilderness experience for all who seek it, as well as preserve scientific values, watersheds, and wildlife. A good trail system already exists through much of the area. It is being used more each season for horse pack trip's and by hikers. There is good access now to the boundaries of this area. Mr. Chairman, in `conclusion, we wish to emphasize our strong sup- port for the establishment of the Washakie, San Gabriel, and Mount Jefferson Wilderness Areas. We commend you and the members of the committee for your prompt consideration of these measures, and urge your early, favorable action upon them. We appreciate very much the opportunity to present these views. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Brandborg. We will next hear from Mr. Robert R. Marshall, of Pomona, Calif. STATEMENT OP ROBERT R. MARSHALL, POMONA, CALIP. Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Robert R. Marshall, and I live at 1986 North Orange Grove Avenue, Pomona, Calif. I would like to explain why I believe the San Gabriel Wilderness should be established as provided in 5. 2531. The proposed San Gabriel Wilderness would preserve an excellent sample of the south-facing slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains. IL live near the base of these mountains, as do most people in the Greater Los Angeles area, and I have hiked and traveled in the San Gabriels a great deal. I have also traveled widely in the other mountains of southern California, as well as wildernesses throughout the Western States. I know of no other place quite like the San Gabriel Moun- tains, and, frankly, I love them. Their lower, south-facing slopes are steep, crumbly, and generally covered with `dense, dry chaparral. In fadt, it isn't too far from the truth to say that the chaparral is the only thing which keeps these mountains from falling down. There are narrow, steep, and often spectacular canyons, and in the bottom of each canyon is a little line of a kind of world totaly differ- ent from that of the slopes just above. Within this line it is cool- shaded by water-loving hardwood trees. The wild flowers grow here, and there are often trickles of water in the streambeds all year. PAGENO="0104" 96 Above 4,000 feet, the big cone Dou~1as fir becomes common Plus tree is found in other ranges, too, but in the San Ga)briels its droopy branches take on the character of a trademark Still higher, above 6,000 feet or so, the chaparral gives way to open `tands of coulter, jeffrey, and sugar pine, and other conifers These slopes are usually gentle, probably because there is little chaparrel to help them stay steep The ground is carpeted with a layer of dead needles, and, except for some foot high manzamta, there isn't much in your way ~`hen you want to go from here to there It is ple'~sant and free to walk around in this upper forest, and if you do, you are likely to encounter a bighorn sheep doing the same thing Everything I have described is found in the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness, but this is not all of the unique character of the San Gabriel Mountains These are extreme mountains If the wind blows~ it is apt to be a gale If it rains, it is apt to be a deluge And if there is a fire, it is prob'ibly going to be a massive conflagration All of these things are natural for the San Gabriel Mountains They are a part of what makes them unique It is almost as if this mount'iin range is dedicated to the pa oposition that anything woi th doing is woith overdoing There is another important uniqueness Several million people live right at the base of these extreme slopes Understandably, they get very unhappy when a fire toasts their back yards and floods mo~ e their homes to lo'~ er ground There is plenty of motive for taming these mountains, and at first it may seem like an expensive luxury to leave a part of them undis turbed But it isn't In this case, preservation under the admittedly restrietive Wilderness Act is inexpensive The geography of the proposed San GabruA Wilderness is very fortunate Nobody lives at the base of it There are at least two majoi flood control reservoirs between the proposed wilderness and populated are'a There is fast access by good road all around the area, and the boundary is located at places where it is practical to try to stop fires Undeniably, wilderness classification implies some greater risk of uncontrolled fire, but this is the one place in this area where fire would do the least damage Even so, the Forest Service has cleared small helicopter landing spots in the area for quick access to kill fires while they are small This control technique is in use throughout the Angeles National Forest, and, if these small heliports are not overdone, they are a tolerable intrusion in the wilderness Generally, the proposed wilderness boundaries include as much land as possible, while being administratively defensible Perhaps the one exception to this is along the southern edge, where the West Fork of the San Gabriel River has existing flood control developments, and a dirt road alongside it Here, the proposed boundary is drawn at a fixed vertical elevation above the river This excludes a substantial length of the bottoms of the larger side canyons, which have gentle gradients Before supporting the Forest Seivice's proposal, local conserva tiomsts looked at this southern boundary in detail We were satisfied that this setback, which is actually more extensive than necessary, PAGENO="0105" 97 would not result in inappi opriate developments in these portions of the side canyons, which more properly belong within the boundaries We are willing to go along with the easy to define boundary along this southern edge In general, we are very pleased that the Forest Service has shown good faith and good judgment in making its proposal for the San Gabriel Wilderness It is appropriate that the proposal should en joy the widespread support it has received In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no local opposition to it at all This is the proposal incorpoiated in S 2531 I hope this bill will become law as soon as possible Commenting a little more on the lack of opposition, the hearing in 1966 held in Altadena by the Forest Service was presided over by a hearing officer of some years of experience at this, and he said that in all of his 20 yeirs of conducting such hearings, he had never seen one such as this There just `~ asn't `my disagreement with the Forest Service proposal This should not be taken to mean that there is no controveisy ~hate~er attached to this area, or likely to be attached to it What it re'dly should mean is that we feel that any difficulties or disagreements v~ hich m'my arise in the future i~ be basically admin lstratn/ e, and `~ e will be able to resolve differences through the normal administrative channels, and the fine cooperation we enjoy with the Forest Service in this area There was one little note of controversy, oddly enough A cert'min gentleman, Mr Alex Deutsch by name, tried to argue for the with dr'iwal of ceitain paits It does bring up a point which is worth making with respect to the San Gabriel Wildemness Almost as close to the Los Angeles area are several units of the national ~wilderness preservation system The San Gabriel does not really overlap these in the kind of terr'un which it preserves All of these other areas I have just mentioned lie above 7,000 feet elevation Almost entirely, the San Gabriel Wilderness is below 7,000 feet elevation, and the kind of terrain and are'L pre served is quite different We need them all to have representative samples of all of the southern Californ] a mountain areas Thank you Senator HANSEN Thank you very much, Mm Marshall Next to be heard is Dan Reece, of Portland, Oreg Let me say, if I may, before you begin, Mr IReece, that if you would like to emphasize any points that you think have particular significance, or in controversy, I think that might be indicated I would just say that, without having seen your testimony at all, I think these three areas have been rather adequately described I just suggest that if you would like to take advantage of this opportunity to emphasize points that you think may be of particular concern, we would be happy to have that, but certainly you may, if you like, read your statement in its entirety STATEMENT OP DAN It REECE, PORTLAND, OREG Mr REECE Think you, Mr Chairman I have a very short state ment My name is Dan R Reece I came from Oregon Ito testify before this committee on my own volition, and at my own expense Although PAGENO="0106" 98 I am not sponsored by a specific group, I represent a growing voice among other businessmen of the Northwest who share my conviction that there is too little wilderness for too many people within my State. My conviction is substantiated by direct observation that wilder- ness, much of it de facto, is shrinking rapidly, while forecasted popu- lation of Oregon is destined to expand at a rate considerably in excess of the national average. In contrast to the rapidly expanding horizons of research, in which my company takes part, wilderness remains historical evidence of the past and can never be expanded beyond the protection given to it by public authority. I have intimate knowledge of the focal points for wilderness ex- perience inside and outside the proposed Forest Service boundaries of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. More than 20 years have elapsed since my first visits to Jefferson Park, Hunts Cove, above Pamelia Lake, the lakes basin west of Three Fingered Jack, and Square and Long Lakes to the south. I have seen camping sites on these small lakes, such as Santiam Lake, 4 miles within the wilderness boundary, reduced to dust bowls where grass once grew to the lakeshore, as short as 10 years ago. Where one campsite existed 10 years ago, you can now count 10. The same applies to Hunts Cove, where one must travel more than 7 miles from the roadhead below Pamelia Lake and climb several thousand feet in elevation. To an even greater extent, the quality of Jefferson Park has been eroded, due to the extremely heavy visitor density to this alpine gar~ den of exquisite beauty. Until the Forest S~rvice roaded the White Water Creek west of Jef- ferson, access to Jefferson Park was from Brietenbush Lake, over a 7,000-foot pass, a 7-mile hike. Now, from the White Water Creek roadhead, it is a short hike to the Sentinal Hill Ridge, and an easy 3- mile grade to Jefferson Park. This new access permits greater pressure on the park, and promotes faster erosion of wilderness quality. In the vicinity of this area, to the north, are Fire Camp Lakes. One lake lies within the proposed boundary, the other outside. Inclusion of both lakes would add to the wilderness experience and relieve pressure on Jefferson Park. On the North Santiam River, the trail from Big Meadows follows a 6-mile easy grade to Duffy Lake. The proposed wilderness boundary bisects a stream junction containing a fine meadow, with lakes close by. The area is of high wilderness quality, and should be protected by extension of the boundary to Big Meadow road. Square and Long Lakes, No. 15 on map B, was one of my first wilder- ness experiences in de facto wilderness. Although access is now by high clearance vehicles and four-wheel drives, this could be an area of quality wilderness experience for people who wish a short 1-mile hike to an area of solitude. I now come to the major considerations in my testimony, which are as follows: There are so few focal points ~within the Forest Service proposal; there are several on the outside. PAGENO="0107" 99 The fragile character of these focal points is being seriously eroded from high visitor density. Future ~4sitor density will inevitably increase. The narrow boundaries, 3 miles at the upper end, provide something short of wilderness experience, because of the easy access. I recommend that the shaded porhions on map B of the Forest Service proposal, areas 14,15, and 16, be included in S. 2751. Thank you. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Reece. Mr. Lawrence Williams, vice president of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, Milwaukie, Oreg. STATEiVIENT OP LAWRENCE WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDER- ATION `OP WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS, MILWAUKIE, OREG. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to appear and testify before you today on the very important subject of establishing the boundaries for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area. My name is Lawrence Williams, 1465 Southeast 27th S'treet-206, Milwaukie, Oreg. 97222. I am the Oregon vice president of the Federa- tion of Western Outdoor Club's, in Whose behalf I am here today. I am also the chairman of a new committee called the Committee for the Volcanic Cascades Study, a bill Senator Morse introduced for a study of the Oregon Cascades. I am a hiker, backpacker, and skier. I know the Oregon `Cascades, and have covered over 400 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail System with a pack on my back. For those members of the committee who are not familiar with the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, I would like to explain that the federation, founded in 1932, is an association of conservation and outdoor recreation oriented organizations. Among its purposes is the aim of preservation of the forests, wildlife, and natural features of this country, and the aim of assistance to public and private groups in the conservation of our natural resources. The federation is composed of 46 outdoor clubs in the 11 Western States, and has a membership of over 70,000 people. If the Federal Government did not already recognize the value of wilderness lands, we would not have seen the Wilderness Act of 1964 come into law, and you would not be holding this hearing today. The establishment of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area is indeed worthy of our utmost consideration. The Oregon Cascades contain some of the most superlative scenery in the United States: Nine great volcanoes over 9,000 feet in elevation, 33 peaks over 7,000 feet, and 28 named glaciers. This beauty is rapidly being encroached upon by men who have other ideas than preservation of the natural beauty of the Cascades. For this reason, the establishment of suitable and proper boundaries for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area is exceedingly important. We have learned from past experience that what is not firmly protected by Con- gress will eventually be roaded and logged. PAGENO="0108" 100 The selection of the boundaries for the area rests primarily on four factors: 1. The need to establish an area suitable for preservation in perpetuity as wilderness; 2. The need for a sufficient buffer within the wilderness to afford natural protection of the wilderness focal points from overuse and from outside influences; 3. The need to protect numerous alpine lakes, which are located along the boundaries of the proposed wilderness area; and 4. The needs of industry for raw materials. For the most part, the boundaries proposed by the Forest Service fail to establish an area suitable for preservation in perpetuity as wil- derness, fail to provide an adequate buffer, fail to protect the alpine lakes, and fail to confine timber harvesting to suitable areas for meeting legitimate needs. There exists a consensus among conservation leaders in Oregon's outdoor clubs-the Mazamas, the Chemeketans, the Obsidians, the Trails Club, the Oregon Cascades Conservation Council, the Commit- tee for the Volcanic Cascades Study, and the Pacific Northwest Chap- ter of the Sierra Club-that several additions must he made to the area proposed for wilderness classification by the Forest Service, if a mean- ingful and lasting unit of wilderness is to be added to the wilderness system. For the most part, the boundaries of the additions follow natural features, more so than those proposed by the Forest Service. Where natural features are not practicably available, the boundaries follow contour or section lines or physical boundaries, such as existing roads. The Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs still supports its original boundary recommendations proposed at the Forest Service hearings. The areas which we requested are indicated as shaded areas on page 14 of the Forest Service proposal, which have already been pointed out. We are pleased to see that the Forest Service chose to include a part of the Fire Camp Lakes area, and the Pamelia Lake Corridor. Out of a total of 30,000 additional acres recommended for inclusion, the For- est Service increased their original proposal by just over 1,000 acres. I will not take the time here to describe the individual merits of each of the areas which we have recommended for inclusion, but I would like to name the areas which we think deserve further consideration by this committee. We recommend the further expansion of the Fire Camp Lakes area to protect it from overuse; the expansion of the boundary along the Valley of the White Water to protect Jefferson Park, which is already very scarred from the very heavy use it is receiving; the inc'usion of Marion Lake, which is the oniy remaining alpine lake of substantial size which is available for inclusion in wilderness in the entire Pacific Northwest region; and the addition of Square and Round Lakes, to exclude motorbikes and to offer a wilderness experience within a trail miles of the Santiam Highway for older people and families. Finally, I would like to point out that since 1950 the Forest Service has declassified six former limited areas in the Oregon Cascades, which has resulted in the loss of some 250,000 acres of former wilder- ness-type lands. Loggings roads and logging into formerly roadless areas in the last decade has taken another estimated 100,000 acres, for PAGENO="0109" 101 a total loss of about 350,000 acres of wilderness-type lands under For- est Service Management. Not much unspoiled country is left in Ore- gon's cascades. Of a total of 273 stream valleys over 5 miles in length in the national forests of the cascades, only seven remam unroaded or iuilogged. For a State whose forests are often thought to be ida- tively untouched, this is a very surprising fact. Finally, I would like to say that of these, there are only three over 10 miles in length remaining in Oregon which are not roadeci or logged, and of these three, one is due for logging this next summer. So that we have nc~t an overabundance of wilderness, and I think anything we can do to preserve a larger portion of the Mount Jefferson area is well worth doing. Senator }-L&NSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Mr. WILLIAMs. Thank you. Senator HANSEN. I have a statement here by Arthur A. Rich, cali- fornia vice president, Federation of Western Outdoor clubs. I think this would be a good place in the record to include it. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF ARTHUR A. Ricur, CALIFORNIA VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERATION OF WESTERN OuTDooa CLUBS The Forest Service proposal for inclusion of the Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area and an additional 1.33() acres in Bobcat Canyon in the San Gabriel Wilderness Area is very commendable. It represents the largest possible area which avoids existing developments. Located at the ~.1oorstep of the huge sprawl. ing Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, it would provide a valuable addition to our wilderness system accessible to urban dwellers who can visit this area on as little as a one day outing. The area is quite diverse, containing higher elevation conifer forests, the unique lower elevation chaparral plaiit community and the beautiful stream bottom alder and maple groves. I would like to urge that early action be taken by congress in considering and approving this proposal Senator HANSEN. W. 1). ITagenstein, execu1~ive vne uresjdont of Industrial Forestry Association, has sent a letter iUNl a ~t:t.te.liient by the association. Without objection, they will be me].ucled in the hear- ing record at this point. (The letter and statement referred to follow:) INI) cSTB[\L FORESTRY A SS0CL~TION, Portland, Oi'cg., Fcbruary 13, L9(;8. Re 5. 2751. Hon. FRANK CiluRcur. Cl/i airman, Hnbco;nmittee on Public Lands. Senate C'Ofl)flhittee Oil Interior (111(1 Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mis. CHAIRMAN: I had hoped to be able to appear before your Sub- committee on February 19, 1908, when you have scheduled hearings on the above captioned bill relating to the Mt. Jefferson WTllderness, Oregon. However, I am scheduled to be in Japan as an adviser to our U.S. negotiators on the log export problem on that date. Therefore, i'd appreciate very much if you woul(l include this lctter and the attached Statement in behalf of this Association iii the record of your hearings on 5. 2751. Thanking you in advance and with kindest personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours, W. 1). IIACEN5TF.1 V. I~r(e of! VC ViCC PiC\ idci t. STA'cE1I1~N'r or INDUSTRIAL F()RESlRv ~~5SO~TATION Iuidu~tria1 Ti'orestry Association consists of 104 (Oin~flflitS 1111(1 iii(liviilua]s in time business of growing and harvesting timber and manufacturing lumber, pulp PAGENO="0110" 102 and paper, plywood and veneer, shingle and shakes, hard and soft boards, poles and piling, doors, furniture and other forest products throughout Western Otegon and Western Washington. Our members operate more than 400 wood-using plants, conduct more than 200 different logging operations and employ more than 80,000 people. The annual payroll of their employees exceeds $500 million. Our members own 7.5 million acres of forestland in our region. They produce annually about 7 billion board feet of logs, buy the equivalent `of 1.75 billiop feet of logs in the form of chips annually for their pulp and board mills, an4 buy another 1.5 billion feet of logs annually on the open log market. They are steadily operating companies which continue in good markets and bad and are the back- bone of communities in almost every one of the 38 counties in our region. An important part of our industry's timber supply comes from public lands, including the national forests. Therefore, Industrial Forestry Association follows a policy of examining every proposal made for the withdrawal of public lands from productive forestry. The Association also has a policy of supporting the withdrawal of suitable areas of the national forests for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System, created by Public Law 88-577, 88th Congress, 1964, where its studies demonstrate that such withdrawal will not adversely affect the economy of surrounding communities. On June 2, 1964 the Association endorsed the Forest Service proposal for the Mt. Jefferson Wild Artia. Now the Administration has proposed adding the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System. We have studied the new proposal independently, as well as having sought the view of timber operators and others in the communities directly affected. The Association believes that the propos~1 embodied in S. 2751 contains the maximum acreage which can be withdrawn as permanent wilderness without adversely affecting the opportunities for local jobs and payrolls which are dependent on raw materials from the national forests. Of the 96,462 acres pro- posed for inclusion in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness 58,700 acres or 61 percent of the total are lands capable of growing commercial crops of timber through the practice of forestry. These productive forest lands contain a present inventory of 1 billion, 350 million board feet of mercantile timber. We believe this is a most generous contribution to wilderness preservation. Therefore, the Association en- dorsies without change the Department of Agriculture proposal for adding the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System as provided in S. 2751. Senator HANSEN. We have a number of witnesses yet to be heard from. Is there anyone here this afternoon who would find it difficult to be here tomorrow? We could take a little more time this evening. The next witness, according to the list, is Mr. Prince Heifrich. What is your pleasure, Mr. Helfrich? Mr. HELFRICH. Yes; I can wait until the morning if you like. Senator HANSEN. Let me ask one more time, is there anyone here who would find it inconvenient to be here tomorrow? Is Mrs. Evelyn Lester here? Mrs. LESTER. I will have someone else read my statement, or else leave it as is on the program here. Senator HANSEN. We would be happy to hear from you. I under- stand that you do have a short statement, and if you would like we would be happy to hear from you. Mrs. Lester, I understand you are a member of the Wanderbird Hiking Club here in Washington. Is that right? Mrs. LESTER. Thank you, but I am representing myself rather than the Wanderbirds in the statement. Senator HANSEN. You may proceed. STATEMENT `OP EVELYN LESTER, TAKOMA PARK, MD. Mrs. LESTER. I am Mrs. Evelyn Lester of Takoma Park, Md. I would like to present this statement on behalf of myself. Before com- PAGENO="0111" 103 ing to Washington, D.C., I lived for the past 3 years in Seattle, Wash., and had opportunities to visit the Mount Jefferson area. As pro- posed by the Forest Service, it is indeed an area worthy of inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This area along with Three Sisters and Mount Washington Wilder- ness areas in the heart of the Oregon Cascades needs permanent pro- tection because these beautiful mountain peaks are impressive only from the perspective looking down upon or up from a valley well covered with Douglas-fir and other conifers. I have hiked near the area where the Santiam River meets the White- water Creek and have seen the clear cuts scars there and it strikes me that leaving Mount Jefferson there without the trees surrounding it is like taking a fish out of water. East of the junction of the Whitewater Creek and the Santiam River, about 6 miles, the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area is only 3 miles wide. It is quite a small area and I would favor extending the borders to the west by approximately 3 miles, as suggested by the conservation groups today, and to include Marion Lake within this area; that is, extend the entire length of the Mount Jefferson Wilder- ness Area by approximately 3 miles. Our contention against including Marion Lake in the wilderness area is that it is overused. It will get a great deal of use either in or out of a wilderness area because of its proximity to a paved road. If, as the Forest Service suggested in its proposal, motorboats will be phased out at Marion Lake, this can be accomplished administratively but not legally if Marion Lake is a scenic area. The issue of including Marion Lake versus not including it in the wilderness area isn't weighting heavily on two vastly different types of use as for example a tram versus a 15-mile steeply graded trail. We have two different groups of people using it. I think the same people would be using this lake either way, wilderness area or scenic area. The difference is the degree of protection for the lake; admin- istrative protection subject to change as a scenic area or legal protec- tion which is permanent as a wilderness area. Wilderness preservation system is a great act yet to be institution- alized. Let's have substantial wilderness areas without vulnerable buffer zone outside of the areas. With a major mountaineering, hik- ing, and general outdoor equipment store in the Northwest expanding from 5,600 members in 1956 to 65,000 members in 1967, I assure you that these areas will be used and the many of us who go to these areas will be thankful that this diversion, or, rather this choice of diversion, exists still. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Lester. Mrs. LESTER. Thank you. Senator HANSEN. Before we conclude, may I call Mr. Helfrich to come forward and present his testimony. STATEMEISIT OP PRINCE HELPRICH, BLUE RIVER, OREG. Mr. HELFRICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have al- ready prepared a statement and sent it in. Senator HANSEN. It will be included in full at the end of your remarks. 91-953--68-----8 PAGENO="0112" 104 Mr. HELFRIOH. My name is Prince Heif rich from, the McKenzie River in Oregon. I am here representing 200 professional guides in the State of Oregon. They are guides and packers. I might say that in the recreational industry I have spent over 40 years guiding in the different western rivers and at present our as- sociation guidesin Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. So I think I have quite a good picture of the recreational industry. I would like to point out that in Oregon recreation is our third largest industry, and it is fast gaining on the other two industries of timber and agriculture. Not long ago Senator Morse made the statement that it is possible that in 10 years recreation will surpass any of the other industries. For that reason I would like to talk for the guides and for the rec- reation people of Oregon. Recreation is increasing 20 percent every year by Forest Service figures. In fact, the recreational use of a given area increases 100 per- cent every 5 years. That is due a great deal to transportation. You could leave here in the morning after breakfast, and fly across the United States, take a car up into the Jefferson area and have your dinner there that evening. So we are not saving this area just for the Oregonians or Californians that come up, we, are saving it for the people of the entire United States. We want to see this area increased. We feel that it is far too small for real recreation to last very long. As you look at that area you see a long, narrow strip the length of t1~o Cascade Mountains and if you were camped there in one place that is 3 miles wide you could hear power saws running on the eastern side and logging equipment on the western side. That is not true wilderness. People who go there wanting the true experience of wild- erness won't find that. We would like to see the area enlarged along the lines suggested by the western outdoor clubs, which includes those blue areas on the map there. Speaking of timber, it has been mentioned quite a number of times this afternoon as to the desirability of timbering in that area. If you will realize that there are almost 900 million feet of timber taken out of Oregon this year and logs shipped to foreign markets, you will see that there is not a great shortage of logs. The second thing is that, in this area we are speaking of, a great deal of the timber is low- quality timber, what we call the high-mountain species. There is not a great deal of Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine. In summing up, let me urge you to set this area aside now before it is too late, becaues in the future you have the power here in Con- gress to enlarge it. You also have the power to cut it down. So if you will set it aside it is like putting something in the bank. It is there and growing `and can be used later if there is a necessity for it. Thank you very much. Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Heifrich. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF PRINCE E. HEIFRTCII I am Prince E. Heifrich of McKenzie River. Oregon, and I am representing the Oregon Guides and Packers, a group tif over two hundred professional guides. I have been actively engaged in guiding for over forty years. I direct a boys' wilderness camp during the summer iii the Cascade Mountains and manage my own tree farm in the winter months. PAGENO="0113" 105 Gentlemen: We are asking that you give careful and favorable consideration to the enlarging of the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area. We suggest that you follow the general guide lines as stipulated by the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs at a recent hearing on the proposed wilderness area, and add at least the 29,000 acres. As the area now stands and as suggested by the United States Forest Service, the wilderness will be too smalL Extending north and south along the crest of the Cascades, it is very narrow for a complete wilderness area. Logging activities can be heard both to the east and west of the slim corridor of spectacular natural beauty. In my time, I have seen a tremendous explosion in the field of recreation. Mountain climbers, skiers, hunters, fIsherman, hikers anid campers are all de- manding wilderness areas in which to vacation. Leisure time, better transporta- tion, better equipmenit, and extensive outdoor publicity have all joined in putting thousand's of recreation-seeking people into the Cascade Mountain regions. Limited and desirable areas are already being overused. Much of our high mountain country is fragile and overuse can destroy its beauty. Overcrowded conditions detract from a happy outing in natural surroundings. Oregon is a state that is rich in recreational potential. At present recreation is our third largest industry. Facts indicate that recreation use is increasing 100% every five years; so in ten years it can well be the leading industry. In the western states we have a continuing controversy between industry wanting to utilize commercially the resources of the wilderness, and those far- seeing individual's wanting to preserve some of our great outdoors. A balance must be obtained between use and exploitation of the natural resources and saving some of them for the future. Why not save some areas now and let later generations decide their best use? As guides making a living from the recreation industry but not by exploiting or destroying natural resources, we ask you to enlarge theise areas. Save them before it is too late. This must be done if the recreational needs of our people twenty years from now are to be met. Senator HANSEN. The committee has received statements from Carwin A. Wool'ley, executive vice president, Pacific Logging Con- gress, and Douglas W. Scott, of Ann Arbor, Mi'ch., for inclusion in the record. Also a letter from Gene D. Knudson of Willamette Indus- tries, Inc., of Port] and, Oreg. These all concern the Mount Jefferson Wilderness proposal and I think it would be well to print them at this point. (The data referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF CARWIN A. WOOLLEY, ExECUTIvE VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC LOGGING CONGRESS, PORTLAND, OREG. The Pacific Logging Congress is an Association of individuals engaged in, or interested in `the harvesting and tree growing phase of the forest industry. Its membership includes representatives of the majority of logging firms from Alaska to the Mexican border and east to the Rocky Mountains. It is vitally concerned with the broad aspects of fores't land management, to the end that the greatest possible benefits of all forest resources may be realized. Our Association has long supported, and worked for, the application of the multiple use principle of land management, and it recognizes the difficulties inherent in meeting seemingly unlimited demands for specific uses from a very limited and continually shrinking acreage of forest land. We have very carefully studied the proposal for the Mount Jefferson Wilder- ness Area. We believe that it represents an excellent example of enlightened and com- prehensive resource management planning for maximum benefit to all seg- ments of society, with minimum adverse affect on any one specific use of our forest resource. We believe the U.S. Forest Service is to be commended for an excellent job of planning and presenting this proposal. We therefore strongly urge approval of S. 2751 as presently written. We also wish to record strong opposition to any proposal `to further extend the proposed boundaries of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area to include Square Lakes, Marion Lakes, or any additional areas of high quality timberlands. PAGENO="0114" 106 The proposed wilderness area already contains almost 1.5 billion board feet of merchantable timber, which if made available for commerce would provide an annual sustained yield production, based on 100 years rotation, which is conservative, of n~ore than 13 million board feet per year, forever~ This represents, from now to infinity, an annual loss to the economy of Oregon of approximately $2,000,000.00 a year in manufactured product value. In terms of payroll it represents an annual sacrifice of more than $550,000.00 and jobs for 100 breadwInners. In these days of wars against unemployment and poverty, such a sacrifice is not to be lightly passed over. Still greater reduction of the states economic base, merely to add acres to a wilderness area cannot be justified. Further enlargement of the proposed wilderness area boundaries would also result in an unconscionable loss of vitally needed recreational resources. The basic attributes for which wilderness areas are set aside will inevitably be lost if adequate recreational facilities are not provided for the great majority of people who seek only a secluded and natural forest environment for picnics and family camping trips. In summary, the Pacific Logging - Congress commends the Forest Service for its comprehensive and workmanlike plan for the Mount Jefferson area. We urge enactment of S. 2751 as presently drafted. We most strongly oppose any proposals that may be submitted for enlargement of the boundaries of the wilderness area as set forth in S. 2751. STATuMENT OF DoUGLAs W. SCOTT, ANN ARBoR, MICH. My name is Douglas W. Scott. I `am a graduate student in the Department of Foresitiry `of the School of Natural Resources of The University of Michigan. I hold a degree from this university in the field of outdoor recreation planning and am presently pursuing advanced studies in resource policy, with emphasis on outdoor recreation policy. This statement `is offered solely on my own behalf as an individual Citizen con- cerned with `the protection and perpetuation of suitable areas as part of our Naitlon'al Wilderness Preservation System. My views on this Mount Jefferson Wilderness piro'posal are based upon a careful reading of the Forest Service pro- posal documents, the Gedlogic'al Survey report and additional litdrature relevant to the matter. For `the convenience of the suboommittee I have given full citations for all references mentioned. My views are also based upon my personal familiar- ity with the area in question, as I grew up in Oregon, have hiked through much of titis immediate area, and have climbed both Mount Jefferson and Three Fingered Jack. It is necessary, in analyzing the present Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area pro- posal, to consider the total perspective of `its regional setting. The immediate con- cluision that one draw's from such consideration i's that this is the ultimate time of decision for wilderness resources in the Mount Jefferson area, as in all of the Cascade region. As members of this subcommittee know, the basic premise of the Wilderness Act is that all of our lands `are destined soon to be put to some use. Only such lands as are specifically designated and giv'en strong protection will remain in a wild, readies's `and remote natural state. `Phi's is certainly the case in the wild Cascades of Oregon. That point is amply demonstrated by reference to an extensive `study `of "Tiinbe~r Trends in Western Oregon and Western Was'hington," which was prepared in 19(33 by the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station of the United States Forest Service: "Northwestern fo're'sts today are at the center of new and sh'arp change's. Along the western slope `o'f `the Cascade Mountains, one may drive to timbering opera- ations on ground that only `the day before yesterday' was untouched and unseen, a part `o'f the `timeless' virgin wilderness." 1 The study goes `on to poin't out that sin'c'e World War II `the Douglas fir sub- region has entered a n'ew era. Phi's new era is characterized by three closely re- lated features: "One featu're is `th'e rapid receding and prospective disappearance of the timber frontier in the Douglas fir siubregilon * * * industry is pushi'ng into the subregion's 1 Timber Trends In Western Oregon and Western Washington, U.S. Forest Service Research Paper PNW 5, October, 1063. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experi- ment Station, Portland, Oreg., P. 1. PAGENO="0115" 107 last unexploited block of counties, those of southwest Oregon * * * The industry is pushing also eaStward onto long-inaccessible Cascade slopes and locally into other spots which until recenfly were remote. * * * All these developmentis have been attended by rapid extension of forest road networks * * 2 This new era and this receding "timber frontier" demonstrate that we now face a final opportunity to make sound choices about the land-use patterns of Oregon's high Cascades. We will, of course, be able to make additional decisions in the future, but never again on the basis of as wide an array of open options as now exists before this subcommittee. With our rapidly expanding technology and research in the various resource-using fields, it is clear that the once great wilderness resource of the Cascades~ is indeed destined to disappear as the land is put to other uses. This is a certainty unless we make firm decisions now. The point is attested to by the same Forest Service study: "Public forest owners hold most of today's highly inaccessible forest lands. Some of these lands present excessive difficulties for administration and pro- tection in light of current technology. However, even at present prices and costs, such is the public interest in forest values besides timber and in developing the public forests as examples of conservative management that most of the difficult areas are due for intensive development as soon as appropriations, or cutting programs or solving of right-of-way problems permit. And in the long run, it seems fair to assume that all areas will be thus developed, even in the absence of further price-cost incentive." The question before us, then, is to make lasting land-use decisions for this area. While some of the options have been seriously endangered by prior ad- ministrative decisions favoring timber operations and road-building, in the Mount Jefferson region the option does still exist to create a complete wilder- ness unit. The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides us the necessary tool to make this choice-and to make it stick! As a matter of philosophy to support this de~cision, it is essential that we recog- nize that wilderness itself is a natural resource. Like other physical resources, wilderness is available in a limited supply. And it is, for all practical purposes, a non-renewable resource. It has often been suggested that when we dedicate wilderness areas we are "locking up" resources. It is equally true, however, that the only way to per- petuate wilderness resources is to lock them up in a firm and binding decision. Opening existing areas of wilderness to the exploitation of other resources does far more than just "lock up" the wilderness resource-that wilderness resource is destroyed as such. In this perspective the decisions now must concern the proper mixture of different sorts of resource uses, recognizing that each is legitimate and that all cannot be underiaken on the same piece of property. In this statement I will suggest that some additional acreage of commercial timberland, not now protected in the existing primitive area, be added to the present proposed wilderness area. I do so for two reasons. First is the belief that in adding this land we will redress a balance in resource allocation which, up to now, has been lop-sided. Second is the conviction that in establishing a wildernesis unit we ought to make it complete and self-sufficient in the sense that it is large enough and of such a configuration as to have potential for main- taining its integrity as wilderness. The fact that the resource allocation balance in the Cascades has been lop-sided in favor of timber utilization is understandable. Timber has been recognized as a valuable resource for a long time. Only comparatively recently have we come to realize that wilderness, too, is a resource of considerable value. Obviously, adding acreage of "commercial timberland" to the Wilderness area will slightly reduce the amount of "commercial timberland" to the wilderness area lowable cut of these national forests and thus available to the local sawmills. But I would ask this subcommittee to consider what is implied by the technical term "commercial timberland." The Forest Service proposal documents suggest that inclusion of commercial tim'berland in the wilderness will work a haitdshiip on the local communities. But what, it must be asked, gives either the Forest Service or the local timber interests reason to assume that all "commercial `timiberlanid" ron the public forests ~vill necessarily be available for commercial use? It should he recognized that the classification of "commercial timberrland~ is determined in a detached, purely mechanical manner according solely to economic criteria `based upon only 2 Ibid., pg. 5. 3Ibid., pg.38. PAGENO="0116" 108 one resource. evaluation-whether the standing timber is of a `sufficient economic worth relative to `present market conditions and costs of harvest. The designation `~commercial timberland" is not based on any consideration of other recource values or social criteria, but is simply a technical determination of present values `of one `particular resource totally abstracted from these other considera- tions. On `the `basis of the kind of professional training an'd outlook on which this determination of "commercial timberland" `is made, our maps are divided into areas classified `according to timber value standards. It is essential to keep in mind that t'he values on which ultimate land-use decisions must be `consi'dered should include all potential resources and resource uses, no't just `timber evaluations. `This is not at `all an indictment of timber management procedures. This tech- nol'ogy fo'r tim'ber evaluation is highly developed an'd absolutely necessary for modern forest management. Bu't decisions on land-use `patterns cannot be made on the `basis `of timber evaluations or any other single resource dimension-they should involve all resource values. It is convenient, of course, `that `commercial timberland can be readily eval- uated in dollar and cents terms. We have no such means f'o'r putting that kind of monetary value on what might otherwise be `called "commercial wilderness." This surely d'oes not mean, however, `that such value does not exist. The use statistics which `are available `and the subjective testimony of wilderness users and others should be `sufficient to in'di'cate that wilderness has very real, if less tangible `and less commercial, values. And so, *the decisions which must now be m'ade con'cern the' mixture of resource uses which will `be permitted on the lands of this regio'n. That decision, in each case, must be made with `recognition that, just as these lands have value for "commercial timber," they also have value's of another (and certainly not lesser) sort `as wilderness. Th'e question in establishing `boundaries between these non-compatible uses must be `to give ea'c'h sufficient area to maintain their own integrity and self-sufficiency-the on'e `as commercial timberland and the other as wilderness. Only thu's can we ho'pe to maintain a sustained yie'l'd from which we can guarantee the perpetual harvest of each sort of value. On the basis of these considerations and this regional perspective, I will pro- cede to present my views on the `specific `details `of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area proposal. In `doting so I would like to `emphasize that, while we have a good start on an inventory o'f timber an'd mineral values in the Oregon Cascade's, we do not have `anything approaching a comparable inventory and evaluation o'f the values of these lands for recreation `and `wilderness purposes. To t'he degree that such information is lacking, we still face a seriously lop-sided balance in analytical information upon whi'c'h to determine ultimate land-use `policy. Legis- la'tion has `been introduced to bridge this "inform'a'tion gap" by authorizing an inventory `o'f park potential in the Oregon C'ascad~s'. I would urge this `Subcom- mittee, in the interests of promoting balanced land-use analysis and `decisions whic'h must be made in the area, to expedite the consideration and passage of S. 2555. The principal weakness of the proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area in its present form is the narrow width-three miles-in the intermediate area of Mount Jefilerson itself. For perspective, this is only slightly longer `than the distance which separates the United States Capitol from the Lincoln Memorial down the `Mall. `Given the sloping `terrain `of the west side of the Cascades and given the needs of a well-integrated wilderness area, it is quite evident that a three mile width does not and indeed cannot possibly give adequate protection and self-sufficiency t'o a `wilderness area. Furthermore, this narrow neck of the wilderness is located in the vicinity of Jefferson Park, a superb wild parkiand which is a major focal point of wilder- ness use (See photograph, page 21 of the Forest Service proposal document). The fact that "Jeff Park" receives heavy use m'akes it imperative that it be given adequate protection and `that the wilderness area be widened in this region to allow for some dispersal of `future users. For the ecological and psychological integrity of the wilderness at its logical `center-poi'nt, it i's essential tha't this narrow area be considerably widened by the `addition of more suitable land, Only in `this way will these values be given ample protection. Such action will also give wilderness protection to additional lower-elevation fo'rest type's and to im- portant existing and potential `approach routes entering the area. What is required is the expansion of the present proposed boundary to the west in the valley of the North Fork of the Breite'nbush River, `the Firecamp Lakes Basin, the valley of the South Fork of the Breitenbush River, the White- PAGENO="0117" 109 water Creek drainage, Woodpecker Ridge, the Pamilia Creek drainage, the Valley oL Minto Creek, Minto Mountain, Bingham Ridge, Big Meadows arni the Marioii Lake-Iiake Ann area. The~e west side additions will quite obviously involve `lower-elevation lands which are fO!rested with "commercIal timber." But, as I have l)Ointed out, thi.s heeds to be considered in the context :of the total resource conditioji of the region ~Lfld in a wider social perspective. There has been a 1ong~standing tendency in this (ountry-ilnd in the Forest Service-to (lefine as wi1derne~s only those areas wlIi('l1 are lijore or 1e~~ u~ele~s for anything e1s~.4 To a certain degree we have develoijed tt stereoty~)e of \vil(ler- 11CSS as high, bare fllOItiitaiiì country, well al)OVe timberline (at: least the `coin- luercial timberline" ) ~iid barr(-'i1 of any of the "traditional' 1'('~OU1'C(' value:~. 1~'ortuiia tely, this tra(litional wilderness stereoty~)e l's changing as we increase our SOl)ll:iStiCatiori ill evaluating such matters. It is (liai1ging because we are coni- :ing to see, and our Policies *ar(-~ (OIi1i:iig to reflet, the t~act that re~ource lOOhi('iii5 ilee*(t to be (`V~1lUiite(l in `1iV]rOi1fli('flt~ll tei'iiis. Thus, if a W~1I(1er11C'~s area i~ to be ~elf-sufficient flfl(l to have any real integrity, it must l)e fOi'iile(l in such a w-ay as to be a whole-~as a natural elivirolilneiit aiitl 05 011 eiIVii'uilifltflt iii ~vhkli recreational \Vil(leiiiess~ experielice.s art? ~ oUgil~ by ili(re:t!iiiig 1il1lilj~('i:5 Of l)(')1)1(. The \Vil(leriiess Act reI)re~ents a 1oiig ~~l('1) in tlii~ (lireclion. .~I1(l, by es$abii.sliing a national system Of Wilderness, it he'ps U.~ to recognize that such a system ought to contain represeiitatjve samples of a wide variety of environmental types-not just resource-bare niount.ain summits. To bring this presemit proposal up to such envirmunental standards, it must he assured that the Ithal boumidaries (le) ii fact (`olita in an environniejit of reasonable integrity. And, as has beemi iniphed a hove, the environmnenf;il integrity needed is Composed both of ecological (`olISi(lerations and of the needs of wil(hI'lless recre- ation. A three mile wide area at the very point where use is concentrat(d I both by climbers on Mount Jefferson it~elf and by those sojournthg in time superb wild setting of Jeff Park) cannot be called complete in this sense. I cannot offer a spe- cilic boundary revision proposal, mit 1 believe that the revommendatioe(s which have been put forward by local con (*rvationists and by Jq10 Wilderness Society have a far better balance than those oltci'eel by the F'ore;'t Sei'vice. it would appear that apl)roximately 20,000 acres of addition \vest $i(l(' 1011(15 should he added, and precise boundary determinations cnn he (leveloj)e(l by the Forest Service, Several specific areas are of special importance and I will digress briefly to (liscuss these. Firecamp Lakes' Ba.s'in.-Tlie Forest Service has excluded a major i)OrtiOn of this area oil the grounds that it has a "planned roadheacl" des~gmmate~1 for this area. There is no necessity for such a ro*a(llleaei to he located within this hasiii 811(1 011 the shore of these lakes hndecd, there is a (`onsi(h-l'abl(' advantage to be gained by keeping roach and i'oadhead (levelopmnent entirel out of this basin. rFhIe~ Ui] then al)proaehes hiS wildei'iiess camille within time basin through are entry of wilder- ness. An excellent examuple of this principle mimay he observed iii the case of time Pamilia Lake approach to the Mount .Tefferson Wildermmess, There one leaves his automnobfl(' 811(1 other mncc'lianized accoutreneents behind with the road and travels thii'ough a delightful forest corridor leading in to the wilderness and to Pmunilia Lake (see photograph, page 17 of the Forest Service proposal document) , Thus enclosed well within tm. wilderness, 011(1 apploache(1 by a superb trail, Painilia Lake itself becomes far more than just. ml leleas;lmlt recreation i'oadhiead, It he- Collies', instead, a highly significant Part of thee wilderness iii its own right. The sonic opportunit is available in the Firecanep Lakes basin, hut the load must be kept out amid the basimi fully protected by extemidimig flee wilderness boundar to include it in its entirety. Marion Lake and I~a1ce _4nn.---A glance at the proposal mimp will show that the Forest Service l)rorioses to exclude this area fromme the wilderness, thus (`rooting a non-wildermiess intrusion cutting deep into the heart of the wilderness. On what basis is this severe dissection of the wilderness justified? No compellimig reason is offered imi the Forest Service dm'unients for this (10- structive exclusion. It is noted by the Forest Service that the area has runny values 88(1 that its seuei-soiituje is of mnerit, The l)roprsai, leouvever, dots not include the area in the legally defimmed wilderness, fime them', ~s of O"toher 11, 1067 a "Mai'hon Lake Scenic Area managememit plan" was approved for this area.~ Ties Development of Policy and Administration of Forest Service Primitive and Willericess Areas in the Western tlnite(1 States, an 1]npnhlIslied doctoral dissertation, Tie University of Michigan, by James P. Gliligan. 1958. Pers fin] (OliilnflfljentIoee, Philip L. lien ton, A sslstmnt Regional Forester, Pacific Nor) i'west hiegion, to Douglas Scott, Nnvenmhpr S. 1907, PAGENO="0118" 110 I find it unfortunate that the Forest Service goes about finalizing administrative management plans for non-wilderness use of areas Which are under simultaneous consideration by the Congress for wilderness designation. I believe the Subcom- mittee should clarify this matter by directing the Forest Service to refrain from undertaking separate management planning which in any way prejudices con- sideration of wilderness proposals which have been specifically called for under provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 I see no reason for excluding this area from Wilderness status. The point might be made that the area may, as a scenic area, eventually become so heavily developed that it would not then be appropriate for wilderness. In view of its ob\4ous location within the wilderness area (it is, after all, surrounded on three sides) the overdevelopment of this area would be totally out-of-place. This is obviously a point of focused use, but that does not mean that it cannot or should not be wilderness. Rather, it means that its wilderness values are especially great and in need of especially careful wilderness protection. Overdevelopment, with tables, grills, water systems, sanitation installations and boat storage facilities would not only ruin the wilderness character of this one lake-but would have a traumatic impact on a considerable surrounding area, seriously reducing its wilderness qualities as well! Why, one may ask, is boat use to be continued on Marion Lake at all-even to the extent of rowboats requiring boat storage facilities as planned by the Forest Service? Are we so short of lake area in the Pacific Northwest that even one of the most superb high mountain lakes, set in a delightful wilderness basin, needs to be set up with elaborate boating facilities and provision for storage of boats? (Whose boats, one might also ask?) This is a wilderness lake-a rare one at that-and set in a delightful alpine setting (see photograph, p. 11 of Forest Service proposal document). It should be included in the wilderness of which it is a logical part and should be protected, by law, from overdevelopment. It is simply exercising a poor sense of priority to suggest that a gem of the wilderness such as this lake should be excluded from fullest protection in order to be "a base of operation for many who just wish to hike a short distance into the wilderness." 6 Wilderness users can let their automobiles, parked at the end of a road, serve as the base for their short hikes. What they are after is wilder- ness beyond the last development-not development in the last wilderness. A base of operations is a patently synthetic sort of functional place-it can be anywhere, but there is only one Marion Lake which we can still choose to leave in its own wild integrity. Marion Lake, Lake Ann, and the area surrounding them are so logical a part of the wilderness that I am surprised to find the Forest Service seriously suggest- lug their exclusion. More surprising still are the empty reasons offered in justification of the proposal. The Wilderness Act contained sufficient specific provision to allow the main- tenance of sanitary facilities and minimal fire grills (for fire safety, not for the convenience of users-this is wilderness) at points of special use concentration. If the use becomes greater than can be handled by facilities which are per- missible in wilderness, do we then dilute the "semi-solitude" of Marion Lake, or do we control the use? (With our growing population we cannot seriously expect anything but increased use. At what point will it become so great that the Forest Service is forced to bow to demands for more and more tables, more and more grills, more and more boats-and motors. Will it be ten years-or five- before the pressure for a road to the lakeshore becomes too great for local administrators to bear?) The only answer for an area with as great a value as wilderness as this is to give it the full legal security available. That, as the Forest Service ought to realize, is just what the Wilderness Act is all about. In disputing the proposal to extend the wilderness into these west side areas and others, the Forest Service has noted that "Some of the lands of the White~ water Creek valley have been logged in recent years and are penetrated by Forest Development Roads. These intrusions are inconsistent with wilderness uses as set forth in the Wilderness Act." While this is true, it does not preclude congressional recognition that these roads and timber sales were indeed "in- trusions" and allowed by an administrative error. They were allowed on the basis of an incomplete judgement of the relative values of these lands as timber resources and as wilderness, (note that to the east of the proposed boundary the wilderness is but three miles wide, While to the west lie twenty miles of Forest Service land much of which is available for timber production). While the lands A Proposal, Mt. 3efferson Wilderness, U.~. Forest Service, p. 20. 7Ib~d., p. 20. PAGENO="0119" 111 which I have suggested be added to the wilderness may well be classified as "commercial timberland," they are also highly qualified to be classed as "com- mercial wilderness" in the sense I have suggested. Road building and timber cutting operations undertaken on the erroneous assumption that all "commercial timberlands" should be harvested must not be allowed to bind the Congress as it now undertakes to make this wilderness area self-sufficient. The roads and the timbered areas will revert-if slowly-to natural vegetation. Over the long-run they will be reclaimed by the surrounding wilderness. They should not be per- mitted to prejudice the superior value of these lands as wilderness and their absolute necessity as wilderness to buffer the higher lands to the east. To simply assume uncritically that previous timber operations preclude any wilderness designation would bar the Congress from perfecting this wilderness designation and would, instead, give a seal of approval to past timber management decisions which have not been based on an adequate analysis of all resource values. Nor, taken ifi a regional perspective, will the placement of this additional land in the wilderness area be a significant detriment to the output of lumber. If local mills have mistakenly assumed that "commercial timberland" will all auto- matically be available for harvest, they have done so on a serious misjudgement of the purpose of public lands held in national ownership as a resource of all of the people. In this vein the Forest Service proposal document states that the timber poten- tial of these lands "* * * * is needed by the economy of the adjacent communities. Present demands exceeds the supply available in the North Santiam River drain- age." 8 The "demand" term used here surely does not refer to the requirements of local communities for lumber products, but rather to the capacity of the saw- mills within economical hauling distance of this area. Here, surely, is a classic example of machines riding soc'iety, rather than society riding machines. Again, if the local mills have over-gauged their production capacity on the mistaken assumption that they, more than the rest of the nation's people, are entitled to the resources of these public lands, they have misjudged. Their allocations- and apparently those of the Forest Service as well-have been based on a lop- sided balance of various resource values, and this is the opportunity for the Congress to correct the situation. But the situation is really not so "either/or." For, in fact, it is doubtful that the reduction of the allowable cut which would result from adding these lands to the wilderness would have any serious impact. In the regional perspective of the entire Douglas-fir region, the inclusion of this additional commercial timber- land in wilderness will have no significant long-term impact. But, destruction of the area which remains de facto wilderness would indeed have an impact. It is demonstrable that in the case of wilderness, too, `Present demand exceeds the supply available in the North Santiam drainage," to use the Forest Service's terms. The Forest Service, in its exhaustive timber trends study already referred to, concludes, on the basis of a thorough economic analysis, that the reservation of an additional million acres of timberland in the Douglas-fir subregion would "~ * * in the long run amount to about 270 million board feet of output per year [less than otherwise], or 2 percent of the total." This, the report concludes, "~ * * would not alter significantly the estimate of long-range timber output in the region." 10 Now, according to the Forest Service proposal document, the addition of some 26,000 acres to the west side areas I have listed would reduce the annual allow- able cut on the Willamette National Forest by 10.9 million board feet. Compared with the 270 million board foot reduction which the Forest Service has termed insignificant, it is evident that this 10.9 million board feet of reduced timber output would be infinitissimal. Using the same perspective as the timber trends study cited, and the Forest Service data, this reduction would amount to approxi- mately eight one-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) reduction in annual output.11 8Ibkl., p. 20. ° Timber Trends, op. cit., p. 78. ~ 11~d., n. v (emohasis added). n The Timber Trends study cited Indicates that "loss of a million acres * * * would in the long run amount to about 270 million board feet of output per year, or 2 percent of the total. The total annual output in the long run for the Douglas-fir subregion is thus put at approximately 13.1 billion board feet. (13,000 MM b.f. where .02x=270 MM b.f.). If this is taken as the total regional annual output and if it is assumed that the 10,9 MM b.f. figure gIven in the Mt. Jefferson proposal as the "loss" in allowable cut on the Wil- liamette National Forest is a reasonably comparable figure, then it is seen that the 10.9 PAGENO="0120" 112 such a "loss" is insignificant indeed. Even in terms of the local impact, this difference could well be recovered simply in inventory error or by slightly intensified timber management on other lands already more accessible to the mills in question (and thus without any additional road construction or hauling costs.) One is reminded, in this regard, of a point made by Robert Marshall, an early advocate of wilderness protection and a Chief of the Recreation and Lands Divi- sion of the Forest Service. He noted that: "It is time we appreciated that the real economic problem is to see how little land need be employed for timber production, so that the remainder of the forest may be devoted to those other vital uses incompatible with industrial exploitation. * * * * * * * "What small financial loss ultimately results from the establishment of wilder- ness areas must be accepted as a fair price to pay for their unassessable preciousness." His point is certainly well taken, and it applies in our day of increasing resource use conflicts even more directly than when Marshall wrote it. It applies directly to this Mt. Jefferson situation. As a further argument that the westward extension of the wilderness boundary not be made, the Forest Service documents state that this area in contention ~`* * * is less attractive as Wilderness than is the rest of the area covered by this proposal * * * ~ `~ That kind of statement must be challenged on the grounds that neither the Forest Service, nor anyone else for that matter, is in a position at this time to make any such categorical statement about what is or is not "attrac- tive as Wilderness." Furthermore, there is absolutely no provision of the Wilderness Act which requires or even suggests that wilderness areas must be "attractive" or scenic. This is, again, an out~of-date stereotype which cannot stand the test of environ- mental reasoning. It flies in the face of a growing ecological maturity evidenced as we come to recognize that the attractiveness of wilderness involves consider- ably more than the matter of scenery. The point is suggested by a passage from Arctic Wild, a brilliant, evocative book by Lois Crisler which documents the experiences she and her husband shared in a year spent in the arctic Brooks Range. After describing a vibrant wilderness scene-one alive with a natural variety of plants and animals in a totally unspoiled environment-Mrs. Crisler analyzes why this was a superb tableau of wilderness: "It was not `scenery,' whatever that queer, perverted abstraction may mean, lut a great living whole, with its proper inhabitants going about their business. "I felt `inside.' The land and its animals gave a feeling more pleasing than beauty could give." Anyone who has ever been really immersed in a wild environment can imme- diately recognize that kind of feeling-one of the superb, wholly intangible values of wilderness-even if they cannot put it so perfectly into words: "`PROMISE' IS THE WORD FOR WILDERNESS "It was not just this moment. History was here too. Millenniums of plants finding their place under the arctic sky, of animals spreading against each other until all were corrected and moved in a living dynamism. "The great `surround' was marked by tranquility. It was poised changing. We were in it, part of it. Every creature pursued its own destiny intently-caribou on the Tundra, Dali sheep under the crag, moose in the willows along the river, birds choosing their nesting places under the Big Light." 14 The point is, then, that attractive scenery-however that may be defined- may be part of some wilderness areas, but it is not necessary and it is cer- tainly not a valid criterion for excluding areas during the all-important work of setting lasting wilderness boundaries. MM b.f. amounts to an approximate .0008 (or 10.9/18,000 MM hf.) reduction in total an- nual regional output. These data, from two different Forest Service sources, may not be precisely comparable because of differing yield per acre assumptions and differing management periods~ Never- theless, the order of magnitudes of these results is sufficient to make the point that this reduction in allowable cut will have a negligible impact on the regional timber economy. 12 "The Problem of the Wilderness," in: The Scientific Monthly, February, 1930, by Robert Marshall. P. 146. 12A Proposal, Mt. ~Tefferson Wilderness, U.S. Forest Service, p. 20. 14 Wild, by Lois Crisler, Harper and Row "Perennial Library" paperbound edition, New York, 1964. Pp. 178-179. PAGENO="0121" 113 In addition to the growing awareness of the ecological, environmental climen- sion of wilderness-_which so thoroughly contradicts reliance on so-called "scenic attractiveness" as a standard of wilderness-I would also want to know whose standards of "attractiveness" the Forest Service is purporting to apply when they conclude that this area `°~ * * is less attractive as wilderness * * * There is good research evidence accumulating to support the fact that different people perceive wilderness in very different subjective ways.15 Managers of wilderness lands-such as the personnel of the Forest Service-have one set of standards of "attractiveness." But they cannot claim any "professional" standards on this subject, nor can anyone else. Such a judgment is strictly subjective and my testimony that I happen to find lowland forest areas (such as those in the Whitewater Creek area) exceptionally attractive as a wilder- ness environment is as worthy of credence as is the Forest Service denial. As a student of forestry and as a student of wilderness policy I may state that the training of a forester in no way provides him with an especial gift for deciding what is or what is not attractive as wilderness. He has the same subjective "hang-up" as everyone else and his opinion is equally colored by his other value judgments (including those concerning the desirability of timber harvest). In sum, "attractiveness" is totally irrelevant to the determination of wilderness values precisely because there is no way to be objective about attractiveness. 1The Forest Service may say that this area is not attractive, I may say that it is especially so-but neither of us can demonstrate the point. That being the case, what can we fall back to as a criterion for wilderness designation? What can this subcommittee use as a basis for its decisions? While we are a long way from achieving a systematic set of factors for such judg- inents, we do know enough to be relatively certain of some sound, objective guid- ing principles. The principles I would emphasize are two: (1) that the area have self-contained ecological and environmental integrity, and (2) that it offer a variety of opportunities for wilderness experiences for the user and be of sufficient size and such a configuration as to protect such opportunities. The first of the points is supported by the recent Darling-Eichhorn report on "Man and Nature in the National Parks." That report states that `°~ * * the only absolute administrative principle can be to consider first the ecological health of a park so that it shall endure for posterity." 16 The same point is equally applicable to the wilderness areas of the National Forests. The need to assure "ecological health" is also closely related to the growing recognition that our National Wilderness Preservation System ought to contain a viable sample of habitats. In the state of Oregon this objective has yet to be met with regard to wilderness reserves in the Cascade Range. While several major areas of bare mountain tops have been set aside, there is a very small acreage in the great Douglas fir forests and the true-fir-mountain hemlock forest type which is now legally assured of protection in a natural state. There was at one time, a relatively large wild area of these forest types included in the Three Sisters Primitive Area to the south of Mt. Jefferson. But in the mid-fifties, in connection with the administrative review of the primitive areas of the national forests, 53,000 acres of this area were amputated, removing most of the lower- elevation forests from what was subsequently named the Three Sisters Wilder- ness Area. Though now a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Three Sisters Wilderness Area has little forested lowland. It was to preclude this sort of administrative re-definition that the Wilderness Act provided for Congressional action on each wilderness designation. The 53,000 acre area removed from the Three Sisters area has been put under timber management and is, for the most part, no longer of value as wilderness-_its value as a wilderness resource has been destroyed. While some initial roads and timber sales have been made in the west side portion of the Mt. Jefferson area, the option still exists for the Congress to redress the balance in resource use, giving these areas wilderness status by ex- tending the boundary. The second point, (2), that a wilderness should offer a variety of opportunities for wilderness experiences and be of sufficient size and configuration to protect ~ See, for example: "Wilderness Perception and Use: the Example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area," by Robert C. Lucas, In: Natural Resources Journal, January, 1964, pp. 394-411. 16 Man and Nature in the National Parks, by F. Fraser Darling and Noel D. Eichhorn, The Conservation Foundation, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 31. PAGENO="0122" 114 such opportunities, suggests that there are minimum standards for wilderness areas based on the use they receive for recreational purposes. If the visitor is to find "a wilderness experience," the environment should offer him a high contrast from his usual surroundings, it should offer him a variety of activities and types of wild settings, and it should impress him with his dependence upon himself and his own skills are opposed to his usual dependence on the appliances of civiliza- tion. To accomplish this the area must be sufficiently re~ote-physically and psychologically-to separate the visitor from civilization and thus to provide him the "environment of solitude." A three or four mile wide wilderness area simply cannot attain that standard. The Forest Service proposal document, in assessing this area, states: "The proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness is one of the outstanding areas in this general region of superb mountain scenery. The broad expanse of natural forests and lakes topped by the towering bulk of Mt. Jefferson forms a setting to inspire any visitor." 17 That kind of potential certainly remains-but the present proposal does not match this eloquent rhetoric. In this admittedly `~outstanding area" can three miles really be termed a "broad expanse"? It seems confusion of terms. The present proposal is clearly deficient, providing neither a self-sufficient wilderness unit nor a reasonable balance of resource allocation. It is essential that the Forest Service proposal be perfected by extending the west side boundary to include approximately 27,000 additional acres in the areas I have mentioned. I urge the Subcomudttee to amend the present legislation to that effect. The Forest Service proposal omits a 1,500 acre area at the southeast corner of the Mt. Jefferson area-the Square Lake-Long Lake region. According to the Forest Service proposal document road access will be developed here to provide a recreation facility in close proximity to the North Santiam Highway. In view of the regional setting, I do not believe this exclusion of suitable wilderness lands is necessary. As the map indicates, this area is quite close to the Metolius River, along which is located a considerable amount of recreational develop- ment, from simple campgrounds to fishing resorts. Jack Lake, located on the proposed wilderness boundary (but not labeled on the map), is accessible by road at the present time. From~ any point on the North Santiam Highway the wilder- ness will be close at hand by an easy walk. The Forest Service agrues that this' area must be developed with sanitation facilities and to provide a base camp for day use of the `Wilderness. Again, pro- vision is made in the Wilderness Act for necessary sanitary facilities, and readily accessible "base camps" are presently available at Olallie Lake, Jack Lake-and as proposed by the Forest Service-at the roadhead below Pamilia Lake. On the other hand, a glance at the map will show that these lakes lie close to Three Fingered Jack and that the proposed wilderness boundary has to make a deviating course to avoid including this area. It is a logical part of the wilderness. As such, these lakes can sustain only a certain amount of use before a deteriorating influence is made on the surrounding wilderness. Given the legal protection for which these lands are fully suited such overuse can be avoided. But a road and non-wilderness development will directly promote overuse. Why, it needs to be asked, must the "base camp" be located at a most sig- nificant part of the wilderness? Why deliberately concentrate and focus use- artificially-~on an area which has special wilderness values and which is easily destroyed by overuse? If this Is "day-use" it can be based at a simple parking lot along the road-easily accessible in a few minutes driving `time from one of the many nearby motor campgrounds. What is being sought by the user is not necessarily an "attractive" wilderness setting for his car-but a protected wilder- ness environment into which he can walk and within which he can find a wilder- ness experience precisely because he has left his automobile behind. It doesn't seem a wise priority to use the most fragile and wild lakeshores for parking lots when they have such outstanding potential for wilderness with only minimal development of sanitary facilities. One needs an elaborate base camp for a Himalayan expediton. In the Cascades, one can still walk away from his auto- mobile and find wilderness. The proposal before this subcommittee is a worthy one-the Mount Jefferson area is highly suitable for wilderness designation. In bringing this unit into the National Wilderness Preservation System I urge the Congress to improve and perfect the proposal by adding an additional 27,000 acres to give adequate ~ A Proposal, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, U.S. Forest Service, p. 6. PAGENO="0123" 115 width and to add lowland forest habitat, and the 1,500 acre Square Lake-Long Lake area. The result will be a 125,000 acre wilderness area fully measuring up to the mandate of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Thank you. WILLAMETTE INDUsTRIEs, INC., Portland, Oreg., Pebruar~ 19, 1968. Hon. FRANH CHURCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: My letter of February 16, 1968 supported S. 2751 as introduced with boundaries as recommended by the U.S. Forest Service. The following supporting data is submitted and I would appreciate very much if you would include this statement in the record of your hearings on S. 2751. Our company supports the proposal to make the Mount Jefferson Wilderness a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The U.S. Forest Service thoroughly studied the proposed area and several suggested alternate boundaries and conducted hearings in Salem on October 26, 1966. All classes of use were considered, including industrial and all types of recreation, before recommend- ing the boundaries as proposed. Our reason for opposing additional areas to that in the bill are discussed below. The drive in, mass recreation facilities for families and others without the time or economic resources to use the wilderness are the most crowded and more development in this classification is needed. Inclusion of additional areas close to population and road developments in the wilderness classification only makes the problem more acute for the greatest number of outdoor recreationists. There is no social season for wilderness devotees to enjoy a larger area and less restric- tive opportunity than others. General camping, picnicking, and drive in recreationists can be serviced with- out placing economic hardship on the timber using communities, industrial opera- tors and their employees since these uses are compatible with timber manage- ment. There has been a timber cutting moratorium on a 26,000 acre area adjacent to the proposed boundaries which has reduced the annual available timber by 10,900,000 board feet. Based on Pacific Northwest Experiment Station studies, this volume represents an annual loss of $3,832,440.00 to the gross national product. If this area is added to the withdrawal, this would be an annual loss to perpetuity. Very truly yours, GENE D. KNUDSON. Senator HANSEN. The hearing will now be recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m. the committee was recessed, to be recon- vened at 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 20,1968.) PAGENO="0124" PAGENO="0125" SAN GABRIEL, WASHAKIE, AND MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS AREAS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1968 U.S. SENATE, PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Frank Church (Idaho), Clinton P. Anderson (New Mexico), and Clifford P. Hansen (Wyoming). Staff members present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Porter Ward, professional staff member; and Darryl Hart, assistant minor- ity counsel. Senator CHURCH. The hearing will come to order. Our first witness this morning is Miss Helen McGinnis, Hyattsville. STATEMENT OP MISS HELEN McGINNIS, HYATTSVILLE, MD. Miss MCGINNIs. My name is Helen McGinnis, and I now live in Hyattsville, but I spent most of my lifetime in the West, and when I lived in the \Vest, I visited as many wilderness areas as my time would allow me to, and oiie of my favorite places was the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. I have read the proposal that the Forest Service has put out con- cerning this area, and I am very impressed by the amount of research that has gone, and I am also impressed by their obvious attempts to be fair to everyone who has an interest in the area, but there is one aspect of the proposal which disturbs me very deeply, and that is the idea that cars are always necessary for mass development of recreation. areas. The trouble with most of today's campgrounds-anyone who has gone to a campground, I think, can testify to this-is that camp- grounds are built as much or more for the cars as they are for the people who visit them. The cars take up at least half the space. allotted in the campground. Roads must be built, they must be graded, and in order to keep down the dust and mud, it is absolutely neces- sary in heavily used campgrounds that they be graded, gravelled, or paved, and then after you have gone to all this expense of building the roads, you have to construct an elaborate system of posts and guard- rails to keep the cars on these roads. Otherwise, they will be all over the campground. I think, in certain cases, it would be interesting to try to build a campground completely for people. Instead of devoting all (117) PAGENO="0126" 118 this space and money to roads and parking lots, it might be better to construct many wood shelters instead. These are used very success- fully in the East, and such a campground would be a true wilderness threshold. I think that in the case of the Square and Long Lakes, adequate parking lots, and in many places there are not adequate parking lots for cars, could be built along Santiam Highway, and these small wooden shelters could be constructed at the lakes. These areas would be intermediate between car campground and true wilderness areas where you have to carry your tents or shelters on your back. I think these would be very much used by people who lack the equipment, or the ability, or the self-confidence to completely entrust themselves to the wilderness, especially families with small children, and elderly people. I think Marion Lake could be developed in the same way. This area is already heavily used. The National Forest Service indicates that it does not intend to build any roads around the lakes, and that it intended to eventually ban the use of motorboats. If this is true, I see no reason why the lake should not be given wilderness status. These small wooden shelters around the lake would make them accessible to many more. The quiet waters of Marion Lake are ideally suited for canoes and inflatable rafts and other types that could be carried in, and I think that this lake should be reserved for such use. I know that some people object that these beautiful areas should be made available to all. But anyone who has visited our more popular national parks can easily believe that within a few years it will he necessary to have reservations in order to enter these parks, perhaps years in advance. I believe that making people walk a mile or two is, at the present time, the only democratic way of protecting some of these areas. It screens out the people who really care from those who have only a very casual interest. I think that this is fairer than screening out people by means of how much money they can afford, or even making them wait on waiting lists. I would also like to see part of the area west of Mount Jefferson, which is not now included in the proposal, added to the wilderness area. One reason why you don't hear much or see many pictures of this kind of country is because very little country of commercial value is included in wilderness areas. I have had the pleasure of walking through such forests, and I believe that, in its own way, it is as inspir- ing an experience as climbing up Mount Jefferson, or walking above timberline. Actually, in certain ways, Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area is narrower than its actual mileage indicates. This is because the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area is relatively gentle terrain, almost rolling in parts, except for these high peaks sticking up above. As a person who has hiked in many wilderness areas, I can state that it is much easier to get around in Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area than in the High Sierras or the Rockies. Most of the lakes are accessible by level trails, or trails on which there is very little change of altitude, and you get there to your destination considerably less winded. I think the most important reason for expanding the wilderness, however, is the tremendous population expansion which is going on in PAGENO="0127" 119 northwestern Oregon, and I think people of Oregon, more than most States, are inclined to enjo~r their wildernesses. Every year, the nüm- ber of backpackers in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area is increas- ing 20 percent. Of course, the number of people seeking oar camp- grounds is increasing, also, but I `think tha't' the number of back- packers `is increasing eveirfaster. Every year, more and better lightweight batkpacking' è4uipment, and lightweight food is `available. More and more people are taking their friends and relatives out camping, and there are large Scout camp's and church groups. They learn, as I did, and they ~tart `taking their friends out, and I think `that more and more people, are becoming disgusted with `the condi'ti'ons in car campgrounds, `and they ar~ `still attempting to find `the solitude `and primeval beauty, and more and more of them are going to be `taking to `the trails. I h'ave `a statemeiiit for `the record, Mr. Chairman. Senator CHURCH. Miss McGinnis, i~t me say `that you' have made a very fine statement, one of the very best `that has been made, I think, in `the course `of `the hearings `so far. When you make `a plea for building campgrounds for people instead of automobiles, you really strike to the `heart of the American problem. Miss MCGINNIS. I think `that `the whole trouble of America i's that we are educated today `to `t'hink-obviously, `there i's `a great deal of money involved in motor vehicles~-we `are `trained `to think in `terms `of motor vehicles. Senator CHURCH. I was just going to say that `the problem extends beyond campground's. Our problem i's, Are we go'ing `to build `the ooun- tryfor people `in~stead `of automobiles? S'o far, I `think, the `automobiles `have clearly won. Miss MCGINNIS. I ju'st bought `a car, `and I suddenly realized, coun- `tries and cities are built for `automobiles. If you don't have `an auto- mobile, you are `out of it. Senator CHURCH. The country is increasingly built for `the au'toino- bile. We `are its servant. But I do think that, in this particular plan for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, if I understand `the `testimony that the Forest Service made yesterday, `that they do contemplate the kind of development for L~ke Marion `that you have `advocated. Mi'ss MCGINNIS. Yes. Senator CHURCH. In other words, `they are not going to build `auto- mobile `roads and macadam roads to the lake, and they are not going to occupy the shoreline with parking l'ots. Miss MCGINNIS. Yes. Senator CHURCH. But they are going'to do `the very thing you have in mind, as I understand the testimony. It will be necessary to hike up to the lake., Miss MCGINNIS. Yes; I would like to see the road set far enough back that you have to carry a canoe in, and if you don't want to, I think that is tough, you know. . Senator CHURCH. That, as I understand it, is the plan the Forest Service has for Lake Marion. Miss MCGINNIS. What about Square and Long Lake, and part of the Fire Camp Lakes? 9i-9~3-6S----9 PAGENO="0128" 120 Senator CHURCH. I think that the other lake you mentioned which is down in the southern part, as I remember or recall the testimony yesterday, has access to it by road,. and there will be the sort of con- ventional campground development. Miss MCGINNIS. I know the area just south of Santiam Pass is extensively developed now. It is really turning into a little suburb there, which I don't like to see. Senator CHURCH. I think the issue you raise is one we have to be increasingly concerned about. Miss MCGINNIS. The Government has Smokey Bear campaigns and they have physical fitness campaigns. Why not have a campaign to convince people that they can walk, and an automobile and a motor- boat is not necessary to enjoy oneself. Senator CHURCH. Well, that is a very important campaign. I think perhaps it would be a campaign of 5 percent of the people against 95 percent who have long since ghren up walking. Miss MCGINNIS. They have all been told this all their lives. They have never known anything different. Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HELEN MCGINNIs, HYATTSVILLE, MD. My name is Helen McGinnis. I am speaking as a private citizen in favor of the conservationists additions to the proposed Mt Jefferson Wflderness Area While I lived in the West, I was ab.e to take two backpacking trif~s through this unforgetable region. I am impressed with the amount of careful research that has been conducted by the Forest Service and by its attempt to be fair to all. However, I disagree with the implication that the automobile must always be included in plans for development of natural areas for the masses. Apparently this is the main reason that part of the Firecamp Lakes area and Square and Long Lakes have been excluded from the proposed wilderness area. I do not believe that converting these lakeshores into still more dusty, noisy car campgrounds is the best interests of the people who will . come to enjoy them. A basic problem with practically all campgrounds developed for intensive use is that too much of the available space is used not for people, but for their cars; Roadways must be cleared and gri~ded and must be paved or gravelled to keep down the dust and the mud. ~l'hen an elavorate systeñi of sturdy posts and guard ~raiis has to be constructed to `keep the ears where they belong. The final result is a campground as much for automobiles as for their passengers~ Perhaps some campgrounds should be built exclusively for people. Adequato parking lots could be located alongside Santiam Highway adjacent to Square and Long Lakes, and a mile or more from the FIrecamp Lakes. The money and effort that `would have gone into build- ing roads and guard rails in a conventional campground could be used instead to construct many simple, open-fronted wooded shelters provided with tables, fireplaces and sanitary facilities. These campgrounds would be true wilderness threasholds, accessible to anyone interested enough and capable of walking a mile o'i~ so' to them. The protection that the shelters would provide would attract many people who lack the strength, equipment or self-confidence to carry tents or other rain shelters with them-particularly families with small children. I see no reason why Marion Lake shouldn't be similarly developed to better aecomodate the large number of visitors it already receives. If the Forest Service eveutually plans to ban motor boats from it and will build no roads around it, why shouldn't the lake be given the wilderness status it deserves? Its quiet waters are suitable for canoes and inflatable rafts, which can be carried in without cars. Within the. foreseeable future, we may have to reserve campsites years in advance in our nfore popular national parks. If the population explosion con- tinues, the same may eventually be necessary for wilderness areas. Until that time comes, `the best way to protect these relatively undisturbed lakes from excessive use is to reQuire that people negotiate part of the distance by trail. PAGENO="0129" 121 ~This is the most democratic method of screening out those who care from people whose interest is casual. Some of the lower forest country west of the proposed wilderness should also be included. Walking a narrow path through the mature Douglas Fir forests there can be as uplifting in its own way as climbing above timberline on Mt. Jefferson. In a sense, the present Jefferson Wilderness Area is even narrower than it appears on a map. With the exceptions of the high peaks, the terrain is less rugged than in most mountain wilderness regions. Many lakes here can be reached by almost level or only gently sloping trails, while similar distances in the High Sierra or the Rockies generally require considerably more time and exertion. Most important of all, we must never forget how rapidly the population of Oregon is expanding. The number of people utilizing wilderness areas is in- creasing even more rapidly. C~rtainly the trend will continue in the future, as more and better light weight camping equipment and foods become available, as experienced back country travelers take their friends, children, and other relatives on that first memorable trip in the wilderness, and as more and more people leave their automobiles in search of solitude and undisturbed natural country. Senator CHURCH. We now turn to consideration of the Washakie Wilderness. We have a number of citizen witnesses here from the State of Wyoming, Senator Hansen, in deference to you and the num- ber of Wyoming witnesses that are here, I would like to suggest that you just take over and chair this portion of the hearing, while your Wyoming witnesses are present, because I know of your. very central interest in this Washakie matter. Senator HANSEN (presiding). Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me assure you, however, that the Wyoming friends that I have here today, and I hope all of them are, have a very high rega~rc1 for you. They have watched your performance in the Congress for a number of years, and I am certain that while they may disagree as to the specifics of what might be done with all of the area under discussion before us here today, they do share my great respect for you and for the things you are trying to do for our country. Having expressed my appreciation to you for your very fine gesture, I would like to suggest that you carry right on. Senator CHURCH. Thank you. I am going to be here as much as possible for this hearing. I have a conflict with the Foreign Relations Committee. I have to attend to that for a few minutes, and then I will be back. Senator HANSEN. I will be happy to chair. Senator CHURCH. I would appreciate your chairing the hearing while I attend to the other business. Our first witness is Leslie E. Shoemaker of the Wyoming Outfitters Association. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt just at this moment, I would like to submit for the record, if I may, a statement from the Governor of Wyoming who is not able to be here today. He forwarded me his testimony, and asked that I see that it is inserted in the record. So without objection may I ask that it be included in the record at this point? Senator CHURCH. It will be included at this point in the record. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT 01? ElaN. STANLEY K. HATHAWAY, GOVERNOR, STATE or WYoMING First of all, let me say that I recognize the importance of the Wilderness concept to the people of the entire U~Jted States. Those of us who are fortunate PAGENO="0130" 122 enough to live in Wyoming are proud and grateful that we have vast areaa available in our State where others may come and enjoy "Wilderness, where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where, man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Last July the Public Land Law Review Commission, a body created ~y the Con- gress, held hearings in Billings, Montana. My testimony regarding Wilder- ness at that time is apropos now, when the creation of a Wilderness area is directly under discussion. At that time I said. "As Governor, I am acutely aware that, if our state is to progress, all avail- able uses of our lands must be encouraged. Some areas are more adapted to a particular use than to another. This I recognize. But I also recognize that uses, not now even contemplated, may arise foy lands within our borders at some future date. In this regard I cannot help but think of our uranium industry in central Wyoming and the trona industry in southwest Wyoming. Just a few short years ago these mineral deposits were unknown. Now they are rapidly growing and prospering, and afford a beneficial and long-lasting base for our economy. Had these lands, which are largely on the public domain, been prevented from exploration and development, not only our state, but the entire ~nation would have been deprived of great resources. "Let ~ne~state here and now that I am not opposed to sound consQrvation prac- tices. In order that our recreation and conservation needs in Wybming might be developed and protected, I advocated, in my message to the Legislature, the ~ereation of a Wyoming Recreation thmmi'ssion. Our Legisliatiire, in its sessi~ns last January and ]T~~biiiary pursuant to this recommendation, enacted Chapter 187 of the `Session Laws of Wyoming, 1967, and set up such a Commission for ~the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation facilities in Wyoming. It is with no thought whatsoever, therefore, of hindering recreational or preserva- tion interests that I have opposed the enlargement of Wilderne~s Areas' in our "As Governor, I feel that the lands within the borders of Wyoming must be used in such a way that the greatest benefit to Wyoming and Wyoming's people will result. With the tremendous land area now controlled by the federal govern- ment in Wyomi'ng,~ further restrictions on the use of the lands* within our borders are of yital o sequence to' all our people. "The State o~f ~ypn~i'ng now contains over 1,700,000 acres of lap'd çlassiil~ed as Wilderness. Phi~ land, then, i's already ~et aside and development precluded In it. I think this ~s enongh." Now, let `me be more specific as to the proposed Wasbaki'e Wilderness. This is `the first of t1~ aréja in Wyoming to be re-classified under the, Wilderue'ss Act of 1964 and ~n~rlts careful study. In government, as ~n law, precedent is often ext'remel~ impiortanft. The proposal advanced by the Forest Service and before your C'on~iml'ttee actually adds a total of 196,390 acres to the existing Wilderness system. Since a major !=rtion of this addition was already classi~ed' as "Primitive," I agreed, last October, to abide `by that proposal, even though I bad previously objected `to additional lands in our State being set aside permanently. for a single use. It is interesting to note that, as of January 1, 1966, Wyoming contained more Wilderness area than any `other staite-more than six `times a~ much as Colorado, and `almost twice a.s much as Idaho. Utah contained no Wilderness, If the present proposal is adopted, there will be 619,520 acres of Wilderness in this one block alone. That is almost as large as the State of Rhode Island. This `Committee will, I understand, hear pro:pos'alis to add still `further to' the Wasbakie Wilderness-this acreage being in addition to that proposed by the Forest `Service and agreed to' by myself. Much of this present acreage i's seldom, if ever, visited by man. No boundary extensions are needed. The addition of the DuN'oir area to the Wilderness would be damaging `to our state for `the following reasons: 1. The DuN~ir is a large and productive water drainage. The development of our water resources, when it does come, will be largely in the headwaters of our various streains~-if Wilderness is created here, such development will be for- ever precluded. 2. Public access to the area will be sharply restricted. Our state must look more and more to the tourist business to sustain our economy. The creation of Wilderness does not bring tourist or recreational development. In fact, It pre- ciudes this, as only a very limited percentage of the tourist population ever enters PAGENO="0131" 123 a Wilderness area. The average traveler is not equipped physically or financially, to enter such areas on foot or by horseback. 3. One of the few and one of the most important industries in Wyoming is timbering. By cO-operative arrangement with the Forest Service, whereby various areas are harvested every thirty, forty or fifty years (depending on rate of growth o~ the forest) a method stabiliting the use of forest pro~ucts has been evolved. The DuNoir is an integral atid important part of this cycle-withOut It timber opera- tors will be unable to invest in the area in reliance on a sustained yield. In addition to these economic factors the Committee should also consider the fact that the DuNoir does not conform to the Wilderness concept. The area was once logged over. There are several roads traversing it. As the Wilderness Act states, "undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influ- ence ;" this area would not qualify. It has been stated by some, that DuNoir should be placed in Wilderness to pro- tect the elk calving grounds. This does not seem logical, in view of the fact the area has been managed by the Forest Service since the Forest Reserves were created. If the area ~vere not Included in Wilderness, the Forest Service would still control and manage aS in the past. As the Forest Service has stated: "It is' not necOssary to give Wilderness classification to a fliece Of country to protect elk calving grounds." In conclusion may I ask your Committee to set aside the emotionalism that a discussion of Wilderness always evokes. I ask you to consider the needs of the great majority of our people. I ask you to give our State a chance to develop irheat resources it has while at the same time preserving vast acreage for future generations. Senator HANSEN. The views of the Wyoming Recreation Commis- sion have been made known to me through a letter from Lyle W. Bent- zen, president of the commission. I ask that they be included in the hearing record at this point. Senator CHtJRCH. Without objection, that may be done. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY LYLE W. BRNTzEx, PRESIDENT OF THE WYOMING RECREATION CoMMIssIoN In antilyzing the question of the inclusion of the ?uNoir and Bear Creek Valleys `ui the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area, we must firSt determine what a true wilderness area should be. There are areas in Wyoming that can be classit~ed as Wilderness by virtue of their geographic features alone, with no official designation needed. These are our mountain tope, the high peaks above timberline that are by nature inaccea- sible to any type of motorized travel and have no potential for commercial de- velopment er exploitation. For a few months each summer these areas serve as a hbine for the big horn sheep and hunters oC'oassionally visit here in search of them. Cattle and sheep interests trail their animals over the area on the way to new range on the other side. Photographers, hikers, horsemen and fishermen visit the fringe of the areas to pursue their particular interests. From time to time a climbing party will attack one of the many peaks. Such is the extent of the use of Wyoming's natural "wilderness" areas. There is no timber to cut and nothing commercially valuable to dig from the barren ground. Surrounding each of these areas Is another type `of wilderness. Here lies the timber country, the start of the many river valleys the state claims, the w~ater- sheds that support them and the spring, summer and fall home of the several wildlife species Wyoming takes great pride in. Here also are found the bulk of the hunter~ and the fishermen, the campers and the horseback riders, the pho- tographers `and the bird watchers, the hikers and the conservationists, `the cattle, sheep and horses grazing on the rich summer grassea Here, at the fringe of the alpine peaks, is the wilderness that those seeking peace and solithde hope to find and the wilderness that we feel certain Ciongress intended to preserve. Here are located the DuNoir and Bear Creek valleys. Here, also, is `a stand of 10,000,000 board feet of "merchantable" timber of at least some commercial value. The problem then `i's to determine the relative value of this fringe land and decide if it should be preserved in its natural state under the Wilderness Art or if it Should be left open for industrial timber harvest. PAGENO="0132" 124 The question is basic. Will a large-scale, short-term logging operation in the DuNoir and Bear Oreek areas provide sufficient economical returns to the state and nation over and above those returns that would be made by recreation enterprises over a long period of time? There Can be no Workable ~ompromise because the two uses are completely incoinpatable. In the first place, the timber in the area is, `at best, low grade and must be hltrvested in quantity in order for the harvest to be economically feasi- ble. Without the virgin stands of timber the recreational value of the land `drops to zero and the land, due to its thin volcanic soil, over 8,500 feet elevation, `and dry climate, gi~ow~s new timber very slowly. It would take longer than a human lifetime to replace a fence-post `sized lodgepole pine in the upper DuNoir valley. The timber indu~stry can, and no doubt `has, placed a dollar `and `cents value on the `timber in the DuNoir and Bear Creek areas. Recreation is not so fortunate. Recreation deals primarily in human values other than money. It can only point to the numbers of people seeking outdoor enjoyment in the state, eight million in 1966, and project this figure on the basis of the current 5% anmxal growth trend to 16-million by 1986. Economic figures associated with these visitors are a bit vague, ranging from $11.00 spent per visitor per stay which averaged 1.5 days quoted in the 1961 University of Wyoming Lund survey to the $20.00 per visitor day figure recently discovered by Howard Baker, Associate Director of the National Park Service. Whichever figure is chosen, the amount spent by recreation-seeking visitors to Wyoming each year is considerable-at least 88~mihion dollars now and, based on the low estimate of 5% annual increase, at `least 176-million `dollars `annually in 20 years. And that is assuming each visitor only spen'ds 1.5 days in the state. Recreation, `then, is beyond any question one of Wyoming's vital, growing industries, currently ranked in the `top three and growing all the time. Timber, on the other hand, is not. It is a relatively minor industry in Wyoming, has `al- ways been and, unless ways are found to grow trees where they will not presently grow, will continue to be. Wyo'ming can never hope to match timber production, with the major producing states of the northwest and south where timber cur- rently stands in quality and quantity that can be harvested without aid of gov- ernment subsidy, and where trees will grow back in a reasonable length of time. But what about Wilderness and recreation? Are these interests compatible? Doesn't, in fact, Wilderness designation tend to hinder recreation and recrea- tional development? The answer to this question can be, and in many cases is, an emphatic yes! The Wyoming Recreation Commission is on record pledged to examine each Wyoming Wilderness proposal in the light of its potential for ether public recreational development. The Commission is interested in and responsible for a wide range of recreational interests covering the total population. So we must ask: Is there a potential here for ski `area development? How about ~nowmobile trails? Can and `should recreationti roads be built to give public access? Wha't is the potential for campsite development? For teurist courts and resorts? Will Wilderness designation preclude public use? The Commission has applied these questions and many mOre `to the DuNoir and Bear Creek itrOas and come up with negative answer's. The entire area is located in a region of extremely low annual precipitation and will not support ski `area development. The country in question is too steep and rugged for over- snow travel and the're are much better locations for both in, the surrounding region. Recreational reads would serve little purpose a's the closer one gets to the stratified area, the less one can actually see `of it and good recreational road's already exist in abundance at such places `as Brooks Lake (where over 200 camp- ers have been counted in a single day), Wiggins Fork, Trail Lake, Union Pass and East Fork. And these roads will serve `another purpose, allowing public access to' the' DuNoir and Bear Creek areas, making these Wilderness are'as available to the average citizens, the' individuals or families looking ~or a wilderness experience for a day or a week-end, but who lack the means or desire to hire pack outfits or climb mountain peaks. The Recreation Commission does not ye't know how many people are looking for this type of outdoor enjoyment, but we do know that the neighboring `and more inacceSsible Bridger area logged over 88,000 visitor days use last year. The potential for commercial recreational development is also limited to this area. The 8,500 to 10,000 foot altitude is the `chief deterrent to this type of indus- try, but, according t'o the Forest Service report to the President, any disturbance PAGENO="0133" 125 of the soil or cover here cart lend to "damage from torrential rain storms. . ." The truth of this statement has been graphically illustrated at nearby Brooks Lake where the road was blocked by mud and rock slides triggered by a clond- burst over an up-slope timber ~peration in 196e. Phe ro~ad below surrounding uncut areas wa's untouched. The people most directly affected by any decision made on the inclusion or exclusion of these two fringe areas in the Wilderness system are the people of the Upper Wind River Valley and the town of Dubois. These p~opIe are now experiencing the benefits of both a grcswin.g recrehtion and timber industry and have had ample opportunity to examine each. Yet every `civic organization in Duhois and the great majority of the residents of the upper valley have strongly endorsed Recreatitm as the ultimate economic destiny of the area and feel that every acre of timber cut deitrhcts from this value. The reasons for `this stand are not hard~ to find. Dubois has experienced the boom of the arrival of industry and is now beginning to feel the depressive effect that follow's. The town is surrounded by anbther temporhry city of tar paper shacks and trailer houses. Uncontrolled waste burnage daily pollutes the air. There is increased, non-tax paying pressure on the schools and `the resulting bond iSsues will remain to be paid `by the permanent stock-rhising and recreational businesses long after the migratory Workers associated with the industry have made their cuts, left `their slashes and departed. The residents of this area are historically oriented toward ranching, livestock, guiding and outfitting interests-interests naturally compatable with recreation in general and incompatable with such "once over and get out" industries as timber and mining. These people realize that wild animals, such as the elk, are wilderness animals and need wild areas to' survive. They know this from years of experience and are only pleased when their knowledge is confirmed by recog- nized biological experts of the Wyoming and Colorado Game and Fish Depart- ments. They have seen timber operations on Wiggins Fork and Horse Creek and saw the established resident elk herds in these areas vanish. The upper Wind River Valley Stockmen's Association and the Wyoming Out- fitters Association are two specific organizations on, record supporting the in- clusion of the DuNoir and Bear Creek areas in the Wilderness system. On Decem- ber 8, 1966, Outfitter's spokesman Ned Frost wrote: "That these proposed addi- tions are of greater intrinsic value to the single use of recreation than they are to the total combination of all other phases of the multiple use theory; that one multiple use facet, livestock grazing, not being incompatable with recreational use, could and shouldbe continued in any event; that ano'ther multiple use facet, lumbering, conducted as has been the practice in the Wind River Valley, and particularly as exemplified on the Wiggins Fork, would physically maul the ter- rain, open it to increased ravages by natural erosion and largely ruin it for the prime use of recreation." But the people of Dubo'is can speak well for themselves, as can the Outfitters, the Stockgrowers, the Game and Fish Department, and all the rest of the inter- ested industries and agencies. The Recreation Commission can and will speak only for the Recreation interests. The Wyoming Recreation Commission wholeheartedly endorses and supports the proposed Washakie Wilderness designation for the present Stratified Primi- tive Area. Further, we join in endorsing the inclusion of the DuNoir and Bear Creek areas in the Washakie Wilderness and ask that you consider our above listed points and the long-range economic development of Wyoming as an outdoor recreational oasis in making your decision. Senator HANSEN. Also I have a copy of the letter sent to the chair- man by A. E. King, the commissioner of public lands for Wyoming. I ask that the original of this letter be placed in the hearing record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) STATE OP WYOMINO, Cheyenne, Wyo., Pebruas'y 14,1968. HON. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, I~en ate Interior Comon~ittee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Being unable to appear before your Committee to present testimony in person on S. 2630, pertaining to the Washakie Wilderness PAGENO="0134" 126 Proposal, will you please accept the following comments in the hearing before your Senate Interior Committee scheduled for February 19th, 1968? I am the Commissioner of Public Lands and Secretary to the Wyoming State Land Board for the State of Wyoming. Through this office over four million acres of State lands, both surface and minerals, are administered. Our experience is similar to those of the Federal Land Managers in attempting to balance the heavy demand for various uses upon the lands. The proposed legislation was written, with most recommendations made by the United States Forest Service. The Forest Service held extensive hearings, prior to reaching the conclusions which were written into S. 2630. We know from closely following the Forest Service hearings, that all interests were provided ample opportunity to present their views and recommendations. The information received has been carefully weighed by competent, profes- sionally trained and experienced land managers. The same people who are en- trusted with managing lands under "the greatest good for the greatest number" concept. They are skilled in the balancing of the uses of the natural resources. They have detailed and intimate knowledge of the area in question. In Wyoming at the testimony of the Forest Service hearings, there were some who advocated enlarging the boundaries of this remarkable wilderness area. Some of this testimony revealed a sObstantial lack of knowledge of the area. We recognize the sincerity and concern, that these preservationist groups have for the protection of oar wilderness areas. We share this seine concern and apprecia- tion of nature's gifts. However, we cannOt, in all good faith, recommend or agree that a "belt" or protection area be established around the wilderness areas. Nor can we agree that present multiple use areas be placed in a single use status. This Is basically what will happen should be boundaries be changed to Other than those proposed in S. 2630. In conclusion, It would appear that your Committee should strongly consider the recommendations of this branch ~f the Federal Government, that first con- ceived the idea of setting areas aside in order to preserve their natural state, These are the recommendations in S. 2630. Your extreme caution is urged in making changes that if added, would detract from the true wilderness concept. Please accept my sincere thanks for your consideration of these comments by the Senate Interior Committee. Yours very ttuly, A. E. Kixa, Uo~nimissioner of Public Lands. Senator CHURCH. Is Mr. Shoemaker here? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Would it be out of place to ask the nature of the testimony of the Governor of the State of Wyoming, Senator? Senator HANSEN. Not at all. I can read it, if you would like to have it read. The testimony of the Governor goes along generally with his testimony before the hearings in Riverton. It will be made a part of the record. I don't happen to have a copy of it right in front of me at the moment, but I am sure Mr. Dominick will get it. STATEMENT OF LESLIE. E. SHOEMAKER, ON BEHALF OF THE WYOMING OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION, DUBOIS, WYO. Mr. SHOEMAKER. May I call your attention to this relief map that shows pretty graphically the things that the citizens' group is pro- posing in regard to the Washakie Wilderness Area, and the fact that it is in bas relief, I think, gives the perspective between the eleva- tions proposed by the Forest Service line and those for the citizens groups. I want to leave this here for observation, because I am going to refer to it, possibly. Senator HANSEN. If I may, let me observe at this point, without reading the Governor's testimony, which will be submitted and made part of the record, that it does support, and I suppose this is a point PAGENO="0135" 127 that was of prime concern to you, Mr. Shoemaker, the proposal as made by the Forest Service. Is this enough detail for you? Mr. SHOEMAKER. Good; that is plenty. Senator HANSEN. All right. You may proceed, Mr. `Shoemaker. Mr. SHOEMAKER. I appreciate the privilege of appearing here before you at this hearing. My intention in preparing testimony has been to discuss items that are relevant, `but not often repeated by others. I prepared this, of course, before I had heard the others, so mine is also in line with what has been said before. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Shoemaker, let me interrupt just `a moment. Would you move the mike a little closer to you? I think those in the back may have trouble hearing you. Mr. SHOEMAKER. My name is Leslie Shoemaker. I am speaking in behalf of the Wyoming Outfitters Association, which has p'aid the major part `of my expenses to come here. I am also speaking for myself `and my family, `associated with me in our business, and I would like to tell you and the group the reasons I feel qualified to appear before you. I was the son `of a forest ranger, and my boyhood was spent mostly on horesback in the high mountain ranges of western Colorado. My decision to emulate his career was made at an early age, and I pursued my professional training at the Forestry School of Colorado State University, studying not `only forestry, but range management and plant ecology as well. I served with and was dedicated to the aims and ideals of the U.S. Forest Service, for a satisfactory career of 21 years, the last 9 of which were spent as a ranger in the Wind River district of the Shoshone Na- tional Forest, stationed at Dubois. During niy tenure in this position I developed such an affection for the Wind River Basin that when the Forest Service transferred me to Colorado in 1952 I decided not to leave. I resigned and bought the CM dude ranch. This changed me over- night from a forest administrator to a forest permittee and user. Since that time I have enjoyed the privileges of a grazing permit for horses nnd cattle, a back-country cabin resort in the Wind River Mountains and, since 1954, hunting camps in Bear Basin and the East Fork of `the Wind River. My professional hunting time has been mostly spent with mountain sheep in the Wind River, and I have never spent a full hunting season in the Bear Creek or East Fork areas. Supervision has been done by my ranch foreman, my wife, and more recently by my son-in-law. How- ever, I have personally guided many hunters in the Bear Basin area and am well acquainted with it. ,A substantial part of the CM ranch income has been derived from our hunting camps the last 14 years. When I became established in the hunting business and learned of its various problems, it seemed desirable to upgrade the industry and try to eliminate or discourage the occasional deviation from acceptable practice that occurred from persons who were unscrupulous or un- qualified. I helped organize the Wyoming Outfitters Association, was a co- author of its constitution and bylaws, and served a's the first president in 1959 and have served a second term. This organization has exerted PAGENO="0136" 128 a continuing influence to insure proper ethical practices by its mem- bers, has been a major factor in soliciting nonresident partici~pants in Wyoming hunting and fishing, and has made a continuing effort to maintain and improve quality hunting opportunities within the State. By quality hunting I refer to the opportunity of a person to exercise his reason to find, stalk, and take an animal in such a way as to com- pete with the keen senses and instincts of the animal. This is in con- trast to the much too common method now existing, where the hunter drives a vehicle over considerable area to locate game, and then ap- proaches as fast as possible to get a shot as the animal flees. At the time I left the security of civil service and embarked on per- sonal enterprise, quality hunting existed in nearly every part of the Wind River Valley, and was one of the major factors in my decision. Roads were nominal, forest cover existed through all the altitudinal range of pine and sprucc. Jeeps had penetrated many areas, but were used mostly for access to the perimeters of hunting areas. Three factors have completely changed this situation. The first is a policy of the Forest Service to extend roads and timber sales to every area of the Wind River Basin. The second is the development of timbex~ industr~r embodied in the Teton Division of U.S. Plywood Corp. that ~ so large as to be out of proportion for the resources available. * The third is the continuing pressures of recreation seekers in im- proved, four-wheel-drive vehicles who use powersaws to extend the possible routes, which, when once establjshed, remain indefinitely. The results of these factors are a virtual rape of the recreational potential of the whole basin. With the exception of those areas now designated as recommended additions to the Washakie Wilderness Area, within map units D, J, 3, 4, F-i, H, and I by citizen groups, there is no timbered type left intact within the entire area outside the established primitive areas. The basins of West and East DnNoir are as beautiful and wild as any place in the mountains. The old Wyoming Tie & Timber Co. that first cut at the site of the Triangle C Ranch on the Wind River in. 1913, moved into West DuNoir in 1920 and worked there until 1927. Timber strands were selected for cutting wherever the trees ap- proximated tie size.. They were cut by hand and hewed into ties with broad axes. Cutting was limited in all stands to not more than 40 percent of the volume. Logs were skidded by horses and the finished product was moved by wagons and sleds. Portable mills were introduced at the last of this period and there were a few low-volume mills that accumulated some sawdust and slabs that were burned in place. The evidence was mostly destroyed. Roadways were mostly natural openings and not constructed. Those roads were used some by four- wheel-drive vehicles, but not enough to establish them as roads. These facts are used consistently to represent the area as low quality for wilderness. Overlooked is the fact that most of this activity occurred outside the boundaries recommended for inclusion. After 40 years, traces of stumps, chips, slash, sawdust, and cutting activity are nearly gone; are just at the stage of complete deterioration and will be completely gone in another few years. PAGENO="0137" 129 Many other factors make it suitable for wilderness. Most of the timber is young and healthy and has not been infected with mistletoe nor attacked by Dendroctonus beetles. The area is unexcelled for natural beauty. Two experiences occurred here that remain outstanding in my memory. In one, my wife and I stopped at Kissinger Lake, had lunch, and swam our horses into the middle of the lake. In the other, we joined several hundred elk in the dusk of an early summer evening and went with them for several miles, enjoying the young calves and the sounds from the barking cows and immature bulls. Difficult access has been the major factor that has kept this area suit- able for inclusion in the wilderness and it has been prohibitive enough to make it difficult for use even as wilderness. The Forest Service road through the Long Creeks, now almost to the boundary of the area, has made access to that so that everybody has an opportunity to enjoy it~ Bear Basin, designed as area D, is also suitable for wilderness status because of its protection from vehicular intrusion by difficult access, Steep slopes at Bear Pass and an impassable canyon below the basin make the only feasible route into the basin down the steep slope from the ridge of Castle Rock. To call this a road is an exaggeration. It is just a track down a steep hillside. We use it with four-wheel-drive vehicles tQ move our camp and hunters into the basin. When you cross the creek into the area we want to include in the wilderness, our camp is a short half mile across the nearly level sage- brush flat at a spring at the edge of the timber. From this point vehicles can be driven on up the creek another half mile and also up the steep ridge along the old Indian Point trail into the first parks. These tracks would disappear in 2 or 3 years if unused. This minor intrusion does not justify the Forest Service statement on page 24 of their proposal that the area has been penetrated by a road. I also disagree to a large extent with the continuing statement that big game values within the area are not dependent on wilderness designa- tion. Having hunted this area for 14 years, I feel well qualified to say construction of a road, or even extended use by vehicles, would destroy the possibility of any quality elk hunting in the area. Boundaries for wilderness status here can be easily and clearly designated. May I add that in his testimony, Dr. Cliff, for the Forest~ Service, said that their concern there was not so great that, if reasonable boundaries were designated,it should not be included in the boundaries of the proposed wilderness. By following the draw west from Castle Rock down to Bear Creek as mutually agreed, then following Bear Creek down to Cave Creek and up Cave Creek to Bear Pass you have a perfect boundary. A slight deviation in the line in the bottom of the basin to move it from the creek to the edge of the timber would eliminate the sage flat, with its faint trace of tracks. It would also make available the bottom land for recreational development for future public needs. Much of the Forest Service concern over areas seems centered on boundaries, and they have consequently made their line on high points along the escarpments. We want to include some of the timbered slopes, and we don't think that designation and enforcement of boundaries is an unsurmountable obstacle. PAGENO="0138" 130 We have, year after year, seen that a simple sign on East Fork has been an effective deterrent to trespass travel into the primitive area. A similar sign in the big meadow `at the head of Wiggins Fork also has served its purpose. The simple truth is that people believe in the principles involved and want to cooperate. All they need is the indica- tion that that is where the line is. There seems to ~`be little question that the area of approximately 40,000 acres which we are `recommending for addition will be cut over for timber if it does not have the protection of wilderness status. If this happens, there will be no possibility to perpetuate the game herd, and quality hunting and recreation on the Wind River will be gone. Addition of the area will enhance the entire wilderness area'by giv- ing it `a representative timber type. It will enable the American public to see a great treasure, and forthe many people who have the energy, and the initiative, and the appreciation, and the guts to make the effort to see it, it will be greatly rewarding. I would like fcr your children and grandchildren, as well `as mine, to be able to visit this area and `share in experiences there such as I have had. I recommend it for your favorable consideration. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shoemaker. Having known you for a* long time and watohed you operate, I am certain that what you say will ~e `of real interest to the members of the committee. `I appreciate yOur testimony. Mr. SHOEMAKER. Thank you. Senator HANSEN. Next to be heard is Mrs. Alice Shoemaker of Dubois. Mrs. `Shoemaker, glad to have you. STATEMENT `OP MRS. ALICE SHOEMAKER, DUBOIS, WYO. Mrs. SHOEMAKER. Thank you, Senator. I am Mrs. Alice Shoemaker `from Dubois, Wyo. I am testifying as a citizen of Duboi's, Wyo. To most persons, the word "wilderness" has final~ly'achieved mem- bership in that illustrious group which stands f'br `all good things- like mother and the American flag. Now at this particular time, you people in the Oongres's of th'e United State's haye the obligation to make the right decision concerning a few thousand acreas of scenic beauty in Wyoming. `Some of us have traveled thousands `of mil~s to present our views in the hope th'at we can be `helpful with our knowledge `of the country and our awareness of the local economies, geography, situations; `and opinions. Since the passage `of the wilderness bill, almost all of `the b'est,of our high beautiful mountain country in the West ha's `come, or will come under scrutiny `as to whether or not it `should be included `in the wilderness system. One under `consideration at this `hearing is the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area in the Shoshone Natior~al Forests and there is very definitely a unique situation in connection with this one. In most cases, wilderness areas are within national forests, and the land will be carefully administered to conserve the basic resources, whether or not it is included in the wilderness bill. This is not true in this case because, through several progressive changes in ownership, U.S. Plywood Corp. has ended up with a timber operation in the little town of Dubois which represents an extremely PAGENO="0139" 131 large investment by the company and has tremendous mill capacity. It is only right and fair that the Forest Service should try to provide sufficient timber to maintain the operation of the mill; and it has always been the policy of the Forest Service to recognize investments connected with forest use, from a fence or cow camp built by a stock- man to a cabin on a special use permit. In the case of the U.S. Plywood timber operation, I suspect that the Forest Service has a tiger by the tail through the fault of no one person or organization. Both timber consumption and the capacity to consume have increased far beyond what anyone would have believed 20 or even 10 years ago. With the extremely slow and difficult growth of timber in the high, cold, and arid Wind River Mountains, it is inevitable that sooner or later the timber will be gone, and U.S. Plywood or any other operator will find it necessary to seek trees somewhere else. The comparatively small amount of timber which we would like to see included within the wilderness would maintain the Dubois sawmill only a very short time and is relatively unimportant. The Forest Service estimates there are 30 million board feet in the east and west Dubois area under consideration, and this will last the mill less than a year. Everyone who has watched the clear cutting going on in the Wind River Mountains is convinced that if these timbered areas are not included in the Washakie Wilderness Area they will be logged in a very short time, with the consequent loss of so much that can never be replaced once it is gone. I want to repeat that-which can never be replaced, once it is gone. The Forest Service is all set to start construction of a timber access road just as soOn as the wilderness boundaries are legally established, and in spite of local assurances that no roadbuilding or logging would be done until that time, a block has recently been cut on Wolf Creek, which is within the area in question, an act which dramatjcally re- mOves the decision from the Congress of the United States. Why have hearings, debate, public participation, if the areas in question are logged without waiting for the wilderness boundaries to be established bylaw? This certainly effectively removes them from future consideration. The reason the Forest Service needs recrMtion areas on east and west Dubois, within the area we want included in the *i1derness~ is that they have devastated the country below that boundaFy. They have logged all along the creeks. If they want public recreation for people on the park that should be, just go to the ridge on the highway on Long Creek, but that is completely devastated, logged, and turned up. It is no place for public recreation. This is the situation which has brought us to WashingtOn and makes the Dubois community so unanimous in its desire to have these addi- tions made to the Forest Service proposal for the wilderness area. Other people are here to explain the boundaries and areas in question in detail and tell you what roadbuilding and logging will do to the matchless scenic excellence, the game habitat, the watershed. The elk herd in question is not a migratory herd. I am not even sure that migra. tion routes enter into it too much. They live in the country, and Sena- tor Hansen and Mr. Bonney had a discussion of how the elk go into PAGENO="0140" 132 the Jackson Refuge in the wintertime across highways and through ranches. They will do that. When an elk gets snowed in, he will go down country, all right, to where he can get something to eat, arid they will invade a rancher's meadows, and eat his hay stacks; but the elk have historically been pushed back from the plains, farther and farther back into mountains, as the pressure of the civilization in- creases. The elk are pushed back clear above timberline and that is the reason there are elk to migrate to the Jackson feeding ground, because they enjoy the wilderness area within Yellowstone Park where they can summer undisturbed. We have the same situation here. We have elk who can summer un- disturbed, within a primitive area, which we hope will be included in the wilderness, and they will migrate out in the winter, all right, but they seem to have to have that back country habitat to survive. Some Wyoming people complain that about 52 percent of the land in our State is federally controlled; and other people, including our Governor, maintain that we have enough wilderness, as though it were a commodity like coal or potatoes. Both groups have valid viewpoints, except that Wyoming, and parts of other Western States, are the last small areas left in the world today where space, beauty, clean air, pure water, game in abundance, and uninhabited vistas remain to be saved. If you want to mine diamonds, you go to Africa; if you want to raise wheat, you go to Kansas; and if you want to preserve high mountain country, in its original state, you must do it where the mountains are. The University of Wyoming did a research project in 1965 and pro- duced figures which can be verified indicating that hunting and fishing brought almost $100 million into Wyoming that year. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission' estimates this was between $125 and $130 million, in 1967 and the 11-percent tax on guns, ammunition, and fish- ing tackle returned over .$700,000 to the State of Wyoming. These figures do' not include any of the money summer tourists `bring into the State and leave with us without taking any unrenewable resources away with them. The economic future of Wyoming is deeply involved in tourists and recreation. Even with all our Federal land and wilderness areas, we are fortunate in still having great expanses of unhabited space in other parts of the State eminently suitable for any industrial development which may occur in the future, and the propinquity of wilderness areas and values is extremely good bait for industrialists who want contented employees. It is much easier to hire good people to work in an area where they can enjoy the kind of recreation provided by wil- derness areas. They like to raise their children in that kind of an environment. If we yield these small areas now, they will be gone forever. Peo- ple talk about locking up resources in a wilderness but this is a mat- ter of law passed by the Congress, and it can always he changed by the Conqr~ss, should the need arise. Your decision in this matter is not final if you include the 45,000 acres in question now; but if you do not protect this area when this bill is passed, no one will ever have another chance to make such a decision. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Shoemaker. T~t me ask you, are you personally familiar with this area~ Mrs. SHOfEMAKEÜ. Which are~ PAGENO="0141" 133 Senator HANSEN. The Washakie, the proposed Washakie Wilder- ness Area? Mrs. SHOEMAKER. I am very familiar with it. Senator HANSEN. Have you actually been out in hunting- camps? Mrs. SHOEMAKER. Oh, yes. I have had a Wyoming guide license for a number of years and I spend months out horsepackmg in this coun- try under discussion. Senator HANSEN. You have actually guided hunting parties, too, haven't you, Mrs. Shoemaker? Mrs. SHOEMAKER. Yes, I have. Senator HANSEN. I thank you for a very excellent statement. It certainly helps fill in holes that otherwise might be left in the record and I appreciate your appearing here today. Mrs. SHOEMANER. Thank you very much. Senator HANSEN. We will next hear from Tom Bell, representing the Wyoming Coordinating Council and Wyoming Wildlife Fed- eration of Lander, Wyo. STATEMENT OP TOM BELL, ON BEHALF OP THE WYOMING. 000R.DI- NATING COUNCIL AND WYOMING WILDLifE: PEDERATION, LANDER, WYO. Mr. BELL. Senator Hansen, members of the staff of the committee, while they are moving this map, may I ask, Mr. Chairman, to have certain letters inserted into the record? Senator HANSEN. Without objection, they may be* received and en- tered into the record. Mr. BELL. First, Senator Hansen, is a letter from the president of the State Gem and Mineral Society, in which he opposes any minimal agreement and favors the entire area as recommended by the city of Dubois, Wyo. A letter from the Diamond G Ranch, Mr. P. E. Yarborough and a letter from Erroll M. Petersen of the CM Ranch. He is a guide and an outfitter in the area of the Bear Basin. In his letter he makes certain remarks about the roads in that particular area. Senator HANSEN. They will be received and incorporated in the record, Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Thank you, Senator Hansen. (The documents referred to follow:) LANDER, W~o., February 17,1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Washington, D.C. DzAR Sin: There are over one thousand dues-paying members of the various rock clubs In the state of Wyoming. In addition to these there are at least another ten thousand who are interested in this hobby but are not members of any recog- nized club. In `behalf of these many thousands of outdocir enthusiasts I would like to express a desire that the maximum acreage be included in the Washakie Wilderness area. While many of us would like to explore such areas via the wheeled vehicles, yet we realize that to do so would be to invite ruin for this vast and colorful territory. Therefore we would like to go on record as opposing any minimal agreement and in favor of `the entire area as recommended by the City of Dubois, Wyoming, the Wyoming Wilderness Association, the Outfitters As- sociation, the Sierra Club and others. We respectfully request that this letter be entered into the records of the hearing on the Washakie Wilderness near Dubois, Wyoming. Sincerely, OLns ~D. ATWOOD, President, Wyoming Etate Gem and Mineral ~ooieties. PAGENO="0142" 134 DIAMOND G RANCH, Dubois, Wyo., Februar~j 10, 1968. Mr. TOM BELL, Wyoming State Joi~rnai, Lander, Wyo. Da~n TOM: Itegarding the so-called roads that are $howti on your Forest Serv- ice map of the Shoshone Forest In the East and West Dunoir and Six-Mile areas, I do not know how they can be called roads or jeep trails, they are mora horse, cattle and big game trails. It is possible that a jeep with winch could be put over them with a great deal of effort and trouble, however, they have been traveled very few times by a jeep, but in no way would they leave any future indi- cation of ever being roads should this area ever be classified as a Wilderness Area. Since I live in this area and run cattle in this area every summer I am in there horseback more than anyone else Including the Forest Service and certainly feel I am well qualified to make this statement. Sincerely, P. B. YAnnonouon. CM RANCH, Dubois, Wyo., February 15, 1968. Mr. TOM BELL, Wyoming Ov4door Coordinating Council, Lander, Wyo. Dia~ii TOM: I feel that you are well justified in your support of the additions of several areas to the Forest Service Proposal in the Stratified Primitive Area. I have guided in the Bear Basin area for a number of years and can assure anyone that it possesses the many qualities for Wilderness inclusion. There is a jeep trail which goes into Bear Basin from the Wayne's Creek divide and crosses Bear Creek a short distance after reaching the Basin, b~t the trail ends approximately one half mile after crossing the creek. This trail, which I dOn't `believe could legitimately be called a road would be overgrown and un- noticeable in a very short time, leaving the Bear Basin area a prime Wilderness value. Sincerely, EaRoLI~ M. PETERSEN. Mr. BELL. I am Tom Bell of Lander, Wyo. I am executive director of the Wyoming Outdoor Coordinating Council and represent that organization h~re today. I also represent the Wyoming Division of the Izaak Walton League of America, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, the Wyoming Audubon Society and numerous individuals who are rockhounds, elk hunters, wilderness enthusiasts, and so on. In addi- tion, I speak for myself, a native of Wyoming and lifelong resident and my family. I wish to express our deep appreciation for this great American system of government which allows me to have the privilege of ap- pearing before you today. .1 also wish to thank this committee. As a sidelight, I would like to point out I am familiar with this area, I have lived in this area all my life. As a 14-year-old boy I was in this area when it was truly wilderness. I was a fireguard at Dalto~ri Point, which I will show you in my slide later. Wyoming has been blessed in many ways. Not the least of these is a system of high; rugged mountains. Herein are found the subjects of our discussion here today. Lying mostly at high elevations, composed mostly of bare rock, open tundra, scattered timber, and what are other- wise considered low value lands, these wilderness areas nevertheless are of inestimable value for their recreational, esthetic, and scenic qualities. They also happen to be an important and integral part of our valuable watersheds. I share with the Governor of the great State of Wyoming a concern of its economic well-being and its future. I concur heartily with the PAGENO="0143" 135 statement he made in his inaugural address in which he said, "We should avoid'trying to make Wyoming something it is not." By reason of our geography and topography, we cannot ever become a great agricultural State. For all practical purposes, we have reached the limit of economically feasible irrigation projects. Lands even now being proposed for reclamation projects are situated at high elevations or upon soils so poor, or both, that the prudence of pursuing them further should be severely questioned. Our grazing lands have nearly~ reached a limit, with the possible exception of intensiv~ management on available irrigated lands. I cannot foresee Wyoming becoming a great producer of heavy industry or manufactured goods, at least in the foreseeable future. We do not have adequate water or population centers to support any kind of large industrial complex. What is left then but the extractive industries and the recreational industry? Wyoming does have those natural assets and qualities to foster a great recreational industry. The poor lands at high elevations can be turned to our advantage. We are stuck with them. We cannot change their geology, topography, or geography so we should accept them as they are. The wide open spaces, the serenity of solitude, the beauty and mag- nificence `of austere desert or pristine, alpine lake-all these and more are attributes which we should not demean. Neither should we, for lack of wisdom, fail to protect them and manage them wisely. Wilderness areas are an integral part of our great recreational resource. In spite of the fact that we already have tremendous areas dedicated to the wilderness system in Wyoming, we need not slight ourselves or our posterity in adding areas into this which round out and complement those we already have. We could rightly ask: For what significant, higher purposes would you dedicate the hundreds of thousands of acres of bare rock we now embrace in the wilderness system? Is it wrong to embellish outstand- ing areas with equally outstanding minor additions, if we can show that possible losses to our economic system and to the society are balanced or outweighed by possible gains? I would like to digress for just a moment to point out that of the 196,390 acres of the Washakie or of the original Stratified Primitive Area, approximately 142,049 acres are barren or grassland. Maybe I should also point out that in this particular area, in reference to the map which was shown yest~rday, in reference to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the great primitive areas in Wyoming, that there are States around us which have forests which do not have wilderness areas in them. I might name a few: The Fish Lake and Dixie Forest in Utah, the Caribou, the Targhee, and the St. Joe in Idaho, the Medicine Bow and the Black Hills in South Dakota. The prop9sed Washakie Wilderness Area would comprise some 679,520 acres to be made up of 484,130 acres of the South Absaroka Wilderness Area and 196,390 acres of the original Stratified Primitive Area. To this we ask you to add approximately 42,000 acres in various locations along the southern boundary. Di ~-9~53-68---iO PAGENO="0144" 136 If I may refer to maps I would like to document each area we wish to add. I will refer to them as they are designated by letter or number on the map appearing as pages 17-18 in the U.S. Forest Service report entitled, "A Proposal, Washakie Wilderness, Shoshone Na- tional Forest, Wyoming." To my right, Senator, I have a map which is made up of topographic niaps. I am sorry that it does not show Bear Basin. It was brought out that surveys have not been made, and in this area, evidently not eiiough to make topographic map~ possible. Our proposal in the Bear Basin has been outlined by Mr. Shoemaker, in which Castle Rock would be a pivot point from which to take off on the Forest Service line along Bear Creek, follow down to the mouth of Cave Creek,' then up to Bear C~ib Pass, up a hydrographic divide, ne~rly to the top of Mount Kent, and then down another watershed to approxi- mately the point that the Forest Service has outlined themselves at near Oaldwell Creek. Area D, Bear Basin, our proposal is to include all or parts of sections 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, T44N, R1O5W, and sectioiis 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Tr3N, R105W, ~in all comprising approxi- mately 6,670 acres~ Even though there are true wilderness values found in other areas which were originally recommended for inclusion, we are willing to ac- cede on them. Thus area C, Dundee Creek and the Middle Fork of Wood River has small, thriving elk herd. But it also has mineraliza- tion which could be developed even if it were placed in the wilderness. Development would therefore negate its wilderness value. This is an area of 8,602 acres. Area D, the Bear Basin, was originally recommended to include 8,130 acres. Because of some road penetration and because the area we now ask for inclusion is most critical for elk habitat and other wilder- ness values, the recommendation is some 1,500 acres less. Mr. Shoemaker again has pointed out that where the roads have penetrated the farthest, and in the areas which could possibly be used for recreational development, we have excluded. Areas 3, E, and F-i were originally recommended to contain 6,857 acres. The present recommendation is 4,040 acres, a reduction of some 2,800 acres. Here again a critical elk habitat and the important timbered fringes are requested for inclusion. Areas 6, 1, H, and I were recommended to include some 3,451 acres. This has now been increased by some 3,400 acres to include more of the lower slopes and basins on Five Mile Creek and Six Mile Creek. The Ramshorn, which towers over this area, is one of the most out- standing features along the southern escarpment. The fringes be- neath it, which set it off, are most worthy additions to the wilderness area. It is in these areas the elk pass on migration. Local people feel that if the elk have a passageway at least this far south and eat toward the winter range `they will continue in spite of man's activities farther on. These areas on upper Five Mile and Six Mile Creeks would constitute a corridor approximately 11/2 to 2 miles wide. The areas lie mostly on steep slopes at elevation of 8,500 feet and above. There is good access to these areas from nearby ranches and roads. PAGENO="0145" 137 Area J, the East and West Forks of DuNoir are large, timbered basins with numerous small streams and lakes, open meadows and bogs, and with every quality which fulfills wilderness definition. Elk and cattle graze its grasslands. Bighorn sheep descend the promontories, cross the basins and climb to another vantage point. The DuNoir Glacier nestles on the east side of Coffin Butte. It is through these basins that a large number of elk move `on migra- tion through several passes which takes them to the Buffalo, Shoshone, and Thorofare Plateaus. We originally recommended the inclusion of 30,240 acres in area J. Because of some timbering which has already occurred within the area and for other reasons, we are now recommending the inclusion of only 24,820 acres. If I may go back for just a moment to areas 6, G, H, I, I would like to emphasize, as I think Mr. Cliff did yesterday, that a mistake was made in the Forest Service proposal as to area H and area I, in which they say there are over 10 million board `feet of operable sawtimber. T challenge the Forest Service on this, and Mr. John Lavin, the super- visor for the Forest Service `in Wyoming, called me last week to verify that it was a mistake, and said that their timber maps did not show this amount of board feet in this area. The reason for that, if you will look on the map, is that it lies at such high elevations and such steep slopes, `and involves only 2,000 acres, that there could not possibly be that many board feet of operable sawtimber. We believe that Stratified Primitive Area has unique and distinc- tive qualities which should be recognized. The high escarpment, eroded into buttes, pinnacles, and promontories, is set off by the. green, forested fringe around the base. We believe this fringe i's an integral part ~f the bare, rocky cliffs and the high, barren plateau's beyond. They are significant for human ecology as well as elk and b'ighorn sheep. The Forest Service indicates it will want large areas c~f the DuNoir Basin for future recreational development. We believe the areas under consideration would serve a higher recreational purpose by being in- eluded in wilderness. As we have observed it, timbering and recreational development are almost mutually exclusive. These areas are readily accessible by al- ready-existing timber roads. The proposed wilderness boundary comes within 2 miles of Highway 287 at one point. We believe there is adequate recreational areas available for devel- opment of forest lands to serve on all future needs in the overall area. Timbering has already opened up the Wiggins Fork area,, the Horse `Creek and Parque Creek areas, the Long Creek and Brooks Lake area, and will open up more of the lower reaches of the DuNoir Basin. South of Highway 287 are more forest lands and a world of oppor- tunity for recreational development. As a sidelight on recreational development, we believe the preroga- tives of private enterpirse should obtain first. Accomodations, `service areas, and facilities should not be developed on public lands at public expense until `all private initiative has been expended. Public camp- grounds throughout the area should be established only as need de- velops. And even this is an area in Which private enterprise should PAGENO="0146" 138 enter if suitable concessionaire leases could be obtained on the public lands. All of these areas show the imprint of man in varying degrees. There are some faint Jeep trails, there are areas showing grayed stumps from selective cutting of the tie hacks some 40 years ago, there are campsites around some lakes where you may find beer bottles and tomato cans, and thei~e are rusted Spam cans sitting on the highest peaks. But we sincer~ly believe the areas we have asked for inclusion fulfill that part of the congressional definition which says "~< * * gen- erally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable." We have diligently and conscientiously attempted to draw boun- daries which we believe are every bit as defensible and definable as many that are found throughout the wilderness system. If we can be shown areas which are absolutely untenable from an administrative standpoint, I am sure we will cooperate in establishing better boundaries. Admittedly, what we have done has been done on maps. But the boundaries are drawn by a committee of local residents who know the areas and can attest to their integrity. Timberiug is important in the IDubois ~tea. However, local resi- dents have seen what timbering does to the comitryside and they have a distinct feeling that they are being euchered. The size and capacity of the Teton Stud-U.S. Plywood-mill does not reassure them. Neither do various figures which have been bandied about. Mr. Emery Tomlinson, manager of the mill, states that its capacity was 160,000 board feet a day, 40 million board feet per year. He has also stated that the addition of the DuNoir Basin and Bear Basin areas would result in a 20-percent reduction in the mill output. Then he has said that if the two areas are included in the wilderness area, U.S. Plywood may accelerate cutting and terminate operations in 5 years. Mr. Jack Lavin, supervisor of the Shoshon~ National Forest, ad- dressed the Dubois Chamber of Commerce on Thursday, February 8. The figures he gave were interesting in relation to thoe of Mr. Tomlinson. He said there was approximately 100 million board feet of timber in the DuNoir Basin, area J. Of this amount, only about 30 million board feet would be available for cutting. Information which Mr. Lavin furnished to me personally indicates that in the Dubois block of the Wind River working circle there are 94 million board feet of merchantable timber available for, the next 10-year period. I can oniy assume that this will be cut on a sustained- yield basis of 10 percent a year. In answer to a direct question, What percent of the Dubois working circle area timber is in areas J and D? Mr. Lavin answered: "Tt would be about 8 percent of the total in the Dubois block." Using these figures, I can only conclude that annual harvest from the DuNoir and Bear Basin areas would be approximately 752,000 board feet. Referring to Mr. Tomlinson's figures of the capacity of the mill as being 160,000 board feet per day, the annual cut from these two areas would approximate 5 day~' run througth the mill. In terms of payroll in the Dubois area, it would amount to approxi- mately $30,000 annually. PAGENO="0147" 139 We have tried to be as reasonable and as factual as possible in our considerations of the impact of timbering, hunting, recreation, wwtcr- r shed protection, and other aspects. Most of the inclusions we desire are at elevations of 8,500 feet and above. It is a scientific fact that ecologically speaking a rise vertically in elevation is similar in every respect to a movement latitudinally northward. Thus the tops of our Rocky Mountains are similar cli- matically to northern Canada and Alaska. This may not be quite true for the Dubois area because of the timing of precipitation. The Forest Service report said it as clearly as it can be stated. Under the heading "Cliwate and Soils," page 6, the report says: Maximum summer temperatures rarely exceed 80 degrees with winter minirn mums from 30 to 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Summers are short, with an :average growing season of less than sixty days, but frost can occur on any day of the year. Average annual precipitation is between 20 and 30 inches, chiefly In the form of snow; however, heavy rains of cloudburst intensity occur frequently on small areas during the summer. Soils are shallow and derive mostly from volcanic ash and scoriae. The rocks break down unevenly because of the varying hardness of the conglomerates. Due to the steepness of the country and the high percentage of barren land, the area is susceptible to damage from torrential rain storms. These storms create flash floods which flow rapidly and violently down the canyons, carrying tl~e lighter material and depositing it as wide gravel bars. Erosion conditions in the area are largely the result of natural causes. In reply to a question, how much timber within the working circle is at 8,500 feet elevation or above ~ Mr. Lavin replies about 85 per- cent of the timber in the Dubois block lays at 8,500 feet and above. I am not a forester, nor a forest ecologist, but I would suggest from what I do know that we are deluding ourselves concerning the quality and the economic value of timber stands at 8,500 feet elevation and above. Senator, at this point I would like to refer to some photographs which I have of area J, which is on the west side of the Pinnacle area near Brooks Lake, and I believe that we can show that timbering prac- tices are actually in complete contradiction to what Mr. Cliff said yesterday about watching the erosion conditions. I will present them to you directly, in just a moment here, in which it is shown, at the mouth of the canyon, timbering practices which would certainly lead to erosion, we think. Compared to timber growing at lower elevations, such as in Idaho or Montana, and especially where summer moisture conditions are more suitable, the Dubois area is a unique situation which should be carefully considered and skillfully managed. So too, the economically valuable wildlife resource must be care- fully considered and skillfully managed. It has been established by the University of Wyoming College of Commerce & Industry that the Dubois elk herd is worth approximately $478,000 annually to the State of Wyoming, in terms of money spent to hunt and harvest elk from the herd. Of this amount some $382,000 accrues to that part of the elk herd which uses and migrates through the areas we wish to have included. Obviously much of this money is spent in Fremont County and particularly the Dubois community. PAGENO="0148" 140 The Wyoming Fish and Game Department has established the East Fork Elk Winter Range at a total cost of some $260,000. It has one man employed full time to manage this range and another further south. The range was acquired and developed to facilitate the manage- ment of the northern segment of the Upper Wind River elk herd. And at this point I would like to point out, again in refutation of some of the statements which were made yesterday, that not all of the Western States are in agreement with the statement of the Forest Service that elk are not bothered or disturbed by timbering operations.. I would like to read to you from a personal letter from Mr. John McCone, who is chief of game operations for the State of Oregon, dated February 5, 1968, in which he says: Rocky Mountain elk have a low tolerance for human disturbances. We share Wyoming's concern for the impact of access roads, snowmobiles, and other sources of disturbances that affect the distribution of the animals. I believe I can say without reservation that a large majority of the local residents are in favor of including the additions we recom- mend. I can come to no other conclusion after talking to a number of them, after having some of them actually discuss and delineate bound- aries, and after carrying their own statements here to ask that they be entered into the hearing record. They represent every walk of life and every business interest except the timbering industry, and we a~re certain there are sympathizers even there. I know also there are a great number of Wyoming citizens who disagree with our Governor in his adamant stand against wilderness. We believe every wilderness area should be considered on its own. merits. There are features of each that must be carefully weighed.. We are asking you to do this in the hope that at some future time our children's children will not question our foresight. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. Let me ask you, I refer to page 2 of your testimony wherein you say Lands even now being proposed for reclamation projects are so situated at high elevations or upon soil so poor, or both, that the prudence of pursuing them further should be severely questioned. Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. Then you say a little further down, "I cannot fore- see Wyoming becoming a great producer of heavy industrial or manu- factured goods, at least in the foreseeable future. We do not have adequate water or population centers to support any kind of large industrial complex." it was my understanding that Wyoming does have surplus water at the present time. Is that nc~t your understanding? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir, it is, but what I am referring to is this heavy industrial or manufactured goods, in which I can `think of a compIe~c such as you would find along the Ohio River or the Mississippi River.. Down below I refer to the extraotive industries, and then I refer to it a little more. I think what you have reference to in this case is the surplus water in the Green River Basin, which I believe probably will' someday be used in both the gas and the shale oil industry. Senator HANSEN. How much water, in your judgment, would be re- quired to support an industrial complex? Mr. BELL. I am not certain that I am qualified to answer that, ex- cept that I can point out that it takes about, I think, if I can remember PAGENO="0149" 141 the correct fl~ure, something in th~ order of 20,000-I am not sure whether that i's gallons or tons-of wate~r to produce 1 ton of steel. We do not have this kind of water in Wyoming, to produce tons of steel, lot's say, or tons of glass, or other of the large industrial goods that we normally think of. When I say that this cannot support a heavy industry, I mean that type of h~avy industry which procth~es automobiles and others. I am referring, of course, to the Ohio River, the Mississippi River, and those parts of our eastern part of the country which are so heavily indus- trialized, which have tremendous amounts of water to use. Senator HANSEN. Do you know how much water they consumptively use, the kind of industry you speak of? Mr. BELL. No, sir, I cannot recall exactly the figures. I used to. I used to teach conservation. I used to point this out, how much water was used, in producing, let's say, a certain amount of manufactured cotton goods, in the dyeing and the imprinting of this, and the production of steel, but those figures I cannot recall correctly. But it takes tremendous amounts, Senator, the kind that Wyoming does not have, ex~ept possibly at Torringtbn, in the Platte River or possibly available out of the reservoirs, and that water is already com- mitted to agriculture and to the other things, unless, possibly, the uses for industry would become so much an overriding factor that the value of the water would be bought. For example, the oil companies, right now, are trying to buy water out of basin reservoirs and out of the Yel- low Tail Reservoir for use in the coalfields, but again, this is for an extractive industry in the Powder River Basin. Senator HANSEN. Do you know how much water we have surplus just on the Green River? Mr. BELL. It is 14 million acre-feet, I understand. Senator HANSEN. In Wyoming? Mr. BELL. I am sorry. Maybe I am pointing out 14 million acre- feet is what Wyoming has available. What is your surplus; again I can't recall the figure. Senator HANSEN. Do you know how much we are using of our pres- ent allotment or allocation under the terms of the Colorado River compact? Mr. BELL. Again, I can't refer to the exact figure, sir. All I know is that the State engineer has said that instead of asking for 21/2 mil- lion acre-feet to be transported into the Colorado River Basin, that he thought the river was overcommitted to the point where they should ask for 4 million acre-feet to be transported into the basin. Evidently, then, it is the belief of our State engineer that the Cok~- rado River Basin is already overcommitted to that amount of water. Senator HANSEN. When you say, then, that we, in your judgment, do not have sufficient water for industry, you are speaking particularly of industry such as the manufacture of automobiles? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator I~TANsEN. And I think you said steel. Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. But you would not preclude other industries? Mr. BELL. No, sir. Senator HANSEN. There are a variety of industries- Mr. BELL. Yes, some types. I can only assume from what I read that the shale oil industry will consume tremendous amounts of water, PAGENO="0150" 142 possibly far more than Wyoming will ever have in the Green River Basin, if the industry develops to the point that the experts tell us it will. Senator HANSEN. When you speak about the unlikelihood that further irrigation projects will be feasible in Wyoming, are you speak- *ing about the present pressure being put upon food by populations as we now have them, or are you thinking about what the populations may be, say, within another 32 years? Mr. BElL. Sir, what I am talking about is the use of water in Wyo- ming on an area which has a 75-day growing season and on soil so poor that even the Bureau of Reclamation is very hesitant. I am talking now about the project on the Green River, when I can look down river to Arizona and see a growing season that is so much longer in which nine or 10 crops can be produced. It is completely unrealistic to me, if we. are talking in terms of producing food for starving population, that we would use the water where only short-growing season crops can be produced, such as oats and wild native hay in Wyoming, when they can produce crops of ~so much more value in the areas in which they do have along growing season, and probably better soils. Senator HANSEN. Are you familiar with the evaporation problem that occurs in storing water in reservoirs, and the pollution that occurs ~t the present time as it leaves Wyoming~ where it is high quality, and goes further south? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir, I am. Senator HANSEN. And you still feel that it can be demonstrated that it is good to use, that we would better serve population pressures, to send our water down to Arizona. Is that what you are saying? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir; I am, because I am also familiar with the evapo- ration rates from the Big Candy Reservoir, which are quite high, and also from Fontanel Reservoir, which are quite high. Because of our high elevation, and because of the winds we have, our evaporation rate is almost as high, if not as high, as down in the lower reaches ~tt lower elevations, but with higher temporatures. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. W~ appreciate your being here. Mr. BELL. Senator, may I intercede just a mom~nt? I had almost forgotten, I have a series of slides I would like to show for just a few moments, if I could take your time. Senator HANSEN. Yes, you may. Mr. BELL. I think this will help in all of the testimony of all of ~ur witnesses, because it refers to a number of things that have been said by the witnesses. I will move so I can stand over here. This is Castle Rock, which we are talking about as the pivot point for the area to begin from the Forest Service line. The Forest Service line takes down the drainage over in here. We are asking that the boundary come down this drainage, and into Bear Basin and around this are. This is about a 40-acre spot at the bottom of Bear Basin, which could be used as a recreation area developed by the Forest Service. Next, this is looking into the Bear Basin. This gives you an idea the topography and the geography of the country here, what the timber is like. Most of the timber, you will notice, is in the b~ottom PAGENO="0151" 143 lands and up the side canyons, again pointing out that most of this area in the wilderness is bare mountaintop. Next, this is going down into Bear Basin, and this is the road which does penetrate the area. Road, so-called, I say, in that it is again two tracks, mainly passable only by four-wheel drive vehicles. Next, I would like to point out that this is Mount Kent, which is~ another one of the pivot points here in our boundary. Our boundary would come from back at Bear Cub Pass up to about here, then follow down the drainage, which would come in, as I will show the next photograph, near Caidwell Creek. This is Mount Kent, then, which is one of the pivot points. This is up in the sagebrush flat, looking down to the Double Cabin area. These are the open parks which the Forest Service, I assume, would like to develop for the recreation area. We have no quarrel with `them on this. We think it should be developed so that individuals,. who come close to wilderness area, can take a short walk and be inside of a wilderness. They put their boundary up here underneath the peak, but up in this high area.. We would like to put the boundary down in this timbered fringe, to come across on good definable points to the same point that they use here, and theii go up into the timber. They go up into the higher area. Next, this photograph was taken in 1963 to show you part of the area in area E, which was asked to be included in wilderness, which actually has been logged, and this is what the logging looks like, again under Norton Point, looking up Frontier Creek. This area is on the other side of Wiggins Fork. This is still Norton Point here, but I am now at another vantage point and looking up Wiggins Fork. We asked that the boundary come down across the stream he~re to this reference point here, and across `to those that I showed you a minute ago. Again, this is logging along the road. Next, this is down in Caldwell Creek Basin, and again, the Forest Service boundary comes down through this area. Off of this, again,. is a height from which t'hey carry their point. They come down this drainage, and follow down `the stream itself, this way. We would like to ask that this area up in here be included, because again, it is in this tremendous basin that mach of the elk activity lies, where we do have resident elk populations, not only where migration goes. Next, this indicates part of our concern, and it is not a real critical concern, bec~tuse we know that elk will calve wherever they happen to be. In this particular area, they prefer these open sagebrush fiats. Next is looking across from within the wilderness boundary to areas on the steep mountain slope in which timbering has occurred. Here and here. These are areas that have already been cut. The Forest Serv- ice proposal is to put the boundary up on these high pinnacles. This happens to be LiPcoln Point, in the Lincoln Point ai~ea. We asked that the boundary go right along here. We go from de- finable points again, such as this one, and another point down below here, and then around the point at Linëoln Point to another. In other words, We feel that there are definable and defensible points on this boundary which can be sene, and which we think are defensible. I don't know how you would penetrate these steep slopes, except pos-~ sibly with Sherman tanks. PAGENO="0152" 144 Next. Here again, we would like to point out this green timbered fringe area. This is in the meadow at Double Cabin, the area which would be developed for recreation, and we agree with this, that this is a tremendously valuable area for this, and we think this is necessary. We feel, or at least I do, personally, that many people get quite a feeling for being able to come back home to New York City or New Jersey and say, "I was in the Washakie Wilderness," if they had only walked in 100 feet, up in this timber. Next. This again shows the steep slopes of pimiacles areas, and what we wou1d like to include. Our line would run something like this. Next. This shows elk in the Caidwell Creek area, and this shows a banded elk, in this particular case, by which the game and fish de- partment knows how these elk move, where they go, and so on. Next. This is an area looking un underneath the Rams Horn. Tn this case, we have come clear around the point now. The Forest Service boundary would follow these high pinnacles here. Again, our desire is to come down underneath these areas, and follow through the tim- bered fringe out in here. Again, as you can see, there are points that can he defined, that do strike up. The topography is such that they can be defined as defensible points for a boundary. Next is shown the way this country looks now. From Highway 287, this is the view the tourist gets, or would, at this time of year. This is the Rams Horn again here. This is the point which is very command- ma', and a very beautiful spot. We again ask that the boundary not he un here on the very tip of the Rams Horn, but down underneath. It is hidden by this hill, but would include the green timbered fringe. This shows part of our reason for asking for this, again. Besides being a very delightful area for its beauty~ of course, much hunting goes on here, and it is at this point, right underneat'hthe Rams Horn-~ and this is a point further out-from which our boundary would then draw back close to the mountains. Up to this point~ we would like to have the boundary come out into this area to include it, to allow that corridor for elk to move through to this point. Next, of course, is another one of the objects we are talking about, the tremendous wilderness value of being able to see elk and other wildlife in these areas, besides its solitude and its scenic value. This, by the way, is outside of any of the area for which we are asking, or the Forest Service either. This is up in the area. I am not sure whether this would be just in- side what we are asking for, or outside, but indicating the beauty of the area, and its fishing quality. This illustrates the area that we would like to have included. This happens to be Coffin Butte. This would be the west fork of DuNoir over here and the east fork here. The Forest Service boundary comes up to this point, and then goes back into the mountains. We ask that this area now be included, and our boundary would come to one of these points in here, and then come down across the valley to another defensible point, and on up to the pinnacles. This is Dundee meadows, up underneath the pinnacles. This is on the north end of the west fork of DuNoir, again showing the beauty of the .area, and showing the type of timbered fringe at the bottom. PAGENO="0153" 145 Just through this in to show the beauty, again. Flower garden at the head of the east fork of the DuNoir on Shoshone, or on the west pass. Thank you, Senator. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. May I ask two things: No. 1, would you be able to supply the committee black and white reproductions of these slides, and to indicate as you have done here for us today the location in order to help the members of the com- mittee gain a better visualization of what you are talking about? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir; we could. Senator HANSEN. One other thing. Referring to the Forest Service map which was presented yesterday, just behind your screen, let me ask, do the boundary lines indicated on that map reflect as n~arly as you can tell the additions and the deletions as you have discussed them here in your testimony? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. If it would be permissible, and if you would like, I could leave this map, which I can point out to you, where we have tried to use various reference points which we have indicated by a ~black cross, and then, of course, on these, I have taken a ruler and r scaled them. We actually have definitions of a boundary, a~t least for part of it, and I could continue on through this, to indicate what we would like to have included. And I think that you can see from this map that we are including only those from the steep elevation, as you can see from the topographic lines on the map, here in this area, of course, we follow Forest Service boundary. In some areas, we are not too far off from it. We use some of the same points that they use here and here, and around here, and I would like to point out to you, on this side, over here, that the area in the dotted line here was what was originally asked for. Our line now is this line up here, and I pointed out the one feature on the slide, this one right here underneath Coffin Butte. It could come across, just underneath the Kissinger Lakes, and I would like to point out here how much of the map is brown, which is bare rock, and how much of it is green, showing both Forest Service and our own pro- posal, and how much of the area right outside of this that could be developed for recreation. We are specifically talking, of course, about private enterprise, down along these streams and under the DuNoir Valley, up into this. We also would like to point out that this area is the area which has been logged since the December 6, 1966, hearing, including an area in Jules Bowl which lies at an elevation of 10,000 feet, and I have one ~photograph there which will point that out. ~` Senator HANSEN. Let me ask you, Mr. Bell, does your map, or the drawings on your topographic map, reflect the line that is indicated by the southern border of area J, as identified on the Forest Service map? Mr. BELL. No, sir; it does not. We have gone farther north. We have ~excluded a range here which the Forest Service has included. As 1 understand it-I have not been on the ground, I can't testify to this fact-there has been some lumbering already just within this bound- ary here. We know it has occurred here. But that is beside the point. Again, we wanted to follow topographic points, if we could defend it as a boundary, and this being the case, we left this out, and all of this here, but we did include an area here, PAGENO="0154" 146 and while I am here, I would like to point out that areas H and I, the two that I referred to as having 10 million board feet of Operable timber, are within these dotted lines. An examination of this map shows obviously that there can't be that much timber there. Senator HANSEN. I think it would be helpful if you would add to your map any descriptive information that would help make com- parisons between yourself and the Forest Service map more intelligible. Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. That is indicated in red, here. Senator HANSEN. Then, one further questitrn. Does that area J, as indicated on the Forest Service map, reflect your proposals or the thinking of the groups you represent, as of the date of the Riverton hearing? Mr. BELL. If I can follow your question correctly, I would say that the boundary which I am proposing now is that bowidary which is~ proposed by people in the Dubois community, not my thinking. Senator HANSEN. I see. Mr. BELL. The people in the Dubois community. I go to them, and I say, "All right, we have to go to the people in Washington and justify a boundary to them. What can we justify?" Senator HANSEN. I asked the question because it was my understand- ing from the testimony presented by Dr. Cliff yesterday that area on the Forest Service map reflected additions recommended by others.. Now, I don't know that it was gone into in detail, but I assume that at the time of the Riverton hearing, and perhaps subsequent to that,. the area J, as indicated by the Forest Service map, reflected what a sub- stantial number of people and organizations thought should be in- cluded in the wilderness system. Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. Am I to understand from your testimony that that area has been modified? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. And you now say that alining was not as far south as would be indicated by the forest map? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. But should be hooked into more graphic landmarks? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. That is correct. About 5,000 acres less. Senator HANSEN. And you mentioned also, I believe, that you found that some of the area which is in the southern extremity of area has been logged. Is that right? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. And it has been logged, did I understand you to say, since the Riverton hearing? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. And is it because of that that you recommend putting the line farther north? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. Is that the only reason not to hook it into topo- graphic points? Mr. BELL. No. Again, it could be down underneath on this side of the pinnacles, but for all practical purposes, if it has been logged right up to the pinnacles, what purpose is there in keeping it in? And it also, topo- PAGENO="0155" 147 since it has been logged, offers the Forest Service the opportunity to go in and develop recreational sites other than at Brooks Lake. Senator HANSEN. Is there merit in that proposal of `the Forest Serv~~ ice, in your judgment? Mr. BELL. To do what, sir? Senator ~L4NSEN. To develop recreational sites? Mr. BELr~. ~ sir; there is. `I am in full agreement here. What I am saying, though, is that recreational sites can be developed in `all o'f this area, also over in the Wiggins Fork, the Horse Creek, and the Parque Creek, This is a deep ~ rive'r goes thro'ugh `on this side-with no primitive or wilderness~~n~for some miles~-which would offer tremendous values for this recreational development. My thought is that Trail Lake would make a very excellent recreational site, and we `deliberately left it. outside the boundary for that reason, thinking if they want a developed recreational site, this is `a beautiful area. From here, people can then walk over into' this area of the map, or back into `this area, or if there are recreational sites, you will see a number of lakes here, recreational sites can be built aro'und these, and th~y can walk in from here, over Bonneville Pass. There is excel- lent access. I might point out that on this map, in the Bridger wilderness area, last year `there were 88,000 visitor days, and Bi4dger is more remote, actually, the points of interest th'at are visited, th'an this would be. Senator HANSEN. We appreciate your `appearing, Mr. Bell, and if you would like to make further indications on your m'ap `that will `help clarify these points that you hav~ referred to here this morning, I think it would be helpful. As I understand, you are going `to' leave that for the committee's use. Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator. Senator BELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Bell. Senator HANSEN. We will next hear from Mr. William Crump, dis- trict game supervisor, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission of `Lander, Wyo. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM CRUMP, DISTRICT GAME DIVISION SUPERVISOR FOR THE WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, LANDER, WYO. Mr. CRUMP. Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior Sub- `committee on Public Lands :1 am William Crump, district game divi- sion supervisor for the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, and live at Lander, Wyo. I have been asked to testify on behalf of the Wyo- ming Game and Fish Commission in relation to the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area and its effects on wildlife in the upper Wind River drainage of Fremont County, Wyo. I have worked as a professional big game biologist in the upper Wind River drainage for 17 years. In the early 1950's my work was on moose food habits, distribution, and migrations in this area. In the mid-1950's it was my pleasure to work for 3 years on a big- horn sheep study in this drainage. In 1958, I became district big game biologist with responsibilities for the collection of population trends, ,hunter harvest, distribution and migration information on elk, mule PAGENO="0156" 148 deer, moose, antelope and bighorii sheep in the upper Wind iRiv~r drainage and other sections of Fremont, ~ atrona, and Carbon Coup~ ties, Wyo. Our department has submitted a formal statement to Regional For- ester David Nordwall under date of January 6, 1967, entijJed "State- ment of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Co~Ic~rning a Pro- posal to Establish the Washakie Wilderness Area in Frernont, Hot Springs, and Park Counties, Wyo." This statement expressed the official vieW~of Wyoming concerning the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area ~irii~he Shoshone National Forest of Wyoming. Statements have been made conceriiing the effects of wilderness area status on wildlife in the area under discussion that have not originated from our commission. We intend to clarify our position and present the wildlife values concerned for your evaluation. We have derived our conclusions and recommendations concerning the Washakie Wilderness proposal on the basis of known facts, deter- mined on the ground by qualified wildlife people. It is not our intention to speak in generalities but in specifics relative to specific and particular parts of the Wind River drainage. It is en- tirely possible that our recommendations would be greatly revisecr under different circumstances and in different areas. Moose, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, and grizzly bear are classified as wilderness `inimals Remote, wilderness type habitat i~ essential for survival of these species in a wild state. All of these~ animals are present now or have been inkahitants of the upper Wind River drainage. Our greatest concern is for the elk in this area due~ to their significant humbers, high desirability by hunters, and economic~ return to the State of Wyoming. We have two basic concerns on elk management in this area relative to the proposed wilderness area. The first is the depletion of resident elk herds on summer ranges at lower elevations within the drainage.. Our second concern is the possible deflection or alteration of established migration patterns of elk which utilize valuable natural winter ranges available in this area. DEPLETION OF RESIDENT ELK hERDS The greatest change in elk distribution in the Wind River drainage~ over the past 20 years have evolved with the development of extensive road systems on National Forest Service lands and the widespread use~ of four-wheel-drive vehicles. Small summer resident elk herds existed over many sections of the lower forest lands in the Wind River drainage prior to the develop- ment of extensive road systems. Increased human activity in these areas by hunters, rockhounds, timber operators, recreationists, et cetera, have reduced the numbers of these herds and in some cases have eliminated them completely. Thus elk, a wildlife species recognized for multiple use on public lands, have been substantially decreased by other public land users. Resident elk herds formerly ranged over the lower drainages of the Wiggins Fork, Horse Creek, upper Wind River, and Warm Springs Creek areas. Numerous access roads have been built in most of PAGENO="0157" 149 the lower drainages, primarily in conjunction with timber removal operations on national forest lands. The removal of timber in heavy, extensive coniferous stands is not, in itself, detrimental to elk. However, the access provided by roads associated with timbering operations has resulted in the reduction of use in these areas by sum- mer resident elk herds. The Rocky Mountain elk will not tolerate human activity if they have inaccessible areas into which they can move or reestablish populations. We collect information annually on the dates and locations of elk killed in the Wind River hunting area. Dates of kill in the Horse Creek-Wiggins Fork area were formerly spread over the entire season in relatively equal 2-week periods. In comparing 1959 kill dates with 1967 kill dates, most of the present harvest in these drainages occurs near the end of the season. This kill is primarily taken from migratory herds which move into these lower elevations late in the season dependent on weather con- ditions. Relatively few elk are killed during the early part of the hunting season in these drainages today compared with just a few years ago. Less resident elk are available in these areas for early season hunter harvest. Extensive access roads have been recently built in the Wind River drainage above Dubois, Wyo. These roads are built primarily to aid in timber removal operations. These operations are in the Warm Spring Creek, Lava Creek, Sheridan Creek, Crooked Creek, and Brooks Lake Creek drainages. During 1963 and 1964 approximately 27 percent of the entire Wind River elk harvest came from these drainages. This percentage of har- vest has declined to approximately 9 percent of this by 1967. Again available resident elk populations have declined in these areas. The access roads in much of the Wind River area have already been built. Extensive road developments will continue to open areas for varied human activity and pursuits. It is realistic to assume that elk will have to take a back seat in these areas. I would like to discuss migration and their importance to Wind River elk. MIGRATIONS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE TO WIND RIVER ELK We are fortunate that in the upper Wind River area we have some excellent winter range areas for elk. These areas, including the Whiskey Basin and East Fork winter range units, provide natural winter forage for elk, mule deer, moose, and bighorn sheep. There are no artificial big game feeding programs in this drainage. We are primarily concerned with the East Fork unit, an area of ap- proximately 11,000 acres which includes fee lands purchased with game and fish funds combined with lands formerly controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This unit and surrounding national forest and Bureau of Land Management lands have proven most valuable in providing sufficient winter forage to winter from 2,00Q to 3,000 head of elk over the past 10 years. Elk damage complaints from private landowners have been almost eliminated by acquisition of this winter range unit. The use of tins PAGENO="0158" 150 winter range is dependent on the severity of weather conditions during the winter period. During light winters, the higher forest lands are extensively used for. winter elk range. During heavy' snowfall periods these elk are found mostly within the unit confines. The original acquisition of this range was begun in 1949. It has required a period of years to develop movement of elk from scattered, small winter range sites to this large, extensive range where most of the annual forage growth is retained for winter elk feed. At the present time, excellent use of this range is made by elk which summer within and outside of the Wind River drainages Extensive ear tagging and neck banding ~rojeets were initiated On winter elk herds in the East ~`ork unit beginning in' 1959. The pur- pose of this program was to determine seasonal distribution and migra- tion patterns .of elk which utilized the East Fork. winter range. As of 1966 we have received ear tag returns on 131 head of elk out of a total of 524 animals marked at the Dennison Meadows trap site. Approximately 37 percent of, the ear tags returned have come from elk killed outside of the Wind River drainage The majority of these ani- mals were killed in the headw'aters of the Buffalo Fork' River, the South Fork of the Shoshone River and the drainages of Thorofare Creek. Elk marked with neck bands on the East Fork winter range have been observed numerous times on the headwatei~s of the Buffalo Fork River and South Fork of the Shoshone River during the summer and early fall periods. Late spring and early winter observations have shown these animals reach these summer ranges and return in the fall through the low passes at the headwaters of the East and West Fork of the DuNoir River. It is most impoi~tant to continue this migration pattern to provide hunting opportunity on these elk in the Wind ~iver hunting area and utilize available winter forage on the East Fork winter range. Between 750 `and 1,000 elk make this movement each year. There is limited hunter pressure along this mountain divide at the present time, due to re~tricted road access. We feel this must be con- tinued to prevent alterations or changes in migration movements through this area. There is a summer resident population of elk in the east and west forks of the DuNoir River at this time estimated at 250 to 350 head of animals. The development of road systems in the upper drainage of this area would result `in population declines similar to those experienced in other drainages of the Wind River. We are nOt opposed to the development of public access into the lower drainages of the east and west forks of DuNoir River. A recom- mendation to obtain hunter access into this area hasbeen clearly stated in our formal statement. We are vitally concerned with the elk movement into the East Fork winter range along the Caidwell Creek-Wiggins Fork-Bear `Creek divide. This area is presently hunted over relatively rough "jeep" roads which limit hunter access. We are opposed to development of good access roads in this area which would permit increased hunter pressure along a major route to our winter range. PAGENO="0159" 131 The Wind River Indian Reservation lies immediately to the east of this area. We have observed small grotips of elk wintering on this reservation which had been marked at the Dennison Meadows elk trap. We strongly believe that increased hnnter pressure afforded by "passenger car" roads in this particular ar~a will result in a shift of elk eastward into the reservation lands for 1~he winter period. We have no control over hunting in these lands. We believe the State of Wyoming would lose many of these elk permanently as hunting is not controlled by either seasons or bag limits on the reservation. IMPORTANCE OF ELK CALVING AREAS Cow elk normally bear their young On sagebrush covered slopes and openings. These areas are normally we~ and inaccessible by most roads during the calving period of late May and early June. For this reason, we are not particularly concerned about road devel- opments in these areas. We would be vitally concerned if any of these small but important habitat types were ir~cluded in sagebrush control range improvement projects. VALUE OF ELK HUNTING IN THE WIND RIVER AREA Elk populations and hunting of these animals has a real and meas- ~urable value to the State of Wyoming. An intensive economic survey ~was completed in 1966 by the University of Wyoming and published under the title "Hunting and Fishing-What It Means to Wyoming." The 1966 study of check station data reveals that 1,384 resident ~elk hunters and 189 nonresident elk hunters pursued elk in the upper Wind River drainage. With an average expenditure of $270.91 per resident hunter and 1~547.85 per nonresident elk hunter these 1,573 Wind River elk hunters contributed $478,483 to the economy of Wyoming. A good share of this was spent in the Dubois community and Fremont County, Wyo. We believe this is an important renewable resource of the State of Wyoming and deserving of protection and sustained yield management. It was on the basis of the foregoing dal~a and research information that our original statement claimed substantial benefits to wildlife values if the upper drainages of the DuNoir River were granted wil- derness status. We appreciate sincerely this opportunity to be more specific in presenting our reasons and know that yoi~r committee, in its wisdom, ~will place our remarks in their proper perspective when reaching final determinations. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Crump. We c~ertainly appreciate your testimony, and I am sure that it will be of great interest to the members of the committee. Let me ask you, are there any moun1~ain sheep residing in any of these areas that are in controversy as indicated by the Forest Service map presented yesterday? Mr. CRUMP. There are, in the headwat~rs of the DuNoir, yes. The crest of the mountain area, and both east and west from the crest of The mountain itself. 91-953-----t38----11 PAGENO="0160" 152 Senator HANSEN. How~much of the year do they spend in the winter area? Mr. CRUMP. A very good percentage of the year is actually spent in area J itself. Senator HANSEN. Do they go up and out of it in the summer months, or do they come out of it in the winter months? Mr. CRUMP. No, they are pretty much year around residents in this area. This is true of the Absoraka Mountain sheep north of the river. This is different in the Wind River area, where they actually come down just above town, and are enjoyed by many people as a winter attraction in the country. Senator HANSEN. What about grizzly bear? Have any been sighted in area J? Mr. CBUMP. Yes; the most recent kill has been a few years ago. I think about 1957 or 1958 one was killed by one of Bill Picketts' hunters in the headwaters. I believe it was just up somewhere from Dundee Meadows, right in that general area. Senator HANSEN. I gathered from one of the last statements you made in your testimony that unless the sagebrush is removed, you don't really anticipate a problem insofar as visitors are concerned in elk calving areas, because the time of year that elk are calving, the country is pretty wet and would be largely inaccessible. Mr. CRUMP. That is largely true. It is our feeling when the time is right, the apple will fall, and I think that we are not particularly con- cerned about them calving. Now sagebrush is essential as an escape cover and a hiding cover for the first few days after birth. Senator HANSEN. Yes; I gathered that that was what you were im- plying in your testimony. Mr. CRTJMP. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. We certainly appreciate yo~ir being here, Mr. Crump. Thank you for a very fine statement. You did present a map here? Mr. CRUMP. I should like to point out the importance, if I could, Senator Hansen, of these migrations and why it is a little different than has been explained here earlier. One of the- Senator HANSEN. May I interrupt, first? You say why it is a little different than has been explained here earlier. Now what is your basis for that statement? Are you saying that you think you know better than others who have spoken on it? I am not trying to be critical. I just think it would be of importance to the committee to have you explain what you mean by that. Mr. CRUMP. I think in explaining the problems concerned with migrations, as has been exl)lained here earlier, we have a problem here that does not exist in these other areas with regard to migrations. For instance, the area in which reference was made to the Jackson country, between Moran Junction and Four Mile Meadows, say, the elk moves across this road; they move across many roads, this is true. The big difference is, I tlhink, that we are talking about the top of a mountain divide here, and not elk that are already committed, as the elk are, coming down in Jackson Hole. They are 15 or 20 miles from the divide by the time they come to these roads. They are committed, and they will come through, re- PAGENO="0161" 153 gardless. But in this ease, these elk are moving down from the south- east corner of Yellowstone Park. They are moving down through the Buffalo Plateau, they move down through the Shoshone Pass, West Pass, and Bonneville Pass, down through this area, and over toward their winter range, which is indicated by the red on this map. Senator HANSEN. You are talking now, obviously, about the fall migration? Mr. CR1JMP. Yes, sir. This is coming back, in the late fall months. We are very concerned, of course, about hunter access, additional hunter access along this divide, which could very easily, in our esti- mation, shift his migration toward Jackson, where we do have prob- ]ems with regard to sufficient winter range, or down the South Fork of the Shoshone. This is a very high rim. I am sure that you are acquainted with it, Senator. It is a very high preciptous range. I think some of the photo- graphs that Mr. Bell showed you illustrate how sharp it is. There are not a lot of passes where these elk can move into this area. We have this buffer zone of the present primitive area that lies immediately north and east and most of the elk that move from our winter range here, up into the primitive area, are not bound over the divide. In this ease, they are, clear up toward the southeast corner of Yellowstone Park. It is for these reasons that we are concerned about this movement. We are pushing against them, or could be pushing right against them on the head of the divide. Senator HANSEN. If I could, just let me offer a suggestion 1 hope might be helpful, Mr. Crump. I can follow you, very well, because I am looking at a map, and you are indicating with a pointer, but it is going to be a little hard for the other members of the committee to know precisely what you are talking about. So far as you are able, if you would, identify areas or divides. That might be helpful. Mr. CRUMP. I see. The other movement we are particularly con- cerned about is this one that comes down and through Bear Creek, down Caidwell, on to Indian Point, and down into our winter range here. We feel very strongly that diversion of this could very possibly go eastward through this upper part here, in the primitive portions of it, where they are under relatively limited hunter access, onto the `Wind River Indian Reservation itself. This has occurred in the past. We have tag returns from that area. We have several band sightings. There is already movement that occurs in there, and we are very con- cerned about it because of the lack of control on the reservation. This is, of course, under Indian control and we have no jurisdiction. Senator HANSEN. They set their own seasons and bag limits, and that sort of thing? Mr. Cnimip. They do not have, at least in our understanding, any seasons or bag limits at this time. They can kill any time they wish to, in any amounts. Senator HANSEN. I see. Mr. GRUMP. I believe that pretty well summarizes the migrations and why we are concerned about them in specific areas. This may not PAGENO="0162" 154 be true at all in other areas of the State. I am merely concerned here. Senator HANSEN. You have been talking here `this morning as I understand it, with specific reference to an area? Mr. CRUMP. To the Wind River area, yes. Senator HANSEN. That area under discussion. Very good. I assume that you will leave this map, or have you a copy? Mr. CRUMP. I could certainly arrange to leave it. Senator HANSEN. If you could, or if you might be able to make an ~extra copy. I would like to compliment you on the extremely fine job you have done along with the other witnesses who have testified here this morning, who speak knowledgoably about an area. I think Wyoming can be very proud indeed of the expert sort of testimony that has been supplied, and certainly you have added sig- nificantly to that record here this morning. Thank you for coming. Mr. `CRUMP. I appreciate that. Very frankly, I think I know less about elk after 20 years than I `did when I was just starting in the business. Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Crump. We will next hear `from Mr. Joseph Loeb, an attorney for the Signal Oil Co., accompanied by Mr. Lucius Geer, a geologist. Will you gentle- men please have a chair, and `we will be happy to hear from you? STATEMENT OP JOSEPH LOPB, ATTORNEY, SIGNAL OIL & GAS CO.; ACCOMPANIED BY LUCIUS GEER, GEOLOGIST Mr. L0EB. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members `of the com- mittee, my name is Joseph Loeb, and I am an attorney in the legal department of the Signal Oil & Gas Co. Seated on nay right is Mr. Lucius Geer, manager of exploration of Signal Oil & Gas Co. I deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to appear before you today to express Signal's views on this pend- ing legislation, S. 2630, which `designates a portion of the Stratified Primitive Area as a part of the Washakie wilderness. We are here today for two purposes: (1) We are in effect responding to the request of the conference committee which approved the final version of the Wilderness Act of 1964: `The conference committee expects that the mining industry and the agencies of the Department of the Interior will e~p1o're existing primitive areas so that when legislation pertaining `to su'ch primitive `area is considered at a later date, Congress `will have the `benefit of professional, `technical advice as to the presence or absence of minerals in eadi area. (Conference report, House of Representatives, Rept. No. 1829, 88th Cong., second sess., p. 10.) (`2) We wish to call to the attention of the committee the erroneous interpretation that the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have placed on `the provisions `of the Wilderness Act of 1964 pertaining to oil `and gas leasing. After preliminary geological investigation Signal filed application for U.S. oil and gas leases on a portion of the Stratified Primitive Area. These lease offers were rejected by the Department of Interior. We believe these rejections were contrary to the provisions `of the PAGENO="0163" 155 Wilderness Act of 1964. After additional geological studies, both sur- face and subsurface we are more convinced than ever that the area offers excellent prospects for oil `and gas development. Signal is ready to perform add~tion'al exploration work leading to eventual drilling but is stymied by the refusal of the Department of Interior to issue oil and gas leases. I. SIGNAL LEASE OFFERS Signal is vitally concerned with a portion of the lands covered by S. 2630 `as an oil `and gas exploration prospect. After some preliminary geological w'ork in the area Signal filed oil and gas lease offers with the Bureau of Land Management during `the period from April to June 1967, on `approximately 53,000 `acres in the Sho'shone National Forest, of whidh 20,000 acres were just within the extreme eastern boundary of the Stratified Primitive Area. Our lease offers cover `aJbout 17,000 acres of that portio'n of the Stratified Primitive Area including within the Forest Service pro~ posal for inclusion as wilderness. All the lease offers `as to the lands within the primitive `area were rejected by the Bureau of Land Management on the basis' that such lands were in `a primitive area `and were being studied for possible in- clusion in a wilderness area. This decision was pursuant to the recommendatioii of the U.S. For- est Service, the `agency of the Department of Agriculture which ad- ministers the primitive `area. These offers were rejected notwithstanding the specific language of section 4(d) (3) of t'he Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577; 78 Stat. 890) w'hich provides `in part `as follows: (3) notwithstanding `an'y other provision's of this Act, until midnight, Dc- cem'ber 31, 1983, the United States mining `laws and all laws pertaining 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. Upon request by Signal, the Bureau of Land Management vacated the rejection decisions so that Signal might have an opportunity to prevail upon the Forest Service to change its recommendations. Signal representatives met with members of the Forest Service in Denver, Cob., on June 1 and 6, 1967, and in Washington, D.C., on October 11, 1967, to `discuss oil and gas leasing within the primitive area. Those efforts were unsuccessful but the Forest Service did issue a permit for wilderness prospecting to Signal which permitted Signal to perform reconnaissance surface ~eobogical work within the primi- tive area by means of foot and helicopter. During the months of August and September 1967, our geologists did the necessary surface geological mapping of the area. The permit terminated December 31, 1967. Signal's oil and gas lease offers are still in a pending status. II. EXPLORATION RESULTS This area of interest was first brought to Signal's attention by one of our geologists who had done extensive surface work in the area a few year previously. PAGENO="0164" 156 For some years oil companies which were familiar with the area considered it to have great potential as an oil province, but only re- cently have exploration methods, such as refinements, in seismic equip- ment and interpretation, developed to the point where prospecting in an area of this type is feasible. In planning its exploration program, Signal made a thorough search of all the literature concerning the area and compiled all data into a series of maps and cross sections which represented Signal's total knowledge of the area. All available information concerning drilled~weils in tJie vicinity ~was purchased and used in a subsurface geological map study of the region. An aerial photographic geological map was compiled of the area, and negotiations are in progress to obtain gravity studies made in the vicinity. After compiling all existing data, Signal did its surface mapping by the use of surface vehicles, helicopter, and fixed-wing aircraft. Field work was terminated by the combination of snowfall and the start of hunting seasons. This field work confirmed our belief that productive sediments exist below the volcanic cover, and that intrusive rocks have not disturbed their potential. At this point Signal rates this an area containing excellent oil and gas prospects. We have the combination of the occurrence of sedi- mentary formations which produce oil in adjacent areas and the presence of very probable anticlinal structural features to trap oil and gas. Signal is now at the point where in order to justify additional money being spent on this e:xploratory prospect, it must be assured of obtaining oil and gas leases. This is an area that just has not been explored for oil and gas, one reason being that, to our knowledge, the Bureau of Land Management has never issued any oil and gas leases in the primitive area. When weather conditions permit and if leases are obtained, Signal plans the following exploratory program: 1. Additional surface mapping. 2. Gravity survey. 3. Seismic program. 4. Drilling when prospect is further delineated. The U.S. Geological Survey in USGS Bulletin 1230-E "Mineral Resources of the Stratified Primitive Area, Wyoming" made a study of the mineral resources of the Stratified Primitive Area to aid Con- gress in evaluating this area as a wilderness area prospect. As to oil and gas potential, the report states that conditions are favorable for accumulations of oil and gas, but that intrusive rocks are likely to have rendered any possible oil and gas reservoirs unpro- ductive. In our opinion this is just not the case. One of the primary reasons for last fall's field work was to obtain assurance that intrusive activity in the rocks had not destroyed hydrocarbon accumulations. Our field geologists found evidence of intrusive rocks and were im- pressed with the accuracy of the mapping presented in USGS Bulletin 1230-E. PAGENO="0165" 157 However, our geologists found positive evidence that intrusive rocks have not adversely affected accumulations of oil. Immediately north of our area of interest is an intrusive body which forms a feature called Rose Butte and is described in detail in the Geologic Society of Amer- ica Bulletin, volume 51, page 1420 (Sept. 1, 1940). Our geologists confirmed its presence and also noted its proximity to a well drilled by Richfield Oil Corp. This well located only 1,500 feet from the intrusive body, encountered and cored oil saturated reservoir rocks identical in appearance to those occurring in adjacent proven productive areas. Sediments had not been altered by the intrusive, nor had the hydro- carbon content been destroyed. Last fall Natural Oil & Gas Corp. drilled a well in an area of interest in an area geographically similar to the easternmost part of the Stratified Primitive Area. This well proved beyond any doubt that potential reservoir rocks identical with those now productive of hydrocarbons east of the area exist beneath the volcanic cover which is present over most of our area of interest. This well also encountered oil shows in the potential horizons. Notwithstanding the conclusions of the U.S. Geographical Survey, Signal has concluded that this area exhibits great potential for finding oil and gas accumulations and is willing to expend substantial sums of money in this endeavor. III. INTERPRETATION OF THE WILDERNESS ACT We have been advised by the Forest Service that it will not approve an oil and gas lease application within a wilderness or primitive area which includes the right of surface entry, and the Forest Service knows of no instance where a Federal oil and ~as lease has been granted covering lands within a wilderness or primitive area, and I believe the testimony of Mr. Cliff verifies this. Notwithstanding the leasing provisions of section 4(d) (3) of the Wilderness Act, the official policy of the Secretary of Agriculture against recommending leasing is clearly set forth in section 2323.73 of the Forest Service manual: 2323.73-Mineral leasing and permits. The authority to permit prospecting or mining for minerals not subject to location and entry is discretionary with the Secretary of the Interior. Advice and consent of the Secretary of Agriculture is required. Authority to consent or give a favorable recommendation to lease in wildernesses or primitive areas is reserved to the chief. The chief will not normally recommend approviti of mineral leases or permits in wildernesses or primitive areas unless directional drilling or other methods can be used which Will avoid any invasion of the surface. For the further guide- lines, see FSM 2820. As far as the executive agencies are concerned, the period set forth in section 4(a) (3) ending December 31, 1983, in which the mineral leasing acts are to be effective has no meaningful application, and the executive agencies have, in effect, withdrawn wilderness and primi- tive lands from the operation of the mineral leasing acts as of the effective date of the Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964. This interpre- tation is directly contrary to the express direction and intent of Con- gr~ss as ~hown by the legislative history of the Wilderness Act. PAGENO="0166" 158 IV. HISTORY OF THE WILDERNESS ACT. A number of wilderness bills were introduced in Congress between 1957 and 1964, of which the major bills were S. 174 (1961), ILR. 776 (1962), S. 4 (1963),and ILR. 9070 (1964). Throughout the history of wilderness legislation, there was con- siderable conflict as to the treatment of mineral development within primitive and wilderness areas. Some conservationists desired a complete prohibition against min- eral development, whereas commercial interests recommended the mul- tiple-use concept of utilizing the resources of wilderness areas. Wilderness bills previously referred to presented two compromise solutions to this question: (1) Section 6(c) (2) of S. 174 would have allowed the President to authorize prospecting, mining, and mineral leasing in wilderness areas if he thought such use would better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than would its denial, and (2) Section 4 (d) (3) of the final form of the Wilderness Act per- mitted the application of the mining and mineral leasing laws to wilderness areas for a 20-year period. After conference on S. 4 the present section 4(d) (3) was agreed upon, and the Wilderness Act became effective on September 3, 1964.. The conferees rejected the concept of a complete prohibition against mineral development and leaving mineral development to Presidential discretion, and chose to permit mineral leasing and mining develop~ ment for a period terminating December 31, 1983. v. DISCUSSION OF THE ACT Section 4(d) of the Wilderness Act was designed to allow the executive agencies and private industry sufficient time to explore primitive and wilderness areas and either develop substantial mineral values or condemn the areas for mineral development, so that after December 31, 1983, wilderness areas which had not demonstrated mineral potential would be absolutely withdrawn from the applica~ tion of mining laws and the mineral leasing acts. The current interpretation by the executive agencies of the pro- visions of section 4(d) (3) will result in wilderness and primitive areas never being tested or meaningfully explored for oil and gas by private industry as Congress intended. The agencies have interpreted the Wilderness Act as if the above mentioned section 6(c) (2) had remained in the Wilderness Act and not section 4(d) (3)., The discretionary power which section 6(c) (2) would have given to the President to allow or not to allow mineral leasing is now being exercised by the agencies. This leads to the untenable result that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior are exercising the same authority which Congress had expressly refused to grant to the President. We have been advised that the agencies are basing their discretionary authority on the language in section 4(d) (3) which states that the laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall extend to those national forest areas desigiiated by the act as wilderness areas to the same extent as ap~ plicable prior to the effective date of this act. PAGENO="0167" 159 Their theory as to the above-quoted language is that as the policy of the agencies prior to the Wilderness Act was to not permit leasing in wilderness areas, the Wilderness Act perpetuates this policy. There is nothing in the history of the act to support this theory, and it is perfectly clear that the Wilderness Act was intended to change this leasing policy and to authorize exploration to either develop or condemn wilderness areas for mineral values during a limited period of time. In answer to the executive agencies' theory, the only logical inter- pretation of the quoted language is that it has reference to areas within the wilderness areas in national forests that were subject to specific withdrawals from the mining and mineral leasing laws by act of Congress or otherwise prior to the date of the Wilderness Act. In order to prevent section 4(d) (3) from being construed as restor- ing such specifically withdrawn areas to the operation of the mining or mineral leasing laws, it was necessary to add the above quoted language. An example of this type of withdrawal is found in the proposed San Rafael Wilderness in which about 25 percent of the area is subject to a withdrawal from location or entry under the mining laws by the act of April 20, 1936 (Public Law 526, 74th Cong.) for the purpose of conserving water resources. If the above quoted language had not been included, section 4(d) (3) could have been constructed to have restored this water resource area to location and entry under the mining and mineral leasing laws. This is the natural interpretation of the above quoted language. The agencies' interpretation is a strained one, and is contrary to the intent of section 4(d) (3) to allow meaningful oil and gas explora- tion for a limited period of time. The arbitrariness of the agencies' position is demonstrated by the resulting different treatment of the application of the mining laws in wilderness areas as opposed to the mineral leasing laws. Operation of the Wilderness Act on wilderness areas since 1964 has seen the permitting of the filing and location of mining claims and mining activities under section 4(d) (3) whereas there have been no oil and gas leases issued during this period. This results in complete discrimination in oil and gas development as opposed to mining development. There is nothing in the history of the act to indicate any difference of intent in Congress as to wilder.~ ness and primitive areas in permitting mining versus oil and gas ~1evelopment under the mineral leasing acts. This unusual case of discrimination is brought about by the dif- ferences in procedure under the mining laws and the mineral leasing acts. The agencies have no power to prevent the location and filing of mining claims, and under the Wilderness Act can only prescribe rea- sonable regulations for mining operations within wilderness areas- whereas the procedure under the mineral leasing acts requires an ex- press grant from the Department of Interior of an oil and. gas lease, which in every case has been refused. It is difficult to understand the agencies' discriminatory applica- tion of section 4(d) (3) since mining activities affect surface and wilderness values as much or more than development of oil and gas. PAGENO="0168" 160 Further confirmation of the intent of Congress is shown by the contemporaneous interpretation voiced in House hearings on the San Rafael Wilderness Act on June 19, 20, and 21, 19~s7. Reference is made to pages 40 and 51 through 63 for evidence of the intent of Congress that there be meaningful mineral exploration of the proposed wilderness area. The entire problem and solution thereto are stated succinctly in the questions of Chairman Aspinall and the statement and answers of Mr. Stewart M. Brandborg, executive director, the Wilderness Society, on pages 118 and 119 of said hearings, as set forth on exhibit A attached hereto. In brief it was recognized that there would have been no Wilderness Act without providing for a meaningful period of mineral value ex- ploration and development. Additional confirmation as to congressional intent is contained in the statements of Congressman Walter Baring and Craig Hosmer at the House floor debate in the proposed San Rafael Wilderness (H.R. 5161) (Congressional Record-House, Oct. 16, 1967, p. H13405) attached hereto as exhibit B. (The documents referred to follows:) EXHIBIT A [From House Hearings on the San Rafael Wilderness Act on ~June 19, 20 and 21, 1967-pp. 118 and 119] Mr. ASPINALL. I have one other question. This has to do with this matter of mineral survey. Wouldn't you folks who are backing additional acreage in the Wilderness Sys- tern rather see complete surveys and then have those areas nailed down a's wilder- ness areas without the right of subsequent mineral development, or would you rather see inadequate surveys and let them remain open to mineral development, and in many eases open to the filing of claims as well as mineral leasing the appli- cation for patents under our mining laws? Mr. BRANDBORG. Mr. Aspinall, as you remember in order to gain approval of the wilderness law in 1964 it was necessary for the supporters of the wilderness bill to recognize that such a bill could not be enacted unless the section 4 provisions calling for mineral studies and mineral development Mr. A5PINALL. You recognize the situation. Mr. BRANDBORG. Unless conservationists agree to this mining provision, the measure would not move through the Congress. It could not be passed into law. We, as one organization which wants very much to see the wilderness law through to a successful start and to see it function properly in providing for orderly addi- tions to the National Wilderness Preservation System, are trying hard to make it work. We believe that we should in all good faith apply those provisions, prepare for the hearings, do the necessary work ourselves, enlist the cooperation of the people in the field who know the areas, and encourage them to work closely with the agencies administering these areas. EXHIBIT B [From the Congressional Record, Oct. 16, 19671 Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gen- tleman from Nevada [Mr. BARING], the chairman of the subcommittee which handled the legislation. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARING. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, but I believe there is a question as to the interpretation of the Wilderness Act of 1964 under which San Rafael would be created that definitely should be cleared up. During PAGENO="0169" 161 his remarks the gentleman from Colorado, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs already alluded to it and specified his belief that the 1964 act requires continued renewal and leasing development of these lands until the end of 1983. It is my understanding that this bill, HR. 5161, creates a new wilderness area, the San Rafael Wilderness, which adds about 145,000 acres of land to lands administered under the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Now, I am gravely concerned about the administration of lands under the Wilderness Act by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture insofar as mineral devel- opment is concerned. In the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on HR. 5161, there is the following reference to oil and gas leasing. "However, as practically all of the area has been segregated from oil and gas leasing since 1953 and much of it has also been withdrawn from mining location since 1936, the area has probably not been prospected thoroughly. The area will remain open to mineral development under the conditions stated in the 1964 act." It has come to my attention through testimony of representatives of the Department of the Interior at the hearings on this legislation and from policy statements by the U.S. Forest Service, that there is an erroneous interpreta- tion by the Executive agencies of those sections of the 1964 Wilderness Act dealing with oil and gas leasing af lands within wilderness areas under the Mineral Leasing Act. There are two sections in the Wilderness Act that apply to mineral develop- ment of wilderness areas. Section 4(d) (2) of the Wilderness Act provides for obtaining information on mineral values of wilderness areas by the Executive agencies. Section 4(d) (3) provides for the development of minerals under the mining laws and the various mineral leasing acts by private industry, and reads in part as follows: "(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, until midnight De- cember 31, 1983, the United States mining laws and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the same extent as applicable prior to the effective date of this Act, extended to those national forest lands designated by this Act as `wilderness areas' . . ." In the administration of primitive and wilderness areas under the 1064 Wilder- ness Act, I have been advised that the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the Forest Service will not recommend approval of oil and gas leases except Where the lands subject to the least can be developed from drill sites located outside of a primitive or wilderness area. This policy is expressly set forth in the Forest Service manual and has been repeated in communications to pri- vate industry. In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture has construed section 4(d) (3) of the 1964 Wilderness Act to authorize the Secretary to prohibit the leasing of wilderness or primitive area lands for the purposes of oil and gas de- velopment if surface uise is required. Since the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Department of the Interior, act upon the recommendations of the Sec- retary of Agriculture, has issued no oil and gas leases in wilderness or primi- tive areas with the right of surface entry. This has eft~e'ctively blocked any de- velopment of wilderness and primitive areas for oil and gas purposes. It is de- priving the United States of what might be substantial revenues at a time when the Treasury is sorely in need of every cent it can get. This interpretation of the Executive agencies flies directly in the face of both the intent and the intent and the expressed language of section 4 of the Wilder- ness Act. The passage of the subject bill, H.R. 5161, appears to be an appropriate time to reemphasize the intent and purpose of section 4(d) (3) of the Wilderness Act, and to make this perfectly clear to the agencies administering lands subject to the Wilderness Act. It was at the time of the passage of the Wilderness Act, and is now, the intent of Congress that the Mineral Leasing Acts, as well as the min- ing laws, shall have a meaningful application to primitive and wilderness lands until December 31, 1983. Applications for oil and gas leases may not be rejected by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture solely on the basis that such lands are within a primitive or wilderness area. Is the gentlem'an from Nevada [Mr. BARING], chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee, in agreement with my statement as to the effect of the provisions of the Wilderness Act on oil and gas leasing, and the intent of the Congress in this regard? Mr. BARING. Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the gentleman's statement. The Wilderness Act was the result of 8 years of hearings, studies and PAGENO="0170" 162 conferences and was an attempt to harmonize viewpoints which, in some cases were in violent conflict. As chairman of the Public Lands Subcommittee, I held extensive hearings and heard the views of over 600 witnesses. One of the biggest conflicts that appeared during the deliberations on this legislation was the treat- ment of mineral resource development. The final compromise solution between the views of the House and Senate after conference appears in the Wilderness Act as section 4(d) (8). The final solution followed the House viewpoint and con- sisted of a phasing out of mineral development activity during the period termi- nating December 31, 1983. 1 am confident that the Wilderness Act would have never become law without the inclusion of the provision that allowed a definite period of time for private industry to either develop or condemn a wilderness area for its mineral values. Now, to my great shock, it has come to my attention that the executive agen- cies have interpreted 4(d) (3) to be authority for the agencies, in their discre- ) tion, to withdraw from the operation of the Mineral Leasing Act all lands within wilderness areas. To me, this is a glaring example of executive agencies defying the express direction of the Congress. It is therefore appropriate and necessary at this time to reaffirm the intent of Congress in regard to the administration of section 4(d) (3) of the Wilderness Act. It is now and always has been the intent of Congress in the Wilderness Act that no application for a lease under the mineral leasing laws shall be rejected for the reason that the lands involved are contained within a wilderness or primitive area-and the Secretaries of the In- terior and Agriculture are obligated to administer these lands accordingly. Any other interpretation of sectIon 4(d) (3) would lead to the untenable result that wilderness areas would be completely withdrawn from the operation of the min- eral leasing acts, without ever having been tested or explored under the proce- dures provided by the COngress in the Wilderness Act. Mr. HOSMER. I thank the gentleman for his very explicit clarification of this matter. Mr. LOEB. In order to insure that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture will comply with the directives of Congress under the Wilderness Act and issue oil and gas leases within wilderness areas during the remaining period prescribed by Congress, we respectfully propose that the following language be added at the end of section 8 of S. 2630 No offer or application for a lease under any law pertaining to mineral leas- ing on lands within the Washakie Wilderness shall be rejected by the Secretary of the Interior solely for the reason that the lands embraced within such offer or application are within a wilderness area. Signal finds itself in the unusual position of wanting to spend a substantial sum of money to explore this area which Congress has said can be explored until December 31, 1983, but is prevented from doing so by the executive agencies. Signal's proposed exploration program could result in developing a considerable source of income to the United States and to the State of Wyoming. In these days of increasing governmental costs, higher taxes, and scarcity of new sources of revenue, we do not believe that this com- mittee would wish to condone the continued abandonment of this possible source of income because of an arbitrary decision by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Again I wish to say that I and my company are most grateful for your courtesy in permitting me to appear before you today. We will deeply appreciate any consideration which you may wish to give to our views in this matter. Thank you. Senator CHURCH (presiding). Mr. Loeb, the question you raised con- cerning the applicability of the Wilderness Act to the right of entry PAGENO="0171" 163 for mining purposes is one that this committee is going to have to carefully review. I think that you were privy yesterday to the testi- mony of Ed Cliff, and you have set out that particular interpretation of the law into your discussion here, and have raised very serious objec- tions to it. I think the committee needs to look at that point very care- fully, and so your testimony has been helpful. Before we pass judgment on this case, I think this is a question that needs to be probed. Senator Hansen, do you have any questions? Senator HANSEN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that there are a number of us who have been concerned with the desirability of continuing legislative oversight, in seeing that the executive agencies of Government do indeed carry out the intent of the Congress, and I think you have touched upon that, and indicated our serious concern about it. I share your feeling that we will indeed want to look very closely at this. Senator Cirniton. Yes; there is a gray area here that I am not cer- tain enough specific attention was given to at the time the Wilderness Act was passed. That gray area is the difference between hard rock mineral interests, governed by the provisions of the earlier mineral laws, and oil and gas leases. I think it is true that in the case of the hitter, there has always been administrative discretion. In the case of the former, that is not true, except in places where public lands have been withdrawn from entry, but otherwise, the locator had certain rights that came to him by force of law. In the case of leases, on the other hand, there has been, from the beginning, a discretionary authority vested in the administrative agen- cies, with jurisdiction over the land concerned. So I think we just need to take another look at the two interpretations that have developed since the passage of the Wilderness Act and discuss this in the committee. Mr. LOEB. We would appreciate your consideration of our points. Senator Cnuucn. Yes; thank you, Mr. Lo~b. At this time I would like to include in the hearing record some letters I have received concerning the Washakie Wilderness proposal. (The letters referred to follow:) NATIONAL WILDLITE FEDERATION, Washington~, D.C., February 16, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Subcommittee of Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Bui Wing, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I am writing to you as the Regional Director of the National Wildilife Federation for Region 13 which includes the states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. I wish to support in general the Forest Service's recommendation relative to the reclassification of the Washakie Wilderness Area. There are two additions which the Wyoming Federation is most desirous of having included in addition to the recommendations of the Forest Service. These are the Bear Creek Basin Area and the East and West Forks of the DuNoir River. It is my understanding that these two areas have a great deal of significance for wildlife and their inclusion in the Washakie Wilderness is essential to the continued well being of the wildlife of this area. The Bear Creek area is utilized by summer elk herds and is excellent as a spring and fall range for elk. Roads in this area would reduce the use of this area by resident elk herds. The East and West Fork of the DuNoir River is an important area for big horn sheep, moose, elk and deer and is Important to patterns of migrating elk. PAGENO="0172" 164 The Wyoming Federation believes that these would be jeopardized by road sys- tems or clear-cut timbering operations in this area. Their President, Bill Isa~acs informs me that these are the `top priority items on their list of suggestions. I respectfully request that every consideration be given to the inclusion of these areas within the proposed Washakie Wilderness upon reclassification. Sincerely, ERNEsT E. DAY. CARBON COUNTY CoNsERvATION CLUB, Rawlins, Wyo., February 12, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: We understand that there will be a hearing on the proposed Washakie Wilderness on February 19, 1968. We, the members of this conservation organization are on record supporting the needed additional acre~ ages as recommended by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and heavily supported by other conservation groups as well as civic groups and individuals, to insure the continuance of an elk herd in the proposed Washakie Wilderness. We all know too well that in this rapidly shrinking world, those lands that were so worthless not too many years ago, our National Parks and Forests that were set aside by wise and far-sighted men, who fought long and hard to make them what they are today, are now being eye-balled by some industries as well as individuals out after the mighty dollar. They, who in no way consider the impact of their operations on the ecology of both wildlife and plants, other natural resources, recreation and waters, let alone the natural beauty which such operations scar and mar. Therefore please enter this let~ter into your hearing as our support to the addi- tion of the needed acreages to the Washakie Wilderness to insure our dwindling elk herd at least one small rampart against the encroachment of civilization and what we like to call modern progress, on what is now one of the least wanted frontiers left our wildlife in its escape and adjustment to civilization, from the rest of their natural environment which formerly included many of our western states. Yours sincerely, II. L. TREJ0, President. SEATTLE, WASH., February 21, 1968. Re Washakie Wilderness Proposal. Ron. FRANK CHURCH, Clvairnlan, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: We have had a summer place in Jackson, Wyoming, for twenty years~ I favor the addition to the Washakie Wilderness of East and West DuNoir Creek drainages. The case that Mr. Tom Bell makes for including these fringe effect areas, particularly when the elevations are so high and the timber of marginal mer- chantability, seems to me persuasive. I hope you will support an enlarged pro- posal, despite the Forest Service recommendation. Sincerely yours, PALMER SMITH. STATEMENT OF J. SUTTON MYERS, Dovrn, DEL. WASHAKIR WILDERNESS PROPOSAL The study groups that researched the problems and condition's that resulted in the establishment of th.e original Absaroka WilderneSs and the proposed boundaries to the Stratified Primitive Area are to be commended for their efforts. As is often the case, the original proposal fell short of the most desirable boundaries for wilderness areas, as expressed by later studies. These subsequent studies, mnde in more depth, are nearly unaminous in their opinion that the wilderness area should be larger than presently proposed. It was the intent of the PAGENO="0173" 165 wilderness concept that entire ecological areas be included, not just bare moun- tain sides or treeless meadows. It is vitally important that the valleys, side slopes and tops all be included in wilderness areas so that the full range of conditions in the various areas can be protected. It is necessary therefore that wooded areas, be they on thin soil rocky slopes or in protected valleys, be included, even though the trees might be of mer- cliantable size. It is also necessary to have a proper depth to the wilderness areas so that the full life conditions of vegetation and animal life can be protected and preserved. If the timber is removed from the slopes, then the thin top soil will also be lost, with resultant damage for many years to come. Thus, I concur with the various local conservation groups and others that rec- ommend that the present 5-2680, (11-13560) 189,024 acres be increased by 45,813 acres as proposed by the citizen groups, and the addition of 7,366 acres as sug- gested by the Forest Service, to make a total of 242,203 acres. The administration of this area of 242,203 acres should be combined with that of the adjacent Absaroka Wilderness Area of 483,130 acres for a total of 725,533 acres of unquestionable wilderness splendor. This is respectfully submitted to be included in the official hearings of this Wilderness hearing. SAN RAFAEL WILDERNESS PROPOSAL The Wilderness law specifically gives congress the right and authority to study the wilderness proposals as submitted by the Department of Interior and Agricul- ture, and others and to make final decisions on the wilderness proposals. This is the situation here, the first major test of the power of congress and that of the Forest Service. The Forest Service, as an agency of the government should be more amenable to the wishes of the public and congress, not indifferent, as at present. The suggested change, namely, a small but important 2200 acres addition shoii~d be included in the wilderness areas of the San Rafael proposal for the following and other reasons: a. It is scientifically significant, b. It is archeologically important, c. It is important to aid in preserving the Condor, d. It is not needed, as suggested by the Forest Service, for fire protection, as other nearby routes are available, just outside the suggested wilderness area. e. The inclusion of this area would aid in keeping the ridge free of major roads and thus more compatible to a wilderness concept. The statements by the Forest Service that their original plan is the only proper one and no others need to be considered is completely refuted by written and spoken records of knowledgeable people. The Congressional Record, for example, Dec. 5, pages, 11-16309 and 10 and also on Dec. 6, H-16396 to 400, records some of the very important reasons for inclusions of this additional 2200 acres to this wilderness area. I heartly concur and urge that the original 143,000 acres be increased by 2200 acres, S-889, as amended by the House. If the area is worth preserving at all, it surely is worthy of full and adequate protection. This is as recommended by many, including the Honorable Charles M. Teague, in whose district this area is situated. Above respectfully submitted to be included in the official hearings for this S-889, as amended by the House. MOUNT JEFFERSON WILDERNESS PROPOSAL Senators Hatfield and Morse of Oregon and the Forest Service are to be com- mended for their forsight in S-2751 to establish the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. One of the great problems of our wonderful country is respect to establishing Wilderness Areas, National Parks, preserving our natural heritage of unpolluted streams and lakes, is the inherent slowness of establishing and preserving these features. This need and the problem is admirably stated by Senator Gaylord Nel- son, of Wise. "While it is possible to postpone action in many fields of social responsibility without permanent damage, it is not possible to do so in the field of resource preservation. When any part of this asset is lost it is lost forever." With the very narrow confines of this proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area it is very necessary at this time, our last chance, to establish as large a PAGENO="0174" 166 wilderness area as possible. With this in mind, and noting how the available acre~ age has, shrunk with the Forest Service lack of action to designate part of the roadless and primitive area as part of the original Wilderness Area, as earlier recommended by Oregon conservationists, or even to withhold road building or logging in these areas until f~nal decision is made, it is necessary to act'now. rrbe Fores,t Service flagrant misuse of some of the lands under their manage- ment, as exemplified here by the road bujlding and logging and other actions in nreas that were known to he o4~ wllderness category and being considered for in- elusion official wilderness classification is, regarded as a blatant excerption of power and mismanagement of authority. This same charge has, unfortunately, been made at many other similar Wilderness Area proposals, and National Park study areas. For example, I quote from the North Cascades Study Report, Oct. 1965, page 41: "The Forest Service periodically is requested to suspend harvesting or declare a `moratorium' on timber sales in areas that various organizations or groups believe should be reserved from timber cutting for recreation or other rea- sons pending either Congressional or Secretarial resolution of an issue." Thus the situation is not new. It would appear that the Forest; Service method is to continue to disagree with the rising tide of conservation and to continue to cut and chop as if the forests were as easily renewable as a crop of crab grass, and to be equally oblivious to the scenic and esthetic values that are also necessary. This wanton, deliberate sabotage of wilderness values in this area is unfortunately also true in other areas under Forest Service administration, and must cease. This would be a good area to start, that Is to include these areas, as earlier rec~ ommended for wilderness consideration, knowing that the unnecessary road intrusion can be removed as required and the land left to rejuvinate back to the unspoiled wilderness as it should be. The proposed extensive mass recreation areas at Square and Marion lakes should be excluded as not being compatible to the intent of the wilderness area. There certainly are other areas where the masses can have water skiing and other similar activity without encroaching upon the wilderness areas. The timber here is also needed to round out the ecological balance of this wilderness area. Thus, as a summary, I strongly urge that this Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area be established with the addition of approximately 28,000 acres as proposed by several Oregon conservation groups, the Wilderness Society, and others. In the near future, full and complete wilderness protection should be sought by having hearings on protection of similar outstanding isolated mountain peaks, such as Adams, St. Helens, Three Sisters, Bailey, McLaughlin, in the Cascades, and others. Above respectfully submitted for Inclusion In the hearings on this Mount Jefferson Wilderness proposal, S. 2751. Senator CHURCH. I think now, at this time, I am going to adjourn the hearing until this afternoon at 2 o'clock, when we hope that it will be possible to complete the remaining witnesses and close the hearing on these three bills. The meeting will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:15 the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 2p.m.) AY~ER RECESS (`The committee reconvened `at 2:15 p.m., Senator Clifford P. Hansen presiding.) Senator HANSEN. The committee will please be in order. We are very pleased, indeed, to have the distinguished Senator from the State of Oregon here this afternoon. `Senator Morse, we would be very pleased to hear from you, sir. STATEMENT OP HON. WAYNE MORSE, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP OREGON Senator MORSE. Senator Hansen, I want to thank you very much for accommodating me. I could not be here this morning because of PAGENO="0175" 167 the Foreign Relations Committee hearings with Secretary of Defense McNamara, and, when I finish my brief testimony, I have to return to a continuation of those hearings this afternoon. I want to thank you very much for helping me make the record, for that is the primary purpose of these hearings, anyway. I am happy to appear before your committee in support of legisla- hon to designate the Mount Jefferson Wilderness in my State of Oregon. I am particularly pleased that the only remaining national forest primitive area in Oregon is receiving such early consideration under the Wilderness Act. The proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness will be a superb addition to the national wilderness preservation system. Mount Jefferson itself is one of the outstanding landmarks of the Cascade Range. Rising 10,497 feet above the sea, the peak is one of the many steep- sided volcanic cones that characterize this unique and strikingly scenic mountain range. Mount Jefferson is joined in the proposed wilderness by another remnant of the volcanic age-Three-Fingered Jack. This unusual peak is famous in the Cascade area for its three towering rock spires. The interior of the summit cone is an especially good example of the structure of the ancient, now quiet, volcanoes that dominate this region. The slopes and valleys that surround Mount Jefferson and Three- Fingered Jack are covered with lush vegetation, rushing streams, gentle, picturesque meadows, and many lakes and ponds. Other attrac- tions include active glaciers, lava flows, rocky cliffs and ledges, and bountiful fish and wildlife. One feature of the proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness that I especially like is its accessibility. This is a wilderness that many people can easily use and enjoy. Roads suitable for auto travel reach close to its borders. Portland, Salem, Albany, Eugene-Springfield, and Bend are all less than 150 miles away, and are cities whose people will enjoy the wilderness area, once established. This means that one can leave the teeming activity of these bustling cities in early morning and camp on the wild and quiet slopes of Mount Jefferson that same night. There are about 160 miles of hiking and riding trails to get in and about the wilderness. The Oregon Skyline Trail extends its entire length. Because it is so easy to reach, the proposed wilder- iiess is a favorite of Oregon's Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other youth groups. I commend the administration for its reasonableness in developing recommendations for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. I know this involved some hard decisions, because much of the Cascade Range region is timber country. Timber is the backbone of the local econ- omy and also is what makes the slopes of Cascade Mountain peaks so wild and beautiful, and worth preserving. I recognize that the proposed wilderness includes approximately 1.3 billion board feet of commercial timber, and that 61 percent of the area is classed as productive forest land. But the bulk of this timber has been set aside for just about 35 years as a part of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area. It has not been included in the allowable cut calculations for the national forests involved. I want to repeat that sentence, Mr. Chairman, because the comniit- tee is going to have points of view expressed in regard to this matter 91-953--68-------1 2 PAGENO="0176" 168 of timber resources and allowable cut, and so I want to say that the timber that is involved in this area has been set aside by our national forest administrators for 35 years, as a part of the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area. It has not been included in the allowable cut calcula- tions for the national forests involved. There are proposals and recommendations by some to include much more productive timberland in the proposed wilderness. I am sure that the present position I occupy, Mr. Chairman, is no novelty to you, for I am in the position where the timber people want more of allowable cut, and more land set aside for commercial timber rises; the wilderness people and other conservation groups, as I shall demonstrate shortly, want more set aside for more wilderness. I am confronted with a policy of our Government, based upon Federal statutes already on the books, that our national forests will be de- veloped and administered, and preserved and conserved, on a multiple- use basis, where we take into account timber resources, we take into account the recreatiorial resources that go along with wilderness areas, we take into account the matter of flood control, and all the other multiple purposes that are within the overall concept of multiple use of our forests. So the responsibility that rests on us, as Members of Congress, is to strike what we think is a balance in the interest of the overall general welfare of our people, dealing with limits of degree. How much are you going to set aside for commercial forest? How much are you going to set aside for wilderness? How much are you going to set aside for recreational areas that are not designated as wilderness areas, scenic areas? Giving a very brief comment about one of those areas involved be- fore your committee, before you get through with the final handling of the passage or modification of this bill you are going to have to consider the requests of these groups that have different objectives; but may I say to all of them, in behalf of all of them, they are not quarreling with the multiple-use concept. Timber people think that you can simply have good multiple use still cut more timber; the wilderness people think the opposite; and ~ then you have other groups in between. And so I say, there are proposals `and recommendations by some to include much more productive timberland in the proposed wilderness. But as the President's proposal now stands, the administration is within the multiple-use concept. I think that a good job has been done, as I have said, in blending economic and esthetic and intangible factors. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to enact this bill that will round out Oregon's contribution to the wilderness system. Oregon's contribution of the rugged and beautiful Mount Jefferson Wilderness will then be a valuable asset to the Nation for all time, for all gen- erations `to come. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am not saying today that this bill could not be improved by amendments. I haven't had an amendment submitted to me yet that I think, on my present knowledge, overcomes the prima facie case that has been made to date in support o~f the bill. PAGENO="0177" 169 I wouldn't have introduced the bill if I didn't think it represented a prima facie case. But I want to say that the Forest Service is at the present time pr& paring a study now for a proposed 1,596-acre Marion Lake Scenic Area, in recognition of the recreational and scenic importance of Marion Lake Scenic Area, and the importance of the scenic value of Marion Lake. The scenic area would include recreation facilities such as tables, grills, water systems, sanitation installations, boat ramps, and storage. No roads would be constructed in the scenic area, motorized vehicles would not be allowed on access trails, and use of motor-boats on Marion and Ann Lakes would be phased out. At Square Lake and Long Lake, road access and campgrounds are planned by the Forest Service. I want to say that I am not going to prejudge this question, as to whether or not these should be the boundaries or some other boundaries should be instituted for these boundaries. All I am testifying to today is that, as one who has the responsibility I have, and as one who, as I have already said, is in the middle as far as the conflicting recommendations of various groups are concerned, I did not offer this bill until I came to the conclusion that a strong prima facie case has been made for it. Now, in regard to Marion, Square, and Long Lakes, the wilderness people and the conservationists generally would like to have them included in the wilderness area. They would like to modify the bounda- ries. I am sure you probably have already had testimony, and I am sorry I haven't had the opportunity to familiarize myself with it, but as your map up there in the blue areas shows, there are those that want to include that blue area in the boundaries of this wilderness area. They point out, for example, that at the throat of the area, there around Pamelia Lake, a horizontal line across there is only about 3 miles. They don't think that is wide enough for a wilderness area. They may be right. They may be able, by a preponderance of the evi- dence, to justify an extension of it. I want to say to them on this record, as I have said to them as they talked to me personally-and I have talked to all of these groups- if you can get this bill adopted, if you can get this area set out for a wilderness area, you have accomplished a great deal for future gen- erations of Oregon boys and girls, and boys and girls across this coun- try, of having that much within a wilderness area. The conservationists would prefer that Marion, Square, and Long Lakes not be in scenic areas, as the Forest Service presently contem- plates, and is preparing a study for extending its scenic area to that particular area of the range. They would like to have those lakes in the wilderness area. What is the position of the senior Senator? The position of the senior Senator is that I want them at least in scenic areas. I want at least to have them put into scenic areas to befit the pattern for a multiple-use purpose. I don't want to see the timber cut off around them. We all have adequate timber supplies out there in other areas that will not involve the despoiling of a range such as this that I think is especially suitable for three types of areas: (1) The wilderness area that Senator Hatfield and my bill talks about, (2) the scenic areas, and PAGENO="0178" 170 (3) the recreational areas. I hope that, and I know you will, if you modify the boundaries of it, you will modify them on the basis of the clear proof that you can justify an expansion of the area. I am more concerned about going the other way. I am more con- cerned about the proposals that would seek to deny us in perpetuity this area as encompassed in the bill for wilderness area, and deny us the so-called fringe area for scenic areas and recreational areas. I would be less than honest if I didn't tell this committee quite frankly you are going to have strong and vigorous points of view presented on both sides. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will take your questions. Senator ANDERSON (presiding). Senator Hansen, do you have any questions? Senator HANSEN. Let me thank you, Senator Morse, for a very able presentation. I compliment you. I have no questions. Senator MORSE. Thank you, Senator. Senator ANDERSON. I heard you say that you were not talking about boundaries. You will have some comments about that later on? Senator MORSE. That is right. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much, Senator Morse. Mr. George Alderson. STATEMENT OP GEORGE ALDERSON, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. ALDERSON. I am George Alderson, of 323 Maryland Avenue NE., in Washington, D.C. Having been a resident of Oregon during the early proceedings on the Mount Jefferson Wilderness proposal, I would like to support the proposals of the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs which have been made at this hearing. The Mount Jefferson area, in its proximity to the growing metro- politan area of the Willamette Valley, and in its geographic handi- caps, presents special problems in defining a practical boundary. The ease of access to the areas of visitor concentration, such as Jefferson Park, Marion Lake, and Pamelia Lake, promotes a high degree of recreational use, but also creates a threat of overuse which could seri- ously impair the resource. This has already been noted, particularly at Jefferson Park. The narrowness of the wilderness as proposed by the Forest Service, furthermore, tends to favor deterioration of the area's wilderness values through failure to protect the forested approaches. These principles were supported at the Forest Service field hearing by the distinguished Maryland conservationist and former Oregonian, Grant Conway. Because he was unable to attend this Interior Com- mittee hearing, Mr. Conway asked me to present some of his com- ments, which are based on several decades' experience with Mount Jefferson. In his statement for the Forest Service hearing record, he said: Only by extending the wilderness area boundaries can the wilderness qualities of the Mount Jefferson region be protected from the over-use to which it has been subjected. He remarked that this overuse goes back a long time and has done severe harm to the Jefferson Park area: The flora and fauna of this narrow valley, spanning the divide of the Cascade Range, has been altered by heavy use by man because of its easy accessibility. PAGENO="0179" 171 As early as the 1930's, the grassy meadows surrounding Russell and smaller alpine lakes suffered from the easy access by way of the road to Breitenbush Lake. Even in those years the lupine and Indian paint brush were trampled by horses and hikers, and campers left a residue of tin cans and other trash around the campsites. In addition, the scarcity of firewood was beginning to take its toll on the scattering of stunted trees bordering the lakes. In recent years the con- struction pf logging roads up the valley of Whitewater Creek have made it possible to reach Jefferson Park and return in an easy day's walk. If Mr. Conway's statement, dated November 21, 1966, is not among the materials submitted to the Interior Committee by the Forest Serv- r ice, then I request that it be incorporated in the record of this hearing L as a part of my statement. It is my hope that the committee will act to include the additions recommended by the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, establish- mg an integrated Mount Jefferson Wilderness which will be capable of preservation. (Mr. Conway's letter follows:) BROOKMONT, MD., November 21, 1966. Mr. J. HERBERT SToNE, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg. DEAR Mn. STONE: Your proposal to reclassify the Mount Jefferson Primitive Areas as the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area and make it a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System is a good one, and you are to be commended for recommending a net increase over the present size of the Primitive Area of 10,417 acres, thereby providing additional protection for the wilderness. However, the question arises as to whether this increase is sufficient to protect this small strip of wilderness in the years ahead. The Primitive Area has proven too small to protect its wilderness "core." Too easy access has upset the fragile ecological balance around many of the alpine lakes. The proposed Wilderness Area is a small enclave of 95,450 acres-only 12 miles square-in the midst of the vast Cascade Mountains. The reclassification stage is the opportune time to provide buffer zones to help protect this beautiful alpine region in the years to come when the pressure for outdoor recreation from an expanding population with more leisure time will be even greater. Jefferson Park, an alpine valley hanging from the north side of Mount Jefferson, is a unique scenic and geological attraction. The flora and fauna of this narrow valley, spanning the divide of the Cascade Range, has been altered by heavy use by man because of its easy accessibility. As early as the 1930's, the grassy mea- dows surrounding Russell and smaller alpine lakes suffered from the easy access by way of the road of Breitenbush Lake. Even in those years the lupine and Indian paint brush were trampled by horses and hikers, and campers left a residue of tin cans and other trash around the campsites. In addition, the scarcity of firewood was beginning to take its toll on the scattering of stunted trees bordering the lakes. In recent years the construction of logging roads up the valley of Whitewater Creek have made it possible to reach Jefferson Park and return in an easy day's walk. It was my privilege to walk from the Chemeketan Cabin on Whitewater Creek near the Junction with the North Santiam River to Jefferson Park and return before the destructive logging. For protection of this area's wilderness values, the following actions are recommended: 1. Closing of the logging roads along Whitewater Creek for public use and setting aside a buffer zone for protection and regeneration (a principle proposed by the National Park Service in Great Smoky Mountains National Park) to include the Whitewater Creek watershed, including the tributary of Cheat Creek and its headwaters in Wildcheat Meadow as far west as Route 22 and southward to the Marion Lake Road, and closing to the public other spur roads leading from Route 22. 2. Extending the proposed west boundary at Route 22 and Whitewater Creek northward, following ridges when possible, to Breitenbush Hot Springs on the North Fork of the Breiterhish River, and thence following the Brel- PAGENO="0180" 172 tenbush Lake Road eastward to the lake and thence southward to the inter- section with the proposed northern boundary of the wilderness area. As well as being a buffer, the extended line, as herein proposed, would protect the upper watersheds of the North and South Forks of the Breintenbush River and Firecanip Lakes. 3. Including Marion Lake and the remaining areas which the Forest Serv- ice proposes designating as a scenic area in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. Motorboating on the lake would not preclude its inclusion as an existing use, and it would be hoped that motorboating could be phased out over a specified period. Motorboats are not necessary for safety purposes on a lake of the size of Marion, and Corps of Engineers dams on nearby rivers provide adequate water nurface for motorboat recreation 4. In the southern part of the proposed wilderness area proposed by the Forest Service, extending the far west boundary southward to its intersection with the fork of Routes 20 and 22 and thence using Route 20 as the southern boundary of the proposed Wilderness Area continuing eastward until a point south of Round Lake is reached and thence northward to include Round Lake, bi~t excluding the loop road to the east, and thence to a point where the head~ waters of First Creek and the revised boundary as proposed by the Forest Service coincide and thence following the revised boundary on the eas;t side northward until Breitenbush Lake is reached. The boundaries proposed herein would result in a Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area of approximately 162,000 acres. Only by extending the wilderness area boundaries can the wilderness qualities of the Mount Jefferson Region be protected from the over use to which it has been subjected. The proposed boundaries should accomplish this purpose. It was my privilege to enter this area from several sides before the heavy use of recent years, camp at some of the geometrical lakes, and explorer for artifacts in Minto Pass where the Molalla and Cayuse Indians were twice engaged. Entering Jefferson Park from the north in earlier years was an unforgetable experience. A Wilderness experience which I hope will be possible for others was camping in the amphitheater above Santiam Lake, listening to the weird howling of the coyotes in the moonlight and following the far apart footprints of the mountain lion ascending the south ridge of Three Fingered Jack, a familiar silhouette from our home east of the Cascades (luring World War I and before. Protection was not provided Suttle and Blue Lakes southeast of the proposed Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. I can remember entering Suttle Lake by a dusty Forest Service road winding through tall ponderosa pine, about 45 years ago, bushwhacking up Link Creek and reaching Blue Lake. From floating drift- wood logs at the outlet huge lake trout could be seen in the crystal clear water. There were several bald eagle nests around the lake, and the eagles were fre- quently seen flying and diving in the shallow water of Suttle Lake. Driving along Route 20 in the late 1950's, I was shocked to look down on these desolate looking, sand surrounded, unshaded lakes. We did not stop. If these nearby alpine lakes are not provided protection, future generations may not know a pristine mountain lake. Sincerely yours, GRANT CONWAY. Senator ANDERSON. Frank C. Daniel. STATEMENT OP FRAN1~ C. DANIEL, SECRETARY, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OP AMERICA Mr. DANIEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Frank Daniel. I am secretary of the National Rifle Association of America. My statement is in support of S. 2630. It is necessarily repeti- tive of much that has been said over and over yesterday and today. In the interest of saving time, I would ask permission to introduce my statement for the record, and then comment only briefly. Senator ANDERSON. Before you start, are you speaking in behalf of the National Rifle Association? PAGENO="0181" 173 Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Go ahead. Mr. DANIEL. The National Rifle Association of America, a sports- men's organization of close to 950,000 members, speaks for a fairly large segment of the users of the public land. We would like to associ- ate ourselves with the other national conservation organizations that have testified here in support of bill S. 2630. Our prepared statement is directed solely at S. 2630. However, we would like, for the record, to associate ourselves with Wildlife Man- agement Institute, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, and others in support of 5. 2531 and 5. 2751, the other two bills subject of this hearing. Mr. Chairman, we would like to commend the Forest Service for the excellent planning and the leadership they have given in this area. We think it is a tremendous service to. the people of this country. Specifically, in connection with S. 2630, it is our opinion that the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission have uncommonly well docu- mented and prepared their recommendations to this committee, recom- mendations that we feel have a great deal of merit, and which have been supported here by the sportsmen and conservation groups within the State of Wyoming. We urge that the committee give careful con- sideration to the recommendations of the State of Wyoming. I would only say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that we are com- pletely confident that when the record is complete, the committee will make the decisions that will in the long run be best for everybody. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to appear. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen, any questions? Senator HANSEN. I have no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. We have your full statement in the record, and is there anything in this bill that worries the present conservation society? Mr. DANIEL. I beg your pardon, sir? Senator ANDERSON. If this is classified as wilderness, are you satis- fled with the ordinary definition of wilderness? Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. There is wilderness area out there now; is there not? Mr. DANIEL. I believe that is correct; yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. How would you change it? Mr. DANIEL. Well, as I understand it, Senator, this bill adds to the wilderness area in certain highly desirable instances. It sets aside an additional area to be preserved as wilderness that is not now preserved. Senator ANDERSON. Do you understand once it is put in a wilderness area, it is permanently locked up for awhile? Mr. DANIEL. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. I just wanted to be real sure about it. Mr. DANIEL. We feel very strongly that the time to act is now. That if certain of these areas are not preserved now, they can never be pre- served, and we feel it is highly to be desired. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much. Mr. DANIEL. Thank you, sir. (The statement referred to follows:) PAGENO="0182" 174 STATEMENT or FRANK 0. DANIEL, SECRETARY, NATIONAL RIFLE AssoCIATION OF AMERICA Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association of America is highly pleased to be given the opportunity to appear before this Committee in support of S. 2630 sponsored by the distinguished Committee Chairman to designate the Stratified Primitive Area as a part of the Wasbakie Wilderness heretofore known as the South Absaroka Wilderness, Shoshone National Forest, in the state of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, numbered among the 900,000 members of the National Rifle Association are many sportsmen who are deeply concerned with the administra- tion, preservation and multiple use of our public domain. We are delighted to add our voice in support of this important legislation which will add to the Stratified Primitive Area established in 19~2, added to in 1951 comprising some 203,930 acres and located in the Shosbone National rorest. The proposal that 188,358 acres of this primitive area and 4,768 acres of adjacent unclassified National Forest land, all within the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming, be added to the National Wilderness Preservation System, and that these 193,126 acres of National Forest land be combined with the existing South Absaroka Wilderness Area is a logical development under the terms of the Wilderness Act. The entire area would be nathed the Washakie Wilderness Area and encompass some 676,256 acres. We understnd that this wild area of broad, flat-topped mountains and plateaus cut by deep narrow valleys formed of the eruptive material from the volcanic area of Mount Washburn in Yellowstone National Park and Lava Mountain at the head of Wind River, is an area of seclusion and unspoiled charm which naturally abounds in wildlife including all the native Rocky Mountain species, both large and small, including important populations of elk, deer and moose. We would go further and concur in the recommendations made by the respon- sible authorities of the state of Wyoming. We too believe that the Wasbakie Wilderness Area should be forever opened to public hunting and fishing in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations, except during temporary periods when co-operative administrative closures to recreational use may be necessary for the preservation of the area and public safety. Further, that the sovereign and constitutional right of the state of Wyoming to manage, regulate, harvest, and propagate all ftsh and wildlife species be recognized by the United States Government and agencies thereof. Further, that the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission be authorized and allowed to continue all fisheries and game management practices presently carried out under e~isting state and federal law. Based on the foregoing, we believe that the Wyoming Game and Fish Com- mission's position that the area boundaries be established at the base of the escarpments rather than on the high rims is a sound one. Possibly the greatest issue at stake regarding wildlife on and adjacent to the proposed Washakie Wilderness is the development of road systems in heretofore undisturbed areas which would occur if logging operations are permitted in the several areas not included in the original bill, but which would be included if the boundaries were placed at the base of the escarpments as proposed by the responsible officials of the state of Wyoming. Increased vehicular access to the area would seriously reduce the potential for elk habitat by restricting summer distribution at lower elevations and inter- fering with the herd on their natural calving ground during the summer. For this reason, we ask the Committee to amend the act to include the small additional areas recommended by the state of Wyoming into the Washakie Wilderness. Again, Mr. Chairman, may I express our appreciation for the opportunity to present this brief statement in support of S. 2630 and ask that my remarks be made part of the offlci~l record of proceedings of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Quigley, will you come forward ~ STATEMENT OP JAMES M. QUIGLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, SPECIAL RELATIONS, U.S. PLYWOOD~CBAMPION PAPERS, INC. Mr. QUICLEY. Mr. Chair:man, I am James M. Quigley. I am vice president for special relations of US. Plywood-Champion Papers. It PAGENO="0183" ` 175 is a pleasure, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for me to be here today. Although I have appeared before many committees of the Congress in the past, I am here today in a new capacity, and I would like, if I could, Mr. Chairman, to preface my testimony with the observation that my new role is reflective of a changing attitude in the American business community. My responsibilities with U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers includes not only activities in my familiar fields of air and water pollution control, but in the general area of conservation. American industry generally, and U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers specifically, has a real and abiding interest in the best possible con- servation practices. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, as a corporate citizen of the State of Wyoming, U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers is pleased to endorse the U.S. Forest Service proposal for the Washakie wilderness as submitted to this committee. We believe that the Forest Service proposal for the establishment of the Washakie Wilderness Area, if ratified by the Congress, will assure the State of Wyoming and the people of the United States the benefits in perpetuity of one of Nature's unspoiled masterpieces. We urge this committee to take prompt and positive action on this proposal. Mr. Chairman, as you are all well aware, numerous suggested changes by way of additions to or deletions from the proposed Wa- shakie Wilderness Area have been advanced, and will be considered by this committee. Each of these has been evaluated by the Forest Service after hearing public testimony pro and eon. The professional judgments of the Forest Service are reflected in the proposal now before you. We believe that the Forest Service has reached valid con- clusions as to what properly belongs in the Washakie Wilderness Area. Nevertheless, each of the proposals to include or exclude acreage de- serves serious and sober consideration by this committee. To a con- siderable extent the Congress will be guided by your recommenda- tions in this matter and the ultimate congressional decision will have long-range implications for both the beauty and the prosperity of a vast area in central Wyoming. A wise decision now, Mr. Chairman, will go a long way to guarantee both. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on two suggested areas for the Washakie Wilderness Area, the two that have been dis- cussed most of the time by most of the witnesses before this com- mittee yesterday and today. I am referring to the area known as Bear Creek, designated as area D, in the Forest Service report, and the area known as DuNo~ir Creek Drainage Basin, designated as area J, on the same map, in the same report. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, neither area D nor area J can be properly included in any soundly conceived and soundly established wilderness area. Both of these, I submit1 Mr. Chairman, are precluded by the definition of what constitutes a wilderness in section 2(c) of the Wildevriess Act as approved by Congress in 1964. Mr. Chairman, neither the DuNoir nor the Bear Creek Basin qualify as "an area of Federal land retaining its primeval character and in- fluence without ,permanent improvements or habitation." No amount of wishing it were `otherwise can change `the fact that the DuNoir PAGENO="0184" 176 Valley was logged in the 1920's and 1930's, leaving a network of old logging roads. By no stretch of the imagination can the DuNoir area be deemed "untrammeled by man," the essential requirement which must be met for an area to qualify under the Wilderness Act. The Bear Creek Basin is similar in makeup and, while it has no prior history of logging, it has long since lost much of its primeval `character. it has been penetrated, as has been brought out in the testi- mony yesterday and today, by a road and the usual developing jeep trails. The urging for the addition of the DuNoir and Bear Creek Basins in the W~a~h'akie Wilderness appearsto be based on an und~rstandable desire `to protect the big game habitat and especially the elk herds found in the `area. Mr. Chairman, this worthwhile objective can and should be accomplished but I submit that the way to' this worthy end is not to be found in the distortion of the Wilderness Act. As i's borne out in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, Public Law 86-517 of June 12, 1960, wilderness status is not `a prerequisite of good game management. Critical game management areas can effectively be pro- tected by judicious access `and harvesting operations. We `are not aware of any scientific info'rn~atiom which would indicate `that land w'hich is properly administered under the full multiple-use concept will damage big game habitat. Certainly, as has been brought `ou't by a number of witnesses, the existence of a road system in the Jackson Hole area of Wyoming seem's not to have had an `adverse impact on the concentra- tion of big game, including elk. In summary, we are supporting the Forest Service recommenda- tion for the makeup of t'he Wa'shakie Wilderness because we believe that it is scientifically, as well as leg~lJy, s~u~d. In exercisi~ag your power of review, we are confident that this committee will come to the same basic conclusion. The establishment of the Washakie Wilderness along the lines outlined in the Forest Service report will assure not only the preservation of a precious natural resource in its still undis- turbed primeval character, it will at the same time promote sound con- servation practices and equally sound economic development in the area. Despite any past tragic history to the contrary, we know now that these seemingly conflicting purposes are not mutually exclusive. Senator ANDERSON. You then support the recommendations of the Forest Service? Mr. QUIOLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman; this is our position and our rec- ommendation. Senator ANDERSON. Has it been proposed in any bill that these other lands be added? Mr. Quiar~y. Mr. Chairman, I am not so sure I heard you. Senator ANDERSON. Senator McGee has offered such a bill. Mr. QUIGLEY. I believe Senator McGee has suggested some possible addition, including the additions of the areas J and D that I had reference to in my prepared statement. We agree with the Forest Service, that this is not a sound recom- mendation, and that because one of the areas was logged over in the past, because a road exists in the other area along the ~eep trail, we feel that, any other considerations aside, that these areas are not primeval in character, and as such, however beautiful they may be, whatever steps should be taken to preserve and protect their scenic PAGENO="0185" 177 value, and their recreational potential, we do not feel that they qualify as wilderness under the definition in the Wilderness Act, and for this reason, suggest and urge that the committee do not include them in its final version of the bill. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before Mr. Quigley finishes his testimony before this committee, there is a matter related to the Washakie Wilderness legislation that I want to clear up, if Ican. Mr. Quigley, it has been reported to me, both in writing and verbally, that Mr. Emery Tomlinson, manager of the Teton Division, U.S. Ply- wood-Champion Papers, Inc., based in Riverton, Wyo., made certain statements to other Wyoming citizens concerning my role in the Washakie Wilderness proposal now pending `before this committee. I can't verify whether Mr. Tomlinson did or did not make these state- ments for, of course, I did not hear them personally. I am not telling you, therefore, that Mr. Tomlinson did or did not make these statements, but I must tell you in this public hearing that there are a sufficient number of people in Wyoming who now claim that the statements were made to cause me great concern. As a former Congressman, I am sure you can appreciate the fact that legislation pending before the Congress must be responsibly and ob- jectively considered by all interested parties. To cloud this considera- tion with inflammatory rumor, no matter how unfounded, would per- vert the proper exercise of our constitutional government. I can't fulfill my responsibilities to the people of Wyoming, and to the U.S. Senate, under the present cloud of rumor surrounding this legislation. Therefore, let me ask you, Mr. Qui~ley, to your knowledge, did the corporation which you are representing here today, .or did any em- ployees, officers, or representatives of that corporation, at any time, seek to influence by any improper or illegal means my views on the Washakie Wilderness legislation which is now pending before this committee today? Mr. QUIGLEY. Senator, the answer to your question is an unqualified Now, these hearings, up to this point, have been characterized by a judicial calm. This is the way they should be. However, we are all aware that in the Dubois area of Wyoming, the proposed Washakie Wilderness has been a highly emotional issue. I will simply say we re- gret, whether anything was said in jest or in the heat of argument, or however, if any employee of U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers said anything that could be construed by anyone as impinging in any way on your integrity, and in the process, I suppose, impinge on our own integrity, so Senator, I deeply regret anything that was said, if it was said, or anything that has been rumored to have been said. I trust that it has not caused you too much embarrassment, though I appreciate that a public official has little but his integrity going for him, and any impingement of that integrity is bound to be a source of great pain and embarrassment. So, I say again, that we regret if anything was said that could have in any way been interpreted by anyone as an impingement on your integrity. May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate this op- portunity to set the record straight, and to do it on the record. PAGENO="0186" 178 Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. Senator ANDERSON. Let me say that I have been acquainted not very long with this distinguished Senator, but I would jump in to say that he is a very fine person, `a very excellent person, `a man of integrity, whom all of us trust and appreciate being on this committee. I think I am the oldest surviving member of the Interior Commit- tee, and I have been happy to have the Senator on the committee. I was very happy to have Senator Hansen come on the committee, and to work along with him. He is a very fine person. Mr. QUIGLEY. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that my acquaintance with Senator Hansen is very recent and very pleasant, but I know of nothing in his public or private performance that would in any way justify any kind of suggestion that he was or could be influenced by any improper motives or forces. I deeply regret that the emotions which apparently did get out of hand in some of the public and private dis- cussions of this issue in the Dubois area reached the point where state- ments attributed to one or more of our employees did not cast either TJ.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, or the Senator, in a very kind or pleasant light. This is most unfortunate. I would hope that with this exchange, we can set the record straight. And I would hope that whatever deci- sion is made-I won't say hope, I know whatever decision this com- mittee makes will be made on the facts and on the record. Whatever decision is to be made should be made only in that basis. This is the way we want it. On the basis of my experience with the Congress and with this committee, I am confident that this is the way it will be, and should be. Senator ANDERSON. I am happy to have your statement. I always realize that we people in public life have a pretty rough road once in awhile. In a recent campaign, I was designated as a person who was going to die within 3 or 4 months. I have outlived the time already now, and I hope maybe to live a little bit more. By the way, off the record. (Brief discussion off the record.) Senator ANThERSON. I did want to comment also on roads in the wild- erness areas. I hope we won't be inclined to decide that one single road can destroy a wilderness. Nature probably will re-cover such a small mark and as long as most of `the values are there for wilderness status, the area should be preserved. I have been very much interested in the Qua Wilderness in New Mexico. There might have been a little road in there at one time but it does not hurl `the area. Let's not bar the primitive areas entirely because some little road has been `built. Mr. Qmonn~. Well, as Senator Morse indicated previously, this is the tough assignment of this committee. The tough assignment that the Congress has reserved to itself, under the Wilderness Act, is to make these vaiue judgments. They are not easy. They do, as Senator Morse and others have in- dicated, involve conflicting interests, conflicting attitudes, conflicting sets of values. What this committee must do, and I am confident it will do, is to consider all of the arguments, all of the positions, including that of U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, but considering all of the other points of view, and then make a value judgment as to what should be included in the Washakie Wilderness area. We believe that PAGENO="0187" 179 the Forest Service has come in with a sound recommendation, and we urge the committee to seriously consider it. To use Senator Morse's words, I think they have made out a prima facie case in their submission and in their report to this committee. Perhaps I am prejudiced, though I don't believe so, but I don't believe that I heard any persuasive testimony, sitting here yesterday and today, that would cause me to come to a contrary conclusion. But this is not my responsibility; this is the judgment that has to be made by the individual members of this committee. We are confident that you will make that decision on the record. liVhatever that judgment is, as corporate citizens of the State of Wy- oming, we will abide by it. And, as individuals, I am sure we and our children will continue to be blessed by the decision to have a wilderness in the Washakie area. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much. Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. I have no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Quiou~r. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Vern Vivion. STATEMENT OP VERN VIVION, COCHAIRMAN, WYOMING PUBLIC LAND USERS COORDINATING COMMITTEE Mr. VIvION. Mr. Chairman, I do have two additional pieces of testi- mony I would like to have entered into the record. One is from the Wyoming Wool Growers, and one is for the Wy~. oming Stock Growers. I am going to attempt to combine two of them into one statement. Senator ANDERSON. You wish to include the other statements in full. Mr. VIvION. Yes. Senator ANDERSON. Without objection that will be done. Mr. VIvION. Thank you very much. I am Vern Vivion, cochairman of the Wyoming Public Land Users Coordinating Committee. This committee is composed of members of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association and Wyoming Wool Grow- ers Association using public lands in Wyoming. The Wyoming Stock Growers and the Wyoming Wool Growers join together in support of 5. 2630, which would transfer the status of the Stratified Primitive Area in Shoshone National Forest to the national wilderness preservation system, with full recognition that livestock grazing shall be permitted to continue according to the Wilderness Act. We feel that grazing is the utilization of a recurring natural resource which would be wasted and become a fire hazard if not used, and it is compatible with recreation and all other beneficial uses in a wilderness area. Let me emphasize here that domestic livestock have been per- mitted in the proposed area since 1902. It is with pride that we, as live- stock producers, can point to the statement of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the Washakie Wilderness Area, wherein they state, "There has been no apparent conflict between commercial grazing use and the elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep which forage here." This is noteworthy because it points up the fact that after some 60 years of livestock grazing use, the area still possesses the qualities that are sought in what we are choosing to call wilderness lands. PAGENO="0188" 180 There are 1,495 cattle and 6~800 sheep permitted to graze in this area~ SineeI~ arn~not ~one of'the permittees~ I feel free to brag a little on the high-quality cooperative use and management that this area ex- emplifies. In the existing primitive area, animals which prey upon wildlife and livestock have been controlled. We urge that this be continued in the wilderness area to enhance the management of wild game and livestock. Uncontrolled predators will drive the game animals and livestock to perimeter areas which could force an overutilization of surrounding lands. We support the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area plan, which was originally outlined by the U.S. Forest Service, and we recognize its value; however, we would oppose the inclusion of additional lands which would materially enlarge the present primitive area. We feel that enough public land has been designated as "wilderness area" in the West and especially Wyoming. We would like to remind the committee that, once an area is locked up in a "wilderness" designation, this can mean that only a few "privi- leged" persons will ever be able to see or enjoy the beauty of the area. The severe restrictions placed on access to wilderness areas alone have much to do with making travel through these areas extremely slow and expensive. The items of time and cost necessarily eliminate the use of these areas to the mass of our general public. Finally, we urge this committee, and ultimately the Forest Service, to be most cognizant of the extremely important role these lands con- tribute to the production of our Nation's food and fiber, and respect- fully submit that the multiple-use principle is the greatest good for the greatest numbers. Thank you, sir. Senator ANDERSON. You support the Forest Service proposal, then? Mr. VIVI0N. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. All right. Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. Mr. Vivion, where is your home? Mr. VIvIoN. I live in Rawlins, Wyo., Senator. Senator HANSEN. Are you a user of any national forest areas? Mr. VIvIoN. Yes, we are. Senator HANSEN. What areas? Mr. VIVION. The Medicine Bow National Forest, in southern Wyo- ming. Senator HANSEN. Is there any wilderness within that Medicine Bow forest? Mr. VIvIoN. There is no designated wilderness area in the Medicine Bow National Forest. Senator HANSEN. Any primitive areas? Mr. VrvIoN. I think not. Senator HANSEN. Have you been over this primitive area that is be- ing proposed for inclusion in the wilderness system in northwestern Wyoming, the area we are talking about here this afternoon? Mr. VIVION. Quite a number of years ago, and at that time I wasn't aware of whether it was being designated as a "wilderness `area," and' so as to the exact and specific areas, I am certainly not familiar with, them, Senator. PAGENO="0189" 181 Senat0r~HANSEN. Yes. And by speakiug for the Wyoming Public Land U~ers Coordinating Cohimittee; yo~p~ethk~both for the Wybfnuiig Stock Growers and the Wyoming WoOl Growers Associations? Mr. VIvIoN. Yes. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much. Mr. VIvIoN. I might add that there was indication, and of course, always being concerned about Wyoming, I was concerned about some remarks that were made this morning, about Wyoming not being con- cerned about its water going to some other States. I think the people in Wyoming, if I might say this, Senator and Mr. Chairman, would be quite concerned about ever losing its water to some other State. I just throw this in because some misunderstanding might have hap- pened thi~s morning. Thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Vivion. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF VEEN VIVION, PRESIDENT, WYOMING WOOL GRowERs ASSOCIATION The Wyoming Wool Growers Asisoc4ati'on, which represents over 1200 sheep- producing families, during it's 61st Annual Convention held in Riverton, Wyo- ming November 13-14, 1964, adopted the following resolution: "We oppose the further withdrawal of public lands for the extension of wilder- ness areas ~and national parks. Moi~e than enough wiiderp~ss areas exist in `the West. The principle of multiple use should apply to all public lands." Now to be more specific, `as the Associ'ation'ts policy and position relates to the proposed Washakie Wilderness in the `S'hoshone National Forest, we note that grazing `of domestic livestock has been permitted in the proposed area since 1902, and as stated in the brochure published by the Forest Service, United StatCs De- partment of Agriculture, announcing the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area... "There has been no apparent conflict between commercial grazing use and the elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep which forage here." We also note from the brochure that nine sheep allotments are located within the proposed boundary and that in 1965, this amounted to 11,900 sheep mouths. This is noteworthy because it points~up the fact that after some 60 years of other uses `the area still passes the qualities that are sought `in what we are choosing to call wilderness lands. We do not oppose the proposed Was'h'akie Wilderness Area Plan as `outlined by the U.S. Forest Service, in fact, we recognize its value; however, we would oppose the inclusion of additional lands which would materially enlarge `the present primitive area. The Wyoming Wool Growers Association feels enough public land has been designated as Wilderness Area in the West and especially Wyoming. In addition to this, the Association i's `deeply concerned, and m~st justifiably, because regulations will not permit predator control in Wilderness Area's. If `sheepmen are denied, by regulation, `the right to protect `their livestock, even- tually their only alternative `is to rem'ove the livestock, which in essence will eliminate sheep grazing in the Wilderness Areas. The alternative would then be to utilize the foothill private lands more inten- sively to sustain a profitable liv'Os'to'ck operation. What d'o I mean by more inten- sive use of private land's'? I'm `talking about timber extraction. I'm talking about safe-brush spraying. I'm talking about pesticide spraying. I'm talking about plow- ing the land for greater production. I fea'r that a more intensivb u'sie `of these pri- vate foothill lands could very well have a detrimental effect on the wild game that `depend on these base private lands for `their fall, winter an'd spring grazing. Now, back to why we are concerned about predator control. The Wyoming Department of Agriculture `and `the United States Department of Agriculture reported in their annual sheep loss for Wyoming in 1966 that over 118,400 head `of sheep were lost to predators. These sheep were valued at $1,682,000. Phe largest loss was from coyotes, which killed 82,200 head valued at slightly over $1 million. These losses contribute t'o the increased cost of pro'duction and finally effect the cos't of meat to the housewife in the market `place. PAGENO="0190" 182 In summary, the Wyoming Wool Grower~ Association opposes any extension of the proposed Washakie Wilderness area for the following reasons: 1. There now exist in Wyoming enough areas of land designated as Wilderness Area. 2. Wilderness Areas, because of the restrictions on predator control, serve as a breeding area for coyotes which move into sheep ranges to seek and destroy and., thus, `have caused and will cause more Wyoming sheepmen to go out of the wool growing industry, thus causing an adverse effect on the many communities in Wyoming. Therefore, we urge the Forest Service to be most cognizant of the extremely important role the lands they administer contrIbute to the production of our nation's food and fiber, and respectfully submit that the multiple use principle is the greatest good for the greatest mun~ber. STATEMENT OT THE WYOMING STOCK Gzownas ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman: The Wyoming Stock Growers Association ha's a membership of about 2500 ranchers located in the State of Wyoming. Many of these ranchers graze their livestock on the high mountain ranges in the summer months. Although grazing, where already established, `is allowed in Wilderness Areas, we have always been somewhat fearful that multiple use groups that are imterested in preservation rather than utilization of our natural resources, might bring enough pressure to bear to cause the elimination of grazing from Wilderness Areas sometime in the future. Our Association has gone on record as not objecting to the original Wiashakie Wilderness proposal, which would transfer the status of this area from "Primitive" to Wilderness. We feel that grazing l's the utilization of a recurring natural resource which would be wasted and `become a fire hazard if not used, and it is compatible with recreation and all other beneficial uses in a Wilderness Area. However, we are not in favor of any expansion of the area beyond the confines of the original Primitive `designation `of thus Washakie Area. The original land (lies high on the mountain range and Includes lands that are only usable for summer grazing permits. If any expansion were grani~ed we contend that lands would then be included that are now being used for fall and early spring grazing and could possibly include some areas that would be considered ranch headquarter lands. We also feel that only very limited areas of our forest lands should be "locked up" in Wilderness classification because we must remain interested in the future development of our natural resources to their fullest economic and practical level. The Wyoming Stock Growers Association believes that Wyoming will have sufficient areas of Wilderness and Parks to meet the needs of our society once the Washakie primitive area is declared a Wilderness, and `we are opposed to the inclusion of any more of our Forest lands in the Wilderness system except for the express purpose of squaring up the boundaries to fit the topography of any given area. We would like to remind the Committee that once an area is locked up in a Wilderness designation this can only mean that only a very few "privileged" persons will ever be able to see or enjoy the beauty of the area. The severe restrictions placed on access to Wilderness Areas alone have much to do with making travel through these areas extremely slow and expensive. The items of time and cost necessarily eliminate the use of these areas to the mass of our general public. In behalf of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Fremont County Cattlemen's Association, whose members live close to the Washakie Forest Area, we would like to state that we believe that the ever increasing population growth of our nation and the world proves that there will be a need for all our Public Lands to be administrated under the multiple use concept in order to fill our needs for food, fiber, timber, minerals and recreation. We feel that many of these public land areas can be developed to a larger extent than has been the case in the past, so that they may achieve their maximum economic and practical level under the multiple use concept. This `will require range improvement practices such as seeding, brush spraying, road building, and numerous other management practices which are not allowed under Wilderness designation. PAGENO="0191" 183 For these reasons we wish to go on record as favoring the establishment of the Washakie Wilderness area strictly upon the boundaries of the now existing primi- tive area. We would necessarily be in opposition to the extension of this original land area in any way. Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Blackburn. STATEMENT OP GEORGE P. BLACKEURN, WASHiNGTON, D.C., METROPOLITAN AREA Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hansen, I am George F. Blackburn. I live in nearby Maryland. I wish to testify as an individual in support of 5. 2630, to establish the Washakie Wilderness. I think the Forest Service is to be commended for their conscientious effort in carrying out the mandate of Congress to study this and other areas for possible inclusion in the wilderness system. However, I ques- tion the validity of certain of their criteria and therefore the wisdom of some of their decisions. I shall illustrate with particular reference to the Washakie proposal. The statement appears several times that a boundary was located so as to follow readily recognizable topographic features such as ridges, rocky outcrops, water courses, and so forth. I realize that such a location does make for a readily recognizable boundary but I fear that in some cases it may have the results of excluding areas that, under a reasonable interpretation of the Wilderness Act, would qualify as wilderness. In the national forests I am more familiar with, here in the East, the boundary lines go where they have to~-that is, where ownership is public on one side and private on the other. Similarly, II should think it possible, if it is judged that a given area has the characteristics which qualify it for inclusion in a wilder- ness-granted that a certain amount of arbitrariness will at times be involved in making such a judgment-to determine a line on the ground, whether crooked or straight, following the existing terrain in whatever way the situation requires, that will put the area within such boundary. It is to be regretted that the bill excludes the upper DuNoir Basin, in view of the importance of this area, according to the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, to the well-being of big game, particu- larly elk. The Forest Service justifies its exclusion on the ground that it will be needed for recreationists who travel by car, and that its timber is needed to sustain a sawmill operation at Dubois, a town of about 600 population. I have not been in the DuNoir area. Last summer my wife and I attempted to visit it, but failed because a Forest Service trail which we intended to follow from the Brooks Lake Road across Pinnacle Buttes was unmarked and we could not find it. In searching for it we got into an area east of Brooks Lake which had recently been logged. The utter devastation that we saw conveyed a message that was abundantly clear; this is the way the DuNoir Basin will look if it is not protected as wilderness. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to show two photo- graphs which I have here of that logged area east of Brooks Lake. I was at this logged area east of Brooks Lake, Shoshone National Forest, Wyo., September 10, 1967, and the top view is looking north, 91-953-68- -13 PAGENO="0192" 184 and the bottom view is looking northwest. I would like to submit this for the committee files. I should also interject at this point a slight amendment to what my written statement says. As far as the trail not being marked. We finally found it, marked by the standard Forest Service blaze, hut our difficulty lay in the first instance in not finding the trail that was marked along the road, SO it is still true, we have not been in the DuNoir area. However, we have been in the area there, I believe, marked J on the map, because that seems to include a little bit more than the DuNoir area. The line itself on the western side extends to the western side of Pinnacle Butte. Senator ANDERSON. Could I just stop you there? You say this is the way the DuNoir Basin will look if it is not protected as wilderness. How about the sustained-yield use by the Forest Service? Mr. BLACKBURN. Beg pardon? Senator ANDERSON. Would not a sustained-yield basis protect the timber almost as well as wilderness classification? Mr. BLACKBURN. Sustained yield? I think there is some merit to the sustained-use idea, but the pictures that I took don't demonstrate, it seems to me, that sust'dned yield is being practiced there. Senator ANDERSON. That is clear cutting. You don't have to have clear cutting, do you? Mr. BLACKBURN. Yes, tha.t is clear cut. I am not sure I understand your question altogether yet. Senator ANDERSON. You don't have to have clear cutting? Mr. BLACKBURN. No, we don't. Senator ANDERSON. You could have forest control. Mr. BLACKBURN. That is right. The forest would be much less ob- jectionable to look at, sir, if sustained yield were practiced. I think that would be my thought in that matter, anyway. Senator ANDERSON. Go ahead. Mr. BLACKBURN. While I would not deny the economic benefits that would result from harvesting the timber, I would urge that against this local benefit there be balanced the national interest in preserving the area as wilderness, together with the benefit that would accrue to the local economy from its enhanced recreational value. A statistic that may be of some significance in this connection is that in 1965, the most recent to which I have access, the 176 persons employed in the lumber industry in Fremont County comprised 3.9 percent of the total number employed, and the payroll, $200,000 was 3.5 percent of the total payroll in the county. (The data are for a total population of about 26,000. Of this number about 11,600 or 44 per- cent are in the three largest towns_Riverton, Lancer, and Dubois.) Whatever other economic and human factors should be taken into account, these data suggest that the county's economy does not depend so heavily on the timber available in the DuNoir drainage that being deprived of it would result in severe dislocations. Corroborating this is a report issued some years ago by the Wyoming Industrial Research Council-"Wind River Basin-A Study of Its Re- sources, People and Economy"-Floyd K. Harmston, 1953 which indi- cated that because the mineral, water, and other resources in the Wind River Basin are not plentiful, there was promise of only limited indus- PAGENO="0193" 185 trial growth. On the other hand, describing the scenery, fishing, and wildlife resources as unsurpassed, the report regarded as favorable the outlook for development of recreational opportunities, with result- ant good for the economy. As to the need for recreation-cum-autornobile, I note that the pro- posal cites this as one of the reasons for excluding several areas from the Washakie Wilderness; and in answer I submit that wilderness values should not be degraded when other areas, some with roads al- ready in them, could be utilized without any more harm to the environ- ment than we have come to expect from mass recreational use. In any event, when pressure for using this wilderness to satisfy this particu- lar need becomes intolerably high, if it ever does, the Congress can then open the gates. I urge, therefore, that the bill be amended to include the DuNoir Basin, an area of approximately 30,000 acres; and I concur in the recommendation made by Wyoming citizens groups for other addi- tions to make a total acreage of approximately 48,300 which should be added to the 679,520 acres which the bill now provides for. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. I have no questions, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Mrs. Bonney? STATEMENT OP LORRAINE G. BONNEY, SIERRA CLUB STUDY TEAM Mrs. BONNEY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hansen, members of the com- mittee, I am Lorraine Bonney. I reside in Houston, Tex., and Kelly, Jackson Hole, Wyo. I want to start out by commending the Forest Service for their won- derful wilderness system. I think it is one of the greatest things we have. I realize their job is a tough one. However, I also appreciate the system that allows a citizen to let the Forest Service know that I am unhappy about a couple of things. I would like to present for the record a series of photographs of the Stratified Primitive Area and adjoining country, taken in August of 1966 by myself and other members of our Sierra Club study team. As a member of the study team I covered the ground of the Stratified Primitive Area quite thoroughly by hiking and backpacking methods. Other qualifications that I may offer are: I am coauthor of "The Guide to Wyoming Mountains and Wilderness Areas," and "The Guide to Grand Teton National Park and Jackson Hole." We started our trip from the little town of Dubois, Fremont County, Wyo. This town has a lot going for it. It's on a mainstream highway to Yellowstone Park, it has ideal climate, outstanding scenery, tre- mendous hunting, fishing, wilderness on two sides, and it has timber. We in Teton County saw a long time ago that our best livelihood would be tourists. Our economy is geared to that and now Teton County is one of the wealthier counties in Wyoming. Dubois citizens also feel that, with a lot of foresight and long-range planning, Fremont County could be what Teton County is today. Certainly it could. That is why they are fighting a highly geared Forest Service district that wants to scar scenery. Although the multiple-use slogan of the Forest Service incorporates wood, water, PAGENO="0194" 186 forage, wildlife, and re~creation, in the Wind River district-detri- mental emphasis is on wood-timber. Back in Teton County where 1 live the tourist would have a hard time finding where Teton National Forest does all its clear cutting. But in the Wind River district the evi- dence is everywhere. They don't bother to hide it, even on the main U.S. Highway No. 26. The residents of Fremont County would like to see some of that timber spared in order to have something to attract and show their visitors. This album will try to show you the breathtaking scenery of the proposed Washakie Wilderness, and the destruction of~the fore- ground scenery that the Forest Service is determined to continue. On page 4 you see the approach road going north from Dubois to the area's most popular campground at Double Cabin on Wiggins Fork. It is outside the primitive area, We pass through hundreds of acres where the lumbering operations have resulted in complete de- struction of all growth. There is no screen between the road and such operations. The lower picture shows the Lincoln Point Escarpment. On page 5 is the well-known Norton Point view, as seen from Double Cabin campground. I believe any plan to preserve this wil- derness should be designed to preserve its looks, such as these decora- tive stringers of timber, since its looks are its greatest value. Now every rockhound and camper in the area sees this view, and many take this very picture. The Forest Service has placed its boundary well above the timberline, exempting all the green seen in the picture. I can't help but feel they have designs on the lower timber, just as they have clear cut the area southeast of here, and all along the road to the camp- ground. I don't believe the insistence of the Forest Service to place the boundary on top of the rims is just to have a clearly defined boundary, but to have access to all of the timber. Pages 6 to 11 show the very fine quality of the Stratified Primitive Area. Most of the trails are very satisfactory as far as width is con- cerned. Any money spent on trails should be directed toward keeping them clear of downfall, not in widening `them. On page 12 is Ramshorn Ba~in. Here the Forest Service and the Sierra Club agree that a recr~aitional area be established in its fringes, and on the edge of one of the most `spectacular views `anywhere. I will return to this point `in a minute, but I would like to bring in Bear Basin here which, like the Ram'slhorn B'a'sin, would make a great recre- ational area. However, the faulty method of boundary setting which the Forest Service has selected could ruin the vie'w in Bear Basin if the Forest Service keeps its boundary high, thus leaving the foreground green strip unprotected. Bear Creek itself forms a natural boundary, as suggested by the Sierra Club, with its western bank suitable for wilderness and its eastern bank suitable for recreation sites. I will bring up again the matter of the road down into Bear Basin. The Forest Service says there is a road down into this area, but they are rnisbaken. Under no circumstances can you call it a road. We could not drive our high-centered vehicle down the highly eroded jeep tr~icks. On pages 13, 14, and 15 are the views as seen from a little knoll just north of Bams~horn Ba'sin. Just north of that knoll is Deiac'on Lake. From the knoll, with this basin as a recreational ~ this knoll will PAGENO="0195" 187 become a popular picture taking spot. The visitor will see the landmark Boedeker Butte which the Forest Seirv~ice has now included in their wilderness proposal. That is east of the knoll. Looking northeast over Deacon Lake, he will recognize Cathedral Peak. Looking north and northwest he will identify the great Five Pockets area. However, if he looks west and southwest at the great Ramshorn Escarpment, as he is bound to do, he will be looking at the huge Parque Creek pocket which, instead of completing a lovely picture, probably by then will have been thorough clear cut and instead of enjoying a complete picture, he will end up discussing the ravages of clear cutting. Def- initely, the base of the escarpment here would preserve the needed green strip to complete the pictures. Dr. Cliff said yesterday that the great Parque Creek Valley has been left out because it faces an area that has been timbered. What about the poor tourist who also faces an area that has been timbered if the Ramshorn Escarpment, the Lincoln Point Escarpment, and others are not protected? Back in our part of the country of Jackson Hole, the Forest Service cuts timber, but does so With the many visitors in mind. There clear cuts are not seen by the highway traveler and visitor. I believe much more discretion should be used in the Wind River district, giving some thought to what the visitor sees. On page 16 is a photo of the site of a former tie camp on East Pu- Noir. This was once the scene of great activity and use. The wilderness character of this country is beginning to restore itself. From here as you head north to Shoshone Pass the few old stumps are all that is left to tell the story, and these are harder to find the farther north one goes. The brochure-map put out by the Shoshone National Forest con- tains the following discussion on water: Water is the most important and most valuable of all natural resources. It receives highest priority in forest resource management in an effort to produce the maximum amount of usable water. Without an adequate forest or vegetative cover to regulate run off or stream flow, this objective, and protection of our basic resource, the soil, cannot be accomplished. One of the characteristics of this great primitive area is that the incredibly fragile soil is held in place only by the trees and under- growth. Torrential rains common in this area can be of the powerful flash-flood type that moves trees, tumbles big boulders, and washes away soil. Every time an area is clear cut on a mountain slope in this area, it leaves that land greatly susceptible to strong erosion forces. On pages 17 and 18 are pictures of the west and east sides of Pin- nacle Buttes, just east of that most popular forest campground at Brooks Lake. The Forest Service makes a lot of Smokey the Bear. Here's a picture of him looking hurt-not at first destruction as usual, but at the tremendous destruction done by the timber cutting on the east slopes of Pinnacle Buttes. In fact we have a photo of the 16-year- old burn up Wiggins Creek with some new growth in, but the 16-year- old clear cuts on Sheridan Creek can't turn up that much. Added to the low price the Forest Service gets for its timber is the high cost of the reforestation. Dr. Cliff describes timber cutting as harvesting the timber. Back in Texas, up in Oregon, yes, in lower Wyoming sections it could be called harvesting__when the timber is cut, reseeedlng is PAGENO="0196" 188 done, and in another generation the process can be repeated. But here, growth rate is very slow at this elevation, and reforestation doesn't pay off. Bill I'saacs of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation brought up the classic example of the Bridger National Forest reforestation pro- gram that ended up costing something like $1.70 an acre for two `seed- ings, and still nothing grows there. It is just `a point to bear `in mind that the timber cutting here cannot be called a crop. I am just an ordinary `citizen who can't understand why Smo'key the Bear has a fit over a fire, and doesn't even squirm when the Forest Service leaves a devastated cut `as seen on page 17 and page 22. The Forest Service method of lumbering on their Wind River district is not making full use of the multiple-use system-it's a one-shot, single-abuse system there. I would like to add that we climbed through this cut, over the ridge and descended into the splendid DuNoir Valley, near Kissinger Lake. I have been in a lot of wildnerness in Wyoming, most of the wildernesses there, and this was the first time, it was early in Sep- tember, I had ever heard an elk bugle, and it was `the biggest thrill of my life. I know there are elk in `the DuNoir Valley in early Septem- ber. Maybe other visitors would like to have that thrill, too. I can hardly agree with Dr. Cliff that the DuNoir Valley was not kept out of the Wilderness System because of its timber. I believe they want that timber desperately. I would like to add here that in area J, the Wolf Creek area is virgin timber, and this is what they are heading for now. Maybe the East DuNoir has been timbered, years ago, and the upper west has been, has jeep marks in it, and some old marks, but the Wolf Creek area, that great, big area at the southern end, is virgin timber, and there is no reason why it should not be put into the wilderness, but this is valuable timber crop. There is plenty of room in `the great DuNoir Valley for recreational area. The Sierra Club study team suggested Trail Lake. Perhaps it would fit in as a scenic a:rea, but there are many other areas, ideal meadows, whose fringes would be suitable, but just because an area may be suitable for recreation, why does it have to be cut over and devastated and the ravaged remnants tossed over to the other minor parts of the multiple-use slogan ~ I would like to mention here that last fall we saw more and more private campgrounds along the Dubois highway, and it is good to see that the private enterprise is `trying to take care of a lot of the future Yellowstone Park pressure. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen. Senator HANSEN. Mrs. Bonney, let me compliment you on your very fine testimony, and express at the same time my appreciation to you for permitting us to view these excellent pictures you have taken that are included in the brochure here. I am looking at the one on page 22. It is labeled "Timbering Practices as Seen From the Road to Double Cabin." Mrs. BONNEY. Yes, sir. `That is the Lincoln Point Escarpment in the background. Senator HANSEN. When was this photograph taken? Mrs. BONNEY. In 1966. PAGENO="0197" 189 Senator HANSEN. Do you note any improvement insofar as your concern in timbering practices now, as you may first have observed them on the Shoshone Forest, and what you see today? I mean, are the practices now more acceptable to you than they were when you first saw them, or what is your judgment? Mrs. BONNEY. I just can't get used to clear cutting, Senator. I don't see any improvement. I feel at least, if they are cutting, they could, leave a pretty good screen along Highway 26, the Dubois Highway, into Grand Teton Park. They don't come right down to the highway. You can see across the valley, where they have done timber cutting. But I think, and I understand, according to their plans, that they are supposed to, in any clear cutting, `leave a generous screen between the roads and the cutting, but there is no evidence of that on the way up to Double Cabin. Senator HANSEN. You have partly answered the next question I was going to ask, and that was: Would you make a comparison between the timbering operations as you `have observed them on the Teton Na- tional Forest with those on the Shoshone? Mrs. BONNEY. Yes, sir; I would. We get around a lot in Jackson Hole and we come across areas that have been clear cut and we know where they are; but anyone just driving the valley would never see the tin*er cuts on the shoulder of Jackson Peak, for instance. If they do see them, they don't know what they are. We have had questions about them, but they don't really know what they are. There is no evidence of cutting in plain view to the visitor. If a visitor does see it, they are getting around pretty good. Senator HANSEN. On the basis of what you have observed in Jackson Hole on the Teton National Forest, is it your opinion that timbering could be continued on the Sho~hone and be done in a manner so as to render it less objectionable than it is at the present time? Mrs. BONNEY. I believe it could. I `don't think much of clear cutting, anyway; but apparently, because of the system of the big machines and everything like that, this is the way they do things. But I think that in places such as the fringes where the visitor will be looking up toward the peaks that these clear cuts do not look good and are more noticeable. Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Bonney. I am aware of the fact that you have accompanied your husband, as he has led a team on `behalf of the Sierra Club, and I know that you `are very familiar with this area, and certainly your testimony has been quite important, and most meaningful. I compliment you. Mrs. BONNEY. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Walcott. STATEMENT OF FRANCIS J. WALCOTT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. WALCOrr. Mr. Chairman, I have some photographs here I would like to pass up to the committee for reference. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. Mr. WALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am Francis J. Walcott, of 3500 Fulton Street, San Francisco, Calif. I wish to speak today in favor of the inclusion of the Washakie Wilderness of the Shoshone National Forest in the national wiideruess preservation system, including ad- PAGENO="0198" 190 ditional acreage above that proposed by the Forest Service. My opin- ions are based on a visit to the Stratified Primitive Area and surround- ing r~gions during the summer of 1966, at which time I walked through much of the area. I will direct my remarks primarily to the area referred to by the Forest Service as area J, East DuNoir Creek and West DuNoir Creek. A.nd these photographs I passed up to you are all from this area. I took them myself during my visit in 1966. Although the entire area considered is highly scenic, the most attractive portion, in my opinion, is the East DuNoir-Dundee Meadows-West DuNoir region. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to make a few additions to my written statement here. I was much disturbed, when I arrived here in Wash- ington, after writing my statement, to learn that there has been con- siderable cuting in portions of area J; and particularly I am think- ing of West Bonneville Pass. I was there apparently just before the cutting was done, and I found it very attractive land. I understand also that in portions of the southern area of area J there has been some cutting. From Bonneville Pass on the west to the Ramshorn, the entire DuNoir drainage area is a region of high wilderness caliber. It is true that, in past years, tie-hacking was carried out in portion's of the area. The type of logging that was done 45 or 50 years ago is certainly not the kind of clear cutting that is going on today. A few signs of human use do remain from these operations. Im- provements, including four-wheel drive access used for cattle-grazing operations, exist in portions. The roads that were built in here, I would also like to add, mostly are on the fringes of the proposed additions. There are some old roads, :now barely visible, that extend up into the DuNoir, mostly on the West DuNoir; but, as Senator Anderson men- tioned earlier this afternoon, there are old roads that existed when the Gila Wilderness was formed. None of these intrusions are of such a nature as to permanently destroy all wilderness characteristics and possibilities. I might also add that this is an area, in spite of this, that is a place where man's activities are substantially unnoticeable. The benefits to be gained from wilderness classification will outweigh whatever few disadvantages exist. Thirty or fifty years from now the remaining signs of human use will have disappeared, and the wilderness needed to meet an increasing demand will be there. Again, I would like to add, we now must look to the future, and the wilderness that we `will be needing in the future, and should consider what the area is going to be like in 50 years. We `want to protect the area `so that we will have enough wilderness 50 years from now to meet the demand that is increasing so rapidly. The greatly increased public access which would result from the proposed roads int'o the DuNoir `area would be detrimental to the cattle grazing as `well as to the wildlife range. The value of the area includes this and `its watershed benefits, as well as for the wilderness recreation use. More and more people are taking advantage of this type `of recrea- tion. These users include not only people going in on and with horses, but `a rapidly growing number of backpackers, who have found thi's to be the `least expensive kind of a vacation, and one of the most reward- ing. With the development of new lightweight equipment and dehy- PAGENO="0199" 191 drated foods2 it is an activity no longer limited to the hardy and rugged, but is one ~hi~h can be participated in by anyone able to walk. Particularly, the importance of the area as elk range must be em- ~hasized. `Studies have indicated that construction of roads is detri- mental to resident and migratory elk herds. Elk is a major resource in Wyoming, and anything detrimental to them would be a loss to the State. Unless it can `be clearly shown that the benefits that would result from a different course of action are more important and w'ouid out- weigh this potential loss, this alone would justify inclusion of area J within the wilderness. Here, where any benefit from development of the area is at least questionable, protection of the elk habitat from dis- turbance is important to the welfare of Wyoming. Tim'ber values, at best, seem quite marginal, and particularly in this area of steep slopes any potential benefits from timber operations would be overbalanced by the deleterious effects on other va~lues of the region. The Forest Service states in their report that this valuable watershed region contains shallow soils which are easily eroded. I quote: Due to the steepness' of the country and the high percentage of barren land, the area i's susceptible to damage from torrential rainstorms. This, as well as the undesirable side effects of the road network which would be established, suggests that wilderness classification for the DuNoir Basin is desirable. Further, the damaging effect to a good water supply, that increased erosion would create, would tend to lose one of the area's benefits. Again I quote: A continuous flow of quality water from the drainages under consideration for wilderness represents an important public value. Stability of water supply is the major economic contribution, and public service to the dependent downstream lands and users. Mechanical disturbances that would upset the balance of nature, would be avoided within the proposed wilderness. Wilderness management will not change the water yield or quality. The devastating, clear-cutting procedures evident below Double Cabin on Wiggins F'ork are destructive of both recreational values and watershed values. One of the goals of wilderness `classification should be to protect other portions of the Stratified Primitive Area and sur- rounding area so as to `best maintain these values. T'he str'ong statements entered into `the record of `the agency hearing at Riverton, Wyo., by many of the people most directly affected by this proposal, residents of Dubois, Wyo., indicate a conviction that greater benefits will accrue to the immediately surrounding region from classifying the DuN'oir as "wilderness" than by leaving it `out, exploiting its few natural resources other than i'ts beauty, and develop- ing the area f'or mass recreation. The importance of Bear Basin to the welfare of the elk is alone sufficient reason to include this region within the wilderness bound- aries. Big game is one of the major facets of outdoor recreation in Wyoming. A very large portion of the recreational use of the area is based on big game, and outdo'or recreation potential is one of the primary resources of Wyoming. Many of the other factors mentioned earlier, such as watershed value, also apply to Bear Basin, and it should be included in wilderness. The resources of water, wildlife, PAGENO="0200" 192 and recreation will all be adversly affected if the DuNoir drainage and Bear Basin are not included in the Washakie Wilderness. The Forest Service proposal withdraws from wilderness protec- tion steep, timbered slopes now included within the Stratified Primi- tive Area, on grounds that the boundaries should be on "recognizable natural features." 1-lowever, for reasons both of scenic and, therefore, recreational value and of soil stability and erosion control, the steep slopes should be given wilderness protection and the boundaries should include the entire escarpments. To accomplish this desirable objec- tive, boundaries as suggested by the many conservation organizations should be adopted below Norton Point and around Lincoln Point and Ramshorn. In some of these areas, too, there has been some lum- bering activity in the past. However, the benefits to be gained from wilderness protection, realizing that the previous signs of intrusion will soon disappear, suggest that much of the area could, and should, be placed within the wilderness boundaries. Protection of the entire escarpment should, of course, be followed in all proposed additions to the wilderness. This indicates desirable additions in the vicinity of Wiggins Fork, Lincoln Point, Ramshorn, and perhaps others. These proposed additions to wilderness will leave ample room for development of nonwilderness recreation, roadside camping, and other such uses around the outside of the proposed wilderness. Such sites as Brooks Lake, Double Cabin, Ramshorn Basin2 Lean-To-Creek, and perhaps others can serve this function, and provide fine takeoff points for the wilderness, making access easy for any who wish to use this high-quality area. I would like to add here to this, since this was discussed at great length yesterday, not only such sites as Brooks Lake and the Double Cabin area, and Ramshorn Basin and Lean-To-Creek, are possibilities, but the need for additional camping and recreation areas near Yellow- stone is quite essential. We just had a hearing last week as to the same problem in Yosemite, and the same situation exists there. There is considerable area in the northeastern portion, in the Cooke City area and along the road just east of Cooke City. I was there last August. There were four or five Forest Service campgrounds within 5 miles of Cooke City, which is just outside the Yellowstone boundary in the i~ortheast corner, and they were almost deserted. Besides thig, there is a superb area for recreation. I found it highly scenic. It is on the Cooke City-Cody road in the Crandall portion of the Shoshone Na- tional Forest. I found this very attractive country. There are already some Forest Service campsites here. It was a fine road. It was being improved last fall. This is an excellent site, I think, for additional recreation facilities. Much of it is Forest Service land. 1Re could also have here privately operated campgrounds. Many of these would serve the func- tion of the need for nonwilderness recreation, and they would provide fine takeoff points for the wilderness, making access easy for those wishing to use this high-quality Washakie area. To summarize, I urge the establishment of the Washakie Wilder- ness proposed by the Forest Service, with the very important addi- tions of East DuNoir Creek, West DuNoir Creek including Dundee Meadows and Bonneville Pass, Bear Basin, and boundary revisions to include the entire escarpment and timbered slopes, especially along PAGENO="0201" 1 (~O J~~Jt~1 Wiggins Fork, and around Lincoln Point and Ramshorn. I am in favor of S. 2630 with amendments to accomplish these objectives and pro- vide a better wilderness. Thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen. Senator HANSEN. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Walcott. You spoke in a rather meaningful way, I thought, about the need for campsites and recreational opportunities to care for the oncoming hordes of people that will be visiting the national park areas. Gener- ally, are you in accord with the approach that has been taken by the U.S. Forest Service on these five forest areas contiguous to the Grand Teton-Yellowstone Park area, in inventorying their areas and seeing where campgrounds might best be located, and that sort of thing? Mr. WALCOTT. Yes; I think this is very essential. I think there is a great deal of room outside the proposed wilderness areas for such development. I think they are highly necessary. I think there is also room for private development of this nature. Senator HANSEN. Do you generally find their proposals and their suggestions to be not without merit? Mr. WALCOTT. I think that they are excellent proposals. I think the suggestion that they need the upper portion of the DuNoir Basin is not good. I don't think they need to go that far north in the DuNoir. I think there is a great deal of room in the lower DuNoir Basin and in the other areas which I suggested for this type of recreation. Senator HANSEN. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. Mr. WALCOTT. I have a statement here of David Corkran III, a his- torian of Berkeley, Calif. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that it be included in the hearing record. Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DAVID H. CORKRAN III, HISTORIAN, OF BERKELEY, CALIF. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Francis Walcott has kindly consented to present my state- ment cm the Washakie Wilderness proposal (S. 2630) at the hearing on this proposal on Feb. 19. My statement is based upon a fair amount of firsthand knowledge gained during a ten-day visit to the Stratified Primitive Area in the summer of 19~l6. Isupport 5. 2630 establishing a Washakie Wilderness. However, I do not think that S. 2630 includes all the lands in the adjacent areas which are suitable for wilderness classification. I believe that East and West DuNoir Creeks should be added to the proposed wilderness, `as should Bear Basin. The area around Double Cabins on The Wiggins Fork, to be declassified under S. 2630, should be retained as wilderness. As a general rule, it seems to me that the wilderness boundary should follow `the bases of the cliffs and steep slopes around Norton Point, Lincoln Point, and other mountains in the region so as to insure maxi- mum protection to these steep slopes, which are truly wilderness. It is especially desirable that East and West DuNoir Creeks be given wilder- ness protection. It is true that these two drainages were selectively logged, that there are traces of former saw mills, and that jeep trails exist in both drain- ages. I saw all these things in the four days I spent traversing the hea'dwaters of these two creeks. The major impression one gets in traveling through this region, however, is one of wilderness. From either Shoshone or Bonneville Passes, one cannot tell that the region was ever logged. The timber cover extends unbroken for miles, except for the meadows on West DuNoir Creek. On West DuNoir Creek, below Bonneville Pass, the trail is hard to find and one thrashes through real wilderness, if he gets lost the way I did. I might add that PAGENO="0202" 194 this is far more enjoyable than trying to pick one's way through logging slash. The Watkins Lake area on the East DuUoir is a similar example of wild coun- try. Kisinger Lakes is one of the most weirdly beautiful places in the West that I have ever seen. It derives much of its scenic attractiveness from the spires and turrets of Pinnacle Buttes, which certainly deserve wilderness protection. 1 strongly urge the Senate to amend S. 26~O so as to include East and West DuNoir Creeks and Bear Basin. I think all these areas qualify as wilderness in every sense of the word. I thank you for the opportunity to have this statement read into the record of the hearing. Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Smith. Is the Sierra Club testifying in absentia? Mr. Bonney, did YOU tes- tify in behalf of the Sierra Club? Senator HANSEN. The Bonneys have both testified, Mr. Chairman. Is Spencer Smith here? Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Smith. STATEMENT OP SPENCER N. SMITH, J~R., SEORETAR'~", CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Wash- ington, D.C. We are pleased to have the opportunity `to offer our views on legisla- tion to implement further Public Law 88-577, the Wilderness Act. S. 2531, introduced by Senator Kuchel, would authorize the San Gabriel Wilderness Area in the Angeles National Forest in the State of California. This measure has had widespread support by a variety of conservation and citizens' groups. The present proposal would designate 33,647 acres as the San Gabriel Wilderness and would consist `of the Devil's Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area and portions of the Bobcat Canyon area. There is little objection and much support for the San Gabriel pro- posal since it encornpa~ses a spectacular area, primarily mountainous and unusual granitic areas. In addition, th'ere is a varied and unique wildlife population of big horn sheep, California mule deer, and some black bears. Severai small streams also have outstanding native rain- bow trout. Little conflict `exists as to the use of this majestic area for wilderness purposes whidh `is but a short distance from the center of Los Angeles. There is no timber of commercial quality or minerals of commercial value. The area would have no private inholdings and there would be no conflicting uses. It is hoped that thi's matter can proceed with a measure of dispatch and become incorporated into the national wilderness preservation system at an early date. S. 2630 would `estthlish a Washakie Wilderness Area in Wyoming comprising the Stratified Primitive Area, the contiguous A'bsaroka Wilderne~s's Area, and certain additions. There are some differences of opinion as to the precise boundaries, and the total area of this proposal. Certain areas should be excluded, inasmuch as they do not conform to the criteria for wilderness and there appears to' be a general agreement on areas so treated. The Middle Fork-Wood River area, PAGENO="0203" 105 comprising approximately 9,000 to 10,000 acres, and the Dundee Creek area of some 4,500 acres should be excluded because of patented min- ing claims and the obvious intrusion of mining activities that would appear to be inconsistent with wilderness purposes. The Lean-To Creek area of approximately 650 acres and the Parque Creek area of approxi- mately 1,500 acres are also recommended for exclusion. The recommendations contained in S. 2630, introduced by Senator Hansen, of Wyoming, represent a significant addition to the present primitive area. The south fork of Wood River, 1,472 acres; the east fork and west fork of Six Mile Greek, 3,296 acres; and Horse Creek, 2,598 acres. We subscribe fully to these additions. Two principal areas of conflict are the East DuNoir Creek and West DuNoir Creek which comprise some 20,240 acres. The prin- cipal reason for adding this particular area to the proposal is the importance of the outstanding elk ranges and the significant scenic values. The alternative use of this area appears to be logging of rela- tively low commercial value timber. If this activity is pursued it would appear that some diminution of elk population would inevitably result. The area of Bear Basin, which comprises some 8,000 acres, ap- pears to be in a similar posture and this unit should also be within the wilderness boundary. The Wiggins Fork area of ~pproximately 3,200 acres is now pro- tected within the present Stratified Primitive Area. We are unable to understand why this area is recommended to be excluded from the proposed Washakie Wilderness. There are a few areas, relatively small in size compared to the over- all proposal, that might well be included in the wilderness area in order to round out the balance of differing topography as well as facilitate the scenic effect. Such areas would include Lincoln Point, of approxi- mately 325 acres, and the 2,000-acre area just west of Wiggins Fork Creek. Such consideration should also be applied to the headwaters of Five Mile Creek, which contain approximately 700 acres, and the area north along West Fork Six Mile Creek, of approximately 1,300 acres. The total additions recommended by the Forest Service, of 7,366 acres, to the present Stratified Primitive Area of 189,024 acres, com- bined with the additions recommended above, would find a total acre- age in the proposal of about 242,203 acres. If this area is combined with the Absaroka Wilderness Area which now comprises 483,130 acres, the Washakie Wilderness Area would then total some 725,533 acres. We are the first to agree that the establishment of wilderness areas within the broad categories of the Wilderness Act is hardly an exact science. If boundaries and areas could be computed on a quantitative basis in each instance, the task would resolve itself quickly. Unfortu- nately such fast and final calculations are not possible. We are aware, however, that public discussion and the full dialog between technicians presented for public review is essential in effecting an appropriate yet realistic wilderness system. 5. 2751, introduced by Senators Hatfield and Morse, of Oregon, would designate the Mount Jefferson Wilderness in the Willamette, Deschutes, and Mount Flood National Forest as an addition to the na- tional wilderness preservation system. This area, in the Cascade Range of Oregon, has long been looked upon as one of the most majestic areas PAGENO="0204" 196 in the Northwest. The Mount Jefferson Primitive Area was established in 1930, and encompasses 85,033 acres at present. The Forest* Service and the Senate measure recommend approximately 11,500 acres of ad- ditions to the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area to the east, south, and northwest. If the measure is enacted as proposed, the area would con- sist of about 97,000 acres. Many conservation organizations have made recommendations that would add to the proposed area primarily along the western boundary, and the inclusion in the south of Square Lake area. The arguments as to the desirability of these recommendations focus on the uses to which the area should be put. One of the principal reasons for sug- gesting that the proposal in this area be expanded, primarily to the west, is the shape and size of the proposed wilderness area. While the length of the area is adequate, extending some 25 miles along the Cas- cade crest, the width varies from 4 to 10 miles in a somewhat irregular fashion. While it may be argued that the western extension is inap- propriate for wilderness and that those who recommend its inclusion have abandoned the criteria for establishing wilderness, it should also be considered that wilderness in many areas Is not only perishable but fragile. While such terms are relative concepts, it appears that the pro- posed Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area will be in some jeopardy un- less effective buffers are established on the western side. It has been our experience that buffers outside wilderness areas have been highly ineffective and in reality represent poor protection. We are likewise aware that these areas represent timber resources that are important for commercial purposes. It is our judgment, however, that the in- clusion of these western areas may well be the longrun key to main- taining the basic purport of the proposed legislation, which is to protect and maintain the area as wilderness. Another difference of opinion involves the two major lakes, Square and Long Lakes, which are in the southeastern corner of the proposed area and Marion Lake, which is on the west, The principal conflict in these two instances as to the most appropriate use is essentially the type of recreation activities to be pursued. There is a suggestion that both Marion and Square Lakes have intensive recreation use, and a number of motorboats are in use. The Forest Service has recommended that these two areas be utilized as scenic recreation areas, which would promote, essentially, a more intensive recreation use than wilderness classification would permit. The scenic area designation is close to the wilderness concept, since the plans of the Forest Service are for no other developments, such as lumbering, and it is their intention to phase out motorboat use. The principal reason for including both of these areas in wilderness rather than separate scenic areas is the juxtaposition of these areas to the proposed wilderness area, especially the subalpine region, which effec- tively round out the continuity of the area. Also, there is an absence of structures and other manmade intrusions that normally would pre- clude such an area from wilderness consideration. Additionally, these lakes have a pristine quality that seemed to represent a part of the pur- pose to establish an area of wilderness. At the risk of another redundancy, it is apparent that differences do exist in drawing the precise boundaries of the Mount Jefferson Wilder- PAGENO="0205" 197 ness proposal. The differences in this instance, represent approximately 28,000 acres. It is important to render judgments in the form of .a final recommendation that conforms to the general dictates set down in the Wilderness Act but with an understanding and flexibility in ap~ plying the wilderness criteria in specific instances. Some flexibility must be permitted if individual proposals are to have an internal con. sistency in and of themselves. It appears to us that this can be done without violating or doing other disservice to the Wilderness Act, per Se. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Dr. Smith. Mr. Miller, you are the next witness. STATEMENT OP JAMES 11. MILLER, DUBOIS, WYO. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hansen, my name is James R. (Jim) Miller. I live near Dubois, Wyo., in almost the center of the DuNoir Valley which has been discussed here for the past 2 days. It is my privilege on a day-to-day basis to look at the scenes that have been discussed here and which you have seen in a great number of photographs. We bought our property and built after extensive `travel throughout almost every State in the United States and considerable service abroad, some 25 years of it while I was in the military service. The principal assets of this country that we chose, in addition to its fantastic scenic beauty, are the clear air, the clear streams, and the abundant wildlife. During the past 3 years I have owned and operated a real estate agency in the fair city of Dubois, and I am constantly amazed at the thousands of people who share my love for the area. They also see the same things essentially in this area that I did when I came there. During the past 3 years, I have changed my thinking with regard to wilderness and I think the majority of the citizens of Dubois, with the possible exception of Forest Service employees and the timbering industry have changed their thinking as well. There are a good many things that we need to use our forests for other than wilderness. However, having lived there for 3 years and watching the day-to-day changes that take place, we are more and more convinced that the only way to preserve our forest assets is to go the wilderness route. This has been dictated to us by what we call the scientific or the clear-cut method of timber harvest. Now, I don't want to repeat a lot of things that have been said here during the past 2 years but one of the things that I think possi- bly had been overlooked is the true feeling of the people of the Dubois area. As I said at the outset, I speak only as an individual. However, being a businessman in the town and living out in the area where I talk to the ranchers, the business people, the summer home residents, people of this type, I feel that I can speak pretty much for them. We have no newspaper in Dubois. Our town is not of the size to war- rant a newspaper. For the past several weeks this controversy over the Washakie Wilderness and the proposed amendments thereto has caused a great deal of comment, both pro and con. I felt that at this time it would `be appropriate to take a single newspaper from one of our adjacent towns and introduce into the record, if I may, the com- PAGENO="0206" 198 ments of a reputable editor and a very fine newspaper and I chose the county seat of our county, Fremont County, which is Lander, Wyo. Therefore, the newspaper publicity which has accompanied this controversy is here. I would like to introduce the major sheets in evidence. I would .point out that this is not a biased newspaper on either side, I don't believe. Substantial portions of this newspaper have been made available to both sides of the story. I would merely point out that if this is acceptable to the record, as an example, page 1 of this newspaper, dated February 8, 1968, is ex- clusively committed to this controversy. There is not a line on this page other than the masthead about anything except the controversy of which we speak. I think that the attitude of our county seat should be considered in this testimony as well as all of the other `things that have been said. Senator ANDERSON. How much do you want to include of that? Mr. MILLER. I would like to include these five sheets, those portions of the sheets that are directly applicable to the controversy over the wilderness area. ~Senator ANDERSON. We don't ordinarily put five pages of newspaper into the record. We can accept it for the file. Mr. MILLER. This is your decision, Mr. Chairman. I will abide by it. I merely wanted to make the attempt. However, because an editorial appeared in a newspaper out there a couple of weeks ago, February 12, and it says in 230 words what I could probably take hours to say, and it says it `so well, I would ask your permission, sir, to read this very short editorial of 230 words into the record. Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, we will put it into the record. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. This is an editorial appearing from the Wyoming State Journal, published at Lander, Wyo., February 12, 1968. It is as follows: Dunois FIGHTING FOR ITS LIFE We have never seen Dubois people as united as they `are today. They are fighting together to keep from becoming another Fremont County ghost town. In the case of South Pass City and Atlantic Oi'ty, it was the gold that ran out. In the Dubois country, they fear the big saw mill will ravage the forests, move out when the profitable logging is done, leaving the mountain country around Dubois with denuded slopes. What a fine sight that will be to show tourists! If you want a sample of what it looks like, drive up Wiggins Fork where great blocks of `timber have been cut out. If `the magnificent DuNoir Valley country northwes't of Dubois is left out of the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area, it will be denuded also. Where will the elk go, the tourist, the sight-seer, all those who enjoy something out-of-doors? Timber doesn't grow back fast in the high, dry country around Dubois. After the mill has gutted the forest, what will be left? Very little, too little. In asking that the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area be enlarged to include the DuNoir Valley, Bear Creek Basin and fringes around the Stratified Area, Dubois people are showing more foresight than is the Forest Service. Dubois people are correct in realizing that their future is almost wholly dependent upon the recreation industry. Dubois is fighting for its life. That concludes the editorial, sir. I have one or two other comments. One borders on an area that has not been discussed at these hearings and I am somewhat disturbed that it has not been; and that is the cost to the Government in these days of economy-minded people here in PAGENO="0207" 199 Washington, the cost to the Government of building roads to areas for timbering purposes versus the retrievable cost in the sale of the timber. I believe I am correct that the staff of this Interior Committee has asked within the past 3 or 4 days that a rapid, rough study be made with specific reference to the DuNoir Valley. The results of that study, and I have read it and I am going to try to quote it as best I remember it, were that essentially 7 miles of roadway would be needed to harvest the DuNoir Forest, the area that we are talking about, area J. This 7 miles of roads would be paid for by the Government. It would cost, I believe, $145,000 to build the road, an additional $25,000 would be spent to build a bridge which is necessary, roughly a total cost, then-and this is a quick estimate by the Forest Service here in Washington- of $165,000 to $170,000 to put in this 7 miles of road. At the maximum price they would retrieve $60,000 for the timber that they would sell. This does not seem to me to be good economics. Now, it will be argued that if the road is built in there, and after they have gotten everything they want out of it, the road will remain and it will be a Government-owned road. I have yet to see anyone other than in general terms saying to what use that road would be put. I, and I think the majority of the citizens of Dubois, Wyo., support the Washakie Wilderness bills with amendments essentially as recom- mended by Senator McGee. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much for the opportunity as a citizen to appear. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hansen, do you have any questions? Senator HANSEN. I don't have any questions. I just want to thank you for coming back and testifying, Mr. Miller. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. I would like to put at least one statement into the record. The Wil- derness Act, with which I am somewhat familiar, having done a little work on it, says: The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years after the enactment of this Act, review, as to its suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as wilder- ness, each area in the national forests classified on the effective date of this Act by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as "primitive" and report his findings to the President. The President shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the designation as "wilderness" or other reclassification of each area on which review has been completed, together with maps and a definition of boundaries. Such advice shall be given with respect to not less than one-third of all the areas now classified as "primitive" within three years after the enactment of this Act. I hope that all that has been lived up to by the Department; but we all know it has not happened yet. These three bills are San Gabriel, 36,137 acres; Mount Jefferson, 94,462 acres; and Washakie, 679,520 acres, a total of 810,019 acres. San Rafael added 143,000 acres with a total there of 953,019 acres. This should have been done some time ago. It is not being done by the Park Service. This is entirely by Agriculture. The Interior Depart- ment, I suppose, should have done this long ago. The act is pretty plain. I hope it might be observed. I would hope that the staff would call to the attention of the Depart- ment of the Interior that this has not been fulfilled. There was a series of questions asked by the staff of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. I hope this can be put in the record. We have to 91 -953-68--I 4 PAGENO="0208" depend on our staffs, No one member of the committee can follow completely all the work done by the Congress. `Without objection, I will include it at this time. (The record referred to follows:) I PROPOSF3D WASITAKIE WILDERNESS (Asked by the Staff of the Senate Con~ittee onInterio~ a~rd Insnlar 4ff aiirs.) Question 1. Is any timber being offered for sale at this time in any of the proposed additions to the Washakie Wilderness? Answer. No! Timber sales have been planned in that area in the next few years but none have been advertised. Question 2. How much road would be required to log this area, and how much will it cost? Answer. Seven miles of forest development road both inside and outside of Area J will be needed before timber harvest can begin. We do not have detailed cost figures for this road yet. The estimated cost is $140,000. In addition, a bridge costing about $25,000 will be needed. It should be stated that these are not primarily timber harvest roads but will serve all public uses within the area. Also, additional roads will be needed both inside and outside of Area J to meet future public needs in the use of all resources. Question 3. Who' will bear the cost of these roads? Answer. The cost of the initial seven miles will be borne by the Government because it is not primarily a timber road. Some spur roads primarily for timber harvesting will be constructed by the timber purchaser. Because the timber developments plans are not yet complete on any of the timber sales, it is not possible to say just how much of the spur road will be needed. As the main road system is developed further into the DuNoir drainages, timber purchasers will undoubtedly be asked to share in the cost of some of the future roads. Question 4. How much timber is Involved? Answer. There is about 100 million board feet of commercial quality timber in Area J but only about 30 million board feet are operable under present market conditions. Question 5. What would be returned to the' Government? Answer. We have made no appraisals of timber located within Area J so it is not possible to give an accurate answer to that question. However, a recent appraisal on a similar area shows that the return to the Government per M ft. B.M. (Log Scale) was $2.00. If the 30 million board feet of timber appraised comparably, the total direct cash return to the Government would be $00,000. It should also be noted that the sanie appraisal showed that the manufactured value of the timber was $71.88 per M lumber scale or $78.87 per M log scale. Thus, the 30 million board feet of presently operable timber in the DuNoir drainages has a total economic value of $2,365,000. The difference between the direct return to' the Government and the total value includes some profit to the company but the majority is money spent locally by the purchaser for labor and other costs in the extraction and manufacture of the timber crop. On, the hale we referred to, the purchaser will spend $2.91 per M for disposing of slash and $0.20 per M for erosion control work. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for the last in- sertion you just made. I think that was material to which Mr. Miller earlier had referred, and I am sure he will be pleased that it is part of the record. I would like, if I may, to ask that an editorial from the Riverton Ranger, a daily newspaper in Riverton, Wyo., which is in Fremont County, taken from the Thursday, February 15 issue, be included in the record. Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, that will be done. (The editorial referred to follows:) [From the Riverton (Wyo.) Ranger, Feb. 15, 19681 INTERDEPENDENCE The interdependence of different section's of the local economy and of commu- nities within our county needs to be re-emphasized. While no single part of a PAGENO="0209" diversified economy should be allowed to become dominant and dictatorial, it is most damaging to an area for special interests to start cutting each other to pieces through fear or malice. There's no group in the diverse Fremont county economy not under business pressure of some kind. It's harder to get in business, more difficult to show a profit in business, than ever. From the argument over expansion of the Washakie Wild- erness area one could conclude that some people think the country would be better off it timber cutting stopped and more of the Shoshone Forest was partially sealed off as a wilderness area. Those holding to either point of view aren't going to be swayed from their taken positions between now and the hearing next Monday in Washington. We would like to make the observation that the stated alternatives merit amendment. Those fearing the timbering of the Dunoir convey the impression that they think the Forest Service is going to be party to the desecration and ruination of a beautiful valley. The only way to save it from this fate, say the anti-timbering groups, is to lock it up as wilderness. Many people don't really want it as wilderness, but have lined up with those making the request in hopes their united stand will block the timbering. The Forst Service has been studying for years way to open up the DuNoir Valley for the enjoyment of more people. The foresters admit past judgment errors in the manner timber sales have been offered, trees cut and the cutover areas left. So has forest regeneration been uneven. But so have lessons been learned. So is the pressure from recreation keenly felt by the Forest Service and the responsibility for multiple use better understood than ever before. About the interdependence: a town needs year around payrolls to maintain itself, and be there, complete with the businesses and services the vacationer demands. A county needs a railroad, which currently depends upon the volume of freight that comes from the timber industry. The county needs the airports and the airline service, which timber, tourists, outfitters, people of all kinds help sup- port. It takes people to make possible such necessities as a doctor, a dentist, a hos- pital, a school, a church, a business, a recreation center. The chronicle of interdependence goes on, but it should be better understood than it is. Work needs be done to perfect compatability of diverse interests, be- cause a shrinking, diminishing community freezes everybody out. With reason prevailing, there should be room for diverse interests within this vast county, including our national forest. Senator HANSEN. If I may, could I ask that the record be kept open for 15 days in order that other individuals or organizations who might like to submit statements could have those statements included? Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, that will be done. That will be 15 days. We will not have this bill reported for at least 15 days. Senator HANSEN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, this morning Tom Bell, from Fremont County, testified. I believe Mr. Bell has a few corrections to make in his testimony; is that right, Tom? Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. May he be recalled to the witness stand, Mr. Chairman, to make some brief corrections in his testimony? Senator ANDERSON. He may. FURTHER STATEMENT OF TOM BELL, WYOMING COORDINATING COUNCIL AND WYOMING WILDLIFE FEDERATION, LANDER, WYO. Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Go right ahead. Mr. BELL. Thank you. I do this with my humble apologies to both you and to the U.S. Forest Service. Since this morning when I made my testimony, I have been appraised of a statement which I made which was in error, and which does a digservice to the U.S. Forest PAGENO="0210" 202 Service, and which I would like to correct. That was to an allusion that I made this morning that timbering had been done in two particular areas within area J. If I might, by directing your attention to the map as I did this morn- ing, correct those to show where this has actually happened, I will do that. I can show it here, sir. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Bell, if you wouldn't mind, let me ask you, for the benefit of those members of the committee not here, to identify if you can the portions of ttie map to which you point or to which you allude. Mr. BELL. Yes, sir. I referred to area J, an area in the Wolf Creek Basin in which I had been told earlier that there had been logging occurring from the middle fork of Long Creek into the basin of Wolf Creek. I stand to be corrected. That has not yet happened. The timber- ing that was done was in section 6. This has been done close to the area but not inside, So I stand to be corrected. I made allusion to the fact that timbering had occurred on the west side Pinnacle Buttes and in the Jules Bowl area. I am told that that was as a result of a sale made in 1961, that timbering was finished in this area by the time of the hear- ing in Riverton in December 1966. I made `a statement thait this had not been finished during the time that this hearing was in process. I stand to be corrected. Mr. Chairman, I would also like, for a moment if I could, to clear up a point of misunderstanding in my testimony this morning. I possibly was misunderstood in saying that I was of the feeling that Wyoming water should be sent elsewhere for use. I would like to be corrected on that if it did create a misunderstanding. I think I answered in response to Senator Hansen as to the use of Wyoming water if it was in critical need for the production of food. I made the statement that I thought that Arizona could produce more food than Wyoming with a 75-day growing season. By that statement I did not mean to imply that Wyoming should not make use of its water. What I alluded `to is the fact that within a few short years a tre- mendous trona industry and an `oil shale industry will develop in the lower Green River basin or valley in Wyoming and that I think that the use `of this water in Wyoming is a higher `and wiser use for Wyoming water. Thank yo'u. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Bell, very much for your state- ment. We have problems that arise all the time. I am glad somebody who made a statement corrected it if he could. Mr. Cutler, are you representing the Wilderness Society? STATEMENT `OF RUPERT CUTLER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WILDERNESS SOCIETY-Resumed Mr. CUTLER. I am Rupert Cutler, assistant executive director of the' Wilderness Society. To the extent that the Wilderness Society's state- ment made earlier implied that logging had taken place within area J of the proposed Washakie Wilderness since the time of the admin- istrative hearing in December 1966, we would like to retract that por- tion of our statement based on information just received this afternoon through the Forest Service. Our statement, of course, was based on. PAGENO="0211" 203 the same information from local Dubois sources that Mr. Bell's state- ment was based on. It now appears that the last logging to take place in area J took place in August of 1966 and that none has taken place since the administrative field hearing. Thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Just 1 second. Are you speaking officially for the Wilderness Society? Mr. CUTLER. Yes, sir; I am. Senator ANDERSON. Sit down. Have you heard of the law that re- quired the reclassification of these areas and acreages, the law I re- ferred to a minute ago reporting on one-third by last September? Mr. CUTLER. The Wiiderness Act; yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Who was one of the authors of the Wilderness Act? Mr. CUTLER. You were, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Would you want to see me sustain what the law provided, if I could? Mr. CUTLER. Yes; we would, sir. Senator ANDERSON. The Wilderness Society is not very happy with me now, because I tried to get some water for New Mexico. But when you are poking fun at me and cracking at me a little bit you had better remember that someone else has been sinful. No effort was made by you to enforce this section which was a part of the law. Some people suggest that in trying to implement this htw we might in some way change the crperation of dams and w~tter resource projects. I don't think that is anything to fear. I am not too worried about that. We must make the best use of our resources on balance. I don't wish to destroy the wilderness areas at all, but we must balance our resource use. Mr. CUTLER. We appreciate that, sir. Senator ANDERSON. At one time there was an attempt to cut down many acres of the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico. There was one pub- lic official who opposed that, and I think only one, and sometime we will find who that guy was. Mr. CUTLER. Senator Anderson. We understand, sir, that, if the proposed Hooker Dam is constructed to store the 18,000 additional acre-feet for New Mexico agreed to recently by the Basin States, the dam would have to be so high that it would flood water back into the Gila Wilderness some 9 miles. We don't think that the firm engineering data have been provided the committees of Congress yet by the Bureau of Reclamation to show just precisely what would happen to the wilderness in order to pro- vide the water that we agree with the Senator should be provided his State. We would just like to see firm figures so that the committees may have a very clear idea of the impact on the Gila Wilderness which the Senator was so instrumental in creating in the first place. Senator ANDERSON. I can only say that I would believe that if a bill of that nature passed, then everyone might really want to find out what the damages, if any, would be caused by the water backing up in the river bed. I am going to watch it very carefully to see what it does. Mr. CUTLER. We hope that alternatives may be considered-such as the Connor site. PAGENO="0212" 204 Senator ANDERSON. They will be, I am sure. The Connor site has been checked. The engineers have said it is not the best site. The others have been hastily checked, I am not sure, but I don't believe the height of the dam has been decided. I can assure you that there are some members of the Senate who have been completely informed about it. I want to suggest to you that one time they started to cut down the Gila Wilder- ness very substantially but it was not cut down nearly as much as the cattlemen wanted to cut it down. Mr. CUTLER. We deeply appreciate your continuing vigilance to protect the Gila Wilderness. Senator ANDERSON. I do believe we have to watch all these bills that come by, and Senator Hansen has to be very sure of his area. We have to know that the people who administer the law are not going to change the law in the meantime by their own administrative action or lack thereof. That is what I am afraid is happening now. Go ahead. I appreciate your coming here. I just want to say in public that I don't think you will be quite so mad. Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, sir. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Bonney would like to make a correction in testimony he gave earlier today if he could be permitted to do so. STATEM~ENT OP ORRIN H. BO~ThtEY, SIERRA CLUB, J'ACKSON HOLE, WYO-Resumed Mr. BONNEY. I would just like a minute. When I arrived in Wash- ington, I was told that there had been cutting over on this Wolf Creek drainage. Senator HANSEN. Referring to area J? Br. BONNEY. Area J, on Wolf Creek. I think we got an answer from the Forest Service yesterday, if I recall, Senator, that they did not realize it had been cut. I talked to the Forest S~rvice man again today and to the industry and they were aware of no cutting on the Wolf Creek area. I think it is important to the committee in this respect: We had suggested that the ridge between the Wolf Creek drainage and the Long Creek drainage be followed as the boundary referring to the forest industry. If you hold up this map, you can see the vast area of timber, Long Creek and on south of there, for the forestry in- dustry. This is all virgin timber, as we have mentioned, in the Wolf Creek drainage and around Kisinger Lakes. It is some of the most unioue parts that can be preserved for the wilderness. It is not a large area. We figure the whole area J would only take $60,000 worth of timber out of the industry. It is a very meager thing, and the greatest part of it over in here. So a number of these other people, a number of people from Dubois had come in having heard this same rumor that I had heard that the Wolf Creek ares~ had been cut over and believing now that the boundary would have to be moved hack to eliminate where this cutting' had been done. I don't think that is necessary. I think the committee can follow the original outline of area J to consider whether or not the Wolf Creek drainage could be left within the area. I think it is desirable to `do so. I don't think we are taking much out of the timber industry, and I think we are preserving some of the most PAGENO="0213" 205 beautiful area in this part of Wyoming to keep that in and these modifications that Mr. Bell submitted. Mr. Bell has moved up his line up here, because he thought it had been `cut. Now, that is cleared up and apparently everything has been rectified. When the question came up, both the Forest Service and industry have respected the boundaries that we have here, leaving it to Congress to make the decision. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much. Mr. BONNEY. Senator Hansen has asked the Chief Forester, Dr Cliff, to keep him advised of any timber sales in there. I think that it is going to be very wholesome, as far as we Wyoming people are concerned, that nothing be done there without certainly the SenaLor knowing what is being done before the fact and not afterward. I was very pleased by your comment to Dr. Cliff yesterday, Senator. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much. We are all very much interested in this. One of the best things that can happen in these hearings is to find out if there are claims that are wrong and can be corrected. Now there is a better atmosphere to pass the bill, because these things are brought out in an open hearing rather than any other way. Thank you all very, very much. The subcommittee will recess, subject to call. (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to call.) PAGENO="0214" PAGENO="0215" APPENDIX (Under authority previously granted, the following statements and communications were ordered printed:) STATEMENT OF THE WYOMING OUTDOOR COORDINATING COUNCIL, LANDER, WY0. CONSIDERATIONS ON WASTIAKIE WILDERNESS AREA 1. Elk and other big game, as well as timber, are important to the economy of the Dubois community and Frernont County. Figures established by the Uni- versity of Wyoming Department of Commerce and Industry indicate that ex- penditures for the hunting of elk alone in the Dubois area bring some $478,000 a rear into the state. Dubois and Fremont County realize much of the benefit. Of this amount, that portion of the elk herd with which we are concerned (north of Highway 287) contributed about $383,000. Barring any environmental or habitat changes, harvest from the herd can be considered a sustained yield. Harvest records from the hunting areas north of Highway 287 indicate that about 500 animals are taken each year from this herd. The University of Wyo- ming figures indicate that non-residents spent an average of $963 to harvest one elk and residents spent an average of $680. Those figures increase considerably each year if for no other reason than supply and demand. 2. Some local segments of the Upper Wind River elk herd have been dis- placed and hunting opportunity has been lost through disturbances occurring on and around elk ranges. These disturbances have occurred because of the advent of 4-wheel drive vehicles and because of modern timbering practices- access roads, clear-cutting over extensive areas, and other modifications of elk habitat. It is the contention of the Colorado Game and Fish Department that elk are wilderness animals. Mr. John McKean, Chief of Game Operations, Oregon State Game Commission, has written (personal communication, February 5, 1968), "Rocky Mountain elk have a low tolerance for human disturbance. We share Wyoming's concern for the impact oi~ access roads, snowmobiles, and other sources of disturbance that affect the distribution of the animals. We are partic- ularly concerned on winter ranges, and anticipate a substantial reduction of elk populations if human molestation cannot be effectively controlled on criti- cal wintering areas." The Idaho Fish and Game Department has testified as to the disturbing influence of logging practices on elk herds at a hearing on the Magruder Corridor of the Seiway-Bitterroot Wilderness. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department feels that the Dubois area could not now support the elk herd that it does without extensive wilderness areas into which the elk can re- treat. Loss of habitat in Wyoming practically means loss of elk. The Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and private landowners are loathe to allow any increase in most elk herds simply because of carrying capacity. 3. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has some $260,000 invested in the East Fork Elk Winter Range. This complex was assembled through acquisi- Uon of private property (upon which taxes are still paid), trades of range privileges on Forest and BLM lands, and preferred leases of public lands. It was done to stabilize elk populations and prevent game damage to private holdings in the Dubois area. That investment is dependent upon several factors not the least of which is maintenance of suitable elk habitat. Some 2,500-3,000 elk use the winter range. 4. Elk are most easily managed when they are residents of an area. Migratory elk are difficult of management for several reasons, the most important being adequate harvesting. Of necessity, hunting seasons are set some months ahead. Yet, we have no control of the weather, and it is the combination of snow depths and cold weather which moves the elk out of the high country and into the lower valleys where hunting is most successful. Resident elk remain within a certain (207) PAGENO="0216" 208 home range year-round. They are relatively easily managed and hunted com- pared to migratory herds. In the Dubois area, several resident herds have already been depleted due to human disturbances on and around their range. Today, there are fewer resident herds left in the area. 5. Large segments of the elk herd wintering on the East Fork Elk Winter Range migrate through the forest in the East and West Fork of DuNoir areas. Some remain in the Basins through the snow-free months. Here, the Game and Fish Department is greatly concerned that human disturbances will cut off this migration and could conceivably shift this herd into the Jackson Hole complex which already has its share of elk harvest problems. In addition, the DuNoir areas are important elk calving grounds, from which the elk then move on to the high summer ranges. 6. Balanced against hunting losses is the amount and value of timber to be "locked up". Forest Service figures indicate the available cut on the DuNoir areas (which would be inside the originally recommended boundaries) would be something around one and a half million board feet a year. The stumpage value on this amount of timber is about $7,500 a year. The Teton Stud mill at Dubois has a rated capacity of 160,000 board feet a day; 40 million board feet a year. The yearly cut on the DuNoir areas would amount to about a ten day run through the mill. If the Teton Stud operation were affected by as much as five percent a year by loss of timber in the DuNoir areas, it would affect the annual payroll by only $70,000. The Teton Stud mill pays about $1,000 in taxes to Fremont County each year. The Dubois school board finds itself in deep trouble because of the impact of children whose family pay relatively few taxes. 7. Timbering was done in the DuNoir Basin in the 1920's by tie hacks who selected individual trees and snaked them out with horses. There were no roads, as such, or extensively cut-over areas. Today, there is slight evidence of any of man's activities. 8. There is a unique and distinctive beauty to the southern escarpment of the Absaroka Mountains. All along this ragged rim, from Wiggins Fork to Lincoln Point to Boedeker Butte to The Ramshorn to Coffin Butte and Brooks Lake, the high pinnacles and eroded buttes stand out in a green forested setting. Timbering operations have already crept up the steep slopes of this setting. It is feared that unless these forested slopes are given wilderness protection, most of them will be stripped away. Despite the assurances of the man on the ground today, political expediency might one day undo all good intentions. The Forest Service arguments on defensible boundaries Is unjustified as can be seen from their own description of boundaries; for the proposed area. 9. The Forest Service points out how much wilderness there already is in Wyoming. They fail to state how much of it is absolutely worthless for any other purpose. Their own figures of the broad cover types within their Washakie Wilderness proposal shows that of 196,390 acres, 122,049 acres are grassland and barren! Of the remainder, 17,560 acres are shrubs, brush, and other, and 19,055 acres are the whitebark, limber, and bristle-cone pines which are generally con- sidered to be unsuitable for timber. This leaves only 37,630 acres of timber pro- ducing trees (Douglas fir, Engleiuann spruce, alpine fir, lodgepole pine) or about 19 percent. But even this is qualified for their report says, "This is an area with only 29 percent (sic) timber cover with the timber confined to small basins, hillsides, and stream bottoms". It can readily be pointed out that by and large what was reserved as primitive and wilderness areas was mostly confined to the high elevations. Here bare rock, mountain meadow, and scrub timber predominate. The areas are most valuable for watershed protection and the recreational, aesthetic and scenic value. 10. There is grave question in the minds of many Dubois residents concern- ing the present clear-cutting methods now being employed by the Forest Service. In an area with high elevations, relatively low humidity, and loose volcanic soils these seems to be low success in reestablishment of forest. Even in replanted areas, the survival of young trees is generally ver~r low. It is estimated that it takes 75 years to grow a fence post, and 150-300 years to grow a mature crop. To these people, it appears to be a case of cut-and-get-out. They are asking what will we have left? PAGENO="0217" 209 11. The areas and their approximate acreages that we are now asking for inclusion are: Acres Bear Basin 5, 140 Caidwell Creek-Wiggins Fork 4,040 Parque Creek-Ramshorn-F'ive Mile and Six Mile Creeks 6, 880 East and West DuNoir Creeks 24, 820 Total acreage 40, 880 STATEMENT OF R. W. BEAMER, ExEcUTIvE SECRETAEY, WYOMING MINING AssoCIATIoN I am R. W. Beamer, Executive Secretary of the Wyoming Mining Association. This organization includes 35 mining companies, approximately 100 service com- panies, and over 200 individual members. We wish to express our concern over the proposed withdrawal of additional extensive areas of our State from multiple-use. The devolpment of our natural resources', such as timber, grazing lands, potential mineral deposits and varied recreational opportunities, is essential to the economic well-being of Wyoming. For this reason, we are opposed to the reservation of large land areas, with eco- nomic potential, for the exclusive use of a very small percentage of our population. At the present, a substantial percentage of the land area of Wyoming is re- served for nationtal parks and wilderness areas. Any additions to this acreage shohid be limited to those lands which do not have any potential for economic development. Therefore, we urge that any extension of the South Absaroka Wil- derness Area, to create the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area, be restricted to lands which do not have any economic possibilities. STATEMENT OF W. GORDON KEARL, LAJOAMIE, W~o. WILDEBNES5-TYPE AREAS-UNITED STATES There were a total of 88 wilderness-type areas of over 1,000 acres each in the United States in 1964, not including National Park or wildlife refuge areas (Table 1).' Fifty-three of them were less than 100,000 acres in size and 35 were greater. A relatively high proportion under 100,000 acres were in states having higher population densities compared with states having the larger wilderness- type areas. California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon have wilderness- type areas averaging from 33,000 to 98,000 acres in size. Other states have such areas averaging up to more than 1,000,000 acres. TABLE 1.-WILDERNESS, WILD, AND PRIMITIVE AREAS, BY STATES less than 100,000 acres More than 100,000 acres State ---------- -- --- Number Average size Number Average size Number All areas Average size Alaska 1 57,600 Arizona 7 24,159 California 13 39,161 Colorado 9 49,059 Idaho Minnesota . Montana 5 61,612 Nevada 2 33, 531 New Hampshire 1 5,400 New Mexico 3 25, 003 Oregon 8 42,033 Utah 0 Washington. 2 62,546 Wyoming 2 82,000 1 101,760 3 181,959 5 251,022 2 177,940 3 1,001,356 1 1,034,853 5 358,958 0 0 3 300, 663 2 206,479 1 244,000 2 629,552 7 331,360 2 10 18 11 3 1 10 2 1 6 10 1 4 9 79,680 71,499 98,012 72,492 1,001,356 1,034,853 210,285 33,531 5,400 162, 873 74,923 244,000 346,049 275,947 Total oravorage 53 42.613 35 377.997 88 176004 Source: Parks fir America, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1964). 1 Parks for America, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of Interior (U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1964). PAGENO="0218" 210 For comparison a township, aix miles square and containing 36 square miles, contains 23,040 acres. Thus, an area of 70,000 acres is approximately 110 square miles. This, if laid out in an approximate square, would be an area 10 x 11 miles. If such an area were shaped as a rectangle with a length approximately twice its width, then the dimensions would be roughly 15 x 7.5 mileS. An area of this size would require only a 3.5 mile penetration on a direct line to get from the boundaries to the central portions. With typical wilderness trails this distance might be increased by 50 percent or more. Even so, a distance of 5 or 7 miles would not seem difficult and much of the interior portions of wilderness would be reasonably accessible. On the other hand, wilderness-type areas in Idaho average over 1,000,000 acres each. This is almost 1,600 square miles and if shaped as a square would be almost 40 miles on each side. Penetration from the edge to the central portions would require a minimum airline distance of about 20 miles and a distance by typical wilderness trails of perhaps 35 to 40 miles. Access to small wilderness-type units found in many states is not extremely difficult. Penetration into larger areas such as some found in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, and Utah does present great difficulties. Many people, familiar with small, jewel-like wilderness areas in their own states, are not fully cognizant of the size and difficulties of access to larger areas. Uontiguov~s areas.-Frequently wilderness-type areas are given different names but are not geographically separated. Two or more areas are joined along common boundaries and thus the contiguous area of wilderness is substantially larger than is indicated by the average size for individual areas. In addition, wilderness- type areas may be contiguous with National Park areas. Existing wilderness laws and regulations provide that roadless areas in national parks could be given wilderness status. The effect of contiguous areas is very pronounced in Wyoming. Yellowstone Park is bounded on the east side by the North Absaroka and South Absaroka Wilderness and on the south side and parts of the east side by Teton Wilderness. The stratified primitive area adjoins the Teton and South Absaroka wilderness areas. Thus in Yellowstone Park and the immediate vicinity there are two large contiguous-wilderness-type areas, which will be referred to hereafter as the Northeast and Southeast Yellowstone contiguous areas (Table 2). TABLE 2.-POTENTIAL on PRESENT OONTIGUOUS WILDERNESS-TYPE AREAS IN WYOMING SE Yellowstone Contiguous: Area, acres SE Yellowstone (approximately) 460, 000 Teton Wilderness 563, 000 South Absaroka Wilderness 506, 300 Stratified Wilderness 147,000 Combined Contiguous 1, 676,300 NE Yellowstone Contiguous: NE Yellowstone (approximately) 349,000 North Absaroka Wilderness 359, 700 Combined Contiguous 708, 700 Wind River Mountain Contiguous: Bridger Wilderness 383, 000 Glacier Primitive 177, 000 Popo Agie Wild 70, 000 Wind River Roadless Area (Indian reservation) 183, 520 Combined Contiguous 813, 520 Cloud Peak Wild Area 94, 000 The Sloutheast Yellowstone contiguous area, including different wilderness arOas indicated in Table 2 is roughly rectangular and about 45 miles wide and 60 miles long. It would be a minimum of 25 to 30 miles from the various boundary areas where visitors might approach with automobiles to the most remote interior points. Or, very likely 45 to 60 miles one way by typical wilderness trails. This does indeed create an extreme problem of inaccessibility. PAGENO="0219" 211 Use of vast wilderness areas are largely limited to the outer fringes for typical wilderness users. Only the very hardy, highly skilled, well equipped, or wealthy are able to penetrate to the heart of the wilderness area. Typical costs for guided pack trips are $30.00 to $40.00 per person per day. Thus, this method of entry and use of wilderness is limited to very few individuals and families. A second example of large contiguous wilderness is the Northeast Yellowstone Park area contiguous with the North Absaroka Wilderness. There is a combined contiguous area of approximately 709,000 acres or about 1,100 square miles. This area is irregular in shape with two valleys which reach into the central area of the wilderness somewhat and with the north end tapering to a narrow, rounded point. Even so, it would be from 27 to 36 miles across in a north-south direction in most places and 6 miles to 60 miles in the east-west direction. Again, a very large area and very large interior portions exist, and must be considered extremely inaccessible by any standards. A third example in Wyoming, not involving national-park lands, is in the Wind River Mountains. This contiguous area includes the Bridger Wilderness, the Glacier Primitive, Popo Agie Wild area, and a "Wjnd Biver Roadless Area" in the Wind River Indian Reservation. The combined area is 813,520 acres, or ap- proximately 1,271 square miles, and is rather elongated and irregular in shape and not oriented in a true north-south direction. Nevertheless, in the long dimen- sion the distance from one boundary to another is from 10 to 40 miles, approxi- mately, and in the shorter dimension the distance across would vary from 12 to 24 miles. Again, a large part of the wilderness area is very inaccessible. The typical wilderness user requires for reasonable health, safety, and comfort a considerable amount of camping equipment. If the wilderness areas are reason- ably accessible from campgrounds reached by motor roads, then many people can use them. Some people can also carry sufficient equipment on their backs to stay a few days in the wilderness in reasonable comfort and safety, and thus can penetrate to the interior portions of small or moderate-sized areas. The type of people who can penetrate many miles into the wilderness and spend many days are extremely few. There is much reason to challenge the logic of maintaining vast wilderness areas inviolate, as is now the case in Wyoming, Idaho, and per- haps some other states. In conclusion, it would seem to me to be desirable to dc-classify wilderness areas, including roadless areas in National Parks, in order to allow some access road construction where it is feasible. Access roads penetrating toward wilder- ness interiors would allow for use by more people, could distribute use away from fringe areas, and result in more uniform use of the entire area. NON-WILDERNESS tJsEs-IMPORTANCE TO LOCAL ECONOMIES A second factor, and undoubtedly a more important consideration than the question of accessibility, is the effect on state and local economies of committing large areas to relatively limited usage. The actual contribution of the wilderness areas to state and local economies at the present time is unknown and would be difficult to determine. The importance to state and local economies of mineral or logging developments, should wilderness areas be open to such developments, is unknown. Mr. James Boyd, President, Copper Range Company, New York, on behalf of the American Mining Congress presented a statement before the Senate Commit- tee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, February 28 and March 1, 1961. He described modern techniques of prospecting including air-borne reconnaissance, ground magnetometer and electromagnetic, induced-polarization, resistivity, and gravity systems, and drilling. These methods of prospecting, with the exception of drilling, leave essentially unmarked the area where the pros- pecting has been performed. They do, however, require a certain amount of equipment, manpower, and transport facilities. The prohibition of operation of motorized equipment, including aircraft, helicopters, and motor-driven genera- tors, would seem to effectively prevent the prospecting by advanced methods by preventing necessary transportation and power use. Mineral deposits Which have been found In the rugged mountain country of the West are typically small deposits in area, although frequently extremely high in value. The 89 active mines in Idaho occupy an area of 68,500 acres, or approximately 750 acres per active mine on the average. Similarly, active PAGENO="0220" 212 mines in Montana and Washington occupy about 800 acres each on the aver- age. The largest non-ferrous metallic mine operating in the United States, the Bingham Canyon Mine of Kennecott Copper Corporation, occupies 19.7 square miles. Even with the land used to provide access for highways, railroads, power lines, and water mains the total land area occupied by a mine the size of the Bingham Canyon Mine would probably not exceed 50 square miles. This is not a large area when compared with the 2,700 square miles of the southeast Yellow- stone contiguous wilderness area previously mentioned. A mine of the average size found in Idaho, Montana, and Washington, oc- cupying slightly over 1 section of land, would, even with necessary access roads and power transmission lines, make an infinitesimal scar on wilderness areas of 1,000 to 2,700 miles in extent. One would not expect any very great number of mines in any one area. Those that would occur would probably be concen- trated in small areas and thus have relatively little effect on the greater por- tion of a large wilderness area. In the unlikely event that a great number of mines or a large mining district were discovered, then that use would accrue great benefits to the local economy. It is clear that the areas of intensive recreational use such as Yellowstone or Teton National Park bring a great deal of income into the state and local economies. The amount of income which is brought in by the vi~st, virtually unused wilderness type areas in conjectural, but is probably relatively small com- pared to the income and benefit to state and local economies from possible min- ing operations. FEDERAL LAND owNERsHIP-wYOMING The relevance of this problem to state and local economies may be better gauged by considering the land areas involved. Wyoming has been divided into three regions to illustrate this problem. The first region, described as an area of concentrated recreational use, includes Yellowstone Park, and Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, Sublette, and Teton counties. This area comprises about 17,347,200 acres and includes two large national parks and all the wilderness-type areas in Wyoming except Cloud Peak. About 85.4 percent of the area is in federal or state ownership (Tables 3 and 4). TABLE 3.-LAND-OWNERSHIP STATUS BY TYPE OF AREA IN WYOMING, 1958 lIn thousands of acresi Land-ownership status Type of areas 1 Concentrated recreational use areas Other "public ,"Private land" land" counties counties Wyoming Total Total area Water surface Dryland Land ownership: Private State and local governments Indian tribal Federal lands Ownership of Federal lands: Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Other Federal Recreational use areas: National parks and wilfllde refuges Wilderness Other national forest area BLM section2 BLM section 15 2 or USFS National grasslands 17, 538 191 17,347 2, 524 643 2,050 12, 130 4, 134 5, 252 2, 177 24 543 2, 201 2,261 2,991 3,810 324 26, 993 18, 134 40 30 26,953 18,104 10, 060 14, 043 2, 003 1, 751 14, 890 2,310 11, 713 1,001 2, 662 1, 174 2 7 3 508 120 7 5 137 2,525 600 10,025 3 1, 688 1, 581 62, 665 261 62,404 26, 627 4, 397 2,050 29, 330 16, 858 9, 088 2, 179 34 1,171 2, 213 2,398 6,116 13,838 3, 592 1 Concentrated recreational use areas include Yellowstone National Park, and Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, Sublette and Teton Counties, which contain extensive national park and/or wilderness areas. Other "public land' counties include Big Horn, Carbon, Johnson, Linclon, Natrona, Sheridan, Sweetwater, Uinta, and Washakie Counties. The "private land" counties include Albany, Campbell, Converse, Croo~c, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston Counties. 2 Refers to sections in the act establshing the Bureau of Land Management. PAGENO="0221" 213 TABLE 4-PERCENTAGE OF AREAS IN VARIOUS LAND-OWNERSHIP CATEGORIES, 1958 [In pnrcent[ Land-ownorship status Type of area 1 Concentrated Other "public "Private land" recreational land" counties counties Wyoming Total use areas Private 14. 55 37. 33 77. 57 42. 67 State and local governments Indian tribal 3. 71 7. 43 9. 67 11. 82 7. 04 3.29 Federal lands Total dryland Ownership of Federal lands: Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service 69. 92 55. 24 12. 76 47. 00 100. 00 100. 00 100.00 100.00 23. 83 43. 48 5. 58 30. 27 9. 88 6. 49 27. 02 14. 57 National Park Service 12.55 .01 3.49 Fish and Wildlife Other Federal . 14 (1) . 02 3. 13 1. 88 . 66 . 05 1. 87 Recreational use areas: National Parks and Wildlife Refuges Wilderness 12. 69 (1) . 03 13.03 .51 3. 55 3.84 Other national forest area 17. 24 9. 37 3. 32 9. 80 BLMsection3 21.96 37.19 .02 22.18 BLM section 15 or USFS national grasslands 1. 87 6. 26 8. 73 5. 76 Total recreational use 66. 79 53. 36 12. 09 45. 12 1 Less than .005 percent. About 43 percent of the total area in these counties of northwestern Wyoming, and including Yellowstone Park, are available for high quality recreational uses in National Parks, and wilderness or other National Forests. An additional 24 percent, although less desirable, has recreational value. State lands and Indian Tribal lands provide additional recreational use opportunities on about 16 per- cent of the area. The major burden of supporting state and local communities and government fall on the 14.6 percent of this land area which is in private ownership. Some benefits derive also from grazing and timber production and recreational uses on the public lands and concentrated recreational activities in Yellowstone' and Teton National Parks. Although there are significant acreages of public lands, problems of concen- trated recreational uses are much less severe in other areas of Wyoming. CONCLUSTONS Vast differences exist within particular states and especially between different states in the size of wilderness areas. "Locking up" these resources' can have detrimental effects' on state and local economies. Careful consideration must be given to these problems in designating or extending wilderness areas. From the standpoint of facilitating public use a single standard should not be applied to wilderness-type areas of all various sizes. Extremely large-sized areas should have provision made for access. Construction of roads into and within wilderness areas would not become excessive because of the extremely difficult terrain in most parts together with prohibitive costs of road construc- tion. However, access roads constructed where it was feasible from an engineer- ing and an economic standpoint would do less damage to the wilderness char- acter of the area than would a large number of pack animals which are used in the areas at present. Commercial use including prospecting by modern methods, which do little or no damage to terrain, exploitation of significant mineral deposits found. and exploitation of significant stands' of commercial timber should also be permitted, in some of the extremely large wilderness areas, such as those in Northwestern Wyoming. PAGENO="0222" 214 STATEMENT BY ROBERT R. GORDON, PRESIDENT, WYOMING COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT My name is Robert R. Gordon, and my residence is Casper, Wyoming. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you honored gentlemen today, as President of the Wyoming Council for Economic Development in particular, and the people of Wyoming in general. With your permission, I desire to point out briefly that the proposed legisla- tion to establish a "wilderness preservation system" 1. Will stifle the further economic growth of Wyoming and harm the welfare of its citizens, as well as 2. Will defeat the very purpose sought. WYOMING COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Wyoming Council for Economic Development is a federation of Wyoming's Statewide Associations, representing the State's agriculture, business and indus- try, and banded together for the common good and well-being of all the people of Wyoming, and to further the State's economic growth. The Wyoming Council for Economic Development was organized to coordinate common interests and efforts, in protecting and developing wisely the State's natural resources, and in building a more prosperous and dynamic Wyoming. Twelve state-wide, Wyoming Associations comprise the current membership: Associated General Contractors of Wyoming Wyoming Automobile Dealers Association Wyoming Division of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation Wyoming Mining Association Wyoming Oil Industry Committee Wyoming Retail Merchants Association Wyoming Stock Growers Association Wyoming Water Development Association Wyoming Wool Growers Association Wyoming Chamber of Commerce Executives Wyoming Taxpayers Association PR!OPO5ED LEGISLATION WILL STIFLE WYOMING'S ECONOMIC GROWTH Area and Population Wyoming ranks 9th in area, among the 50 states, but only 40th, in population. Wyoming only has about one-third of a million people, but 07,411 square miles of land. This means approximately 3.4 people per square mile. Wyoming is still a young State, and has virgin land yet to be explored. Wyoming is in the "high country", with elevations ranging from 3,100 feet to 13,785 feet-Gannett Peak. The mean elevation of the State is approximately 6,700 feet. The average altitude of many communities is one mile. Wyoming is a State of high altitudes and low multitudes. It is jokingly said that whenever the population of a community exceeds the elevation, it's called a city! Natural Resources The Continental Divide cuts through Wyoming from the northwest corner to the south-central border. Water from the State flows in all directions. Four of this Nation's major drainage basins have headwaters in Wyoming. Nature blessed Wyoming with a wide variety of natural resources from Alum through Zircon, including the two basic ingredients needed by industry- energy and water. Wyoming's supply of energy resources is so abundant that we think of the State as "the energy capitol of the nation !" Wyoming's energy reserves rank nationally as: Second in uranium Third in oil shale Fourth in coal Fifth in petroleum Seventh in natural gas Wyoming is bound to grow industrially in the years ahead, with such a unique concentration of energy reserves, plus its diversified mineral deposits PAGENO="0223" 215 and important fore~t lands, provided, all of its natural resources are left open to development for the benefit of mankind. Production of Raw Materials Being handicapped by (1) a small population, and (2) large distances from consumer markets, Wyoming today is still basically a producer of raw materlaI~, even in agriculture, rather than finished goods. Wyoming is a "sleeping giant" that has not yet reached economic maturity to the same degree that ol4er states have, Agriculture and livestock growing, provide the greatest source of income lz~ Wyoming. How~ver, expansion in farming is limited. High elevations mean relatively short growing seasons, iCilling frosts, in the spring prevail as late as May, and even June, and In the fall, late August and early September. Cutting of timber is still in its infancy in Wyoming, and substantial timber losses are experienced annually trots forest fires, Insects and diseases. Production of oil, gas and minerals provides the second large~st income soulee in Wyoming. Oil and gas income has tended to level off In recent years, and coal production is way doWn compared to past outp~1ts. l1o~wever, the State has shown growth in total mineral production, because of developments in minerals which were not considered too important just a generation ago, minerals si~eb as uranium, trona, and bentoxii'te. Thus, if the State's economy is to grow higher in the future, and flew job opportunities opened, then much of it is dependent upon wise use of the lafld in Wyoming and its minerals. Federal Lands In Wyoming Approximately one-half of Wyoming's land area is under Federal Govern- ment domination, in one form or another. Consequently, a large segment of the State's economy in general, and the livelihood of many Wyoming people and business firms in particular, are at the mercy of the Federal Government's rulings, as well as bureau and. agency administrations, on the use, or nonuse, of Federal lands. TVilderness Legislation Harmful The wilderness legislation now j~roposed, If enacted, will look up forever. ten years hence, the wise use for mankind's benefit of forests and nthierals of certain areas. Many new jobs and business oppportunities will be lost forever. Also, this wilderness legislation, if enacted, very likely will result in with- drawing even more important lands in Wyomin.g from economic development, thereby further stifling the State's fpture growth, and reducing tax revenues so sorely needed. Who is so' all-wise to'day to determine what this Nation's natural resource requirements will be tomorrow, for civilian and defense needs? A half century ago, American encyclopedias defined uranium as a completely worthless white metal. And remember, it's only been 10 years since uranium was discovered in Wyoming! Discrimt~iation Against Wyoming A review of the proposed wilderness legislation discloses, that cure was taken to protect areas within older states-states witl~ more mature economies than Wyoming. And now, some of the older states are proposing economic l~and1caps for Wyoming, to their benefit It's significant to' note that more than whopping one-third of the total proposed wilderness acreage in seven Western States would be in Wyoming. L~isting Laws Adequate There's no need to curtail job opportunities and bankrupt Wyoming's future economy, and weaken America, through unnecessary shackles, as envisioned by the proposed wilderness legislation. The multiple-use principle has been in effect over a half-century, and worked well in shaping the economy of the West. There are already adequate Federal statuteS to protect America's natural resources and assure their wise use, to guarantee the greatest good fo'r the greatest number of people. This fact Is even recognized in Section 4 of HR. 9102 which listsi nine acts of Congress designed to protect the public domain and promote its wise use. 91-958-68-15 PAGENO="0224" 216 PROI)OSED LFiGISLATION WILL DEFNA~ V~Y PUBPOSE SOTJOE~ Section 2 of ILR. 9162 describes the ~urpos'e of a Nat! nal Wilderness Preser- vation System "~ * * for the use and enjoyment of the Ameriean people * * I~owever, use of such wilderness areas are to be made without motor vehicles and without. roads, also without landing of aircraft, and the like. pet's be realIstic. Today,. the American masses of people travel on wheels and wings, be it for business or pleasure, and not on foot or horseback. Thus, this pro.posect legislation defeats the very purpose sought, by malting vast areas of the public domain inaccessible to all but the wealthy few who are finnnçially able'to hIre horses ~nd guides to enjoy such wilderness areas.. A. typical example~ of ~io'w most Americans enjoy the Nation's outdoors is the use n~ade o~ Yellowstone, National Park in Wyon$ng-tbe Nation's oldest natiçaqU park... Less than five pecent. oct .Ye)Jowstoue Park's area is used by the nearly two million vJaitors who come there from year to year. Within a balf~mUe walk from spy `road in the Park you will find the land as primitive as it was before white men came ther~~nearly a century ~ `Therefore, if the ~propqs'ed wilderness, legislation is enacted, it will result in setting aside, so called public lands, fqr the private enjoyment of a few, represent- ing less than two percent of the Nation's population. Such a condition relegates .98 percent of the people to second-class cititzenship, in the use and enjoyment of t'Iiø public dom~in~. Wyoming, the "Equality State", strenuously objects! STATEMEN1~ OF BAYARD D. REA, CAsrEE, Wxo. iNThonuOrION I am an independent and consulting geologist residing in Casper, Wyoming. My residence In Wyoming totals nine years. I am a member of various conservation organizations and was Vice-President of the Wyoming Audubon Society two years ago. As a Director of that society I participated in the Washakie Wilder- i~s l~earing In Riverton, Wyoming on December 8, 1966. STATEMfiNT As a geologist actively involved in the exploration for and exploitation of natural resources on public lands and as an active supporter of conservation causes, I feel that I can appreciate both positions that have been presented re- garding the deilliltion of the proposed wilderness area; that of the U.S. Forest Service and that of the conservation groups. Having heard and read most of the arguments for and against the proposed additions and exclusions I should like to urge your serious consideration of the following points: 1. The drainage area of the Middle Fork of Wood River (Forest Service area 1) should be excluded. On the basis of the U.S. Geological Survey study (U.S.G.S. Bulletin 1230-E) and current mineral exploration, it seems likely that the Kirwin Area will experience renewed mining development at some time in the future. Since it already Includes patented mining claims, the area would not logically fit the wilderness definition. 2. Most of the areas along the south edge of the i~resent Stratified Prinlitive Area proposed by the conservation groups should be added, but their boundaries should be more logically drawn than has been done by either the Forest Service or the conservation groups. (See No. 3, which follows.) My reasons foD recom- mending these additions are: (a) `Protection of .the watersheds from erosion of the steep~ slopes which might result from logging operations. (b) Protection of an important game habitat from disturbance by logging. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission has clearly expressed this point of view and it should be respected. (c) Providing of desirable recreation areas which will be accessible to the average "automobile tourist" as well as the more adventurous "back-pack- ers." It is becoming increasingly obvious that additional desirable camping areas must be provided in the vicinity of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks in order to alleviate the overcrowding of these parks. The upper DuNoir valleys would serve this purpose and should be protected for this use in the future. PAGENO="0225" 217 I would also urge that if these areas are added, narrow access corridors along some of the existing jeep trails should be left open. This would serve not only to avoid one of the common criticisms of the wilderness program, but more im- portantly to encourage the use of the area by more tourists and decrease the pressure on the national parks. Let me emphasize that I am not advocating addi- tional roads, mererly retention and perhaps eventual improvement of existing roads. 3. The final boundaries of the Wilderness Area should follow, where practi- cable, established or projected rectangular land lines. This would permit precise legal definition of the boundary and avoid the ambiguity that now exists in some areas. The attached maps incorporates all of the above-mentioned points and I sub- mit for your consideration the proposed boundary shown by the solid red line. Respectfully submitted. B~yAjw 0. Rz~. STATEMENT OF JOE AND MARY BACI~, Dunois, WYo. My name is Joe W. Back. I am an artist and an author, and my wife, Mary, is an artist. We live near Dubois. I am well acquainted with most of the area proposed for the Washakie Wilder- ness. I support the general Forest Service proposal; and am heartily in favor of adding to it the upper DuNoir Valley, the Bear Creek Basin, and the bases of the cliffs between theni. I first came to the upper Wind River Valley and the Absaroka Mountains in 1920 and worked then as a tie-hack and river-driver. SInce 1924 I have lived in the area continuously except for five years studying art and two years during World War II. I have worked in the area under consideration as guide, hunter, packer, dude rancher, and game warden. The country of the proposed addition to the Forest Service plan for the Washakie Wilderriess---that is, the upper parts of the East Fork and West Fork of DuNoir (on the west), Bear Basin (on the east), and the southern slopes of the tall cliffs in betw'een~is a real paradise for game, is easy of acaes~ to people, is beautifully though thinly forested, and is mostly characterized by very steep slopes. All this adds up to the fact that it is beautifully situated for recrea- tion and for an approach to the wilderness. Its development as a popular jump- ing-off point for Wilderness experiences calls only for minimum building of graveled roads to its edges, and building of primitive camp grounds. Its development as a recreational resource is not opposed by cattlemen (who already use it and whose use would continue), or by mining or oil Interests,. It is supported by all the permanent Dubois Oommunity, who hunt and fish, picnic and rock-hunt and just enjoy this area, and appreciate it as an economic resource on account of its recreational attraction. It is supported by game and wildlife experts. It is strongly supported by water protection specialists. Who oppose it? U.S. Plywood. This fact indicates without a doubt that these lands are wanted for the board feet of timber on them. This is not big timh~r. It's high mountain growth, largely lodgepoile pine and spruce, which U.S. Plywood cuts up into 2x4s and into fine chips for particle board. (None of it is used for plywood). This `timber is of painfully slow growth. A tree a hundred years old may be eight inches diameter at the base. The ashy slopes protected by the timber have got this protection only after hundreds of years of slow growth. Snow lies in here into July, and often returns in September; even if the snow holds' off, the grow- ing season is over by September. Whenever these slopes are cleared, they wash at a terrifying rate. The Absaroka Mountain,s are unique in being made up very largely of volcanic ash. They wash away just like an enormous ash heap. All this ash fills the streams and pollutes the water. The protection of this water resource' is vital. The inclusion of all this steeply sloping, lightly timbered southern fringe of the Absaroka Range into the Wasbakie Wilderness Area is most important in order to keep the timber from being cut off. If these slopes are bared, our water will be polluted, the recreational access to the wilderness destroyed, and the game driven out. PAGENO="0226" 218 STAT nxr ~ th~ox~Ano 1~. 41~U) Lotrrslt NonLt~, O'onA, Wxo. We are Rleha'rd R. and Louise NoMe we own and. operate a ranch located in Cora Valley. Our living is made by raising cattle and horses. Even though ranching is our primary interest, we favor the recreation that is in our area. We lire at the edge of th~ Bridger Wild~ri1e55 area, and we enjoy the out door sports and game bunting that we have just as much `as those who come from the outlying eemmun1ties~ With the pEpulati'on growing `as fast as it Is, we firmly believe that you cannot set aside éti~u~h ibud for the futui~e' gen- erations and their* posterity. Therefore we wish to give our full support to the addition `of East `D~N'oir Creek and West DuNoir Creek, Bear Basin Wiggins, Fork, Lineeln paint~ the `bead waters of Mile <~reek and Parclue Creek to be included in the Bill. Phe timber that is foufld in the above mentioned areas are very valu~tble to the wild life and their existence, also this timber is a very vital water sls4d, dams cannot do the job nor replace the timber once it is removed from these areas. The beauty `of these regions and their usefulness depend on conditions remaining as they are and will be as a wilderness area. JANUAEY 3, 1967. To: Regional Forester. 1~rom: Roy W. Stickel, Dubois, Wyo. Subject: Favorable consideration of proposal to maximize acreage included in Wilderness System near Duhois, Wyo. as provided for in the wilderness law of 1964. Sin: My feelings on this matter are quite simple. General~y.-Maxindze the area covered by the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System in the entire United Sta~tes. ~pecifloally.-ApProve by Congressional action `the proposal made by Orin Bonney `which `has the effect of meeting tli~ general objective stated above. The reasons for doing this are equally simple, logical, and most important of all, are in the general interest of `the majority of the citizens of our great country: A Far 2e~ng President.-4n 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt told Con- gress: "Some of the forest `reserves should afford perpetual protection to the native fauna and flora, safe `havens of refuge to our rapidly di~inisbing wild animals * * * and free camping grounds for the ever increasing numbers' of men and women who have learned to find rest, health and recreation in the splendid forests a'nd flower-clad meadows `of our mountains." Wilderness La~u, of 1964.-The need for preservation of our high country' is clearly stated: * * * It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generaltions the benefitS of an enduring resource of wilderness * * * to assure that an increasing popula- tion, accompanied by expanding settlement `and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United `States * * * leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition." All have become painfully aware of the increase in population in the United States. This coupled with a gradually reducing work week is creating pressure on existing `areas which can be partially relieved by increasing thu wilderness area's for recreational use, Local Economy-What About the Future?-It has been said that Dubois is deriving its greatest income from the timber `industry. Currently this may be true, but what of the future? After `the timber `interests `have clear-cut `the marketable timber-and at present rates this will only take several years-then the timber industry will move to other green timberlands and Dubois will be left with tour- ~ism aS its major source of income. Hardly an impressive forecasts for the future since the tourist will be agonized by the ugly, gaping wound's in the forest and it will be unlikely that he will stay in the area or recommend it to his frIen~S, Pros'iniSty to Yeilowstone.-Hordes of tourists continue to' increase the pres- sure on Yellowstone Park. Current estimates of expected T'isito'r totals in the next few years `and onward stagger the imagination. Qtiite naturally, visitor's will overflow into adjacent areas as the pressure increases. We certainly have no right to deny them the opportunity of enjoying the beauty and intelligently using the lands their forefathers found `and left In their pristine glory for future generations. PAGENO="0227" 219 Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.-One of the c'orn~rstones of our demo~racy is the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number'. The great- est number in this case are not the timber industrialists or the mining investors. The greatest number are the other citizen users of those wilderness areas. Their needs should be given maximum weight in considering the size of the wilderness areas. Will Not Bankrupt the Timber Industry.-Tbe area proposed for addition to the Forest Service proposal can hardly be considered critical as' far as the timber industry is concerned. As an illustration, some fifteen years ago, there was har- vested in North and Central America some 120,828,000,000 board feet of co~iifer- ens trees. With the growth of the timber industry in the U.S. since that `date, today's figure would make the same 90,000,000 board feet available in the pvo- posed'ad'ditional area-a bucket of wood chips indeed. Mining Industry Not Affected.-Since the law provide's for continued prospect- ing in `the wilderness `areas over the next twenty five years and `permits' with- drawal `of mineral areas from coverage, the mining interests are not being ad- versely affected. Certainly the amount of "action" by the mining `industry in this area in the past decade hardly is indicative of substantial interest in it. Further- more, recent reports by government geoiogis'ts advise that the chance of coin- znerci'ally profitable mineral deposits is' slight. Does "Business" Really Want Land Destruction?-Local spokesmen for the timber industry show a lack of foresight in expressing tl~eir views. Qnç cannot help but wonder if their boards of directors really uncjualifk~dly endprse the positions taken by these spokesmen. There has been evidence in the last few,yea'rs of the insulation of corporate management from the decisions taken at field level. It is hard to imagine that the broadness of vision so typical of today's top executive would encourage total de'struction of natural beauty. Du.bois Community in ,S'ulistantial Accord.-The obje'ctives of the business- men in the Dubois community are highly divergent. Yet there is virtual una- nimity to endorse increasing the acreage in the. National Wilderness System. TMs l~a~ occurred only after d~tailed, non-partisan examination of the varioua pro- posals. One can conclude that the sm~11 businessman in the Dubois area has shown commendable consideration for the "greatest number"-this is marked contrast to the opinions expressed by representatives of the timber lnterests.. Erosion Threatens an Already Dry Country-Water in the land's blood, and in this area of Wyoming water is scarce Anything that contributes to a decrease in the water available is not in the general interest. Thus the addition of tim- bered laud to the Forest Service proposal will aid in avoidance of further erosion and through this help to preserve what wate'r is available. Wildlife Preservation-No cover-no water-no game. It's as simple as that. No one has conclusively proved that clear-cutting is not harmful to wildlife preservation. So long as clear-cutting is Forest Service policy then it is in the public interest to permit clear-cutting only in areas where preservation of wild- life is not affected. A Personal View-After consideration of the needs of the "greatest num- ber", each citizen should voice once his own personal views. .As a Car~er employee in foreign service of one of the world's largest com- panies, I had no home to go to upon retirement. After frequent pro-retirement visits spanning ten years and careful study of other areas, I chose the Dubois area of Wyoming over ~ll the rest pf the United States because here I can enjoy the beauty and grandeur that God created for my forefathers and me. I want it to stay that way forever for the enjoyment of all those who come after me, Very truly yours, `Roy W. STIcm. STATEMENT OF WINNINETTE A. NOYES, EUGENE, OREG. Although I have not yet been able to visit in the area proposed as the Washakie Wilderness, I have visited somewhat similar areas and have studied carefully the proposal presented here. The Forest Service is to be complimented on its proposal, but I would like to suggest additions which would make the new Wilderness an even better one. The addition of approximately 46,000 acres, primarily in the DuNoir Creek, Bear Easin, Wiggins Fork, and several smaller areas, as recommended by the Wilderness Society and other organizations would be most helpful in making a well-rounded wilderness area. PAGENO="0228" 220 Combining the enlarged Stratified Primitive Area and the existing Absaroka Wilderness into one administrative unit appears to be an excellent idea. WYOMING OUTFITTERS AssocIATIoN, February 12, 1968. Senator CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Ui~1. Senate Office Building, Washin/gtm,D.U. DEAR SENATOR HANSEN: Since receiving your letter of February 2nd, I have contacted the Directors of the Wyoming Outfitters Association in regard to your invitation for this Association to submit a statement on our position on the Washakie Wilderness proposal at the hearings before the Senate Interior Com- mittee January 19th. With the unanimous support of the various local Oifttltters and Guides Asso- ciations In 1966 and again in 1967, the Wyoming Outlltters Association resolved to firmly support the Washakie Wilderness proposal with boundary additions as advocated by the Bonny-Sierra Club Study and I am enclosing a copy of our statement as delivered for the record at the Riverton hearing. In continued firm support of our resolution, and in acceptance of your kind Invitation, we have chOsen Los Shoemaker of Dubois, as spokesman for the Asso- ciation to appear before the committee Feb. 19th and present a statement for the record. As he is Iritfirnately familiar with the acreage under consideration, conversant with the problems and temper of the Dubois locality and a Director, Charter Member and Past President of this Association, Los was the unanimous choice of the Officers and Directors to represent us on this proposal and he will appear before the Committee with the complete support and Indorsement of the Wyoming OutfittOrs Assu. To promote better public understanding of the plan and purposes of this Asso- ciation and to solicit further popular support for our resolution on the Washakie Wilderness proposal, I have made a press release which is intended to be of bene- fit to all and injurious tO none. In these turbule~it times I know there are many urgent demands on your time and talents, and I sincerely appreciate your consideration of our views and your invitation to appear before the Committee, Recently, I have been in touch with all the available Officers and Directors of this Association and several of the local Associations, and it is certainly the consensus that we are hideed fortunate to have a man of your background, ca- pability and integrity to represent us. Sincerely, GEORGE N. CLOVER, President. WYOMING OUTFITTER5 AssoclAvioN, Moran, Wyo., December 8, 1966. To: Washakie Wilderness hearing, Ri'oertou, Wyo. GENTLEMEN: The Wyoming Outfitter's Association enthusiastically endorses a proposal of the United States Forest Service to combine the old Stratified Primi- tive Area with the established South Absaroka Wilderness Area, tbua forming a new entity to be know as the Washakie Wilderness Area. It is historically and poetically proper that this proposed wilderness be named for that great Shoshone, Chief Washakie. We call attention to the adjoining and long established Absaroka Wilderness Area and applaud that discernment which would thus represent and honor the two outstanding aboriginal mountain and high plains peoples-the Crow, or Absaroka, and the Snake, or Eastern Sho- shone. We believe that Is is altogether fitting that names representative of these two American Indian Nations should be indelibly placed, side by side, in desig- nation of that region which they both so dearly loved and which they so fiercely contested, one with the other. But we can not use, we can not borrow the name of any great and wise man for any use without reflection upon how that man, being present, would appraise the particular use intended. We believe that Chief Wasbakie, If he were here at this meeting, would be the first to acclaim the proposal presently under considera- tion. But we also believe that that chief, famed for a wise an discriminating PAGENO="0229" 221 mind, would, In choice of a southerly boundary for this wilderness, select those borderlines proposed by the Bonney-Sierra Club Study in preference to those ad- vanced by the United States Forest Service itself. We believe that he would make that choice for these two reasons alone: That the Bonney-Sierra proposals would round out what is an unfinished whole; that they would provide, as-in a national park precedent-did the Snake River Val- ley Floor for the Grand Teton Range, the necessary surroundings and atmos- phere in which to set one's lodge and contemplate in composure and unspoiled vista of grandeur-of towering, far ranging escarpments, extensive alpine pla- teaus and peaks forming a serrated skyline. Being within a wilderness is only one part of a wilderness experience. Some distance, some perspective is neces- sary in which to see the entirety and understand what has been seen. And we believe that Washakie would also quickly comprehend: That these proposed additions are of greater intrinsic value to the single use of recreation than they are to the total combination of all other phases of the multiple use theory; that one other multiple use facet, lives:tock grazing, not being incompati- ble with recreational use, could and should be continued in any event; that an- other multiple use facet, lumbering, conducted as has been the practice In the Wind River Valley, and pailticularly as exemplified on the Wiggins Fork, would physically maul the terrain, open It to increased ravages by natural erosion and largely ruin it for the prime use of recreation. Therefore, while endorsing the United States Forest Service proposal to create a Washakie Wilderness Area, we recommend those boundary additions submitted by `the Bonney-Sierra Club Study. Very truly yours, NEDWARD M. FRosT, Spokesman. [Telegram] CHirvENNE, W~o., March 5, 1968. Senator CLIFFoRD P. HANSEN, New Senate 0 jjlee Building, Washington, D.C.: The Wyoming Natural Resource Board has always endorsed the policy of full multiple-use concept of land resources and feels that this policy should prevail wherever possible. If it is determined that a reclassification should be made the natural resource board supports the U.S. Forest Service proposal for the pro- posed Washakie Wilderness. This proposal includes 188,358 acres of the Stratified Primitive Area and 4,768 acres of the adjacent Shoshone National Forest. The natural resource board is opposed to any other additions to the proposed wild- erness area. CHARLES B. ASTLEis, President, Wyoming Natural Resource Board. Tna IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE or AMERICA, Laramie, Wyo., February 14,1968. Hon. CLIFFORD HANSEN, Subcommittee on Parks, Wilderness and Recreation Areas, Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HANSEN: With regret that I will not be able to accept your invitation to attend the Senate Sub-committee hearing on S. 2630 pertaining to the establishment of the proposed Washakie Wilderness of the Shoshone National Forest of Wyoming I desire to have this statement included in the record of the hearing. I am a member of the Public Lands Committee of the Izaak Walton League of America and am now serving as the National Director of the organization for Wyoming. 1 I very much favor the inclusion of the present Stratijied Primitive Area with certain additions along the south and southwestern boundaries which will add materially to its value as a wilderness Testimony was made by myself and representatives of other conservation organizations to this effect at the Forest Service hearing in Riverton Wyoming in December 1966 2. The southern and southwest boundaries as proposed at present by tha Forest Service and which are the basis of the area proposed In S. 2630 are too restrictive and should be extended to include certain additional areas. We PAGENO="0230" 222 respectfully urge the amendment of this bill to include the areas generally described as follows: S The Bear Basin Drainage, approx. 5,140 acres The Upper Wiggins Fork-Caldwell Creek Area, approx. 4,040 acres The upper portions of J~arque Creek, eastern slope of Ramsborn, upper portions of Five Mile and Six Mile Creeks, 6,880 acres The eastern portion of the DuNoir Creek Basins, approx. 24,820 acres. 3. The locations, numbered sections and townships, and approximate acre- ages of these recommended additions will be shown to your sub-committee by Mr. Thomas Bell, Executive Director of the Wyoming Outdoor Coordinating Council, who will be presenting a statement and showing maps on behalf o~ sev- eral Wyoming conservation organizations at the bearing. This includes the Wyo- ming Division of the Jzaak Walton League. 4. These additions will add approximately 41,000 acres to be added to the L~6,390 acres now proposed by the Forest Service for the Stratified Primitive Area as Wilderness. The present acreage of the Primitive Area has been deter- mined at 2O~,930 acres. 5. I have discussed this proposal with Mr. Bell several times, have read the statement which be has prepared and am in full accord with it. Mr. Bell has given a great deal of time to visiting the area in question, in talking with the many interested residents of the Dgbois area in assessing and evaluating the various factors involved. There has been evident general and widespread interest and support for the wilderness proposal in the Dubois area. 6. Attention is called to the previously announced stand of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in which it cites the critical n~ed of the U~pper Dii- Noir Valley as a calving ground and winter range for the large elk herd rang- ing in that area, and of the urgent need of protecting this area from logging activities which would seriously interfere with the elk. I believe this need justi- fies its inciusion in the Wilderness. 7. In this particular area of Wyoming I feel that the scenic, recreational and wi1diife habitat values far exceed those of any industrial interest and should be given primary consideration in bolstering the economy of the region. There is and should be no conflict with domestic livestock operations in this area in the establishment of a wilderness. S S. A concession has been made by the conservation orgabizations in the exclu- sion of the i~Eiddle FOrk of Wood River In the northeast portion of the present Primitive Area. This is approximately8,~00 acres, whféh was originally proposed, even by the thidersigneci, for inclusion in the Wilderfiess. This area is known to have certain mineral ]~Otentials which may be developed in the next 15 years. However, this area Is high gcenic and recreational vahue~ and iS the home of a sizeable elk herd. 9. Too much concern should not be given to the evidence in some of these pro- posed additions, to early logging operations, jeep trails and rough roads or vehicle trails. These roads are not necessary for bunting or other recreational uses, and with proper wilderness protection will, in a few years disappear from view. 10. We do nOt have and cannot thave too much wilderness in these high altitude and highly scenic areas øf our State. They are among the most valuable assets of our commonwealth. We should now and before it is too late take proper means to protect and preserve the best of them for the use and enjoyment of our people who will be living in and will be coming to Wyoming in ever increasing numbers in the years tocome. S Respectfully submitted. S S BURTON W. MARSTON, S WYOMING AUDUIiON SOCIETY, Carper, Wyo., February 13, 1968. Senator CLIFTORD P. HANSEN, senate Office Building, Warhington~, D.C. S Di~ui SENATOR HANSEN: The Wyoming Audubon Society wants to enter a plea concerning the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area in Wyoiping. We en- dorse the recommendations of the WyomlUg Game and Fish Commission, and the Sierra Club concerning additions to the Wilderness Area, particularly Bear Basin and the upper DuNoir drainage. The worth to Wyoming and the Nation in dollars and cents for recreation, as well as any esthetic values of these areas PAGENO="0231" 223 preserved for wilderness, will far exceed any money yielded from commercial timber operations. We would recommend the exclusion of the Kirwin Mining District from the proposed wilderness system. Portions of `this area have been recommended for inclusion within the wilderness district. The Kirwin District does contain valu- able mineral deposits of molybdenum, lead and silver. It is our understanding that one large mining company anticipates conducting large scale mining operations in the area. We would suggest that the south boundary of the mining area be moved south to the Middle Fork of the Wood River. South of this boundary mineralization is absent, and this area should not be excluded from the proposed wilderness area. We would appreciate your submitting our views to the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs `Committee, of which you are a member, at the February 19th hearing concerning the Washakie Wilderness Area. We realize that you have introduced Bill S. 2630 and we want you to know that we sincerely appreciate your interest concerning the Washakie Wilderness Area and as a group of Wyoming citizens, we wish to thank you for your efforts. It is my personal feeling that there need not be any great conflict between the various parties who utilize the public lands. Usually the great hue and cry that arises when various legislative proposals are made concerning the public lands could be resolved if all parties concerned would sit down together and mutually discuss the matter. "Lack of communication" is much more of a prob- lem than basic differences of opinion. I am endorsing a copy of a letter which we have sent to Senator Frank Church concerning the February 19th hearing. Yours truly, JOHN ALBANESE, President. WYOMING AUDUBON SocIETY, Casper, Wyo., February 12, 1968. Senator F1~Arn~ CHURCH, SubconIn'l~ittee Chairman, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: The Wyoming Audubon Society wants to enter a plea on the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area to `have the regions added suggested by the Sierra Club and the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission particularly Bear Basin and the upper DuNoir drainage. The worth to Wyoming and the Nation in dollars and cents for recreation as well as any asthetic values of these areas preserved as wilderness will far exceed any commercial timber money. On the advise of several geologist members we would exclude the Kirwin area from this wilderness system. We believe this has valuable mineral resources and would suggest the Middle Fork of the Wood River as the south boiindry. South of this stream the geology is different and it should not be excluded. Respectfully, JOHN ALBANESE, President, JOSEPH W. YANT, Treasurer. Mrs. Bnucn WARD, Secretary. Mrs. FLORENCE J. SPRING, Vice President. OLIVERS V. SCOTT, Director. Wasr COvI1~A, CALIF., February 17, 1968. PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, Senate Interior Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am submitting my comments in regard to the San Gabriel Wil- derness area as proposed in Senate Bill 5. 2531. I desire that these comments be entered as part of the hearing record on this bilL The national wilderness problem is not nearly so much how much we shall have as how much can we have. This is now true and will increasingly become fact as the works of man spread over the land as these works have spread through much of the San Gabriel Mountains. PAGENO="0232" 224 The area proposed for wilderness will reach its highest use in this classifica- tion and will predictably become one of the great assets to the public of Southern California. I recommend that actions to enter this territory into wilderness as proposed in Senate Bill S. 2581 proceed without further question. Sincerely, Mr. JAMES A. ALLEN III. SOCIETY or AMmtIcAN FoREsTERS, February 26, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHtTRCH, Chairman, Committee on Public Lands, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Columbia River Section, Society of American Foresters, the following resolution concerning Senate Bill 2751 is re- spectfully submitted. The Columbia River Section, Society of American Foresters includes some 1,600 professional foresters from public agencies, industry, educators and con- sultants within the State of Oregon. Resolution Whereas, all Chapters of the Columbia River Section have made a study ~f the U.S. Forest Service proposal for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness; now therefore, the members of the ENecutive committee of the Columbia River Section in at- tendance at their quarterly meeting in Eugene, Oregon, on February 24, 1968, do go on record in unanimous endorsement of the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness as proposed by the U.S. F~rest Service. Sincerely yours, GEORGE BOYESEN, Section Chairman, Columbia River Section. STANDARD INSURANCE Co., Portland, Oreg., February 8, 1968. Hon. MARK 0. HATFIELD, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C. DEAR MARK: You will find attached to this letter a copy of my letter to Senator Jackson in respect to the reclassification of the Mt. Jefferson Primitive Area. Ft occurred to me that I should write you about my own personal experience with the Mount Jefferson area. For better than thirty-five years I have biked, climbed, back packed and camped within the Mount Jefferson area. As a result, I know it well although, of course, no one can say he is an authority on every square foot of the land. Since the reclassification has been under consideration, I have personally made a number of trips into the area to check on specific questions. For instance, a few years ago some of us camped in Jefferson Park for a week and while there we made a trip to Sentinel Hills so that we could look over the western part Which was coming in for a considerable discussion. It seemed obvious that the low country to the west of Sentinel Hills would be best devoted to forestry operation. Also, in recent years trips have been made into Pamelia Lake, Marion Lake and, on the east side up Candle Creek to Table Lake and out by way of Cabot Creek. The Forest Service recommendations in respect to these areas seems to be sound. As ~ou may know I served as president of the Federation of Western Outdoor Olubs in the year 1946-47. Somehow or another the group seems to have become more extreme in its views since that time. It appalls me as I review the actions of this group, the Sierra Club and others because they seem to have become pressure groups rather than study groups considering projects objectively on the basis of merit. The Forest Service has done a very careful job in arriving at its conclusions on this Mt. Jefferson classification. They have checked and. rechecked their rec- ommendations and made some changes that were evidently due to the viewpoints PAGENO="0233" 225 expressed at hearings. I have particular reference here to the Firecamp Lakes area. In my judgment, they have assigned competent men to this task and I believe they have done a good job. Their recommendations are sound, and I believe they should be supported. Recognizing that this area is very close to you personally, I know that you will have a keen interest in the progress of Senate Bill 2751. I wanted to assure you that in my judgment it is a good bill and worthy of your support. Best regards. Sincerely, GARNETT E. CANNON, President. SIMPsoN TIMDER Co., Albany, Oreg, February 19,1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Chctirnupj~, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DIsAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: The Simpson Timber Company operates a plywood plant at Albany, Oregon which employes 241 men with an annual payroll of $1,700,000. This plant has been in continuous operation since 1941 and is presently 100% dependent on government timber sales for raw material. A volume of fifty million board feet of Timber `Sales annually is required to' supply logs of a type used in this plant. The proposed addition to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness `area results in a reduction of ten million board feet in the `allowable cut for the North S'antiam working circle. This represents 20% `of the timber sales required to operate our plant. The Department of Agriculture has spent a great deal of time with qualified pec~le in their study of this area. The study considered recreational values as well as timber values and I am confident that their decision is equita'ble to all parties. The Simpson Timber Company, therefore, endorses without change the De- partment of Agriculture proposal for adding the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation System as provided in 5. 2751. Sincerely yo'urs, 0. D. DAVIS, ______ Manager, Oregon Timberlands. SPORT FISHING INSTITUTR, Washington, D.C., Nay ember 13, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DIL&R MR. CHAIRMAN: Sport Fishing Institute would like to go on record in support of Senator Kuchel'~ bill, S. 2582, "to `designate the San Gabriel Wilderness, Angeles National Forest, in the State of California." The California Department of Fish and Game `supports Senator Kuehel's measure and we understand that the California Resources Agency ha's testified in `behalf of the State at hearings held in Southern California during the summer of 1960. Mr. Chairman, I `am intimately acquainted with this a'rea, having `served as District Fishery Biologist in the Southern California area. During my 12 years of experience we found the San Gabriel watershed to `be one of the most heavily utilized by nearby metropolitan outdoor recreation-seeking sportsmen. The West Fork of the San Gab'riel River, which heads in the Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon Primitive Area has produced some of the finest put-and-take rainbow trout fishing in the State `of CalifornIa. Experiments conducted in above 1957 `show the extremely heavy removal `by anglers of trout-up to 90 per cent of a 3,000 fish plant in a 3,000 foot section within two days! My `point, Mr. Chairman, `is that this watershed is deserving of all the `pro'tec- t'ion that it can possibly receive. Reclassification of the headwate'r section into a Wilderness Area should be of considerable value as a protective device against intrusion of future up-stream developers. PAGENO="0234" 226 Kindly include these remarks as part `of any record of hearings held on this subject. Sincerely, PHILIP A. DOUGLAS, Eccecutive $ecretary. THE IzAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMEaICA, Washington, D.C., March 6, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairm~an, Com~nittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOE JACKSON: This letter is offered on behalf of the Public Lands Committee of the Izaak Walton League of America, In support of a Washakie Wilderness in the State of Wyoming, the general nature of which is described in 5. 2630. We request that the statement be includej in the Record. The long interest and support by the League for the Wilderness principle has been established since the first proposals for a National Wilderness Preservation System were made, and need not be reiterated for purposes of this Record. The Ptiblic Lands Committee, which includes members from every region of the United States and who have special q~ialifications or special concern or both in the stewardship of the public estate, is assigned the responsibility of recoin- mending public lands policies to our National organization and of aiding in the iniplementation of policies which the National organization has adopted. The members of the Committee ha~ve been appraised of the Washakie Wilderness pro- posals, and this letter represents the anthorized consensus. I would add that the writer Is personally familiar with portions of the present Stratified Primitive Area and the Absaroka Wibjernes~, particularly in the Wiggins Fork drainage. The Public Lands Conunittee strongl~V supports the combining of these two units Into a new, but enlarged Wasbakie Wilderness. We especially urge the addi- tion of areas on the southern and western boundaries of the present Stratified Primitive area, tota'ing `in ~cess of 40,000 acres. These areas would include Bear Basin drainage, Upper Wiggins F~ork, Caldwell Creek, Parque Creek, the eastern slope of RamshortL, upper portions of Fivemile and Sizmile Creeks, and at least the eastern portion of the DuNoir Creek basins of sonie 25,000 acres or more. These recommended additions generally parallel proj~osals by the Forest Service, but include additional areas which the League's Public Lands Commit- tee believes are worthy of and ~neet the test of Wilderness. We would also suggest that continued study be given toward possible inclusion of areas in the drainage of the Middle Fork of the Wood River and Dundee Creek. The observations of our Committee member John W. Spencer, of Santa Rosa, California, who has special q~ialifications, would be useful for the Record, and we request that these be included: "* * * ~ am quite familiar with the original Stratified Primitive Area. In fact, at the time it was set up I was Chief of the Djvi~ion of Recreation and Lands in the Denver office of the U.S. Forest Service, and participated in the examina- tion of the area on the ground with Bob Marshall and others, The area is out- standing in its scenic, wildlife, and recreational values and merits our wh~le~ hearted support. It is true that `there are some small areas of possible mineral value that may be used as a base for some opposition. The fact remains that the whole region has been closely prospected during the last 100 years, and so far as I know there are no mineral developments of commercial importance at the present time within actual areas under consideration * * *" Senator Jackson, in the question of wilderness, the people of the United States are dealing with a vestige of the national estate. We are all too aware that the efforts to implement a national wilderness system are linked with the idea of "locking up" resourees. We cannot concur with the validity of such views, when we are considering areas representing about 2% of the land of a nation. It seems to us that we have a great opportunity today~-unquestiofl'ahlY a last opportunity-to assure the maximum diversification in outdoor experiences through the most positive implementation of the Wilderness Act. Co~sidering the extent of the public estate and the many and useful purposes which it serves. the wilderness opportunity is the most rare of them all. The maximum area of wilderness that our country can set aside will be little enough to meet the needs of today and the future. From the writer's own personal experiences' in as `short PAGENO="0235" 227 a period as even one decade, the increase in the use of wilderness has been impressively evident. In a number of areas where it was once possible to be re-created by the solitude of the wi1dernes~ experience for days on end, there are now almost `crowds to contend with, Crowds per se are not objectionable, but in the search for the wilderness experience something else is needed; and our country must be able to assure our generatio~s that the environment will be there to provide the special refurbishment for which only wilderness ha's a capability. This principle also embodies the high ethic that mankind has an `obligation to the rest of the natural system of which he is only one component. It is an idea which holds to the prin'ciples of ecology in which natural forces and inter- dependencies control the shape and quality of the community, at least to the maximum possible extent, mainly with only those controls needed to perpetuate the general qualities of the system. The Washakie Wilderness will be one of the finest units in the system, and we urge that it be established with the suggested additions. Sincerely yours, TIXOMAS E. DU5TIN, Chairman. 1~IDWARD HINES LUMBER Co., West fir, Oreg., February 22,1968, Hon. FRANK OHURCII, Chairman, Subcommittee on Publie Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. Cnuncn: Those of us who over the years have been concerned with a proper balance between the wilderness forest and the managed forest are greatly disturbed to see the additional acreage now being proposed for the Mt. Jefferson Wild Area. Administrative hearings were held in 1964 and considerable discus- sion and compromises were made prior to that time. The position eventually arrived at by the Forest Service, now embodied In S. 2751, are the results of a balanced compromise proposal. The pressure which we are experiencing today for substantial additional acre- age `to this wilderness area we feel is not justified. We feel that the present proposal for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area is already a substantial com- promise and that any further compromise will in the long range be detrimental to the welfare of the economy of this section of Oregon and the adjacent com- munities which are dependent on this raw material to sustain their industry. A casual glance at a map of the Cascades of Oregon will clearly indicate that more than adequate wilderness has been set aside by the Forest Service to take care of the future needs of the people. Very truly yours, PAUL F. EHINGEn, Vice President. REGIONAL PARK AND RECREATION AGENCY or ~ MID WILLAMETTE VALLnY, Salem, Oreg., March 4, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR A~vaia~, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I understand a hearing will be held on the' Mount Jefferson Wilderness area on March 19. I am requesting that this letter be included in the record of that hearing. When I ponder the fate of the meager remnants of true wilderness that exist in our nation today I often wonder how many individuals trusted with the responsibility of making thO decisions are truly familiar with the area they are about to judge. I particularly hope there are at least a few Individuals on the committee who are thoroughly familiar with the western slopes of Mount Jefferson and the unique area known as Jefferson Park. TO truly understand the need for adding the area known `as 14-b to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area, you must not only have recently visited Jefferson Park but `also~have' visited There feur or five or more years ago. It is by virtue of two visits spaced seVeral years apart that you can evaluate `the deterioration of the PAGENO="0236" 228 "park". It's obvious to me that at the currently observable pace there will be little left of value in twenty years except the Mountain itself. Opponents of wilderness proposals often state that only a few "crack pots" visit wilderness areas. That the public doesn't really know they exist. Well, from personal experience I can assure you the public knows about and uses the Jeffer- son Area and particularly Jefferson Park. On a summer weekend an observer in the park will note a steady stream of single hikers, families, youth groups and others threading thelr way into this unparalleled mountain meadow. Most use great care to protect the treasure they have come to inspect, yet their very pres- ence takes its toll on land. Help is needed and needed fast to protect what remains. The addition of area 14-b will help to decrease some of this population pressure and will at least diffuse it over a wider area. I respectfully request that you take prompt action to protect this priceless few acres in Marion Oounty. Sincerely yours, CHARLES W. GALE, Director. DEsoMouNT CLUB, Los Anpeles, Calif., February 15, 1968. PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, Sena~te Interior Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: At the San Gabriel Wilderness hearing, conservationists, with a single exception, unanimously supported the Forest Service proposal for the wilderness. The population pressures in southern California are so great that every avail- able facility for release from tensions in the great out-of-doors is needed to ac- commodate the vast numbers who there seek relief. The San Gabriel Mountains virtually at our back dooi,, are invaluable. We urge that the wilderness classification be accepted as presented by the Forest Service. Respectfully yours, EVELYN (lAYMAN, Conservation Chairn~an. TEi~LPLE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGB or LIBERAL ARTS, Philadelphia, Pa., February 14, 1968. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I would like to support the recommendations of the Wilderness Society concerning the additions of certain pieces of adjacent land to the proposed Washakie Wilderness Area in Wyoming. The total acreage of any or all of the recommended areas is small compared to the total area being considered but these are important regions from the point of view of protecting unaltered stands `of forest around the higher barer areas to be included The tree covered slopes and valleys are important components of the scenic game ranges and fishing streams which give the area wilderness value. The inclusion of these small fringe areas will be a positive contribution `to the whole. Sincerely, ELIZABETH ANN MORRIS GELL, Ph. P. FOOD TECHNOLOGY, INC., Chicago, Ill., February 19, 2968. Senator FRANK CHURCli~ Chairman, Public Land Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DeAn SENATOR CRunCH: I would like to add my unqualified support of Senate Bill 2630 for the establishment of the proposed Wasbakie Wilderness Area. Although I am a resident of Illinois I am intimately familiar with the area from visits to it over the past more than tenyears. I feel that the areas which PAGENO="0237" 229 are proposed for inclusion in the wilderness area and all that it implies should be preserved in this fashion. We are very short of virgin lands in the continental United States. We should not make the error of tailing to preserve these last few acres in a state and condition which will permit them to be useful for great numbers of people through the decades and centuries ahead Failing to preserve these areas will be a total loss for all time for the people of the United States. Please do everything necessary to preserve these areas within the Wilderness Concept. Very truly yours, ELMER F. GL.&BR, President. FOOD TECHNOLOGY, INC., Chicago, Ill., February 32, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Public Land Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Please refer to my letter of February 19, regarding Senate Bill 2680. To clarify my intent, please understand that I urge Including in the Washakie Wilderness area all of the land areas proposed by the following in addition to those proposed by the U.S. Forest Service: Wyoming Wild Life Federation Wilderness Society All Cooperating Conservation Groups All of these areas should all be preserved, and all logging and mining activities therein should cease. Very truly yours, ELMER F. GLABE, President. - JOHNSON, JOHNSON & HARRANG, Eugene, Oreg., March ~, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRs, Public Lands Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am writing concerning the above bill and classification matter and ask that this letter be included in the hearing record Your committee has been urged by witnesses you have heard to add approximately 29,000 acres to. the 96,500 acres proposed by the Forest Service. I believe and recommend that the 29,000 acres be added for the following reasons: It has been pointed out to your committee that of about, 273 streams and valleys over 5 miles in length in the National Forests of the Cascades, only 7 remained unroaded or unlogged. The Whitewater Creek Valley is one of those that has partially been logged and roaded on the west side of Mount Jefferson. How- ever, a substantial part of this creek-shed remains and if of inestimable value in its nature condition. This area lies at the very foot of Mount Jefferson on the west side and contains breathtaking views of Mount Jefferson. It is a saddening experience to pass through this area and at the same time traverse the clearcut units that have already been taken out there. In addition, the logging that oc- curred there was one of the most glaring examples of waste of wood fiber in the Cascades that I have ever seen. In a clearcut unit all standing timber is felled and in these areas that I am speaking of so many logs were left on the ground that it was difficult to believe that any had actually been removed. The logs lay in the area like boulders on a river bank. It was explained to me by one Forest Service employee that these logs were not removed because they were hemlock and that market prices at the time of the cut could not economically be trans- ported to the mill. I have climbed and hiked a great deal In the Oregon Cascades since returning from World War II. I have seen the tremendous increase in the use of this recrea- tional high country. Many of these `areas, and Jefferson Park is one of them, are presently being overused and to fail to add the additional 29,000 acres here under consideration will only aggravate the problem of overuse. PAGENO="0238" 230 rt seems to me that any sane approach to national priorities demands that we conserve as much of these remaining areas as poss~b1e. At best, we have far too little area in wilderness classification. The ~9,OOO acres that I urge ~ou to include in this Willterness classification will bring in the remainder of the Firecamp Lakes r~gion, the northland south forks nf Erlltenbnsh River, the Marion Lake region, Square and Long Lakes, Woodpecker 1~id~e, Camelia Creek, Minto Mountain, Bingham Ridge and Big MeadOw~. As tostthioriy be~!ore your committee indicated, about 350~0O0 acres of wilderness type land under Forest Service management have gone to timber harvest since 1950~ Our national priorities demand that this trend be reversed. Thank you for thstderation of this correspondence. Sincerely yours, JAMES P. HARRANG. LAl~E REGIoN AUDUBON SoCIETY, Lake~an4, Pta., F&~ruary 17, 1968. easter FRANK Citvncu, C1~airman, Public Land Subcommittee, S~~kite COnu4fittee on Iwtèrior a+zd Insular Affairs: We ttrge consideration by the Public Land Subcommittee of the additions proposed by Conservationist's to the proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness. These would be changes in the boundaries as recommended by the Forest Service and covered by S. 2751. Where there are differences between the plans submitted by the government ageucies and by citizens' group~, we ~vant to feel that the Subcommittee will be guided by the merits of the several plans and will alter the language of the administration bill accordingly. Very truly yo~rs, HARLAN B. HERBERT, President. LAKE REGIoN AUDUBON SOCIETY, Lakeland, Pta., February 17, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Uk! a4rm~a,n, Pnblic Land Subconimittee, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: We have become aware of a diffetence in the proposed boundaries of the Washakie Wildeluiess as embodied in 5.2630 and in the proposals of various conservation ~rgaaizations. We have not conducted an on4he-ground study of the merits of the differing proposals. We are concerned with the unwilliugrie~s of the Forest Service to give serIous considerf~tiOn to citizens' views about proposed Wilderness boundaries. in reading the Wilderness Act of 1964, we come to the belief that it was the Intent of Congress that the sugg~stion's of citizens be solicited `and heeded when they had merit We ask that the Public Land Subcommittee listen `to the boundary proposals of conservationists. If these proposals have merit, we ask that the Subcommittee include them in S. 2630. Thank you for your `consideration. HARLAN B. HERBERT, President, MIsSoURI VALLEY CLINIC, Bismarok, N. Dak., February 20,1968, SENATE COMMITTEE ON iNTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Senate Oj~Zce B'ailding, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIns: I would like to add my personal hearty support to that of the North Dakota Chapler of the National Wildlife Federation regarding Wilderness pre- servation for the San Ovibriel primitive `area. The location `of this wilderness area to a large metropolitan center is of special importance. Sincerely, G. M. JOHNSON, M.D. PAGENO="0239" 231 MIssouRI VALLEY CLINIC, Bismarck, N. Dak., February 23,1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Seniate Office Building, Washington, D~C. DEAR SENATOR Cnuncu: The North Dakota Chapter `of the National Wildlife Federation, of more than 5,000 members, would like to add its `hearty support to that of the citizen's conservationists in Wyoming regarding `additions to the proposed Washakie wilderness area. Certainly, the recommendations of citizens groups (w4thin iitiits D, J, 3, 4, F-i, `H and I) should be `added `to the Forest Servb~~ proposal and the current Stni~tified primitive `area. If our elk herds are to retain `their present status, `suth~ieut wilderness must be set aside. These animals `cannot survive when logging with the `access `provided by logging roads comes to `an `area. Please include this `statement as part `of the hearing record. Sincerely, G. M. JOHNSON, M.D. Missouni VALLEY CLINIC, Bismarek, N. Ddt., February ~3, 1968. SENArjm INrIiRIQR C0MMITTmm, Senate Office Building, Washingtofl, D.C. To Whom It May Concern: I would like to add my hearty support to that of the North Dakot~t Chapter of the National Wildlife Federation for the establishmeift of a Mount Jefferson wilderness area. Furthermore, we ~support the Forest Service proposals as well as the proposals of citizen conservationist groups in adding additional acreage to the original proposal. This would mean inclusion of Square Lake, Long Lake and Marion Lake scenic areas and the west side wilderness zone. The afore- mentioned lakes are essential to provide a better wilderness area. They are also in danger of ihtenslve recreational development which would lower current and future wilderness values. Sincerely, G. M. JoHNsON, M.D. THE AMERICAN Limoiow, DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA, PASADENA POST No. 13, Pasadena, Calif., February 5, 1968. lion, HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Sen~ate Interior Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: It has been brought to the attention of the Conserva- tion Committee of Pasadena Post No. 13 of the American Legion that there is being considered in the Senate Interior Committee a proposal to establish the San Gabriel Wilderness Area, Angeles National Forest, in the San Gabriel moun- tains in Southern California. This proposed wilderness area would be called the San Gabriel Wilderness, Angeles National Forest. The Conservation Comndttee of Pasadena Post No'. 13 o'f the American Le- gion have been interested in all forms of censervation, particularly the conserva- tion o'f the forest areas of Southern California, and we are well acquainted with the Devil Canyon-Bear Canyon area and know It to be a very fine section to designate as a Wilderness Area. We therefore hope that you, through your committee, will approve the pro- posed San Gabriel Wilderness Area, Angeles National Forest, setting this section aside as requested by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Very truly yours, J. W. JOSLYN, Cons erDation Committee. 91-95&--68----16 PAGENO="0240" 232 PORTLAND STATE COLLEGE, Portland, Oreg., February 27,1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Congress of the TJnited States, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: As Director of the Outdoor Program of Portland State College, I would emphatically like to underscore the necessity for extending the "buffer zones" in the proposed Mt. Jefferson Primitive Area to encompass suffi- cient wilderness area on both east and west boundaries. The concept of wilderness, both aesthetically and economically, does not exist by stating This aide of a logging road is wilderness and this side Is not `There must be a transitional geography in order for any semblance of wilderness area to exist. In my ~job at Portland State College I am Involved with students in hiking camping, climbing and kayaklng in the Oregon Oascades. "Wilderness" is a way of life in terms of this program. Looking ahead to our future student population, estimated to be some 20,000 in a few years, I wonder where we will find this way of life for these few students. Some day we must come to the conclusion that what we are destroying can never be replaced. Certainly, an awareness of this inescapable fact should have some mediating effect on that opposition, which has only concern, for making a dollar on today's market. With appropriate planning, we can sustain lands which have no other use than use as a timber resource. Wilderness~ we cannot create; we can only destroy. There is so precious little left. Regards, * SAiL 1~. MOI~INNEY, Adviser, Portiand State Outdoor Program. WESTRRN FORESTRY AN.D CoNSERvATIoN ASsoCIATIoN, Port lan4, Oreg., February 21,1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH. Chairman, Subcomsnittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Reference is made to 5. 2751, a bill to designate the Mount Jefferson WiIdern~as, Wi1l~mette, Deschutes and Mount Hood National Forests, in the State of Oregon. The proposal contained in the above-mentioned bill is the result of two administrative field hearings conducted by the Forest Service in 1964 before the passage of the Wilderness Act and in the fall of 1966. Western. Forestry and Conservation Association generally favored the Forest Service proposal for a wilderness of approximately 95,000 acres in both of these field bearings. While we were not in complete agreement as to final boundaries and extent of the proposed wilderness, at the same time we recognized the professional evaluation that had gone into the study and which resulted in the proposal. It was due to this that the permanent withdrawal of 1.3 billion board feet of commercial timber involved in the proposal is acceptable. The greater portion of this commercial timber grows on land which is of extremely high recreation and wilderness value interspersed with numerous small wilderness-type lakes. A small part of this commercial timber (100 millIon board feet) grows on lands in the southeastern portion of the area called the Candle Creek Basin. Some members of the Association feel that this Basin might well be managed for timber production under the multiple use concept Western ~ orestry and Con servatlon ~Association, however, does not object strenuously to the inclusion of this area as it is valuable for access to the true wilderness beyond. We agree fully and commend the Forest Service on the deletion of the Marion Lake Scenic Area from the wilderness area proposal as it will provide for several kinds of recreationists and this withdrawal will pros ide for their needs and conform to the present practice. We accept the proposals for small additions which have been made by the Forest Service as a result of the last field nearing. The commercial timber lands in these small areas and under the rest of the proposal appear to be a price which the economy and the State of Oregon will have to pay for the set-aside of this superb wilderness area. The Association is most emphatic, however, in its PAGENO="0241" 233 recommendation that no additional acreage of commercial timber land be included in the finally approved Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. We further urge that the Forest Service make every effort to relieve over-use pressures by recreation, livestock and people by practical wilderness manage- ment and recreation, however this may best be clone to provide the maximum of wilderness recreational enjoyment and use. To summarize, the Association commends the U. S. Forest Service on its steward- ship of this area to date and on the study which has resulted In this proposal. Western Forestry and Conservation Association generally approves the proposal as it has been made. It most strongly opposes further additions of acreage `to the area proposed as the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. The Association respectfully requests that these remarks be made a part of the record of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on S. 2751. Sincerely, ARTHUR M. Ron~a~s, Fotost Coun~se1, WESTERN FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Portland, Oreg., February 21, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Snbcommittee on Public La~nds, Committee on Interior a~uZ Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Reference is made to S. 2630, a bill to designate the Stratified Primitive Area as a part of the Washakie Wilderness, heretofore known as the South Absaroka Wilderness, Shoshone National Forest, in the State of Wyoming, and for other purposes, upon which hearings were held on February 19, 1968. During the administrative field hearings on the original Forest Service pro- posal for the Washakie Wilderness, Western Forestry and Conservation Asso- ciation submitted the following statement: "Western Forestry and COnservation Association favors the U. S. Forest Service proposal for the reclassification of the Washakie Primitive Area with its dele- tions and additions as a part of the newly named Washakie Wilderness Area. This action is `taken on advice of local members of the Association with the knowledge that careful study has been given the area under consideration by those charged with its management. "Further, in light of the studies and evaluations by professional land managers, we must be most emphatic tha't no additional acreage be recommended for inclu- sion, roadless or not. One of the greatest needs, next to forest product production, which includes livestock, minerals, water and trees, is for a recreational environ- ment for the many as contrasted to one for the few. This will be more and more true, even in Wyoming, as the years go by and population and leisure increase. For the most part, true wilderness will remain as wilderness whether or not a line Is drawn around it on the map and its perpetuation is, in any case, the obligation of the land manager in charge. To hamstring his activity by inclusion of areas whose wilderness value is artificial seems somewhat less than wise. "In Wyoming, due to the fact that already 25 percent of the forested area is included in wilderness type classification, it is imperative that every effort be made to manage every possible acre for its maximum contribution to the local economy. In other words, the objective should be to find reasons to declassify land rather than to classify it as wilderness. "Finally, the Association urges adequate management of all forest lands, public or private, for their maximum contribption to the public good. The key word here is management. If the land is to be used, it must be managed whether the purpose be livestock or game production, timber yield, watershed or recreation in its various forms. Wilderness management may not be quite as intensive as management for mass recreation or for other uses, but it is essential none the less. "To summarize, Western Forestry and Conservation Association approves the U.S. Forest Service proposal for the Washakie Wilderness Area with no fhrther extensions." Subsequent changes in the Forest Service proposal, which have resulted in minor additions to `the proposed wilderness, seem to be acceptable and the Asso- ciation favors the Forest Service proposal as submitted in S. 2630. We wish to emphasize that the Association does not favor any extension to this wilderness area unless and until the administrative agencies charged with PAGENO="0242" 234 the management of this land and the people of Wyoming are in agreement that such extension should be made. The Association respectfully requests that these remarks be made a part of the record of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee on S. 2630. Sincerely, ARThuR M. ROBERTS, Forest Counsel. LANPER MEPICAL CLINIC, Lander, Wyo., February 15, 1968 Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Uomndttee on Pitterior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am writing this letter in regards to Senate Bill 2630 and H.R. 13560. 1 believe that if these two bills are allowed to pass as they now stand, the wildlife of the proposed Washakie Wilderness will be in jeopardy. I would like to see the addition `of all the proposed areas as endorsed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, Wyoming Division of the Izaak Walton League of America, Sierra Club and others. I believe that the addition of the fringe areas are as necessary for human ecology a~s'it ia for that of the wildlife. I urge you and your committee to pass these bills with the proposed additions. Sincerely yours, LEO J. MOMAHON, M. D. STANFORD CONSERVATION Gaoup, Stanford, Calif., February 19, 1968. Senator FRANK OutracE, C'hairinan, Bubco'mmittee on Public Lands, Senate Conimittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate 0/flee Bwilding, Washington, D.C. Sin: The Stanford Conservation Group respectfully requests that the following statement be made a part of the official hearing record for S. 2581, the San Gabriel Wilderness. The Stairford Conservation Group strongly supports the proposed 38,647 acre San Gabriel Wilderness as a unit of the National Wilderness i?reserva- tion System. Thank ynu. Sincerely yours, ROBERT K. MARK, Vice President. STANFORD CONSERVATION Guour, Stanford, Calif., February 19, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. SIR The Stanford Conservation Group respectfully requests that the fol- lowing statement be made a part of the official hearing record for S. 2751, the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. The Stanford Conservation Group strongly supports the Forest Service pro.~ posal for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness with the following additions: 1. Square and Long Lakes (approximately 1,000 acres). 2. Marion Lal~a (approximately 1,596 acres). 8. The entire `west Side area, from near the junction of route 22 and U. S. 20, north to the North Fork of the Breitenhush River (approximately 25,000 acres), Thank yo~ Sincerely yours, ROBERT K. MARK, Vice President.. PAGENO="0243" 235 CASCADE POLE Co., Tacoma, Wash., February 15, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lamls, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, WlAshington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: We want to go on record as strongly favoring the U. S. Forest Service recommendations regarding the Mt. Jefferson Wilder- ness Area in Oregon. It would not be prudent land management to increase the size of this area as l~as been proposed. One and a third billion feet of merchantable timber is included in the pres- ent plan. This is all that the people of that area who depend on timber for their livelihood should be asked to sacrifice perpetually in the interest of recreation. Yours very truly, G. L. MONAHAN. VISALIA MEDICAL CLINIC, Visalia, Calif. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Let me add my support to those advocating designa- tion of the San Gabriel Wilderness area. (S. 2531). We need to preserve what primitive area which still exist because of the great danger that soon they will be lost. This is especially important in areas near to population centers. People in a city need a place to escape to. H. W. MONTGOMERY, M.D. COLORADO OPEN SPACE COORDINATING COUNCIL, INC., Denver, Cole. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Our 1,200 members of the Wilderness Workshop of the Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council strongly support the establishment in Wyoming of the Washakie Wilderness and its addition to the National Wilder- ness Preservation System, as proposed inS. 2630. From nearby Colorado, many of our members have made substantial use of the area for wilderness purposes and are familiar with it. We agree whole- heartedly with the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and The Wilderness Society that the following additional areas should be included in the Washakie Wilderness: Area J. (East and West Forks of Upper DuNoir Creek-30,240 acres), Area D. (Bear Basin-8,130 acres), Area 3. (Wiggins Fork-3,1i7 acres), Area 4. (Lincoln Point-326 acres), Area F-i. (West of Wiggins Fork Creek-2,000 acres), and Areas H. (Headwaters of Five Mile Creek-TOO acres~ and 1-1,300 acres). These areas have been used for wilderness purposes and are important, particularly the DuNoir drainage, as undisturbed habitat and migration routes for elk. We support also the inclusion of the following areas in the Washakie Wilder- ness as recommended by the Forest Service: Area A. (South Fork of Wood River-i,472 acres), Area B. (East and West Forks of Six Mile Creek-3,296 a~eres), and Area F. (Horse Creek-2,598 acres). We believe that the wilderness values in these areas are paramount, and that the Washakie Wilderness, thus constituted, would best provide for the needs of our Nation now and in the future. With the aforementioned additions, we urge prompt approval of S. 2630. Please make this letter a part of the record of the hearing being held by your Committee today on the Wasthakie Wilderness. Sincerely, WILLIAM B. MouNsEY, Chairman, Wilderness Workshop. PAGENO="0244" 236 COLORADO OPEN SPACE COORDINATING Couxcit, INC. Denver, Cob., February 23, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Please make this statement a part of the record of the bearing held on February 19, 1968, by your Committee on Senate Bill 2751 to establish a 96,000-acre Mount Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon. Our 1,200 members of the Wilderness Workshop of the Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council strongly support S. 2751 to establish this Wilderness Area and add itto the National Wilderness System. *We urge, however, that the Oregon conservationists' recommendations for a 125,000-acre Mount Jefferson Wilderness be given favorable consideration, and that S. 2751 be amended to include the greater area. We believe that this addi- tiona~ Forest Service land, mostly on the west side, should be given wilderness protection to provide more width and remoteness to this already very narrow area. For best management purposes, the width of a wilderness should come as close as possible to matching its length. Also several beautiful natural lakes are in these proposed additions. Wilderness should not only include the high barren peaks. It should also encompass the liberal cross section of wild country from the scenic natural lakes in the valleys to the high mountain tops. Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement. Sincerely, WILLIAM B. MOUNSEY, Chairman, Wilderness Workshop. THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, Wctshingon, D.C., January 31, 1968. Hon. THOMAS H. KUCHEL, U.S. Senate, Old Senate Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KUOHEL: We are pleased to offer our support for S. 2531, a pro. posal to establish a San Gabriel Wilderness of 36,137 acres as set forth in the Secretary of Agriculture's recommendation of August 11, 1967, to the President. Sincerely yours, KENNETH B. POMEROY, fihief Forester. THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C. January 31, 1968. CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, U.S. Senate, New Senate Building, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR SENATOR HANSEN: We wish to offer our support for S. 2630, a pro- posal for a Washakie Wilderness of 679,520 acres as set forth in the Secretary of Agriculture's recommendation of August 11, 1967, to the President. As you know, we are deeply interested in this subject because of our Trail Riders of the Wilderness program. This year three of our expeditions will pene- trate the Teton and Yellowstone areas under the guidance of Ted Frome of Afton. Walt Lozier of Cora will lead three more trips into the Bridger Wilderness. The Forest Service is exercising good judgment in the Washakie proposal by placing boundary lines on ridges and water courses that can be identified clearly. We agree with inclusion in the wilderness of the South Fork Wood River, 1,472 acres; East and West Six-mile Creek 3,296 acres; and Horse Creek 2,598 acres. This action is desirable because these areas are valuable primarily for their scenic beauty. It also is sound planning to exclude areas mainly valuable for other uses such as mining, development of recreation sites, timber production and special use PAGENO="0245" 237 improvements. These uses are well defined along Dundee Creek, Bear Basin, Wiggins Fork Creek, DuNoir Creek, and elsewhere. We recommend that S. 2630 receive favorable consideration, Sincerely yours, KENNETH B. POMEROY, Chief Forester. UNIVERSITY or OREGON, Eugene, Oreg., February 23, 1968. SENATE CoMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sins: This letter is in regard to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area classification. I would like to recommend that areas 14-b, 14-c and 14-d be added to the present area. The addition of 14-b, 14-c and 14-d would greatly improve the area and make it a better wilderness. Please include this letter in the hearing record. Sincerely, STEPHEN C. REYNOLDS, Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies. LOO-WIT KLA-TA-WA, Longview, Wash., Feb. 23, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Senate Committee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: As Conservation Chairman of the Mt. St. Helens Club, Inc., of Longview, Wash., I have been instructed to write you and express the stand of this club in regard to a couple conservation matters. I request that if possible this statement be made a matter of record of the hearing you hare just con- cluded-if this is possible. The Mt. St. Helens Club believes that it is of the utmost Importance to protect what is left of our wilderness areas now, as they are being eliminated so rapidly' and permanently. The proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness-with important addi- tions-is extremely important. It needs to be defined and designated now, before further logging in recommended areas are permitted. This club recommends the addition of more area on the entire west side to serve as protection to the high wilderness areas. This is a vital point, as without it, wilderness values will be lost. As an example, I was on the Cascade Crest Trail recently opposite Marion Lake and our group was over-run by a couple totegoats racing back and forth on the trail. They were hoping to get more gas from a service station at Marion Lake-of which none exist, thank goodness. Marion Lake should be preserved as a wilderness area. We hope that Square and Long Lakes can be preserved for wilderness-type use rather than intensive- type recreation. Opportunities for the former use near civilization are all too few. Many of us in the Mt. St. Helens Club have hiked the Cascade Crest Trail all the way from the Canadian border to the California border, and we hope these wonderful mountain areas can be preserved as wilderness for all future generations. They will appreciate it. The club also recommends that the San Rafael Wilderness include the two thousand acres recommended by conservationists. We urge you to work for a compromise version of S.889 to include this area. We need to protect the condors, and we need to preserve features of archeological interest as well. Going back to Oregon, we believe that the marketable timber that will be included in an adequate buffer strip is more important for wilderness than for commercial purposes. Thank you. Very sincerely, Mrs. INEz RINEY, Conservation Chairman. PAGENO="0246" 238 SIEREA CLUS, Seattle, Wash., March 1, 196& Senator FRANK CHURCH, Senate Interior Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: The following statement has been adopted by the Puget Sound Group of the Sierra Club for inclusion in the written record of the hearings on S. 2630, Washakie Wilderness and S. 2751, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness. "As has been the case in many other wilderness proposals we face in the Washakie and Mt. Jefferson areas the central question: shall wilderness include forests? The Forest Service, following its philosophy that the best use of forest land is the one which will give the highest monetary return, has consistently excluded substantial stands of accessible commercial timber. "Wilderness is America's heritage. It is more than juSt the mountains, it is also the forests and the plains that the pioneers knew~ If our people are to understand the history of our country they must be able to see it as the pioneers did. We must include forests in the areas we set aside as wilderness. "For this reason wa support ,the proposals to add the West DuNoir Creek and Bear Basin areas to the Washakie Wilderness, and the 25,000 acres of the west side forests to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness. "In the case of the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness there is an additional reason for adding the west side forests. The wilderness is only three miles wide in the popular Jefferson ParJ~ area and is already suffering from overuse. Additional space must be provided in the same area for wilderness recreation or we shall surely see the destruction of the very wilderness we are trying to save." Sincerely yours, MIKE R~n3v, Chairman, Puget ~ound drOup. WIsCoNsIN STATE UNIvERsITY, Oslvkosh, Wis., February 19, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Cliai'rnia'n~, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office BuiId4Rg, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENAPOR CHURCh: I am writing to express my concern over the future of wilderness regions of this country' and to register support for: A. The establishment of the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness Area of 33~647 acres. B~ The proposed additions for the Mt. Jefferson Wildernes Area (i.e., 1600 acre Squaw and Long Lake Area, 1596 acre Marion Lake area and the 25,000 acre West Side Zone Addition). 0. The proposed additions which would make the Washakie Wilderness approximately 727,000 acres (i.e., to include 45,813 acres designated as units D, J, 3,4, F-i, H and I). I might add that the proposals have not had much publicity ii~ this vicinity, but that, when one has time to elicit support for such proposals, as I have in the past, response is gtatify'ii~ig. Very truly yours, WILLIAM 13. WILLKRS, Ph. D. IDYLLwILD, OALIF., February 15, 1968. Ser~ator FRANK Cuuaou, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: May I add my humble voice to the Western chorus of those who are supporting the San Gabriel Wilderness Proposal. I am sure you are cognizant of the values inherent in this 83,000+ acre tract in terms of its utility by the large population of nature enthusiasts residing in the adjacent Los Angeles megalopolis; accordingly, I shall not belabor you with PAGENO="0247" 239 repetitious rhetoric. Let it suffice simply to stato that I believe this area presently can be added to the N~tionial Wilderness Preservation System with a minimum of interference with other interests, it is needed for the purposes ascribed to the Wilderness System, and I sincerely hope the Committee will decide to include it in recommendations for additions to the System. I am confident the considerable membership of several Souther~i California Camera Club Councils share my attitude with respect to `this fine wilderness area. Respectfully, BURDETTE B. WHITE. SANTA ANA, CALIW~, February 15, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, U.S. Senate, WasMnjjt'on, D.C. DEAR Sm: .1 have long enjoyed the trails in the beautiful mountains of San Gabriel. There could be no happier choice for an addition to the Wilderness than the San Gabriel area as provided by 5.2531. I wish to go on record before your committee as approving this bill. I hope for a favorable vote from the Committee. Sincerely yours, FERN ZIMMERMAN. PORTLAND, Onue., February 18, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate SubeoinmSttee on Public Lands, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Unfortunately I cannot be present in Washington tomorrow to attend the hearing on 5.2751, but I understand that you have generously agreed to receive written testimony. I did testify at the administrative hearing held by the Forest Service `at Salem and my views are still unchanged. On the basis of a close familiarity with the Jefferson wilderness and the usage it receives I wish to stress as strongly as I can that the area proposed by the Administra- tion is inadequa:te to protect the natural values which the Wilderness Act seeks to preserve. If buffer areas `are not added to the west, as recommended by vir- tually all the conser\ra'tion groups, the whole region, but particularly the narrow northern corridor, will be unable to sustain its wilderness character. Already over-usage is beginning to thünage the fragile alpine meadows to the north of Mt. Jefferson, which are unique in the state. If day usage grows, as it surely will if the Whitewater Oreek logging road is allowed to remain, not only will the wild character itself be dissipated, but the Forest Service Will probably be forced to take protective measures which will themselves constitute a violation of the wlldernçss atmosphere. There tare ~o~thitle~s Americans whose desire for outdoor experience is satisfied by the road and lakeside camping areas. But there is also a large and continually expanding number who desire a sterner, more individualistic experience, who shoulder their packs and seek the more remote and roadless areas. In doing so they are cultivating characteristics of independence, self-sufficiency, and ad- venturousness which we have always prized in this country and w~ich if our moral strength is not to ebb away, we must continue to prize. Wilderness is in- trinsic to the American character. There is very little of it left! Pressures on what there is, already heavy, will become destructive if the areas we set aside are not of sufficient slae. Demand is doubling and tripling. Population Is exploding. Those who would restrict the Jefferson wilderness area for the present short- term gain of a small section of the Oregon timber Industry are guilty of a criminal contempt for long-term values. Since the Forest Service is under heavy local pressure from the lumber interests It is not surprising that their proposal has been so narrow; but the outlook in the United States Senate should be broad, and it is here that I sincerely hope the present and future interests of the people as a whole will be championed. Yours faithfully, T. PRICE ZIMMERMANN. PAGENO="0248" 240 OLYMPIC PARE: ASSOCIATES, INC., Everett, Wash., Februa~ry 18,1968. Senator FRANE: CHURCH, Senate FJubcon?~mittee on Public Lands, New Senate Of/tee Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: The Olympic Park Associates supports two proposals for inclusion into the Wilderness System-the Mt. Jefferson area and the San Rafael region. First, we support the proposal to add Mt. Jefferson area to the Wilderness System. However, we feel that the U.S,F.S. proposal should be added to. These additions must include Square and Long Lake area, Marion Lake Scenic Area, and the west side of the wilderness zone. Secondly, we would like to see San Rafael a part of the Wilderness System and urge adoption of 5. 889 as a worthy compromise bill for this area. Sincerely, PHILIP II. ZALR5RY, President. SHOUP HALL, UNIvrnsrr~ OF IDAHO, Moscow, Idaho. SENATE COMMFrFEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIRS: As conservationists, my wife and I are deeply concerned about the continual depletion of wilderness areas throughout the United States. In par~ ticular, we are concerned about the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. classiI1ca~ tion-Senate bill S 2751. There are still approuimately 29,000 acres which should be added to the Mt. Jefferson area. The importance of preserving as much land as possiible for wilderness area cannot be over emphasised. As Henry David Thoreau wrote: "In Wilderness is the Preservation of the World." We might scoff at this now, but our children artd grandchildren will surely pay for it later, if we do not take action to preserve some of our treasured land now. I would like it to be included in the hearing record that I endorse the proposal~ regarding the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area as put forth by the National Sierra Club. It is time the U.S. government listened to a vented Interest gvoup with a non~econothic basis. It is time leglsiator~ recognized the ~anctlty ~f unadulterated nature. Very truly, MoNTE D. WILSON. AUBURN, WAsH., February 25, il~68. Senator FRAN1~ CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Publio Lands, SenateOfj~ce Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR S5NATOR CHURCH: While there is still time I would like to express my view in regards to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Proposal. Having camped and studied in this area I am aware of its value If left in its wildernes~ rtate. I approve of the Citizens Conservationist Additions which are needed to make this one of the outstanding wilderness areas in our country. Respectfully yours, L. DENNIS WHITE. FEBRUARY 18, 1968. Re: S. 2531. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Pvblic Lands Subcommittee, W~ishington, D.C. DEAR Snis: Everyday I look out at the rugged San Gabriel Mountains and remember the freedom I found hiking through them. It is my wish that the PAGENO="0249" 241 proposal to create the San Gabriel Wilderness as a part of the National Wilder- ness Preservation System become an actuality. Sincerely yours, EDWARD M. WALES. FEBRUARY 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. Mx DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I urge you to support the San Gabriel Wilderness Bill (S. 2531) introduced by Senator Kuchel. We so desperately need a little breathing in fast-growing Southern California, and hope for approval of this bill. Sincerely yours, MARY H. WARD. SEATTLE, WASH., February 24, 1968. Re Mount Jefferson Classification. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands $ubcornrnittee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: To date only about 1,000 acres of the 30,000 acres sought by conservationists for addition to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area have been `released. To add the 29,000 acres still lacking would change the proposition to an out- standing accomplishment-a goal, which, if achieved, and I believe it can be, would do much to offset the wholesale trend of commercialism into our sanc- tuaries of beauty. Far too much of our God-given heritage of grandeur has been devastated beyond recall. Let us strive to conserve what little remains. I urge you to exert your influence to make the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area a land mark of celestial `beauty-a refuge to which one can flee for quietness and contemplation. It is not possible for me to be present at the bearing scheduled for March 19, 1968, however will you please include this letter in the hearing record? Yours very sincerely, MARCELIA S. WAIIL. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 16, 1968. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIRS: As a former Girl Scout Leader who has spei~t many happy hours hiking with her Scouts in the San Gabriel Wilderness, I am i~itally interested in having it designated as a part of the National Wilderness Area. Sincerely, BELLE VIVIAN. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 25, 1968. Senator FRANE CHURCH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I should like to submit a statement for the hearing record, as I was unable to be present at the hearing on 19 February before your Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. What a pleasure it is to be able to support the Forest Service unconditionally on the San Gabriel Wilderness proposal! They are certainly to be commended, and I hope that the Committee will approve this apparently non-controversial addition to the Wilderness System. Unfortunately, I must go on record as favoring a larger area than proposed by the Forest `Service in the cases of Mt. Jefferson and Washakie wilderness proposals. Although I have not been in those areas myself (as I have In the San Gabriel), I have found in the past that the positions of the Wilderness Society on similar proposals have been excellent and would preserve more `of the un- PAGENO="0250" 242 spoiled portions of controversial areas than we would otherwise protect There- fore I should like to support the additions proposed by them above and beyond those of the Forest Service. In this connection and in the hope that it will help to set an important prece- dent-even though it is not before your Committee at the 111 February hearing- I should like to mention the San Rafael Wilderness proposal. For a long time, many of us have believed that the extra 2000 acres (2200 actually) about which you undoubtedly know shouldJbe included in the proposed Wilderness. The reasons for exclusion given by the Forest Service do not seem persuasive, and the fact that citizen groups have been pushed aside at the stage of `Congressional consid- eration makes it all the more im~ortant that the citizen views be given the final nod. It is in the power of the Senate confer~ees' to do' this, unless I am mjsinf'orme'd. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully yours, R. W. VAN WAGENEN. Mr. floon, OREG., February 19, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INIISRIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Of/Ice Building, Washington', D,C. GENTLEMEN: May I urge you to include the tdditi'onal boundary lands of. approximately 29,000 acres to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. These areas have been recommended by several conservation groups and for ~alid reasons, We no longer have untouched lands for the people to see, let us save what remains of the near untouched. `Hopefully the're may yet come a generation not dedicated to materialistic gain and unrestructive crud. The least we can do is to leave them a small portion of their rightful heritage. I've lived In Oregon 28 years and a good part of each of thos'e year's has been spent in our beautiful mountains, during Which time they have been slowly hacked to pieces and overrun for the most part by an uncaring don't give a damn public. It is bow almosttao late. Do you care? PulL TYLER. `WEsT C0vINA, CALIF., Pebruar~ 11, 1968. SE1'~ATE PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Following review of `the Forest ~e'rviee proposal foi~ the Mt. Je~er's~on Wilderness `Area and ~`enbt'e Bill S. 2751 I `pm su'bm~tting the following comments which I desire to `be included in the hearing record as `developed for this bill. Increasingly the values of wilderness `to todays society is being recognized. Under `the opportunity of the Wilderness Act an'd the deliberation of proposals such as this jointly by citizen groups and the cognizant legislative committees it is possible `to take the great leap forward `to pres'erve the required wllde~ness lands for our nation's future needs for this resource. The Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Proposal `as prepared by the Forest Service has an apparent weakness `due to the penetrability of the very thin northern neck. As there are lands on the `western' Odge `suited for addition the maximum addi- tion should be accomplished. Specific recommendations for addition are: `1. Add `to the Northwest `Corner the Fi'recamp `Lakes and `the `South Fork of the Breitenbush `River. This area should be added for use as a wilderness recreation `area. 2. Add the Valley of Whitewater Creek to add desparately needed widen- ing of the narrow dimension of this region of the aip'proach to' the foot of Mt. Jefferson. 3. `Add Woodpecker Ridge, Pamelia Creek, and Minto Mountain to provide additional forested acres and some `cutover land's of recreational worth. Cutover lands are presented as having capability of recovery. 4. Add Bingham Ridge, Marion Lake, and Big Meadows. This `addition would add considerable area suited for wilderness camp'ing and includes in PAGENO="0251" 243 Marion Lake a superb example of a substantial Alpine Lake in the Alpine Environment of the Northwest. Inherretnt in the `additions to the western border is the Incorporation of certain exclusion's from the primitive area as reco'mn~ended `by the Forest Service. Sincerely, Mrs. 1tUTH M. TAYLoR. WEsT OOVXNA, `CALIF., February 15, 1968. PUBLIC LANuS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New senate Office Buüdi~g, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: The wilderness proposal as submitted `for the San Gabriel Wilder- ness in ISena'te Bill `S. 2581 is *reeotnmeticled for on~ctnient at the earliest opportunity. The area included Is suited for day use by the casual hiker or for a more complete wilderness experIence for thc~e `so desiring. I respectfully request that these conitients `be entered into the hearing record. Sincerely, Mrs. Rum M. !FAYL0R. WEST COVINA, CALIF., February 11~ 1968. SENATE PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, New S~enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMAN: The following comments on Senate Bill S. 2751 to found `the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area are respectfully requested to be included in the hearing record' for `this subject `bill. All lands proposed for wilderness status by the Forest Service are accepted as being properly classified and should be admitted' to the National Wilderness Sy~te'm. `The basic quality of the area is recognized `by virtueof the wilderness `proposal. The wilderness character is however placed in jeopardy due to `the narrow dimension of the northern extremity. This pronounced weakness (narrow dimension of north limb) can be corrected by effecting additions o'f the `areas including Firecamp Lakes and the Valley of the South Fork `of `the Breitenbush River, and `the Valley of W'hi'tewater Creek. These additions are regarded as critical. Certain other contiguous lands would if added enhance the quality of the wilderness proposal. These `are Woodpecker Ridge, `Minto Mountain, P'ameli'a Creek, Marion Lake, Bingham Ridge, and Big Meadows. All `ian'd is not virgin but is regarded as being capable of recovery. Only `by including now all lands of `wilderness quality in wilderness units will we have any `hope of satisfying tomorrowS needs. Very Truly Yours, LYLE A. TAYLOR. WEST COvINA, `CALIF., February 15, 1968. PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New ~S'enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am submitting herein my comments on the ~an çla~briel Wilder- ness proposal's as presented in Senate Bill S. 2531. Please in'clud'e ~he comments in `the hearing record as presented. `The proposed wilderness of some 3G,137 `acres Is of adequate quality for wilder- ness status and should `b'e so designated. The area olf~ the `S'a~ ~abriel Mountains is so crisscrossed with roads and other works of man to preclude consideration of enlargement of the area as proposed by the Forest Service. tPhe proposed wilderness iS heavily used by youth groups `and family groups seeking a convenient wilderness experience. The area `contains significant wild- life `and provide terrain suited to provide for the persons `seeking physical chal- lenge or esthetic enjoyment of our out of doors. Your earliest `action to approve wilderness Status will `be in the best interest of the `public. Very truly yours, LYLE A. TAYLOR. PAGENO="0252" 244 WEST OOVIN~, CALIr., February 18, 1968. SENATE PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New Senate Ofjioe Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am herein transmitting my comments on the proposed wilder- ness to be designated the Washakie Wilderness as delineated in Senate Bill 5. 2630, Please include these comemnts in the hearing record. This wilderness proposal takes on special significance in that it combines the relatively small stratified primitive area with the adjacent Absaroka Wilderness to blend the great geologic and wildlife resources with wilderness values inherent in each. This resulting wilderness should be carefully configured to include all contiguous lands of wilderness quality. All areas of S 2680 are accepted as being suited for wilderness and will best be classified thusly Admission to wilderness of these lands is accordingly recommended. Certain addition are recommended to the area proposed by 5 2630 These actdi tions will considerably improve the wildeiness will contribute to improved habi tat for wildlife and will provide for the best possible use of the territory concerned. The additions proposed are: 1. The value as wildlife range and wilderness scenic territory in the area at the west end of the proposed wilderness and including East and West DuNoir Creek results in the recommendation that some 30,000 plus acres be added to the wilderness proposal. 2. Moving East from the first recommended addition the next recommended addition is about 1,300 acres oriented principally North and South and including the West Fork of Six Mile Creek This will also expand one of the additions to the Stratified Primitive Area recommended by the Forest Service. 3 The next recommended addition is about 700 acres that includes the head waters of Five Mile Creek and butt1~esses the area of Bamshorn Peak. 4. The Lincoins Point exclUsion of some 300 acres recommended by the Forest Service is not concurred in. This area is properly wilderness in character and should be retained as wilderness. 5. The 3,000 plus acre exclusion desired by the Forest Service in vicinity of Wiggins Fork is not recommended to be allowed This area will be of greater value in wilderness and should be retained. 6. A reversed "L" shaped addition of something over 2,000 acres is recommended that would run from part of the Wiggins Fork exclusion proposed by `the Forest Service past the Forest Service Proposed exclusion of Lincolns Point to incor- porate another area of Carriage Creek. 7. A large unit of some 8,000 acres of Bear Basin is recommended for inclusion in Wilderness. Valuable wildlife habitat.and prime wilderness scenery will be afforded protection commensurate with its value. Only by enlightened action now by individuals of great status and perception can we approximate the need for wilderness in tomorrow's world. We can not create it, but we can preserve it. Very Truly Yours Lvi~ A. TAYLOR. REDMOND, WAsH., February 22, 1968. HoN. FRANH CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.U. SENATOR CHURCH: The following letter is an expression of my' views on the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness ProposaL Please include it in the official record of `the' subcommittee hearing on this proposaL First, let me make it clear that I am in favor of the addition of the Mt. Jeffer- son Wilderness Area to the National Wilderness Preservation System More specifically, I support the proposal for a wilderness area of approximately 125,000 acres as recommended by the Wilderness Society and various other conservation groups. I recognize, however, that there will be varying degrees of opposition to' the several additions proposed by these groups to the area designated in 5. 2751, and that compromises will no doubt have `to `be made. I will address myself, PAGENO="0253" 245 therefore, to the support of two specific additions to 5. 2751. These additions, I believe, are vital to the integrity of the wilderness, and their exclusion from the wilderness in its final form, will seriously threaten its wilderness character. The first of these is the Marion Lake area. Oregon has many lakes which are available to the motorist and the boating enthusiast. There are, on the other hand, few lakes the size of Marion which are, or are likely to be, reserved for wilderness use. Add to this the fact that the lake is virtually surrounded by the proposed wilderness area, and the logical conclusion would seem to be that it should be included within that area. Included, It adds a significant dimension to the wil- derness ai-ea, while deleting little from the non-wilderness recreational uses of the Oregon Cascades. Excluded, it represents a significant loss to the wilderness recreational possibilities, and drives a wedge of non-wilderness deep into the wilderness area, endangering the qualities it is designed to protect. The second addition which I wish `to urgently support is that portion of the plateau `between the valleys of the North and `South Forks of the Breitenbusb River which is excluded from S. 2751. As I examine the map of the proposed wilderness, the boundary in this area appears to transect this plateau, following no natural boundary of which 1 am aware, and also divides the Firecamp Lakes basin, excluding Crown Lake from the wilderness. I `believe that this plateau is an integral part of the area proposed for wilderness preservation and, Indeed, is a physical part of Mt. Jefferson. Any boundary which devides it must be an unnatural one. The Firecamp Lakes, which are the outstanding feature of the plateau provide an outstanding view of the wilderness, and a jumping off point into it. They are capable of withstanding only limited use, however, and inclusion in the wilderness area would help to protect them against the type of overuse that could bring about their ruin. To exclude a portion of the lake `basin and part of the plateau by drawing an arbitrary line is, as previously stated, to exclude an Integral portion of the wilder- ness to its great detriment. To submit this plateau to "multiple use" can be coin- pared to drawing an imaginary line across the middle of a room, designating one half as a rumpus room and the other half as a bedroom. The argument is that in both cases you have reached the point of having a non-divisible unit which can be used in only one way, that use precluding (or being precluded by) other possible uses. In the case of this plateau, It belongs physically to the wilderness area, not to the canyons which form its natural limits. As to what `the final boundary line should be, I have no specific proposal. I would suggest that a boundary starting `below Quitter's Point and following the 4,500 foot level around the plateau would be appropriate and provide adequate protection. At this writing, however, I am more interested in advocating the inclusion of the entire plateau in the wilderness area. The precise boundary can await the decision on this point. Thank you for this opportunity to express my views for the hearing record, and all good wishes to the subcommittee as it endeavors to reach an equitable decision in this matter. Sincerely, ROBERT E. TANK, M.D. CHENEY, WASH., F.~ibruary 20, 1968. Senator FRANK Ontracn, Chairman, Senate Svbcbmrn'ittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR Cium~cn: We recently learned of the February 19, 1968, hearing on Senate Bill 2751 to designate a Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area in Oregon. We strongly support this addition to the wilderness system. Further, we feel its east- west dimension is too narrow, and that the addition of the Square and Long Lake areas, the Marion Lake Scenic Area, and the west side wilderness zone will help alleviate this weakness. We are most fapilliar with the east side of the area, particularly the portion between the Cascade Crest trail and the eastern boundary between Canyon Creek and Candle Creek. ~ burned area around Brush Creek would be a valuable addition to the preserve also. One of us (Kenneth Swedberg) did a descriptive study of thiS area in 1~59 and 1960. This burn is now about 25 years old and has a representative stand of young larch, Douglas fir, grand fir, ponderosa and PAGENO="0254" 246 lodgopele pine coming up through the brushy ~pecies. A ~om~g, un~isVurbed site such as this should add substantially to our knowledge of the dynamics ~f the maturing forest. Sincerely, KIs~NRTE Ci. SWEDBKRG. GimTsuDE L. SWEDBERG. UNv1msIr~ or OamooN, Eugene, Oreg., Februar~/ 16, Z~88. Da~n Sin: I urge you to eRpand the Mount ~/~ef/er~cn WUderiies~ 4re~ by th~ 29,000 acres seine of eonsi~rVatlon groups hav~e suggested. O~ Oregon wi1der~ nesses will be slowly, but cei4tainly, diminjs~iug, if this o~a i~ not p~otected. Please eater this letter hi the hearing r~ecotd. Cordially, EMoRY SuM~4an. DrA~roar, 0 R~t~oH, INC., Dubois~ W'~o,, Februar~i 13, 19~. Il~on~ 1~RANI~ CnURCIT, Chairman, ~eaate Int'erior EiubconviMttee On PubilO Lands, New senate Office. Building, Washington, D.C. My Du~n SENATOR Crrrfltiii: The Diamond U Ranch, Inc. strongly supports and endorses the proposed amendment by ~e~iator Gale McGee to th~ Washakie WiMerness bill #8f30 t~ include both tb~ Dunoir Creek and t~ear ~astin-Lincoin point areas. Our ranch, located, at the head of the Dm~uir Valley, ~s surromided to the west, north and east `by the Shoshone Porest ~ which lumbering is cui~rentiy occurring, and where a great deal more is planned. Both the east anti west forI~s of Dunoir Creek enter our ranç~b property, as well as a great many clit at certain times of the year. The lManioñd U Eaneh believes ~nato~ McGee's proposed amendment is desirable and n~cessary, not only for the wanageme~t. of the elk' herd but also for the preservation of the wilderness aspects of the for~st itself. If it were possible for you and members ~f your committee to personally inspect the areas in question by flying over them as I have on a number of occasions, 1 believe it would be a convincing experience in favor of Senator McGee's amendment. Sincerely, HERBERT R. STRATrORD, President. COTTAGE GRovE, 0mm., Febru&ry 26, 1968. Hon. MAnn 0. HATTIELD~ ~Subeommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate 0/flee Building, Washington, D.C.: We support the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area as proposed in S. 2751. This is the absolute maximum acreage that should be withdrawn. We concur in Porest Service recommendation re Marion Lakes Scenic Area; Marion Lakes should be retained in wilderness management status so that improvements for sanitation can be made to avoid pollution of the lake. 13'. H. SIRWART, Vice President, Bohemia Lumber Co. BARRR5FIELD, CALIF. Gentlemen of the Public Lands Subcommittee: I would like to make my support of area additions #14-b~ 14-c, & 14-ti `to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area known in the hearing record. Motor access to these regions must be prevented in order to insure against over-use of the Jeffer- son Park area. Respectfully yours, LINDA SrEvissox. PAGENO="0255" 247 SALEM, OREG., February 16, 1968. Hon. FRANK Cnuncn, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHmiciH: I am writing to urge, as strongly as I can, adoption of the proposed Mt. Jefferson wilderness. This be~tutiful area must be preserved and I know of no other way to do it than to have it included in the wilderness proposals. I had occasion to be in this area last year and believe strongly also that the many additions proposed by conservationists groups should be considered. I am particularly interested in the preservation of the Pamelia Lake area. I was on this trail on a beautiful summer day last summer only to be confronted by two Honda motorcycles. I think you can see that there is no place for ma- chinery like this in what should be a somewhat primitive area. Thank you very much for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely yours, Trn~i~ C. STANFORD, M.D. PORTLAND, OREG., February 16,1968. Re S. 2751. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I wish to state first my hope that there will be no question about approving S. 2751 in at least the size it presently takes. The 90,000-odd acres included in the bill for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area are obviously worthy of Wilderness status and I am sure such status will be granted. Please record (in the hearing record) my strong support for the proposals, set forth by various conservationists and other interested citizens, which provide for inclusion of a greater area on the west side in the area designated as Wilder ness. My husband and I camped in one of these areas prior to intensive logging construction. We are dismayed at the prospect of continued encroachment of mechanization so close to the beautiful trails, lakes, and peaks in, the area now designated. We are staunch believer's in the necessity for buffer areas-to re- duce the sounds, sthells, and visukl distractions which one hopes to' leave behind on a trip into the old country. Therefore, please enter in the hearing record for Feb. 19, 1968 my desire (as a citizen, taxpayer, parent, teacher of Biology, and hiker) that `the Mt. Jeffer- son Wilderness area include Marion Lake, and the Citizen Conservationist addi- tions proposed (app. 25,000 acres) along the west side; this includes the Breiten- bush areas, more area near Firecamp Lakes, Minto Mtn., Big Meadows, and other areas. Sincerely, ANNE W. SQUXER. Twisp, WASH., February 19, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I km writing in favor of a maximum-sized Mt. Jef~er- son Wilderness area. The value of certain areas cannot be measured accurately by economic scales. The spiritual essence is what gives the rest of our way of life a higher purpose. Commerci~lization would be regrettable and eventually self-defeating ks to its highest use. Designating the area as wilderness will stem the encroachment of "mere" commercialization and mechanization. Please Include this statemunttin your hearing reOords. Sincerely, PAt~L SOLLTE. 91-953---~s____~g PAGENO="0256" 248 TwIsP, WAsH., February 19, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Chairm,an, Interior Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Recently your subcommittee held a hearing on the Wasbakie Wilderness proposal for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation Sys~ tern which I was unable to attend. I would like to register my support for the Forest Service recommendations, Areas: A, B, and F and the following additions supported by the Wilderness So- ciety and others, Areas: J, D, 3, 4, Fl, H, and I. These additions will give a sound, manageable area well deserved for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Please include this letter in the official hearing. Sincerely, DONALD D. SNOW. CHICAGO, II~L., March 4, 1968. SENATE INTERIOR O0MMITTEE, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention of Porter Ward). GENTLEMEN: In regard to the Washakie Wilderness area in Wyoming: I wish to go on record in favor of it being added to the National Wilderness Preservntion System. I also strongly urge extending its boundaries to include the West DuNoir Creek and East DuNoir Creek, the Bear Basin Unit and other con- tiguous areas. Thank you. KAY LOVELACE SMITE. SAN Dxsao, CAUT., February 15, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Coinmitte~ on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, WashSngton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: We wish to inform you of our strong support for Senate Bill 2531 to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. We commend the Forest Service on having come up with a reasonable proposal for the Wilderness Area. We urge the Subcommittee to report favorably on Bill 2531 so that early action may be taken on it by Congress. Yours respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. A. G. SODERLAND. LANDER MEDICAL CLINIC, Lander, Wyo., February 15, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am writing this letter in regards to Senate Bill 2630 and H.R. 13560. I believe that if these two bills are allowed to pass as they now stand, the wildlife of the proposed Washakie Wilderness will be in Jeopardy. I would like to see the addition of all the proposed areas as endorsed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyonliug Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, Wyoming Division t~f the J5aek Walton League of America, Sierra Club and others. I believe that the addition of the fringe areas are as necessary for hun~ian ecology as it is for that of the wildlife. I urge you and your committee to pass these bills with the proposed additions. Sincerely yours, DALE SMITH. PAGENO="0257" 249 ORESWELL, OREG., February 15, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, senate ,Siubcommittee. DEAR SIR: As one of the members of the Obsidian Mountain Club of Eugene, Oregon, and also one of the founders of the Club, I have had many hiking trips into the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area, having climbed Mt. Jefferson five times. In 1930 our Club in Eugene, had its two week summer camp at Marion Lake, in August, so visited the many other lakes such as Square and Long Lakes. To have all three of these lakes and a high-value buffer zone to protect this narrow Wilderness which is but from four to ten miles wide. To include the 117,000 acres is the minimum for this beautiful mountain meadows, lakes, creeks and then the majestic Mt. Jefferson. I do hope your committee will be able to see that this can be made one of the most beautiful of Wilderness areas. Sincerely, RAYMOND L. Sius. LAKE OswEGo, 01mG., February 20, 1968. Re Washakie Wilderness hearing, 5.2630. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I stropgly urge that the present Stratified Primitive Area, with the addition of the 7,366 acres proposed by the Forest Service and the 45,800 acres recommended by Wyoming citizen groups, be combined with the existing Absaroka Wilderness Area to create the Washakie Wilderness area of 725,533 acres and that this be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. I feel that the reasons given for the addition of those areas recommended by citizen and conservation groups which are not now included in S. 2630 are most valid and should be given much weight by the Committee. They are the result of much study by those who know the area best. The Upper DuNoir Valley not only contains some of th,e most superb wilder- ness in the area but also is an important part of the elk migration route into the adjacent Teton and South Absaroka Wildernesses and deserves preservation for this reason alone. Bear Basin is another integral part of the elk range. The timber in the high country of the smaller units excluded from S. 2680 grows very slowly, would be expensive to cut, and is of much more value as wilderness to the citizens of the United States to whom it really belongs. Therefore, it is my sincere hope that the Committee will add these areas as well as those proposed by the Forest Service to the Washakie Wilderness Area. I request that this letter be included as part of the record of the Congressional Hearings on the Washakie Wilderness held January 19, 1968 in Washington, D.C. Sincerely yours, JEAN SIDDALL. LAKi~ OswEGo, OBEG., February 21,1968. Re Mount Jefferson Wilderness, 5.2751. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I strongly recommend that the Mount Jefferson Wild- erness Area be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and that the 2800 acres of forest in the Willamette, Deschutes and Mt. Hood National Forests adjacent to it which still exist as wilderness between the Primitive Area and the roads which encircle the area be included in the Mount Jefferson Wilder- ness, as recommended by conservationists and as they do in actual use today. The Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area as proposed by the Forest Service in S. 2751 is only a part of this area and is so narrow that were it level, one could walk across it in an hour. It is vitally necessary that the wilderness along the west side also be included to protect the fragile high country which even now is showing signs of overuse. Oregon needs timber, yes, but the trees in thIs area have a value as wilderness beyond that which any logger can put on them. If excluded and logged, the trees In the area now outside the proposed wilderness PAGENO="0258" 250 would be of temporary benefit to the economy of the state; however, if Included in the wilderness, they will be enjoyed for generations to come. I would recom~ mend that the forest service further protect the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness by developing campgrounds and recreation areas in the national forest, adjacent to but outside the designated wilderness area. The Mt. Jefferson Wilderness is so small It is difficult to find on a map of Oregon, yet it and four other small areas of wilderness are all that remain of the vast wilderness that once extended from the Cascades to the Pacific. We still have extensive national forests in this state but one has only to drive through them and see the clear cuts, some decades old and still bare, to realize we have come a long way since the forests were set up on a trusteeship basis and the government assumed trusteeship on behalf of the owners, the people of the United States, to leave to future generations of this country in perpetuity the forests of the United States. Under the current policy of cutting faster than trees can grow with no mandatory reforestation, it is only a matter of time until Oregon will look like Ohio or Michigan, also once timber states. And what are we leaving for future generations? The only means available at present to arrest thi~apid rape of the land long enough to assure that future generations a "second look" at land use in terms of their own needs is through designation as wilderness. Of the 62,067,840 acres of wilderness the pioneers found when they arrived in Oregon, only 386,000 in five small separated units remain today unroaded and uncut. What of tomorrow? It was exactly 125 years ago in 1843 that Marcus Whitman rode to Washington to save the wilderness that became Oregon. May Congress now save the small piece of it that remains today in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. I request that this letter be made a part of the Mt. Jefferson Hearing record. Sincerely yours, JEAN SIDDALL. OAKLAND, CALIF., February 19, 1968. Subject: San Gabriel Wilderness. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Inaular Affairs, Was1~4ngton, D.C. Dr~R SENATOR: Here is a primitive area that by all means ~bould be preserved as wilderness. The area Is within easy reach of ten million people but its primitive character would be preserved if this area iS maintained and protected as Wilder~ ness. I strongly recommend the establishment of San Gabriel Wilderness by enact- ment of Senator Kuchel's bill S. 2531 covering 33,647 acres. Yours very truly, HAROW G. SHARP. OAKLAND, CALIF., February 19, 1968. Be Mount Jefferson Wilderness. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Conwn4ttea on Interior and Iflsular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area in the Oregon Cascades should be given wilderness status by the adoption of S.B. 2751 recommended by Senators Hatfield and Morse. The area, however, should be increased by the addition of areas along the western side of the range, about 28,000 acres making the total about 125,000 acres. Yours very truly, HAROLD G. SHARP. CHICAGO, ILL., March 4, 1968. Re Washakie Wilderness, Wyo. Mr. PORTER WARD, $enate Interior Committee, New senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Please add my vote to the record in favor of adding Washakie to the National Wildegness Preservation System. I also strongly urge extending its PAGENO="0259" 2ö1 boundaries to Include the West DuNoir Creek and East DuNoIr Oreek, the Bear Basin Unit and other contiguous areas. Thank you. BERNICE M. SELSETH. CUICAO0, ILL., March 4, 1968. Re Washakie Wilderness Area in Wyoming. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Attention Mr. Porter Ward. GENTLEMEN: I wish to go on record in favor of Washakie being added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Alsh, strongly urge extending its boundaries to include the West DuNoir Creek and East DuNoir Creek, the Bear Basin unit ~nd other contiguous areas. OLE SEL5ETH, Chicago Chapter, Isaac Walton League of America. RENO, Nxv., January 13, 1968. Senator HENRY JACKSON, U.S. Senate, Wa$hington, D.C. D~n SENATOR JACKsoN: Please include this paragraph in the official hearing record of the San Gabriel Wilderness Bill hearings. I urge you to support the bill that would establish a San Gabriel Wilderness of 36,187 acres. This is a fine bill and should not be changed in any way. This bill would preserve two spec- tacular wild canyons, Devil Canyon and Bear Canyon. The designation of San Gabriel as a wilderness is especially important because it will be used by many residents of Los Angeles. Please include this paragraph in the official hearing record of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness bill hearings. I urge you to support the bill that would establish a Mount Jefferson Wilderness in Oregon of `97,000 acres. An additional 28,000 acres should be added to the proposed wilderness, thus establishing a Mount Jefferson Wilderness of 125,000 acres. This action would add magnificent Douglas fir forests to the wilderness. I feel that it is important that as much as possible of this magnificent area which includes spectacular Mount Jefferson, Grand Primeval Douglas Fir Forests, the Three Fingered Jack Mountain, Morion Lake and other wild lakes, Alpine Meadows, and Lava Fields be preserved. Please send me a copy of the record of each of these hearings, when they are available for distribution. Sincerely yours, REED Sncono. NEw PROVThENCE, N.J., February 10, 1968. PUBLIC LANDS SUnCOMMITTEE, Senate Interior Committee, Senate `Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sins: I understand that you are shortly `to consider the' wilderness pro- posals for The San Gabriel, Washakie and Mt. Jefferson areas. I would like to urge strongly that you approve the wilderness status for these areas, and to make the areas just as large as possible. The natural areas In this country are shrinking so fast that I believe the situ- ation has reached emergency level. Another ten or twenty years of gross abuse of the land, such as we are experiencing now, and we will suddenly awaken to the fact that "progress" has left us with a second-rate or third-rate environment. Sincerely, G. B. SCHINDLER. FEBRUARY, 1968. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSUlAR AFFAIRS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In brief please add the areas 14-b, 14-c, and 14-d to our most beautiful Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area. With the population problem as it is we must consCrve our natural resources. Thank you. ROBERT H. SAYT0N. PAGENO="0260" 252 OUPRETINO, OALII'., February 17,1968. HON. SENATOR CHuRCH: On bill S. 2751, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness proposal, please work toward the passage of the Oregon conservationists recommendation of a 125,000 acre area. Yours, Da. D.~NTE SALERA. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 16,1968. Hon. Senator FRANK CHURCH, New Senate Office Bui Wing, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. Onunon: I understand the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands will hold hearings soon on the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness (8. 2531), for inclusion in the wilderness system. heel this is an excellent proposal. The San Gabriel Wildernessis located only a few miles from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. It is heavily used by organized groups as the Boy Scouts, as well as private citizens. Elevations range from 2000 to 8000 feet, thus the area is rarely closed in the winter due to snow. This wilderness is the only one that is open in the winter, all the other wilderness areas are closed due to snow until late spring. It is excellent for winter wilderness experiences. This area repre- sents one of the few undisturbed areas left that is so close to large populations, yet is easily accessible. State highways (paved) surround the proposed wilder- ness on three sides. ~t personally have spent many hours hiking in the Twin Peaks, and Bear Canyon areas and feel the area is definitely worthy of inclusion in the wilderness system. It is a welcome escape from the smog and congestion associated with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Therefore, I support the U.S. Forest Service recommendation for a 36,647 acre San Gabriel Wilderness with 1200 acres deleted. I also support the Bobcat Canyon addition to the proposed wilderness, and would like to urge rapid pas- sage of the San Gabriel Wilderness through congress. Please place this letter on the official hearing record. Sincerely yours, RICHARD SARET5KY. SAN Fa&NcIsCo STATE OOLLEOE, San Francisco, Calif., February 17,1968. Senator FRANK OnuncH, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Bni Wing, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I write in regard to the hearings being held on S. 2630 (WashakieWilderness), S. 2531 (San Gabriel WilderneSs) and S. 2751 (Mount Jefferson Wilderness). I believe it is imperative that in each of these eases we aim for the maximum feasible area within the wilderness boundaries. Let me comment first on the Washakie proposal because there I have first hand knowledge. The Forest Service has proposed an area considerably smaller than that urged by others. They would particularly leave out certain ridge areas and the DuNoir Basth area The logging of the ridge areas would make a mockery of the Washakie Wilderness. The volcanic soils of the area erode so fast and repro- duce mature forest at such a low rate as to ruin the area for a long time. Loss of the DuNoir Basin would be ruin~us to the elk herd of the area as this is one of the few remaining wintering areas which is both protected from the weather and unpopulated, onthe entire eastern side of the Wind River-Absaroka complex. One remarkable aspect of the Washakie Wilderness subject is the widespread agree- ment at the local level. Business interest (with the exception of lumber), house- wives, school-teachers, ranchers are united in opposing the Forest Service proposal and in support of the larger unit This is a new thing iii Rocky Mountain State Conservation history and represents a growing awareness of these people both of the delicacy of ecologic, systems, and more fundamentally that their ceo- nbmic future is tied to preservation of the land (for study, for tourism, for recreation) rather than to short-term exploitation of the forest. In uoine areas, this short term use is aptly described by the term multiple use both because of the types of logging permitted and because of the relatively rapid regrowth PAGENO="0261" 253 patterns. However, In this area the type of logging clone and the nature of the soils results in near denudation of the land and in extensive siltation of lakes and streams for miles around. I sincerely hope that your committee will accede to the wishes both of the local people and to those of us in other parts of the country who know and love that land in recommending the larger area and in rejecting the Forest Service proposal. Although lacking first hand knowledge, I would like to argue on general princi- pies for the San Gabriel Wilderness (S. 2531) and the Mount Jefferson Wilderness (5. 2751). The maps that I have seen indicate that the Forest Service proposal for the San Gabriel Wilderness is appropriate and the maximum feasible for that area. On the other hand, It appears that some additions are needed to the Forest Serv- ice proposal for the Mount Jefferson area. Square and Long Lakes on the south- eastern corner, Marion Lake on the west side are all areas which, if excluded, will be extensively commercialized. The result would be to deprive visitors to the area of the few lakes which are fairly accessible, but which retain wilderness character. Surely we have enough commercialized lakes plus enough non-scenic lakes which can become commercial to handle recreation needs of a certain type. I also agree with the Wilderness Society that the west side of the area needs extensive additions. In all, these proposals would add only 27,000 acres. This, I submit, is a very small amount in contrast to the total area now irrevocably lost in the Cascade Range in Oregon and in comparison to projected needs and pop- ulation growth. I wish I could express, without getting too verbose about it, the Importance of the overall task of your committee. I think we can all clearly see what is coming for us in the way of loss of wild areas and the gradual spreading of our urban and suburban areas. The other figure clearly in the formula, as you know, is the changed meaning of the job-increased leisure. Yet although we can clearly see the need, we know that some individuals and groups will be hurt, or think they will be hurt in the short run. It is unfortunate that some groups take such a proprietary view toward lease rights on publi~ land, but I know this makes your decision the more difileult. I believe that the great majority of people In the ~eountry ar~ in support of larger wilderness areas and becoming increasingly sophisticated about their use. My deep thanks and appreciation for your consideration of my suggestions and more generally for your work on these wilderness areas. Sincerely, THoMAs E. Rvrnuu, Assistant Professor, sociology. PORTLAND, OREG., March 7, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, senate ~ubcomtm~ittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: In your committee's scheduled deliberations on whether to make additions to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area, I urge you to be mindful that your decision is being made not mainly for ourselves today but for the genera- tions of Oregonians and Oregon visitors of the future. A hundred years ago fore- `sighted citizens and legislators foresaw the future values of Yosemite and Yellowstone; today we reap the bounty of their foresight. And what foresight they had, surrounded as they were then with What must have seemed limitless areas of unspoiled nature. Today the unspoiled areas are vastly diminished. It does not, it seems to me, require a comparable foresight to rCcognize that Jefferson Park, already bruised and worn `by sehson's end, will need all the protection we can give it a hundred years from now. Timber has an easily calcuable dollar value so there are the usual economic arguments. But wilderness has a value, too, as vague and psychic as its measure~ ment must be. Moreover, it is a value that is certain to increase as our population increases, as American life becomes more urban and as the unprotected wilder- ness that we have taken for granted disappears. The Mt. Jefferson area will be visited and enjoyed by members of countless generations born after the last man who could have made a dollar cutting Jef- ferson area timber has died. These generations will have to enjoy only what we have saved for them, I urge your committee to foresee what great value this PAGENO="0262" 254 wilderness area will have to those who will live here a hundred years from now and to bequeath to them the excellence that the additions to the area will give it. Sincerely, Buucr H. RUSSELL. P.S. Please include this letter In the official record of the hearings. Los ANGEr~s, CALIF., February 20, 1968. DEAR Sins: May I go on record as being highly in favor of the plan worked out by the Forest Service to include the San Gabriel Wilderness area in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Thank you. ARTHUR J. ROTH. CHICAGO, ILL., February 20, 1968~ Hon. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Senate Committee on Internal and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. HON. SENATOR CHURCH: I am writing to register my support of the proposal by Sen. Kuchel to establish a San Gabriel Wilderness (S. 2531). Although I am from another part of the country, I feel very strongly that we must set aside and preserve as much of our open. lands as possible for the benefit and use not only of our present generation, but also for those who will follow us in the future. I favor the inclusion of the entire 33,647 acre wilderness as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Very sincerely, IRVING L. ROSEN. SOUTH PASADENA, CALIF., February 17, 1968. HONORABLE GENTLEMEN: As one who has spent many happy hours hiking, bird- ing, and botanizing in the San Gabriel Mountains, I hope very much that the bills that have been introduced in Congress to authorize the placement of the San Gabriel Wilderness in the National Wilderiless Preservation System will be passed. Sincerely yours, CATHERINE RosE. GRRENBRAE, CALIF., February 16,1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH., Senate Oj~iee Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: This is to state my support for Bill S. 2531, introduced by Senator T. H. Kuchel, designating the San Gabriel Wilderness as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. This proposal would bring one of the most unusual of the National Forest Primitive areas under protection of the System. It's close proximity to a large metropolitan area, Los Angeles, makes it even more dear. As you know, there is unanimous support for this measure among citizen con- servation groups. I sincerely hope we will be heard. Yours truly, ANN ROCCUL GREENBRAE, CALIF., February 16, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Of/ice Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I strongly disagree with the exclusion of Square Lake-Long Lake area and Marion Lake area from the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness proposal, Bill 2751. As you know the existing wilderness areas in the Oregon Cascades protect only about 290,000 acres. Even with the Mt. Jefferson addition this is a very small por- tion of the beatEtiful Cascade Crest. PAGENO="0263" 255 Due to the narrowness of Mt. Jefferson Wilderness and the proximity of road access on all sides the inclusion of these buffer zones is imperative to its preservation. I also wish to state my support for Inclusion in the San Rafael Wilderness (Bill S889) of an additional 2,O0~ acres. This addition is extremely important if the California Condor is to survive. Your truly, ANN ROCCHX. FEBRUARY 22,1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, NewSeng)te O.~7ice Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sins: I fully approve of the effort to add to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Proposal the following areas the Square and Long Lake area the Marion Lake Scenic Area, and the west side wilderness zone. Yours sincerely, DAVID A. REMLET, Assistant Professor, American Literature and American Studies, The UnIversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. Mea. FEBRUARY 22, 1908. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIRS: I fully approve the Washakie Wilderness Proposal for Wyoming with the following additions: Areas J, D, B, 3,4, H, A, B, F. I admire your concern for preserving fine wilderness areas. I do think however that we ought to take in additional desirable wilderness acreage wherever feasi- ble. It will he easy in future years-given the population boom-to find reasons to delete from these areas, bult it will never get easier to add acreage. I also wish to add that I am very pleased with Senator Kuchel's bill (5. 2531) to place the proposed San Gabriel Wilderness under the administration of the Forest Service. Yours, DAVID A. REMLEY, Assistant Professor, American Literature and Ame~'ioan Studies, The University of New Mecico, Albuquerque, N. Mec. FRANK LUMBER Co., INC., Mill city, Oreg., February 16, 1~68. Re: S. 2751, Mount Jefferson Wilderness. Hon. FRANK Cuunou, Chairman, Sssbeosnmittee on Pulilic Lands, Senate Committee on interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Frank Lumber Company, Inc., has a very vital Inter- est in the federal commercial timber lands of Oregon. We employ 84 people, develop a gross annual payroll of approximately ~65O,OOO and over half our log supply is grown on Federal Lands. We study thoroughly each and every proposed withdrawal of timber land for recreational purposes. The Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area Is right in our back yard. Although we need timber and timber land to sustain our payro1ls~ we recognize the need to supply some area to special Interest recreational groups. We feel the Forest Service has thoroughly and properly considered the needs of recreation and community stability through systematic timber harvest in their proposed 96,462-acre Wilderness set-aside.. We, thorefore, support, without change, the Forest Service Dept of Agriculture acreage and boundaries proposal for adding the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area to the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System as contained In bill 5.2751. Sincerely, DICK POSEKANY, Timber Manager. PAGENO="0264" 256 FaBRUAaT 17, 1q68. lion. Set~ator FRANK (iHunon, Uha1irman, senate $ubcom'aittee on Public Lands. Mv DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I am writing to express my full support for S. ~531 to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness as an addition to the Natioi~al Wilder- ness Preservation System. My convictions concerning this area and its desirability for inclusion in the Wilderness system was recently strengthened by a tour thron~h much of the San Gabriel Mountains, in particular, the Big Bear Area. So much of this motintain range is r~ow greatly overdeveloped and po'orly kept. There has been~ an ObviOrlra lack of planning concerning `construction and it is `clear that `the very sn~all por~ tions of the range represented `by the San Gabriel Area and the Cucamonga Area and should continue to be inerea'~ing valuable in providing complete reer,eiation~tl coverage ~for this range. it scorns obvious to me that `all sihoulci n~t be developed into a "hot dog uta~nd" type of resort4 Pleasexoake ~bbis statement of sul~port part of the record. - Sincerely yours, Joux G. Pmncn, KLAMATH FALLS, OREG., February 19,1968. Senator F~tANK Cuuncn, Chairman, senate t~ubcommittee on Public Lands, senate Office Bwtkling, Wa/~1vington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR Cnuncn: I wish to suppOrt the Wilderness Society's proposala for the Mount Jefferson Wilderness area in Oregon, and for the San Gabriel WiL- derness area in California, and the Washakie Wilderness in Wyoming, Thank you for your Invuiniable w~r'k on these programs. Sincerely yours, NINA PENcE. SANTA Cnuz, CALIF., February 1~, 1968. Senator FRANK Cnunc,n, Chairman, $enate Interior Committee, senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR Onunon: I believe there will be a public hearing, February 19th, by the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate Committee on luterlor and Insular Affairs, and that the bill introduced by Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (S. 2531) to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness as an addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System, is to be heard. Although we live much further north, we are quite familiar with these moun- tains, and the present Primitive area, particñlarly. Such a variety of growth, from the chaparral which covers much of the low elevations, to the majestic ~effrey and sugar pines at the high altitudes. We have long felt the Primitive area should be enlarged, and are very glad that thebill Senator Kuchel is introducing advocates this. I believe the proposed 33,647 acres which would comprise the San Gabriel Wilderness would be administered by the Forest Service under the Wilderness Law of 1964. Mr. Pfeiffer and I urge that this wilderness-designation be made. Will you please have this letter read into the official hearing record? Sincerely, Mrs. PAUL PREirFER~ CouNTY OF Los ANGELEs, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, Los Angeles, Calif., February 14, 1968. Senator HENRY M, JAcKsoN, Chairman, ,S~enate Interior Committee, senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. JACKSON: I am writing this letter in support of Senate Bill 253L which establishes the San Gabriel Wilderness Area within the San Gabriel Na- PAGENO="0265" 257 tional Forest adjacent to the metropolitan area of Los Angeles. I am enclosing a copy of a Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County on July 19, 1966, prior to the public hearings held within the local area. We cannot emphasize too much the need to establish controls on the rapidly diminishing natural wilderness areas so near to the heavily populated area of Southern California. Your support In this effort wotild be most sincerely appreciated. Very truly yOurs, RONALD F. PAreR, Chief Deputy. (For and in the absence of N. S. Johnson, Director). RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERvISoRS, COUNTY OF Los ANG&LES, CALIF. Whereas the total population of Los Angeles County has reached seven million people; and Whereas Industrial, commercial and residential requirements to service this population is rapidly diminishing available space for outdoor recreation; and Whereas the close proximity of the Angeles National Forest to this metropoli- tan region has created exceptionally heavy demands on Forest Service recreation areas for day use and overnight recreational activities; and Whereas the ever-expanding pressures for additional services, recreation de- velopments and public roads within Forest Service boundaries is 3eopardizing the preservation of natural beauty and the precious herItage of mountain wilderness: Now therefore, be it Resolved That the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors does endorse and support the recommendation by the United States Forest Service for the creation of a 36,137 acre Wilderness Area within the Angeles National Forest, as proposed on June 10, 1966; and be it further Resolved, That this Wilderness Area be administered In accordance with all provisions of the Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, dated September 3, 1964, and the Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, C.F.R. 251.70-25.84. DALLAS, OiusG., February 20, 1968. Re S. 2751, Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairmain, ~8enate £~ubcovimittee on Public Lands, &inate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am writing this letter so that my views on the proposed Wil- derness areas may become part of the permanent record of the PubPe hearings on these bills. My views are as follows: I think the present 96,462 acres specified in this bill for Wilderness Status should be increased to 117,000 acres as proposed by various Conbervation groups. This increase in acreage is a vital point to the whole of this area and includes the following: (1) Square and Long Lakes in Southeastern corner of designated area and adjacent to Santiam Highway (U.S. 20). Approximately 1600 acres, these un- developed lakes should be kept In this state, as a valuable part of the Wilderness setting rather than the intensive recreation use as intended by the Forest Service. These lakes are quite accessible from U.S. 20 via a short picturesque hike and provide quiet, serene and tranquil wilderness experiences to the older people and also to the youngsters. These lakes and lands in between also act as a vital buffer and transition zone prior to ascending into the higher country. (2) Marion Lake and approach from Big Meadows, Approximately 1,596 acres, west side proposed site should also be an integral part of this Wilderness Area. It is one of the few truly Alpine lakes available in this area for preservation; as a part of the wilderness. The Forest service proposal to allow a four mile non- wilderness corridor into the heart of the wilderness should not be permitted. By the incluson of the area into the Wilderness area this type of encroachment will be eliminated. (3) Entire west side of area, from the North Fork of Breitenbush River south to southwest corner near Junction of 13.5. 20 and Route 22. Including portions PAGENO="0266" 258~ Qf Fireca~up lakes area, North and South Fqrlç ~of b~iver, V*~lley ,o~. Whitewater Greek, WQQdPeeker Wdge, ]~aruela Greek, Minto Mqnntatn~;igham Ridge and Big Meadows. This comprises an area of apprQXimately 25,(iQG acres.. Some of this west siid~ area has been prevto~sly logged and may aot be considered as~ wilderness potential which is probably a good assumption, but should be in' chided in this Bill to act as a buffer zone for the true wilderness areas, The nar- rowness of the proposed wilderness corridor in SQWS spots and the intensive road developments on both sides make the inclusion of this west side buffer zone almost requisite to preservation of this area. Some of these lower slopes are quite heavily timbered and have a commer- cial value, but weighing the expense of permanent intensive road systems and the investment of long term intensive forest management against the lesser expense and greater value of the preservation of the distinct forest types and scenic value for future generations, the balance tips in favor of the latter. High quality ftsh and wild life In their natural state, is another factor in tipping the balance in favor of this inclusion. I also would like to take exception of the Forest Service's management of some of these areas. They permitted intensive road building and logging when the reclassification studies were going on I think the Forest Service normally does a good job but I feel that this practice should not be permitted until everything is settled. In summation, then, let me say that I think these above areas should be included in the Mount Je~erson Wilderness Proposal as an integral part of it. The preservation of these scenic, alpine lakes and transition zones along With their distinct forest types the indigenous wildlife and the esthetic values *hieh cannot be given a dollar value, far outweigh any future economic gain from the sale of timber An area such as this with its regenerative powers to the spirit Is essential to the future generations particularly as we rapidly progress down the~ path of greater technology and regimentation The up corn lug generations will thank us more for this type of a heritage than one of a cold, austere, steel and concrete nature.. Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS D. OsTimM. LANDER, W~o., February 6,1968. Senator FRANIt Cunacu, Chairman, Fienate Interior Fiubconnmittee on Public Lands. DEAR Sin In regard to the proposed boundaries of the Wasbakie Wilderness Area I would like to lend my support to an area that would Include Bear Creek Basin and Upper DuNoir Valley As stated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, these areas are important for elk especially so since most of this country has already been timbered and as a result there are few areas suitable for large game that are not already traversed by numerous roads. The value of the timber left would be a very small price to pay. as compared to the value derhred from continuous enjoyment of these areas in their un- mutilated state. There are not many left. Sincerely yours, HAROLD O'MALLrr. LAKE OswRGo, Onna., February 99,1968. SENATE CoMMirrsin ow INruluon AND INsuLAR AFFAIRS, Public Land~s Subeotnm*ittee, Fieiunte Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sins: Please include this statement in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area Classification Hearing record. Mount Jefferson Is one of the six highest peaks In. the Cascade Range of Oregon and Washington. The mountain, Its glaciation and geology, and the surrounding meadows, lakes, and forests are examples of the exquisite and unique wilderness that only Oregon and Washington can offer to the residents of the 50 states which have united to share these natural areas as well as economic, defense and other concerns. The Mount Jefferson Primitive Area, because of Its proximity to a major river and highway and to the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, has always PAGENO="0267" 259 been too narrow to accomplish its assigned task~-preservation of a high-valj~e, fragile, natural wild area. This becomes increasingly true as road heads are pushed to the boundary, as numbers of users Increase, and as the dedicated areas come closer and closer to being the total of all of the wilderness-type recreation areas. We have hiked, climbed, hunted, and ridden horses over a great deal Of this area. In our parties have been teenagers, folks over 65, neophytes and seasoned campers. We've seen high school girls who minced along on blistered feet rather than leave the magic of the Pacific Crest Trail in this glorious country; teenage boys who found they~ could shoulder a man's job when the trail, terrain, and group required it; and grown men re-evaluate their values and their judgment of others as they labored on the mountain slope and gained a new perspective. The impersonality of the computer age, the greater intensity and number of sensory stimuli that impinge on man's perceptors, our crowded earth, the threat of defeat and loss of face in the everpresent competition of all facets of society: these conditions require opportunities for the re-creation of man if he is to keep pace with technology. Therefore, we implore that the Mount Jefferson Primitive Area with addi- tions as recommended by the Oregon Cascades Conservation Council and the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs be reclassified as a Wilderness Area promptly. Sincerely, W. H. OBERPEUFFER. MARGARET OBERTEUFFER. FEBRUARY 15, 1968. Hon. Senator FRANK CHURCH, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: My children and I wish to urge your support of the San Gabriel Wilderness Bill introduced by Senator Kuchel (S. 2531), which could designate this area as an addition to the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System. Thank you. Mrs. RUTH E. NYR. EUGENE, OREo., February 21, 1967. Seuaitor FRANK CHURCH, ChaIrman, Public Lands Subcommittee, Committee on Interior and In,~ular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dit~n SENATOR CHURCH: I wish to support the creation of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area as proposed in S. 2751, but request that ~t1thtional lands ap- pr'oximating 20,000 aicres in extent, as recommended by the Sierra Club a~d Wilderness Soriety, be in'cluded. The Forest Service proposal would make a good Wilderness, but the addi- tional lands, particularly those forested lands along the west side which are designated as "14" in the Proposal, would make a very much better one. These lands are involved In ~ontroversy over timber and wilderness values. I believe that they are ~f much greater ralue to net only the people of Oregon `but to those of the United States if they `are desigrtated as Wilderness. When one considers the timber on these lands in terms of jobs over a 90 year period, it slounds like a lot. When one considers that it represents the order of one tenth ott one percent ott the timber in the Pacific Northwest, it becomes `a very small stterifiee, indeed, to save it. The "14" additions to the wilderness will make `a much more viable unit better capable of remaining true wilderness. An ideal wilderness is round or oval in shape and, although this will still be an exceedingly stretched out oval, it would have for Its narrowest width a distance oct about 4.5 miles i4dchcer than the 3 of the present time. At the same time, these addItions would dOntain aspects of wilderness, in the sense of untouched-by-man areas, greater than In many other parts of the Wi1d~irness. They can `also provide general protection to the ~ilder- ness, `always fragile, will need more protection and people~dispersion as mon and more people wish to use it. 1 hope it will be possible to el~se down the upper portions of the Whitewater Creek road. This is especIally important in order to give protection ab urgently needed in the Jeftorson Park ares. PAGENO="0268" 260 On several occasions I have visited the region under consideration and feel that the 117,000 acres is all worthy `ocf Wilderness status1 It will need help from outside Oregon in order to ~btain that status. I would like for this statement to be made part of the hearing record of the Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Committee of Interior and Insular ~&ffairs, which met on F~b'ruary 19,1968 In Washington D.C. Sincerely, Wiixwn~r.i~ A. Norzs, EuGENE, Onna., February ~Z9, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, ,S~enate Office Building, U.R. Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I Would like to express myself in fhvor of establishing a Wilderness Atua around Mount Jefferson in the Oregon Cas~ca'des, but I believe the `boundaries proposed in S. 2751 should be enlarged, particularly along the west side. The boundaries as presently proposed create a wilderness that is much too flarrow `for proper management. Last August, some of us went into Jefferson Park in the middle of the `week `and found the area `so heavily used `that it was hard to find a good camping site that Was `unoccupied. (Don't let anybody tefl ~ou that wilderness Oountry is locked up `and that nobody goes there!) The excessive pressure on Jefferson Park arises `because `the recent logging road up' Whitewater Creek intrudes much too closely. A much more satisfactory situ~tion could be `attained if the present road were closed about at `Cheat Creek and the cut areas beyond were allowed to grow back without further lumbering. I believe that other additions to the proposals of S. 2751 would be desirable at Firecanip Lakes, Marion Lake, Square Lake, and at many places alo'ng the west side of the a're'a. The recommendations of `the Wilderness Society provide a good basis for setting `such boundaries. I request that this letter `be made a part of the record for the hearings that took place in W~s'hiugt'on on this measure. Respectfully yours, RlcriAiin M. NoTEs. NORMAN & SPANISH ARCHITECTS, Portland, Oreg., February 27, 1.968. Senator WAYNE L. MORSE, U.B. f~enate, Washington, D.C. D1!~AR SENATOR MORSE: I would like to express my concern for Senate Bill 2751, and `the need, I believe, to add the 29,000 acres to the west and south of the proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area. 1 can not equate the temporary "jobs" created by logging this area and its limited effect on our economy, with the loss forever of a primitive area. This can never be recreated for the generations of people yet unborn. This area is a valuable `resource fo~r the future, and the land belongs to all of the people, net `the lumber interests. The foresight of our representatives `today will determine the "livability" of our state tomorrow. Sincerely, RICHARD W. NORMAN, AlA. PoRTLAND, Onus., February 20,1968. Ser~ator HENRY M. JACKSON, Cha4rman, senate Interior Committee, £`enate Office Building, Wai~ington, D.C. 1 ~1iAR ML JACKSON: May I urge the inclusion of additional land on `the west side of the Jeffernon Wilderness Area as re~omthended by the Sierra Club; par- ticularly Marion Lake. I have hiked a great deal in this area and Would be very disappointed if it were destroyed by logging, mining or road building. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM A. NORDSTROM. PAGENO="0269" 261 NoBLE's ANGUS RANCH, Cora, Wyo., February 12, 1.9613. We are: Carroll R. and Cristina A. Noble. Joint owners of Noble's Angus Ranch. Our livelihood consists entirely of cattle raising. However, we realize that recreation is as important or perhaps more so to the prosperity of our community. We live at the edge of the Bridger Wilderness and feel that too muçth land cannot be set aside for future generations. We wish to give our whole hearted support to the addition of the Wash~kle primitive area to the Wilderness system. We urge that the additions of the East DuNoir Creek and West DuNoir Creek, Bear Basin, the Wiggins Fork, Lincoln Point, the Heaciwaters of Five and Six Mile Creeks and the Parque Creek be included in the bill. It will give protection to a vital water shed and a fine Elk herd. We've watched Elk herds disappear in our own area, when ever and where ever there was timbering. We wish this statement to be made a part of the hearing. Thank you. CARROLL R. NOBLE. CRISTINA A. NoBLE. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 16, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AFFAIRS, Washi~igton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: As chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands I'm praying that you will do all in your power to see that Senator Kuchel's bill (5. 2531) on the San Gabriel Wilderness proposal is enacted. I live in a huge city and I am surrounded by cement walks, streets, and build- ings. A wilderness area, under such circumstances, is like a fire escape for the mind and the eye. Lots of days I can't go to the mountains, but if the smog isn't too thick I can still see them by peering around the skyscrapers. City dwellers have concrete running out of our ears. Save all the wilderness you can and help to save our sanity. Yours truly, ALICE Mym~s. GRAYLING, MICH., February 19, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHUCIL SIR: Please enlarge the Mt. Jefferson wilderness to 12~,OOO acres. L~t's insulate this entire area from man's destruction. Thank you very much. Most sincerely, GEORGE W. MUNTORD. GRAYLING, MICH., February 19,1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH. SIR: Please preserve the entire 33,647 acres in San Gabriel wilderness. That will give us a great natural laboratory where we can learn more about how wild animals benefit people. Thank you very much. Most sincerely, GEORGE W. MUNFORD. GRAYLING, Mion., February 19, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS. GENTLEMEN: Please preserve the entire 725,~33 acres in Washakie wilderness. That will give us a greet natural laboratory to learn more about how animals benefit people. Thank you very much. Most sincerely, GEORGE W. MUNFORD. PAGENO="0270" 262 Rio DELL, CALn~., February 19,1968. Senator FRANi~ CunliCil, Qbairniwn, Senate Sniieommittee on Public La~ul, Senate OffIce Building, WasMngton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I am writing to endorse the classification of the Mt. Jefferson area as wilderness. Concerning the boundaries of this wilderness area I urge that Marion Lake be Included in the wilderness. It has all the attributes of Wilderness and its exclusion would be capricious and arbitrary. I also recommend that as wide as possible a marginal area on the northwest perimeter of the area be included, notably in the watersheds of the Breitenbush River, Whitewater Creek and Minto Creek. Much of this zone, not Included in the proposal of the Forest Service, is of wilderness quality. If it should remain out- side the wilderness the permanent wildness character of the whole northern por- tion of the wilderness including Mt Jefferson itself would be In jeopardy be- cause of the narrowness of the proposed area. This consideration ought even to override the occasional less than full wilderness character of the zone to be added (resulting from unwise recent road construction and logging, against the urgelit advice of concerned citizens groups). Please include this statement in the record of the hearing. Yours truly, K. H. MUNCHHEXMER, M.D. ELK Cirv, IDAHo, February 4, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, U.S. Senate, Wa$hington, D.C. DEAR Ma. CHURCH: Some of my views on the wilderness area: Wilderness Areas should be used or made available for use for as many people as possible. This can only be done by building goOd roads and trails into these areas. * It is being very discriminatory by making these areas available to only a few who can afford the expense of hiring a guide and a pack-string. This is wrong on the face of it in a free country. Not only the expense but the necessity of riding horseback will keep many- from the pleasure of seeing the wilderness. Again, only a few will have that pleasure. If firearms are strictly forbidden in these areas I see no reason why good roads and trails cannot be made for use by all who wish to "get out in the wilderness." If firearms are not used the wild game soon learn not to fear the vacationers. Again, firearms should be strictly forbidden. I have lived in this wilderness area since 1930. I have a salt lick about seventy- five yards from my cabin and have the pleasure of watching Elk, Deer and Moose at the salt; sometimes a bear. I love to see the wild life as much anyone else. Also I have fixed campsites for others on my mining ground for others who can enjoy seeing the wild game. Sometime awake them in the early mornings so they will not miss seeing the wild game. Nearly forgot to mention that "dogs" should be kept on a leash. In my opinion this is almost important as the prohibiting of firearms. A number of times here dogs have taken out after the game. Some being gone a few minutes while others were gone at least a half hour. The use of ~nowsleds and trail vehicles should be permitted. A sworn statement should be signed that the party or person has no firearms In their possession and if they do claim to have hand guns for protection only they must checl~ the numher of shells they have In their possession going in and coming out of the areas. They should be informed of course that they will have to give account for reason of used shells. Permitting only a few and refusing hundreds of ~eople from the pleasures of getting out in the wilderness areas isa crime. This is my opinion, period. Sincerely, DA~flaL E. MULCAHY. PAGENO="0271" 263 FEBRUARY 16, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Mv DEAR SENATOR This Is to urge you and your Coinniittee to make a favor- able recommendation on S. 2531, Senator Kuchel's bill to preserve the San Gabriel Wilderness area. MARY C. and THAT. C. Mossa. PRINEVILLE, ORliG., Pebruary 18,1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I urge your support for the Mount Jefferson Wilder- ness Area in the Oregon Cascades. I feel it is necessary that whatever area can now be saved for future generations in as nearly an untouched form as possible, should be saved. Economic growth does not preclude the need for wilderness, but in fact makes it even more necessary. The larger the area, the better. Sincerely yours, GERALD PAUL MOR5ELLO. LA CRESCENTA, CALIF., February 14,1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH:. Please include this letter as part of the public hearing record to be held on Feb. 19, 1968 as supporting the bill introduced by Senator Kuchel (S. 2531) designating the 33,647 acre San Gabrtel Wilderness as an addi- tion to the National Wilderness Preservation System to be administered by the Forest Service under the Wilderness Law of 1964. Sincerely yours, HAROLD L. MORRHEAO. BERKELEY, CALIF., February hO, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Ofjioe Building. DRAR MR. CHURCH: I strongly support the Forest Service's proposal for the San Gabriel Wild~ruess, and its proposal for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness along with the additionAl 28,000 acres recomtaend~d by Oregon conservationists. The additional area includes the Square Lake Long Lake area the Marion Lake area and the entire west side of that section of the Oountry. One of the most important reasons to give the San Gabriel Wilderness pro- tection under the Wilderness Act is Its proximity to Los Angeles, pr~oviding a vital sanctuary for people who wish to eScape the hell of our cities. Also, the mountain range Is very unique in its Scenic qualities, and there are no conflicting uses. The additional acreage in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness which the Forest Serv- ice excluded is essential for its valuable buffer zones in the west side, and its untainted mountain lakes. Just as important Is Marion Lake, which, If not in- cluded in the Wilderness area, will have a large non-wilderness zione in the center of the arSa. I hope that Congress will choose to preserve both San Gabriel and Mt. Jeffer- son-~-their existence as wildern~ss areas will help to preserve the sanity of Americans. Sincerely, STUART MOODY. MoNRovIA, ~Aur., February 16,1968. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New Senate O/7k~e Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am writing in support of Senate BIll 5, 253i-.~~the San Gabriel Wilderness ProposaL 91-953-08-18 PAGENO="0272" 264 `I am~a natttre Californian `and have always lived in the San Gabriel Valley so can perhaps a~preciate the need for this wilderness area more than' those who have not seen the growth of population in Southern California as I have. I was first taken into the proposed wilderness area (BOar Cun~on) by my father about 35 years ago arid have visited it many times ~ince. I am now intro- di*sng it to ray dhildren and find that they are experiencing the same thrill I did at being alone in the wilderness So cinse to such an urt~an arSa `as ours. Although `I eannbt see wiikt commercial use could be made of the area 1 feel certain that in time Someone will think of one and I therefore urge passage of S. 2531 before this happens. Please include this letter in the offi'eiai hearing record. Very truly yours, EARL F. Moonx. EtrOENE, Ones., February 26, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands Fiubcom'mittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: Please include the following in the hearing record regarding the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area Classification: The Mt. Jeffer~on Area will make a wo'~derful addition to `the Wilderness sys~ tern It is a beautiful place to visit and the Federal Government is to be corn mended for c'holosing to preserve this area for thu Amerhian pOople. However, one definite improvement could be made in the cu'rrent Forest `Serv- ice proposal This improvement is to include more land in the proposed Wilder ness along its western boundary. The Forest Service's proposal will create a long and narrow wilderness lacking any truly isolated areas. This is especially true of the northern portion of the proposed Wilderness where there are alrea'd~y defi- nite signs `of overuse. I hope that you will reconimerid the establishment of a Mt. Jefferson Wilder- ness with appropriate `additions to the western boundary of the area. Sincerely ~OUIS, STEPHEN A. MORN. VXSALIA, CALIF., February 15,1968. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I strongly urge a favorable report on `S. 2531 by Senator Kuchel. The area concerned is fairly close to the large ~opulahon of Los Angeles it has no significant value for mining or timbering It has no prirate inhoidin'gs and has no conflicting uses. Sincerely, ROBERT K. Mnxnns. PORTLAND, ORes., February 22,1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Regarding the Forest Service proposal for Mt. Jefferson Wil- derness, I would like my remarks included in the hearing record. Over the last few years both my wife and I have been back-packing through many `of the "primitive areas" of the west. Last year, we went into `the Jefferson Wilderness Area. We were very `surprised to see `over thirty-five people, either walking or on horseback during a two day period This is more people we have ever `counted `during `a hike period, even `on trips `into the bigth `country of Yosemite National Park. The "pressure" on `the Jefferson `area `seems very heavy. The campsites `are over used. In my opinion, this is `because of the narrowness `of this primitive area which makes it easy to get in and out of and the closeness of the area to the population `centers `of tire `state. PAGENO="0273" 265 While timber is this state's largest resource, I can't help but wonder if the 29,000 `acres, which many `have proposed to `be added to the Jefferson Wilderness, is really of great importance to the state's lumber Interests. There seems to be plenty ~f timber available, provided we stop shipping our greatest resource to Japan. Because of sustained yield `and `other improved forest practices, the future seems bright for `timber availability and in `area's where ro~ads already exist. I sincerely doubt that there is a time in the next 100 Ito 200 years when the 29,000 `acres in question will be `crucial to the survival of the lumber Industry In the state of Oregon. Therefore, I would like to see the extr'a acres `added to the Jefferson Wilderness area in `order `to take `the pressure off the area a's it is today and permit the `area to grow gracefully with the increases in population, which the state `of Oregon is just `beginning to experience. Sincerely, WILLIAM F. MILLER. FEBRUARY 17, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, UJ~. senate, Washington, D.C. Mx DEAR SENATOR: I am writing for myself and my wife (Dr. Marian Hayes Miller) to urge improvement in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness as follows: Inclusion of the Squhre and Long Lake `area; inclusion of the Marion Lake Scenic Area; inclusion of the wes't side wilderness z'one. Both my wife and I have hiked in this `area `but `are `of `an `age when that is no longer practical for us. However, we feel that this w'ho'le area is of incomparably more value in a wilderness state than `in any other classification `and we strongly urge your support to the inclusion of the areas as mentioned above. Very truly yours, FRED N. MILLER. FEBRUARY 17, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands ISlubcommittee, ~8enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am writing this letter to voice my `strong support for adding approx. 29,000 .~acres to the western side of the proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area, `as `outlined in detail by the váriôus conservation groups. It is my under- standing that the Forest `Service does not want to include this land in the pro- posed Wilderness. I have hiked and camped in this area a number of times and cannot see `any real reason for saving this land for timber production. It is steep `and rocky and would be economical to `l'og only if the buyer got a real b'argain in the price he had to pay for this timber. I `as `a taxpayer and part `owne'r of this land don't want to give it away and l'ose its `cushioning effect `on the relatively narrow `alpine land to the east (the Wilderness Area). There is plenty of low `altitude land for timber production without getting into the heart of `the `Ca,scades. Please include this letter in the hearing record. Sincerely, PHILLIPFE MEANT. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, Corvallis, Oreg., Pebruar~ 16, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, &~nate subcommittee on Public Lands, ,S~enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I would `appreciate your ine~u'ding this letter in the hearing rec'ord on Senate Bill S. 2751, concernin.g the `addition of land areas `to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. I have personally `hiked Into the Jefferson Park region of the wilderness `on a number of occasions `and am becoming increasingly alarmed over the mounting intensity `of use this fragile region is receiving. Pre- sently `access roads lie t'o'o `close to the parkl'and, and `the addition of the White- water Creek section to the Wilderness would diminish `such excessive use `and pre- serve the parkiand for future generations. The `same holds for the Square Lake PAGENO="0274" 2613 area, a lake a. mere twO miles from U.S. Ht~hway 20. This lake, if surrounded by the Wilde~iess and thus closed to motorized vehicles would offer excellent opportunities to older folks to enter true `wilderness without great exertion, for the trail `is fairly short and `level. In total, I favor all the land additions endorsed by `the Wilderness Society and by the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, for these areas are all wild, many without elaborate trail systems, and would all add necessary protection to the core of the Jefferson Wilderness Area. It would be `tragic for sudh a truly splendid area as that surrounding Mount Jefferson to be ravaged by the terrible destruc- tion unavoidable with modern logging, road building, and non-wilderness type usage. Thank you for considering this letter in the hearing record. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN G. MARTIN. DON MARSTERS INSURANCE, Portland, Oreg., February 16, 1968. THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIoR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands gubeommittee, senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GANTLEMRN In cohneetion with your hearing on Senate Bill 5. 2751, Febru- ary 19th, I wish to add my voice to others that we should include in the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area adequate Buffer Strips. In the 1963 Forest Service bearings, only 1,000 acres were added at Pamella Lake and Firecamp Lakes and this is the situation as it stands today. During the past 40 years I have seen the encroachment of the publiC and particularly the logging industry ruin the totting for this most beautiful high country area. There is absolutely no economic necessity for logging any closer to this country and we should preserve the more fragile upland areas by closing all road access and motor scooter access Ito this area. `Nifthlng is more damaging to a primitive area than the racket of thotors. Sincerely yours, DeciALD C. MARSPERS. SEATTLE, WASH., February 19, 1968. DEAR Sins: I have some recommendations to make concerning the proposed M't. Jefferson Wildeririss Area in the National Forest in the Cascade mountains of Oregon. I refer to the Square and Long Lake area the west side wilderness zone and the Marion Lake area. If possible I would like to see them added to the proposed Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area. Since I have been In the Oregon~~ Cas- cades as well as the Washtn~ton cascades I realize that the Oregon cascades are flatter on top than the Washington cascades and it l's therefore more diffi- cult but never the less I hope the proposed Mt Jeffereon Wild area can be en larged to become a Wilderness area. Yours truly, JOHN E. MARSHALL. FEBRUAiW 16, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman; the senate Committee, on Interior and Insular Affairs, S~enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: This letter is in support of Senate Bill S. 2531, intro- duced by Senator Kuehel, in which the San Gabriel Wilderness area is proposed for inclusion under the National WildOrness Preservation System. I have spent a great deal of time in this area and, particularly in view of the fact that it is so near a major city, I `think it would be a most tmportant step in implementing the Wilderness Law of 1964. The Forest Service is to be commended for the manner in which they have handled the proposal for this area. I am very hopeful that this designation ~rill be made as soon as po~slble, Sincerely, PETER R. MANN. PAGENO="0275" 267 FEDRUARY i9~ iOfi& ~EN4TE OOMMXTTEE ON INTERIOR AND INAULAR AFFAIRS, Washingtou, D.C. Sin: Concerning the Washakie Wilderness area, I would urge your full sup- port to conservationist proposals for extending the area beyond that of S. 2630 (Senator Hansen). Specifically, these involve areas J, D, E, 3, $, F-i, and H; also A, B, and F. Note areas 1, and C, and G, and 2, and 6 are excluded as already being unfit for wilderness. While the economy must of course be considered, the health of a wealthy people unspoiled lands for spiritual renewal. Recall that decisions made now cannot be reversed later If the land is already destroyed. BRUCE MACBRYDE. VANCOUVER, WAsH., February 22, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Duaa SENATOR: I am writing to urge you to seek favorable votes fOr addi- tion to the Jefferson Wilderness Area in Oregon of 28,000 acreh by the Forest Service to the Jefferson Primitive Area. These additions are: Square and Long Lakes-southeastern corner adjacent to Suntian Highway (U.S. 20). Marion Lake and the approach to it from Big Meadows Road shOuld be included. Entire west side of area from North Fork of Breltenbu~h River south to southwest corner near junction of Route 22 and U.S. 2O~ Includes portions of Firecamp Lakes area. North and South Pork of Ereitenbush River, valley of Whitewater creek, Woodpecker Ridge and Pamell~ Creek, Minto Mountain, Bingham Ridge and Big Meadows. Also request that con- ferees agree to compromise version of S. 889 which provides for inclusion in San Rafael Wilderness àf 2,000 acres which conservationists want added to that area. Yours truly, GuY E. MONUTT. FEBRUARY 15, 1968. Hon. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on PubUc Lands, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR SENATOR Being a primary school teacher, it is Impossible to be present at the hearing February 19. ConservatIon Is one of the most important phases of our government. Definitely, I favor Senator Kuchel's bill Introduced (5. 2531) to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness as an addition to the Na- tional Wilderness Preservation. However, the House version, which includes 2000 additional acres will in my opinion be the better form. I have so written, both Senator Kuchel, and Congressman B. F. Sisk. Thank you for giving attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Miss NORMA McNA~eu. ROSEBTJRG, OREG., February 1., 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I wish to make known my support for the proposed Inclu- sion of the Mt Jefferson Wilderness area in the National Wilderness System I particularly want to emphasize the need for inclusion of adequate buffer areaq of alpine and subalpine timber and some lower level timber. For the past six years I have lived In Douglas County Oregon and have been able to observe first hand the effects of logging In alpine and subalpine forests. I have, for example, visited areas north of Diamond Lake near Saw Tooth Mountain. Bulldozers had pushed broken stumps and mounds of pumice to the very edge of what had been the year before a beautiful and iso lated Alpine Lake (Lake Calmut). The irony of these destructive operations is that in this case this type of logging is not economically productive in a long range sense. This is the opinion of forest service personnel with whom I have talked and It is immediately evident by an inspection of this type of logging op. PAGENO="0276" 268 oration. The mature stands of fir being cut were not over thirty feet high and each tree barely six inches in diameter and, moreover, because of the very poor soil and short growing season had taken a hundred to two hundred years to mature. I know that to ~t greater or lesser extent the same conditions exist in much of the timber acreage in the 28,000 acres proposed by citizens conservation- ists for addition to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness as recommended by the Forest Service. Forest lands that can not be economically harvested on a sustained yield basis shouuld be spared as vital buffer zones around our few and relatively narrow wilderness areas. This is also true of lower level timber if they become economically productive only because of subsidies paid by the people of the United States at large for the building and maintenance of logging roads, costs of administration and reforestation. Whatever remaining eco- nomic values reinaimug must still be weighed against the higher wilder ness values of the laist itself and of the precious alpine land these forests protect. Sincerely yours, Dr. TJIOMAS P. McGEHEE. BoISE, IDAHo, Maroh 5, 1968. $ENATE OOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Public Lands Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GTLni~nN: I would like to make my views known in regard to the Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area Clas$ilicatlon. There are approximately 29000 additIonal acres which should be included in this proposal They are Immediately adjacent on the west of the present Mount Jefferson area With the addition of these acres to the west it would help to make this a more viable wilderness by making it less narrow and would give the protection of distance to many of the upland fragile areas. I would like to have this letter included in `the hearing records. Very truly you~ GEORGE E. MOCOWN. Fisu OAMP, `CALIF., February 20, 1968. Hon. FRANK CHURcH, 5ubcontmittee Chairman Senate Convmsttee on Interior and Insular Affairs Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. PEAk Sin: As we were unable to attend the meeting relative to the San Gabriel Wilderness proposals we wish to have our statement entered in the hearings record. We urge that this Wilderness of 33,647 acres be added to the National Wilder-' ness System. Yours truly, J. P. and II. P. MOCLYMONDS. MOUNT VERNON, IOWA, February 19, 1968. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, ~LS. Senate, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Although I am in basic agreement with the Forest Service's pro- posal concerning the Wasliakie Wilderness it appears to me to fall far short of th potential wilderness which should be included within the official wildernesa. It is true that the Service has proposed two additions in the southwestern part of the proposed wilderness and a third in the northeast portion to the present stratified Primitive Area but a much larger portion especially in the western and southern areas contiguous to the Primitive Area should also be proposed for o~cial protection. Areas H, I, and J, as suggested by several conservation groups, including the Wyoming Game and Fish Department are extremely important for the continued protection of the elk herds which inhabit the area., It is no secret that the elk is essentially a wilderness species and Where it is not given this type of protection the herds decline or disappear These additions appear to be estab hshed or rather the need for their establishment is desirable to protect these PAGENO="0277" 269 areas from logging. Not that togging per se is detrimental but it apparently has been the experience of the ~yomtng Game Dept. that logging roads are detri- mental, especially to small, isolated, resident herds. Areas H and I have been excluded from the Washakie proposal apparently because of the small amount of merchantable timber located there. I think it about time that we begin to make some decisions a~ to validity of the standard argument whereby any economic benefits of exploitation take precedent over non-exploitive, esthetic values. We need reasonable areas of "merchantable" timber in many of ou~ wild~rness areas. This is especially true of the Washakie Wilderness where the major portion of the official wilderness is to be a high mountain massif largely devoid of vegetation. The additions of J, B, H, I, B, and D, as proposed by several conservation groups would add considerable and important "edge" to the Proposed Forest Service plan and result in a more meaningful and ecologically diverse Washakie Wilderness. Sincerely, DAVID L. LYON. MOUNT VERNON, IowA, February 19, 1968. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, UJ~. ~S'enate, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I am in complete agreement with the U.S. Forest Service regard- ing their proposed classification for the San Gabriel Wilderness. The Forest Service is to be commended for such a well-thought-out and progressive proposal; in establishing the boundaries the Service has done a fine job in avoiding existing developments but at the same time providing protection of the wilderness from fire by establishing the necessary management requirements outside the border of the wilderness. Sincerely, BAVID L. LYON. ANCHORAGE, ALASEA, March 8, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INsULAR AEFAIRS, Pub'ic Lands $ubcommittee, senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sins: Concerning the Forest Service proposal Senate Bill S. 27~1 for the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness area in the State of Oregon, I feel that the F~rest Serv- ice is presently falling rather short on the amount of acreage proposed for this wilderness area. I urge the committee to consider and support the citizens conservations organi- zations view for the addition of approximately 29,000 acres more to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area, which is located on the west, south, and northeast boundaries of the present Forest Service Wilderness proposal. This 29,000 acre addition would make the whole a more viable wilderness by making it less narrow and would give the protection of distance to many of the upland fragile areas. I strongly urge your support for this addition which will round out and make this an outstanding wilderness area. We must act now while there is still time. Pre~ent and future generations will be grateful for our foresight. Please enter this letter in the hearings record, Thank you. Sincerely, VERNON A. LUTHMAN. BERKELEY, CALIF., February 15, 1968. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, ,Senate Interior Committee, S~enate Office Buiiding, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: I strongly supj~ort the bill introduced by Senator `:L'homas H. Kuehel to designate the San Gabriel Wilderness as an addition to the National Wilde4~uess Preservation System. The Forest Serv4ce's proposal seems completely adequate in this case, and it is difficult to foresee any reasonable objection to the bill. PAGENO="0278" 270 The San GabrIel mountains are somewhat familiar to me from my childhood, and I rejoice to think that their unique wilderness qualities are likely to be preserved for posterity. Sincerely, (Mrs.) ~ LUCA. SEA AND SAGE, BRANCH OF NATIONAL AUDUBON SoOIE'rv, santa Ana, Caiif., Febraary 1,1968. Hon. FRANK Onuncu, E~enate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New senate Office Build4ng, Washington, n.c. Dn~&n Sin: The Board of Directors of the Sea and Sage Audubon Society cannot have a representative present at the Senate Committee Hearing on the San Gabriel Wilderness prOposal. Therefore~t~y are presenting their testimony in this letter. They request that. you place on the record that the Sea and Sage Audubon Society, Orange County branch of the National Audubon Society, gives full support to 5.2531. Thank you for consideration of their withes in this matter affecting America s wildland resources. Sincerely yours, Lois LOtIGHEAN, Cc~rresponding secretary. PORTLAND, OREG., March 2, 1f~88. SENATE C0MMrPIEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR ArlrAIns, Public Lands Subcommittee. DRAB Sm: I am writing in connection with the recent hearings on Senate Bill. S. 2751 on the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area in Oregon. Pleas~ include this letter in the record of the hearing. I feel strongly that the proposed Wilderness area is too narrow and thus allows access to Jeffereon Park too easily This park is one of the most beautiful spots in the whole Pacific Northwest. However, it is already oven~sed, and is suffering the consequences of erosion and despollation by too many campuites~ etc. With wilderness usage increasing even farther than population, this situation is bound to deteriorate even further if access remains easy. Therefore I strongly urge inclusion of the area labeled 14b' on the enclosed map in the Wilderness area. Sincerely, MICHAEL Lire. GAINESVILLE, FLA, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sins: This letter concerns the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, now being con- sidered for its final status. I am originally from Oregon Living nOw in Florida has made me more acutely aware of how crucial it is that we preserve as much wild mountain eountry as is possible. This works two ways. In my own case, absence makes the heart grow fonder-I miss the mountains and the thought of their demise in my absence is painful Living In fiatland I cherish the mountains of Oregon perhaps more than I ever did It is no small statement that my spirit is powerfully uplifted by knowing that huge, grand country gri~ts out there in the Pacific Northwest Besides my own reactions and feelings about Oregon's wild mountain country, I want to. relate what native Floridians have to say. I was surprised to find out the number of people who have visited Oregon. who constantly remark to me, "Great country, so wild and big! Your mountains! All those trees !" Small talk? I believe not! I am convinced that these native Floridians have also gotten a great spiritual uplift from seeing and feeling the grand Northwest country. Though they live in Florida, where no point is above 325' above sea level, I fully believe that they carry in their minds a kind of philosophical reverence for such "strange and different" country. That Is, the country they saw become a PAGENO="0279" 271 small and important part of them. This fully leads me to believe that wilderness is truly a national treasure. Thus, preserving samples (honestly, only "samples" still remain) of our mountain heritage ought to be a high priority national goal. I fear it is unfortunately a very low priority goal, (judging by willingness to spend dollars to save wilderness) and that the national "spiritual treasure" stands to be drastically diminished unless action is taken to save more wilderness. An argument against wilderness is, "Well, yeah, but you can't eat scenery or build houses with it." The simplest, most relevant rebuttal, of which we seem to be losing sight: "Not by bread alone." Specifically, it is appalling to me that the western border of the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness is presently hardly more than three miles from the peak Itself! Out of all the thousands of square miles of western Oregon timberland, a mere skinny strip three miles wide is set aside to surround magnificent Mt. Jefferson itself. This, to me, is blatant "tokenism"! Like pitching a dime to a beggar. Mt. Jefferson is less protected than the thighs of today's mini-skirted lasses. And, the lasses can at least move and defend themselves. I mean, it's almost a farce to even call such a puny piece of land "Wilderness." It's a patch! Like a knee patch on a pair of jeans. I feel it is grossly inadequate to protect what is, after all, Oregon's second highest peak, and (since Mt. Hood is already well-developed commercially and being more developed) probably Oregon's prettiest, wildest, most enchanting mountain. Mt. Jefferson, for us, us, the people, deserves much greater protection! It is the culmination of Oregon's grand mountain country today! Let's face it: the fate of Oregon's greatest mountain treasure is at stake right nOw, and forever after. Forever after is a long, long time. And, the demand for Wilderness grows by great leaps and surges, as people can't repress a need to have some kind of pure, spiritual adventure, to renew some contact with the very forces that brought all people into existence. If you will, throw in the recent j~henomenon of the "Hippies." Basically, perhaps they are an expression of an excruciating anguish that senses a terrible "cutting- off" of man from nature. I am utterly convinced that this urge to "recontact" nature isn't going to die-off as a fad. It is coming on ever more strongly. Personally, my wife and I were around Mt. Jefferson last Summer. We went cross country. People we met reported that within the Wilderness at popular lakes, which Were a good five miles from the nearest road, there were no avail- able campsites and that the lakes were "fished out." Wilderness is being used, overused. If anything, not less, but more Wilderness is needed. It Is dramatically, unequivocally evident from simply going Into the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness. Even more specifically: 1. The Candle Creek addition was very wise. We hiked that country, and it is very pretty, as one descends into pine woods to the east~ 2. Square Lake is only one mile from the road right now! Can't people walk that far? It should be in the Wilderness. 3. Most crucial: The entire Wilderness needs more protection on its western edge. Around Pamelia Lake, around Whitewater Creek especially. A final opinion: It is impossible to err in making the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness too large (regarding known proposals.) The only mistake that posterity could possibly charge us with is, "They didn't leave enough." I would appreciate having this letter included In the hearing record. Thank you. Sincerely, Jorns D. LINDOTROM. DEANISE R. LINDsTR0M. WHEATON, ILL., March 4, 1968. Mr. PORTER WARD, Senate Interior Coov,nittee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Please enter my vote on the record in favor of adding Washakie to the National Wilderness Preservation System. I also strongly urge eatending its boundaries to Include the West DuNoir Creek and East DuNoir Creek, the Bear Basin Unit and other contiguous areas. Thank you. EDWARD B. LEE. PAGENO="0280" 272 SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,