PAGENO="0001" THE NORTH CASCADES Part HI HEARINGS BEFORE TIlE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION OF TUE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 8970 and related bills A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK AND ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, TO DESIGNATE THE PASAYTEN WILDERNESS AND TO MODIFY THE GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS, IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 25 AND 26, 1968 SEPTEMBER 4, 1968 Serial No. 9O.~.24 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 98-524 WASHINGTON 1.968 4ç~i%3 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS JAMES A. HALEY, Florida ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma WALTER S. BARING, Nevada ROY A. TAYLOR, l~orth Carolina HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California HUGH L. CAREY, New York MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona PHILLIP BURTON, California JOHN V. TUNNEY, Caiifornia THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington RICHARD WHITE, Texas ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JAMES KEE, West Virginia LLOYD MEEDS, Washington ABRAHAM KAZEN, Ja., Texas SANTIAGO POLANCO-ABREU, Resident Commissioner, Puerto Rico HAROLD T. JOHNSON HUGH L. CAREY MORRIS K. UDALL RICHARD WHITE ROBERT W. KASTENME'IER JAMES 0. O'HARA WILLIAM F. RYAN PATSY T. MINK ABRAHAM KAZEN, Ja. JOHN P. SAYLOR, Pennsylvania Ranking Minority Member E. Y. BERRY, South Dakota CRAIG HOSMER, california JOE SKUBITZ, Kansas LAURENCE J. BURTON, Utah ROGER'S C. B. MORTON, Maryland WENDELL WYATT, Oregon GEORGE V. HANSEN, Idaho ED REINECKJII, California THEODORE R. KUPPERMAN, New York JOHN KYL, Iowa SAM STEIGER, Arizona HOWARD W. POLLOCK, Alaska JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho ROY A. TAYLOR, Chairman JOE SKUBITZ ROGERS C. B. MORTON THEODORE R. KUPFERMAN JOHN KYL SAM SPEWER HOWARD W. POLLOCK JAMES A. McCLURE P. RICHARD WITHER, Consultant on National Parks and Recreation Note: The chairman, Hen~. Wayne N. Aspinall, and the ranking minority member, Hon. John P. Saylor, are ex officio members of each subcommittee. House O~' REPRESENTATIVES WAYNE N. ASPINALL,' Colorado, Chairman SIDNEy L. MCFARLAND, Professional Staff Director T. RICHARD WITHER, Counsel NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held- July 25, 1968: Page Afternoon session 913 July 26, 1968: Morning session 939 September 4, 1968: Morning session 971 Appendix (tables) 983 Statements: American Forestry Association, submitted by Kenneth B. Pomeroy_.. 936 Brandborg, Stewart M., executive director, the Wilderness Society (plus map) 964 Evans, Hon. Daniel J., Governor, State of Washington 925 Gutermuth, C. R., vice president, Wildlife Management Institute.. - - 968 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director, National Wildlife Federation.. 971 May, Hon. Catherine, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington 922 Meeds, Hon. Lloyd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington 914 Pelly, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington 921 Smith, Anthony Wayne, president, National Parks Association 969 Talcott, Hon. Burt L., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 933 Udall, Hon. Stewart L., Secretary of the Interior 939 Letters: Anderson, Eskil, president, Northwest Mining Association, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 29, 1968 967 Callison, Charles H., executive vice president, National Audubon Society, New York, N.Y., to Hon. Roy A. Taylor, dated July 23, 1968 935 Crafts, Edward C., Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, dated June 28, 1967 963 Evans, Hon, Daniel J., Governor, State of Washington, to Hon. Catherine May, dated July 17, 1968 924 Hartzog, George B., Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 26, 1968 935 Kimball, Thomas L., executive director, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 24, 1968_ 934 McCarty, Robert L., McCarty & Noone, counselors at law, Washing- ton, D.C., to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 30, 1968 936 McCloskey, Michael, conservation director, Sierra Club, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated August 30, 1968 979 McMillan, C. W., American National Cattlemen's Association, to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated August 13, 1968 980 Nelson, John M., superintendent of lighting, Seattle, Wash., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated July 12, 1968 935 Poole, Daniel A., secretary, Wildlife Management Institute, to Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall, dated July 29, 1968 967 Scheel, H. P., Seattle, Wash., to Hon. Wayne Aspinall, dated Aug. 1, 1968 967 Shannon, W. T., president, International Association of Game, Fish, ~nd Conservation Commissioners, Sacramento, Calif., to Hon. Wayne N. Apsinall, dated August 26, 1968 Werkema, Adah, chairman, North Cascades Committee, Washington State Sportsmen's Council, Inc., Vancouver, Wash., to Hon. Cathe- rine May, dated July 19, 1968 926 (Ifl) PAGENO="0004" Iv Additional information: Differences between ILR. 8970 and S. 1321, as passed by the Senate Page (including tables) 941 International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commis- sioners Resolution No. 3, passed at convention in Toronto, Canada, held September 12-13, 1967 981 National Wildlife Federation, resolution No. 14, passed at 32d annual convention, held in Houston, Tex., March 8-10, 1968 934 North Cascade National Recreation Area (map) 928 Proposed management units, North Cascades, Wash., H.R. 8970, administration proposal (map) 943 Proposed management units, North Cascades, Wash., S. 1321, as passed by the Senate (map) 944 Table 1. Individuals and organizations in favor of the North Cascades National Park 983 Table 2. Individuals and organizations opposed to the North Cascades National Park 984 Table 3. Individuals in opposition to the North Cascades National Park in preprinted postcards and letters addressed to the chairman of the full committee 985 PAGENO="0005" THE NORTH CASCADES Part III THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION OF THE C0MMIrrsE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Roy A. Taylor (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. TAYrOR. Our next item of business consists of hearings on the North Cascades National Park. We will go into that this afternoon at 2 o'clock. We understand that Secretary tidall will be with us tomorrow. Mr. HARTZOG. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAmon. We have a problem in the morning. There is a Demo- cratic caucus at 10 o'clock. This afternoon we will recess until, say, 10:30 in the morning or as soon thereafter as the caucus adjourns. Mr. TJDALL. We will be able to provide the Secretary's office with some estimate. My guess is it would be about 11 before we are through. Mr. TAYLOR. Suppose you tell the Secretary we will recess to meet at 11 tomorrow. We will hear as many witnesses on North Cascades National Park this afternoon as possible; that is, the author of the bill, Members of Congress, and maybe a Department of Agriculture witness-as many as we can. The subcommittee will be in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon- vene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. TAYLOR. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will now come to order. We meet to consider bills providing for the establishment of the North Cascades National Park and Ross Lake National Recreation Area, to designate the Pasayten Wilderness, and to modify the Glacier Peak Wilderness, In the State of Washington, and for other purposes. In the absence of objection, H.R. 89~T0,i by Congressman Meeds, H.R. 12139, by Congressman Pelly, H.R. 16252, by Congressman May, will be made a part of the record at this point. (The bills will be found beginning on p.2, pt. I.) Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, a copy of the report of the Department of Interior dated March 1'T, 196~T, will be made a part of the record at this point. (913) PAGENO="0006" 914 (The report will be found on p. 52, pt. I.) Mr. TAYLOR. Our first witness is our colleague, Co~ressman Lloyd Meeds. Congressman Meeds, you are back home, but we welcome you. STATEMENT OP RON. LLOYD 1VLEEDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP WASHINGTON Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize to the committee for not having my testimony in such shape that I could give it verbatim. I will, if the committee does not mind, read my statement at this time, which, incidentally, just came off the press. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to you, to Chair- man Aspinall, and to my fellow committee members for taking time at this late hour in the session to hear congressional and department wit- nesses on the North Cascades legislation. I also wish to express my thanks once again to those members who made the long journey to Washington State to participate in the field hearings, some of whom came twice. Nearly all the land proposed for national park status in H.R. 8970 and S. 1321 lies within the boundaries of my district. I am sponsoring H.IR. 8970 because I believe strongly that the bill offers a balanced pro- gram of recreation for my constituents and for the American people. Some 6 months before the North Cascades bills were introduced last year, the Boeing Aircraft Corp. announced plans to build its giant 747 aircraft near the city of Everett in Snohomish County. The impact of this new development i's `staggering. The Arthur P. Little `Co. estimates that the population of the county will increase by more `than 70,000 persons within just a few ye'ars. All of these new residents will desire adequate recreation. Unlike the situation we faced with the Redwoods National Park, the North Oascades bill presents little or no dbstacies of land acquisition. Most of the land in the proposed park and recreation areas is already federally owned. As a matter of fact, I think the figure is 99.4 percent. The Senate Interior Committee report indicates that the total cost of land acquisition would be only $3.4 million. Throughout the field hearings of the House and Senate committees, there has been apprehension voiced by some persons that the bills would be detrimental to the forest products industry. This criticism is well- intentioned but unfounded. Again `we have to compare the North Cascades bill `to the Redwoods. At the present time, Mr. Chairman, there i5 no timber cutting going on or even planned for the area to be made into the national park and the national recreation area. The current administrator of the North Cascades, the U.S. Forest Service, has for years `declared much of the timber "out of bounds" to cutting. In fact, about 80 percent of the lands covered by ER. 8970 have never been `included in the allowable cut. Much of the terrain here is aho~ve the timberline or is physically unsuited to logging. According to `fh~ latest information I have, H.R. 8970 would reduce the annual allowable cut by roughly 6 million board feet. S. 1321, as PAGENO="0007" 915 amended, would trim the annual allowable cut by about 8.3 million board feet. One relatively small mill could process this volume of tim- ber in just a few weeks. Mr. Chairman, I have one mill in my district that could cut it in 2 days. In short, then, the North Cascades legislation presents no dangers to the forest products industry. Other factors are far more important. These factors include the weather, the demands for housing, log ex- ports:, and reforestation practices. During our field hearings this spring, little attention was given to what I consider is the crux of the park legislation: the development plan. As can be seen in the Interior Department development plan of March 1967, the bill offers both high- and low-density recreation. It will open up parts of the North Cascades to family recreation as well as preserve parts of it for individual hiking and solitude. To my way of thinking, the development plan represents a fair and reasonable approach to multiple use of our recreation and economic resources. Opening up the North Cascades will be accomplished through the facilities planned in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area and other parts of the park. Among the facilities planned are boat launch- ing areas, a ferry service from Roland Point to Hozomeen, numerous lodges and marinas, spur roads from the North Cross-State Highway, and another ferry service to travel quickly up the length of Lake Chelan. We should examine just why the Park Service has proposed aerial tramways for the national park and Ross Lake National Recreation Area. The reason could be understood readily if you traveled the North Cross-State Highway, for the visual impression you receive is that of being at the bottom of a box canyon. To appreciate the majesty of the country, you have to get up high. The trains proposed for Arctic CreeJ~ and Ruby Mountain will enable park visitors to experience the full grandeur of the North Cascades and the Picket Range in particular. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the provision in the Senate bill which would require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop feasibility plans for permanent ski lifts in and near the park. Skiing is one of the most popular activities in Washington State, and existing facilities south of Stevens Pass are becoming over- crowded. As mentioned earlier, the new Boeing expansion will impact heavily on our recreational picture. With the construction of addi- tional ski facilities in the North Cascades, we would be able to meet the needs of our new citizens as well as make the park and recreation aress year-round in visitations. When Washington State congressmen met with Interior Depart- ment officials in January of 1967 to review the forthcoming North Cascades legislation, I noticed that in the proposed development plan, there would be only two means of access to the park. These routes would brino' in visitors via the North Cross-State Highway in Skagit County an~ via the Lake Chelan ferry in Chelan County. One sug- gestion of mine incorporated into the plan is that of the road between Austin Pass and Baker Lake. Such a road would assure access through Whatcom County and would help disperse traffic. I urge early devel- PAGENO="0008" 916 opment of this road in the event the bill passes and the development plan is adopted. The Senate hearings in Washington State brought out much con- cern among local business and community leaders that the State of Washington would have to relinquish its jurisdiction over the North Cross-State Highway. The Park Service policy of permitting the State to exercise complete jurisdiction over the road was later given statutory character by an amendment adopted in the Senate Interior Committee. I urge adoption of this amendment in the final form of the bill. The principal opposition to S. 1321 and H.R. 8~70 has emanated from sportsmen who fear that the bills would compromise the pursuit of hunting. I, too, am a sportsman who for years has enjoyed hunting. But the facts dispell any notion that the North Cascades National Park would work a hardship on hunters. The `annual deer kill in Washington State is roughly 60,000 to 70,- 000. While there is no way to estimate precisely how many deer are harvested within the boundaries of the proposed park, the State game commission in Olympia has calculated the figure to be approximately 400 to 500. Many of these deer are taken within the boundaries of what would become the Lake `C'heian National Recreation Area. As we know, hunting is allowed in this area. It should also be emphasized that these deer are high-country deer. They come down to lower ground during the winter. For this reason, then, I doubt very much that we would witness an overpopulation of `these animals and therefore a situation like the tragedy in Yellowstone National Park. Yet, I believe that the Park Service must give serious consideration to allowing controlled hunts of these high-country animals. Under the game regulations of Washington State, the high Cascades deer hunt is confined to a 2- or 3-week period in middle and late September. The hunt occurs, therefore, `at a time `when few tourists are visiting the area. Another aspect of the bill important to sportsmen is that provision which requires the Secretary of Interior to consult with the Wash- ington State Game Department before issuing regulations dealing with fish and wildlife in the recreation areas. I urge retention of this section. Mr. Ohairman, I readily support the Senate amendments to the bill. These amendments, described on page 30 of the committee report, were found to be necessary after hearing detailed testimony in the field. In particular I support modification of the boundaries near the Thunder Creek Basin and near Copper Creek. The chairman will recall in dealing with the Scenic Rivers bill recently, we took similar action with regard to the Thunder Creek area. In both of these areas the Seattle City Light Co. has tentative plans for dams and reservoirs. In conclusion, then, I feel that the North Cascades National Park bill offers us a chance to preserve as well as utilize our natural re- sources. Investing a little money now will pay a rich dividend of wilderness in conjunction with multipurpose family recreation. Mr. TAYLOR. We thank our colleague for his statement. PAGENO="0009" 917 Gould you point out, maybe on the map, the area which you recom- mend for the North Cascades National Park as separate from the other areas? Mr. ME1~DS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The areas in light blue on this map are the areas which would be the North Cascades National Park. We will see a little later the Senate proposal made a change in this area. Mr. TAYLOR. Point out the other areas, as colored there. Mr. ME1~s On this map? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. Mr. MEEDS, This is the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area almost all of which is presently in and which this bill would add 10,000 acres in. This is all presently wilderness with the exception of this and this (pointing to map). This is the North Cascades Primitive Area, which would be designated a wilderness area by this bill. Mr. TAYLOR. It is now a primitive area? Mr. MEEns. It is now a primitive area and has been off limits for cutting of timber as have all of the areas that we are looking at in the colors here. Mr. TAYLOR. Both of these areas are now administered by the Na- tional Forest Service? Mr. MEEDS. All c~f the areas we are looking at here are administered by the National Forest Service at present; yes sir. Mr. TAYLOR. The other area, the darker, almost purple area? Mr. MEEDS. This area is the Ross National Recreation Area and runs from about the town of Marblemount here, across the back of the Cascades, and generally provides a buffer zone for the North Cross-State Highway, which is completed to this point at this time. This will be the northern route across the Cascade Mountains. It also encompasses Ross Lake which starts at this point in the United States and runs to Ross Lake Dam. Mr. TAYLOR, Will you explain why you recommend that that area be made a recreation area and not part of the park? Mr. MEEDS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Along the North Cross-State High- way and particularly down in this area there are some very 13ne high~ density recreation areas, areas which could be utilized for overnight camping, for launching boats on Ross Lake. This is good fishing. There is a particularly good place right along in here-I have forgotten the name of it, although I have been there-which would provide ar~ area for overnight camping and for boat launching, and could retain a large number of people and cars. It is our feeling that this area being near the highway and being near the access of the lake could best be utilized for those purposes. As I say, the demands for outdoor recreation are increasing very rapidly in the area. We hope to give it this multipurpose concept of utilizing `those areas which are best for solitude and for the individual to be by himself, in that respect, but having also something for the person who wants to go for a picnic or who wants to take his trailer and stay overnight. This activity is becoming more and more popular in this area. In my estimation this is one of the best features of this whole plan, that is, to meet that need. Mr. TAYLOR. What private uses would be continued in the recreation area? 98-524-f~8-pt. 3-2 PAGENO="0010" 918 Mr. MEEDS. All presently existing private uses, Mr. Chairman, could be continued so long as they were not inconsistent with the purposes of the recreation area. Mr. TAYLOR. That would include harvesting of timber, hunting and fishing, grazing, mining, and skiing? Mr. Mi~os. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. What private uses would you recommend continuing in the national park? Mr. MERDS. I think it is going to be necessary to have facilities for people to stay. I think it is going to be necessary to have accommoda- tions for campgrounds, for overnight facilities. As I said in the state- ment, Mr. Chairman, this is a magnificent area, but you have to get up to really appreciate it. Therefore, I think it is essential that we have a lookout point for viewing the Pickett Range, designated here by Mount Challenger, which I think ig probably the most dramatic range of mountains in the entire United States. The gentleman from Arizona flew over recently with us and I am sure he recognized them for their great scenic value. Then, Mr. Chairman, down here on Ruby Mountain, another lookout point. These I would envision, Mr. Chairman, as established by tram- ways, so that the least disturbance of the area that is possible con- sistent with getting people up there to see that could be done. This over- look would give a commanding view of the Eldorado Peaks area, again a very, very dramatic area, which has some of the largest glaciers within the continental United States or the coterminous States. This area can be viewed very well from Ruby Peak and the development plan envisions that. Mr. Chairman, there are also some other things within the develop~ ment plan whith would allow another lookout, and perhaps a tramway system, so that a view of Mount Shuksan in the far western corner of the park could be had. Then the development of the road between Austin Pass and Baker Lake about which I spoke, hooking up and coming down so there could be an entry through Whatcom County. Mr. TAYLOR. You mentioned hunting and we heard a lot of testimony about hunting and testimony from hunters. Did you mean recommend: hunting in the national park or just in the wilderness and recreation area? Mr. Mams. It can be done at present under all the laws in the wil- derness area and in the national recreation area. I am suggesting that the Park Service seriously consider the question of a controlled hunt in the North Oascades National Park. I think this should be studied carefully. It should be compared to other parks where they have had hunts. I have not heard what I consider to be objective testimony about a controlled hunt in tihis area. It has a. different nature. The hunt that! talked `about is primarily `a high Oascades deer hunt which is 2 or 3 weeks in length at the most. It would occur at the end of the summer when perhaps the usage of the park would not be so great. It would occur in areas `away from the places that people ordinarily get. That should be studied. It should be studied to determine whether it is feasible. Mr. TAYLOR. Your bill would not appreciably change the uses that are made of the wilderness areas? Mr. MERos. Not at all. As a matter of fact, it would just add these PAGENO="0011" 919 parts to the wilderness area rig~ht here, to the Glacier Peak area, and designate this wilderness area and bring it in under the Wilderness Act which would be administered by the Forest Service as the `area is pres- ently being administered. Mr. TAYLOR. Would you tell us the number of acreas in those respec- tive areas? Mr. MEnDS. There are 570,000 acres in the light blue, which is the national park-I may not be exact on these figures-100,000 acres in the dark blue, which is the national recreation area; 10,000 acres would be added to the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area in these two places and the State wilderness is 512,000 acres. Mr. TAYLOR. What about the lower wilderness area? Mr. MEEDS. This is all presently wilderness area with the exception of these two places here that you see outlined in black. `The bill would add those two, and I think there are about 10,000 acres in that. Mr. TAYLOR. What are the apprecinbie differences between the prorn visions of your bill and the Senate bill? Mr. \Innns. The appreciable differences are these, Mr. Chairman. Under the Senate bill this area here, `about 62,000 acres, has been desig- nated the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. It differs in that respect. There is a small change to include Horseshoe Basin in the Pasayten Wilderness Area. I do not know how many acres. In Thunder Creek where my bill cuts it off right here, we would send it down to Thunder Creek, and put it in the national recreation area and extend the national recreation area further down. There is about 3,000 acres in that. Those are the major differences. This recreation area would be approximately the same. Mr. TAYLOR. How much smaller is the national park in the Senate bill than in your bill? Mr. MEnDS. I think it is about 65,000 acres less in the Lake Chelan Recreation Area primarily. There are some minor boundary changes, too. Mr. TAYLOR. What appreciable differences are there between your bill and the administration recommendations? Mr. MEnDS. My bill constitutes the administration recommendation, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Your State Governor had a study made of the whole program. He had a committee that made recommendations. I notice they recommend a recreation area of 1,800,000 acres, which covers the entire area. In this there will be a relatively small park of 312,000 acres. The national park would be administered by the National Park Service. All of the rest of the area would be administered by the Forest Service. An advisory board will be set up to advise the administering agencies. What is your reaction to those proposals? Mr. MEnDs. I would first of all like to commend the Governor of our State, even though he is of a different party than I, for his support of a national park in the North Cascades. He has been said to be a little reckless in even recommending this. I think he has been very far seeing in doing so. I do think, Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, even though I do not think they intended to do this, the Governor's bill actually "locks up" more territory than my bill or 5. 1321, and it does it by putting it in a wilderness area. You see in our bill this area here would be a park and there could be access to it, there could be tram- PAGENO="0012" 920 ways and this type of thing, in which many people could get the ex- periences of seeing those great areas. In this area under the Governor's plan, the southern part of our park proposal would be added to the Glacier Peak wilderness area or be brought right down to it and this would then become wilderness area, and you could not have in that area any mechanized vehicle, you could not have a tramway. You could not have many of the things that I feel certainly ought to be utilized in `giving people an outdoor recrea- tional opportunity. That is the main objection I have to the proposal by the Governor. The Governor's proposal adds much much more in wilderness area than does mine and does S. 1321. This area would be larger. I think, Mr. Chairman, this deals with a total-or it places in park or wilderness or national recreation area designation-1,891,000 acres, whereas my proposal would place in one of those `three cate- gories 1,180,000 acres. It is a sma:ller proposal, dealing with less land. Mr. TAYLOR. You mentioned fan amendment in the Senate bill per- mitting skiing. Mr. Mi~ns. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Was that in the recreation area or in the park? Mr. Mm~os. It is actually an amendment, Mr. Chairman, which will require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to study the availability of good skiing sites within the recreation area and within the park area and to report back after they have done so, I think, in 2 years. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. TJDALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I commend our col- league for a very thorough statement. I made, as he indicated, two different field trips to this area, and I can confirm all of the rave `notices that it has had and richly deserves. This is a striking and re- markably magnificent part of our country. I have never seen any- thing quite like it. I hope that the committee and Congress will resolve this issue this year. Mr. TAYLOR. The other gentleman from Arizona. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MEEDS. I note that the State of Washington owes the State of Arizona a debt of gratitude which can be paid in gold. Mr. STeIGER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend our col- league from Washington. He has complete and thorough knowledge of the problems and area. His presentation was not only articulate but obviously very aware. I would just like to comment that I, too, have seen this area, not in an official capacity of a field trip, but on my own and I am equally impressed. I think you have a unique situation where you have found yourself, whether you are aware or not, defending in many instances one program vis-a-vis the wilderness area as opposed to the park system. I think this is not unique in your situation, although I do not know offhand where the three have come to a head in such a dramatic fashion. I think you are again to be commended for your desire not to destroy the existing natural `beauties and at the same time not to make them inaccessible. 1 think somewhere down the road we are going to have to arrive at whatever is a compatible relation- ship between the three. I, for one, would be happy to support your judgment in the matter. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0013" 921 Mr. UDALL. I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meeds, there has been considerable controversy about a proposed copper mining development of the Kennecott Corp. Would you show on ~th~e map where it ~ approximately located ?~ It know we flew oi'~er i( Mr. MEi~s. Yes, it is in the Glacier Peak wilderness area o~ Miners Ridge. Mr. Chairman, this is Glacier Peak here which is a very large and magnificent mountain. One of the things that disturbed me most is that it would have been very difficult to find a worse place to locate an open pit mine, because the entire Miners Ridge area is the promi- nent ridge which can be seen from Glacier Peak and from the whole side of north and northeast side which looks right down on Miners Ridge. Mr. TAYLOR. Is the mine now in operation? Mr. Mi~ns. No. It has been proposed. Mr. TAYLOR. This bill makes no change? Mr. MEEDS. This bill would make no change in that status. Mr. TAYLOR. I, too, would like to commend you on your fine state- ment. You show a lot of knowledge of the area and a lot of study. I know the gentleman's interest. He has been most persuasive in trying to get this bill considered this session. Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. I might point out that extensive field hearings have been held on this bill. We heard 350 witnesses in Seattle. Congressman Udall and some others heard about 75 in the second hearing out there. So we have listened, I guess, to more of the local people on this bill than any other bill that has ever been considered by this committee. Unfortunately, they are not in agreement as to what we should do about the matter. Our next witness is Congressman Pelly. I don't believe he is here. I understand he is going to submit a statement and without objec~tion, his statement will be placed in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS M. PELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WAsHINGToN Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-~Committee on National Parks and Recreation, I greatly appreciate this opportunity on behalf of the people of the First Congressional District of the State of Washington to support legislation to establish a North Oascades National Park. My bill, H.R. 12139, was introduced at the request `of many dedicated conserva~ tionists who previously have testified in its favor before your Committee. During my lifetime, I have visited on foot and by pack4rain most of this area, and I say from personal knowledge that these mountains and valleys `are unique in their beauty and grandure and should be preserved unspoiled for future generations. As `the Committee knows, the Governor of my State (Dan Evans) has pr~ viously supported a Park as contained in `a bill by my able colleague from Wash- ington~ Mrs. May. Its boundaries represent concessions to economic and reere- ational resources that of course must `be recognized. I think I can best sum up my position by saying first I hope the Committee will report a bill favorably. Second, I hope such a bill will establish the largest `and most extensive park and recreational area it deems advisable. As for myself, if the Committee acts as I said I hoped it would, I will vote for my bill, Mrs. May's bill or the Sen'ate passed bill. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has been generous in holding hearings. It knows the subject fully. Now, I hope `it will act. Thank you. PAGENO="0014" 922 `Mr. TAYZIOR. Now we are proud to have Congresswoman May be- ~&~re na We `weleome you before our subcommittee We knew you are exten- sively interested in this legislation. The bill you have introduced has already been made a part of the record. STATEMENT OP HON. CATHERINE MAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP WASflIN~TON Mrs. MAY. Mr. `Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Catherine May, Representative in Congress from the State of Wash- ington, the State in which the awesome North Cascades region is located. `H.R. 16252, which I introduced in the U.S. House of Representa- tives on March 27, 1968, embraces the official recommendations of the State of Washington for the future best use of the great North Cas- cades region, one of nature's true wonderlands. This proposal offers an alternative to the Senate-passed national park proposal. This alternative, I `am very pleased to say, has received support from many individuals and groups who previously had simply taken a stand either for or against a "national park in the North Cascades." H.R. 16252 offers, therefore, a plan which could reasonably be expected to receive the endorsement and support of many individuals and groups who, before its introduction as legislation, had expressed them- selves either "for" or "against" a national park in the North Cascades. If I might at this point, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful if we directed our attention to the several maps to give you a visual conception of the areas we are speaking of here today. If I might,~ I will have a man from my staff stand there to point `out areas. H.R. 16252 would establish a 1,891,000-acre national recreation area in the North `Cascades, which would be zoned into high-intensity recreational use areas, wilderness areas, and a 312,320-acre national park in the western `portion of the present North Cascades primitive area, together with Mount Shuksan. (S. 1321, the Senate-passed Federal proposal, differs considerably. It would establish a 570,000-acre national park, establish the Ross Lake National Recreation Area, the Lake Chelan National Recrea- tiOn Area, designate the Pasayten Wilderness, and modify the Glacier Peak Wilderness. `The Secretary of the Interior would administer the park `and recreation areas and the Secretary of Agriculture would administer the wilderness areas under the Senate bill.) In the plan I have introduced all areas except the national park would be `administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. In addition to the smaller national `park, the new bill would estab- lish the Mount Baker Recreation Area, the Ross Lake Recreation Area, the Lake Chelan Recreation Area, the Cascades River Recrea- tion Area, and the North Cascades Highway Recreation Area. The plan would also establish the Eldorado Wilderness and the Okanogan Wilderness, and would enlarge the Glacier Peak Wilder- ness. A wilderness core, including Mount Baker itself, would be desig- nated within the Mount Baker Recreation Area. A North Cascades Advisory Board, consisting of the Governor of the State of Washington, the Secretary of Agriculture and the See- PAGENO="0015" 923 retary of the Interior, would review and submit recommendations on plans for the development and administration of the various units. The developments which led to the provisions of H.R. 16252 are these: In 1963 President Kennedy directed the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to conduct a survey of the Federal lands embraced in the North Cascades and to make a report to the Congress as to their future use. A part of the charge given the study team by the Secre- taries was that recommendations were to be sought and considered which were expressive of the interest of the people of the area, the State of Washington, the region and the United States, in that order, and to invite from the Governor of the State of Wa~shingon an official recommendation from the people of the State of Washington. Governor Daniel J. Evans undertook this responsibility conscien- tiously. To assist him, he formed an advisory committee on the North Cascades. This committee consisted of a representative group of citi- zens of the State having an expressed interest in the future of the North Cascades and included directors of State departments having official responsibilities for the natural resources involved. The com- mittee consisted of 16 persons. It was purposely developed to represent the diverse interests involved and to bring them to the conference table for reasoned discussions. The committee held a number of meetings, and on each occasion the Governor met with them so that he could benefit from their reasoning. It was early evident that while the group included strong proponents and strong opponents of a national park in the North Cascades, a clear majority favored no national park. Thus, if only a majority view had been sought, it could have easily and quickly been achieved and it would have been one of opposition to a third national park in the State of Washington. That this was not done is a credit to the farsightedness and reason- ing of the committee members. From these deliberations came a grow- ing conviction that a position in opposition to, or in favor of, a North Cascades National Park, left almost totally unanswered the real ques- tion: How could this great natural wonderland be preserved and re- tained intact and in perpetuity, and how could it best be made avail. able, not just for group's of people, but truly for the outdoor recrea- tional interests of all of the people of America? There began to develop in the minds of the committee a new and different concept of preservation and use, one which had not previously been offered or considered-~a plan which eventually captured the interest and support of all of the diverse groups represented on the committee with but one dissenting vote. This concept is presented in the legislation I have introduced. While the entire area of approximately 1,891,000 acres is termed a national recreation area, perhaps the terminology is confusing. The committee selected the term not as it is defined by national standards but rather to describe an entire area that should be set aside for pri- mary recreational use and within its outside boundaries be further zoned into high intensity recreational use areas, wilderness areas, and a national park. The `Governor's committee was called back into session just prior to the Senate hearings on the Federal proposal, S. 1321, to review that bill. As a result of that meeting the Governor's committee re- PAGENO="0016" 924 iterated its endorsement of its original proposal as being more com- prehensive than the Federal proposal. The following are the refined acreage calculations for the State plan: Acres Mount Baker Recreation Area 119, 640 Casc~c1es River Recreation Area 17,000 Ross and Highway Recreation Area 215,092 Lake Ohelan Recreation Area 47, 120 Total recreation areas 398, 852 North Cascades National Park 312,320 Okanogan Wilderness - 522,228 Eldorado Wilderness 162,956 Glacier Peak Wilderness 494,497 Present U.S. Forest Service 458, 505 AcId-Whitechuck/Suiattle 10, 672 Add-Northeast to Lake Chelan 25, 320 Total wilderness areas 1, 179, 681 Grand total acreage in State plan 1, 890, 853 Mr. Chairman, the Honorable Daniel J. Evans, Governor of the State of Washington, in a letter dated July 17, 1968, has confirmed again his support of the provisions of H.R. 16252, and I ask that his letter, together with his supporting statement, be included at this point in the hearing record. In addition, Mr. Chairman, under date of July 19, I received a let- ter from the Washington State Sportsmen's Council which sets forth the position and concern of that organization with regard to the pend- ing legislation. Because I believe this letter to be appropriate to our discussion here, I ask that this also be included at this point in the hearing record. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered. (The letters follow:) STATE OF WASHINGTON, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, O1~mpia, Jv~ly 17, 1968. lion. CATHERINE MAY, UJS~. Congrerswon~ns, Waslvington, DXI. DEAR CATHERINE: This Is in response to your request for the latest position of the state concerning the important North Cascades issue. In the event that it was not given wide circulation in Washington, D.C., I am enclosing three copies of the statement which I gave to the Aspinall commit~ tee when they had their hearing in Seattle in April. This statement accurately conveys the series of events leading to the appointment of a State North Cas~ cades Committee by me and the evolution of the recommendations contained in the report entitled "North Cascades National Recreation Report and Recoin- mendations." I have not changed my position since ApriL Consequently, the April, 1968 statement is current and still reflects the official position of the State of Washington. Let me express again my appreciation to you for introducing HR 16252 whIch embodies the recommendations.of the State of Washington. I am hopeful that the committee will give this bill every opportunity to be heard on its merits. Sincerely, DANIEL J. DVANS, Governior. PAGENO="0017" 925 STATEntENT OF THE HowonAnLE DANIEL J. EVANS, GovaRNon OF WASHINGTON Congressman Taylor and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, let me express to you my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee on the question of future best use of the great North Cascades region. You have before you a document entitled "North Cascades National Recreation Area Report and Recommendations." It was my pleasure to present this report before the Senate Interior Committee on April 24, 19G7. I would like to reaffirm that these recommendations still reflect the official position of the State of Washington. I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize two important char- acteristics of the report. First, that it does have major support in the state, pri- marily because of the background of the committee which worked with me in putting the recommendations together. Second, that the recommendations present a new and different concept of preservation and use. It is the only proposal to my knowledge which contains a comprehensive land use policy preserving this superb region intact and yet containing enough flexibility so that the outdoor recrea- tional interests of all citizens are taken into account. By way of background you will recall that in the so-called "Craft's Report" the Governor of the State of Washington was requested to present an official position on the part of the State `of Washington. We recognized at `the outset that not only should conservation interests, but also the multiple use interests have an impor- tant part to play in any forthcoming state position. The subject is not only of great concern to these particular people, but also to business and industry people and to officials of state government. The result was that I appointed a study committee which is broadly repre- sentative of the state. In addition, there was also a vas't store of expertise and knowledge in conservation and resource matters in this committee membership. I think perhaps the most significant factor was that each member realized the state had the opportunity and the challenge presented to it to come forth with a unified position in this matter, which had never been achieved before. it was recognized that the subject was far too important to the State of Wash- ington to simply allow the discussions to `develop into a park versus no park exchange, but that in this vast area of approximately o'ne million, eight hundred thousand acres, a new usage combination could be found. The com'mittee met a number of times at Olympia and in the interim spent long hours in subcom- mittee meetings and also in discussions with people in the areas from which they came. At the completion of its work the recommendations which you have before you were presented and it is significant to note that out of the entire committee there was but one dissenting vote. Since that time, considerable effort has been made to assure that the greatest possible number of our citizens are made aware of these recommendations, and they have been discussed at innumerable public meetings, both large and small throughout the state. With reference to the second point, that of th'e new land use concept, let me speak `of one item which may be causing some confusion. You will note in the report the committee has termed the entire area of o'ne million eight hundred thousand acres as a national recreation area. This term was selected by the committee not to equate it with a National Recreation Area as defined by fed- eral standards; rather to describe an entire area which should be set aside primarily for preservation and recreational use. That within the outside con- fines of the area, its inner portions could be further zoned into high intensity recreation use areas, wilderness areas, and perhaps a national park. There was only one point in which there was any significant difference of opinion In `the interior zoning, and this did not affec't the wilderness or high intensity recrett- tional use areas, but revolved primarily around the extent of the wilderness national park. I still firmly believe that the proposal of the State of Washington represents a reasonable compromise. Its recommendations contain the most realistic, the most practical and certainly `the most balanced rec'reation usage of this area within the primary objective of all of us, which is to provide natural preserva- tion and outdoor recreation in this unparalleled region. In closing, let me reiterate three recommendations which I made to the Senate Interior Committee on April 24, 1OGT: "1. That the Congress of the United States by a specific `act create, designate and define the boundaries of a new North Oaseades National Recreation Area, 98-524-68-pt. 3-3 PAGENO="0018" 926' of approximately one million, eight hundred `thousand acres, and `specifically set aside this great scenic wonderland of mountains, forests and waters, per- manently and in perpetuity, for purposes of natural preservation and outdoor recreation with other compatible uses being permitted where they are desirable and do not conflict with this primary and basic usage~ "2. That within the North Cascades National Recreation Area, Congress create and define the `boundaries of a component wilderness National Park, and define and delineate other wilderness and multiple-purpose recreational areas, with provision that the National Park be administered by the Nhtional Park Service and that the wilderness areas and the multiple-purpose areas be man- aged by the U.S. Forest Service. "3. That `the Congress establish a North Cascades Advisory Board, which we suggest should consist of the Secretary of the Interior, or his representa- tive, the Secretary of Agriculture, or his representative, and the Governor of the State of Washington, or his representative. It would be the purpose and function of this board to review and coordinate planning for the total North Cascades National Recreational Area and to assure the general public interest in carrying out the Congressional mandates of natural preservation and outdoor recreational usage." The concepts of outdoor recreation and preservation of which I have been speaking are new embodied in a bill introduced by Congresswon~an Catherine May. I would like to express my deep appreciation to her in getting the official position of `the State of Washington before the Congress. WASHINGTON STATE SPORTsMEN's COUNCIL, INC., Vaaoouv'er, Wash., July 19, 1968. U.S. Representative CATHERINE MAY, Fourth~ Congressional District, state of Washington~, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mus. MAY: The Washington State Sportsmen's Council is very concerned with the Selmte and House bills relative to the establishing of a national park in the North Cascades, State of Washington. There are a number of facets which have been given no consideration, and our feeling is that until all the facts are made available to the Senate and House of Representatives, these bills should not be permitted to pass. First, There has been no thorough economic evaluation made; this was touched on, only lightly in `the North Cascades Study Report. $econd, there are several studies and evaluations conducted on a federal level, which are not completed, nor will they be released as public information until 1909, if then. The Public Land Law Review CommiSsion will not have available information until the 1970's; the Geological and Mineral Survey will not be filed until November, 1968 (at a cost of $600,000) ; `the area now known as the North Cascades Primitive Area, has been scheduled for some years for "wilderness" status (at the request of the U.S. Forest Service) in an orderly manner; the U.S. Forest Service has had an extensive management plan with emphasis on recrea- tion, completed some length of time prior to the Study Team Report. Third, the 6th point of the charter creating the North Cascades Study Team and its Report, has been completely by-passed, in other words, made null and void. This point made it mand'atory for the area, the region, and state and the nation, to be considered in that order. Request for legislation came originally from the administrative head of the government, so the order has been reversed. Fowrth, at a time when the public is already burdened with a backbreaking tax load, we can see no justification for imposing another admix~1strative agency upon one which is doing, and has done the job well. This particularly in view of the fact, tha't UNLIMITED recreation will be curtailed, to provide LIMITED recreation to a few. Fifth, unlike national parks in other regions of the United States, this area would be accessible only twelve weeks of the year; hardly conducive to an eco- nomic investment on the part of individuals. ~üeth, the Association of County Commissioners of the State of Washington have voiced their opposition, as have the Cattlemen's Association of Oregon and Washington, Washington State Grange Association, Skiier's Association, those who derive their livelihood from the timber-related industries, Chambers of Commerce, the National Wildlife Federation, The International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissioners, the Izaak Walton League of Amer- PAGENO="0019" 927 lea, The support for park bills has come from uninformed, misinformed and in some eases, emotionally motivated people; not the citizens who have made a study of this area or who are directly affected. ~even,th, the state has two national parks, neither of which has been developed as to original plan because of appropriation lack; why a third park? Certainly, to place the area as completely "protected" would entail purchase of the 9'~ valid, patented mining claims; purchased by the National Park Service to avoid ex- ploitation. Mining still continues in national parks if the claims are patented and valid prior to the park establishment. Eighth, a park which consists of more than one unit neither conforms to park criteria, as it is considered too difficult to manage, and this two unit park is bi- sected by the North-Cross Washington State Highway. Perhaps a small, one unit park would have a lesser impact on the state. 5. 1321 calls for a re-evaluation within two years from the Picket Range portion of the park as to "wilderness" classification. Why not leave it as wilderness under the U.S. Forest Service juris- diction? Ni~ith, wildlife management in national parks is already notorious: witness Yosemite, Yellowstone, Olympic and Mt. Rainier with big game herds of deer and elk creating problems for which the National Park Service has no solution? Sincerely, ADAH WEaKIrMA, Chairman, North Ca$oades Committee, WEJEIC. PAGENO="0020" 928 PAGENO="0021" 929 Mrs. ~ Thank you very much, Mr. Chakman. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you for a very forthright statement. Our col~ league, Mr. Udall, has to go to `a conference and I yield to him. Mr. UDALL. Mrs. May, you are always charming and persuasive, `and as one who has taken interest in this and followed it for months, I aim glad to hear your current ideas and listen to you because I `hope we cam make a decision on it this year. Mrs. M~&~r. We sincerely hope so. Mr. UDALL. Is any of this area in your congressional district, and if so, how much? Mrs. Max. I cannot think of one acre, sir. I was in a nice objective~ position to represent the State and not get any of my colleagues in~ trouble. Mr. UDALL. I understand this. I thought it was in Mr. Meeds' and Mr. Foley's district and I wanted to confirm it. We have several well.~ thought-out plans before us. We have the administration plan, which is close to what Mr. Meeds has offered, Mr. Pelly has offered a very ambitious proposal, the Senate bill, and you have a plan. Obviously we have to choose and maybe we will end up taking some of the best fea~ tures of all of the different plans. I guess what I want to' know is how much flexibility there is in your position. How far do we go from your plan before you might feel you would have to oppose the bill? Mrs. MAY. That is a tough question, Mr. Udall. At this point, as you say, there are so many alternatives. I here have tried to encompass this. I `am certainly not inflexible,~ naturally, because we are all together on wanting something done about this area, and that includes the Governor. So you would almost~ have to put the actual proposition. before me and say how far have we deviated on what these diverse groups have agreed upon. I think I aim. representing the overall picture here, or trying to, and not just the opinion of Catherine May. I would try to represent their views. Mr. UDALL. There was the Governor's posture and I recognize the difficulties he has and he made `a strong case in Seattle on this bill. I asked him there, if we were to get dowii t'o the case where it is either something like the Senate bill or nothing, would it be so bad that the people of your State who studied it or you would feel that we have no bill and leave it alone or do you think we should go ahead although it is not what you, the Governor, is officially for. He said he hoped that circumstances would never arise but he would go ahead with something like the Senate bill. Mrs. MAY. I have a recent assurance in the form of a phone call just a few minutes ago from the Governor going over the support of his plan and why, but he reiterated that he stays with the answer he gave to you, Mr. Udall, in the field hearings-if it came down to nothing at all, because we all feel strongly that something should be done here, and we all sincerely hope as he does this would not be that kind of a do `or die choice. Mr. UDALL. I don't want to suggest that I favor the Senate hill or I don't think it ought to be modified or another approach taken, but I hope the decision to be made will be in the next few days. I wo~nt~d to get your best advice on it. I thank the chairman. PAGENO="0022" 930 Mr. TAYLOR. The Governor did make a very fine statement at Seat- ~tle. He recommended one large recreation area, that in this area we would establish a national park smaller than some others had recoin- mended, a national park of about 312,000 acres, a national park to be administered by the Department of the Interior. All of the rest of it is to be administered by the Forest Service. He recommended estab- lishing an advisory board to aid in the planning and development, just as you mentioned. Now, is that substanitially your position? Mrs. MAY. All those recommendations are embodied in the legisla- tion that I have introduced and is now before your committee. Mr. TAYLOR. You probably heard Oongressman Meeds state a few minutes ago that your bill, or the Governor's bill, would lock up, using his words, more land than his bill would. You mentioned that you would include 1~891,000 acres, while his plan, which he said was the administration's plan, would include only 1,180,000 acres. Mrs. MAY. Well, here we have in the term "lock up" a definition of the kind of land within here and what we already know about its potential uses. To "lock up" usually infers that this land would have only one use forever. I would rather submit that the feeling of a great many of our people is that the administration's and other ap- proaches would far more freeze, without the flexibility of possibly zeroing in on the best use for certain areas and the "lock up" would refer much more to the administration approach or the Senate ap- proach in that respect than would the Governor's committee's recommendation. While there is a wider boundary line, there is more flexibility within these boundaries to serve the various needs that the people of our State feel strongly about. Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, you may be affecting more acres but he locks it up tighter than you do. Mrs. MAY. Well, let us state that this has been the statement of those who have opposed that approach. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, how would your bill change the land uses from their preserut uses under the Forest Service? Mrs. MAY. Well, it is awfully hard to make just a straight answer. I will have to go through each area. Mr. TAYLOR. We would be glad to have you do that. Mrs. MAY. It would be, of course, an addition to the wilderness area but the decisions on the high intensity recreational use would come about after this was set aside. The recommendations of the committee, the Forest Service, and so forth. So you are asking me what would the changes be. I cannot say, because this has been left flexible. We know `that the one change that would be made that would be inflexible would be the addition to that acreage that I spoke of into wilderness. But in those recreation areas I would suppose in certain areas what they are doing now, whether it be logging, would be continued. I don.'t know what the final decisions as `to other additional usages might be, whether they might be OK'd, or ruled out. Mr. TAYLOR. What would be the advantages of operating the area under your bill as compared with continuing its present operation un- der the National Forest Service? PAGENO="0023" 931 Mrs. MAY. Well, I think here we have preservation for perpetuity, which is the overall goal of all of us. We think this is land that must be administered very carefully for future generations. We believe we owe that to those people who come after us. That is the main thing that we are all in agreement on, though we may have different ap- proaches to it. Secondly, of course, we feel that this answers more fully the question placed. At the same time, it makes available not just for specific groups of people in certain areas for a certain type of activity but truly for outdoor recreational interests of all of the people throughout the United States with a variety of recreational pressures which we have on all of our lands today. Mr. TAYLOR. I judge that except for the 312,000 acres in the national park that the present multiple use would continue but perhaps more emphasis would be put on recreation. Mrs. MAY. Far more emphasis. I assume this is what all the com- mittee had in mind because that is the way they started on this~ There should be more priority given to recreational use, to a far greater extent than it has been in all of these areas. Mr. TAYLOR. You recommend, and the Governor recommended, estab- lishing an advisory board to aid the Secretaries in planning and devel- oping this area. We have established a great many national parks and recreation areas. Do you know of any specific reason why an advisory board is needed here more than would be in the redwoods, for example? Mrs. MAY. I think the variety of a recreational plan like this, with a national park in it, with a wilderness area in it, and then high priority recreational areas, that you would need some very wise planning and management here, some good heads on it representing all the interests that might be affected, from the Forest Service to the park people, to the people of the State representing the Governor of that State. Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, nationwide, we have a National Parks Ad- visory Board with Mr. Grosvenor of the National Geographic as the head of it. This would be sort of an advisory board working under an advisory board. Mrs. MAY. Well, I suppose it could be. That depends on how the already established Board would feel here. I think they are very familiar and very interested in the development here, but they know it is an unusually large acreage. The large variety is even more unique as far as the usage. I think they might welcome some help on some of the major decisions, however this was set aside, a's to what uses were decided for the recreation and other areas. Mr. TAYLOR. You recommend establishing several smaller recreation areas inside the big recreation area. I just wonder if the terminology wouldn't be confusing. Mrs. MAY. Perhaps the committee in its wisdom should have come up with something different because this is why I pointed out in my statement that we are not using the definition as a Federal definition. But, of course, defining it here so that-if I can refer back to my state- ment-to describe, and it seemed the only term that they coi~ld find that would describe, an entire area that should be set aside for that primary recreational use. Within the outside boundaries would be the high-intensity recreational use areas plus the national park and the wilderness. PAGENO="0024" 932 There had to be an overall term for it. So we pointed out the differ- ence between the definition as it is used at the Federal level and what the committee had in mind when they gave this terminology to it. Mr. TAmoR. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. `Sa1~IGrn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Catherine, I, too, would like to commend you on a very fine state- ment. I know personaily of your interest and zeal in this matter. I find myself surprised, frankly, that both yourself and the Governor and this committee seem to be enthusiastic about the inclusion of the Okanogan area as a wilderness area. It is currently under the Forest Service. I assume there are some normal activities such as timbering, grazing, et cetera, which, of course, would be eliminated or certainly limited. Are you saying in this that the Forest Service has done a poor job in their administration of this area? Mrs. M~v. No, no. We would have to go back to' the hearings. Were you at the field hearings? Mr. STEErGER. No, I was not. Mrs. MAY. I am sorry I don't have the testimony from. the hearings as to the basis on which they made this decision. It has to do' with the topography and the fact they felt it still could be managed in this way for its top use. There was a lot of pressure to put it under this area. Mr. Si'mGEn. I am concerned because of the experience we have had in the wilderness areas in Arizona in which it has become very appar- ent that the preservation, the desire to preserve means the exclusion of use. I really don't think that is the intent of the committee. I don't think it is your intent. I don't think it is your Governor's intent or that of his committee. It seems to me we are putting an awful big chunk of ground in here under the wilderness area. I am honestly not familiar with the details of it. I am sure Mr. Meeds could also inform me on it. Mrs. MAy. May I interrupt? `Mr. STEIGER. Yes; please do. Mrs. M~r. Let's go back to the makeup of this committee that the Governor appointed. He made very sure that every diverse interest in the State of Washington sat on this committee and a really representa- tive voice, whether it was a lumber interest or recreational interest or the sportsman's interest or `the `Sierra Club type of interest, this sort of thing was represented. Now, these people worked meeting `after meeting, studying the `area, and they were the ones that `agreed, with only one dissenting vote. Mr. Sa~mGER. Do you know what the one dissenting vo'te was, what interest he represented? Mrs. MAy. The `Sierra Club. Mr. SmIGER. I `see. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MERos. Mr. Chairman, may I say I may have created `a mis- understanding here. `Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the gentleman is recognized. Mr. MEEDS. In the taking `of the proposal, `that is, the total p'ro'posal by the Governor, it appears to be much larger than the proposal in my bill. It is indeed about 350,000 acres larger but it is not 700,000 `acres as the figures would indicate. He has included in the total recreationat area of his proposal `the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area which is pros- ently a wilderness `area. PAGENO="0025" 933 Mr. TAYLOR. And you did not include that in your figures? Mr. MEEDS. No; that is not included in my proposal, because it is part of the existing wilderness system. Mr. TAYLOR. So the difference, acrewise, is about 300,000-some rather than 700,000? Mr. MEnDS. That is right. As I recall nay testimony, I created the liii- pression that the chairman got, and I just wanted to make sure that that was not the case. Mr. TAYLOR. We appreciate your clearing up that point. Mrs. May, we thank you very much for your testimony. Mrs. MAY. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. I was very much impressed by the pictures of this area appearing in the National Geographic recently. Mrs. MAY. Weren't they beautiful, though. Mr. TAYLOR. We were out there last spring and were very disap- pointed that the weather wouldn't even let us fly over there. Mrs. MIAY. As Mr. Meeds can testify, a million pictures still doesn't do justice to it. Mr. TAYLOR. I might tell you that area is of special interest to me. I was born out there in Julia Hansen's district. Mrs. MAY. For goodness sake, we knew there was something good about him, unusually good, didn't we. Mr. TAYLOR. A statement received from Oongressman Burt Taicott of California will be placed in the record at this point without objec- tion. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. Buar L. TALCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and Members of your Subcommittee, it is a privilege and pleasure for me to appear before you today in support of the proposed North Cascades National Park. I commend the work done by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and your Subcommittee's part in recent Congresses in the field of con- servation and recreation legislation. Just to mention a few, one immediately thinks of the establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the Cape Cod National Seashore Act, and others. I am hopeful that a National Redwood Park, worthy of the majestic greatness of these most noble of nature's creations, will soon come out of conference and be enacted into law. The beauties and wonders of nature surpass man's creativity and inspire a sense of awe in any sensitive beholder. The land for which we have been given the responsibility of custodianship has been richly endowed with unique geological and horticultural phenomena. We are eternally grateful for the fore- sight and vision of our predecessors who established the National Park System and set aside many of our natural wonders. The area in the proposed North Cascades National Park is almost virgin territory and contains unexcelled panoramic scenic vistas, glacier-fed lakes, mountain accents, and an opportunity for human solace and close communion with nature. If these areas are desecrated in search of minerals considered by some to be In short supply at the moment, all future generations will pay a heavy price for our temporary enrichment. Measured against the values of centuries, such mis- use o~ this area is too high a price to pay and too exorbitantly wastefuL I respectfully urge approval of this bill so that our generation and succeeding generations may find, when they seek, refuge and renewal in the quietude and splendor of the Cascades and that history will place our actions in the same league with the great conservationists who have gone before us. 98-524-68-pt. 3-4 PAGENO="0026" 934 Mr. TAYLOR. This finishes our testimony on North Cascades. In the morning we will hear Secretary Udall at 9:45 on North Cascades. The Democratic caucus that was planned in the morning, I understand, has been canceled. In the absence of objection, I would like to place in the record a letter from Thomas L. Kimball, a letter from Charles H. Callison, a letter from John M. Nelson, a letter from George B. Hartzog, a letter from Robert L. McCarty, and a statement from the American Forestry Association. (The documents follow:) NATroNAI~ WILDLIFE F1SDISRATION, Washington, D.C., July 24, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAn MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a copy of the Committee's press release of July 19, 1968, announcing that restricted hearings will be held July 26 upon bills to create a North Cascades National Park in the State of Washington. The announcement indicates that the hearings are exclusively for the purpose of receiving testlinony from Congressional witnesses and representatives of affected Federal agencies. This procedure, of course, excludes private citizen-type organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, which did not appear in the field hearings because of an understanding that an opportunity would be afforded later in Washington, D.C. If this is am informative hearing, one designed to develop additional data, and public witnesses will be heard later, the National Wildlife Federation's posi. tion need not be expressed at this time. However, if this is ian `action type of hear- ing which may result in Committee "markup" on the bills, we want to register our opposition to the project as is indicated in the attached copy of Resolution No. 14, adopted at the annual convention of the National Wildlife Federation earlier this year and have it made a part of the hearing record. Also, if this is an action type of hearing, I must register a vigorous protest against a procedure which does not allow major citizen-type organizations based in Washington, D.C., an opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, THOMAS L. KIMBALL, Ecoecutive Director. Inclosure~ RESOLUTION No. 14-NArI0NAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, 32D ANNUAL CONVENTION, Housrox, TEx., MARCH 8-10, 1968 NORTH CASCADES, WASH. Whereas the State of Washington is experiencing rapid growth, both in popula- tion and in industrial production, and many people move to' the area or visit it because of the varied types 01' outdoor recreation which are available; and Whereas the North Cascades Mountains are unsurpassed for scenic beauty and offer a broad variety of outdoor recreational opportunities; and Whereas the State of Washington has' been outstanding in its successful efforts to manage game and game fish and provide quality experiences in high country hunting; and Whereas this North Cascades Primitive Area has been preserved under the able management of the U.S. Forest Service since 1935; and Whereas the State of Washington `has the smallest land area of the western states, is second only to California in population: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention as- sembled March 8, 1968, at Houston, Texas, hereby expresses its opposition to the creation of a North Cascades National Park from National Forest lands ; pro- vided, however, that should the Congress create a national park, the park should be limited to' the alpine reaches' of the Picket Range to offer facilities of a national park with a minimal effect on hunting and fishing opportunities; and be it further PAGENO="0027" 935 Resolved, That the proposed Ross Lake and Lake tJheian National Recreation Areas should be managed by the U.S. Forest Service as well as lands and waters within the North Cascades Primitive Area and the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area~ NATIo~I~ AUBIJBON `SoOIETY, New York, N.Y., July 23, 1968. lion. ROY A. TAYLOR, Cha4rma~n, S,nbeommittee on National Parks and Recreation. DEAR Mr~. TAYLOR: Please include this letter in your record of the hearing on H.R. 8970 and S. 13~1 to establish a national park, recreation area and wilder- nessin the North Cascades. Generally, the National Audubon Society supports thesie bifis winch would help to protect a unique area of incomparable beauty. We are disappointed with the bills in many particulars, hut we believe that at this late date the adoption of the Senate-passed bill would constitute a good start toward protection of the North Cascades, and that strengthening amendments could wait for the next session. Yours truly, CuARLs~s II. OALLISON, Eceontive Vice President. CITY OF SEATTLE, DRPARPMENT OF LIGHTING, Seattle, Wash., July 12, 1968. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Chairman, House Com0nittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House Oflice Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. ASPINALL: Geological investigations, conducted tins summer hy the City of Seattle in regard to the Thunder Creek Project, have indicated that the site originally considered as a point of diversion of the stream is unsuitable for an arch dam. Consequently, we are now directing our attention to a site about one `mile upstream. This would result in a sn~aller dam, but a longer tunnel, and a simaitler reservoir with a surface elevation at about 1830 feet. On the ` entitled "Proposed Management Units, North Cascade Wash- ington," which is referred to in Section 101 of S. 1321, it appear's that the pro~ posed reservoir at the new site would be included within the National Recrea- tional Area. However, since no description of the boundary is given other than the graphic illustration, we wish to go on record as requesting that no part of the line designating the Ross Dam National Recreational Area go `below the 1850 contour as it crosses Thumder Creek and McAllister Creek. We are writing similarly to the Honorable Henry M. Jackson. Yours very truly, JOHN M. NELSON, Superintendent of Lighting. U.S. DEPARTMENT 01' THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Washington, D.C., July 26, 1968. Hon~ WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This is in reference to the letter of John M. Nelson, Seattle City Light, relating to the boundary of the proposed Ross Lake National Recreation Area in the vicinity of Thunder Creek. We believe there is no problem. The boundary in this location was expressly chosen so as to locate Seattle City Light's project within the recreation area and thereby avoid prejudging the issues before the Federal Power Commission in proceedings relating to Seattle City Light's application for a license. The bill expressly continues the jurisdiction ~ Placed In committee files. PAGENO="0028" 936 `of the FPC in the two recreation areas. It is clearly intended that none of the Seattle City Light's project be located within the proposed park. The boundary is not drawn on a topographic map, and its location in regard to the 1,850 foot contour can only be estimated. However, it seemS clear that If the area included in the application for the project license goes to the 1,850 foot contour, the boundary set by S. 1321 Is necessarily above that elevation. Your committee may want to clarify this matter further by noting in its report that the legislation does not affect the FPO's jurisdiction in regard to the Thunder Greek Project below the 1,850 contour. Sincerely yours; GEORGE B. HARTZOG, Director. MCCARTY AND N00NE, Oouxsi~u~oiis AT LAW, Waahington, D.C. July 30, 1968. Re North Cascades proposal and Thunder Creek project, PPC No. 2657. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insnlar Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This relates to National Parks Director Hartzog's letter of July 26, 1968 commenting on Mr. John M. Nelson's letter of July 12 informing you of changes in the Thunder Creek pro~ject necessitated by studies being con- ducted by the Department of Lighting, City of Seattle, under the preliminary permit issued to Seattle by the Federal Power Commission. It appeared that the City's proposals would be covered despite the changes but Mr. Nelson wished to make certain in view of the importance of the studies and the expense involved. - Mr. Ilartzog's letter makes it clear that while the map referred to in S. 1321 (which presumably will be the map incorporated by reference in H.R. 8970) is not a topographic map it was nevertheless intended that the boundaries include the Seattle proposals within the proposed Ross Lake National Recreation area, where FPC would continue to have jurisditcion, and not within the proposed park. This clarification by Mr. Hartzog is very helpful as is his suggestion that you may wish to make reference to the situation in the Committee report. With thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, ROBERT L. MCCARTY. STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION, SuBMwr.nn BY KENNETH B. POMEE0I~ I am Kenneth B. Pomeroy, Chief Forester of The American Forestry Association. The fundamental issues posed by H.R. 8970 are (a) how best to preserve wilderness conditions, and (b) how best to provide for mass recreation in an area having exceptional values for both purposes. Title I of H.R. 8970 calls for establishment of a two-unit North Cascades National Park. Heretofore, most of the Northern Unit, composed mainly of the Picket Range, has been managed as a national forest wilderness. If reclassified as a national park, parts of the area would be opened up for mass recreation by means of trails and tramways according to news releases issued by the Depart- ment of the Interior. The American Forestry Association believes it would be a mistake to turn the vacationing public loose on a wilderness by opening it up as a park. Under present administrative procedures all of this rugged scenic area would be pre- served in Its natural condition under the Wilderness Act of 1964. We do not know what percentage would be retained as wilderness if the area is reclassified as a park. No portion of any national park has ever been formerly designated as wilderness up to this date. The Southern Unit of the proposed national park, extending from Eldorado Peaks to the Stehekin Valley presently is managed for multiple purposes with recreation as the dominant use. Members of our Association make annual camp- ing trips via horseback into this area. We recommend that the Eldorado Peaks- Stehekin Valley area continue to be managed as at present. PAGENO="0029" 937 rfije proposal in Title II of HR. 8970 to manage lands surrounding Ross Lake, Skagit River, and related areas for multiple purposes as a national recreation area has our full support. This plan is a neat solution to potential conflicts be- tween reservoir and highway developments versus wilderness and park values. Title VI to establish a Pasayten Wilderness Area also has our full support. This area has always been managed for wilderness purposes and should be form- ally classified now for permanent wilderness use. We approve also of Section 602 to extend the boundaries of the Glacier Peark Wilderness to include about 10,000 acres in the Suiattle River corridor and the White Chuck River. In summary, The American Forestry Association recommends against estab- lishment of a two-unit National Park and recommends in favor of establishment of the Ross Lake National Recreation Area and the Pasayten Wilderness undet~ Forest Service administration. (Whereupon, the subcommittee proceeded to other business.)1 PAGENO="0030" PAGENO="0031" THE NORTH CASCADES Part III PRIDAY, JULY 26, 1968 HousE or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITPEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATrON OF rue OoMMrr'FEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Roy A. Taylor (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. TAYLOR. The subcommittee will come to order for the purpose of continuing hearings on H.R. 8970 and pending bills establishing the North Oascades National Park. The first witness this morning is the Honorable Stewart L. TJdall, Secretary of the Interior. Mr. TJdall, we welcome you. STATEMENT OP HON. STEWART L UDALL, SECRETARY, DEPART- MENT OP THE INTERIOB~ ACCOMPANIED BY DR. EDWARD C. CRAPTS, DIRECTOR, EUREAU OP OUTDOOR RECREATION, AND GEORGE B. RARTZO~.+, ITR~ DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SEEVI~E~, DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR Mr. ASPINALL. Before we get into the questioning of departmental witnesses, after the Secretary and his group have made their presenta- tions, could we have the representatives of the Department of Agricul- ture come up and make their presentation, and then question them all together? I know Secretary TJdall has to leave and that is all right. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed. Secretary UDALL. I have Dr. Crafts, of the Bureau of Outdoor Rec- reation, and Mr. Hartzog with me this morning. I have a brief statement which I will read and try to make our pres- entation as brief as possible this morning. It is a particular pleasure for me to have this opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of legislation which would create a North Cascades National Park, two nationai recreation areas, and one Forest Service wilderness area in the State of Washington. This proposal ranks among the four or five most far-reaching and significant of the conservation proposals before the Congress this session. I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, to you and other members of the committee for the attention you are giving to it. Use of the North Cascades area has been the subject of great interest by many groups and individuals for well over 30 years. Several studies (939) PAGENO="0032" 940 have been conducted to determine how these magnificent lands could best be utilized in the public interest. The most thorough `study was completed 2 years ago by a jomt Agriculture-Interior study. team chaired by Edward C. Crafts, Direc- tor, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. I believe you have copies of the study team's report before you today. The study team considered all the resources prevalent in a much larger area-lumbering, mining, grazing, hunting and fishing, water and recreation-and recognized the North Cascades `scenic and recreational values which are unprece- dented in any other area in this country. The team made 21 recommendations, and among these was the con- clusion that a national park should be established to include about one-tenth of the region's most spectacular mountain, valley, glacier, meadow, and lake scenery. Tn 1966, President Johnson requested that a field inspection be made of the area by Secretary of Agriculture Freeman, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and myself. As a result of this inspection and the study team report, President Johnson in January 1967 recommended establishment of a national park-wilderness area-recreation area complex, and in March of that year, a proposed bill was submitted to Congress by the administration. This bill was introduced in the House by Representative Meeds as H.R. 8970, and an identical bill was introduced in the Senate. Extensive field hearings by this committee were held in Seattle and Wenatchee earlier this year in the North Cascades area in the State of Washington. The details of this bill and the views of the loc~l people are well known to' the committee, including- (1) The minimal dependency of the timber, grazing, and other resource-based industries of the State on the park and recrea- tion areas; (2) The stability provided to the concerned counties through a provision that would not affect distribution of national forest receipts; * (3) The probable economic benefits flowing from creation of a national park; (4) The protection given to the North Cross-State Highway; and (5) The opportunity in national recreation areas to fully de- velop the ski potential, to permit hunting, and to protect present and potential developments of Seattle City Light. There is little point in my attempting at this hearing today to go into details on these matters. The legislation before you today, in my judgment, will provide man- agement units which recognize the superlative qualities of the entire region as a recreation complex without parallel, and each unit is singu- larly fitted for the management designation given to it. Enactment of either the administration or the Senate-passed bill would, in my opinion, be not only acceptable but a great step forward. Attached to my prepared statement is a summary of H.R, 8970, the admmistration bill introduced by Representative Mends, and S. 1321, which the Senate passed in November 1967. This summary shows the few major differences between these measures. It will be noted that the principal difference between the administra- tion and the Senate-passed bill is that the latter reduces the size of the PAGENO="0033" 941 proposed 570,000-acre national park recommended by the adnlinistra- tion to 505,000 acres. In lieu thereof the Senate-passed bill would estab- lish a 62,000-acre Lake Chelan National Recreation Area whereas the administration bill would include this area in the national park. We believe the Senate-passed bill, like H.R. 8970, will provide for the effective management and administration necessary to carry out the purposes of this proposal. The costs involved in both bills are ap- proximately the same. In both cases, land acquisition is a minimal factor, since over 99 percent of the lands involved are already publicly owned. Mr. Chairman, the North Cascades Mountains area is, as I am certain you will agree, among the most magnificent areas in the world. This area of rugged scenic beauty lies adjacent to the Northwest's most pop- ulous area. With completion of the North Cross-State Highway and the off-highway access to be provided by the National Park Service and Forest Service, thousands of people will be able to see for them- selves this beautiful area. The area has been studied for years, the views of the people are known, the administration's position is clear, and it is time for con- gressional decision. I am most happy that this committee has seen fit to consider this legislation, and it is my earnest hope that Congress will take final favorable action to establish this park before recessing next week. DIFr~mmNcEs BE~rwEioN H.R. 8970 AND S. 1321, AS PASSED BY THE SENATE I. PURPOSE H.R. 8970-To establish the North Cascades National Park and Ross Lake National Recreation Area, to designate the Pasayten Wilderness and modify the Glacier Peak Wilderness. S. 1321-Same as H.R. 8970, except it also establishes a Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. IT. AREA, SIZE AND ADMINISTRATION HR. 8970 S. 1321 Area Acres Administered Acres Administered by- by- North Cascades National Park 570,000 Interior 505, 000 Interior. Ross Lake National Recreation Area 100,000 do 107, 000 Do. Lake Chelan National Recreation Area 62, 000 Do. Pasayten Wilderness 500, 000 Agriculture 520, 000 Agriculture. Glacier Peak Wilderness, additions 10, 000 do 10, 000 Do. Total 1, 180, 000 1,204, 000 III. LANDOWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITION COSTS HR. 8970 National Park National rec- Total reation area Federal 566,195 99,200 665,395 State 200 200 City of Seattle 440 440 Private 1,725 360 2,085 Mineral patents 1,880 1,880 Total - 570,000 100,000 670,000 Note: Land acquisition costs: Private land in national park and recreation area, including mineral patents, $3,402,000. 98-524-e8-pt. 3-5 PAGENO="0034" 942 North Cascades Ross Lake National Lake Chelan National Total National Park Recreation Area Recreation Area Federal 503,120 104,697 60,075 667,892 State 0 0 200 200 City of Seattle 0 1,086 0 1,086 Private 0 1,117 1,725 2,842 Mineral patents 1,880 100 0 1,980 Total 505,000 107,000 62,000 674,000 Note: Land acquisition costs: Private land in national park and recreation areas, including mineral patents, $3,402,000. IV. PROPIfIRTY ACQUISITION AUTHORITY ER. 8970-Within the boundaries of the park and recreation area the Secre- tary may acquire property by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, except lands owned by the State and its political subdivisions may be acquired only by donation. The bill transfers Federal property within the park and recreation area boundaries to the Secretary's jurisdiction. S. 1321-Same as H.R. 8970, except that section 301 provides that the Secre- tary may not acquire private property within the recreation areas, without the owner's consent, so long as the property is used compatibly with the purposes of the Act. V. DEVELOPMENTS A. North Cross state highway H.R. 8970-No specific `provision, but section 502 of the bill makes clear that the rights of the State of Washington in the property within the national recrea- tion area used for this highway would not be adversely affected in any way. S. 1321-Specific provision in section 503 that the bill will not adversely affect any rigl~ts or privileges of the State in the property within the national recrea- tion areas used for this highway. B. Construction' of other roads H.R. 8970-No provision. S. 1321-Specifically provides in section 402(e) that the Secretary of the Interior shall not permit the construction or use of (1) any road within the park which would provide vehicle access from the North Cross State Highway to the Stehekin Road, or (2) any permanent road which would provide vehicle access between May Creek and Hozomeen along the east side of Ross Lake. C. Publ4o use facilities HR. 8970-No specific provision. S. 1321-Specific provision in section 504 that within two years after enact- ment of the bill the two Secretaries shall agree on areas needed for public use facilities (including interpretive centers, visitor contact stations, lodges, camp- sites, and ski lifts) and such facilities are required to be constructed according to a plan agreed upon by the two Secretaries. PAGENO="0035" NOTE: Data ot th:s maparethe same as that 500am at drawatg Number NP-CAS-7000, bat OIlS MANAGEMENT UNIT BOUNDARIES EXISTING PROPOSED NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARIES----- ...., PROPOSED MANAGEMENT UNITS WASHINGTON CASCADE~ ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL PAGENO="0036" ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA PASA EN WILDERNESS T SA ER ~ /~ OKANOGAN * 4: ~ NORTH CASCADES .5-, NATI ALP~C j - / ~ ~ MSeB 00 NT NATIONAL PARK ~ - - N AT ION AL ~ - -* ! LAKE~»=~IEKAN L, NATION~ ECREA ION AREA L~_1. ~ r-~ f ~JAODITIONS Jm~ / - TO GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS ... - ~ -s GLACIER PEAK `~ ( F 0 5 FOREST WILDERNES ) G~'NA ~L RES"~~~\~ ~7SOK~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TH~ IrqE~R . . . NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGR4Q~tTURE .. . FOREST SERVICE J LEGEND MANAGEMENT UN/I SO%JNDARIES~-- ~1 EXISTING ROADS----- PROPOSED ROADS-- - NATiONAL FOREST BOUNDARIES----------- GLACERS---- ------- ------~ P~oPosED MANAGEMENT UNITE NORTH CASCADES WASHINGTON NOTE: Data on thIs rnaparethe same as that shown on drawing number NP-CAS-7002 but on a Aitlerent base S. 1321 AS PASSES BY THE SENATE PAGENO="0037" 945 Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. From our hearings in the field we realize that the question of the private uses to be made of this land enters into the thinking of the local people. What private uses would continue in the recreation area, for example? Dr. CRA1~rs. Mr. Chairman, all of the private uses that are permitted in a national forest may continue in a national recreation area, in- cluding timbering, mining, grazing, and so on. Really, the funda- mental and principal difference between the two is that if it is a national recreation area, there is legislative recognition that the use of the land for recreation is the priority use and that the other uses must be compatible and are secondary to the primary uses as desig- nated in a national recreation area. As a matter of fact, in these two proposed national recreation areas in the Senate-passed bill, and one in the administration bill, there are not now any significant timber uses or grazing uses. There is some hunting use, there is cabin use, there are recreation developments, and this sort of thing. Mr. TAYLOR. Hunting, fishing, timber harvesting, and mining would continue in the recreation area pretty much as at present? Dr. CRAFTS. I think that is correct; yes. Mr. TAYLOR. What about skiing? Dr. CRAFTS. Skiing will continue and may be developed in a na- tional recreation area, just as it may be developed in a national forest. Of course, skiing is a recreation use and this would be given high priority. This is one reason that Ruby Mountain right south of Ross Lake, was included in the recreation area-because this is considered to be a very fine skiing area. George just advised me that the Senate-passed bill requires a special study of the skiing potential in the recreation areas. I might say that this is another reason. The winter sports aspect is one of the reasons why the Granite Creek area was left out of both the administration bill and the Senate-passed bill. It is because there are ski opportunities on these slopes as well. The other reason, of course, is the highway. Mr. TAYLOR. Under this legislation the Department would have au- thority to provide skiing facilities or enter into concession contracts with private concerns to provide it? Dr. CRAFTS. That is right. Mr. TAYLOR. Now what change, if any, would be made in the private uses of the wilderness area? Mr. HARTZOG. That portion of the area put in a national park, Mr. Chairman, would not permit hunting, but most of the hunting, as was explained by Congressman Meeds yesterday, is in the Stehekin area which is proposed for the national recreation area and, therefore, hunting would be permitted according to applicable Federal and State law. Dr. CRAFTS. And there is some huntin.g on this side of Ross Lake, which would also be in recreation area. Mr. TAYLOR. What changes would be made in ~Ises permits in that section designated as wilderness? Dr. CRAFTS. In the first place, this is designated a~ wilderness in both bills. There is a slight difference in boundaries. This has for many PAGENO="0038" 946 years been the Northern Cascades Primitive Area under Forest Service jurisdiction and converting it from a primitive area to a wilderness area under the law would cause no change. The Eldorado Peaks area is not now in a wilderness or primitive area classification-that part south of the Skagit River. This proposed Pasayten Wilderness is in the eastern part of the Northern Cascades Primitive Area. This Picket Range area and this Eldorado Peaks area become part of a national park [indicating]. My understanding is, within a specific period of time under both H.R. 8970 and S. 1321 the Park Service will be required to study this national park, to ascertain what portion of the national parks should be recommended to the Congress for wilderness areas. Mr. ASPINALL. But this legislation itself does not establish any wilderness area within the proposed national park area? Dr. CRAFTS. That is correct; none whatsoever. Mr. TAYLOR. But it does establish other areas as wilderness areas? Dr. CRAFTS. It establishes the Pasayten Wilderness Area-it con- verts this area from a primitive area into a wilderness area and it would make two small additions totaling, I believe, around 10,000 acres to the existing Glacier Park Wilderness Area under the admin- istration of the Forest Service. Mr. SAYLOR. There are two additions down there. You say they com- prise 10,000 acres jointly? Dr. CRA1~rs. That is approximately right; yes, sir. Mr. SAYLOR. What private-use changes would be made in that area if converted into a park? Dr. Ciw3'rS. Do you mean in this area? Mr. SAYLOR. That area of the North Cascades National Park. Dr. Cn~ri~s. The changes that would be made in that area are that hunting would be prohibited. The recreational use would continue; there would be a somewhat different type of development proposed by the Park Service than by the Forest Service for the other recreational uses. Mr. Hartzog has a development plan which he can explain to you. There is no timbering in here. Therefore, there would be no change in the timbering. There is no grazing in this area. There are about a half a dozen sheep allotments which have been inactive, non- grazed for a number of years. There is one cattle allotment running partly here, and partly outside the park, and that has either been inac- tive or it has a very small number of head. There might be one-half of one cattle allotment that would be affected. There is a permit for the grazing of, I think, about 20 or 30 head of stock in the Stehekin Valley. George would have to tell you what would be handled on that. Those are the changes as I know them. Mr. TAYLOR. There would be no `timber harvesting, no grazing, no mining, and no hunting as in other national parks? Dr. Cn~rTs. That is correct. Mr. TAYLOR. However, at present you say there is no timber harvest- ing in that area? Dr. C1t~rTs. In the national park area. Mr. TAYLOR. How about mining? Dr. CRms. There are many mining claims. There are about 9,000 acres, I believe, of mining patents. An ownership status map shows PAGENO="0039" 947 these. The largest areas of patented mines ate up in here in the El Dorado area. The preexisting rights would be honored in the establishment of the parks. Things such as valid claims and mine patents. Mr. TAYLOR. Do you intend to gradually extinguish these mining patents? Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and if I may amplify on what Dr. Crafts has said, I would like to call your attention to the fact that all of the privately owned lands are in thIs area that is proposed as a national recreation area in the Senate bill. There is no privately owned land within these two units of the national park under the Senate-passed bill. They are all in the recreatiOn area or in the lower recreation area. You could continue private comjatible uses. Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't get an answer to the qttestion of whether you had a plan to terminate the mining patents. Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, we do. All private rights within the national park are to be terminated. Mr. TAYLOR. How? Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, there are 1,880 acres involved in min- eral patents within the Senate-passed 1321. There are 1,880 acres in the bill introduced by Mr. Meeds, which the committee is considering. The first step we follow in this after Congress takes action on this is to ask the Bureau of Land Management to validate the mineral claims. Many of them we believe on their face ~re not valid. In other words, the required work has not been done, but this is a process, an administrative process that is carried out pursuant to the public land law of the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. ASPINALL. Do you expect to take as long to validate these claims as it has taken to handle some of the oil shale claims in the Green River oil shale area? Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with that. I don't believe `any of those are in the national parks. Mr. ASPINALL. I thought you knew about everything that bothers me. Mr. HARTZOG. No, sir; I left the Bureau of Land Management 21 years ago. Mr. KYL. They were in process then. Mr. HARTZOG. Then those that are determined to be valid, we would purchase. In other words, much of the privately owned lands within some of the older national parks the Congress has established really came into private ownership through valid patents for minerals. These would be purchased as would any other private lands within a na- tional park, or within a national recreation area. As long as the use is compatible, we wouldn't try to eliminate it until the owner wanted to sell. Mr. ASPINALL. Dr. Crafts, I believe,wanted to make a correction. Dr. Oa~&r'rs. Mr. Hartzog made it for me. I said approximately 9,000 acres of mining patents and counsel pointed out to me the estimate is 1,880 acres. Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman Meeds recommended, as I understood it, some hunting in this national park. This i~ normally not per- mitted. What is your reaction to that? PAGENO="0040" 948 Mr. HARPZOG. Mr. Chairman, this issue, as the committee knows, has been debated ever since the Congress established the first national park. Interestingly, when it set aside Yellowstone National Park in 1872, it allowed the Secretary to permit hunting in national parks. In 1894 or 22 years later, the Congress prohibited hunting. That was a pattern that was established for many years and it is a historic policy to pro- hibit public recreational hunting in national parks. The Secretary appointed an advisory board in 1962. Hunting in the parks was consid- ered at that time by the Board's distinguished scientists and conserva- tionists, including representatives of fishing and sporting organiza- tions, the Fish and Wildlife Federation; through unanimous recom- mendation, they found the congressional policy was sound and should be continued to be adhered to and that is our position. We are not prepared to recommend any change. We have, however, adopted one new procedure to which I would like to call the committee's attention. We have provided you informa- tion on this before in connection with our general report. That is that in the Grand Teton legislation of 1950 the Congress provided that where it was necessary to carry out control programs, they would be carried out by the Secretary in cooperation with the State and that the Secretary would use, when he needed additional help other than the permanent ranger staff that we have, deputized park rangers which were licensed hunters in the State of Wyoming. This we have adopted as a policy throughout the national park system. When we have a big reduction program where we need additional people, this is the procedure we now follow, but they are deputized park rangers. They may work with or without compensation. They hold a Federal appointment. It is not public recreational hunting. Mr. TAYLOR. Public recreational hunting is not now permitted in any national park? Mr. HARTz0G. No, sir; it is not. Mr. TAYLOR. You are not recommending an exception here? Mr. HARTZOG. No, sir; I do not. Mr. ASPINALL. How do you expect the administrative responsibilities to be taken care of in relation to the proposed national park, the pro- posed national recreation area, and the increased wilderness area program? Secretary TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, under the type of legislation the Senate approved, the national recreation areas would be under the National Park Service. The two wilderness areas would, of course, be under the National Forest Service. We have attempted, as the committee well knows, where these prob- lems have arisen, we are sorting out the problems and trying to define who best should do what in terms of management of national recrea- tion areas. Mr. Cliff is here on the Flaming Gorge recreation area. Here we both had a foothold. We decided it was better to have one agency and we are ready to withdraw and let the Forest Service manage this, but we feel this is better, to have one agency manage a national recreation area rather than two. Mr. ASPINALL. Would the Senate bill take care of the national park and recreation area in this proposal? PAGENO="0041" 949 Mr. HARPZOG. The Senate-passed bill came down on this point and provided we should study the possibility of joint facilities here be- cause it is a natural access into the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. The legislation before you in the House bill is silent on this point, but our administrative agreement with the Forest Service is that we would study together where each of us needed facilities,whether in the park or in the recreation areas, or in the national forests, and to the extent possible we would share these. This is a program Ed Cliff and I embarked on in connection with Mount Rainier, which is practically surrounded by national forests and there we were duplicating facilities and we started a study some 5 years ago toward moving joint facilities to house our people and reduce the cost and this we would do here. Mr. A5PINALL. Do you have the required justification material for our record as to the number of man-days that you consider to be necessary for all three of these proposed areas: the wilderness area, the national recreation area, and the national park, if any additional help is needed? Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; we do. Mr. A5PINALL. What uses are presently permitted in the two primi- tive areas, that are to be added to the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area that would be prohibited if they are made a part of the wilderness area? Dr. CRAFTS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, could you- Mr. ASPINALL. What changes would take place with respect to uses presently permitted in the primitive area if they are added to the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area? Dr. CRAFTS. In the two additions to the Glacier Peak Wilderness that would be prohibited if they are added? Timbering, primarily. In these two areas there are fine stands of tjmber. There are active timbering operations very close to these areas and this would provide an additional-you could call it a buffer-but it is an inclusion, in the area. There is no grazing in there to my knowledge whatsoever. What would be prohibited here is timbering. Mr. ASPINALL. And there is no timbering going on at the present time? Dr. CRAFTS. To my knowledge the timbering at the present time stops short of these two areas, although Ed Cliff is here and he can confirm or correct me on this. I think that is right. This was worked out with the Forest Service. This was the Forest Service recom- mendation. Mr. ASPINALL. That is perfectly all right. That doesn't settle the question as far as I am concerned. Dr. CRAFTS. The answer is, there is no timbering going on in these areas now. Is that correct? Mr. ASPINALL. How many million board feet of `timber would be locked up in the wilderness area that might b~ harvested under the present law? Dr. Cn~&FTs. I have that figure. On the basis of an annual cut-the figure I have in my mind in these two areas together is about 2 million feet a year. Mr. ASPINALL. For how long? Dr. CRAFTS. This is on a sustained yield program. PAGENO="0042" 050 Mr. ASPINALL. In other words, what you are saying is about 150 million board feet? Dr. CRAFTS. 150 to 200 million board feet; yes. Mr. ASPINAI4I.. What is the cost of the park? I notice each of the bills has an open-ended authorization. What is the cost? Mr. HARTZOO. Mr. Chairman, the private land costs for both the proposed national park and the two recreation areas are $3,402,000. Mr. ASPINALL. You don't propose buying anything from the Federal Government? Mr. HAmrzoa. No, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. This is the total cost? Mr. HARTZOG. That is the total land cost; yes, sir. Then the develop- ment costs in the first 5 years, we propose $28,775,000. Future years, $6,520,000, for a total of $35,295,000. Mr. ASPINALL. As I understand it, this takes into consideration all of those mining claims that may be found to be valid mining claims? Mr. IIARTzoG. That takes into account those which we think will be valid and I would be happy to provide that figure, which we think is valid, for the files of the committee. I would prefer not to release it to the open record. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it as part of our files. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection, it will be presented for our files. (The information referred to will be found in the confidential files of the subcommittee.) Mr. ASPINALL. What will this legislation do to the much publicized mining claim known as the Silver King, which is the Kennicott operation? Dr. CRAFTS. That is the Miners' Ridge area. That is just north of Glacier Peak. That is the Kennecott operation. It would have no effect on it whatsoever. Mr. ASPINAIL. In other words, that is left outside? Dr. CRAr~rs. That is in an existing wilderness area now and there is nothing in this bill that would change it. Mr. ASPINALL. They have until 1983 to pursue their values, is that correct? Dr. CItArrs. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. If they can find values and get a patent, they would be permitted to carry on their operations until they took care of the deposit that they had discovered and validated. Dr. Ciuips. That is correct. Mr. ASPINALL. What would be your position, Mr. Secretary, if the Congress were to follow through with the suggestion made on the floor recently, as we were discussing some legislation similar to this, that the final determination on establishment of this national park and recre- ation area should be dependent upon the securing of private holdings and the potential private holdings within the area, either by option or purchase, before we establish this? Secretary UDALL. Well, Mr. Chairman, this~ in one sense, has a de- sirable aspect to it, but the time consumed was hinted at a moment ago in validating and looking into the validity of mining claims and other matters, which might delay this inordinately, and it would be our feel- ing in this type of situation it would not be wise, particularly where PAGENO="0043" 951 you are talking about a very small portion, less than 1 percent of the total land area, that are presently in in-holdings, that we ought to go ahead and establish the park, get our management set up and our de- velopment program going and acquire the in-holdings as we go along rather than making it a condition precedent. Mr. ASPINALL. if the in-holdings were just the ordmary in-holdings that might be all right, but what if `they find a deposit like the Climax molybdenum deposit there? Or what if they should come up with a gold deposit in this area? This Congress has been pretty good to this area in the years past in the establishment `of all kinds of natural re- source `programs. We want to be pretty sure that we can rely on your figure of approximately $3.5 million and not find ourselves with a pos- sibility of $35 million or something like that. Secretary TJDALL. Mr. Chairman, you fully realize under the law whatever existing valid claims there are would have to be recognized. You are raising the possibility there might be extremely valuable de- posits. `This, in turn, raises several oth'er questions that I don't think I need to go into at this time, but I do think that if we decided to wait to establish the park until we could `ascertain the full extent of the mineral values, this would be a very substantial delay and we would strongly feel it would be better to go ahead and let this problem work its way out as it usually does and is doing today with most of our na- tional parks and national monuments. Mr. ASPINALL. Do you have any idea of what the administrative cost is going to be in order to invalidate certain of these claims and to purchase the others? Secretary UDALL. I would think in terms of the number involved that the administrative cost would not be high. As the chairman well knows, it is a matter of manpower basically to check out claims and to deter- mine their validity. Mr. TAYLOR. You mentioned a $35 million total development cost over a long period of years. How will that be spent? What are the development plans? Mr.' HARPZOO. Mr. Chairman, I have an overlay which has the plan on it. In brief there would be access from Ross Lake by way of a lift to Arctic Creek. Mr. SAYLOR. By way of a lift? Mr. HARTZOG. A lift; yes, sir. Mr. SAYLOR. What kind of a lift? Mr. HARTZOG. We haven't designed it, Mr. Saylor. Our belief is, of the more modern ones that are used for transportation rather than just the ordinary ski lift is the kind that should be done here. We have reached the point in planning for parks where we have concluded that roads and trails, which have been the historic and traditional access to parks, are just not relevant in the North Cascades and there must be some other access or we will `destroy the very values that we are trying to save. The automobile has simply crowded us out of the business of relying wholly on roads. What we have proposed is a ferry service along Ross Lake where there would be various stops. Here there would be an `access where the people could then take these trails. PAGENO="0044" 952 The Hozomeen development is in the Ross Lake Recreation Area. There would be lodges and stores. There would be dropoff points along the lake, and along the highway also, with short inroads into it. There would be a development at Price Lake where we propose another lift, in order to get people into this area. There would be a lift on Ruby Mountain which would permit people into the El Dorado Peaks area. Our proposal would be to rely on the existing commercial establishment at Stehekin to take care of the users in Stehekin. There would be visitor contact points still to be worked out with the Forest Service along the national forest approaches to these recreation areas. Mr. TAYLOR. How many are in the recreation area and how many in the national parks? Mr. HARTZOG. Of what? Mr. TAYLOR. The lifts you mentioned. Mr. HARTZOO. The Ruby Mountain lift is in the national recreation area. The Arctic Creek lift is partly within the Ross Lake Recreation Area and partly within the national park itself, and with respect to the one at Price Lake part is in the national park and part in national forest. Mr. ASPINALL. It seems to me that the National Park Service has frowned upon this kind of development in other areas. Mr. HARTZOG. We still frown on it, Mr. Chairman, if its objective is to afford a thrill, rather than to serve a utilitarian need. Here we proposed them in lieu of roads. Mr. ASPINALL. That depends upon the age of the participant, Mr. Hartzog. Mr. TAYLOR. What are your figures with regard to visitor par-. ticipation? Mr. HARTZOG. The visitor-days of use at the end of the first 5 years is estimated at 1,100,000; and, at the end of 15 years, at 2,900,000. Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you mentioned lifts. Do you have other develop- ment plans, administration buildings, and visitor centers? Mr. HARPZOG. Yes, sir; and these are at the points that I indicated in terms of a visitor contact station here, along the North Cross-State Highway, `and a campground and trailhead in this vicinity. Lodge, store, marina, visitor center, campground, horse and trans- portation concession, and administrative area at Stehekin, and here to coordinate it with the Forest Service because of the administrative needs in connection with the Glacier Peak Wilderness-these are campground and trailhead installations. Mr. SKtmrTz. Mr. Secretary, it seems to me that there is `a slight difference of opinion. If it is your choice between no park at all and the May bill, would you be satisfied with the May proposal? Mr. HARTZOO. I would be very reluctant to be faced with such an alternative, but in that event I would prefer no park. Mr. SRUnITZ. Why is it necessary that we take this up as a com- plete package, a national park, a national recreation area, and a wilder- ness area? Why not discuss each one of them, rather than the total package? Secretary UDALL. I think the answer to that is that this whole area was studied by this Interior-Agriculture team. We started 5½ years PAGENO="0045" 953 ago. This represents the recommendations of that team. The commit- tee could~ of course~ decide if it chose, to break it into pieces. I wiJi be frank a~bout that. The Senate did not, and it is up to the House committee to decide how it wants to handle it. It was our feeling that if the future of the whole region could be settled in one piece of legislation,that this was a tidy way to do it. Mr. SKtn3ITz. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Un~ui4. I participated in the hearings in Seattle and the ones in Wenatchee. I reacted to these tramway proposals a little bit like the gentleman from Pennsylvania did when they were first suggested. I want to make very clear that, in my opinion, under present park management practices, there would be nothing violating the National Park Act, or past precedent in the National Park Service if you were to build a road in the Plckett Range so people could get up on top and get the view. Mr. HARTZOG. That is the historic way of doing it, Mr. TJdall. Mr. tTDALL. What you are saying is, because of the great sweep of these cliffs and the difficulties in roadbuilding, there would be far less defacement of the area if you preserve the grandeur and still permit people to get up on top to see this thing through the use of carefully selected and designed tramways? Mr. HARTZOG. That is precisely right, sir. Mr. TJDALL. Would you agree with what Mr. Meeds said yesterday iii his testimony that, unlike some national park areas, this is one where you really have to get up high to get the overpowering view that many of us enjoy from the airplane where we can see these ranges in all their majesty? Mr. HARTZOG. That is correct. Mr. tTDALL. These are narrow, steep valleys, and if you travel on foot or automobile down the valleys, because of the trees and the rocks, you never get a real idea of what kind of Alps that you are in, `the American Alps that you are in. Mr. HARTZOG. You lose `the total sense of the environment; yes, sir. Mr. UDALL. One of ithe things that really persuaded me on `this point during the hearings was when we were holding a little subhearing on the roof of the hotel and a witness showed up by the name of Whit- taker, the conqueror of Mount Everest. This is a man who wouldn't hesitate to pack or rope climb any cliff in `the area, I suppose. He knows this area thoroughly. After a lot of consideration he had agreed `that the `tram idea was the way to handle `this particular park. He made a very moving and persuasive statement on `that, I thought. Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. UDALL. Yes; I yield. Mr. TAYLOR. This idea of tramways would be an administrative de- cision by the Departmen't. There is nothing in this bill `that authorizes that or does not authorize it. Mr. HARTZOG. That is correct, sir. Mr. UDALL. I reserve the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Iowa. PAGENO="0046" 954 Mr. Km. It is not my intention, Mr. Hartzog, to put you on the spot with this question, but I would like to go just a little further into the reasoning behind your statement that you would rather have no park than the proposal which is included in one of these bills. Mr. HARTZOG. Thank you very much, Mr. Kyl. I am delighted to elaborate on it. In essence, a national park has two basic characteristics. It first must have a unique, superlative scenic and scientific value. The historic pattern of the Congress in establishing national parks is that this must possess more than a single attractive feature, but a variety, and seconaiy, that it must include sufficient lands to permit reasonable and appropriate visitor access and use of it. In the bill that has been presented by the distinguished and gentle Congresswoman from Washington, she would set aside the Pickets, the most rugged, spectacular, scenic, and scientifically valuable area, in our judgment, in the entire North Cascades as a national park, and then provide that it be managed as a wilderness which, in effect, pro- vides that only those who can walk in can get in. This, in our judgment, is just simply not a breadth of appropriate visitor access and use to qualify it as a national park. Mr. Km. I think that is all. Mr. TAYLOR. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Km. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. The Governor recommends an advisory board for this particular recreation area and national park. What is your reaction to that? Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, the Congress has decided in a number of these newly authorized seashores, and the innovative type manage- ment for these areas, advisory boards. We have found them to be very helpful, very constructive. We do not feel that an advisory board is a particularly essential mechanism here because these are pretty tradi- tional type areas that we have managed for a long time. A reservoir- type recreation area, we have managed one of these at Lake Mead since 1936. National parks we have managed since the Congress estab- lished the Bureau in 1916. We would have no objection to an advisory board and we would be very pleased to work with one. Mr. TAYLOR. But you have a nationwide operating National Parks Advisory Board now. Mr. HARTz0G. We do, sir; and they have inspected this country and they are familiar with it, and we expect to consult with them. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hartzog, I appreciate the information you provided me in regard to the evolution of the national recreation area and the scenic easements that are being acquired. This is a matter which you and I have discussed and on which we share concern as to the direction which may eventually evolve. You made a statement a moment ago, however, which startled me a little with respect to the acquisition of in-holdings. If I recall your statement correctly, it was along the order that within the recreation areas there would be no plan to acquire in-holdings until the owners wish to sell. Mr. HARTZOG. As long as their use was compatible with the overall recreational environment of the area. PAGENO="0047" 955 Mr. MCCLURE. It hadn't been my understanding that within national recreation areas it was the intention of the National Government to acquire fee to any of the land, necessarily. Mr. HARTZOG. Well, we do have to have the fee for the areas that we are going to develop, the areas that we are going to make avail- able for public use. Mr. MCCLURE. Surely. Mr. HARTZOG. Then if an owner insists on developing an area that is not needed for one of these two categories, adversely the recreational environment, sometimes we simply have to acquire the fee in order to prevent it, and the Congress, recognizing this in the amendments to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, gave the Secretary authority in the circumstances to buy the land in fee and then either lease back or sell back a compatible development right. Mr. MCCLURE. That is an alternative, if you want to acquire a scenic easement but it is overpriced. Mr. HARTZOG. That is correct. Mr. MCCLURE. But only in that event. Mr. HARZOG. That is right. Mr. MCCLURE. And not simply because the owner wishes to sell. Mr. HARTZOG. No; that is right. But if he wishes to devote it to an adverse use. You see, this is where you come into the conflict. Assume he is running there now a dude ranch and the property becomes valu- able for subdivision purposes, this is its highest and best use, in his judgment, and this is what he wants to make of it. You can't resolve the thing any other way than to pay him 90 percent or more of the fee, and in some cases this is what has been done. Our view is that the Federal Government should go ahead and buy the fee and then lease it back for operation as a dude ranch. I would be very pleased to furnish you as part of the record the land acquisition policies that we do follow in national parks and in national recreation areas. Mr. MCCLURE. I am not sure that there is any disagreement between us but I want to make sure for the record what that policy is. Mr. HARTZOG. Right. Mr. MCCLURE. Assume that you have acquired a scenic easement which is satisfactory, then there is no continuing problem as far as adverse use is concerned and there would then be no further acquisi- tion of fee to that particular piece of property even though the owner might be willing to sell? Mr. }IARTZOO. That is correct, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. I think this is important not only for our purposes but for the understanding of the people in the local governments that are affected, that it is not the purpose of the Federal Government to acquire title except in the limited case that you are speaking of, of a de- velopmental site or in the case where it is cheaper, more efficient to buy it rather than to buy the scenic easement? Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. Mr. MCCLURE. I think your statement `could have `been construed the other way, `that even though you have a scenic easement, even though there is no incompatible use, that there might be a further acquisition of fee by the Federal Government, `which I think `a good many people that I represent would find incompatible with their un- derstanding of the policies of the Department. PAGENO="0048" 956 Mr. HARTZOG. I deeply appreciate the clarification of it because I certainly: don't want any confusion on that point. If we have `a com- patible, private development that is there and we have enough control through `scenic easement to see that it continues, we are `through with land acquisition. Mr. MoCLtmi~. Thank you very much. Mr. SKimITz. Will my colleague yield? Mr. McOLui~. I yield. Mr. SKUBI'rz. I thought that you might like to know that the Gov- ernor of the State was not quite as hard nosed about this park as you are. He made the following statement with respect to whether we should or shouldn't have the park in response to a question by our dis- `tinguished colleague, the brother of `the Secretary: This last is `a tough question. I would ask you-you `are no stranger to tough questions-when the House calls the roll. I have to vote yes or no. Now `that is enlightening. I cannot vote "maybe." I have to vote yes or no. Mr. UDALL. I object to these editorial comments. Mr. SKUBITZ. "If it comes down to a question of the Senate-passed bill, a national park of that size or no national park at all, how do you advise me to vote?" The Governor `said: If I were in your place and had `to vote I would vote yes. `So that gives us some way to move around at least. Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir. Mr. SKUBITZ. Thank you. Mr. MoCLuins. I have just one further question. As I understand, these additions to the Glacier Pe'ak wilderness area on the west side, as proposed, are not now in primitive area, they are under general forest service administration? Dr. (Jm&prs. That is correct. Mr. MoCLtm~. I reserve `th'e balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SATLOR. Mr. Secretary, I don't know whether you can answer this question offhand, but I just had somebody get me the original act of 1916 establishing the National Park Service and I thought it might be interesting as a matter `of history. Now, I refer to this proviso: Provided, That not more than `$8,100 annually shall be expended for salaries of experts, assistants and employees within the District of Columbia not herein specifically enumerated, unless previously authorized by law. This has to do with the services and people who are going to have charge of the National Park Service, outside of the Director and an assistant. Do you have any idea what the National Park Service spends in Washington, outside of the salaries of the Solicitor `and the Director and the Assistant Director? Secretary UDALL. I will ask the Director to comment, Mr. SAYLOR. I wo'uld like to know how far we h'ave com.e since 1916. Mr. HARTZOG. Well, Mr. Saylor, I am sorry, I can't answer the question. I w'ould be happy to provide it for the record. PAGENO="0049" 957 Mr. SAYLOR. You prabably could answer, Mr. Hartzog, but you are afraid it would be embarrassing and might stop the North Cas- cades from being considered and we would get off on another tangent. You won't even have to provide it for the record. We can get it if we want to. Mr. HARTZOG, Thank you. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, I am a little disturbed with this idea of lifts because the original act of 1916, which has not been changed by the Congress from that time to this, says the following: Service thus established shall promote and regulate use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purposes of said parks, monuments and reservations which purpose is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects, the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoy- ment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them un- impaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Now, how can you, as the Secretary of Interior, and your counter- part, the Secretary of Agriculture, come before this committee and say that in your plans for the development of the North Cascades you intend to build three aerial tramways into this proposed national park when the Secretary of Agriculture has come before this commit- tee, along with the Director of the Forest Service, and said that in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area the people in southern California who want to put a ski lift in are not permitted to do so because it is inconsistent with their usage? It seems to me that we have ourselves and the other members of this committee in an impasse that is going to be embarrassing in the days to come. Now you may comment, Mr. Sec- retary, if you will? Secretary UDALL. Well, there is no question but that the policy, with I think very few exceptions, of the national park admin~stration-I don't think the act compels this, the act is broad and is general in its language-the policy has been not to keep machines out of national parks because we build roads in most of our national parks. You drive up to the rim of the Grand Canyon and look at it. You have in most parks a big look, a highway such as you have in Rocky Mountain. In other words, we haven't kept machines out of our parks. We put them in. This wc~uld be a large national park, half million acres. There would not be a road in it,. and we propose a substitute for a road and this is something that has been given a great deal of atten- tion. I think they very wisely propose that the terminus or the base of these be in a national recreation area. There is no problem with that because this is a compatible use in a national recreation area. Two of them, according to the plans as Director Hartzog presented a moment ago, would have their terminus in the national park. Now, there is nothing in the bill that tells us to do this or not to do this. The Con- gress in its wisdom could ask us to report back and pass its judgment on this issue. You could even make a little bend in the boundary and keep all of it in the national recreation area if you wanted to. But I think, myself, this is a very creative solution in that rather than go in and hack out roads to get people in where they can get the one big look that you have in most national parks, in practically all national parks. I know the type of tram, a ski lift which is deliberately-de- liberately has to be built out in the open, it is visible. `What we are talk- ing about here is something that can be designed that is hidden, that PAGENO="0050" 958 gets people up to the point where the magnificent views are, that gets them in effect to the edge, so that they can look into the'Grand Canyon. We haven't proposed this lightly. The National Parks Advisory Board-and it includes all the different range of the points of view, including what is normally called the purest point of view-has con- sidered this and they have recommended it. But, as I say, this is a mat- ter that the committee can express its own judgment on. I see no rea- son why this should be a point of argument, however, that should en- danger the legislation. Mr. ASPINALL. Will my colleague yield? Mr. SAmOR. Yes. Mr. ASPINALL. I think I go along with the last statement, Mr. Sec- retary. I think perhaps this was in Director Hartzog's mind when he attended the dedication of the new Rocky Mountain Visitor Center. He has suggested that we must meet new problems today because of mass usage, traffic problems, and so forth, with new ideas. What I can't understand, Mr. Secretary, is this basic change of policy. Here again we have a conflict between the legislative branch of the Government and the administrative department. Now you re- ferred to your overall authority as justification for this deviation from the general policy, but nobody says anything to this committee, which has jurisdiction over the uses of these areas, until the plan is firmed up. When I hear that you are contemplating the use of trams within the park, I am inclined to be more or less agreeable to what you propose. I think perhaps that there is some substance to it. But it is peculiar that you work on this for months; you take it up with your advisory board, but you never say anything to the committees of the Congress until you come up with a plan. It is about the same thing that happened to us as far as the use of the area down by the Reflecting Pool is concerned. We had no notice of what was going on there until it took place. More than likely, if it hadn't been for the fact that we dig into these matters a little bit, we wouldn't have known about this until you got ready to ask for money. Don't you think `that there should be a little bit closer liaison? I would like to ask Director Hartzog: Is this what you have had in mind when you have spoken `about meeting new problems with new solutions? Mr. HARTZOO. Mr. Chairman, the remark you make pains me very much because I have gone to extreme efforts in trying to keep the com- mittee advised of these areas in which I believe that we have to depart from some of these historic policies. Mr. ASPINALL. Did you ever say anything to any member of the committee? Mr. HARTZOO. I have never said `~ything to this committee specifi- cally about trarns. I was trying to tThnk, while you wre talking, how- ever, that we have, as I recall, in my general reports to the committee- and I will check this immediately after I get back to the office-called the committee's attention to the fact that, in my judgment, the his- toric concept of roads and trails as a sole means of access to our national parks is obsolete. Mr. ASPINALL. That is what you s'aid in Rocky Mountain National Park, I `believe. PAGENO="0051" 959 Mr. HARTZOG. That is what I said there, but we did not know then how to do it There are many ways of doing it Helicopter ports-this was my original proposal, that there not be a tramway in here but, rather, there be some helicopter ports. Well, we had this in the original draft of this report which was released, as I recall, about 1965. You know, I literally got blown out of the water over helicopters. Mr. A5PINALL. Because of the noise or because of inefficiency? Mr. HARPZOG. Well, because it was new, primarily, in my judgment. You know, anything new you really get the dickens for. But they, nevertheless, when the dust settled, agreed at all of the meetings that Dr. Crafts and the task force `and I had with them, that something other than a road had to be the solution. I was saying just a moment a~o when the Seerstary was trying to answer your question-I think he did not hear what I was saying-but he and I went up and looked at this area with Dr. Crafts. We were ou't there with the two Secretaries. The original prop'osaJ was to take a road up here to Ilozomeen over the Cross-State Highway and a road from the Cross-State Highway to Hozomeen just simply desecrates that valley, that is all. Mr. A5PINAU4. What do you mean, desecrates it? Mr. HARTZOG. Well, you just blow the side right off the mountain. When you get through with it you don't have anything anybody wants to see. What is the attraction of going all the way to the State of Wash- ington and up into this rugged country to see a paved road that sits inside of a canyon when you can go out here on any interstate highway and see the same thing? Mr. ASPINALL. Are you telling me now that if we hadn't estab- lished the Rocky Mountain P'ark many years ago that you would have suggested perhaps a tram up to the top of Trail Ridge Road be- cause it desecrates that whole mountainside-just the sight of the road? Mr. H~urrzoo. No; I beg your pardon. I would not say that to you because I think Roger Toll, whom you knew in Denver, who walked that mountain time and time and time again, did a magnificent job of laying that road on the ground in a maimer that does not defy `and desorate that great range. I think the road there is perfectly proper. I will tell you what they proposed, however. They proposed to widen it 4 feet and put 4 more feet of shoulders on it, and I disapproved it for the simple reason that you go through that tundra country with `an- other 8 feet-that road was finished 36 years ago. It was not reseeded, it was resodded. When you and I were up there you ~aw how much that grass has grown on that tundra. The gaps are still there `after 36 years and some of our ecologists tell us it will be 100 years before it close's in. I am simply not going to let them' blast out another 8 feet on it. But the road that is there is a fine road. But a road here, in my judgment, just simply is no good. Secretary UDALL. The difference, Oeorge, if I may say so, is, this is very rugged country. This lake is in a fiord, it is like a fiord. To build a highway would mean that you ~would just have to blast this off the side of the mountain and scar it, visibly to anybody. It is much better to have a ferry. It is much better, rather than climbing up these steep cliffs, to have a tramway. I think if th~ committee would go out and look at it on the ground that that would be your decision. I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I would be against a helicopter myself, though. PAGENO="0052" 960 Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, if we put these trains in, bow are you or the Director of the Park Service or the Director of the~ Bureau of Otitdoor Recreation going to be able to resist the pressures from the ski groups who insist that there be cut through the timber areas slopes where they can ski down from the top down to the bottom? Secretary TJDALL. Well, this doesn't bother me at all. There is hardly a year has gone by since I have been Secretary that there hasn't been some kind of proposal to put a tram in the Grand Canyon, and this I know would cause a furor, a conservation controversy of the first magnitude. I think we just have to recognize that this is a very special area and that this is a good solution in this unique area and that we are not opening the door or providing an opening wedge to anything else. Mr. SAYLOR. The reason I am asking these questions, I don't say that I am opposed to it, but I just think we ought to establish the record. right now so that somebody can't come along at some later date and say that this committee by its authorization of this park, in the concept that has been given by you, Mr. Hartzog and Dr. Crafts, was so broad that you or Mr. Hartzog or Dr. Crafts or your successors next year, 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, did not contemplate that other uses and other clearings, which are completely inconsistent with the purpose of putting in the tram, this is the reason II am asking these questions. I am delighted to hear this. Of course, I might say to you that putting a tramway may have caused the controversy. Putting a couple of dams or threatening to put a dam caused a little controversy in another area and I just want at this time to congratulate you for taking it out. Secretary TJDALL. Well, I want to help the gentleman make the record that he is trying to make. I have a rather short life span in my office. George Hartzog, if he takes care of his health, I hope will be around a decade or more. I think we ought to hear his views with regard to looking at the park system as a whole whether he sees any areas where there should be trams or ski lifts or things of that kind.. Mr. SAYLOR. Now, Mr. Secretary, if this park is established, is there any other agency of Government that at the present time or in their present plans, that you know of, are threatening to invade this pro- posed park by any dam or reservoir? Dr. CRAFTS. No; not under the Senate-passed bill. Mr. SAYLOR. All right. What about the bill that has been proposed here in the North Cascades report which we have before us here under date of March 1967, which indicates that we have two sections to our national park? Is there any threatened invasion of this national park by any license granted to anybody for a reservoir? Dr. CRAFTS. No license granted at the time that report was issued, no FPC license. So the answer to your question, a~ I understand it, is no. However, there is a proposed FPC application which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet been filed with the FPO and which may be many years-several years off and maybe many years off, for a possible small reservoir I think about a mile or less in length in this part of Thunder Creek, to augment the water supply of Seattle City Light & Power. PAGENO="0053" 961 Mr. TAYLOR. Let me interrupt for just 1 second. We understood yesterday that the Secretary had to be at the White House by 11:30. When you feel you should, you may leave, Mr. Secretary. Secretary tIDALL. I would ask the indulgence of the committee. I have a personal appointment with the President. I would only ask under those circumstances. It is not any ordinary meeting. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Hartzog and Dr. Crafts can stay and we can con- tinue asking them questions. Secretary UDALL. They have already demonstrated their ability to answer them. Mr. SAYLOR. Tell him for me if he wants to see a scenic rivers bill he should get on the telephone and straighten out the Governor of Penn- sylvania. Secretary TIDALL. Maybe I will do that myself. Mr. SAYLOR. I don't care how it is done, I would like to see somebody get him the word because apparently he has missed it. Dr. GRAFTS. Do you wish me to continue, sir? Mr. SAYLOR. Yes. Dr. CRAFTS. The Senate modified the administration's proposal by expanding the recreation area up Thunder Creek to accommodate the proposed location of the Thunder Creek Dam site and reservoir. So the answer, to my knowledge, is that with the Senate-passed bill the answer to the question is no. Mr. McCLm~E. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. ASPINALL. Would my colleague yield? Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. We have a letter here under date of July 12 from Mr. John M. Nelson, superintendent of lighting, about this very matter. The last part of the second paragraph reads: "However, since no description of the boundary is given, other than the graphic illustra- tion, we wish to go on record as requesting that no part of the line designating the Ross Dam National Recreational Area go below the 1,850 contour as it crosses Thunder Creek and McAllister Creek." Would that be acceptable? Dr. CRAFTS. This is the first time I have heard of this letter, Mr. Chairman. I don't know just where the 1,850-foot contour is. Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, I don't think that the author of this letter knew, either, because we can't tell from the maps that we have. But he knows that a 1,850-foot elevation perhaps is necessary for the con- struction of this reservoir for the city of Seattle. Dr. CRAFTS. Mr. Hartzog mentioned a different thing, if you will pardon me. He is talking about the proposal to raise the level of Ross Lake. This is accommodated in the national recreation area. I believe from what the Chairman read, the proposal is that he wants to be sure that this area is large enough to accommodate the proposed Thunder Crock Reservoir. Mr. ASPINALL. The new one. The old was found to be infeasible. So now they are proposing a smaller one. Dr. CRAFTS. Higher up. Mr. ASPINALL. Upstream? Dr. CRAFTS. Upstream. Mr. ASPINALL. That is right. Dr. CRAFTS. I have no idea how far upstream they want to go. PAGENO="0054" 962 Mr. ASPINALL. To the 1,850 contour. Dr. CRAFTS. Mr. Hartzog says it accounts for that, the 1,850-foot con- tour, but I think the answer is that we do not want dams and reservoirs in national parks. If this reservoir is necessary for Seattle City Light & Power Co., in the judgment of the committee and the Congress-and I certainly cannot assess that-then I think this area should be ex~ panded to permit it but it should not be in the national park. Mr. ISAYLOR. I just want to say, Dr. Crafts, as far as I personally am concerned, if it is a question of water for human consumption, this is one thing. If it i's a question of building a dam up there for power, this is an entirely different matter. As far as I am concerned, this needn't be built. As far as I am concerned, I just eliminate the whole area. I am sorry that I have never `been privileged to be in this area, but if it is an area as good as the pictures say it is then I am for preserving it for the people and not to `take care of an outfit to produce electricity. Dr. CRAFTS. There are three major drainages, Granite Creek, Panther Creek, Thunder Creek. Every one of those valley's are superlative valleys. Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. M0CLtrnE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I `have this basic question in regard to the `proposal for building a dam within the recreation area. Do we have criteria established as to whether this is a compatible use in a recreation area? Mr. HARTZOG. This Thunder Creek Dam would be compatible in the recreation area; yes, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. Would this be true of any recreation area or are you speaking of this `specific instance? Mr. IIARTZOG. This specific one, sir, this specific one. You see, the Congress has affirmed the definition of these recreation areas by the President's Recreation Advisory `Council, and they include national seashores and lakeshores `as well as these reservoir recreation areas. My answer would be different if it were national seashore. Mr. MaCLimE. My question is not so `much as to whether it could en- compass an existing one `but as to whether the future development within a recreation area would find further dam `building, further reservoir construction within a recreation area to be a compatible use as a general matter. Mr. HARTz0G. Well, I `can answer your question in general by saying yes, and then qualify it by saying you have to look at each one of them and see how compatible it is. Mr. McCLuaE. I was a little startled by the thought that if we establish a recration area, then a major portion of that recreation area might be under water. Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. That is why I say I would have t.o qualify it to say a particular one. But this one on Thunder Creek we have been over repeatedly with the Seattle City Light, and it is compatible with the recreation area the way they pTan to make their application and the way they plan to build it. Mr. MaCLimE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. SAYLOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, if I might. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho. PAGENO="0055" 963 Mr. MCCLUIrn. Within the Ross Lake Recreation Area how many private land holdings are there above the waterline not associated with the reservoir itself? A substantial number or just a very few? Mr. HARTZOG. No; there is no substantial number. There are 1,117 acres of private land in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area. We understand from Mr. John Nelson, Seattle City Light expects to acquire all but 200 acres for the proposed Copper Creek Reservoir site. Mr. MCCLtTRE. Is that scattered or pretty- Mr. HARTZOG. Scattered; yes, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. Now, Ross Lake, as I recall it is a reservoir. Mr. HARTZOG.YeS; three of them. Mr. MCCLURE. Completely? Mr. HARTZOG. Yes. Mr. MoCLuI~. There was no lake there prior to construction of the dam? Mr. HARPZOG. No. Mr. MCCLITRE. So the construction of the dam has provided a water- based recreation that did not exist there before? Mr. HARTZ0G. That is correct. Mr. MCCLURE. Who controls the surface of the lake? Mr. HARTZOG. I am not sure I understand what you mean. Mr. MCCLURE. What if we get into the problem of floating marinas, and so on, on the surface of the lake, who will have control of that if it is in a national recreation area? Mr. HARTZOG. Well, these lakes being developed by Seattle City Light, these facilities would have to be coordinated with them. Mr. MCCLURE. If the surface of the lake itself is beyond our control, or perhaps I should put it the other way around, perhaps we have to acquire through easement control of the use of the surface of the lake? Mr. IE[ARTZ0G. That is not necessary in this instance since they already promote a very active recreation program on these lakes now. Mr. MCCLURE. I was thinking in terms of what might be deemed an incompatible use, if that should develop. Do we have the authority to control under the national recreation area the surface use of the water? Mr. ETARTZOG. Well, I think we would have to submit you a view of the Solicitor on that, sir. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess. Mr. MCCLURE. I wonder if you could do that at least for me per- sonally, and perhaps for the committee. Mr. HARTZOO. I would be pleased to. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. I have no further questions. (Letter of June 28, 1967, from Dr. Crafts to Senator Jackson follows:) U.S. DEP~u~PMENP O1~ THE INTERIOR, BuREAU OT OUTDOOR RECREATION, Washington, D.C., Jnne 28,1967. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: At the May 29 Hearings on 5. 1321 (at Wenatchee) a question was raised a's to the control of the recreational use of the waters of Lake Chelan. We have discussed this matter with representatives of our Solicitor's office arid have been informed by them that, although they are unaware of any specific PAGENO="0056" 964 court determinations on the question of the navigatdlity of the Lake,, they are quite sure that the size and the use that is made of the Lake are such that it would be considered a navigable body of water. In these circumstances, the bed of the Lake would be in State ownership, and the use of the waters for fishing, boating, swimming and other public recreational purposes would be a matter for control by the State. This control, and use would be subject, of course, to outstanding rights to the use of water by private parties under State law. The Coast Guard has determined that the Chelan River is not a navigable watercourse under the jurisdiction of the United States. See 33 OF~R 2.99-255. This regulation makes no mention of Lake Chelan. ~or purposes of making its determinations, the Coast Guard defines "navigable waters of the United States," in part, as those waters ". . . which, either by themselves or by uniting with other waters, form a continuous waterway on which boats or vessels may navigate or travel between two or more States. .. ." See 33 OFR 2.10-5(a). Thus a water- course like Lake Chelan may not meet Coast Guard requirements, even though it may be navigable, because lit is wholly within one State. Since it is not contemplated under the legislative proposal that the State will cede any of its jurisdiction to the National Park Service, State jurisdiction over the use of the waters of Lake Ohelan will continue in the event that a por- tion of that Lake is Included within the boundaries of North Cascades National Park as proposed in S. 1321. Sincerely yours, EDWARD C. CRAFTS, Director. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Utah. Mr. BURTON of Utah. No questions. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. }Tartzog and Dr. Crafts. Without objection a statemei~t from Stewart M. Brandborg, execu- tive director of the Wilderness Society, a telegram from H. P. Scheel, Stone Co., a telegram from Eskil Anderson, president, Northwest Mining Association, a letter from Daniel A. Poole, Wildlife Manage- ment Institute, a statement from C. R. Gutermuth, vice president, Wildlife Management Institute, and a statement from Anthony Wayne Smith, president, National Parks Association, will be placed in the record at this point. (The material follows:) STATEMENT OF STEWART M. BRANDBORG, ExECUTIvE DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. Chairman: I am Stewart M. Brandborg, Executive Director of The Wilder- ness Society, a national conservation organization of 40,000 members head- quartered in Washington, D.C., whose primary goal is the preservation for future generations of an adequate representation of America's wildland heritage. The Wilderness Society is pleased that the Committee has reached the stage of final consideration of legislation relating to Washington State's North Cascades. Several bills are before the Committee, but in our views, only three of them approach the problem realistically: S. 1321, H.R. 8970, and H.R. 12139. We support S. 1821, which represents a reasonable reconciliation of conflicting demands upon the area. However, we believe that several amendments to S. 1321 would strengthen it considerably. We also believe that nothing less than S. 1321 will be satisfactory. Proposals have been macic to limit the Park area to the so-called northern unit, the Picket Range area to the west of Ross Lake. The area is far too rugged and far too limited in size to support major park development and major park visitation. For this reason it is absolutely essential that both the northern and the southern units of the proposed park, together with the proposed recreation areas, be established. There is simply no other way to provide the necessary protection for the scenery and the wild lands and at the same time provide appropriate development for public recreation. Just outside the boundaries of the proposed park and recreation areas are lands of outstanding scenic and recreational value. In order to avoid conflicts over the use of these lands, they have been omitted from the proposed park and recreation areas. We believe the facts will show that relatively minor additions to the park in these areas would substantially enhance the recreational value of PAGENO="0057" 965 the area without measurable adverse effect on any other use in the North Cascades. Our proposals (see attached may) are as follows: (1) Cascade River Anien,dment.-Tjnder H.R. 8970 only the upper six miles of the North Fork below Cascade Pass would be included in the park. The entire Cascade River drainage upstream from Marble Creek (except for portions already within the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area) should be a part of the park. The Cascade River Amendment would place within the park, or the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, all of the Cascade River drainage included by conservationists in their 1963 proposal for a park. Also under this amendment ten miles of existing road would be added to the park, protecting one of the park's most scenic entrances. As it now stands, H.R. 8970 includes only five miles of the existing roadside and protects only a short section of what is a major entrance valley to the park. By moving the boundary westward to add 32,880 acres to the park, the amendment would not only add ten miles of road, but would quadruple the potential park campsites in this valley-the main valley on the west side of the park. (2) Granite Creek Amendment-The entire Granite Creek Valley should be added, enlarging the park by 45,000 acres. While the 1966 North Cascades Study Team Report described this valley as one where "there is no question as to the physical qualifications of the area for park status," H.R. 8970 affords Granite Creek no protection. Instead, the area would be left exposed to cutting and other development under Forest Service management. The route of the North Cross-State Highway runs the length of this valley. The road is the logical major visitor access road on the east side of the park. As much of this highway as possible should be placed within the park to afford its forest environment, including the alpine scenic climax at Washington Pass, the very highest form of scenic protection. (3) Mo'u~nt Baker Amendment.-The Mt. Baker region should be added to the park as the National Park Service proposed in the North Cascades Study Team Report. This would enlarge the park by 135,580 acres. Mt. Baker and its Im- mediate vicinity provide `a geologic record upon which a complete story of the geology of the Cascade Range can be illustrated and interpreted. Here is the only sector of the entire Cascade Range that illustrates all chapters of its gceiogic history. With this amendment the grossly inadequate provisions for visitation in the park can be alleviated through use of the already developed Heather Meadows between Mt. Baker and Mt. Shuksan. Existing roads and trails should be used for aceess to panoramic viewpoints. The existing ski installations here could continue as structures predating the park and need not serve as a precedent for the con- struction of additional facilities elsewhere within the park. (4) Glacier Peak Amen4ment.-iPhe Glacier Peak-Image Lake region of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area is one `of the most scenic in the entire Cascades. Kennecott Copper Corproation plans an open-pit mine in the very heart of this area. Plans call for constructing roads to the mine, operating a mill, and dumping waste tailings for 20 to 30 years-all within the Wilderness Area. Trans- fer of this region from Forest Service to Park Service administration would place greater restrictions on mining operations, permit condemnation and pur- chase of patented mining claims, and eliminate further prospecting. (5) Lake Chelan Amen4ment.-Eastern slopes above Lake Chelan for 20 miles down to Safety Harbor Creek must be preserved from logging. As one travels' up Lake Ohelan the Mountain scenery begins suddenly and dramatically at Safety Harbor. Due to the extensive hunting recreation pattern established here, the amend- ment would designate the area as a National Recreation Area under Park Service management. This amendment would add 74,000 acres to the total amount of national recreation area in the North Cascades region. (6) Wilderness Amen4moat.-Legislatiou should establish wilderness zones within the park and recreation areas' as part of the National Wilderness Preser- vation System. Essentially all roadless portions of the park and recreation areas should be protected as wilderness. This protection should come with the enabling act and not have to wait a separate act of Congress. (7) Bu,iattle River Aineadm~~nt.-Sulphur, Downey, and Buck Creek of the Suiattle River drainage should be added, each in its entirety, to enlarge the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area by 13,380 acres. HR. 8970 leaves `one mile of Sulphur Creek, two miles of Downey Creek, and five miles of Buck Creek unpro- `tected from logging. These are still wilderness valleys, logically part of the Glacier Peak Wilderness where their headwaters lie. They are lowland valleya PAGENO="0058" 966 leading into the heart of one of the most heavily glacier-clad regions of the Cas- cade crest: the Snowking, Buckindy, Dome Peak, Ptarmigan Traverse Section, between Cascade Pass and Image Lake. (8) Whitechuck River Amendment.-The Whiteehuck Valley, eastward one and a half miles from the present road-end, should be added to enlarge Glacier Peak Wilderness Area by 2,120 acres. This valley is the classic lowland wilder- ness walk of the western Oascades and is the most heavily used wilderness trail in the Mt. Baker National Forest. Every possible mile of it must be kept as is for the easy wilderness experience it affords. (9) Horseshoe Basin Amendmen/t.-Phe Horseshoe Basin-Windy Peak region at the eastern-most part of the North Cascades Primitive Area should be' added, enlarging the Pasayten Wilderness by 24,000 acres. This major entrance to the wilderness from the east, is one of the most beautiful parts of the entire area. The existence of 12,000 acres of commercial timber appears to be the primary consideration leading to its exclusion from wilderness. This forest would be far more valuable if left standing as part of the wilderness environment rather than becoming an insignificant increment to the extensive commercial timber within the Okanogan National Forest. (The Senate has already adopted part of this amendment.) (10) Lightning Greek Armendn~ent.-The Lightning Creek drainage, east of the northern end of Ross Lake, should be added to the Pasayten Wilderness Area, not to Ross Lake Recreation Area as proposed in H.R. 8970. Conservationists oppose the North Cascades Study Team proposal for a road along the eastern shore of Ross Lake, connecting the North Cross-State Highway and the Trans- Canada Highway, which would cut through the valley of Lightning Creek. Designation of this valley as part of the Wilderness Area would greatly reduce the likelihood that the road would be constructed. Proposals to confine north- south traffic to the surface of Ross Lake are commendable. We feel it is important to reiterate that these additions can be made without adverse effects. The areas involved have hut limited resources suitable for com- mercial use. The economic gains to be derived from such commercial use prob- ably would be many times less than the economic gains which could be derived from holding tourist-recreationis'ts several more days In the area. We urge the Committee to report H.R. 8970 with these recommended amend- ments before the adjournment of the 90th Congress. If, because of time limita- tions before adjournment, the Committee finds that it can report favorably the Senate Act (S. 1321) with some of the strengthening amendments supported by conservationists, we would urge that it consider at a later date the feasibility of making others of these proposed additions. We would urge the Committee to request the Forest Service and the National Park Service to report on these recommended additions at the time the two agencies submit their joint develop- ment plan for the North Cascades region. We appreciate the opportunity to present these views. (l)Northern'area: Pasayten Wilderness (2)' Southern area: Glacier Peak Wi1derne~s *North Cascades National Park Ross Lake Recreation Area (ParkServlce) Proposed Amendments Areas to be undei Park Service Administration Mess to be unde~ Forest Service Administration PAGENO="0059" 967 SEATTLE, WASH,, August 1, 1968. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Chairman an Interior and Insular Affairs, House Of/Ice BwtldAng, Washington, D.C.: Relative to pending North Cascades National Park bill, respectfully point out this is an extremely hazardous and dangerous area from the standpoint of adverse weather, storms, avalanches and even land slides during stormy weather which can come up at a moment's notice. In the upper of eastern part of the proposed area on many occasions during the year, it simply is unsafe for unsuspecting peo- pie to enter such an area. As you also know, Mother Nature endowed this area with quite a variety of mcials and minerals which are important now and which will become impor- tant to our country's welfare in the future. I am a small minerals operator who has made my living and spent my life in this area. I now have certain mineral claims mainly of silica and talc which I am now working. Aside from these claims being my livelihood, these silica and talc minerals are vital to existing and future industry to the State of Washington. I have every legal right to operate these claims on a going concern basis inas- much as I have been in the area for several years. This North Cascades Park project is not economic or in the interest of Washington State, hte taxpayers or the country in any form. However, if Mr. Udall and company pressures your committee sufficiently to pass this bill, in the name of justice, common sense and the future welfare of the Pacific Northwest, I respectfuly request you consider specifically omitting such minerals as silica, talc, gold, silver and copper from the bill. This would fairly allow us citizens who have spen~t a lifetime in this area to continue working for the good of our community. Respectfully submitted. H. P. SCHEEL STONE Co., By H. P. SCHEEL. SPOKANE, WASH., July 29, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Represontatives, Washington, D.C.: The Northwest Mining Association restates its unalterable opposition to the establishment of the North Cascades National Park under any of the pending bills. In view of the overwhelming opposition to all of the proposals which exists any further action should be deferred. NORTHWEST MINING ASSOCIATION, JIJ5KIL ANDERSON, President. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, Washin~iton, D.C., July 29, 1968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: The Institute would appreciate having the en- closure on the North Cascades proposals included in the hearing record Should the Comgiittee decide to incorporate statements from other than members of Con- gress and federal agencies. Like many national conservation organizations, the Institute Is hopeful that a significant amount of the undisturbed North Cascades country can be designated for wilderness protection under both national forest and national park ad- ministration. The national recreation areas that are contemplated in conjunc- tion with wilderness protection will provide suitable access to the wilderness sec- tions and will accommodate the non-wilderness kinds of reereation and develop~. ment normally requested in areas of that kind. Sincerely, DANIEL A. Pooi.n, secretary. PAGENO="0060" 968 STATEMENT or C. R. GuTERMUTI', VicE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Gutermuth, vice president of the Wildlife Manage- ment Institute, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. The InstitUte is one of the older national conservation organizations, and its program has been devote& to the improved management of natural resources in the public interest for more than fifty years. Like conservationists everywhere, we are pleased that the committee has sched- uled a hearing on proposals relating to the North Cascades. We are deeply con- cerned about the North Cascades and the permanent maintenance of wilderness conditions there. Without question, the North Cascades comprise about the finest remaining great wilderness and scenic area of the contiguous United States. Few serious intrusions have been made there, although a number of projects have been suggested that could alter the wilderness character of large sections of the coun- try. The entire area is being pressed by peripheral development, however, which will continue. The Congress, therefore, has an excellent opportunity to designate a large portion of the North Cascades for permanent wilderness protection. Never again will there be a better opportunity to preserve as much wilderness as there is now. The overriding determinant in the Institute's reaction to the House and Senate bills is the preservation of wilderness. It is believed that much of the North Cas- cades should stay as they are, as wilderness, and that there should be a minimum of development of any kind. Here again, this development should be done only in designated areas, and the vast bulk of the pristine country should not be roaded or invaded by trams, funiculars, heliports, and anything of that kind. The area should be dedicated mostly to wilderness preservation. Both the U.S. Forest Service, the agency that long has had administrative and managerial responsibility for much of the North Cascades, and the National Park Service are capable wilderness managers. Neither agency, it is believed, has such superior ability for wilderness management that would warrant the shifting of primary responsibility from one to the other. The most important question facing the Congress is the designation of the maximum amount of wilderness in the North Cascades, from the existing Glacier Peak Wilderness, north to the Canadian border, and to the west and the east so that all worthy areas are marked for protection. In any action that Congress takes, and conserva- tionistS hope that it will do so promptly, we strongly urge that maximum pro- tection be given to wilderness, and that no opportunities are overlooked to ~eliminate and to minimize future potential sources of friction with that objec- tive. Congress `has the opportunity to resolve many of the most pressing threat~ against the North Cascades wilderness, including mining, which is the most serious in the Glacier Park Wilderness at this time. The Institute wishes to `express support for the establishment of a new wilderness national park to the west of Ross Lake in the Picket Range, provid- ing for an appropriate setback from the lake for a national recreation area, and including Mt. Shukshan, but not the Mt. Baker Recreation Area. Such a park would cover about 330,000 acres. This land, of course, would be transferred from the Forest Service. While the Mt. Baker area contains superb scenery, it is much too developed to be included in a wilderness national park. Its principal purpose for many years has been for outdoor recreation, and we see no need to change that now. The area services a long-established outdoor recreation need. We also wish to support the several recommendations that have been made for the creation `of a new national recreation area, embracing both shores of Ross Lake, extending westward along the new cross-mountain highway to the approximate vicinity of Newhalem, and to' the east to the approximate boundary recommended by the Forest Service in the North Cascades Report for the pro- posed Eldorado Peaks High Country. We would suggest further that the southern boundary of the national recreation area be along the line of a new Eldorado WildernesS Area to `be created north of and adjoining the Glacier Peak Wilder- ness. Administration of the national recreation area, roughly extending along the cross-mountain highway could be by either the Forest Service or the National Park Service. Under this suggestion, it is contemplated that the Eldorado Wilderness Area would be administered by the Forest Service. As stated earlier, the Institute's interest is in the preservation of wilderness, and if the Congress creates the new wilderness area that has been suggested, then we see no need to transfer the land to the National Park Service. Should it not be the desire of Congress to PAGENO="0061" 969 expand the wilderness as suggested, then we would strongly urge as an alterna- tive that the area under discussion be placed in a southern unit of a new wilderness national park as suggested in S. 1321. But as long as the area is ~designated for permanent wilderness protection, we see little need for trans- ferring it to the National Park Service. As stated earlier, both the Park Service and the Forest Service, are capable wilderness managers, and there is little to be gained, in our view, by shifting administrative responsibility from one agency to another when the preservation of wilderness is the primary manage- ment objective for that land. With reference to the Glacier Peak Wilderness, it is hoped that the Congress will extend the boundary westward to close off the damaging White Chuck and Suiattle Rivers corridors. Additionally, there are some other needed westward boundary adjustments, north of the Suiattle River. These are described In the statements of the Sierra Club and others, and the Institute fully supports them. Further, we would like to see the Glacier Peak Wilderness extended to the northeast across the Stehekin River-even further than was suggested by the Forest Service in the North Cascades Report. The existing low-grade road up the Stehekin River should be abandoned and naturalized. Announced plans of the Kennecott Copper Corporation to develop an open pit mine on the claims it holds on 3,000 acres of the Glacier Peak Wilderness are not in the public interest. We hope that the company officials' are aware of the adverse national reaction that such a development would stimulate. The Forest Service is powerless to halt this development should the corporation decide to proceed, and we urge the Congress to explore every step possible to' prevent min- ing in the incompaFable Glacier Peak Wilderness as well as elsewhere in the designated wildernesu of the North Cascades. We support establishment of the recommended Okanogan or Pasayten Wilder- ness east of Ross Lake to be administered by the Forest Service. Various gfoups have recommended certain minor boundary refinements, particularly the inclu- sion of the Horseshoe Basin on the eastern extremity of the wilderness. We hope that this will be done. Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge that the North C'as~ eades Report covered considerably more area than the bill before the committee. It is believed that the needed expansion of Mt. Rainier National Park should have early priority. The desirability for this expansion has been emphasized by the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Outdoor Rec- reation. We hope that this will be considered. Unlike the Cascades further to the north, this area is under much greater population pressure, and any delay in making the boundary refinements will serve to make such action more difficult in the future. And finally, Mr. Chairman, we also urge the committee to consider the estab- lishment of wilderness areas recommended in the North Cascades Report in the vicinity of the Alpine Lakes-Mt. Stuart and Mt. Aix regions. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to acknowledge that all of `this sounds like a big order. But it is an order In keeping with the magnificent expanse of the North Cascades country, a fragile country of superb natural character that man has the power to destroy or to preserve. Conservationists hope that the decision is to preserve the wilderness of that Incomparable country. STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WAYNE SMITH, PBa5IDENT, NATIONAL PAnEs ASSOCIATION My name is Anthony Wayne Smith. I am President and General Counsel of the National Parks Association, 1701 Eighteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.O. I appreciate the invitation to submit this statement. The National Parks Association is a private, non-profit, educational `and scien- tific Association concerned primarily with the protection of the great national parks of America, but also with the protection and restoration of the natural environment generally. It publishes the monthly National Parks Magazine, re- ceived by all members, nearly 40,000 persons. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs very kindly invited me to testify on the present matter on April 25, 1967, and my full views are in the Senate record; the viewpoints I expressed at that time still seem to me to be valid, and I would appreciate your indulgence in allowing me to submit them for your consideration here. PAGENO="0062" 970 The effort to bring together a comprehensive peeposal for the protection of the natural country or the North Oascades mountains for the benefit of people everywhere has been a difficulty endeavor. The various Gorvernlnent agencies and Congressional Committees which have concerned themselves with this problem are to be congratulated on their several centributions. The public interest, in my judgment, now requires that this project move ahead with all reasonable dispatch. If you will review the testimony I submitted last year, you will see that the present Bill S. 1321 falls far short of response to those recommendations. On the other hand it is superior to other measures which have been introduced, as tested by these same standards, and the time has come when differences ought to be composed. As we understand it, S. 1321 has at least the acceptance of both the Park Service and the Forest Service, and this is a tangible gain, gratifying to me because of the initiative I took several years ago to bring the agencies together in the hope of achieving a consensus. I have tried to emphasize the importance of the protection of the foot and horse trail country in the Cascades; this is the thing which launched and sustained the strong movement of recent years for the protection of the Cascades; the pro- ponent~ of the parks have not had in mind that the region shOuld be filled up with roads and camp grounds, nor with helicopters or funiculars. I think that the protection of the region against mechanical intrusions will continue to be the main drive en the part of conservation organizations. (Whereupon, the subcommittee proceeded to other business.) (EDIToR'S NOTE.-The following proceedings were held before the full committee prior to markup of H.R. 8970:) PAGENO="0063" a TO ESTABLISH THE NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK AND ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, TO DESIGNATE THE PASAYTEN WILDERNESS AND TO MODIFY THE GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS, IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1968 HousE o~ REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSUlAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The committee nTlet, pursuant to notice, at 9 :55 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Wayne Aspinall, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Interior and Insular AfFairs will be in session for the business that is regularly scheduled to come before us. The first order of business will be the taking of testimony on H.R. 8970 by Mr. Meeds, a bill to establish the North Cascades National Park and Ross Lake National Recreation Area, to designate the Pasayten Wilderness and to modify the Glacier Peak Wilderness, in the State of Washington, and for other purposes. The bill was favorably reported with amendment by the Subcom- mittee on National Parks and Recreation. It was introduced as the result of an executive communication from the Department of Inter- ior. The subcommittee amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of H.R. 8970 and inserts the text of S. 1321 as passed by the Senate. The related bills by Mr. Pelly, H.R. 12139, and by Mrs. May, H.R. 16252, are also before the committee for disposition. While we were in the Northwest holding hearings, it was announced that there would be opportunity for those representing organizations in Washington, who desired to do so to appear before this committee or the subcommittee and to give their statements. The executive director of the National Wildlife Federation has re- quested that he be permitted to be heard, and we shall listen to Mr. Thomas L. Kimball at this time for his statement. Mr. Kimball, it is good to have you before the committee, and we shall be glad to listen to your statement. STAThME~T OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. KIMBALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I particularly appreciate your consideration in this respect. (971) PAGENO="0064" 972 I am Thomas L. Kimball, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation which has its national headquarters at 1412 16th Street NW., here in Washington, D.C. By way of identification, the federation is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The federation has affiliates in 49 States. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and individuals. When combined with asso- ciate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federa- tion, these number approximately 2½ million persons. I welcome the invitation to appear here today and shall endeavor to be as brief as possible in recognition of the committee's heavy agenda of business. Mr. Chairman, as members of the committee know, a five-person study team spent 21/2 years in reviewing the North Cascades area of the State of Washington. Recommendations of the study team, as issued in a printed report in October 1965, could be summarized as these: the two Interior De- partment representatives sought a two-unit national park, the two Agriculture Department representatives proposed no park, and the chairman (also from Interior) favored a one-unit park. The study team was unanimous in recommending wilderness status for several portions of the area. Some of the proposals suggested recrea- tion area status for other portions. Thus, recommendations of the study team were by no means unanimous, as far as establishment of a park in this area is concerned. After having viewed much of the area personally and discussing var- ious points with others, these conclusions appear evident: 1. The North Cascades are of superb scenic quality and must be preserved for oncoming generations, a fact that meets almost unanimous approval; and 2. There appear to be major areas of disagreement on how the area is to be preserved and which Federal agency should have prime responsibility for management and preservation. While differences exist between boundaries and other features of the various proposals, when boiled down to the barest essentials the com- mittee would appear to have one basic decision to make: To decide whether the natural areas or wildernesses, or portions thereof, could be administered better by the National Park Service or by by the U.S. Forest Service. After giving consideration to all factors, the National Wildlife Federation has joined the Washington State Sportsmen's Council, Inc., in believing that the public interest would be served best by Forest Service administration for these reasons: 1. The Forest Service originated the wilderness concept among Federal agencies and has a long and enviable record of adminis- tration in this regard; 2. The Forest Service is presently administering much of the area as wilderness and has experienced and competent personnel with the necessary expertise already on the job; 3. Washington State already has two large national parks en- compassing approximately 1,130,000 acres not yet fully developed for maximum public enjoyment; 4. The Park Service tends to develop national parks for intense public recreation use which could have a deleterious effect on wil- derness protection; PAGENO="0065" 973 5. Wildernesses in the proposed North Cascades National Park region would be administered in accord with essentially the same principles, with otie notable exception: Hunting. Hunting is per- mitted within national forest wilderness but would be prohibited in national park wilderness. This difference is one major reason why thousands of sportsmen in the State of Washington oppose creation of a national park in the area; and, 6. We do not believe that one Federal program should be created at the expense of another without reasons more compel- ing than those proposed in S. 1321. Mr. Chairman, we hope the committee sees fit to preserve the in- comparable beauty of the North Cascades by determining the size and conditions under which the area shall be preserved and then permit the Federal agency currently administering the area to implement congressional directives. Regardless of whatever decision ultimately is made in this contro- versy, we would hope that the committee can give more time to con- sideration of all of the aspects to this complex situation. Most of the land involved already is iii governmental ownership and the urgency for acquisition that exists with respect to many other park, recreation areas, or seashore and lakeshore areas is not present in this situation. The more controversial aspects of the proposed North Cascades legislation revolve around the protection of the scenic beauty of the area from the resource exploiter, namely the timber and wildlife har- vester and mineral extractor. While it goes unquestioned that repre- sentative examples of unique forest specimens should be preserved in a pristine condition, Congress itself should make the decision on how much timber should be excluded from a sustained yield of forest prod- ucts after a detailed inventory of the timber within the area is com- pleted. Congress itself should determine how much of the area should be excluded from scientific wildlife management where recreational hunting is eliminated as a management tool, and this should be done only after careful consideration of the recommendations of the Wash- ington Game Commission. Most certainly the extraction of minerals could have the greatest possible deleterious effect upon scenic grandeur but the $600,000 mineral survey of the area by the U.S. Geological Survey will not be completed until the end of the year. Should not Congress know the variety, quantity, and economic value of all of the minerals located in the area before irrevocable decisions are made? The urgency of a decision of this magnitude would be apparent if the land needing protection was in private ownership but the great bulk of the area is already in Federal ownership ably administered by the U.S. Forest Service with no significant changes in its wild character or incomparable scenic beauty for the last 30 years. A congressional directive prohibiting timber cutting and mineral prospecting within the area until after all data currently being col- lected is made available and fully analyzed would afford all necessary protection until Congress renders a final decision. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if the committee decides there is a corn- peling need for a North Cascades National Park at this time, with the accompanying wilderness areas and recreation areas, we believe it should be limited to the alpine reaches of the Picket Range to offer PAGENO="0066" 974 facilities of a national park with a minimal effect on hunting and fishing opportunities. Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 14, adopted during our annual convention earlier this year, which expresses this principle. (See resolution on p. 934.) Mr. KIMBALL. I should like to close this statement with one adth- tional Observation. The National Wildlife Federation admires and respects `both the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. We believe th'at both the park system and the forest system are admin- istered efficiently by dedicated personnel capable of carrying out mandates of the Congress in manners which are credits to the Federal Government. Since the area is already under U.S. Forest Service Administration, we think it both logical and in the overall public interest to continue the present custodial agency which is capable of implementing congressional directives. Again, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the oppor- tunity of making these remarks. I truly hope they are useful to the committee in its deliberation's. It is in that context that these recom- mendations are made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kimball. As I understand your statement, it is to the effect that as far as you are concerned it is a matter of jurisdictional administrative responsi- bility and you favor the Forest Service for the area as `presently con- stituted. But if the committee' and Congress decide otherwise, you would like to see the park limited only to the picket range which is the alpine area, is that right? Mr. KIMBALL. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question: What are the hunting values that are involved as far as this area is concerned? We have had some testimony to the effect that there is not too much hunting within the `area concerned. Mr. KIMBALL. In the proposed park `the information I have, which I think was obtained from the Washington State Game Commission, in the north half of `the proposed park for about ~ man-days of hunt- i'ng used, the annual harvest was about 200 deer, 25 mountain goat, 25 bear, 400 grouse, annually. On the `south half about 3,100 man-days of hunting, 800 deer annual harvest, 15 mountain goat, 100 bear and about 2,500 grouse. `The `CHAIRMAN. This i's not a very `heavy harvest, is it, compared with other areas of the United States? Mr. KIMBALL. No, it is not considered to be rather heavy. The CHAIRMAN. On the other hand, this does not discount the fact that there are several thousand hunters who do frequent the area, is that correct? Mr. KIMBALL. That is correct. I think the important point here, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that wherever we have our larger national parks in the West invariably there does `develop a problem of over- population, particularly of the big game `animals, which necessitates some type of removal. ` The CHAIRMAN. Of course, when that `happen's, Mr. Kimball, the National Park Service does permit ~a limited kill. Is that correct? Mr. KIMBALL. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. They do in the Grand Teton, do they not? PAGENO="0067" 975 Mr. KIMBALL. That is the only one, and that was by congressional ~ctirective. In all the others the Park Service personnel remove them ~themseIves. The CHAIRMAN. Do I have any questions onmy left? The gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. You recommend that the wildernesses be administered by the National Forest Service? Mr. KIMBALL. That is correct. Mr. TAYLOR. You are probably familiar with the fact that the bill which is before us does provide that the two wilderness areas be ad- ministered by the National Forest Service? Mr. KIMBALL. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. If my colleague would yield, your position is that the wilderness area is limited within its operation because it includes more than the alpine area? Mr. KIMBALL. It includes this particular area where there has been at least in the mind of the Washington State sportsman some con- sider~ib1e quality hunting. This will eventually pose a problem of sci- entific wildlife management. If the annual harvest is not made, even- tually we will have some overpopulations there, and damage to the vegetation, and so forth, that is really similar to what has happened over most of our larger parks. The CHAIRMAN. The only overpopulation that could be considered as damaging to the environment would be the deer and perhaps the bear. Mr. KIMBALL. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. You do not have an overpopulation of grouse? Mr. KIMBALL. Nor of mountain goat, that is correct. It would be primarily a deer problem. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions to my right? If not, are there any additional questions to my left? Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. MCCLURE. I wanted to ask just this question: Does the com- parison between the restrictions on mining activity have any bearing on the decision of your organization? Mr. KIMBALL. No, it is our view that whatever restrictions on mining need to be made Congress could make in the legislation, and it could be administered by either of the Federal agencies. Mr. MCCLURE. The restrictions and differences in restrictions be- tween the Wilderness Act and the park status are not a conclusive or substantial factor. Mr. KIMBALL. No, sir. Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kimball, counsel has given me a tear sheet showing a statement by Director Hartzog. I would like to read for insertion at this place and also for your information: We have, however, adopted one new procedure to which I would like to call the committee's attention. We have provided you information on this before in connection with our general report. That is that in the Grand Tefon legislation of 1950 the Congress provided that where it was necessary to carry out control programs, they would be carried out by the Secretary in coopera- tiou with the State and that the Secretary would use, when he needed additional help other than the permanent ranger staff that we have, deputized park PAGENO="0068" 976 rangers which were licensed hunters in the State of Wyoming. This we have adopted as a policy throughout the national park system. When we have a big reduction program where we need additional people, this is the i~roeedure' we now follow, but they are deputized park rangers. They~ may ~wnrk with or without compensation. They hold a Federal appointment. It is not public recreational hunting. This shows that the Park Service has adopted a policy of taking care of an overpopulation of big game. But it does not permit-and this is what I understand you object to-harvesting of the game in accordance with the State game laws but only under management control regulations, is that correct ~ Mr. KIMBALL. Not exactly. I have been working with Director Hartzog on this problem and I think the Park Service is to be com- mended. I think this is final recognition of the fact that in these excess populations the wildlife needs to be managed and the surplus needs to be removed. But it is not classed as recreational hunting per Se. Although the ultimate objective is still the same, the removal of the surplus, they are to be commended, and we recognize this is the primary difference. It is not recreational hunting in what was once a traditional hunting area. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this: How many licenses were sold for hunting in this area during the year 196~T? Mr. KIMBALL. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not have that in- formation here. I would be happy to supply it, if it would be helpful. The CHAIRMAN. You could not hunt without a license in this area? Mr. KIMBALL. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So the number of licenses would be the number of hunters, as far as that is concerned. About the only real opposition that we have had to this legislation has come from the sportsmen's groups. If we had some definite information as to those who take advantage of the opportunity, it would be helpful to us. The gentle- man from California. Mr. JOHNSON. If the Chairman would yield, Mr. Kimball, do I understand you to say that you are in favor of the Park Service taking these animals if there is an overpopulation within the na- tional parks? Mr. KIMBALL. Under the procedure that Director Hartzog pre- sented to the committee; that is, where citizens would be deputized and permitted to assist in the removal. We have objected in the past to the fact that the removal has been done by park rangers. It is con- siderably more expensive, for one thing, and the same objective could be accomplished with citizen assistance. Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand it, if there is any killing within the park itself, you would want it to be done by sportsmen who would be deputized to go in and take the game. Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, we would hope it could be done that way. I realize in all instances this may not be possible. The Park Service, in our view, should have the right to determine this commensurate with protecting park values. We have discussed this before, and feel that this should be entirely at the discretion of the Park Service. We would certainly like to encourage them to do this whenever possible. Mr. JOHNSON. I know all of the sportsmen's groups interested in the excess game problem in Yosemite National Park did not give their full approval. We have advocated that special hunts take place on land adjacent to the park to reduce the herd. PAGENO="0069" 977 * Mr. KIMBALL. It may be helpful, Mr. Chairman, in this instance, if the committee does determine to create the park, to insert the same lan- guage that is in the Grand Teton bill, which does give the Secretary a little wider latitude in handling these particular problems. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Meeds. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Kimball, is it not true that the hunt for the deer in the North Cascades is a special high country hunt which takes place approximately 3 weeks prior to the regular deer hunting season in the State of Washington? Mr. KIMBALL. It depends on how large a park you are talking about. The one that is proposed in the Senate bill raditionally is in the higher elevations, as I understand it. Mr. MIDEDS. And these deer migrate down and many of them, which are high country deer, migrate into the lower country and are taken in the regular season also. Mr. KIMBALL. That depends on the snowfall and th~ zone. Some- times the snowfall does not come until after the season lower down in the pass. You are not always talking about the `same deer when you get into the hunting area. Mr. MEEDS. The primary reason that this high country hunt is sim- ply for the experience of hunting in the high country, and not the fact that the deer are there and only there, is it not? Mr. KIMBALL. I am not familiar enough with the hunting seasons to determine that, except my experience in Colorado is that the snow- fall is the governing factor on deer movements. You will have the deer in the high elevations stay there until snow forces them down. Some- times the hunting seasons below are already closed at the time the heavy snows come to force these animals down. Mr. MEEDS. That is true in this country that we are talking about in S. 1321. At the elevations involved here the type of snowfall you are talking about occurs almost every year. Mr. KIMBALL. I would guess that. Mr. NEEDS. So that many of the deer which, if they did not move out and were not taken in a regular season hunt, would migrate natu- rally anyhow and would probably be taken at the lower elevations. So the type of control that you are talking about might not be as neces- sary as in many other areas. Mr. KIMBALL. It would be my conclusion, after taking a look at the area, in spite of that, you would have some deer problems within the proposed park if you did not crop them. You have them in almost every other big national park in the West in similar elevations and terrain. Mr. MEEn5. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BURTON of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr. Kimball this question: If you have a deputized system, you would have to have a selection process, I presume. What would be your solution to that? How would you determine who is going to be a deputy and who is not, to make a fair selection? Mr. KIMBALL. I would say some years of experience in hunting should be considered as a preference. Perhaps those that have passed hunter safety courses should be given some priOrity. Mr. BURTON of Utah. I have never passed a hunter's safety course in my life, but I am one of the best hunters in the world. It is my Un- PAGENO="0070" 978 derstanding, Mr. Chairman, that in the Grand Tetons this is done by lot, or by draw. Mr. KIMBALL. I was going to say you would probably find an excess number who could qualify no matter what type of limitation you place on that, which would wind up by a lot determination. Mr. BURTON of Utah. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, it would be that way and not a subjective thing where a superintendent or even Mr. Hartzog, as competent as he is, would have the right to select who is going to hunt. We have had in previous years, as the Chairman knows,. some irregularities, to say the least, on military reservations where the base commander invites his friends in, or used to invite his friends in, to do a little hunting. I would hope that nothing in this bill would promote that sort of situation. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KIMBALL. I agree with you, all else being equal, it should be decided on a fair and equitable basis by lot. Mr. BURTON of Utah. Isn't that the way it is in the Tetons, Mr.. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. As I understood it, in the Tetoris, they do use a lottery system. Mr. KIMBALL. I think that is on a first-come, first-serve basis. The CHAIRMAN. This is the main difference between those who sup- port gun legislation for metropolitan areas and those who oppose it- those from the rural areas. We were raised with guns and the city peo- ple are scared to death of them. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to make an observation, to un- derstand that the purpose in allowing the kill in the national parks is entirely different from hunting. The purpose of a kill in the national park is to reduce the oversupply of game. Therefore, those who are most competent, rather than those who would just come by lot, are the ones I think should be selected. It will have to be on a subjective basis... An entirely different situation occurs on a military reservation or any place else. This is not hunting in the usual sense. The game limit which is usually applied is not the same thing. This is to reduce an ~ number of elk, x number of deer, or x number of goats out of an area. The superintendent or the people in the park should select their rangers who they determine best qualified to accomplish this purpose. The CHAIRMAN. Of course,.what the gentleman from Utah is saying is that the so-called professional hunter in the park service is more than likely no more qualified or perhaps not as well qualified as one who engages in hunting as a recognized sport. That is what he hag in mind. It is to see that there is fairness in reaching the end result.. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Foley, has a question.. Mr. FoLEY. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kimball, if you have answered this while I was out of the room, I apologize. You are familiar with the changes in the original proposal which created the Glacier National Recreation Area in which hunting is permitted? Mr. KIMBALL. Yes. Mr. FOLEY. Have you studied the effect those changes have on the available deer for hunting purposes as compared to the original park proposal? Mr. KIMBALL. Yes; it helped. Mr. FOLEY. Would you s~y the improvement is substantial? PAGENO="0071" 979 Mr. KIMBALL. Yes. Mr. FoLEY. I would like to associate myself with the suggestion which you and the gentlemen from Utah have made. I feel personally where harvesting of game is needed in all national parks the matter should be handled by some means to permit recreation hunters to participate and carry out that harvest. I would like to associate myself with that statement in the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I have one other question. This question has to do with hunting in recreational areas. So that this record may be complete, do you know whether or not hunting in recreational areas, as such, is permitted, Mr. Kimball? Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, it is. It is permitted, really, as on other Federal lands, under State law. Certainly the hunter has no objections to the creation of recreational areas or its application to hunting. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Kimball. Mr. KIMBALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, a letter from the Sierra Club under date of August 30, 1968, endorsing the legislation, will be made a part of the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The letter follows:) SIERRA CLUB, &x~n Francisco, Augnst 30,1968. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and InsuZar Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. D~n Mn. AsrIwAIi~: For a number of years we have worked with conservation- ists in the Northwest and elsewhere for improved recognition of the quality of the scenic resources of the North Cascades and for secure protection of those resources. We welcomed the work of the administration's North Cascades Study Team and endorsed its recommendation for a national park in that region. We are delighted that your committee is to soon take action on bills to estab- lish such a park. We sincerely hope the full committee will report out the bill already recommended by the subcommittee on National Parks. While this bill could be improved and strengthened in a number of respects, we think it would best serve the public interest to move this bill forward without change or further delay. We believe the following facts indicate the time has come to resolve this issue: (1) The issue has been under study almost continuously since the Kennedy administration began. The present recommendation is the result of an ex- haustive four-year study headed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. (2) There is almost no dispute over the inherent park quality of the area. It contains the largest living glacier system in the contiguous United States. (3) The record is heavy with support of this measure. Field hearings show a clear overall preponderance of support. Both congressmen representing the districts involved, the state's two senators, and the governor all support a park. The Senate passed the bill without opposition. (4) The recommendation of the Subcommittee on National Parks embodies a major compromise of this issue. Park supporters wanted a park twice as large. The pending proposal has reached an irreducible minimum. (5) The park entails minimum costs to the federal government as ~9% of the land is already in public ownership. (6) With completion of road construction now underway, access to this hitherto little known area will be good and public use ample, reserving simultaneously suitable wilderness areas. (7) While competing economic resources in this reduced proposal are marginal, the area badly needs firm protection frota continued Incursions by marginal and speculative enterprises. PAGENO="0072" 980 We appreciate your interest in moving this significant park legislation toward final approvaL Sincerely yours, MICHAEL MCCLOSKEY, Conservation Director. The CHAIRMAN. A letter from the American National Cattlemen's Association under date of August 13, which opposes the legislation will be made a part of the record at this place. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The letter follows:) AMERICAN NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Denver, Cob., Angust 18, 1968. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Chairman, How~e CommIttee on Interior and insular Affairs, Honse Office Building, Washington,, D.C. DEAR WAYNE: It has just come to our attention that a special hearing is sched- uled for September 4, 1968, on 11.11. 8970 and S. 1321 which would establish the North Cascades National Park. The American National Cattlemen's Association views with considerable alarm the classification of the North Cascades area as a national park. We feel that this area should remain under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and classify only those areas truly suited for recreation and wilderness status. Many individuals from the State of Washington have registered their concern with us that by placing the entire area into a national park would stifle the economic growth of many small communities. They also hasten to point out that many sections of the State of Washington currently under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and other land agencies have not, in any sense, developed into their full potential. We hope that the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee will see fit to not establish a North Cascades National Park. We think the proper approach is for the multiple use theory to continue to be applied in this area in order to preserve the economic welfare of the State as a whole. It would be appreciated if you would make this letter a part of the hearing record. Thank you. Cordially, C. W. MOMILLAN. The CHAIRMAN. A letter from the International Association of Game, Fish & Conservation Commissioners, which is opposed to the creation of the park, together with a copy of their resolution will be made a part of the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The letter and resolution follow:) INTERNATIONAL AssocIATION OP GAME, FISH & CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS, Sacramento, Calif., August 26, 1.968. Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Longworth Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ASPINALL: It is our understanding that the Committee on Interior `and Insular Affairs will bold bearings in early September on the proposed Na- tional Park in the North Cascades of the State of Washington. The International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners will not be able to have a representative at this bearing, but we would like to *reiterate the stand that we took at our last convention, which was held in Toronto, Canada, September 12-13, 1967. After thorough consideration we passed a resolution opposing the creation `of the Cascades National Park, but instead have `the area remain `a national forest under the jurisdiction `of the U.S. Forest Service. A copy of this resolution i's attached. It is also `our understanding that the National Wildlife Federation is `opposed to the creation of the proposed park. PAGENO="0073" 981 Since we will not be present `at your hea~ring, it would be `appreciated if this letter and the resolution could be entered as a part of the record of the hearing. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, W. T. SHANNON, President. REsoLUTIoN No. 3 PRoPoSED NATIONAL PARK IN NORTH CASCADES, STATE OF WASHINOTON Whereas the State of Washington, `smallest `of the Western States and second in population, has two established national parks embodying 1,137,000 acres; and Whereas the projected 10-year growth `of the State of Washington is 127 per- cent against a projected national `average of 36 percent, and licensed hunters and fishermen increasing in a proportionate `ratio; `and Whereas the National Park Se'rvice prohibits hunting on its `land's, `and fishing i's limited; and Whereas wildlife management under the Park Service leaves much to be de- sired, with problem's `of `overabundant elk `and deer herds in the existing parks of the State `of Washington; and Whereas mining operations would not be prohibited, as witness uranium mining in Grand Canyon National Park, and ~nine workings in Death Valley National Monument; `and Whereas the U.S. Forest Service provides for wildlife habitat, unlimited reorea'ti'on, `and `selected harvest; and Whereas the Washington State Department of Game, charged with game man- agement, possessing the pe.rs'on'ne'l equipped with the necessary knowledge, is do- ing `a commendable service: Now, therefore, b'e it Resolved, That the International Association of Game, Fish, and Con'serva- ti'on Commissioners `oppo'se's the creation `of a national park in the North Ca's- oade,s, State of Washington, `and be it further Resolved, That this area remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, and managed `by the U.S. Forest Service, as it has in the pa'st 61 years. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will now take up the mark- ing of H.R. 8970. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (Whereupon `the committee proceeded to mark up the bilL) PAGENO="0074" PAGENO="0075" APPENDIX TABLE 1-INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK 8970 or 8970 plus Signatures Redwoods Individual Organiza. State General 8970 10139 10139 10 amend- on peti- Coupons and North totals tions re- ments tions Cascades sponding Alabama 1 1 Alaska 1 6 2 9 Arizona 2 2 3 1 8 Arkansas 2 - 2 California 106 43 126 7 106 28 29 175 620 11 ~Colorado S 2 8 - 8 24 Connecticut S 5 2 1 12 25 Delaware 1 1 1 3 District of Columbia 2 2 1 1 2 8 Florida 2 1 3 6 -. ~Georgia 2 Hawaii -- 3 3 Idaho 11 24 2 1 21 3 2 64 4 Illinois 9 4 10 8 19 3 5 58 1 Indiana 2 1 3 2 1 9 Iowa 1 1 3 1 6 Kansas 2 1 I 1 3 8 Kentucky 2 1 1 ~_.___ I _ 1 2 8 louisiana 2 1 3 Maine 1 2 1 4 ~Maryland 2 2 4 2 5 15 Massachusetts..... 11 16 4 - 1 13 45 Michigan 6 2 9 1 5 13 36 Minnesota 2 - 2 1 1 1 1 8 Mississippi - Missouri 2 1 16 1 1 1 22 Montana 5 - - 11 3 19 1 Nebraska 2 - 2 1 5 Nevada 2 2 1 1 6 New Hampshire 2 2 4 New Jersey 7 7 1 4 6 13 38 New Mexico 1 2 3 3 9 New York 7 2 15 1 11 11 8 23 78 North Carolina I 1 1 3 North Dakota Ohio 6 5 1 4 2 4 22 1 Oklahoma 1 1 2 ~Oregon 31 7 66 4 12 125 1 5 251 6 Pennsylvania 3 1 10 1 5 1 11 32 1 Puerto Rico Rhode Island 1 1 1 2 5 South Carolina 1 1 South Dakota Tennessee 3 2 5 1 1 12 Texas 4 2 2 1 3 2 3 17 Utah 1 1 2 1 Vermont 1 1 2 Virginia 1 2 2 5 Washington 484 107 575 21 116 942 269 24 2,538 52 West Virginia 1 1 Wisconsin 1 1 1 3 2 4 12 Wyoming 2 1 3 Unassigned 3 33 1 22 59 Foreign 1 2 2 3 8 Total 732 181 973 42 331 1,146 344 380 4,129 80 (983) PAGENO="0076" 984 TABLE 2.-INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO THE NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK State Generally Want Want more Petition Preprinted Individual Organizations multiple use study signers cards totals responding Alabama Alaska 1 1 Arizona 1 3 4 Arkansas California 10 4 54 68 Colorado 9 9 Connecticut Delaware 2 2 District of Columbia _ Florida 2 12 14 Georgia 1 I Hawaii 1 i Idaho 6 10 1 130 147 5 Illinois I 1 2 Indiana 1 2 3 Iowa Kansas I I Kentucky 1 1 Louisiana Maine 1 1 Maryland Massachusetts 3 3 1 Michigan 1 1 Minnesota 22 22 Mississippi Missouri 1 1 2 Montana 3 1 72 76 2 Nebraska Nevada 1 1 1 6 9 New Hampshire 1 1 New Jersey 7 7 New Mexico 14 14 New York 2 4 23 29 North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 1 1 Oklahoma Oregon 4 24 30 135 193 2 Pennsylvania 2 2 Puerto Rico . Rhode Island South Carolina 2 2 South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah I 60 61 Vermont 1 44 45 2 Virginia 1 1 Washington 1, 074 125 1 51 598 5, 574 17, 422 132 West Virginia Wisconsin 2 2 Wyoming 7 7 Unassigned 11 320 331 Foreign 2 2 Total 1,115 172 53 632 6,516 8,488 144 I Includes 8 organizations. PAGENO="0077" 985 TABLE 3--INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION TO THE NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK IN PREPRINTED POSTCARDS AND LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL COMMITTEE Preprinted letters from- Preprinted -------~---~----~ ~-~--~ ---- ~-~- ------* State postcards, Hunters total Rockhounds and Skiers Trail Bike Pulp Total fishermen Riders workers Alabama Alaska 1 Arizona 2 1 3 Arkansas California 8 5 4 34 3 54 Colorado 1 3 Connecticut Delaware 2 2 District of Columbia Florida 12 12 Georgia Hawaii Idaho 70 25 30 5 130 Illinois 1 1 Indiana 2 2 Iowa Kansas 1 1 Kentucky 1 1 Louisiana Maine 1 1 Maryland Massachusetts 3 Michigan 1 1 Minnesota 16 2 22 Mississippi Missouri 1 1 Montana 12 51 7 2 72 Nebraska Nevada 1 6 New Hampshire New Jersey 7 New Mexico 14 14 New York 1 1 21 23 North Carolida North Dakota Ohio 1 1 Oklahoma Oregon 9 124 2 135 Pennsylvania 2 2 Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina 2 2 South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah 3 55 2 60 Vermont 25 15 44 Virginia 1 Washington 3,609 173 1,086 183 154 369 5,574 West Virginia Wisconsin 1 1 2 Wyoming 6 1 7 Unassigned 241 18 27 14 20 320 Foreign _1 - 2 Total 4,033 454 1, 198 273 189 369 6,516 0 PAGENO="0078" PAGENO="0079" PAGENO="0080" PAGENO="0081" PAGENO="0082" PAGENO="0083" PAGENO="0084" PAGENO="0085" PAGENO="0086"