PAGENO="0001" 4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON INThRIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 3379 A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE GREAT SWAMP NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, AS WILDERNESS S. 3343 A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE PELICAN, ISL4ND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS WILDERNESS S. 3425 A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE MONOMOY NA- TIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, BARNSTABLE COUNTY, MASSACHU- SETTS, AS WILDERNESS s, 3502 A BILL TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE SENEY, H ISLANDS, AND MICHIGAN ISL~4~ NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE~ IN MICHIGAN, THE GRAVEL ~ GREEN BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES IN WIS~NSI~,4M~I~E. MOOSEHORN NA- TIONAL WILDLIFE REFt4A~I41I/~1k 1~1rpNESS ---- CULLr~,, ~ ;i~:q~ * JUNE 20 vit~ O~ c'0 ,~ ~ ~ `, 74 , I °`4MoL~/\/ IVt'~' ,~%S/~y /Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and InsuQ~ir~4 99-400 ~1 ~Sw/~ GREAT SWAMP; PELICAN ISLAND; MONOMOY; SENEY, HURON, MICHIGAN ISLANDS, GRAVEL ISLAND, GREEN BAY, AND MOOSEHORN WILDERNESS AREAS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS 7. p:~ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1968 ~1D5 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California ALAN BIBLE, Nevada GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado FRANK CHURCH, Idaho LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK E. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon CARL HAYDEN, Arizona GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin LEE METCALF, Montana JERRY P. VERKLER, Staff Director STEWART FRENCSI, Chief Counsel E. LEWIS REID, Minority Counsel PORTER WARD, Professional Staff Member SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado ALAN BIBLE, Nevada LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska PAUL I. FANNIN, Arizona CARL HAYDEN, Arizona LEE METCALF, Montana (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page S.3379 2 Executive communication 2 Synopsis of proposal 3 S. 3343 6 Executive communication 6 Synopsis of proposal 7 S. 3425 9 Executive communication 9 Synopsis of proposal 10 S. 3502 12 Executive communication 13 Synopsis of proposal 14 STATEMENTS Baird, James, Audubon Society of Massachusetts 77 Best, Mayor Robert J., Passaic Township 43 Blessing, Leonard C., executive vice president, New Jersey Science Teachers Association 38 Boardman, Robert C., public information director, National Audubon Society, New York, N.Y 81 Brandborg, Stewart M., executive director, and M. Rubert Cutler, assist- ant executive director, Wilderness Society 83 Brooke, Hon. Edward W., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts. 67 Byrnes, Hon. John W., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin - 32 Case, Hon. Clifford P., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 24 Clapper, Louis S., National Wildlife Federation 78 Cunningham, John T., president, New Jersey Historical Society 46 Etter, Alfred G., for the Defenders of Wildlife 106 Fisk, James B., president, Bell Telephone Laboratories 45 Frelinghuysen, Peter H. B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey 25 Gottschalk, John S., Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, accompanied by David Finnegan, Office of Legislative Counsel, Department of the Interior 48 Griffin, Dean Fairleigh Dickinson University 37 Gutermuth, 6. R., secretary, North American Wildlife Foundation 68 Hathaway, Hon. William D., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Maine 33 Hart, Hon. Philip A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan 30 Haycock, Robert P., mayor, township of Bernards 44 Keith, Hon. Hastings, a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 63 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachu- setts 65 Mahoney, Sister Hildegarde Marie, president, College of St. Elizabeth, Convent Station, N.J 37 Moody, Jack W., secretary-director, Somerset County Park Commission - 39 Myers, Russell W., secretary-director, Morris County Park Commission~ 40 Nelson, Hon. Gaylord, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin 27 Oxnam, Dr. Robert B., president, Drew University 35 Pitney, James C., acting mayor, Harding Township 43 Plante, Mayor James H., township of Chatham 44 Rear, Leslie V., county superintendent, Morris County Department of Education 38 (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv Roe, Robert A., commissioner, Department of Conservation and Economic Development, State of New Jersey~ Rogers, Hon. Paul G., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Florida Rouman, James L., Michigan United Conservation Clubs Ruppe, Hon. Philip E., a U.S. Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan Scott, Douglas W., representative, Mackinac chapter, Sierra Club Stowell, Este, North Jersey Conservation Foundation, accompanied by Mrs. Arthur Fenske, director, North Jersey Conservation Foundation * - Soucie, Gary A., Atlantic representative, Sierra Club Waidrop, Robert, Sierra Club Williams, Hon. Harrison A., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey Zuck, Dr. Robert K., on behalf of the New Jersey Academy of Science~~ Resolution of the New Jersey State Federation of Women's Clubs Resolutipri of the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders COMMUNICATIONS Holland, Hon. Spessard L., and Sniathers, Hon George, U.S. Senators from the State of Florida: Letter to Homi. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated June 27, 1968 Muskie, Hon. Edmund S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Corn-. mittee, dated June 27, 1968 APPENDIX Statements or letters were received from- Dernonet, Eugene A., Jr., Short Hills, ~ Drew, Harry L., West Chatharn, ~ Ezer, Alvin M., Frarningham, ~ Farrell, Donald F., Stoughton, Mass Freden, W. FL, and others, the Depot Shop, Marshfield, ~ Frey, John C., secretary, West Philadelphia Surf Anglers Association Gillis, John C., Stoughton, Mass Harding, Richard P., Waltham, Mass LaRochelle, Ralph, president, Stripers Unlimited, South Attleboro, Mass Lindner, William W., Somerville, N.J Pear, Robert E., Abington, Mass Peters, Thomas M., Morristown, N.J Pond, Bob, president, Massachusetts Alliance of Saltwater Sportmen_ Preston, R. Bob., Nags Head, N.C Raimond, Patrick, Yaphank, N.Y-.-~-~-------~------------------ Slamin, Hubert, Natick, Mass Speed, Douglas, Life Insurance Agency Management Association, Hartford, Conn Stowell, Esty, North Jersey Conservation Foundation, New Vernon, N.J Surette, William, Framingham, Mass Tanton, John IT., M.D., Bnrns Clinic Medical Center P. C., De~part- ment of Ophthalmology, Petoskey, Mich Wells, Walter G., Suffimit, N.J Whitten, Norman,. Atom Manufacturing Co., Inc., South Attleboro, Mass Woolner, Ralph W., Shr~wsbury Conservation Commission Page 44 68 102 31 102 42 74 105 23 38 46 44, 67 30 112 116 115 115 116 114 115 111 114 109 112 112 113 111 115 115 lu 109 115 111 110 112 113 PAGENO="0005" GREAT SWAMP; PELICAN ISLAND; MONOMOY; SENEY, HURON, MICHIIAN i&LANDS, 4~RAVEL ISLAND, GREEN BAY, AND MOOSEHORN WILDERNESS AREAS TIIU~RSDAY, J~UNE 20, 1968 U.S. SENATE, PUBLIC LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman of the sub-. committee) presiding. Present : Senators Frank Church (Idaho) , Gaylord Nelson (Wis- consin)m Lee Metcalf (Montana) , Gordon Allott (Colorado) , Len B. Jordan (Idaho) , and Clifford P. Hansen (Wyoming). Also present : Jerry T. Verkler, staff director ; Porter Ward, profes- sional staff member, and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel. Senator CHURCH. The committee will come to order. This is the time duly noticed and set for an open public hearing on four bills to add several new areas to the national wilderness preserva- tion system. The bills would designate areas in New Jersey, Florida, Massachu- setts, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine as wilderness. All are contained in wildlife refuges. The designation has been recommended by the President, under procedures set forth in the National Wilderness Act of 1964. The first measure to be considered today is S. 33~9, to designate cer- tam lands in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in Morris County, N.J., as wilderness. Since there are four bills to be consid- ered-and one of them embraces several areas-and because some wit- nesses will wish to testify on more than one, the bills will be taken up one at a time, and witnesses are invited to extend their remarks to the other measures. The second bill that will be considered is S. 3343, to designate certain lands in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, Indian River County, Fla., as wilderness. The third bill will be S. 3425, to designate certain lands in the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Barnstable County, Mass., as wilderness. And the fourth and final bill would designate as wilderness certain lands in the Seney, Huron Islands, and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuges in Michigan, the Gravel Island and Green Bay Na- tional Wildlife Refuges in Wisconsin, and the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine. (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 I would like to direct that the text of the bills appear at this point in the record, along with the appropriate administrative communica- tions accompanying their submission to the Senate. (The data referred to follows:) [S. 3379, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To designate certain lands In the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, New Jersey, as wilderness Be it enacteZ by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United $tates of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 3 (c ) of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890, 892 ; 16 U.S.C. 1132(c)), certain lands in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey, which comprise about three thousand seven hundred and fifty acres and which are depicted as wilderness units on a map entitled "M. Hartley Dodge Wilderness and Harding Wilderness-Proposed" and dated September 1967 are hereby designated as wilderness. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Depart- merit of the Interior. SEC. 2. The area designated by this Act as wilderness shall be known as Great Swamp Wilderness and shall be administered by the Secretary of the interior in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act. SEC. 3. Except as necessary to meet minimum requirements in connection with the purposes for which the area is administered (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no commercial enterprise, no temporary or permanent roads, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of motorized transport, and no structure or installation within the area designated as wilderness by this Act. U. S. DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1968. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT : It is with pleasure that I recommend the establishment of the Great Swamp Wilderness, consisting of the Harding Wilderness unit and the M. Hartley Dodge Wilderness unit, within the Great Swamp National Wild- life Refuge, Morris County, New Jersey, as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge was established in May 1964. It is an outstanding example of citizen concern for preserving selected portions of our natural heritage. The national wildlife refuge came into being as a result of a local committee which, through the interest and efforts of a great number of volunteers, raised more than a million dollars to acquire nearly 3,000 acres, which were donated to the Federal Government. This cooperative project is nationally known as a splendid example of how local people and their govern- ment have joined together to preserve a segment of natural America for the continued enjoyment and inspiration of all citizens. In accordance with the requirements of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890) , a public notice was issued on December 14, 1966, of the proposed wilderness, and a public hearing was held in Morristown, New Jersey, on February 17, 1967. The hearing record was held open to provide additional opportunity for written expression by interested citizens until June 30, 1967. Sixty-two persons testified at the public hearing and 6,655 statements, including 164 presented for the hearing record, were received. These views are summarized in the enclosed synopsis of the proposal. In accordance with the requirements of the Wilderness Act, local officials, Governor Richard J. Hughes and all interested elected officials, as well as Federal and State agencies, were notified of the proposal. Their views are also summarized in the enclosure to this letter. The United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines have examined the proposal and have determined that the overall mineral resource of the area PAGENO="0007" 3 is poor, with only peat and clay occurring in sufficient volume to be of possible economic significance. Reserves of these minerals are available in the general area outside the proposal. A complete record has been compiled including written statements and oral testimony received in response to our announcement of public hearings. This record is, of course, available for inspection. The proposed wilderness units within the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge are eminiently qualified for designation as wilderness. I recommend submission to the Congress of the enclosed draft legislation to Incorporate about 3,750 acres into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Respectfully yours, (The draft bill enclosed is identical to S. 3379.) STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior. SYNoPSIS OF GREAT SWAMP NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WILDERNESS PROPOSALS A. BACKGROUND The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is situated in Chatham, Harding and Passaic Townships, Morris County, north-central New Jersey. Morristown, the county seat of Morris County, is 7 miles to the north, and New York City is 25 miles to the east. In 1959 the Port Authority of New York proposed an international jetport in Great Swamp. Residents and landowners quickly formed the Jersey Jetport Association and initiated a campaign to counter the threat. At the same time conservationists were alerted by the activities of the Great Swamp Committee of the North American Wildlife Foundation, which was trying to preserve the area for a wildlife refuge. The threat of the jetport gave added impetus to the work of the Committee. It was `able to muster the efforts and interest of a great num- ber of volunteers who raised more than a million dollars to acquire nearly 3,000 acres for donation to the Federal Government. Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, established in May 1964, will eventually total approximately 5,800 acres, including the lands donated by private interests. The threatened loss of the area for airport purposes continues to be a very real problem, involving not only the proposed wilderness units, but the entire Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as well. Initially, a single wilderness unit, M. Hartley Dodge, was selected for study and review. Subsequent investigations and analyzation of the public hearing record on the M. Hartley Dodge Wilderness proposal indicated sufficient citizen interest and support for another unit as an adjunct to the original proposal. Two wilderness units, therefore, are proposed herein-M. Hartley Dodge and Harding-both within the exterior boundaries of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. The national wildlife refuge lies in the center of "Megalopolis USA." The human population density in New Jersey is over 833 persons per square mile. Individuals seeking the peaceful seclusion of nature may find solitude in this proposed wilderness. The swamp, with its abundant wildlife, its ridges and knolls of laurel and old trees, all accessible by convenient foot trails, is unique and the last of its kind in northern New Jersey. B. DESCRIPTION Great Swamp can best be described as a shallow bowl, 7-miles long and 3-miles wide. The M. Hartley Dodge proposal consists of about 2,400 acres and encompasses the east end of the national wildlife refuge. The boundary of the proposed M. Hartley Dodge Unit generally follows the refuge boundary on the north, then continues west to the Meyersville Road, and then continues south along the east side of the Meyersville Road. On the southeast it follows the northwest side of an existing utility right-of-way. On the northeast it follows the southwest side of an existing utility right-of-way. The Harding Wilderness proposal consists of about 1,250 acres encompassing a westerly extension of the M. Hartley Dodge Unit from Meyersville Road to Long Hill Road. Recognized in the wilderness proposal are the sill dikes necessary to restore the swamp to its original ecology and for wildlife management purposes. The area is a brush and timbered swamp interspersed with low ridges or knolls rising from 5 to 15 feet above the surrounding swamp. In several places the swamp PAGENO="0008" 4 OP~?flS ~i~to small marshes. Bott9mland vegetation is cQmposed of ~ed maple, ~lm, azalea, w~tl~e ro~1, high bash I~lueberry, swamp r9se, alder, ~illo~, and a wide variety of ground cover types. Many of the scattered low ri4ges support a i~rest association of beech, white pak, scarlet oak, chestnut oak, northern red oak, sweet birch, sugar maple, J~lack g~n, whij~e ash, and sba~ark hickory. A few remote "island" ridges support magnificent sta~iiis of be~c~h Some trees measure 1~ feet in girth and are believed fo be between 800 ançl ~00 years old. A white oak çver 95-feet high ~tnd 4 feet 9 inches in dian~ete~ b~s been found. Other ~idg~s support spectacular stands of mount~iin laurel and rlio~Uodendron which attract many visitors wimn these plants are in bloom. C. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS The M. Hartley Dodge Unit will coi;itinue to be rn~tnaged a~ a natural area. The sole existing building will be removed. No other man-made structures exist. The road and trails will be restricted to foot travel only. Nature trails will be maintained to encourage continued use for education and recreation. Research and field study by schools, universities, and scientific groups will be encouraged. The wilderness aspects of the Harding unit can best be accomplished by re- establishing pristine conditions through restoration of the natural swamp and marsh. Planned management objectives encourage the use of the refuge by fall and spring migrations of dabbling ducks, and include emphasis on local duck production. Attainment of these objectives will require construction of low plugs to retain flood waters, overcoming the effects of previous drama ge. Wilderness classification must recognize these minor management requirements which even- tually will blend in with the landscape. The Department of the Army is now studying the feasibility of constructing a dam and reservoir for flood control and related purposes downstream from the proposed wilderness area which, if anthorized, would have the effect of in- creasing floodwater levels in the lower reaches of the swamp about 6 inches during major floods. The wilderness proposal would not preclude the planning and construction of this project. The Department would expect to work closely with the Department of the Army in connection with this project if it is authorized. D. THE WILDERNESS RECORD In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act, a pubije hearing was held in Morristown, New Jersey, on February 17, 1967. Mr. Paul H. Cullinan, of the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, was hearing officer. Mr. Richard B. Griffith, Regional Director, Boston, Massachusetts, represented the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1. Public hearing traascript The public hearing transcript contains 350 pages, consisting of a list of hearing registrants, the oral testimony of 62 persons and 164 written statements in the form of telegrams, letters, and cards. Hearing testimony and statements were all in favor of the wilderness proposal, except one from a representative of the local chapter of the AFL-CIO labor union. Testimony in favor of the proposal included the statement of Commissioner Robert A. Roe, who represented the Governor of New Jersey, a letter from U.S. Senator Clifford P. Case, a statement from Congressman Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, a statement of U.S. Senator liar- rison A. Williams, a statement from Mayor James H. Plante of Chatbam, New Jersey. Statements were also received from numerous other individuals and organizations. Arguments favoring the wilderness proposal were generally in one or more of the following categories: a. The need for the solitude of wilderness by man in a densely-populated urban area. b. The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge provides a last remaining natural wilderness, outdoor laboratory, and classroom for the use of scientists, college, and high school students in the growing New York metropolitan area of some 30 million inhabitants. C. The Great Swamp is a major water source for the Passaic River. It serves a vital function as a watershed overflow basin, and by releasing the water gradually it serves as a natural regulator of water supply. Without the swamp, the Passaic River would be far more subject to excessive fluctuation in water level, and this in turn upsetting other natural processes, would increase the PAGENO="0009" 5 problems of pollution and flood damage to man-made developments in the down- stream basin. ~ d. Need of permanent protection for a natural wildlife refuge for feeding and resting waterfowl and other birds during migration. 1\4any species of birds, including wood duck, nest there ; and along with mammals, all need permanent protection from encroaching magalopolis. Local support from public officials, educational institutions, civic groups and residènts was excuptionally strong. The testimony of the President of B~ll Tele- phoi~e Laborat0rie~ sumS tip very well the feelings of the bulk of the people at the public hearing (page 180 of hearing transcript). The only person tO speak at the public hearing in op~)Osition to the proposal was Mr. Joel R. Jacobsen, President of the Jersey Council AFL-CIO (page 169 of hearing transcript), who favored the jet airport because ". . . the establish- ment of an airport in New Jersey would mean providing . . . a total of 60,000 jobs . . . with an annual payroll in excess of $300,000,000." 2. Commu~aioations from citizens Communications from individuals totalled 6,212. Only two statements were oppoted to the proponal. Those in favor generall~T sü~ported the p1~oposa1 for one or more of the reasons presented in "1" above. Statements in opposition were: a. "The sudden interest in conservation is exhibited by selfish and affluent land- holders near the Great Swamp who . . . want the jetport somewhere else." (Staterrient No. 2090) b. "There seems to be no doubt that another jetport is needec~ in the metro- politan area many individuals want both metropOlitan anii rural advantages. . . ." "People living near a metropolis should not block the needs of the metropolis." (Statement No. 1528) 3. Communications from organizatiOns Communications from organizations totalled 245, ranging from the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, and other national, state, and local conservatiO~1 organiza- tions to Chambers of Comtnerce, educational institutions, school boardS, clubs, civic and social groups, large and small companies, and private coñservàtion groups. All such communications were in favor of wilderness ëlassiflcatlon. 4. Comments of elected officials Elected officials commented strongly in support of the project. None are on record as opposed. Included are: Commissioner Robert A. Roe, State of New Jersey, Department of Conserva- tion, representing GoVernor Hughes, New Jersey. U.S. Senator CliffOrd P. Case. U.S. Senittor Ilnrrison A. Williams. U.S. Congressman Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen. State Senator Thomas Hillery. James C. Pitney, Acting Mayor, Harding Township. Max A. Ilasse, Jr., Mayor, Teaneck Township. James H. Plante, Mayor, Chatham Township. A total of 3O communications were revieWed from elected and áploiilted offi- cials of counties and towns, all of which favored the wilderneSs proposal. 5. State agencies The New Jorsey Departmdnt of Conservation and DiviSion of Fish and Game supported the proposal at the public hearing. 6. Federal agencies The Honorable Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture, responding to the public hearing notice by letter, noting that nothing in the proposal would conflict with Department of Agriculture programs. Mr. George W. Davis, Assistant Regional Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recrea- tion, appeared at the public hearing and read a statement for the record in sup- port of the proposal. A communication from the National Park Service, Northeast Region, sup- ported the proposal. PAGENO="0010" I 6 I Results of a mineral apprai'~al by Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines was placed in the bearing record (page 66 of public hearing record) This state ment states that of the mineral resources known to be present only clay and peat occur in sufficient volumes to be of possible economic significance SUMMARY The final wilderness record contains approximately 6 500 pages of statements testimony, index, public information materials and Bureau reports. All but three statements are in favor of wilderness classification About 10 percent of the statements were clearly against the jetport possibility, and were in favor of wilderness because they obviously felt it would elimina1~e construction of a jetport in the Great Swamp Nearly 1 000 statements urged consideration of the Harding unit as wilderness. [S. 3343, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To designate certain lands in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, Indian River County, Florida, as wilderness Be it enacted by the senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amersea sn Congress assembled That in accordance with section 3 (c) of the Wilderness Act of September 3 1964 (78 Stat 890 892 16 U S C 1132(c)) certain lands in the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Florida which comprise about four hundred and three acres and which are depicted on a m~tp entitled Pelican Island Wilderness-Proposed and dated July 1967 are hereby designated as wilderness The map shall be on file and available for public in spection in the offices of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Department of the Interior. Src 2 The areas designated by this Act as wilderness shall be known as the Pelican Island Wilderness and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act SEc 3 Except as necessary to meet minimum requirements in connection with the purposes for which the area is administered (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area ) there shall be no commercial enterprise, no temporary or permanent roads, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of motorized transport, and no structure or installation within the area designated as wilderness by this Act. u.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1968. THE PRESIDENT, The White House, Washsngton D C DEAR MR PRESIDENT It is with a great deal of pleasure that I recommend the establishment of the Pelican Island Wilderness within the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Indian River County Florida as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was established by President Theodore Roosevelt by an Executive order of March 13 1903 and was subse quently enlarged by Executive Order No. 1014 of January 26, 1909, and Public Land Order No. 3276 of November 29, 1963. It was the first national wildlife refuge of a system that has since grown to be the most far-reaching and compre- hensive wildlife resource management program in the history of mankind It is particularly fitting therefore that this historical wildlife refuge be the first proposal recommended by the Department of the Interior for designation as wilderness. In accordance with the requirements of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat 890) a public notice was issued on January 23 196T of the pro posed Pelican Island Wilderness, and a public hearing was held in Vero Beach, Florida, on April 5, 1967. The hearing record was held open to provide additional opportunity for written expression by interested citizens until June 1, 1967. PAGENO="0011" 7 Thirty-two statements were presented at the public hearing and ~35 letters were received. These views are summarized in the enclosed synopsis of the proposa1~ Ju accordance with the requirements of the Wilderness Act, the Indian River County Commissioners, Governor `Claude Kirk, and all interested elected officials, as well as Federal and State agencies, were notified of the proposal. Their viewa are also summarized in the enclosure to this letter. The United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines have examined the proposed Pelican Island Wilderness and have determined that the overall mineral resource of the area is poor. A complete record has been compiled including written statements and oral testimony received in response to our announcement of public hearings. This record is of course, available for inspection. The Pelican Island area is eminently qualified for designation as wilderness, and I recommend submission to the Congress of the enclosed draft legislation to incorporate about 403 acres into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Respectfully yours, STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary of the Interior. (The draft bill enclosed is identical to S. 3343.) SYNoPsIs or PELICAN ISLAND WILDERNESS PRoPosAL A. BACKGROUND Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is located in Indian River County between the towns of Sebastian and Wabasso, some 75 miles north of West Palm Beach. The refuge islands comprising the wilderness study area extend for several miles along the east side of the Indian River north of the Webasso Bridge. The immediate area has enormous potential for real esta te and recreational development. The Atlantic beach is only a mile to the east. U.S. Highway No. 1, a major north-south tourist route, is one mile to the west. The Indian River in this area offers excellent sport fishing and other forms of water-oriented recreation. With the recent completion of the bridge across Sebastian Inlet and subsequent improvement of State Highway ALA along the barrier island, a substantial increase in land development near the refuge can be expected. As coastal land and water areas continue to be developed, Pelican Island Refuge will become increasingly important, not only for its value to fish and wildlife resources but because it represents an ecological type that is rapidly disappear- lag from the East Coast of Florida. Permanent preservation of the refuge islands and the surrounding bay bottoms in their natural condition will be a source of continuing enjoyment for residents and visitors alike. B. DE5CRIPTION The wilderness study unit and proposal includes all islands within Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge within T 31 5, R 39 E, Tallahassee Meridian. Comprising about 403 acres the islands are : Roseate, Pelican, Roosevelt, Horse- shoe, North Horseshore, Long, David, Plug, North and South Oyster, Preachers, Middle, Nelson, Pauls, and the four small islands designated as Egret Island. A portion of the refuge is on the mainland, but this part was cut up by a mosquito control project before being added to the refuge. It contains numerous roads and is, therefore, not included in the proposal. The mainland portion also does not meet criteria for study since it is not an island in an island refuge. C. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS Visitor use of the islands proper must be held to a minimum throughout the year to avoid conflict with colonial bird nesting, which is the primary refuge objective. Opportunities for public enjoyment of the wildlife resources and water- oriented recreation will be provided in the surrounding waters. Pelican Island contains mosquito producing habitat in close proximity to population centers, but it is not a problem area at present. Wilderness designation would preclude the use of impoundments or ditches. Alternate methods of mos- quite control acceptable to the Bureau and the Mosquito Control District will be developed and utilized when actually needed. D. THE WILDERNESS RECORD* In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act a public hear- ing was held in Vero Beach, Florida, on April 5, 1967. Mr. Daniel H. Janzen, PAGENO="0012" 8 former Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, was hearing officer. The Bureau was represented by Mr. W. L. Towns, Associate Eegional Director, Atlanta, Georgia. 1. Public hearing transcript During the pu1~lic hearing, 32 statements were presented or read into th~ record. These statements came from one State agency, three local cities, four agencies or boards of Indian River County, 18 organizations, three indi~viduals, and three local sch~ol~. Testimony was unanimously in favor of the wilderness proposal. Local support from public officials, civil groups am! rE~sidonts of Imlian River County, in which Pelican Island Refuge is located, ~tas ~a1~ticu1arT~r strOng. In conjunction with statements presented orally or read into the hearing record, a number of petitions and resolutions supporting the wilderness proposal were turned into the Rearing Officer. These represented 84 different organiza- tious and were signed by over 1,260 individuals. The primary reasons given for supporting the wilderness proposal included: protection of colonial birds and their nesting and feeding habitat ; protection of estuarine and fisheries resources ; long-range preservation of natural areas for sceilic, aesthetic and ecological values ; preservation vital to long-range social and economic interests of citizens Of Indian Ric~er ~ount~ ; and preseflration of Pelican Island Refuge because of Its historical value as the Nation's first national wildlife refuge. At least 15 statements presented during the hearing and many of the petitions and resolutions turned in recommended that the proposed wilderness `area include Roseate Island, Pauls Island, Nelsons Island and the west side of Preachers Island which had not been included In the Bureau's proposal because of past ditching and spoils deposits. Arguments for including these islands were that the disturbed areas are rapidly reverting to a natural condition and that these islands are essential as buffers against future developments. Mr. Beidler, representing the County Mosquito Control District, indicated that the outlets of existing ditches on Roseate Island must be kept open for mosquito control purposes. The final wilderness proposal includes these islands. 2. Communications from citizens Forty-five communications were received from individuals, all in favor of the wilderness proposal. The principal reasons given for supporting the wilderness proposal were to provide additional protection against developments that would destroy the colonial bird and marine resources of the Pelican Island area, to preserve the unique ecology of this area for its scientific value and to preserve the resources and natural beauty of the area for its recreational values. 3. Commnnications from or9anizations Twelve communications were received from organizations, all of them express- ing support for the wilderness proposal. The principal reasons for support were: the need for preserving wilderness areas for the future, and protection of the area and its resources against encroaching development. 4. Comments of elected officials Six communications from elected officials or groups were received for inclusion in the record. All were in support of wilderness designation for the islands in Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. They were: Congressman Paul G. Rogers, Florida City of Vero Beach, Florida City Council of Sebastian, Florida Board of Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida Indian River County Public Schools Indian River County Chamber of Commerce 5. State agencies Communications from two State agencies were received. A letter from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund took no position on the wilderness proposal but expressed interest in protecting rights of riparian owners iii sec- tions 4 and 9. Dr. Maurice Provost, Director of the Entomological Research Center, Florida State Board of Health, Vero Beach, endorsed the wilderness area concept but expressed disappointment that refuge islands would not be available for research involving construction of Impoundments. PAGENO="0013" 9 ~. Federal agencies Communications were received from four Federal agencies. The U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce indicated no opposition to the proposal, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development indicated no position at this time. The Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines submitted a statement and mineral appraisal report which was received too late to be included in the public hearing transcript. The statement and report have been included in the wilderness record as communication number 45 "Correspondence received in Washington Office." The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has reviewed this proposal and feels it de- sirable to include these islands in the wilderness system. [S. 3425, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To designate certain lands in the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, as wilderness Be it er~aeted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 3 (c) of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890, 892 ; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c)), certain lands in the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Massachusetts, which comprise about two thousand six hundred acres and which are depicted on a map entitled "Monomoy Wilderness-Proposed" and dated August 1967, are hereby designated as wilderness. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. SEC. 2. The area designated by this Act as wilderness shall be known as the "Monomoy Wilderness" and shall be administered by the Secretary of the interior in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act. SEc. 3. Except as necessary to meet minimum requirements in connection with the purposes for which the area is administered (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no commercial enterprise, no temporary or permanent roads, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of motorized transport, and no structure or installation within the area designated as wilderness by this Act. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1968. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT : It is with pleasure that I recommend the establishment of Monomoy Wilderness, which is located within the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, j3arnstable County, Massachusetts, as a unit of the National Wilder- ness Preservation System. Monomoy Islapd, a 2,600-acre roadless island extending about 9 miles south from the elbow of Cape Cod, was established as part of the national wildlife refuge on June 1, 1944, to preserve a habitat for migratory birds. Managed as a natural area since that time, the island offers an exceptional opportunity for perpetual noninotorized use by fishermen, naturalists, artists, families and weary citizens searching for respite from the stress of modern civilization. In accordance with the requirements of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890) , a public notice was issued on November 1, 1966, of the pro- posed Mononioy Wilderness, and a public hearing was held in Chatbam, Massa- chusette, on January ii, 1967. The hearing record was held open until February 12, 1967, in order to provide an opportunity for the submission of written ex- pressions for the record by interested citizens. Forty-seven statements were pre- sented at the public hearing and 550 written communications were received dur- ing and after the public hearing. Pursuant to the provisions of, the Wilderness Act, Governor John A. Volpe, all interested elected officials, local and state agen- cies, and Federal departments and agencies were notified of the wilderness pro- posal. The enclosed synopsis summarizes the views of all who responded to the public hearing notice. PAGENO="0014" 10 A complete record has been compiled including written statements and oral testimony received in response to the public hearing notice This record is of course, available for inspection. The U S Geological Survey and U S Bureau of Mines have examined the pro posed Monomoy Wilderness and have determined that the area has no known mineral resources other than the sands from which the island is made The secluded primeval character of Monomoy Island makes it eminently quali fled for designation as wilderness and I recommend submission to the Congress of the enclosed draft legislation to incorporate it into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Respectfully yours STEWART L. TJDALL, I ~S~ecrctary of the Interior (The draft bill enclosed is identical to 5 3425) SYNoPsIs OF MONOMOY WILDERNEsS PROPOSAL A. BACKGROUND Monomoy Island is a 2 600 acre roadless island extending about 9 miles south from the elbow of Cape Cod, in the town of Chatham, Barnstable County, Massa~ chusetts It was established on June 1 1944 as part of the Monomy National Wildlife Refuge, all but some 4 acres of the island having been acquired by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat 1222) as amended (16 U S C 715 et seq ) Boston Massachusetts and Providence, Rhode Island, are about 100 miles from Monomoy Island. B DESCRIPTION The Monomoy wilderness proposal is a barrier beach island located 9 miles south of Cape Cod in the town of Chatham Barnstable County Massachusetts Bounded on the west by Nantucket Sound and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean the island varies from 1,4 to 1i/2 miles in width and is separated from the main land by a shallow waterway about % mile wide The exterior boundaries of the wilderness proposal are all lands on Monomoy Island to the line of mean low tide which coincides with the national wildlife refuge boundary around the island. C. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS The Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge has been managed as a wild area since its establishment There are no improved roads on the island No changes in management are envisioned if the island is designated as wilderness The laws and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior governing the management and administration of the island as a national wildlife refuge will continue to apply Such laws and regulations provide for public uses such as hunting and other wildlife oriented forms of outdoor enjoyment as well as other necessary wildlife refuge management programs The Department of the Army is cuirently studying the feasibility of a project for navigation for Pleasant Bay and tributary waters Massachusetts The pro posed project would include the closing of the gap between Monomoy Island and Nauset Beach The wilderness proposal would not preclude the planning and con struction of this project The Department of the Interior would expect to work closely with the Department of the Army if the project is authorized Of the approximately 4 acres of Monomoy Island in private ownership 2 acres contain private summer camps and 2 acres are owned by the Massachusetts Audu bon Society These inholdings will be acquired Until they are acquired it will be necessary to allow access to the inholdings via over the sand vehicles National wildlife refuge administration of the island will require the retention of two existing buildings and the use of an over the sand vehicle for administrative and public safety purposes A permanent staff is required to administer the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Present and future staffing requirements for the refuges will not be ad justed because of designation of Monomoy Island as wilderness If the island should join the mainland at some future date the Monomoy Wil ~derness would be delineated by a fence. I I PAGENO="0015" 11 D. THE WILDERNESS RECORD In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act, a public hear- ing was held at Chatham, Massachusetts, between 9 :00 a.m~ and 9 :35 p.m. on January 11, 1967. Mr. Daniel H. Janzen, former Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, was hearing officer. Mr. Richard B. Griffith, Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Massachusetts, repre~ sented the Bureau. Communications received before and after the hearing from citizens, orga- nizations, elected officials, State agencies, and Federal agencies totaled 615 statements in the form of letters, notes, and cards. 1. The public hearing transcript (The hearing transcript consists of 145 pages.) During the daytime portion of the hearing, 9 :00-11 ~45 a.m. and 1 :30-5:00 p.m., about 100 people attended. These people generally supported the Monomoy island wilderness proposal and consisted primarily of local elected officials and representatives from conservation organizations. A total of 180 individuals registered, representing various agencies, orga- nizations, or themselves. At this part of the hearing, statements were presented by representatives of 19 organizations, of which 11 favored the wilderness pro- posal and eight opposed it. Individuals gave 16 statements, of which eight favored and eight opposed the proposal. Local elected officials presented two statements, both favoring wilderness status. No congressional or State Repre- sentatives presented statements at the hearing. Four State of Massachusetts agencies presented statements, one favoring the proposal, one opposing, one recommending action be deferred (a favorable statement, however, was received later and included in the communications from state agencies) , and one was noncommittal. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of the Interior, presented a favorable statement. The Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, took no position on the proposal, requesting action on the proposal be deferred until completion of Corps of Engineers' harbor improvement plans for the Chatham area. A plan was presented to the local interests on November 30, 1907. An evening session from 8 :00-9 :35 p.m. was called in deference to requests from surf fishing interests. This meeting was attended by about 120 people who presented 10 statements opposed to the wilderness proposal and two statements in favor of it. Opposition to the proposal stemmed from restrictions on use of mechanical vehicles on Monomoy Island under wilderness status. Arguments favoring wilderness status for the island were generally in one or more of the following categories: a. Preservation for future generations of the unique barrier beach-type island wilderness, still largely undeveloped and unspoiled by man's activities. b. The need of man for the solitude of wilderness in a densely populated area. C. The need for permanent protection of a natural refuge for feeding, resting, and nesting waterfowl, and for birds requiring this fragile island-type habitat. d. The only wilderness potential within a reasonable 1-day drive from the Boston and Cape Code areas. e. Wilderness status would complement the Cape Cod National Seashore l)y providing a time wild area for those who seek an ideal human retreat and are willing to endure the rigors of a journey to the island. f. Wilderness status would protect the town of Chatham from becoming a beach buggy access route to Monomoy Island ; and it would protect the island from the ruts, refuse, noise, and smell of mechanical vehicles. Arguments opposing wilderness status for Monomoy Island were generally in one or more of the following categories: a. It would preclude use of beach buggies which are claimed to be necessary to provide surf fishing access to the entire island. b. It would preclude camping and fires, claimed to be necessary for practical and enjoyable use of the island for surf fishing. c. It would preclude forever the possibility of opening part of all of the island to public hunting. This is a mistaken impression, because such hunting may be permitted under the laws now applicable to this area. d. Claim that Massachusetts Audubon Society and other camp permittees on the island were receiving special privileges denied the general public with respect to vehicle and overnight use. I PAGENO="0016" 12 e. Demand for greater public use of the island-this was a covering statement intended to advocate beach buggy use, overnight ca~pin~, hunting, and the building of bonfires by the general public. . Interests identifie~I with surf fishing were the chief source of opposition to the wilderness proposal. Surf fishing is a potential recreational use if Mononioy Island should become accessible by land. In this event, it would be possible to traverse the island by beach buggy or other vehicle designed for travel over beaches and dunes. The owners of this type of vehicle opposed the wilderness designation, though not excluding hunting and fishing, would preclude their particularly desired transportation method for recreational use of the island. 2. Communications from citizens Communications from citizens in the form of letters, notes, and cards totaled 550 with 492 in favor and 58 against the wilderness proposal. These probably represent a cross-section of local public opinion on the wilderness proposal. Oppo- sition to the proposal was fQr the same reasons listed in "1" above. 3. Communications from organizations Communications from organizations totaled 60 with 31 in favor, two noncom- mittal, and 27 opposed to `the wilderness proposal. Opposition was for the reasons listed in "1" above. ~. Elected officials Elected officials submitted four statements, all in favor of the wilderness pro- posal. A spokesman for the Governor of Massachusetts stated that the present lack of development of Monomoy Island is largely due to almost all of it being in Federal ownership and its iuaccessibiilty to vehicles. The Governor favors wilder- ness status, with provision that (a ) Corps of Engineers' plans be taken into con- sideration by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in submitting wilderness recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, (b ) and consideration be given for allowance of over-the-sand vehicles on a liimted permit basis for all conserva- tionists and sportsmen in the form of a beach taxi service. The Selectmen's As- sociation, Board of Selectmen of ehatham, and the `Cape Cod Planning and Eco- nomic Development Commission favored wilderness status for the various reasons enumerated in "1" above. United States Senator, Edward M. Brooke, submitted a letter to the Department of the Interior for the hearing record in which be supported the wilderness proposal. 5. State Agencies The Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, designated by Governor John A. Volpe `to represent him in this matter, supported the wilderness proposal, with the suggestion that submission of the proposal to Congress follow the re- lease of the `Corps of Engineers' plan for navigational improvements in the Chatham area. ` 6. Federal Agencies The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Department of the Interior provided a statement favoring wilderness classification. That Bureau has reviewed the acreage of publicly owned outdoor recreation land and water in the New England States and has found no potential wilderness areas within 200 miles of Monomoy Island. The island will provide needed wilderness opportunity close to the popula- tion centers of the Northeast. No change has been made in the boundaries of the Monomoy Wilderness proposal since the public hearings of January 11, 1967. All of the above comments are therefore applicable to the proposal. [S. 3502, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To designate certain lands in the Seney, Huron Islands, and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuges in Michigan, the Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges in Wisconsin, and the Mooseborn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine, as wilderness Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 892; 16 U.S.C. 1132 (c)), certain lands in (1) the Seney, Huron Islands, and Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuges, Michigan, as depicted on maps entitled "Seney Wilderness-Proposed," PAGENO="0017" "Huron Islands Wi1d~rne~-Proposed," and `~Michigan Islands Wilderness-Pro- posed," (2) the O~ravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Wis- cousin, as depicted on a map entitled "Wisconsin islands WiIdernesE~-PropOsed," and, (3) the MOQSehOrfl Nation~il Wildlii~e Refuge, Maine, as depicted on a map entitled "Edmunds Wilderness and Bircl~ Islands Wilderness--Proposed," all said maps being dated August 1967, are hereby designated as wilderness. The maps shall be on ñle and, avail-able for public inspection in the offices of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior. SEC. 2. The areas designated by this Act as wilderness shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness' Act. Szo. 3. Except as necessary to meet minimum requirements in connection with the purposes for which the areas are administered (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area) and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise, no temporary or permanent roads, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of motorized transport, and no structure or installation within the areas designated as wilderness by this Act. 13.5. DEPARTMENT or THE INTERI0n, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D~U., 1k~arch 13, 1968. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT : It is with pleasure that I recommend as units of the National Wilderness Preservation System the Seney, Huron Islands, and Michi- gnu Islands Wilderness areas in `the State of Michigan, the Wisconsin Islands Wilderness in the State of Wisconsin, and the Edmunds Wilderness and Birch Islands Wilderness in the State of Maine. All of the lands included in the wilder- ness proposals are presently within the Natkrnal Wildlife Refuge System. The proposed Seney Wilderness contains about 25,150 acres of the Seney Na- tional Wildlife Refuge, Scboolcraft County, Michigan'. Approximately two-thirds of the area is an out~ash plain formed by a receding glacier~ where treeless bogs and topographically oriented strips of bog forest, form `an unu&ial land type called a "string bog." The propQsed Seney Wilderness is ~onsidered to contain the southernmost example of this land type in North America~ The remaining third of the area contains remnants -of black spruce and white pine forest, though much of the area has been logged and has been altered `by repeated fires. The entire area is relatively in-accessible and seldom visited. Several kind's of big game inhabit the region, including deer, black bear and occasionally moose. Coyotes and red fox are common and timber wolves have been reported. Bald eagles and osprey nest on the area and merit prime consideration for preservation due to their endangered status. The proposed Huron Islands Wilderness consists of eight small islands in Lake Superior within the Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The islands, which are relatively isolated and seldom visited because of rough seas and limited land- ing sites, contain approximately 147 acres and are composed of pink and gray granite upthrusts. Trees, shrubs, `and herbaceous p1-ants cover two-thirds of the island surface while `the remainder is barren or moss and lichen covered rocks. The Michigan Islands and Wisconsin Islands Wilderness proposals consist of six small islands `totalling `approximately 41 acres. They are all relatively isolated and seldom visited because of difficult access. The islands `are considered cx- tremely important breeding and nesting areas for herring and ring-billed gulls. Other birds of lesser importance are black-crowed night herons, great blue herons, double-crested cormorants, common and caspian `tern's, `and several species of waterfowl. Though small and isolated, the quiet and solitude of these rugged, wind-swept and wave battered islands offer an excellent wilderness experience to those willing `to visit them. The fragile island ecology, abundant bird popula- tions, and picturesque terrain features have unique beauty and are of great interest to the scientist, the `student, and n'ature lover. The Edmund~ `and Birch Islands Wilderness proposals containing a total of about 2,780 acres are within the, M-oo'sehorn National Wildlife Refuge, Washing- ton County, Maine. This national wildlife refuge is one of very few Federal areas in the Northeast containing wilderness resources. For the fl-sherman, hunter, I I 13 99-400-68------2 PAGENO="0018" I 14 family or individual willing to walk, row or paddle a mile or so, these wilderness proposals may eventually be the only areas left, even in the State of Maine, where the solitude and beauty of true wilderness will be guaranteed for generations to come. In accordance with the recjuiremnents of the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890) , notices of public hearings on all six wilderness proposals were issued by the Department and all interested local, State, and Federal agencies and officials were notified of the proposed hearings. The public hearings were held at locations convenient to the areas affected. The communications presented at the hearings by private parties and the above agencies and officials are sum- marized in the enclosed synopses of the six wilderness proposals. The United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines have examined the mineral resources of the proposed wilderness areas. With the exception of the areas included in the Edmunds Wilderness proposal in Maine, they consider the mineral resource potential of the proposed wilderness areas to be poor. The only known mineral resources of economic value within the Edmunds Wilderness proposal are sand, gravel, and clay, which are also abundant in the surrounding areas. A complete record has been compiled for each wilderness proposal, including written statements and oral testimony received in response to our announcement of public hearings. This record is, of course, available for inspection. These wilderness proposals are eminently qualified for designation as wilder- ness, and I recommend submission to the Congress of the enclosed draft legislation which will incorporate about 28,000 acres into the National Wilderness Preser- vation System. Respectfully yours, STEWART L. UDALL, &cretary of the Interior. (The draft bill enclosed is identical to S. 3502.) SYNOPSIS OF SENEY AND HURON ISLANDS WILDERNESS PROPOSALS A. BACKGROUND The Seney Wilderness proposal is within the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Schoolcraft County,. Michigan, and the Huron Islands Wilderness proposal is within the 1-luron Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Marquette County, Michigan. In order to save time and money these two proposals were studied together. The local public hearing covered both study units. I I Sency Seney National Wilderness Refuge is located in the upper peninsula halfway between Marquette and Sault Ste. Marie in Schoolcraft County, Michigan. The northern boundary of the refuge borders State Highway 28 a few miles west of Seney, Michigan. The national wildlife refuge was established by Executive Order No. 7246 of December 10, 1935, for the protection and production of waterfowl and other desirable wildlife species. The refuge is in the great Manistique Swamp, and a large section of it is open marsh with immense edges of rushes and sedges. Though considerable developments for waterfowl and other wildlife have been made on the refuge, the study area is undeveloped. The tract includes lands that have never been cut for forest products, though the area frequently was swept by fires that followed logging on lands to the west in the late 1800's. The area includes the "String Bogs", which are low, flat areas with low ridges covered with tamarac and other timber running roughly parallel in formation from the northwest to the southeast. Seney is a popular recreation area. Picnic areas have been developed and the refuge has a visitor center. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing are popular recreational pursuits. Huron Islands The Huron Islands are located 3 miles off the wild south shore of Lake Superior near the Huron River and Huron Mountains in Marquette County, Michigan. They lie 40 miles east of the Houghton-Hancock harbor which provides the closest good point of access to the islands. The landing of boats on the islands can be accomplished only under calm sea conditions and then with hazard. Part of the present Huron Islands Wilderness proposal was originally estab- lished as a reserve and breeding ground for native birds by Executive Order No. PAGENO="0019" 15 357-D of October 10, 1905. ~All of the islands within the present wilderness pro- posal are within the Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge which was estab- lished by Executive Order No. 7795 of January 21, 1938, as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife, subject to continued use by certain Federal agencies in connection with the quarrying of stone to construct break- waters and the maintenance of a lighthouse. At the present time the Coast Guard maintains a lighthouse on one island while another is used by the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, as a possible source of stone for constructing break- waters. B. DESCRIPTION ~cney The total area of Seney National Wildlife Refuge is 94,455 acres. The wilder- ness proposal contains approximately 25,150 acres which are located in the north- west corner of the refuge. Here is found a flat outwash plain which was formed from a glacier and which became a dry sand plain with drought. During drought periods, the sands were blown into sand dunes, and the dunes have become covered with trees and brush as a result of recent moist periods. These extinct dunes now form parallel, tree-covered islands in the vast bog, creating a patterned area called a "String Bog". Two-thirds of the study area is characterized by this sub- arctic formation, which is rare `this far south. The remainder of the study area was once a white pine forest. Logged off before the turn of the century and then burned over many times, it is now covered with large, charred pine stumps, second growth aspen and jack pine and a variety of less prominent species. The Seney unit is further described as being located In T. 45 N., R. 14 W., Michigan meridian, as follows : from a point south of the railroad in section 36, south along the east side of an access road to the south boundary of the refuge; thence east to the west bank of Marsh Creek; thence north westerly along Marsh Creek to a point south of a new diversion ditch from C3 Reservoir `to the half section line (section 15) ; thence north along the half section line to section 34; thence along the west side of a farm trailroad to the north refuge boundary; thence west to the point of beginning. Huron The Huron Islands proposal comprises the entire Huron National Wildlife Refuge which is composed of a group of eight islands totaling 147 acres near the south shore of Lake Superior. The islands are located in sections 27, 28, 29, 34, and 35, T. 53 N., R. 29 W., Michigan Meridian. The islands are composed of pink and gray granite upthrusts. Trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants cover two-thirds of the islands' surfaces, while the re- mainder is exposed rock which is barren or covered with lichens and mosses and frequently contains deep glacial grooving. The rocky islands rise nearly 200 feet above the lake, exposing steep cliffs on the south and rounded glacier and wave- worn rock surfaces on the ends and north sides. The small, almost barren rock islands on the eastern extremities of the group are the nesting sites of the main herring gull colony. C. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS $eney The Seney unit contains habitat of value to the bald eagle and timber wolf which are endangered species and other species, including spruce grouse, sharp- tailed grouse and moose, which are presently in very low numbers in this part of Michigan. Designating the unit as wilderness must recognize the possible need to occasionally manipulate selected habitat artificially in order to maintain these wildlife forms. The precise techniques are not fully known today, but research may provide tools in the future to accomplish these wildlife objectives. Huron I$Iands The Huron Islands will be maintained as a natural area. The Coast Guard has a station, lighthouse and boathouse situated on Huron Islands at widely separated locations, with well developed foot trails joining the installations. The Coast Guard may abandon the station eventually because of automatic navigational-aid devices, although no change is foreseen in the immediate future. East Huron Island is subject to use by the Department of Army, Corps of En- gineers as a source of rock for breakwater construction. The Corps of Engineers does not anticipate, however, any demand for quarry rock in the foreseeable future. PAGENO="0020" I 16 D. THE WILDERNESS RECORD In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act, a public heariiig was held in Marquette, Michigan, on May 10, 1967. Mr. Daniel H. Janzen, former Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, was hearing officer. The Bureau was represented by Mr. Frank R. Martin, Assistant Regional Supervisor, Division of Wildlife Refuges, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Both proposals ( Seney and Huron Islands) were presented at the hearing, but separately. A transcript was made for each proposal. 1. The public hearing ~eney.-A total of 36 individuals and several Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife personnel were present at the hearing. Eight persons spoke as individuals and eight organizations were represented at the hearing. One individual and one organization spoke in opposition wl4le the remaiuder were in favor of the wilder- ness proposal. The opposing organization, "Forum of Resources of Upper Michi- gan", emphasized that the manigement of Seney National Wildlife Refuge is a professional responsibility and wildlife would benefit most under present manage- ment goals. Those appearing in favor of the wilderness proposal wished to insure protection for the habitat and some suggested an additional 6,000 acres of the national wildlife refuge be added to the proposal. Huron Islands-A total of 36 people and several Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife personnel were present at the hearing. Eight persons spoke as individuals while ten organizations were represented at the hearing. All were in favor of the wilderness proposal. Two organizations and one individual recommended a change in primary jurisdiction of the two largest islands within the wilderness proposal from the Coast Guard and Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, to the Department of the Interior. 2. Communications from citizens Some persons wrote in regard to the Seney proposal, some concerning the Huron Islands proposal, and some about both proposals. The following synopsis covers the total correspondence received. Opinions were expressed by U6 individuals and nine organizations. All were in favor of the proposals. with the exception of three individuals. A variety of favorable reasons were expressed for the ~eney unit, including the preservation of the area for study and public enjoyment, the protection of the area for enjoy- ment of future generations, and the preservation of the unique striiig bog. Some of the letters urged an additional 6,000-acre addition to the proposaL Those in favor of the Huron Islands unit wanted increased protection for the island habitat, though, some had only the vaguest idea of the intent of the proposal. Those opposed to the proposals believed the attention given the islands by wilder- ness classification, would eventually destroy the very things we are now trying to save, and that the true meaning of wilderness would be corrupted by inclusion of such small areas. There was a misconception that the proposals involved a change from wildlife management of tl~e area to no management of wildlife. 3. Uommnnications from organizations All organizations, including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, and Audubon Society, expressing an opinion were in favor of the wilderness proposals. Their main contention was that the areas would be protected from commercialization or other developments and the geological, botanical, zoological, and ecological features of the areas would be preserved in their natural state. 4. Elected officials. No written expressions of opinion were received. 5. State agencies The State of Michigan expressed a favorable opinion through the State Con- servation Department. 6. Federal agencies A Bureau of Outdoor Recreation representative presented a favorable statement at the public hearixjg. A Geological Survey and Bureau of l\~tines mineral repont was read into the record of the bearing. No minerals Q1~ sigr~i1jcance occur. A representative of the Coast Guard was present at the hearing, but made no~ statement. The views of the Coast Guard are contained in a letter in the appendix PAGENO="0021" 17 of the Wlldernes~ Study Report. The Coast Guard is not opposed, but pointed out th~tt the lighthouse in the Huron Islands proposal will be ffionued for an indefinite perioa. The Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, was not represented at the hearing. A letter expressing the views of that agency is in the appendix of the Wilderhess Study Report. The Corps of Engineers was not opposed to designating the Huron 1~lands as wilderness, but pointed out that the Department of the Army retains the right to quarry stone when required. They feel the need to conduct qilarT~yihg operations is not anticipated for more than 20 years. CHANGES IN wILDERNESS BOUNDARIES AFTER THE PU~3LIC HEARING The Boundary of the iluron Islands Wilderness proposal has not been modified or adjusted from the boundary presented at the public hearing. The boundary of the Seney Wilderhess proposal was enlarged by 6,000 acres after the public hearing. SYNOPSIS OF MICHIGAN ISLANDS WILDERNESS PROPOSAL A. BACKGROUND The Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge was established b~ Publi~ Land Order No. 365 of April 10, 1947, as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. The refuge is used extensively by waterfowl and colony nesting birds. Three islands make up the Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge-Shoe, Pismire, and Scarecrow. FeW people have heard `of Shoe and Pismire Islands or, if known, they are usually avoided as `dangerous shoals. Consequently, the visitors to these islands are confined primarily to bird enthusiasts making the trip for bird banding and bird observation pffrposes. In addition, Shoe Island may become submerged. Even when the island is exposed, it is difficult to find an approach to it. Scarecrow Island is much nearer to population centers, but is unattractive to many people because of the heavy use of its beaches by gulls and its trees by great blue herons and cormorants. The three islands of the study area could sustain a limited amoulit of public use afteI~ the hesting and broOding period. B. DESCRIPTION The wilderness study unit includes the entire Michigan Islands ~Ta't1ohal Wild- life Refuge containing three small islands and totaling 12 acres. Shoe and Pi~mire Islands are small parts of the Beaver Island group of islands and shoals that stretches southward through the northern part of Lake Michigan. The islands are within `Charlevoix County. Scarecrow island is in Thunder Bay of Lake fluron. Al~ena is the largest city on the bay with a poptilation of 15,000. It is located iii Alpena Cot~tity. Shoe Island is a gravel bar ranging from 1/~ to 2 acres in size and is devoid of trees or shrubs. The island supports a few volunteer plants such as cinquifoil and scattered clumps of grass. Its maximum elevation is ap~toximately 4 feet, but in some years is may be submerged. The island is part of a large shoal area of glacial ridges and large routided boulders. On Pisinire Island, trees ha~ve grown on1~ to be lOst to the high water or angry lake waters. In 1966 the island contained 31/2 acres and rose 10 feet above the lake. Six elms along with a few short, dead white cedars make up the tree cover. Shrubs are more abundant and Include chokecherry, elderberry, scattered willow clumps and red osier dogwood. Various herbs and grasses co~èr the exposed beaches below the high-water mark. Scarecrow Island, contaitiing 7 acres, is composed of large glacial boulders and is protected from action of the lake waters by Its location in Thunder Bay. It has some soil overlaying `the boulders and gravel which reaches an elevation of 15 feet above the lake level. The better soils on the higher elevations support considerable tree and shrub growth. The island contains three small, shallow water basins which are attractive to waterfowl and shore birds. C. MANAGEMENT BEQUIBEMENTS The Michigan Jslai1d~ National Wildlife Refuge is administered from the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, Saginaw, Michlgati. The prime manage~ ment consideration in the case of these three islands will continue to be the PAGENO="0022" 18 protection of the nesting birds Public use will be by special permit only Uses will generally be limited to those of an educational and scientific nature D THE WILDERNESS RECORD In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act, a public hear- ing was held in Petoskey Michigan on March 29 1967 Mr Daniel H Janzen former Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, ~ was the hearing officer. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife was represented by Mr. Frank Martin Assistant Supervisor Division of Refuges Minneapolis Minnesota 1. The pubZic hearing transcript A total of 15 people was present at the hearing Seven presented statements as individuals all favoring the wilderness proposal The main reason given was that wilderness designation would provide added protection for the islands. Four organizations-the Michigan United Conservation Clubs the Wilderness Society the Michigan Natural Areas Council and the United Church Women- provided statements at the hearing. All favored the wilderness proposal primarily in order to protect our national heritage and to provide additional protection for the islands. 2. Communications from citizens Sixty two persons submitted written statements concerning the Michigan Islands Wilderness study. All but two supported wilderness designation for the islands. Those in favor of the proposal emphasized the fact that areas in pristine condition are becoming exceedingly rare and the need for them to have statu- tory protection. The two persons in opposition to the wilderness proposal feel that the islands are too small and are therefore not suitable for designation as wilderness One of them believes that wilderness status for the islands will attract more public use and thus cause increased disturbance to the islands. 3. Communications from organizations Twelve organizations submitted written statements in favor of the wilderness proposal Their main contention was that giving the islands wilderness status would assure the preservation of them in their present state. 4. Comments of elected officials A member of the local school board spoke on behalf of the school district in favor of the wilderness proposal. No other officials expressed a view. 5. State agencies The Director of the Michigan Department of Conservation approved the in elusion of the Michigan Islands in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 6. Federal agencies The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation provided a statement favoring wilderness status for the islands. It is their opinion that, although the islands are small and have a very limited wilderness type carrying capacity for people, the birds that nest, brood and rest on them bring joy and pleasure to many people at distant places. The U. S. Geological Survey made a study of the mineral resource potential of the islands. None of the islands has any recorded mineral production. The mineral resource potential of the three islands is considered to be poor. CHANGES IN WILDERNE55 ]3OUNDARIES AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING There have been no modifications or adjustments of the boundary of the pro- posed wilderness from that presented at the public hearing. SYNOPSIS OF WISCONSIN ISLANDS WILDERNESS PROPOSAL A. BACKGROUND The Wisconsin Islands Wilderness Study Area is composed of Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges in Door County, Wisconsin. The refuges total 29 acres of limestone rock in Lake Michigan. They were selected for wilder- ness study because, as islands, they met the initial requirement for review. I PAGENO="0023" 19 Although they are too small to be important in a historical sense, they have had the protection of the Federal Government for more than 50 years. The Gravel IslaM and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges were originally established for use by nesting native birds by Executive Order No. 1678 of January 9, 1913, and Executive Order No. 1487 of February 21, 1912, respectively. Some of the tree and shrub cover of the islands has been lost due to avian life such as the great blue and black-crowned night herons. Waterfowl, herring gulls and ring-billed gulls find ideal nesting conditions on the islands, particularly at low water levels be- cause of additional habitat and the absence of mammalian predators. Ground hem- lock abounds on two of the islands while it is rare on the mainland. The islands have cold winters and moderate summers with an average annual rainfall of 28 inches. Little social or economic impact in the vicinity would result from the islands being added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Many areas in the vicinity are available for a variety of recreational uses and designation of the islands as wilderness would not interfere with such uses. Few visitors would find the small smelly islands attractive, and visitors could easily erase the prime requisite for bird use-solitude. Travel to the islands is difficult and landing con- ditions on the island must be perfect before any visits are possible. All visitor use must therefore continue only by special permit in order to protect bird nesting colonies and to provide public safety. B. PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act, a public hearing was held in the Court House in the City of Sturgeon Bay, Door County, Wisconsin, on February 15, 1967. Mr. Daniel H. Janzen was hearing officer. Mr. Frank Martin, Assistant Regional Supervisor, Division of Wildlife Refuges, Minneapolis, Minne- sota, represented the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1. The public hearing transcript A total of 27 people was present at the hearing. Statements were presented by eight persons as individuals and by seven persons representing organizations. All statements favored the wilderness proposal. 2. Communications from citizens All of the 159 individuals who expressed an opinion were in favor of the wilder- ness proposal. The principal argument was that wilderness status would increase protection of the islands against undesirable developments. Communications from 32 individuals were received after the public hearing. All of them were also in favor of the proposed wilderness. 3. Communications from organizations All 17 organizations submitting an opinion were in favor of wilderness designa- tion for the islands. The main argument was that wilderness status would pre- serve the islands in their existing state. The communications from 10 organiza- tions received after the public hearing also were in favor of the proposed wilderness. 4. Elected officials A Ward Alderman and County Supervisor commended the Department of the Interior for affording protection to the islands in the past, and expressed her support for the wilderness proposal. No communications were received from U.S. Senators, Congressmen, the Governor, or other elected officials. 5. State agencies The State of Wisconsin presented a favorable statement through the State Con- servation Department. 6. Federal agencies The Geological Survey stated in part that there are no records of mineral pro- duction from the refuges or nearby areas and no known mineral deposits of corn- mercial significance. The mineral resource potential in the area is considered to be poor. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation stated that it felt the establishment of a wilderness area on the Wisconsin Islands is a desirable action. PAGENO="0024" 20 7. Other The press was r~prese~nted at the public hearing by one local paper and one Milwaukee paper. A Green Bay TV Station filmed part and showed it twice that evening of the hearing. CHANGES IN WILDERNESS BOUNDARIES AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING There have been no modifications or adjustments of the boundary of the wllder- ness proposal from that presented at the public hearing ~n Februa~y 1~, 1967. SYNOPSIS or EDMUNDS AND BIRCH ISLANDS WIL~E~NESS PhOPOSAL~ (Meosai~oh~ NATIONAL WILDLIFE EEIrUGE) A. BACKGROUND Moosehoru National Wildlife Refuge was established by Executive Order No. 7650 of July 1, 1937. The refuge cOnsists of three units-Baring, Edmunds, and Birch Islands-4ocatcd ~n and near the northeastern coast of Maine. The Edmunds and Birch Islands Uhits, the subject of this wilderness study and pi~oposal, are situated in the Town of Edmunds, Washington County. They are about 30 miles south of Calais, Maine, and 100 miles east of Bangor. Edmunds This Unit is part of an original 17,696-acre land grant from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Aaron Hobart, dated August 3, 1786. The rolling forested hills of the Edmunds Unit then were dominhted by mttjestic white pine. Logged- off in the 1800's and then swept repeatedly by wild fires, tecover~r has progressed slowly since the establishment of the national wildlife refuge hi 1937. Huge fire- charred stumps iii various stages of decay bear witness to the stately plne~, spruces, and celars which Once covered the hills, swamps, and stream bottOm- lands. Areas that have escaped fires within the memory of than hà~ve been logged re- peatedly at intervalS of 30 to 60 pears. Prior to 1900, long logs were htrvested for lumber. Since the Federal Government acqttired the laud in 1937, second growth trees have been cut for pulpwood on the western One-third of the Edmund~ Unit. In unburned areas, remnants of the old logging roads and lumber campsites are clearly discernible. Remains of log-driving dams are visible on Hobart Stream. While not true wilderness in the strictest sense of the word, the Edmunds Unit, if set aside as wi1dernes~, will eventually become wilderness. "CrOative wilder- ness" is a more apt description of the Department's intent With rOspect to the Edmunds Unit. There will be high interest in the changing ecology as rears pass by the serious student and casual visitor alike. Birch Islands The I~irch Islahds Unit, with a covering of trees and brush, has rarely been visited by man. Uninhabited throughout the cehturies, the islands within this unit remain little jewels of unspoiled wilderness. B. DESCRIPTION Edmnnds The boundaries of the wilderness proposal within the Edmunds Study Unit may be described as follows : from the south boundary of the national wildlife refuge northerly along the west side of Crhne Mill Road to North Trail ; thence westerly to Hobart Stream ; thence along the natiohal Wildlife refuge boundary west, south and east to the point of beginning. The wilderness proposal consists of about 2,775 acres within the 5,350 acre Edmunds Unit. Birch Islands The Birch Islands Unit is located in Whiting Bay and consists of two islands containing about 7 acres. The rocky soil and the spruce vegetative cover on the islands are esSentially the same as on the mainland. At lo* tide they become one island, but they are al*hys separated from the mainland. rederal owhership of the islands e±tend~ to the meah high water line. C. 1\fA~tAG~MENT REQU±ItEMENT~ The wilderness proposal retains the important woodcock and waterfowl habitat in their present status and preserves the best potential wilderness area. PAGENO="0025" 21 Fishermen and hunters will be permitted to use the Moosehorn National Wild- life Refuge as in the past Access to all areas within the uatiQnal wi1~1life refuge will also continue as before, except access b~ motor v~ehicles into the wilderness would be restricted to the minimum requireme~its for administration of the areas and existing private rights. For the fishermen or hunter wifling to walk, row, or paddle a ~nile or ~o, th~e~e wilderne~~ areas w~U eventually be the only areas left, even in the St~tte of ~Iaine, wbe~e t~e soiit~içle and b~tuty of true wilderness wQuld be guaranteed J~Q~ geaerations to come. J~eaviug selected ~o~ds of the Ecimunds Unit outs~e of the wilderness propos~tl will i~cilitate public access and the management of existing structures within the wilderness. D. WILDERNESS RECORD ~3. A designated wilderx~ess area, even in Maine, will soon be the only place In accordance with section 3(d) (1) (B) of the Wilderness Act, a public hearing was held beginuing in the auditorium of the Calais Memorial High School, Oalais, Maine, at 8 :00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12, 1~67. Mr. Daniel H. Janzen, Former Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, was the hearing officer. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife was represented by Mr. Richard E. Griffith, Regional Director, Boston. 1. Public hearing transcript Sixty-three individuals attended the public hearing and 28 statements were presented for the hearing record. The results of the hearing testimony and state- ments were 22 in favor and six against the wilderness proposal within the Edmunds Unit. All statements' mentioning the Birch Islands wilderness proposal were in favor of it. Arguments favoring wilderness status for the Edmunds Unit were generally in one or more of the following categories: 1. It would provide an oportunity for study of the natural process of recovery and ecology, including soil, plant, and animal life, following the decimation of repeated logging and wild fires. 2. There is no known stand of virgin timber left in Maine, and wilderness protection by Act of Congress would permit one area to develop mature tree vegetation with undisturbed protection assured for generations to come. 3. The combination of the Cobscook Bay State Park and adjacent wilderness would eventually be of greater economic value `to Washington County through attraction of tourists and campers than continued timber and pulp harvest in the Edmunds Unit. 4. Only wilderness status protection will prevent eroding of the wilderness quality by "improvements" and "developments" resulting from encroachment activities of mankind. 5. A designated wilderness area, even in Maine, will soon be the only place a person can enjoy a true wilderness experience, sate from the intrusion of four-wheel-drive vehicles, trail motorcycles, snowmobiles, or powerboats. Statements opposing the wilderness proposal for the Edmunds Unit were generally centered aroun~ keeping the national wildlife refuge under its present management without the additional protection and restrictions of wilderness status. Some statements claimed that the wildlife refuge under its present management provides a great and valuable service, and that wilderness status would defeat the purpose of the refuge and contribute nothing in return. The Wilderness Society recommended and actively promoted an additional area of 2,500 to 5,000 acres within the Baring Unit. This additional area lies west of the old railroad and Charlotte Road, north of the South Trail, and east of State Route 191. Its northern boundary was approximately 400 yards south of Conic Road, with Cranberry Lake excluded. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife did not study or propose this area during the current study period. Proponents of the Baring Unit proposal, representing about 50 percent of the total statements received, favored wilderness status for one or more of the following reasons: 1. It would provide natural development of a wider diversity of habitat, thus permitting natural vegetation to restore itself and attracting a wide variety of wildlife (in addition to those of particular interest to hunters) in a protected habitat guaranteed free forever from man-caused disturbances. 2. In spite of past logging, the unit still contains sufficient timber to pro- vide a mature-appearing natural forest in one generation, and the remaining timber is of better quality than that on surrounding lands. PAGENO="0026" 22 3. It would provide fuller protection for the administrative "natural area" in the Baring Unit. 4. It would greatly enhance the enjoyment of the national wildlife refuge by those who seek back-country exploration, fishing, hunting, and nature study opportunities. 5. Only wilderness protection by Act of Congress will assure the pro- teetion of the Baring Unit from eventual development by man. In view of the public interest in the Baring Unit and its potential wilderness value, the Bureau proposes to study this unit during the next 3-year period. Following the study, the unit will be presented through a public hearing and other media as required under provisions of the Wilderness Act. 2. Communications from citizens One hundred and ninety-four communications were received from individuals. Of these, 174 were in support of the wilderness proposals for the same reasons outlined in "1" above. Twenty people were opposed to the project for the same reasons presented under "1" above. 3. Communications from organizations Thirteen organizations submitted written statements for inclusion in the Wilder- ness Record. Twelve organizations supported the wilderness proposals for one or more of the same reasons listed in "1" above. The St. Croix Pulpwood Company, Woodland, Maine, a subsidiary of the Georgia-Pacific Corporation, opposed the wilderness proposals because the com- pany contends that wilderness is a "single-purpose" use. 4. Comments of elected oylioials The Board of County Commissioners, Washington County, Maine, favored the Birch Islands wilderness proposal, but opposed designating any other part of the national wildlife refuge as wilderness. An Eastport, Maine, town official objected to loss of pulp-cutting values and estimated that the annual loss would be up to $440,000. 5. state agencies The Maine State Highway Commission objected to the restriction of wilderness status because of the possible eventual modernization (widening or superhighway construction) of Route 1 on the east boundary of the Edmunds Unit proposal. The State Fish and Game representatives and University of Maine representa- tives objected to the effect they claim wilderness designation would have on loss of woodcock management and research opportunities in the Edmunds Unit. The State of New I-Iampshire Committee on Natural Beauty supported the wilderness proposals and urged the addition of the Baring Unit. 6. Federal agencies The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation submitted a statement at the hearing in favor of wilderness status for the Edmunds Unit. The Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines submitted a statement to be read at the hearing, but the statement was received too late. It is appended as state- ment number 1 in the "Correspondence received in the Washington Office after the hearing" section of the hearing record. The statement points out that sand, gravel, and clay are the only known mineral resources of economic value within the refuge area, but these are also abundant in the area surrounding the refuge. Igneous rock underlying the Edmunds Unit are not likely to contain minerals sub- ject to the United States mineral leasing laws. CHANGES IN BOUNDARIES OF PROPOSED WILDERNESS AFTER PUBLIC HEARING As a result of analysis of the public hearing record and citizens communica- tions, the boundaries of the Edmunds Wilderness Study Unit were reduced to include a total of about 2,775 acres in the western portion of the wilderness study unit. The reduction excludes an area in which manipulation of the habitat will be required to maintain woodcock and waterfowl populations. It also eliminates from consideration the area near Route 1. Thus, objections by the State Game and Fish representatives, University of Maine, and the Maine State Highway Com- mission have apparently been resolved. Senator CHURCH. First, we are pleased to have with us the Senators from New Jersey, Senator Williams and Senator Case, and Congress- man Freylinghuysen. We welcome your statements. PAGENO="0027" 23 Senator CASE. My colleague, a much younger man, wishes to get away and, since I sponsored it and he is a Democrat, we had better let him go first and get this bill through. STATEMENT OP HON. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE `OP NEW JERSEY Senator WILLIAMs. Maybe we can get the bill passed this year. I certainly appreciate the interest of you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Nelson, and the other members of the committee. Of course, I strongly support this measure. You, Mr. Chairman, are happy in the fact that you live in relatively open land and Senator Nelson lives in the Land of Lakes. We live in a very crowded, con- gested area of our country, the most densely populated State in the Nation. This legislation represents just a little opening for people, who live with all of the problems of congestion in cities, to have some- place that is open and wild and beautiful. I know you will hear a lot today from people who know more about the Great Swamp than I do. Congressman Frelinghuysen, I believe, lives within almost a loon's call of the Great Swamp and he is far more of an authority on it than I. I do have a Labor Committee meeting and one of my bills is before the committee, but I want to present my statement for your considera- tion. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal-uot only because I support the bill, but because I am always gI ad to acknowledge your continuing leadership in matters of con- servation and natural resources. Those who recognize the importance of maintaining a workable balance between developed and unspoiled lands know that they have a friend in the chairman, and in the sub- committee, and they are grateful. A child of the inner city grows up tougher than most, better able to argue a bargain with a shrewd merchant, more at home in a crowded subway. These things are quite true, but they a~so suggest something very unfortunate ; they su~gest that the "child of the inner city" gets very little chance to experience anything else but crowded conditions, sweaty-hot subways, and dirty streets. I want to remind the subcommittee that this kind of urban life is spreading, swallowing up whole chunks of rural land, `and, in fact, overwhelming the landscape. Megalopolis is no longer a theory ; it is bumper-to-bumper fact, stretching along ugly highways from Boston to Washington. It is a gas-station, shopping-center, smoky-air fact. Of course, there are many things we can do to improve the urban condition even as it develops. We are putting some of those programs to work today. But we can attack the problem in another way, by hold- ing on to the few parcels of open space that are left. We can refuse to let them go under to the bulldozer and the concrete spreader. It is this kind of attack on the problem that will earn us the gratitude of the next generation, when families go looking for a place to sit under a tree. The Great Swamp, in Morris County, N.J., is unique among the re- maining parcels of unspoiled land in the East. It is a large tract of un- developed land in th~ shadow of the greatest human concentration on PAGENO="0028" 24 eartb. It is a living laboratory and classroom for many thousands of people. You see in the Great Swamp the results of 185 million years of volcanic action, drainage, ice movement, and forestation. It is the first wilderness proposal in the Northeast to be submitted for congressional action. In recognition o~f these remarkable attributes, the Nation's conserva- tion leaders, and spokesmen for preservation of some vestiges of our natural heritage, have rallied in support of the Great Swamp legisla- tion. Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, in a report on wilder- ness proposals, called the acreage "eminently qualified for designation as wilderness." When public hearings were held in February of 1967, some 6,212 messages from individuals were received-and of these, only two opposed the Great Swamp wilderness proposal. At these same hearings, 245 organizations expressed their support in written communications-and none opposed the wilderness proposal. Now, this subcommittee has an opportunity to add its vote to those already cast in favor of preserving this island of natural tranquility. I certainly hope that the time is at hand when Congress will act on a proposal like this out of a belief in the future, rather than being forced to react to catastrophes of the past. If we don't set aside the Great Swamp as wilderness, but allow it to be swallowed up by the engines of the city, then we will see a day when we are made to chop up the concre~te to build a "park" in the middle of traffic. Brooks Atkinson, the distinguished New York Times writer, says quite accurately that the Great Swamp is "good for nothing except life, knowledge, peace, and hope." I urge the subcommittee to act in favor of the bill, and to do it with- out delay. We will be acknowledging a debt to tomorrow. We will demonstrate our concern for the quality of human life. Senator Crn~mcH. We thank you very much. Senator Case ~ STATEMENT O~' HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator CASE. My interest is the same as all my colleagues with any interest in this matter at all. This wilderness would be unique even if out in the great open `spaces where there is `still lots of space, but it is precious in New Jersey. It is so important for itself, its peculiar qualities and features, `and it is most important, as far `as I am concerned, `as a little oasis `of green producing some `oxygen, which is so essential in this land `as it fill's up with people and indusitry and `all kinds of economic development. It would `be, I `think, a tragedy if `anything happened to it. The purpose of the bill, of course, is ~o put 3,750 acres of the 6,000- acre swamp into `the National Wilderness Preservation System. The sole reason for that, as far `as I `am concerned, is by that means to give the maximum `amount `of preservation under the wilderness system to this unique `area. We strongly urge passage of this `bill. Thi's i's an area that, I gue'ss you know fro'm your general knowledge, has `been much sought `after as `a jet airport. Those of us immediately concerned with it are violently opposed to this usage, `and there is unanimous opposition as far as `all PAGENO="0029" 25 public figures in New Jersey go~-our Governor, State 1egis1~tors and Congressmen. This is a danger tha~ is going to cons1~ant1y attack this ai~ea `as New Jersey gets more and more populated. The pressures to break into this area in one way `or another are strong, and we feel that we would like to have this land put in as safe a po'si'tioil `against `any kind of en- eroaehment as we can. Thus, we are supporting this transfer of the refuge to `the Natioual Wilderness System. I shall not attempt to give more details on it. Represeiltative Fre- linghuysen is intin~ately familiar with ~t. He has led `the fight against it being taken over by the New York Port Autho~ity for the airport `and also against any `other encroachment and to put it in a `s.a~fe situation. I would ask, if I may, as I am sure `the chairman will permit, to introduce several of his constituents wh~ are prep'ar~d to do anything the committee wants in the way of explanation. All `are thoroughly familiar with the area and purposes that `this bill would serve. Senator CHuRCH. Yes. Oongressn~an Frelinghuysen, we are pleased to have you in the committee today and I would ask you to give us the benefit of your `testimony. Senator Neisofi has a conflicting committee assignment and wants to be heard immediately after you have spoken so, if you would all defer introduction of others who are here until Senator Nelson has had `a chance to make his statement, we will accom- modate him `and let him get on `to his `committee. If you will proceed with your personal statement, then we will ask Senator Nelson to make his statement. STATEMENT OP PETER H.. R P1~E,LING}tUYSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP N~W JE~S~Y Mr. FnEI~INGnrn~sEN. First, let me say I am pleased to testify at this hearing and I was pleased to hear from Senators Williams and Case on `the subject. The bill `to designate 3,750 acres of the Morris County, N.J., Great Swamp as wilderness is one of vital concern to everyone in the entire State, and I am particularly gratified at the unanimity of support this legislation has received in the Senate, where both Senators from New Jersey has cosponsored it, and in the House where 15 Members have cosponsored an `identical bill, H.R. 16771. Such broad-based support is a common thread in the historical fabric of efforts to preserve the Great Swamp. More than $1 million was contributed and used to purchase and donate nearly 3,000 acres of the swamp to the Federal Government when the first threat to the swamp became apparent. Contributions to this campaig~i i~ere received from approximately 7,000 individuals arid 500 orgard~ations in 39 States across the country. This support grew over the years and was never more in evidence than in February 1967, when the Department of the Interior conducted ai hearing in Morristown, N.J., on the pro- posal to include the swamp in the wilderness system. The transcript of this public hearing runs to 350 pag~ ai~d c~nt.ains the oral testimony of 62 persons and 164 written stiat~e1nBi1ts in the form of telegrams, letters, and cards. All favored the proposal except one. Communications were received from 6~212 individuals, only two of which expressed opposition, A tota~F of 245 cOth~nn h~ati~ns was received from organizations such as the Wili~rn~s~ Sd~iety and the Sierra Club and all were in favor of the proposal. I PAGENO="0030" I 26 Elected offioials at the National, State, and local levels all testified in support of the proposal and 30 communications were received from municipal and county officials, all in favor of the plan In addition, support was expressed by the New Jersey Department of Conserva- tion and Economic Development and a number of Federal agencies, including, of course, the National Park Service We are, Mr Chairman, particularly anxious to secure approval of this legislation, for without affirmative action on the part of Congress, this unique natural wonder will remain vulnerable to man's encroach ment. Far too often, we tend to think of the wonders of nature as being located in the western part of the United States in the area where "wide open spaces" are the rule rather than the exception. It seems to me and to many of us that in the East, particularly in the sprawling New York-New Jersey metropolis where open spaces are at a definiite premium, an area such as the Great Swamp becomes an even more valuable asset. During the hearings in the House on this legislation members of the Public Lands Subcommittee expressed reservations over the quali fications of the Great Swamp for inclusion in the wilderness `system These reservations were based primarily on the fact that a public road separates the two units under consideration in `this legislation. You will `see that road bisecting the two proposed sections of the wilderness area on the map I am referring to I thought it might be of interest to bring a map of New Jersey to indicate where the Great Swamp is in comparison to Manhattan is about 30 miles due west of Manhattan and show's roughly what a valuable area it is in. Since those House hearings we have been in touch with the municip~tl officials responsible for maintenance of this road I am pleased to report that these officials have indicated their willingness to abandon and close this road if such action would be required to obtain favorable action on the legislation before the committee today I might point out ~t this time, Mr Chairman, that our congressional delegation recently sent a letter to the Honorable Wayne Aspinall, chairman of `the House Committee on Interior `and Insular Affairs, in \~hich all 15 of us reaffirmed our desire `to place this acreage in `the wilderness system The letter from the delegation noted the very high standards that `an area must meet to obtain wilderness `status and that we are aware of the limitations placed on an area as a result of achiev- ing this status. With the Chairman's permission, I should like to submit a copy of the letter for inclusion in the record Senator CHURCH Without objection it will be so included (The letter referred to follows ) CONGRESS O~ THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WashIngton, D ci June 6 1968 Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman Uommatt~e on Interior and h?,sular AffaIrs House of Representatives Washington D U DEAR MR CHAIRMAN We the sponsors of H R 16771 should like to reaffirm our desire to include a large portion of the Great Swamp of Morris County New Jersey, in the national wilderness system. We should further like to express our support for keeping this valuable area in its pristine and unspoiled state We oppose any man made improvements or PAGENO="0031" 27 Mr. FRELINGHIJYSEN. I cannot emphasize too strongly our desire to keep this area of the Great Swamp in its pristine and unspoiled state. We are most definitely opposed to any manmade improvements or changes in the nature or character of the area under consideration. In short, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the swamp is most deserving of the highest possible protection by Congress. I might just add one thing more and that is at an appropriate time I would like to introduce others who have come down to testify before this committee from my home county and the adjoining county of Somerset, which is also deeply interested in this project. Senator CHURCH. Yes, if you would just remain at the table, we will hear now from Senator Nelson of our committee. I want to thank him for obliging us the way he has. STATEMENT OP HON. GAYLORD NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP WISCONSIN Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am appearing in behalf of S. 3509, which is sponsored by myself, the senior Senator from Wisconsin and the Senators from Michigan. Senator Muskie was not available at the time we were endorsing the proposal. This bill would designate six wilderness areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Maine. I am gratified, Mr. Chairman, that hearings on the bill have been scheduled so promptly. I hope we can anticipate that these and the other proposals you are considering today will be acted upon and become a part of the conservation record of the 90th Congress. I am especially happy to take part in these considerations, not only because an area in my State is involved, but because this marks a great step in the further implementation of the 1964 Wilderness Act. As a sponsor of the wilderness bill, I am happy to see this landmark law being extended to protect additional wild areas. Since passage of the act in 1964, 30 proposals have been made to the Congress. Already two Forest Service areas have been fully considered by the Congress. Acts of Congress have made the San Rafael and San Gabriel Wilder- ness Areas in California the first two additions to the national wilder- ness preservation system since the Wilderness Act was enacted. Today the committee is beginning the consideration of areas in our national wildlife refuge system for wilderness protection. This is a great step for the program, for in many ways the refuges bring new any man-made changes in the nature or character of the area under consideration in HR. 16771. We are cognizant of the very high standards that an area must meet to obtain wilderness status. We are aware, further, of the limitations placed on an area as a result of achieving this status. Without affirmative action by Congress, the Great Swamp will remain vul- nerable to man's encroachment. This is a unique area, and is particularly valuable located as it is in the densely-populated New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. We feel it is deserving of the highest possible protection by Congress. With warm personal regards, John E. Hunt ; Charles S. Joelson ; Charles W. Sandman ; Henry Hel- stoski; James J. Howard; Peter W. Rodino, Jr.; Frank Thomp- son, Jr.; Joseph El. Minish; Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen; Florence P. Dwyer; William T. Cahill; Cornelius E. Gallagher; William B. Widnall, Dominick V. Daniels; Edward J. Patten. PAGENO="0032" 28 diregtion th our wilderness conservation efFort. Many of `the refuge wild lands-including all those to be heard today-~are located in the ~ East and Midwe~t, where great national parks and national forests are not as common as they are in the West. Many of the wild areas on the refuges are re1a~ively small and are surrounded by enormous urban concentraitions, That they have survived so long, especially with the limited administrative protection available to them, is fortunaite. That they are available still in their wild, natural condition is a tribu'~e to the dedicated managers of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries `and Wildlife. More than that, thus persistence of wildness on rthige lands is a great opportunity. Increasing pressures from developers of all kinds assure that the wild charaoter of these areas will survive only if we grant it our strongest protection-the protection afforded by the Wilderness Act. A special significance of the program is that so much of it is close to the people. It is close geographically. For example, the Great Swamp in New Jer3ey is but 30 miles from Manhattan. It is close also in the sense of being familiar. These `smaller nreas are intimate wilderness, remarkable because they `are so distinct from the region in which they are found. The sense of contra~t is vibrant on this land. The contrast is abrupt-deep, natural solitude replaces the urban scene. S. 3502 provides for wilderness designation of the Wisconsin Is- lands ; for the Michigan Islands, Huron Islands, and Senev refuges in Michigan ; and for Moosehorn NationaJ Wildlife Refuge, Washington County, Maine. This national wildlife refuge is one of the very few Federal areas in the Northeast containing wilderness resources. For the fisherman, hunter, family, or individu~l willing `to walk, row, or paddle a mile or so, these wilderness proposals may eventually be the only `areas left, even in the State of Maine, where the solitude and beauty of true wilderness will be guaranteed for generations to come. The proposed Seney Wilderness contains `about 25,1~O acres of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Schoolcraft County, Mich. Approxi- mutely two-thirds of the area is an outw~sh plain formed by `a receding glacier, where treeless bogs `and topographically oriented strips of `bog forest form `an unusual land type called `a `string bog. The proposed Seney Wilderness is considered' to contain the southernmost example of this land `type in North America. The remaining third of `the `area eon- tains remnants of black `spruce and white pine forest, though much of the area has been logged and has been altered by repeated fires. The entire area is relatively inaccessible and seldom visited. Seney Refuge i's `a populnr recreation `area. The establishment of `a wilderness within a little used portion of the refuge should enhance the recreational use `of the refuge beoaus~ of `the national publicity a wilderness will stimulate. The proposed Huron Islands Wilderness consists of eight small islands in Lake Superior within the' Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The islands, which are relatively isolated and seldom visited' because of rough seas and limited landing sites, contain a~p~oximately 147 acres and are `composed of pink `and gray granite upthr'usts. Treks, shrubs, and herbaceous plants cover two thirds of the island surface while the remainder is barren or moss- and lichen-covered rOcks. PAGENO="0033" 29 The Michigan Islands Wilderness proposal consists of three small islands totaling approximately 12 acres. They are all relatively isolated and seldom visited because of difficult access. The islands are con- sidered extremely important breeding and nesting areas for herring and ring-billed gulls. The fragile island ecology, abundant bird popu- lations, and picturesque terrain features have unique beauty and are of great interest to the scientist, the student, and nature lover. The Wisconsin Islands proposal concerns the entire 29 acres of the Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges in Door County, Wis., just off the Door Peninsula in Lake Michigan. Three islands are involved, all small and isolated by difficult access. Though small and isolated, the quiet and solitude of these rugged, wave- battered and windswept islands offer an excellent wilderness experi- ence to those who visit them. These islands have long been protected, and they deserve to continue under the strongest protection we can provide. These islands are important nesting and breeding areas for numerous kinds of waterfowl including a wide variety of herons and gulls. These areas were first protected by Executive orders of the President in 1912 and 1913. The people of Wisconsin and other concerned citizens and groups have had an opportunity to respond to all of these proposals at public hearings held by the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife in each locality. The result of the Wisconsin Islands hearing held in Sturgeon Bay, Wi's., last year illustrate the support for this noncontroversial proposal. Of some 200 written and oral statements received, all fully endorsed the proposal. Support is unanimous. All of the wilderness area proposals before you today contain unique combinations of flora and fauna that must be preserved. The balance of nature is indeed very delicate and minor disruptions of that balance can cause irreparable harm. All too often we have allowed natural nesting and breeding areas to be drained for agricultural use and forests and prairies to be bulldozed for urban development. The preservation of wilderness areas is an integral part of our struggle to restore the quality of our environment. Our environment is based on a series of delicate, natural interactions, operating within the overall framework of our air, water, and soil. That environment is gravely threatened by man's activities. We dump mountainous quantities of wastes into our air and water and onto our land each day. We pave 1 million acres of land a year in the name of urban development. We spray tons of persistent pesti- cides into our air, water, and soil every year. We litter our countryside with car bodies, nonreturnable glass bottles, and aluminum cans which defy the forces of nature. This trend must be reversed. As we move ahead, we must learn to evaluate the effects of what we are going to do on the environment. We simply cannot continue to operate with a total disregard for the natural world around us. The setting aside of wilderness areas-forever protected from the intrusions of man-is but a small part of what is needed to restore the quality of our environment. But at least it is a step in the right direction. 99-400-6S----3 PAGENO="0034" 30 U.S. SENATE, Washington, DXI., June 27, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior anZ In$u~ar Affairs, U,~. &nate, Wa~$hington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : I appreciate this opportunity to express my support of S. 3502, which would add certain lands in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maine to the National Wilderness System. Never before in our national history has the need for protection of our dwind- ling wildlife resources been greater. S. 3502 offers us an opportunity to set aside for ourselves and future generations some wilderness areas, which are unique for their habitat, vegetation, beauty and other natural aspects. The Maine lands under consideration are the Edmunds and Birch Islands in the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Washington County, the most easterly county in the nation. The Edmunds and Birch Islands units make an interesting comparison. The Edmunds unit was completely cleared of timber in the 19th century and then swept repeatedly by wild fires. Since the establishment of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge In 1937, the quality of the Edmunds natural environment has progressed slowly. Thus, the proposal to preserve the Edmunds unit is a creative opportunity in wilderness management. The area will eventually return to its wilderness state if S. 3502 is enacted. By contrast, the Birch Islands have rarely been visited by man. Uninhabited throughout the centuries, the islands can honestly be called "little jewels of unspoiled wilderness." Both the Edmunds and Birch Islands units are of special value to the nation. The Edmunds unit will provide serious students as well as visitors an opportunity to observe the changing ecology over the years. The Bir~h Islands unit offers Americans an opportunity to observe one of the few parts of our country that has never been inhabited and whose ecology has never been disturbed. I urge the Committee to act favorably on S. 3502, and would appreciate this letter being made a part of the record of the hearings. Sincerely, EDMUND S. MUSKIE. U.S. Senate. STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP A. HART, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to urge your favorable action on a bill of which I am a cosponsor ( S. 3502) to preserve and protect additional samples of wild America for the legacy of the future. This is a program which serves the public interest in the highest sense. Through the wilderness program and through our other conservation efforts, we are writing a collective will and testament, as it were. To our children's children, we are bequeathing our most treasured heir- looms-a good, green earth blessed with an environment of natural grandeur, Few other areas in Wisconsin-indeed, few others in the central Midwest-will be available for protection as wilderness. With so little left, we in that part of the country have a real appreciation for its value. Though no mineral wealth is found on these areas, though the land is all federally owned already, and though no cost will be incurred by this designation, these wild lands are priceless. It is to secure the perpetuation of these treasured islands that I urge your favorable report on this legislation. Senator CHiJRCH. Thank you Senator Nelson. The committee has received statements in support of S. 3502 from Senator Muskie, Senator Hart, Congressman Rupj~e, and Congress- man Hathaway. They will be included in the hearing record at this point. Then we will return to testimony on the Great Swamp Wilder- ness Area. (The data referred to follow:) PAGENO="0035" 31 diversity, and quality. Too often we bequeath ugliness and environmental squalor by our lack of foresight. Today, by an act of thoughtful foresight, we bequeath to the future a sample of our own heritage. That is what we set out to do in the 88th Congress when we passed the land- mark Wilderness Act. Today we are implementing that Act, and it is indeed a distinct pleasure to support the designation as wilderness of three wild samples of the diverse geography and ecology of the State of Michigan. Michigan calls itself the "Great Lakes State", and so it is appropriate that two of the three Michigan proposals in S. 3502 involve islands in three of the lakes which form our state boundaries. The Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge actually consists of three is- lands~-one in Lake Huron, two in Lake Michigan. These are small Islands-- totalling 12 acres-but they qualify as wilderness not only in terms of the law, but also by virtue of their remote wilderness, being buffered from civilization by water. The Huron Islands are remote, too, and wild, but their wildness is of a differ- ent, more aloof kind. These are eight islands grouped in Lake Superior in a pris- tine, scenic cluster off the south lake shore and not far from the wild Huron Mountains. One hundred and forty-seven acres in all, the islands are covered by gnarled trees, and their granite bedrock is a history book of lessons of the glacial action which shaped all of the State. The islands comprise the Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. The Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers share some jurisdic- tion, but do not plan further activities inimical to wilderness. The proposed Seney wilderness is of a different character for it lies inland, in the heart of our Upper Peninsula. The Seney National Wildlife Refuge is nearly 100,000 acres in size, and the wilderness would occupy its western portion of 25,150 acres. The environment which would be protected at Seney is unique. Two-thirds of the area is covered by "string bogs"-a landscape of shallow boggy areas inter- rupted by a series of parallel sand knolls. This complex and remarkable land form is actually the remnant of sand dunes which were formed after the glaciers receded. "String bogs" are found nowhere farther south in North America. I am hopeful that this wild landscape will be protected by an Act of the 90th Congress. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet mentioned wildlife, but I will not neglect it. These areas are all now wildlife refuges, and they will remain so. Wilderness designation will not change this-including the Bureau's ability to open portions of them to public hunting-but will add a further mandate that the total wildness of these areas be retained-wilderness is the environment for wildlife. Gulls and terns on `the islands ; deer, moose, and bald eagle-these are some of the species which use and will always use these lands. These proposals come before you today with a tremendous supportive record. Prior to and at public hearings in Michigan, many citizen-conservationists con- structively participated in preparing well-rounded, non-controversial proposals. The State of Michigan has endorsed the proposals, which `are now embodied in legislation unanimously sponsored by both Senators and all 19 MichIgan House members. The designation as wilderness will bring secure protection to these wild lands. It will also help to round out our National Wilderness Preservation System. A diverse set of Michigan environments will have been sampled and protected. Together with Isle Royale National Park and other potential areas in Michigan which also will be reviewed for wilderness, these units will represent a living heritage of opportunity for the future: The opportunity to know the original American continent and the opportunity to know wildness. Thus these proposals will serve Michigan and the nation. They require neither land acquisition am- thority nor any other Federal expense for their accomplishment. I ask your favor- able consideration of S. 8502. Thank you. STATEMENT or HONORABLE PHILIP E. RUPPE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN The Seney National Wildlife Refuge of 94,455 `acres is located in Schooleraft County in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Some 25,150 acres at the western end of this Refuge qualify as roadless area suitable for wilderness designation by Congress, as provided for in S. 3502 and in my House bill, HR. 17011, which I am hopeful the House Committee will consider shortly. PAGENO="0036" 32 The proposed Seney Wilderness boundary has been refined through careful study and constiuctive citizen participation in the decisrnn Six thousand acres of suitable lands were added to the preliminary agency proposal as a result of views stated at a public hearing At this public hearing held in Marquette on May 10 1967 testimony was received from 16 persons and 125 written statements were received for the record only three of which were in opposition The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will continue to manage the area for its wildlife values Under Sec 4(a) and 4(b) of the Wilderness Act ~s ilder ness designation is declared to be supplemental to wildlife purposes The pending proposal has been prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Wilderness designation for Seney will protect a unique area of sub arctic string bogs which are found no farther south in all of North America Many species of northwoods wildlife-including the rare timber wolf and bald eagle- inhabit this wild area Hunting will continue to be permissible within the Seney Wilderness under Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and State regulations. No federal land acquisition or other federal expense will be involved in this wilderness designation The proposed Huron Islands Wilderness consists of eight islands grouped three miles off the Huron Mountains along the southern shore of Lake Superior These islands are granitic upthrusts bearing a picturesque cover of wind swept trees Evidence of glacial action over bedrock called glacial grooving is par ~ticularly prominent. The Httron Islands total 147 acres all of wiuch would be included in the wilderness area Provision for such small Wilderness Areas is clearly made in the parent Wilderness Act of 1964 which stipulates no minimum size other than that practicable to be preserved in an unimpaired condition As a roadless island, this refuge was required to be reviewed for its suitability as wilderness by the parent Act. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife manages the islands as a national wildlife refuge The Bureau however shares primary )urisdiction with two other agencies The Coast guard has a lighthouse and station on Huron Island and the Army Corps of Engineers has a permit to remove granite from East Huron Island for breakwater construction. Neither agency foresees any further use of these islands for purposes incompatible with wilderness designation Of the eighteen persons who testified at the public hearing in Marquette on May 10, 1967, all favored the proposaL Of 125 written statements submitted for the record only three opposed such designation The Michigan Department of Conservation has expressed a favorable position No cost to the Treasury of the United States or acquisition of lands is involved The proposed Michigan Islands Wilderness is made up of three small islands which total 12 acres in size Shoe and Pismire Islands are in the Beaver group Ui northern Lake Michigan while Scarecrow Island is in Thunder Bay of Lake Huron. While the islands `are small, they have significant natural values. Gulls, terns and waterfowl use the seldo~n visited islands for nesting habitat Wilderness protection will secure the enduring protection of these islands as samples of wild environments and ~s scenic elements of the land-and-lakescapes of which they are a part. The islands have no mineral values No land acquisition is involved and no cost to the Treasury will be incurred by tins designation Mr Chairman this concludes my prepared remarks on the Michigan wilderness designation proposals I am hopeful that your Committee will see fit to report S 8502 promptly without amendment msofar ~s it applies to these Michigan areas. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. STATEMENT OF Host. JOHN W. BYRNES, A U;S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN it, is a pleasure for me to be with you today to urge favorable action on legisla- tion to designate as wilderness three small islands in my district, to be known as the Wisconsin Islands Wilderness I have introduced such legislation H R 16943 in the House of Representatives and hope to see it receive prompt consideration by the Bouse Committee. PAGENO="0037" 33 These islands are administered now-and would continue to be administered under Ijill S. 3502-by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife as the Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Gravel Island National Wildlife RefugeS For more than 50 years the Federal Government has protected these pristine islands, which are havens for thousands of nesting birds and today we ask you to give them even greater security, as designated wilderness areas. Last year the Bureau conducted a public hearing on this proposal in the City of Sturgeon Bay in Door County. At that hearing the proposal was strongly sup~ ported by all those testifying. Nearly 200 letters were received, and all of these also endorsed the Wisconsin Islands Wilderness proposal. The Wisconsin Con- servation Department expressed a favorable view, as did a local County Super- visor. In short, support for this action is unanimous. These three small islands which total only 29 acres in size are seldom visited except by dedicated bird enthusiasts. No mineral values are known. The islands are entirely in Federal ownership, and no acquisition of land or other cost will result from this designation. Mr. Chairman, the designation of these islands as wilderness would certainly be in the public interest, as the citizens of Wisconsin have shown. Such legisla- tion would secure additional, statutory protection for these small islands, which are valuable only because they have been kept wild and remain so today. I am hopeful that your Committee will move quickly to report such legislation and that it will gain Senate passage soon, so as to demonstrate to my colleagues in the House Committee its noncontroversial nature and absence of any problems in connection with consideration of my bill, H.R. 16943. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, A 13.5. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE or MAINE Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, the well-being of this country depends upon policy which accommodates both a concern for our economic well- being and a concern that man, himself a part of nature, cannot tolerate careless exploitation of natural resources. Our water is not only a source of "power" but a source of human sustenance. It is both-and it can serve as both only if policy recognizes the need for accommodating both uses. Our land is not only a founda- tion for concrete but a birthplace for all that grows naturally from the earth and our air is not only our source of life but a property which, when abused, may be a source of death. What is important, then, is that we respect our exhaustible resources and that we treat them as such when we use them. To maintain all our natural resources as wilderness would be just as deadly to the human race as would a policy which carelessly treats these resources as slaves to economic profits. The necessity is for a balance between these Interests. In recognition of the need for this balance and in view of the rapid expansive needs of a booming population, the Federal government seeks, through the Depart- ment of Interior, to preserve certain land as "wilderness" where man's natural habitat will be permanently maintained. Likewise, in recognition of the unequal distribution of economic growth, other agencies of the Federal government seek to stimulate a comprehensive development of resources out of respect for other very legitimate human needs. With these `thoughts in mind and without contradicting my active pursuit for desperately needed economic growth and resource development in the State of Maine~ I introduced legislation in the House to designate the Edmunds and Birch Islands Units within Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine-as wilder- ness areas. The Edmunds and Birch Islands Wilderness proposals contain a total of about 2,780 acres of land within the refuge which Is situated within Washing- ton County, Maine. This land designation came as a result of a public hearing in Calais, Maine, April 12, 1967, at which time the Department of Interior presented its tentative proposal and heard public and private testimony in regard to it. The initial proposal for Birch Islands received no objections and objections registered to the Edmunds Wilderness proposal resulted in a reduction of the land area proposed to be maintained as wilderness. This clearly indicates the willingness of the Department of Interior to act on legitimate objections to certain "wilderness" designations. In this case, the State Highway Commission objection that the area might interfere with the possible expansion of Route 1 was withdrawn when new boundaries were incorporated into the proposal. PAGENO="0038" 34 . Objections registered by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Game of Maine and by the University of Maine were withdrawn upon notification that the pro- posal had been revised to accommodate those interests. Consequently, I join in supporting this wilderness proposal which will con- stitute these areas to be maintained in a state as natural as possible. These areas ~will be officially set off limits to private or public use for any purpose which ~would disrupt preservation. In these areas, mankind will be welcomed and In- ~rited to enjoy the solitude and sport afforded by the uninhibited process of nature, a wonder still unequalled by mankind. Senator CHURCH. Congressman Frelinghuysen, you have some con- stituents you want to introduce and I would invite you to proceed in any way you prefer. As you know, the Wilderness Act prescribes against any roads or other manmade buildings or shelters or anything of that kind in a wilderness area so that, consistent with the provisions of the act, this particular road through the Great Swamp would have to be closed for this area to qualify for inclusion in the Wilderness System. I under- stand from your testimony that the legal governmental people have indicated their willingness `to close the road if this measure is approved? Mr. FRELINGHTIYSEN. That is true, Mr. Chairman. I assume there is a representative of the Department of the Interior who will testify on this point. As you can see by the map, it was proposed to break the area into two segments and, in efFect, have two wilderness areas and it was thought, because of that, a road might be permitted. As I say, in the area officials in both townships have already mdi- cated they would be willing to close the road if that should be necessary to designate the entire area as a single wilderness. Senator CHURCH. My impression would be that closing the road would be necessary, otherwise leaving a road running through and rationalizing it on the basis of having a wilderness area on either side of it is just a clear way of avoiding the provisions of the act. If that could be done here, it could be done anywhere. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The House showed concern over that, too, and for that reason we have ~ been in touch with officials of both townships. A number of statements have been presented to Mr. Aspinall. Senator CHURCH. Why don't you introduce your witnesses? Mr. FRELTNGHUYSEN. I don't know in what order they would like to testify. We have Mr. Jack W. Moody, chairman of the Somerset County Park Commission. In addition we have Russell Myers, director of the Morris County Park System, and Mr. Este S'towell, trustee of the North Jersey Conservation Foundation. Mr. Stowell is accom- panied by Miss Helen Fenske, executive secretary of the North Jersey Foundation. And last but not least from my particular area-I am sure there are others who would like to testify-Dr. Robert Oxnam, president of Drew University. Senator JORDAN. While the gentlemen are coming up. may I say I am delighted to see this interesting wilderness preservation exhibited in Eastern areas. I have been in support of wilderness legislation, but largely it has been in the western part of the country for `only a few people. But here comes a proposition before this committee setting aside an area within weekend commuting distance of many of the people of the Nation. This, I think, is a move in the right direction. I am in favor of more of this kind of thing. PAGENO="0039" 35 Mr. FRELINGHTIYSEN. I might say, Seniathr, it may b~ the pressures of population have called attention to the value of this property. In the 16 years I have been in Congress, I have never seen such `a spon- taneous outpouring of interest and effort by the population in the area and such full support. We are anxious to get the highest level of `sup- port for `this and this is the reason we hope to get affirmative action from the Congress to protect this. Senator JORDAN. We from the west can attest th the value of this kind of resource preservation. Senator HANSEN. If I may be permitted `an observation, let me add my words of approval and pleasure to those already indicated by the junior Senator from Idaho, Mr. Jordan. I `too recognize the value of making available to people areas for renewal of spirit as well as the body close to where the people are. I think this is one of the prime con- clusions reached by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Corn- mission several years ago headed up by Laurance Rockefeller. As you know, his committee concluded that the prime need in this country was to make areas such as this available close to where the people are. This, in the judgment of `the committee as I took their report came first. I hope that we might get some comment as well on the second point made by the Congressman from New Jersey to consider, if we could, the possibility of two areas so as not to make necessary the obliteration of the road. While I am riot familiar with the traffic pattern in this part of the State, just off-hand it occurs to me that if this section of the road dividing the two sections of the proposed wilderness were to be closed, the roads now extending to the proposed wilderness area might be- come less valuable. I agree with you that this road would deprive us of the concept of the wilderness area. I would hope we might review alternatives and see what we can do with respect to the roads going through there and no further. It seems that two sections of wilderness area would be more accessible to the people. Mr. FRELINGHTJYSEN. I am sure some of my neighbors are anxious to testify on this bill and the subject you raise. This is an unpaved road. There are some who would be reluctant to see it go, but if it should be necessary to close it, the officials are ready to do so. Senator HANSEN. You have answered part of my question. I had assumed that this was probably a divided highway. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, it is not. We need more of those, though. The representatives from the park `system are going to talk of addi- tional lands acquired by the State and county. We are pursuing a pro- gram for acquiring lands which will supplement these Federal lands. I d'on't want to take any more of your time than necessary, so we will proceed. I think Dr. Oxnam of Drew University would like to speak first. Senator CHunCH. Why don't we proceed down the list of those that came forward. The first is Dr. Oxnam. STATEMENT OP DR. ROBERT B. OXNAM, PRESIDENT' DREW UNIVERSITY Dr. OXNAM. I sincerely wish it were possible to show you the film produced by WNBC for last Sunday evening's "New York Illus- I I PAGENO="0040" 36 I I trated" telecast In 30 minutes of marvelous photography and narra tion it presented the compelling need for permanently protecting the Great Swamp far more effectively than an army of Daniel Websters addressing you this morning could hope to do. Some 23 colleges and universities located in New Jersey use the Swamp as a laboratory. Inaddition, of course, it is within an hour of New York City, which contains many other colleges and universities In September, I)rew University will open a brand new Hall of Sm ences carefully and completely equipped to train young men and women m the science disciplines To underscore our emphasis upon the sciences, let me note that approximately 80 percent of our graduates who hold doctorates have earned them in one of the science disciplines. Construction costs for the Hall of sciences alone will total $3 25 million, and we expect that it will cost a minimum of $80,000 each year simply to maintain it. ~ Our commitment to the education of men and women in the sciences is strong And we take pride rn the results of that commitment But no amount of money and no degree of commitment or dedication can create a laboratory of life as valuable as the less than 4,000 acres we ask you-through S 3379-to preserve We can study ecology in the Hall of Sciences We can follow the development of a plant from seed to maturity in it We can dissect and study animals in it We can do these things as best they can be done in a laboratory But within it we cannot see the balance of nature at work. Within it we cannot follow the development from seed to full plant maturity under natural conditions Within it we cannot study animals as they live in nature. The area known as the Great Swamp is today virtualy unchanged since its creation some 40,000 years ago The Great Swamp exists today much as it did centuries go when the Delaware Indians lived and hunted in its forests, and it is said that ancient trees still stand that once watched the silent warriors gliding by on their way to the hunt and to war. The Swamp today stands unaltered from the form it held when William Penn became its owner in 1667 We cannot build that laboratory Money cannot build it Man's ingenuity cannot build it Nature alone can build such a laboratory, and only Congress can protect it It seems `to me that the needs of science and science's students are so obvious that we may very often forget the needs of those disciplines dealing with the whole man Let me, in that context, quote from Sister Hildegarde Marie, president of our neighboring College of St Eliza beth Surely man acquires a fresh new image of himself and his world when faced with nature almost as it comes from the hand of God We need this awareness of the Creator future generations may need it even more I would hope that this was one of the reasons for the passage of the original Wilderness Act, "In order to assure that an increasing population * * * does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States," and that this is why it became "the policy of the Con- gross to secure for the American people * * * an enduring resource of wilderness:." I do not think we dare forget that with the giant material gains of our society have come slums and urban sprawl and the deadly medioc- I PAGENO="0041" 37 rity of the suburb. I do not think we dare forget that as simple a thing as a woods is today unknown to thousands of children ; tomorrow it may be unknown to millions. Passage of S. 3379 assures the preservation of a unique and irreplace- able area covering less than 4,000 acres within our Nation's most urban area. In so doing it presents to current and future generations a reminder of what we were, a place to discover and enjoy what we are, and a learning place for what we will be. No man charged with responsibilities in higher education could view the loss of such `an area with anything less than the great reluc- tance. I most strongly urge passage of S. 3379. Thank you. I do have with me a statement from Dean Griffin of Fairleigh Dick- inson University. If the chairman will permit, I would like this state- ment entered into the record ; also a statement of Sister Hildegarde Marie Mahoney, president of the College of St. Elizabeth ; a statement by Robert K. Zuck on behalf of the New Jersey Academy of Science; a statement of Mr. Leslie V. Rear, superintendent of education, Morris County; and a statement of Leonard C. Blessing, executive vice presi- dent of the New Jersey Science Teachers Association. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to hear me. Senator Cmrncrr. Those statements will be included in the record immediately following the very eloquent statement you have made. We thank you. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF DEAN GRIFFIN, FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON UNIVERSITY The Department of Biology at the Florham-Madison campus of Fairleigh Dickinson University is very much interested in the Great Swamp and is en- couraged by recent developments to maintain the area as a wildlife refuge. The proximity of the Swamp to our campus in an area that is rapidly becom- ing urbanized, affords our University the opportunity to plan programs and courses in environmental biology that are important to society and students at a time when conservation is of concern to every citizen. The availability of the Great Swamp has allowed the Department of Biology to prepare preliminary plans for a Wildlife Management Study, offer a highly successful course in Natural History and is now planning new course work and programs in conservation. The ecological situations available at the Great Swamp are unique in this section of the country and we look forward to making extensive use of the area In extending our programs in environmental biology. STATEMENT OF SISTER HILDEGARDE MARIE MAHONEY, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE OF SAINT ELIZABETH, CONVENT STATION, NEW JERSEY As President of the College of Saint Elizabeth, I most earnestly wish to go on record in favor of the Great Swamp Wilderness Bill. Our College biologists and biology students undertake serious investigations of the relationships of living things to their environment. It is increasingly diffi- cult in this metropolitan area for them to find places where plant and animal life can be studied under natural conditions. Laboratory work must be supported by study of living organisms' in their undisturbed natural environments. Over the years the Biology Department of the College of Saint Elizabeth has relied upon the resources of the Great Swamp in its botany and zoology courses and in methods courses for prospective teachers of biological sciences. However, the issues here transcend even the ecological-they touch on the spiritual. Surely men acquires a fresh new image of himself and his world when faced with nature almost as it comes from the hand of God. We need this aware- ness of the Creator; future generations may need it even more. PAGENO="0042" I 38 STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT K. ZUCK ON BEHALF OF THE NEW JERSEY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE In representing the 1100 members of the New Jersey Academy of Science I speak for a considerable portion of the scientists of the State, both academic and nonacademic. The Academy, of which I am a founder and past president, has been involved since the beginning of the effort to save the Great Swamp for its rich plant and animal life and for its geologic interest as a remnant of glacial Lake Passaic. The plant life of the Great Swamp, while harboring no species unique to science, is of special interest because of its great diversity and large number of species. There will probably be 1000 species of ferns and seed plants when the collections and cataloging are done-a joint effort of the Department of Botany of Drew University and the Summit Nature Club. This collection is maintained at Drew University. About one quarter of the some 700 species of birds known in the United States are to be found here as residents and as migrants. One of our Academy members, Dr. Kemble Widmer, State Geologist for New Jersey, points out that maintenance of the Great Swamp in its present condition is essential to the water supply of the area, on which so many individual and municipal wells are dependent. We of the Academy are encouraged that the Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge qualifies for a Wilderness Area and endorse the passage of this Bill into law. Future generations of scientists and laymen will benefit greatly from the inviolate preservation of this remarkable area. STATEMENT OF LESLIE V. REAR, COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT, MORRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION This testimony is written in support of the need to designate the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as a Wilderness Area. As the Morris County Superintendent of Schools, I am deeply concerned over the need for the preservation and protection of such an area as a resource and learning laboratory for the development of sound edu- cational programs in the areas of conservation and the study of nature and the environment. The Great Swamp, with the proposed Wilderness Area as the core of a permanent natural environment, is one of the few remaining areas of adequate size and containing the variety and wealth of natural environment which can afford worthwhile opportunities to serve the educational needs of the schools of Morris County and surrounding areas. The schools of the area have developed programs in this area of study and have initiated a long-range proposal for a program of environmental studies as part of a total integrated educational program. The designation of the area as a Wilderness Area is of vital importance to the success of this educational program and to a heritage from which our young people can gain much and to which such an educational program will help them contribute for future generations. This office strongly supports the proposal to establish the Wilderness Area and urges every consideration to its establishment. STATEMENT OF LEONARD C. BLEssING, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION The New Jersey Science Teachers Association wishes to urge the inclusion of the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units ~f the Great Swamp as one of the nation's Wilderness Areas. This whole region, in the midst of the greatly populated megalopolis zone, is a unique and fortunate circumstance for the people of this area and the nation as a whole, This region has been used in the past for student study and research into ways of nature, is being used at present for such and I can envision much greater utilization in the future if this great natural resource can be preserved forever. The whole Great Swamp zone is vital to the water supply of north New Jersey and the control of floods in that part of the state. The use of the Great Swamp by migratory birds is also an unreplaceable item. Let me say the New Jersey Science Teachers Association most heartily urges the inclusion of this area as a Wilderness Zone. PAGENO="0043" 39 Senator CHURCH. Our next witness will be Mr. Jack Moody,~ secretary-director of the Somerset County Park Commission. STATEMENT OP rACK W. MOODY, SECRETARY-DIRECTOR, SOMERSET COUNTY PARK COMMISSION Mr. MOODY. Mr. Chairman, I am Jack W. Moody, secretary-director of the Somerset County Park Commission, Somerset County, N.J., serving a resident population of 195,000 people. It is an exceedingly great pleasure for me to appear before you today to express the feelings of the park commission and my own personal convictions on the wilder- ness proposal before you. Only in its 11th year, the Somerset County Park Commission, an agency created by public referendum, proudly owns and maintains eight parks consisting of 2,100 acres. Our immediate goal is 3,000 acres by 1970. Now, for those of you who come from the great States of the Far West, this may not seem to be an impressive figure, and per- haps this is true. But for those of us living in the rapidly urbanizing regions of New Jersey, 2,000, 3,000 or 5,000 acres represent that much and even more. Every single acre set aside for open space, effectively protected by law, means preservation of a small piece of our important natural heritage. Much has and will be said regarding the vast citizen and commu- nity action involved in preserving Great Swamp. It also seems im- portant to list here the enormous governmental effort and money already invested in the preservation of the Great Swamp Basin: 1. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, $2,800,000. 2. Passaic River Park, Somerset County, $795,000. 3. Loantaka Brook Reservation, Morris County, $650,000. These funds are in addition to the $1.5 million raised by the North Jersey Conservation Foundation for the establishment of the refuge and $75,000 contributed by that organization toward the creation of the Somerset County Passaic River Park. This makes a grant total of $5,820,000 just for land acquisition, without including any county park development costs. Of this figure thus far, the State of New Jersey has made an investment of $469,000 and the Federal Govern- mont $395,000. The most recent land acquisition project of the park commission is in that portion of the Great Swamp Basin as it extends across the Passaic River into Somerset County, identified on the map as the Passaic River Park. In recognizing the regional importance of preserving Great Swamp as a whole, and our portion in particular, the commis- sion's proposal received the immediate and complete support of mu- nicipal and county planning and governmental officials. Subsequently, the acquisition was endorsed by the Tn-State Trans- portation Commission, which is the metropolitan regional planning agency, and has received grant-in-aid funds through the New Jersey State green acres local assistance program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development open space program, and private philanthropy. I mention these facts only to show the broad-based acceptance of the Great Swamp's preservation. The Passaic River Park of Somerset County and the Loantaka Brook Reservation in Morris County form a contiguous open space PAGENO="0044" 40 area of some 7,000 acres which now does represent a vast site. The two county parks will form buffer areas for the wilderness site and serve to protect the features of the refuge. The heavier day-use facili- ties such as nature trails, nature education buildings, family picnic sites, and horseback riding trails, will be supplied by the county units and will not extend into or enter upon the wilderness lands. Of vast importance, also, is the swamp's present and potential use as an educational tool to alert and indoctrinate millions of our young urban people to the importance and value of their country's resources. Wc, the Congress and concerned citizens, are the ones who must set the example for our young people to follow in resource preservation. Through multigovernmental cooperation of the Morris and Someset County Park Commissions and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, programs have already been established which will carry out these objectives. Through this example of coordination, thousands of our urban youngsters will have the unique opportunity of experiencing natural swamp and wilderness exposure close to home. One final point ; New Jersey, as you know, recently experienced a severe flonding. The Passaic River, in particular, overflowed itis banks ~ind caused ex~ten$ive downstream damage to private and governmental properties. Robert A. Roe, commissioner of the New Jersey State Dc- par~ment of Conser~ation and Economic Development, has stated that the flood control value of the headwaters of `this river, formed in the Great Swamp, alone would be valid enough reason for preserving the area in its highest form. The entire swamp produces subsurface water supply for vast areas of New Jersey through recharge processes. Manmade alterations of these itatural phenomena could cause serious future problems. For these reasons the Somerset County Park Commission supports and urges passage of S. 3379. Thank you. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Moody. Accompanying you today is Russell Myers. Do you have a statement, Mr. Myers? STATEMENT OP RUSSELL W. MYERS, SECRETARY-DIRECTOR, MORRIS COUNTY PARK COMMISSION Mr. MYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a statement. I am Russell W. Myers, secretary-director of the Morris County Park Commission of Morris County, N.J. I wish to supplement Mr. Moody's statement with ~ few additional details regarding the activi- ties of the Morris County Park Commission on the northeasterly and easterly perimeters of the proposed wilderness area. On the map it is indicated in yellow on the right-hand side of the map. Since 1962, the Morris County Park Commission has been actively engaged in an effort to preserve the Great Swamp by developing corn- plementary buffer areas and programs which will preserve the in- residing in what will then be `a very urban area. Morris County is one of the most rapidly growing counties in the State of New Jersey wi'th `an estimated resident population of 375,000 people. it is anticipated that by 1980 some 600,000 people will be residing in what will be a very urban area. PAGENO="0045" 41 At the present time Loantaka Brook Reservation contains 556 acr~s of land, of which approximately 40 `acres is `adjacent to the proposed wilderness area and on which, in 1963, the Morris County Park Commission constructed a nature education center. The program at this center is devoted entirely toward an ecological understanding and `appreciation of the values of the Great Swamp wilderness area. During this past year, 5,000 children, through a coordinated school program, had the opportunity of participating in this experience. In addition, there have been many thousands of adults who have visited the center to learn and explore the values of this unique area. To the immediate north of the wilderness area, the Morris County Park Commission maintains ~nd has developed the remaining portion of the Loantaka Brook Reservation, which follows the course of the Loantaka Brook, one of the major waterways of the swamp. This res~ ervation acts to preserve the quality `of the brook as it feeds into the Great Swamp and further acts as' an open-space buffer against urbai~ development pressures. It provides public recreational facilities such as horseback riding, walking trail's, and limited picnic and day camp areas. It is most important to emphasize the outstanding cooperation which has existed over this period of time between citizens, county, and Federal official's on this project. For example, 200 acres of this land, representing now a value of over $500,000, was donated to the park commission by private individuals. The Morris County Park Commission believes that the cooperation between citizens' organiza- tions and other municipal, county, and State organizations removes the danger of erosion from such a `small wilderness area. On behalf of the Morris County Park Commission, we urge the favorable approval of S. 3379 by your committee as a national show- case to demonstrate the wilderness values in the eastern United States. We believe that `only in acquainting urban and suburban population with these values can the national wilderness system be preserved, have meaning, strength, and' protection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Crnmcu. Thank you very much, Mr. Myers, for your testimony. Senator Jordan, do you have any question's? Senator JORDAN. Only one. Who would be prepared to tell us why the rest of the wildlife refuge was not included in this wilderness designation? Senator CrnrRciI. Is there someone here with an answer to that question? Mr. GOTTSOIIALK. I am John Gottschalk. Senator JORDAN. You will be testifying later? Mr. GOTTSOHALK. Yes, sir. Senator CHTRCH. We will wait until then for the questions in that case. Senator Hansen, do you have any questions? Senator HANSEN. No, sir. Senator CHURCH. Then let's ask Mr. Stowell to proceed with his testimony. PAGENO="0046" 42 STATEMENT OP ESTE STOWELL, NORTH JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. ARTHUR PENSKE, DIRECTOR, NORTH JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION Mr. STOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senators, Congressmen, I would like to read a very brief statement in behalf of the North Jersey Foundation and then add one or two remarks. The better part of a decade has passed since the Great Swamp Corn- mittee, predecessor of the North Jersey Conservation Foundation, took the initiative in preserving the diverse natural marvels of the Greait~ Swamp. The North Jersey Conservation Foundation speaks for 7,015 in- dividuals, 478 organizations in 301 communities and 29 States who have donated more than $1.5 million so that enough of the Great Swamp could be bought to guarantee the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a workable preserve. The money was used to purchase more than 3,000 acres which has been deeded to the Federal Government, at no cost to the taxpayers, as the nucleus of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. We are proud of the role we have played in the creation of the Great Swamp National Wildife Refuge. Even more important to us is our feeling of continued obligation to strive for the perpetual preservation of Great Swamp as a tiny cross section of a once extensive wilderness area. We feel an added obligaion to guarantee the trust placed in us by the thousands of Americans who made this refuge possible. Our achievement has national importance as an example of the kind of citizen action that is necessary today to preserve our deteriorating environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has done an out- standing job in saving Great Swamp. The cooperation between the Bureau and citizen groups has been remarkable. Their wilderness pro- posal is added proof that such an alliance can be fruitful and worth striving for. We unconditionally endorse the Bureau's proposal to have the 3,750- acre M. Hartley Dodge wilderness unit and the Harding unit included in the national wilderness system. The M. Hartley Dodge tract for the most part is virgin woodlands while the Harding unit is a roadless island of marsh and wetlands. These two units comprise a comprehen- sive cross-section of Great Swamp ecology. If I may interrupt my statement, Senator Hansen, that is perhaps part of the answer to the question you raised. Senator HANSEN. Yes. Mr. STOWELL. These were originally separate areas because the ecology of each was different and were later combined because it seemed a more workable proposition even though we were aware of ~the road between them. We urge the committee to review as much as possible the extensive testimony included in the wilderness hearing records. We ask that the index to this record be made part of this hearing record today and we hope the committee will scan this index and learn the wide scope of interest among those who both worked and donated money to save Great Swamp. PAGENO="0047" 43 Those of us who are here today are a tiny microcosm of this vast number which included historical societies, local governing bodies, county officials, women's groups, schools and colleges, science groups and recreation associations as well as many conservation organizations from all over the Nation. The supporting documents submitted with this statement reflect the support of all town and county governmental agencies within whose jurisdiction Great Swamp falls. Also reflected is the deep involvement of the public and private schools and educators who are depending upon Great Swamp as an outdoor classroom and laboratory. The Great Swamp is unique to this New York metropolitan area. The close proximity of wild lands to a teeming metropolis increasingly cut off from the resources of the land on which it depends enhances many times the value of this wilderness proposal. Accordingly, we urge prompt approval of your committee of S. 3379 to protect Great Swamp from the ever-present danger of exploitation. I would like, if I may, to list the supporting statements which I would also like to place in the record. Senator CHURCH. Very well. And the hearing index you refer to will be made a part of the record by reference. Mr. STOWELL. Supporting statements, first, from the mayors of the municipalities involved. They are the townships of Harding, Passaic, Chatham, and Bernards ; a similar statement from the Board of Free- holders, Morris County ; a statement from Commissioner Robert A. Roe, Commissioner of the District of Conservation and Economic Development of the State of New Jersey ; a statement from Dr. James B. Fisk, president of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, which will convey some of the concern of industry in this part of the world for preservation of the swamp ; a statement from the New Jersey His- torical Society by president John T. Cunningham ; and a statement from the New Jersey State Federation of Womens Clubs on behalf of its 45,000-odd members. ( The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF JAMES C. PITNEY, ACTING MAYOR OF HARDING TOWNSHIP The Township Committee of the Township of Harding wishes to go on record wholeheartedly in supportof the recommendation of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to make the 3750 acres of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. This area in the heart of `Megalopolis' is in our opinion markedly distinguished from surrounding lands by topographical and ecological features as required by the Wilderness Act of 1964. We urge the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to act as quickly as pos- sible in accelerating Wilderness Bill 5-3379. STATEMENT OF MAYOR ROBERT J. BEST OF PASSAIC TOWNSHIP A portion of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge lies within our Town- ship, as does a portion of the proposed wilderness area. At a regular meeting of the Governing Body of Passaic Township on February 3, the following resolution was unanimously adopted : "Resolved that the Township Committee of the Township of Passaic does whole- heartedly endorse the inclusion of the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and recommends to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the North Jersey Conservation Foundation that additional areas, where possible, be designated." PAGENO="0048" 44 STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. HAYCOCK, MAYOR, TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS The governing body of the Township of Bernards, County of Somerset, wishes to be recorded in favor of the Great Swamp Wilderness Proposal to Include the 3,750 acre M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units in the National Wild- erness System. Because of its dominant location in the eastern portion of the Great Swamp, the Dodge Area would have a key effect in the preservation of the entire 8,000 acre Great Swamp National Landmark. Coupled with this, 750 acres of our township's land lying at the western end of the Great Swamp is to be in- cluded in the new Somerset County Passaic River Park. Most of the land in be- tween these areas has already been donated to the Department of the Interior through the efforts of many individuals and of the North Jersey Conservation Foundation. Through the joint efforts of individuals, local governments and the Federal Government, one of the last unique and irreplaceable wilderness areas will be preserved. STATEMENT OF MAYOR JAMES H. PLANTE, TOWNSHIP OF CHATHAM In behalf of the governing body of the Township of Chatham, I wish to assure you of our support of the Great Swamp as a Natural Wilderness Area. The Great Swamp is land that would normally not be developed due to swamp- like conditions of the soil, and any alteration of its natural state, either by con- Struction of a jetport or development of homes, would disturb the water table necessary for the continued functioning of the underground water supply. With the growth in the surrounding communities of land that is properly de- velopable, a great hardship is placed on wildlife creatures to find a place to live. This wildlife oasis, unique in an area that is all too fast becoming metropolitan, should be maintained for its educational advantages to this generation as well as those to come. RESOLUTION OF THE MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS "Whereas, the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Morris have previously gone on record in favor of the establishment of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, and "Whereas, the open space and conservation values of this area are of great significance to the residents of Morris County, and "Whereas, this area is included in the Open Space Element of the Morris County Master Plan adopted by the Morris County Planning Board on Decem- ber 1, 1966, "Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Morris go on record as approving the recommendations of the Depart- ment of the Interior that the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness units be included as part of the National Wilderness System." STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY We are most interested and pleased to add our support of this most significant preservation program and the Federal Government's proposed administration and management of the unique qualities of this region as a Wilderness area. I am sure that the people of New Jersey as well as citizens of other parts of the United States will find this wilderness area of deep interest from the eclu- cational and scientific standpoint and that it will furnish many hours of delight- ful recreation to an ever-increasing number of our people who are enjoying the out-of-doors. Historically, the Great Swamp Area has been of great interest and has played an integral part in the variety of flora and fauna in New Jersey. Its establishment as a Wilderness Area will continue to contribute to the value of our wildlife resources and maintain a record of those who will have an opportunity to enjoy the area in the future. PAGENO="0049" STATEMENT OF JAM1~S B Fisi~ PRESIDENT, BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES My name is James B. Fisk. I am President of Bell Telephone Laboratories with headquarters at Murray Hill, New Jersey. I wish to urge passage of Wilderness Bill HR-16771 to designate a portion of the Great Swamp of Morris County as part of the Wilderness Preservation System. As a resident ~nd employer in the vicinity of the Great Swamp I have a dual interest in seeing that the future of the area is carefully planned for orderly growth and proper development. This is essential to keep the fast growing economy in this area viable. The State of New Jersey has a real stake in planning the future of Great Swamp. The department charged with such planning is the Department of Conservation and Economic Development The title of this department has not arrived at by mere chance but has a remarkable precision of meaning-Uonser vation and Economic Development These two functions are inseparable It is literally impossible to successfully have one without the other This is the essence of good planning. The region surrounding the Great Swamp area will have substantial growth in the next decade or so. With this growth will come an expanded economy. Propei economic development cannot continue to prevail without the balancing provision of green areas and wildlife preserves to stimulate man s awareness of and dependence on nature. Great Swamp lies in the center of a region containing over 30 million people This number is constantly increasing Many of us here today have been properly grateful for the foresight of an eailier generation in setting aside parks such as the nearby 960 acre Morristown National Historical Park for our benefit and our pleasure. Can we do less for those who follow us, especially when we remember that a wilderness once destroyed is gone forever? The Great Swamp Wilderness area however small in contrast to the great wilder nesses of the West will probably be the only opportunity for the establishment of a segment of the National Wilderness System in the New York Metropolitan region where the greatest concentration of people per square mile in the Nation exists. I represent an organization of more than 14 000 peisons Approximately 11 000 of these people live in the State of JNew Jersey and represent a combined payroll of over 100 million dollars annually Of these New Jersey residents about one third the total including nearly 40% of our scientists and engineers live within a five mile ring surrounding the Great Swamp About half of all New Jersey employees live not more than ten miles away It is quite appaient that the area surrounding Great Swamp is a most desirable residential location for our people When Bell I aboratories began relocating from New York City back in the early forties we selected an area where we could attract the profession'tl and semi professional people that we need to carry on our communications research and development activities What started ai~ an experiment has been emminently successful and consequently we have expanded other New Jersey locations particularly at Whippany in Hanover Township some five miles from the Great Swamp Our company is only one of numerous research organizations which have found this to be true Among the many large industries also located within this five mile circle are Ciba Sandoz Warnei Lambert and Chilcott, Allied Chemical Mennen Corporation and others Their combined payrolls amount to hundreds of millions of dollars each year Today more than ever we are competing 1~or pro1~essional people with other areas of the country where major research and development activity is located They also have strong attractions for these people-Southern Califorma the Peninsula area around San Francisco the Greater Boston area, and soforth These people look very closely at the environment in which they will live before accepting a job Certainly these people need not and would not remain in an area where the quality of their environment had deteriorated. They are not only interested in good home locations but they look for proximity to recreational and cultural activities for themselves and for their children Once they have located here many of them take an active part in the planning and administration of their home communities In the surrounding area approxi mately 40 Bell Laboratories employees serve as members of governing bodies and other municipal boards. Of this group two are Mayors and two are Presidents of School Boards. 99-400-GS--4 I 45 I I PAGENO="0050" 46 You can see that our people look on this area as a good place in which to live and work. They are interested in their communities and are attempting to do something about good planning and good government. They look to groups such as the North Jersey Conservation Foundation and New Jersey's Department of Conservation and Economic Development to see that their faith in New Jersey and their efforts in its behalf have not been wasted. For these reasons I support the proposal to establish the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as part of the Wilderness Preservation System and I urge quick action by this Committee to see that this Is accomplished. STATEMENT OF JOHN T. CUNNINGHAM, PRESIDENT, THE NEW JERSEY HISTORICAL SoCInTY As President of the New Jersey Historical Society, I want to add my support to the proposal that the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units of the Great Swamp be made a Wilderness Area. My interest encompasses both the conservation of a unique natural area and the preservation of a rare part of American-the world-history. Others will stress, I am sure, the natural wonders of the Great Swamp and the need to keep this region inviolate. The Great Swamp is a matter of solid historical concern as well. Although historians too seldom see that history is made only as people relate to an environ- ment-and that events are controlled by the natural surroundings-I have come to realize that study of the Great Swamp can aid an awareness of what we generally call history. Certainly the story of the great glacial period Is a vital concern for historians. The subsidence of the last glacier, 20,000 to 40,000 years ago, left in its wake Lake Passaic. Today's Great Swamp, of course, is the bed of that pre-historic lake. That glacier, through the Great Swamp, shaped as well the course of history. When Washington was in Morristown for two winters of the Revolution, for example, The Great Swamp combined with the Watchung Mountains to form a nearly impregnable defense. Subsequently, the Great Swamp dictated the routes of highways, the course of railroads, the nature of settlements. It was a place to be dreaded, to be left alone. In the shunning, a growing populace unwittingly preserved a huge drain- age basin and kept ha place a major portion of the Passaic River watershed. History never ends. Today, as a mushrooming population presses in through- out the East, the Great Swamp remains as a precious open space-a place where water can still be captured for a civilization which ever faces the agony that water supplies might disappear. It is as well a place where millions of people can find a first awareness that man's place on Earth is a matter of interdependence with the simpler manifestations of natural forces. What happens to the Great Swamp today will be judged as history by future generations. The question seems to be this : Will we have the wisdom to preserve this land for those who will follow or will we permit it to be used for just one more evidence of "progress" which can lead only to frustration? If this was just a matter of a large area as yet unused, it would be debatable whether it ought to be preserved. But this is not just a large area not yet de- veloped. This is the Great Swamp, a place of major geological history, a place of wildlife, a place of water conservation and storage. We owe it to tomorrow to pass on this heritage unsullied. We are lucky to have it; we must not let this luck run out with our generations. RESOLUTION OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE FEDERATION OF WoMEN's CLUBS The New Jersey State Federation of Women's Clubs, representing 45,700 mem- bers, wish to submit the following resolution in support of Bill. Whereas, The M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units of the Great Swamp Natioiial Wildlife Refuge, in Morris County, is being considered for in- clusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System by the Federal Gov- ernment; and Whereas, This unique unspoiled land Is the only tract being studied for perma- nent inclusion in the Wilderness System in both the Metropolitan Area and in all New Jersey; and I PAGENO="0051" 47 Whereas, The miusual ecology in this quiet swamp with its abundant wildlife, its ridges and knolls of laurel and old trees, is daily being studied and enjoyed by citizens of all ages ; and Whereas, This natural area provides urgently needed water, vital to the flow of the Passaic River and to the recharging of underground water supplies, to meet the demands of our ever increasing population ; and Whereas, Migratory water fowl and other birds utilize these wetlands in in- creasing numbers for both stopping and nesting places; and Whereas, This "postage stamp wilderness" lies at the doorstep of more than thirty million people, in the center of Megalopolis, U.S.A.; and Whereas, It is important to perpetuate this land in its natural state for the benefit of the generations yet to come, who will face a more urbanised society than ours; Now therefore, be it Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the New Jersey State Federation of Women's Clubs does signify its approval of the inclusion of the M. Hartley Dodge and Harding Wilderness Units in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Mr. STOWELL. One more thing, Mr. Chairman. I believe I raised the question of the road and I believe we have provided at `east an expla- nation, if not a justification, for that road. I would like, if I may, to read a letter which has been addressed separately to us by the mayors of Harding and Passaic Townships which bear on that road. rfhe first says that a large segment of the Great Swamp Wildlife Refuge lies within `the boundaries of Harding Township. At the time of the February 14, 1967, wilderness hearing, the Hurding Township was in favor of the wilderness proposal and the including of the 1,350- acre Harding unit and the 2,400-acre M. Hartley Dodge national area into the national wilderness preservation system. The township en- dorsement was included in the House subcommittee hearings on June 3 in support of H.R. 16671. It was proposed that the administration of these portions of the refuge be handled in the same manner as other areas included in the National Wilderness Act. The two areas have heretofore been regarded as two separate and distinct ecological wilderness units and because of the existence of Myersville Road-this was the name of the road- a narrow unimproved road dividing them, had not been questions before this time. However, if the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate In-. tenor Committee feels the Harding and Dodge units cannot be con- sidered as two separate wilderness areas, upon congressional approval of these lands into the wilderness system, Harding and Passaic Town- ships will take the steps necessary to vacate the portion within the wilderness areas. I I have given you the substance of two nearly identical letters from the adjoining `townships of Passaic and Harding. Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Stowell. You are accompanied by Mrs. Arthur Fenske, director of the North Jersey Foundation. Mrs. FENSKE. I have no statement, sir. Senator CHURCH. We have heard then from this group, Congress- man Frelinghuysen from New Jersey, and we appreciate very much the benefit of your testimony. Mr. FRELINGImYSEN. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you. Senator CHURCH. Our next witness will be Mr. John S. Gottschalk, Director of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries for the Department of the PAGENO="0052" 48 Interior. Mr. Gottschalk, I am sure you oan give us `answers to such questions as may have been stimulated by the presentations so far. STATEMENT OF JOHN S. ~+OTTSCHALK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIrE~, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY MR. DAVID' FINNEGAN, OFFICE OP LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Department of the Interior is vitally interested in the Wilderness Act and its implementation. Our preliminary reviews indicate that almost 47 million acres of the national wildlife refuge and national park systems qualify for study under the act. The areas comprising this vast acreage span the Nation, and will provide a significant contribution to the national wilderness preservation system. Because of this, I am pleased to be here this morning to speak in support of the first wilderness proposals from our Department. Formal wilderness designation is a new concept in administration of the national wildlife refuge system, and I think it appropriate that I review the background of the refuge wilderness study program and the policies and interpretations that have been used as guidelines with respect to the administration of the proposed refuge wilderness areas. The national wildlife refuge system includes all areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior as wildlife refuges, areas for the pro- tection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and waterfowl production areas. The system consists of 317 units with a total of nearly 29 million acres of widely diverse wildlife environ- ments. Refuge areas have been established in 46 States. About two- thirds of the land area of the system is in Alaska. Most refuges, except for the game ranges of the West and in Alaska, are relatively small in size. However, these many small units ofFer unique values and a new challenge to wilderness classification. The values of such refuges as wilderness must be determined by careful analysis of the ecological and biological factors which make them significant for preservation, rather than their comparative size. During the first 3-year study period under the Wilderness Act, the wilderness potential of 30 national wildlife refuges was studied. Four- teen of these first 30 proposals have been submitted to the Congress. The remaining 16 proposals are under review. National wildlife refuges are the principal Federal lands whose primary purpose is the conservation arid management of wildlife environments. Thus, any wilderness areas designated by Congress within units of the national wildlife refuge system will be established within boundaries of areas originally and primarily set aside for wild- life conservation purposes. These areas have been managed as refuges and many were managed for other purposes before they became refuges. The Wilderness Act is superimposed upon the basic congressional mandates which govern the administration of refuge areas. The pur- poses of the Wilderness Act are "declared to be within and supple- mental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the PAGENO="0053" 49 national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered " In addition, the act directs us to administer each area for such other purposes for which it may be established "as also to pre- serve its wilderness character." A wilderness designation directs administrators of refuges to apply the highest standard of preservation to such areas, and the regulations governing the administration and use of these areas will not be more liberal than those applying to the refuge. In some instances they may be more restrictive. On many refuges there will be opportunity for a "creative wilder- ness philosophy" wherein areas once used as farms, logged `or drained, can under proper protection be restored through natural processes, thus benefiting wild creatures and man alike. Even though some of the refuge areas designated today `as wilderness may today lack the pris- tine character that our grandfathers knew, they will become the wild- erness of tomorrow. While the natural, wild character of any refuge wilderness area that may be established by the Congress must be maintained, the Wilderness Act does not preclude administrative activities which will not adversely affect the refuge wilderness~ area's land surface. For example, seasonal aerial counts of wildlife, patrols to prevent illegal trespass, grazing where utilized as a refuge management tool, inclusion of minimum `and compatible facilities for public safety and sanitation, and control of pest plants, would not impinge on the integrity of a refuge wilderness. Further, wilderness area'~ on refuges will be administered to ac commodate only such number of visitors as will "leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment," and also' be consistent with the require- ments of wildlife This may well mean no visitors at all on some areas such as `bird-nesting rocks, `and seasonal visitation at certain water- fowl and eagle nesting areas. The land units which make up the national wildlife refuge sys- tem contain some `of the most diverse habitat features. in this Nation. Many of these units are small, but their value cannot be measured in size. Their value lies in the ecological, biological, geological, scenic, `scientific and historical features they contain. Many are vitally essen- tial to the preservation of rare flora and fauna, and represent ecologi- cal features which will be preserved nowhere else in this land. In'clu- cq~~ of these areas into the national wilderness preservation system will assure `the perpetuation of their significant natural values. Mr Chairman, this concludes my general statement With your permission I will briefly describe the units proposed in each of the bills, and then come back to each proposal for detailed discussion and questioning. S. 3379 The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is located in Chatham, Harding, `and Passaic Townships of Morris County, N.J., and is best described as a shallow bowl some 7 miles long and 3 miles wide. The Great Swamp is an ecological island in the midst of suburbia where native wildlife species live in extensive marsh, swamp, and garden like islands of laurel and stately trees. Parts of the area are little changed since the last ice age. PAGENO="0054" 50 There are two units within the proposed Great Swamp wilderness. These are the M. Hartley Dodge unit and the Harding units. They contain about 2,400 and 1,350 acres respectively. They are separated by a highway, the Meyersville Road, and are ecologically distinct units. M. Hartley Dodge unit is swamp-forest habitat while Harding is open marsh and marsh-swamp habitat. Low ridges or knolls rising from 5 to 15 feet above the surrounding terrain are interspersed throughout the swamp. In several places the swamp opens into small marshes. A few remote island ridges support magnificent stands of beech with some trees reaching 14 feet in girth, and believed to be between 300 and 500 years old. Spectacular stands of mountain laurel and rhododendron are common plant species. Parts of the area have been farmed in the past and the fields have reverted to second-growth timber. This proposed wilderness is the only extensive swamp-forest habitat of its type in northern New Jersey. It supports a wide variety of birds and mammals, as well as reptiles and amphibians. The varied natural habitat is used as nesting, resting, and feeding grounds by over 140 species of birds. Wood ducks, black ducks and mallards nest in th~ swamp. During migration large numbers of warblers are found in the forest. White-tailed deer and ruffed grouse inhabit the area, especially where the swamp borders cropland, brush, and upland ridges. Raccoon. oppossum, grey squirrel, and red fox are abundant with occasional sightings of weasels, grey fox, and mink reported. For many years, professional and amateur naturalists have realized that the Great Swamp teems with many forms of life. It has become a clasroom for schoolchildren and a field laboratory for college students. It is a natural masterpiece, only 30 miles west of Times Square and within easy driving distance of 30 million people. Mr. Chairman, the Great Swamp is an educational and spiritual resource in the midst of an urban maze and provides a retreat where people can find solitude. Wilderness classification will assure its per- petuation for this and future generations to know and enjoy amidst the clamor of our modern eastern megalopolis. S. 3425 Monomoy Island is an unstable coastal barrier beach located in the town of Chatham, Barnstable County, Mass. The island is bounded on the west by Nantucket Sound and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The island is 9 miles long and varies from one-fourth mile to 1'/2-miles wide. It is separated from the mainland by a shallow channel about one-half mile wide. The metropolitan centers of Boston, Mass., and Providence, RI. are approximately 100 miles away. Monomoy Island is formed and constantly changed by tides, cur- rents, and wind. It is approximately 2,600 acres in size and its highest point is only 30 feet above sea level. During major storms the forces of nature have often caused drastic changes in its size and shape, par- ticularly at the north end. All except 4 acres of Monomoy Island were acquired as part of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, on June 1, 1944. These 4 acres, the site of a former lighthouse, belong to the Massachusetts Audubon Society and two private owners. Since its establishment as part of the PAGENO="0055" 51 Monomoy refuge, the island has been managed as a wild area. There have been few modifications of the natural habitat. There are 10 cabins occupied seasonably by persons holding life occupancy by court order issued at the time the refuge was established. The Bureau maintains two small service buildings on the island for purposes of administra- tion. There are no roads on the island. The island today shows little of man's influence, and no physical development has been carried on in recent years. Very little has been done that has modified the environment permanently. Plantings of native vegetation in the past to control erosion and provide food for wildlife have merged into the local floristic pattern. Potho'es and low dikes constructed in the past have not altered the natural character of the island. The ocean dunes are mostly devoid of vegetation, while interior dunes are covered with stabilizing beach grass and false heather. In the hollows and depressions are bayberry, beach plum, poison ivy, and patches of pitch pine. All of these natural plant associations are charac- teristic of coastal dunes. On the sound low, cordgrass marshes blend into extensive salt marsh flats. There are numerous small potholes and natural freshwater ponds. It provides habitat for a wide variety of migrating birds, and upland game including white-tailed deer. Monomoy Island and its surrounding waters have an interesting history in which man's struggle against the ocean furnished the central theme. The list of ships wrecked on the treacherous `shoals off Monomoy is formidable. At times in the past, the island itself has been alternately attached and then separated from the mainland-such is the nature of barrier beaches of the Atlantic coast. The ocean current, storms, and winds constantly alter and change the landscape. The historic and scenic Monomoy Island will make a significant contribution to the national wilderness preservation system, and I am pleased to recommend your favorable consideration of this proposal. S. 8502 This bill contains provisions to designate lands located in six na- tional wildlife refuges, in the States of Maine, Michigan, and Wiscon- sin, as wilderness. The six units under consideration are geographically, geophysically, and ecologically distinct. Huron, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Birch Is- lands are island complexes, Seney is a bog-forest, and Edmunds is a second growth forest. Huron, Michigan, and Wisconsin Islands are colonial nesting bird sanctuaries, while Birch Islands contains habitat considered essential to wintering concentrations of the bald eagle. The bog-forest area contains habitat of value to several endangered species and is one refuge area in this country where timber wolves may occasionally be seen. The second growth forest area contains habitat associations necessary to the perpetuation and management of the American woodcock. To identify the individual wilderness proposals, I have arranged them in alphabetical order. Therefore, the first proposal I will speak on relative to S. 3502 is the Birch Islands wilderness in the State of Maine. PAGENO="0056" 52 Birch I$Zands wilderne$g.-The Birch Islands are a portion of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge located in Washington County, Maine There are two islands of about 7 acres and these are located about one fourth mile offshore in the Whiting Bay portion of Cobs cook Bay. The Birch Islands have never been inhabited or visibly disturbed by man They remain small "jewels" of unspoiled island wilderness They are seldom visited The soils are rocky and th~ vegetative covering is a mixture of trees and brush similar to that found on the mainland. At low tide, the two islands become one, but they are always separated from the mainland. Federal ownership extends to the mean high waterline Since establishment of the refuge in 193~, the islands have been managed as natural areas, there has been no development. A variety of bird species use the islands as a nesting, resting, and feeding area. Common loons, ducks, great blue herons, and other waterbirdLs are common, and many speuies of small shorebirds are present during migrations In addition, the islands, in association with nearby coastal lands, support the largest wintering concentr'ition of bald eagles on the eastern seaboard. Edmunds wilderness -The Edmunds wilderness proposal consists of about 2,775 acres of land within the Moosehorn National Wild.- life Refuge, Washington County, Maine. In colonial times the rolling forest hills of the Edmunds Unit were dominated by majestic white pine. Logged-off in the 1800's and then swept repeatedly by fires, recovery has progressed slowly since the estab1ishment of the national wildlife refuge in 1937. The existing second growth timber will one day be replaced by the stately pines, spruces, and cedar which once covered the hills, swamps, and stream bottomlands There will be scientific interest in the changing ecology, as years pass, by both the serious student and casual visitor. During and `after the public hearing for the Edmunds Unit, a num her of citizens recommended that a portion of the area identified as the Baring unit be included in this wilderness proposal The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will study the proposed Baring unit and schedule it for a public hearing at a future date. Hurovii I~lctnds wilderness -Huron Islands wilderness contains about 147 acres and constitutes the total landmass of the Huron Island National Wildlife Refuge, Marquette County, Mich. The refuge con- sists of eight small islands located about 3 miles off the south shore of Lake Superior. The islands themselves are composed of granite upthrusts, and only the hardiest of plants can survive. Red and white pines, balsam fir, white birch, and white cedar hold tenaciously to the few sheltered crevices, the raves of wind, ice, and sleet are evident in their gnarled, picturesque growth. Lichens and mosses cover the exposed boulders and rocks. The whole is a delicate, ecological oomplex of wild pic- turesque beauty. Several of the smaller islands are almost devoid of vegetation. On these, large colonies of gulls nest `and raise their young. These islands are considered to be the major nesting area for herring gulls in the Lake Superior region. Located a considerable distance from access points, the islands can be reached only under favorable conditions They present an oppor PAGENO="0057" ~unity for the scientists, and student to see and observe a tru'y un- trammeled segment of nature. Michigan Islands wilde~mess.-Three islands make up the Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refugee-Shoe and Pismire in Lake Michi- gain, and Scarecrow in Lake Huron. They contain about 12 acres and are located in Alpena and Charlevoix Counties, Mich. The primary refuge management consideration of these three is- lands has been the protection of colonial nesting birds. Public use is by special permit and is generally limited to educational or scientific purposes. Few people have heard of Shoe and Pismire Islands or, if known, they `are usually avoided its dangerous shoals. Consequently, the visitors to these islands are confined primarily to bird enthusiasts making the trip for bird-banding and bird observation purposes. Shoe Island is a gravel bar ranging in size from one-half to 2 acres, maybe submerged at times of high water. The only vegetation consists of scattered clumps of herbs and grasses. In 1966 Pismire Island contained 31/2 acres and stood 10 feet above the lake. Trees are few, but shrub's are more `abundant and include chokecherry, elderberry, and scattered willow clumps. Various herbs and grasses cover `the exposed beaches below `the high-water mark. Scarecrow Island is much nearer to population centers, but is un- attractive to many people because of the heavy use of its beaches by gull's and its trees by great blue herons and cormorants. Scarecrow Island, containing 7 acres, i's composed of large glacial boulders `and is protected by its location in Thunder Bay. It has some soil overlaying `the boulders and gravel which reaches an elevation of 15 feet. The better soils on the higher ele~a~ions `support considerable tree ~nd shrub growth. The island contains three `small, shallow water basins which `are attractive to waterfowl and shore bird's. These `three islands are presently managed `as natural areas. Seney wUderness.-The proposed Seney wilderness is located within the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Scho'olcraft County, Mich., in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The refuge lies `about halfway be- tween Marquette and Sault St. Marie, Mich. Seney National Wildlife Refuge `contains about 95,455 `acres of land and was es~tablishe;d as `a refuge by Executive order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on December 10, 193ö. A large portion of the refuge is `open marshes which have been developed for waterfowl and other wildlife species. Other portions are forested areas which have been cutover, `or have been repeatedly `swept by fires. The Seney wilderness proposal is a portion of `the Seney Refuge and contain's `about 25,150 acres. It is located in `the northwest corner of the refuge, `and contain's approximately 26 percent `of the to'tal refuge lands. Essentially, the area is a "string bog" ; so named because of a distinct geological pattern. Shifting, blowing sands formed `as an outw'ash plain for receding glaciers have, over the years formed parallel `ridges, separated by low, wet bog. Geologically, the topog- raphy is `classed as subarctic, and is unu'sual in this southern latitude. The sand ridges are brush and `timber covered, `and `in conjunction with the boggy `areas, constitute `an almost i'mpene~rable barrier. There are no road's, and `trail's are `almost nonexistent `and with exception of an occasional hiker, or hunter, the `area i's `seldom visited. PAGENO="0058" 54 The Seney wilderness provides habitat for many species of wildlife. The bog islands are commonly dominated by a few red pine with some jack pine or `aspen. They `are usually fringed with thick clumps of ~dder and in some locations tam'arac is found. Black `spruce `swamps are found along the edges of the bog while thin stands of aspen `or jack pine with numerous shrubs share the uplands. Wi~con~in Is~and$ wilderness.-The Wisconsin Islands wilderness consists of three small islands in Lake Michigan. Their total land- mass is `about 29 acres. The islands within the Wisconsin Islands wilderness proposal are the total landmass of the Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wild- life Refuges, located in Door County, Wis. For over 50 years the Federal Government has protected these islands for their value to nesting birds. Travel to the island's is difficult and conditions must be nearly perfect before landings are attempted. Thus, these islands have, through natural forces, been preserved from extensive intrusion by man. This factor provides the element which make the islands so ideally suited for colonial nesting birds. Waterfowl, caspian terns, herring gulls, ring-billed gulls, great blue herons, and black-crowned night herons find the solitude necessary to their existence. Access must be curtailed during nesting seasons in the future, as it has been in the past. These islands are of great interest to scientists, educators, and naturalists. The geology and ecology provide a "control group" for use in research studies of the land areas surrounding Lake Michigan. A case in point is the vegetation of the islands. Ground hemlock, which flourishes on the islands is rapidly disappearing on the mainland. Though seemingly of small impact on the national scene, to the scien- tist and naturalist these evolutionary changes in our landscape are significant. A place to observe and compare untrammeled areas is a desirable and rapidly disappearing commodity. S. 3343 Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was established by Execu- tive order of President Theodore Roosevelt on March 13, 1903, and was the first refuge in the national wildlife refuge system. An outstanding bird rookery long before its establishment as a refuge, Pelican Island continues to be one of the most important nesting sites for brown peli- cans and other water birds in Florida. The refuge originally contained only Pelican Island which is only about 3 acres in extent. Through the years it has been enlarged and presently contains 616 acres in Indian River County, Fla., and is located 75 miles northwest of Palm Beach, Fla. The Pelican Island wilderness proposal encompasses 403 acres or roughly 66 percent of the entire refuge. All of the proposal lands are on islands, and all are a part of the refuge. No acquisition is proposed, nor are any lands other than those presently administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife included as a part of this proposal. We have recently been informed by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment that surveys have been made in this area. These lands, although claimed as Federal property, are subject to the provisions of the Swampland Act of 1850. By virtue of their character, title may have PAGENO="0059" 55 passed to the State. We are looking into the matter and will inform the committee further. Though relatively small in size, Pelican Island represents habitat biologically significant to the east coa~t of Florida. Historically, and continuing today, the refuge supports and provides breeding habitat for a large number and variety of marsh and water birds. The islands in the refuge are separated from the mainland by the shallow, brackish waters of the Indian River. Dense stands of black mangrove form an almost solid canopy over these islands, hiding the mithature ground "forest" of air-roots which are characteristic of this species. Red mangrove, with its tangle of prop roots, occurs as a fringe, of variable width, around the shores. Pickleweed forms a dense ground cover where the mangrove canopy is thin, and sub- merged stands of shoalgrass, widgeon grass, and various algae are abundant in the surrounding water. A public hearing was held in Vero Beach, Fla., on April 5, 1967, and 32 statements, unanimously in favor of the wilderness proposal, were presented or read into the record. In addition, a number of peti- tions and resolutions in support of the wilderness proposal, were re- ceived from 34 organizations, and signed by over 1$60 individuals. These statements illustrate a great public interest for the protection of birds and their habitat, protection of estuarine and fisheries re- sources, and the long-range preservation of the scenic, esthetic, and ecological values of this area. As coastal land `and water areas continue to be developed, Pelican Island refuge will become increasingly important, not only for its value to fish and wildlife resources, but because it represents an eco- logical type that is rapidly disappearing from the east coast of Florida. Permanent preservation of the refuge islands as wilderness and the surrounding bay bottoms, in their natural condition as part of the refuge will insure a source of continuing enjoyment for resi- dents and visitors alike. Mr. Chairman, the historic `significance of Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, prompted the National Park Service to declare it a national historic landmark in 1963. In this, and by its biological and ecological significance, we believe the Pelican Island wilderness to be an excellent addition to the national wilderness preservation system. Mr. Chairman, the proposed wilderness units in these bills meet the basic criteria for consideration as wilderness. We in the Depart- ment of the Interior view them as important links in the biological chains of life. To the naturalist, scientist, and student of nature they are outdoor classrooms. They represent a significant cross section of habitat necessary to the preservation of several species of endangered wildlife. We consider them to be excellent additions to the nationa'l wilderness preservation system and respectfully request your consid- eration and approval of these units. These are some of the recommendations we have had in mind as we looked at the wildlife refuge and wilderness proposals and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have on any of those proposals. Senator METCALF (presiding). This material supplied will be a part of the file for the u~se of the committee. Thank you for a very compre- hensive statement. Do you have any questions, Senator Hansen? PAGENO="0060" 56 Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your testimony, Mr. Gottschalk, you referred to some of the activities which, as you described them, would not adversely affect the wilderness land surface. Those being seasonal aerial counts of wildlife, patrols for the purpose of preventing legal trespass, grazing where used as a refuge management tool-you are speaking of grazing by domestic livestock ~ Mr. G0TT5CHALK. That is correct. Senator HANSEN. I think you also mentioned in that particular statement inclusion of minimum and compatible facilities for public safety and sanitation and control of pest plants. I assume these i~ses, in the judgment of your Solicitor, do not do violence to the wilderness concept ; is that correct ~ Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct. For the record, Senator Jordan, I believe, asked a question as to why we had not included all of the Great Swamp in the wilderness proposal and I will respond to that at this time. Ais indicated by one of the earlier witnesses, there is a diversity of habitat types as you run from the east and north end of the Great Swamp area, which would be to the right as we look atthe map, over to the Passaic River, which forms a part of the westerly boundary of the refuge. Senator HANSEN. May I ask if someone familiar with the area might take a pointer and indicate what you are referring to ? It would be helpful to me. Mr. GOTTSOITALK. The Hartley Dodge unit lies on the easterly part of the refuge, the total refuge goes all the way to the Passaic River down in this area. The swamp area is a deciduous swamp type, consist- ing of woodland interspersed with shallow pools in the forest, and rocky outcroppings along with gravelly humps or small, low hills and is characterized by being a rather densely closed botanical area, that is to say, the crowns of the trees exclude most of the light and you find very little of the marsh type of swamp in this upper area. Because of the shallowness of the soil and the large amount of rock, et cetera, it has never been utilized extensively in the past for agri- culture. Even back in colonial days it was left in a wild condition. As we move in this direction, we gradually move into an intergrade in which the trees begin to thin out and there are more openings, open- ings of a marsh type in which marsh grasses and cattails predominate. At times in the past much of this area has been farmed. Frequently it was just pasture because it was so low and subject to frequent flooding so agriculture could not be practiced. Coming down further the soil was deeper and down here there was some cultivation with considerable amounts of pasture in this area. So you see from this `area where you find a fairly natural situation, you move to an area where it is submarginal land from the standpoint of agriculture, but it is not wild land. As we developed our concept for the management of this whole area, we established the M. Hartley Dodge natural area back in 1963 before the Wilderness Act became a reality. In this area (Harding unit) and in the lower portion we recognize the possibility for developing wildlife habitats, principally shallow pools where we would expect to see nesting, resting, and feeding habi- PAGENO="0061" 57 tats for waterfowl and accommodate relatively significantly large num- bers of migratory birds. Immediately we ran into questions of what we were in a position to do under the wilderness concept. Down here (lower portion) we know we want to put in a substantial development program with substantial dikes, control structures, and the other facilities that would be neces- sary to go in this whole area to make this a real waterfowl refuge. In this area (Harding unit) we propose to close off some of the old drainage ditches put in many years ago with small plugs to restore the conditions that were there prior to the time these ditches were dug. We also have in our plans the prospect of putting in trails for nature observation to make the area more available to the relatively large numbers of people surrounding this location and without which either the area would not be utilized by people to any extent or it would be simply overwhelmed by public use. So, as a management device, we feel some trails will be needed in this area. There are some trails in the M. Hartley Dodge unit, and unpaved roads, so it is not felt this area would be developed in that concept. But we did feel some developing was needed here (Harding unit) and intensive development here (lower portion) , that is why this area is separated completely from the wilderness proposal. We don't feel the modest plans we have for the installation of these ditch plugs to restore some of the marshes and for the modest trails will do violence to the wilderness concept when you consider the fact we are talking now of 3,750 acres in the middle of 15 to 20 million people. There seems to be some recognition, I think, of the importance of this kind of an area for all of these people as a place where they can see nature and learn to understand man's relationship to nature, but we have to make some arrangements for them to get in and look around and have this firsthand experience with nature. That generally explains our program. Senator HANSEN. If I may, Mr. Chairman- Senator METCALF. Go right ahead. Senator HANSEN. You do plan to construct levees and improve- ments in the Harding habitat to the west, but ~n the other portion, while you will be making some improvement, largely your efforts would be restricted to bringing the area back to roughly what it was before man intruded `in there ; is that correct? Mr. GOTTSOHALK. That is right, sir. We felt it necessary since we did not propose to incorporate the road in the wilderness area, since we think there is a proscription against this, we did not propose to include it so we set up two units in order to set up our proposal with what we deemed to be Congress intention with respect to deletion of roads from wilderness areas. Senator HANSEN. Have any recent traffic counts been made to in- dicate the usage of this road? Mr. GOTTSOHALE. I have no figures of that sort and can only give a qualified answer to the question; my information `is the road is lightly used. A part of it is oiled and the rest a gravel road. Senator HANSEN. How much of it is oiled? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I can't give you that exactly, but less than one- fourth, just a small portion. We are acquiring, under the terms of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Hunting Act, some PAGENO="0062" 58 lands in here which are still under public ownership. When these have been acquired, there will be nobody living on this road at all. We have been informed, in addition to the testimony given earlier, that the county would no longer maintain the road even if no wilder- ness designation were given to the area by virtue of the fact there would be virtually no need for this road and we would certainly wel- come the actions by the two townships to vacate the road as they have offered in testimony given previously. Senator HANSEN. One further question : As you view the proposal now, might this road play a significant role in making available to an important number of people wide use of the area or do you think this can be accomplished without the road? Mr. GOTTSCHALR. I think it can be accomplished without the road. Senator HANSEN. Do you have a specific recommendation that would reflect your view as to the abandonment? Mr. GOTTSCALK. I would recommend under the circumstances that the road be abandoned, although when we made our original study we did not contemplate this as we were apprehensive that this might bring another problem into the whole picture. In our ultimate plan for the use of the refuge, this road, if vacated, would become a footpath or bridle paith. Senator HANSEN. I think you referred someplace in your statement to the necessity or the desirability of some sanitary facilities that could be made available to the public throughout this area ; is that right? Mr. GOTTSCIJALK. Yes, sir. Senator HANSEN. I recognize full well the need for some facilities in an area in such close proximity to so many millions of people. I suspect in the west there are some of us who would be somewhat dis- mayed or frightened if a similar concept were to characterize the ad- ministration of some of our wilderness areas. I like to think of them as a place where a man comes to visit and he doesn't remain and leaves no evidence of his presence behind him. Is this the proposal of your administration? Mr. GOTTSCJJALK. It certainly applies to the smaller areas which will be subject to public use. I feel that it is necessary in trying to ac- commodate public use without destroying the essence of the area. It seems to us there has to be some regimentation of the public and in certain areas we will have to have sanitary facilities, but in many areas it will be possible to locate these on the periphery of the wilderness and that is what we would propose to do here. I might say this subject became a matter for considerable discussion in the hearing before the House committee and I brought it up only because I felt it was needful early in the history of our presentation before the committees to recognize this kind of problem. I would say that at Great Swamp we do not plan any intensive de- velopment, but I wouldn't want to commit my successor of 20 years from now to the possibility of not putting in sanitary facilities if it turned out this is what would have to be done to protect the area. We are planning a visitor center in the recreational area and we could spot facilities around the area not included in the Great Swamp. We do not have this problem now. Senator HANSEN. As I look `at the map and try to get some concept of distances, I would make the observation that it appears as though PAGENO="0063" 59 penetrating the closed area as deeply as one could, an individual couldn't be further than a mile, at the most, from the periphery ; is that right? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is practically correct. The scale of miles- this is 1 mile, so it would be possible, right in the middle, to be about a mile away from either edge. Senator HANSEN. Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate the responses of the Director. I think all of us appreciate the contribution these important areas can make to our lives now and the far greater coutribution they will make in years to come. I am seeking some workable guidelines that might help me shape a little policy as we write it up. Senator METCALF. Mr. Gottschalk, the other wilderness areas carved out of national wildlife refuges sometimes only include a part of the refuge and you would have the same response, possibly, in all cases. I notice that Pelican Island refuge has only a part of it proposed as wilderness addition. Mr. G0TTScIIALK. That is correct. Senator METCALF. It would be the same general principle of an administration for those areas as you have described in detail for the Great Swamp? Mr. G0TT5CHALK. That is correct. The Wilderness Act requires that we study all roadless areas in the wildlife refuge system of 5,000 acres and more, and all roadless islands without respect to size. With this in mind, we did look and concluded that there will be many areas where there will be refuges managed under established refuge policies with a greater or lesser degree of ~tccommod~tion to accomplish the purpose for which the wildlife refuge was established. Adjacent could be a wilderness area left virtually intact, no roads, r~o landing strips, no motorized vehicles or any of these kinds of things that one cannot conceive of being in a true wilderness. Senator METcALF. Knowing that what we do in creating the wilder- ness area is going to interfere with the primary purpose for which they were `acquired as national wildlife refuges? Mr. GOTTSOIIALK. No, we do not think there will be any interference and are carefully selecting out those poi~tions which, if they are given wilderness classification, will merely be enhanced in terms of the value of the area for the purposes for which it was established. Senator METCALF. I was interrupted and didn't hear that `answer. Mr. GOTTSOHALK. I merely said we think the wilderness concept as applied to the refuge system will enhance the total capability of the refuge `system to do what it is supposed to do and `this can be brought down to `specific units. Senator METCALF. As we go over these systems such as you described in the Hardin unit, we will find some traces `of `activity that at the pres- ent time are not quite in keeping or consistent with our concept of wilderness, but as they move into a wilderness area, the road will grow over or the ditch grow over `and it will return to a wilderness concept? Mr. G0TTscHALK. Yes, sir, that i's correct. That is exactly the basis for the planning we have done. Senator M1~TCALF. Do you have any questions, Senator Allott? Senator ALLOTT. I have one question to ask. When I first walked in, there was a question raised in my mind. I didn't get the complete dis- PAGENO="0064" 60 dussion. You said you wouldn't want to bind your successors for the next 20 years. This was with respect to the establishment of sanitary facilities. This raises a question in my mind with respect to wilderness systems. If the time comes when this has to be put to a different kind of use which is different from a wilderness use, isn't it the logical thing then to change the classification of it rather than to dilute the concept of the wilderness system which Congress worked out after some 6 or 7 or 8 years of hard effort? Wouldn't the logical answer be to then change the classification of this to some other classification so that we are not having within the wilderness system those things which comply with the original act and also areas of land which do not comply, but are still named wilderness? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I think that is correct, sir. If the future demands some changed usage of a particular area. I believe it would be manda~ tory that the agency come back to the Congress with a recommendation for a change in status. Senator ALLOTT. In other words, if you had to established outdoor latrines and things like that and perhaps even broader facilities through this area, then to keep maintaining it as a wilderness system nnd in that classification only dilutes and diminishes the concept of the wilderness system as established by Congress. You do agree gen- erally with this? Mr. GOrrSOHALK. Yes, I do generally, but I am hopeful that we can establish the minimum kind of facilities needed to accommodate public use that would be acceptable on wilderness areas. This is a very good and important point that we are discussing because if we are unable on these small areas which are going to be subject to a high degree of intensive public use, if we are unable to put the modest development needed to control public use, then I believe we would be put into the position of having to look at many of the other areas that would fully qualify for wilderness status under the act and which, in our opinion, fully justify inclusion in the wilderness system and need the prOtection of the wilderness system. But I am hopeful that we can recognize the difference between these high-use areas that we are going to be looking at in the refuge system in the East from some of the very extensive areas of the West where the ratio of people to unit area, acres, square miles, or whatever it is, is much lower and where these problems are not going to be so acute. Senator ALLo~vr. I think we are generally of the same mind. I think my own statements on the wilderness system have been often mis- quoted and misunderstood, but it was because I had some different ideas I was `anxious to incorporate into the original `system. But I agree that, having established it-and I think there is too much pro- liferation now in the Department of the Interior with various kinds and classifications of national land areas-I am reluctant to see the wil- lerness system diluted by development so that it results in a system which really isn't a wilderness system and doesn't comply with the original act. I would like to ask this one solid question. On page 2 of this bill there is a section 3 which `says that, "Except as necessary to meet minimum requirements in connection with the purposes for which the area is administered, including measures required in emergencies in- PAGENO="0065" P 61 volving health and safety of persons within the area, there shall be no commercial enterprise, no temporary or permanent roads, no motorized equipment, no motorized vehicles and no `structure or in- stallation within the area designated as wilderness by this act." Now I want to ask this question. Does this in any way diminish the standards and criteria we have put on the wilderness `system ? In other words, if you put in a sentence which said this act shall be subject to all of the restrictions and qualifications of the Wilderness Act, would it mean the same thing ~? Mr. GOTTSOHALK. I think it would mean the same thing because the language of that section, section 3, is quoted almost verbatim from section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act itself. Senator ALLOTT. I have not looked at that, but am willing to take your word for it. But I want to be sure we are not putting less criteria than in the original Wilderness Act. You think it is the same and have been advised so by your counsel? Senator METCALF. Maybe Mr. Finnegan can answer that. Mr. FINNEGAN. I think Mr. Gottschalk answered the question. Senator ALLOTT. As I glance at this section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, it appears to be just about the same. But this is your intent? Mr. GOTTSCIIALK. That is correct, sir. Senator METCALF. This brings up the question that some of these areas are islands and the only means of access is by boat. There would necessarily have to be some boat landing ramps or ferry service, or other means to enable the public to get to those islands would there not? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We do not anticipate the construction of any permanent facility of that type on any of these wilderness islands. We are managing `them now without boat piers. Usually there is a beach. In some cases there isn't and it is necessary `to leap from the boat over onto `a rocky ledge `and thus gain `access `to the island. If there is `a beach where the public could l'and a boat, we believe it would be proper for them to so do and in that way gain `access to the island; but we would build no piers, no wharves or other facilities that would in any way be contrary to the `concept that the Wilderness Act is very strong to say that there shall be no development. Senator METCALF. They could land a motorboat ; it wouldn't have to be a ~a:ilbo'at? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct. Senator METCALF. I am glad to hear that we are going to adhere to the wilderness concept even `on the islands where access is so difficult because, `as you know, we worked together on the Migratory Bird Commission `and we are very much `concerned `about saving those island areas for the original purpose of nesting birds and flight rest- ing and so foi~th and sometimes when motorbo'ats get over there `and we have regular ferry `service, we have great interference. Senator Hansen? Senator HANSEN. I want to say `the distinguished Senator from Colorado has put his finger on the precise concern I have and in which I share the feelings of the Senator from Colorado. I don't want to exhibit anything less than great enthusiasm for this proposal, but I am inclined to think we are treading dangerously close to some impor- tant bound'ary over which we `should not go. As I read from the act 99-400-68---5 PAGENO="0066" 62 the definition of a wilderness is, among other things, described as, "One, generally appears to have been affected by the force of nature with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable ; two, has an outstanding solitude and primitive type of environment ; three, has 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition." I don't think necessarily that this is the proper time to go Into this. It seems to me these are matters for the further consideration by the committee with the `advice and very competent help from the Depart- ment and from you, sir. I, too, share Senator Allo'tt's concern `as to what we might be doing to a wilderness system, despite the strong motivation we all feel for setting aside and making available to the public an area which can make such a contribution as I believe this can. I must say I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that I have some misgivings as to the ability of this area here to qualify as part of the wilderness sys- tem. I don't propose to go further. I just wanted to be honest with you, sir, and say that. Senator METOALF. Do you have a response to that? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Only to say that we felt it important to bring up this concept for the consideration of the Congress, both in the other body and before this committee because there are important guidelines that have to be developed. To use Great Swamp as an example, what- ever the judgment of the Congress is, the guidelines with respect to refuges in the Wilderness Act are not as explicit as they are with some other lands, but we will adjust our program to fit. If, for example, it is finally the judgment of the committees that the wilderness concept should be not diminished by any kind of development at all, we will adopt that policy and apply that concept to both of the units that are shown on this map. We will do the same thing to other areas in the refuge system that have been studied to determine their suitability for wilderness up to the point where we feel there is a serious interference between wilder- ness status and the objectives for which the refuge was established. There may be some cases like this, I am not prepared to go into it in detail, but responding to the Senator's suggestion I think we would be very happy to discuss it in more detail with the committee, should you so desire. Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is certainly indicated that we ought to give serious consideration to the purpose for which the wildlife refuge was established. At the same time we ought not to be oblivious to the great concern we hold for the people who will use these areas as well as to the contribution the area can make toward improvement of migratory waterfowl habitats. I think we ought to be concerned primarily with the establishment of an area to accommodate, as much as possible, the people and the wildlife, which are of prime concern, without having to dilute what I think is really a very important wilderness concept as reflected in the Wilderness Act itself. I simply suggest that we can serve the purposes which are foremost in our minds now without necessarily-I emphasize the word "neces- sarily"-saying it has to become part of the wilderness system. These are some very serious considerations that I am sure you and I share, John. PAGENO="0067" 63 Senator METCALF. Thank you for your very important testimony and we look forward to working with you and the Department in the development of these bills. I would, of course, be derelict in my duty if I didn't express my own special pleasure in having you here, be- cause of the work we have done on the Migratory Bird Act. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Thank you, Senator, I am sure I share mutual sentiments with you. Senator METCALF. Out of order we will call our colleague, Repre- sentative Hastings Keith, who will testify on the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge. STATEMENT OP HON. HASTINGS KEITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PROM THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS Mr. KEITH. It is nice to be back before this honorable and friendly committee. The House has a matter before it today which is somewhat more important than perhaps Monomoy and I must say we came in at 11 o'clock to take up the tax increase and the cut in spending. Senator METCALF. As a member of the Finance Committee, I will concur it is a very important matter, but as a member of this Interior Oommittee, I will not concede that this is not of great importance too. Senator ALLOTT. I would like to say one thing before Mr. Keith starts talking. My contacts with him have been too rare, but I think it should be said here that if it were not for his great work, I doubt if the Cape Cod National Seashore would ever have become a reality. His contributions to that, with which I have had personal contact during all the time it was under consideration, have made me acutely aware of this and you deserve congratulations and thanks. Senator METCALF. I certainly concur with these accolades. Maybe you can go ahead and create another wilderness. Mr. KEITH. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of S. 3425, which has been cosponsored by Senators Brooke and Kennedy. The companion House bill, I am pleased to say, is cosponsored by all of the members of the Massachusetts delegation. This broad ana bi- partisan support is clear recognition of the strong interest which exists in this proposal, and it illustrates the relatively noncontroversial na- ture of the bill. Mr. Chairman, the 2,600-acre Monomoy Island is deserving of the attention and support this proposal for its protection is receiving. The wild beauty and the grand solitude of this island is magnificent. Monomoy is a kind of barrier island protruding south from the elbow of Cape Cod. Its shoreline is ever changing as the sands are molded by the sea winds and the work of the waves. Its plantlife and animal life adjust to these changes, and give the island a unique charac- tsr. The fragile nature of the sandy shoreline causes a changing ecol- ogy which fascinates the visitor and brings him back from time to time to experience the wild glory of the place and to observe the wild- life in their natural habitat. Those who study the shore birds who nest there believe it is un- equaled on the eastern seaboard. The great population of black-bellied plovers, sanderlings, and yellowlegs, as well as black ducks, Canada geese, and other waterfowl, share this refuge with white-tailed deer, fox, and muskrat. PAGENO="0068" 64 The island, until now a national wiid1if~ refuge, is entirely fed- erally owned `to mean low tide, with the exception of a 4-acre inholding which has been used for summer oamps and as a research headquar- ters of the Massachusetts Audubon Society. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife will eventually acquire this privately held property and the entire island will become a wilderness area. I have been assured by the Massachusetts Audubon Society that they are in wholehearted support of the proposed wilderness area and will con- tinue to coordinate the program with the Bureau. Sportsmen, too, will benefit from the proposal. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has assured me that hunting and fishing will be permitted. And so, Mr. Chairman, the wilderness designation of Monornoy will bring security to the environmental diversity of the region. It will provide a wealth of `al:ternative opportunities to the vacationist, the naturalist, the sportsman~ and the artist. In 1961 we authorized the Cape Cod National Seashore, established to protect the natural values of the cape. Monomoy is geographically a partner of the cape ; as wilderness, it will be a `complementary re- serve. Together with other State and local efforts, these Federal lands will constitute a variety of environments, of landscapes, `and of oppo'r- tunities for all of our people to enjoy outdoor recreation as well as natural beauty. Those who seek it can find here the solitude of a true wilderness island, without roads or mechanized vehicles. ~ This proposal brings the national wilderness protection philosophy to Massachusetts, for the benefit not only of the citizens of our State, but of all the Na~ion. We are pleased to have this opportunity to pro- vide this protection of the Wilderness Act `of 1964 to the refuge. rfhe diversity of our wilderness inventory will be enhanced by add- ing the 2,600 acres of Monomoy to the system. To find `a vest-pocket wilderness so close to the millions of people who make up the meg- alopolis of the eastern seaboard is a stroke of good luck. It will give balance `to the beaches `of our Nation~s shoreline and will add greatly to the charm of Cape Cod. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be here today to support S. 3425, and to urge the necessary action to designate Monomoy as a wilderness nrea. The action implementing the Wilderness Act is mov- ing ahead well now, and it is gratifying to have Monomoy as one of the first wildlife refuge areas to be considered. This designation will cost us nothing, yet it will preserve for all of us, and for future gen- eraitions, the priceless heritage of wilderness and natural beauty. At one phase it was the intent `of the Park Service to include Monomoy in the national seashore `and the House concurred in not having Monomoy in the national seashore, because we didn~t want to get it `overused. I am glad that the Department of the Interior now sees that its most appropriate use is in `a wilderness. It i's much more in keeping with the intent of Congress, I believe, that it remain rela- tively remote and where people can go and see a little wilderness so close to the megalopolis that makes up the east coast. It is only 2,600 acres, but it provides the balance that we need to the hustle and bustle of our shoreline and I think it will serve a very wonderful purpose. I would like, if I may, to pursue that thought. I see they have brought up a map showing the national shoreline and one thought PAGENO="0069" U 65 that I would leave with the committee is that the primary purpose of the original bill for the national seashore in my view was to con- serve a big chunk of Cape Cod in the way that it was when we took possession of it. I hope the thrust will continue to be on conservation. In view of its relative remoteness from the metropolitan area and intervening beaches where people can swim and otherwise pursue recreational activities, I hope this committee will remain alert to the need for the emphasis to stay on conservation and for Monomoy to stay in the wilderness concept. I will be happy to attempt to answer any questions that you might have. I am very grateful to this committee for the efforts that they have made to preserve our national seashores and national parks and it is a very emphathetic atmosphere that exists here and I come over here more often than I do to the House side because of that empathy. Senator METCALF. You are certainly welcome over here as a Mem- ber of the House to testify before this committee. I wouldn't speak for some of your colleagues from Massachusetts that you were welcome to make a permanent visit over here. I know I am delighted to go back to the House of Representatives where I served longer than I have served in the Senate and have met the same friendly response over there and we try to make you all welcome. Senator Allott ~ Senator ALLOTT. Just for my own personal edification, is this the island we `are discussing here which lies at the southern end of the cape and which was a wild bird refuge ~ Mr. KEITH. Yes. Senator ALLOTT. The one that we finally decided not to include in the seashore at that time for that reason basically? Mr. KEITH. That is correct. Senator ALLOTT. Having been up there only once, I just wanted to identify it, in my own mind. Mr. KEITH. That is correct. Senator HANSEN. I have no questions. We are delighted to have you here. Senator METCALF. Thank you, sir, for coming. The committee has received statements from the Massachusetts Senators, Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Edward Brooke. They will be included in the hearing record at this point as we discuss Monomoy Island. ( The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT BY HoN. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS As one of John F. Kennedy's first Presidential actions, he sent a special message to Congress on National Resources. In urging the protection of our remaining wilderness areas by the establishment of a National Wilderness Preservation System, the President stated: Wise investment in a resource program today will return vast dividends tomorrow, and failure to act now may be opportunities lost forever. Our country has been generous with us in this regard-and we cannot ignore her needs for future development. The passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act created this National Wilderness System and brought more than nine million acres of national forest land under PAGENO="0070" 66 `wilderness status. Under the provisions of the 1964 Act, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in the Department of Interior was required to review every roadless area of 5,000 acres or more, and every roadless island within the National Wildlife Refuge System to determine the suitability of each area as wilderness. The Bureau-the major federal agency in the field of conservation of animals, birds, reptiles and fish-found Monomoy Island, a Massachusett's island located off the Cape Cod Coast, eminently qualified for wilderness designa- tion. Monomoy Island was, in fact, the first wilderness area proposed by the Bureau for inclusion. The U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines have examined the proposed Monomoy Wilderness as well. They have cleared the island for wilderness status in finding that the area has no known mineral resources other than the sands from which the island is made. It is perhaps difficult to imagine a landed area which more patently coincides than Monomoy with Congressional design to set aside federally owned lands that had not yet been commercially exploited and that were still in a naturally wild state. This 2,600 acre barrier beach island extending about nine miles south from the elbow of Cape Cod protrudes into the ocean as a boundary between Nantucket Sound and the open sea. A roadless, uninhabited area, Monomoy is a sparsely vegetated island where dunes and sand fiats, marshes and meadows serve as an ideal refuge for wildlife. Many renowned ornothologists have acclaimed this refuge as having no equal as a shore-bird area. Monomoy has been managed as a national wildlife refuge since 1944. It is used by fishermen, sportsmen, naturalists, artists and other outdoor enthusiasts and aesthetics. Its rugged and ever-changing sand strip island exists as a human retreat and nature area for the major population centers of the Northeast. Located within a day's drive for one-third of the country's people-less than one hundred miles from either Boston or Providence-Monomoy would constitute the only wilderness preservation within the major populated seacoast area. In proposing this island sanctuary for inclusion in the Wilderness Preserva- tion System, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have proceeded with due caution, insuring that a change of the island's status would not infringe upon the rights of those who presently enjoy its re- sources. The Department complied with the requirements of the 1964 Act by giving sufficient notice and hearing to all parties interested in the island. The Monomoy hearings were held over a two day period providing maximum oppor- tunity for building a public record. In reviewing this public document, it is readily apparent that elected officials, interested parties and private citizens sup- ported wilderness designation. Besides the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, wilderness classification was recommended or supported by the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Governor John Volpe, elected officials of governments effected by the island-namely, Barnstable County and Chatham, and the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Commission. Since mail serves as a barometer of public support, correspondence received by the Interior Department on Monomoy indicated ninety percent favoring wilderness classifica- tion. The primary opposition to wilderness classification by surf fishing interests stemmed from restrictions which would be imposed on the use of mechanical vehicles. In sum, Monomoy Island lies in the heart of one of the most popular vacation spots in the entire Northeast. Wilderness area status for this virgin island will aid in preserving forever by Act of Congress its unspoiled character. It would prevent future generations from encroaching upon and despoiling one of the few natural island areas remaining in our country. Moreover, no more fitting corn- plement could be found to the Cape Cod National Seashore-a project supported by me and the late President, John F. Kennedy, when he occupied this Senate seat-than the inclusion of this unblemished island in the Wilderness Preserva- tion System. Mr. Chairman, I urge the speedy passage of 5. 3425, a bill to designate the lands on Monomoy Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. It stands in the best interest of all concerned-the citizens of Chatham and Barnstable County, Massachusetts, outdoor enthusiasts and nature lovers of the Northeastern United States, and future generations. PAGENO="0071" 67 STATEMENT OP HoN. EDWARD W. BROOKE, A U.S. SENATOE FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Chairman, no one can deny that certain national areas of our environment, if not preserved now, will be lost to us forever. S. 3425 which is presently before this committee, seeks primarily to retain Monomoy Island as a quiet, unspoiled preserve, enjoyed solely by sportsmen, nature lovers, hikers and campers. It is apparent that this can best be accomplished by its being designated a wildlife area. The accelerated increase in the population of Cape Cod puts great pressure on the Cape's last unprotected and truly virgin tract of beach. The everpresent need for human solitude of wilderness in the midst of dense population serves to emphasize the necessity to preserve for future generations this unique, barrier beach-type wilderness. Making Monomoy into a wilderness area would not infringe upon the rights of any of those who presently enjoy its resources, nor would it necessitate any changes in the management of the Interior (as a result of the Island being designated a wildlife refuge in 1941) . There are no improved roads on the Island So there are none that would need to be kept under repair. Further, in the event that the Corp.s of Engineers connects Monomoy Island to the Mainland by a sandspit, the Department of the Interior has indicated their willingness to cooperate with the Corps. It is apparent from the public hearings held in Chatham, Massachusetts on the subject of designating Monomoy Island a wilderness area that an over- whelming majority of the population favors passage of this legislation. Those who would use the island the most have pointed out that not only is the legisla- tion needed to protect this island's beauty, but also its value as a wildlife refuge for feeding and nesting birds. I might also point out that it is the only area with wilderness potential within a reasonable one day drive from Boston. Also, it would, I believe, be a beneficial adjunct to the Cape Cod National Seashore. I am hopeful, therefore, that this committee will take swift and positive action on S. 3425 in order that this beautiful scenic resource may be preserved. Senator METCALF. Before we get into the broad discussion of these four measures by the conservation groups who have come to testify, I think it would be well to include the statements of Senators Holland and Smathers and Congressman Rogers, all of Florida, on S. 3343, the Pelican Island National Wilderness legislation. (The statements referred to follow:) U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPRoPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C., June 17, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mit. CHAIRMAN : It is our understanding that your Committee will shortly consider S. 3343, which both of us joined in introducing, to designate certain lands in the Pelican National Wildlife Refuge, Indian River County, Florida, as wilderness. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge comprises about 403 acres and is located some 75 miles north of West Palm Beach, Florida. It includes Roseate, Pelican, Roosevelt, Horseshoe, North Horseshoe, Long, David, Plug, North and South Oyster, Preachers, Middle, Nelson, Pauls, and the four small islands desig- nated as Egret Island. A portion of the refuge is located on the mainland but has been cut up by a mosquito control project and contains numerous roads and therefore is not included in this proposal. In April 1967, public hearings on the proposed Pelican Island Wilderness were held in Vero Beach, Florida, at which time testimony from citizens and public officials fully endorsed the proposal. During the course of hearings, the primary reasons for supporting the inclusion of Pelican Island in the National Wilderness Preservation were given: protection of colonial birds and their nesting and feed- ing habitat; protection of estuarine and fisheries resources; long-range preserva- tion of natural areas for scenic, aesthetic and ecological values; preservation PAGENO="0072" I 68 vital to long-range social and economic interests of citizens of Indian River County; and preservation of Pelican Island Refuge because of its historical value as the Nation's first national wildlife refuge. It is our understanding that the Department of the Interior fully supports this legislation, and we urge your Committee to favorably act upon it. With kind regards, we remain, Yours faithfully, SPESSARD L. HOLLAND. GEORGE SMATHERS. STATEMENT OF HoN. PAUL G. ROGERS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CoNGREss FRo~f THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman : I appreciate very much the opportunity afforded to me by the Committee to express my interest and support of S. 3843 which would establish the Pelican Island Wilderness within the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, Indian River County, Florida, as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It has been my privilege to represent Indian River County In the Congress for 12 years, and while I will lose the county due to re-districting, I will always have fond memories of associations made there. I introduced HR. 17336, a companion bill to S. 3343, because I know how popular the proposed designation of the area as a wilderness is. During the public hearing held on the proposal, testimony was unanimously in favor of the wilderness proposal. Petitions and resolutions representing some 34 different organizations and signed by over 1,260 individuals were also present in support of the plan. At the time of the hearing, I sent a communication in support of the proposal. Similar communications were received from the City of Vero Beach, Florida; the City Council of Sebastian, Florida ; the Board of Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida ; the Indian River County Public Schools and the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce. Approximately 403 acres encompassing 15 islands would be added to the National Wilderness System by the adoption of this legislation. We have a commitment to our posterity to provide protection against develop- ments that would destroy the colonial bird and marine resources of the Pelican Island area, to preserve the unique ecology of this area for its scientific value and to preserve the resources and natural beauty. I respectfully urge the Committee to report favorably on this proposal. Senator METOALF. At this time we are going to call on Mr. C. R. Gutermuth, secretary of the North American Wildlife Foundation, an old friend of the committee and one of the tireless workers who has done so much for conservation all over the country. Go ahead, Mr. Gutermuth. STATEMENT OP C. R. GUTERMUTH, SECRETARY, NORTH AMERICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION Mr. GUTERMUTH. All of this testimony I am going to give is going to be brief. The institute is in full support of these four bills before the committee. I am appearing this morning as the secretary of the North American Wildlife Foundation, which is `one of the older na- tional conservation organizations. Its program has been devoted to the restoration and improved management of natural resources in the public interest for more than 50 years. I have been the iiolunteer and unpaid secretary of this foundation for nearly a quarter of a century. Like `several of the other national conservation organizations, the foundation is in full `support of the various bills being considered by `the committee for additions to the wilderness system. We trust there will be no significant objection to PAGENO="0073" 69 the proposals for Pelioan Island and Monomoy National Wildlife Refuges and the several areas included in S. 3502. I appreciate the invitartion th appear in behalf of all those who have a profound interest in the protection of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. As the secretary of this foundailion, it was my pleasure several years ago to help initiate a fundraising campaign which raised well over a million dollars in private contri- butions with which to purchase the first 3,000 acres in the Great Swamp for dedication as a national wildlife refuge. The foundation donated the land to the Federal Government, and the large number of con- tributors to that highly oopirnen4abl~ refuge project have the whole- hearted support of millions of conservationists across the country in urging the enactment of S. 3379. The Great Swamp is one of the finest natural areas remaining in the Northeast. It is unique in many respects, and is even more unusual because of its close proximity to the dense population of the New York metropolitan complex. Lying less than 30 miles from New York City, it contains timbered knolls and ridges, broad meadows, and wooded ponds. Ornithologists have identified 154 species of birds there ; more than 75 species nest on the refuge ; and about 80 species of plants are native to the property. P~opie from all walks of life contributed to the fund that was raised to preserve the area. Individual contributions were received from peo- ple from many States~ In fact, some of the largest contributions that the foundation received were from residents of Pennsylvania. That is the best evidence that can be given to the widespread desire for pro- viding added wilderness system prot&~tion to the two areas desig- nated in S. 3379. We always have regarded the two areas as separate and distinct units, and we would prefer to have them characterized as two adja- cent units. Arrangements could be made to close the road that separates the two tracts, however, if that should be deemed necessary. Many of those who are familiar with the topographical and ecological features of this outstanding area believe that there are many good reasons for dedicating the separate units as provided in S. 3379. We hope that it will be cleared for Senate enactment without delay. I feel very strongly that there are other impelling reasons as to why we should have two areas. No. 1, the area on the right on the smaller map displayed previously in red has been named the M. Hartley Dodge area. I would like to say Mr. Dodge, who passed away, was on the board of this foundation for about 40 years. He was a very philanthropic per- son, a man very active in all forms of conservation and I was delighted to learn, after his passing, when they talked of classifying this area as a wilderness, that they say fit to name this after Mr. Dodge. I think this is an excellent reason. In addition to that, as Mr. Gottschalk brought out, the two areas are ecologically and topographically different. I think they could rightly be classified in that way. Senator Allott, you and Senator Jordan and I have traveled over vast wilderness areas, but we are never going to have those vast areas here in the East, those areas you are familiar with and think about, Senator Hansen, and you, Mr. Metcalf, out in your part of the country. PAGENO="0074" 70 You can have those vast extensive areas, but if we are going to have wilderness within 30 miles of downtown Manhattan, it is going to have to be small areas. And I think there in 1968 it is necessary that we have these two primitive areas here and I plead with this committee to set them aside as wilderness and give them the added i~rotection. They have been classified and set aside as national wildlife refuges. The area has been defined and part of that area can be managed as a refuge. These other areas I would like to see set aside permanently for these millions of people in the neighborhoods in that area. Mr. Gottschalk talked about development of the area. I don't want to get into that or the matter of the road, but I would like to make abundantly clear to you people this is a dirt road. We put a little oil on it maybe once a year, but it made available a crosscut for a few local people. Some people live on the fringes of the area, but there has been no real development, just a few homes. Those on the property that we acquired and gave to the Government, I guess have all been removed. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. There are still a couple of holdings with residences. Mr. GUTERMUTH. If there is any argument on the part of Congress, then let's close the road if that is what it takes. I personally see noth- ing wrong with leaving that road in there. Maybe it would make the area a little easier for people to get back into a truly primitive area. If we talk of any kind of development, I hope we adhere to the ap- propriate sections in the Wilderness Act. There has been discussion of primitive facilities for people to use in this small area. My answer to that is, let them go on the outside, pro- vide facilities there first. If they want to put some development, let's provide it on the outside of these areas where it will be convenient for these people and let's keep this wilderness in a primitive area. I will close by saying I hope this committee will report this bill out favorably. I feel the same about Monomoy and Pelican Islands. These are covered in S. 3502. With that I will close. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutermuth. Senator Allott? Senator ALLOTT. You have raised, whether you intended to or not, the same question I had before and we all have great respect for your sincerity and knowledge in this area. Frankly, as far as I am con- cerned, I am fully aware you are not going to get the vast areas we have for wilderness in the West here in the East. This is axiomatic. Personally the road would not make a great deal of differen:ce to me, because I have always had a feeling that one of the weaknesses of our wilderness system is that we do lock it up from people who, because of infirmities or age, cannot undergo the physical endurance that it takes to really have benefit of the wilderness areas. I have felt for a long time that this is one of the weaknesses. By the same token, if the committee follows your suggestion, you say if it is a vitaJ question, close it up if that is the only answer-I don't know that it would be. But, by the same token, if you keep the road open and permit motor vehicles to go across there, you do dilute the standards we set up, part of which was read here a while ago and part of which Senator Hansen read. Are you concerned with this at all? PAGENO="0075" 71 Mr. GTJTERMTJTH. I am not concerned in this ease at all, because I, as I brought out in a simple little prepared statement of only a page and a quarter long, stated that we from the beginning regarded this as two separate and distinct units. We saw fit, in putting them together in one bill, to set both areas aside as wilderness and felt they would be companion areas, but we regard them as separate and different. One, the M. Hartley Dodge unit, is primarily a wooded area ; the other is more an open meadow-type area. They are quite ecologically different, the topography is different. We felt they were separate and distinct units. In my concept we have a road between because they are two separate and distinct units. I think you will find that the people who visit the area for `the primitive aspect will go to the one area and those interested in bird life, marsh ecology, that type of h'abitat, will go to a separate and distinct unit. So I regard them as separate and distinct areas. Senator ALLOTT. Your explanation is entirely logical, but I hope you will `agree with my premise that it is unwise. While you may be able to justify `the road in this particular instance, based upon the topography and the ecological differences, I am sure that you can easily envision in our own mind that somewhere down the road there is going to come a proposition to the Congress of the United States to widen the rules `a little bit. I `am sure you will be `the first to `agree with me that we want to be very careful about breaking down the criteria we placed for `the wilderness areas. In other words if `they are not actually adaptable to wilderness `areas, I can easily imagine where you could extend this situation over to another where it is not really adaptable. In that case we should make it a national recreational area, or a national park, or `a bird and wildlife refuge, whatever it i's. But let's start-this is as good a chance as any-getting these things into the right classifications so that the Interior Department, Park Service, and Agriculture know what we are doing and so that we have very clean, clearcut lines that we can utilize when considering these various areas. This is my only concern. Mr. GUTERMiJTH. That is right and I agree wholeheartedly. I have `testified here before in behalf of the original wilderness bill, `and the separate individual ones, and I would be the first to agree `that we do not want roads in these wilderness ar~as, we want `to keep them ~s wilderness and we don't want to get into all `of these various forms of development and that sort of thing. I do see this slightly different only because of location and because, as Dr. Gottsch'alk brought `out, the intensive use which is going `to be applied `to `areas of `this kind. And there we are going to have to treat `things slightly differerut. But whatever we do, let's make this a elear~ cut distinction. We `are talking `about this kind of area in a densely populated part of the East as related to our vast wilderness `system that is going to be established in `the great Western States. Senator ALLOTT. Thank you very much. Senator METCALF. Senator Hansen ~ Senator HANSEN. Th'ank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that we have a number `of things in common, Mr. Guter- muth, one certain is our mutual regard and high esteem for the late Dr. Olaus Murie. I h'appen to have known him and his talented and PAGENO="0076" 72 delightful wife and their family. She has writthn me recently on an- other matter about the proposed wilderness area and I am learning quite a bit this morning. I came here with no knowledge of this area. I didn't know how large it was, I didn't know about the road through there and I welcome the opportunity to explore with you your feeling on it. You made one statement that I must say perhaps I misunderstood or perhaps I don't fully appreciate all the considerations that may have prompted your saying it. You spoke of making an area available, and those who heard me earlier may feel I agree with you. I said earlier that perhaps the road should not be obliterated. I thought it was possibly a divided highway. I know, as far as access is concerned, there was quite an on-going argument a few years ago when the concept of wilderness was being debated and the basic law was being hammered out at that time over the question of accessibility. ~ There were those who contended roads `ought to permeate these areas. The prevailing consensus was that roads would destroy one of the important elements we sought so much to preserve. I know I would be very much shaken up if a proposal were made, and I am sure you would, to pen~trate these wilderness areas in the West with roads. Mr. GUTERMUTH. That is right. Senator HANSEN. Do you think that the basic goals we hope to achieve with the designation of this unique area as a wilderness area could be achieved for the people and for the perpetuation and propa- gation of migratory waterfowl equally as well if it were to be given some of the other possible designations to which Senator Allott just recently alluded? Mr. GTJTERMTJT}J. No. In that connection this area is already established. Senator HANSEN. As a refuge? Mr. GUTERMITTIT. As a national wildlife refuge it has that protection. Senator HANSEN. That is what I meant. Mr. GUTERMUTTI. This is excellent protection. The action that we are requesting here today is what I call a secondary and additional added protection to this area because I visualize as time goes on the tremen- dous efforts by various kinds of activities for encroachment upon this area. For that reason I feel that the added wilderness designation on top of the status of a national wildlife refuge will provide just that little additional protection that may be the true salvation to this area as time goes on and as population and human demands in this area build up. I ask for this, you might say, as an additional added protec- tion to that protection already given to the area. . Senator HANSEN. I can appreciate your concern and I applaud you for your commitment to this concept and to the purposes that have loomed so large in your life and for the leadership you have given. I must say, though, that as I contemplate what I understand you to be saying, I am a little concerned because, in your desire to give the extra measure of protection you believe wilderness designation would superimpose upon the wildlife refuge concept in the basic law, I would fear we might dilute the wilderness `concept itself so as to permit PAGENO="0077" 73 some deterioration of the high standards set for that concept in other important areas of the country. Mr. GUTERMUTH. No, I very definitely would want this to be ad- ministered for all time as a very true part of the National Wilderness System and if there is going to be any question about encroachment about the wilderness problem, then I would like whatever it takes to maintain and preserve that wilderness concept. I would want it to apply in this area. In effect, we are just asking that this be done so we will give this added protection to this area. I will say this in front of Mr. Gottschalk and my other good friends here in the Bureau, I don't want them building a lot of latrines and that sort of thing in this area. If they are not going to do it in wilderness, then why do it here. Senator HANSEN. I certainly must agree with you ; it is going to be a case of either/or. Either we are going to recognize the same restric- tions, the same standards in this area that we apply in other sections of the country or we will do damage to the wilderness concept. If it is to be used here, then I agree with you that we have to be tough and firm and unyielding and say the same guidelines we recognize as having value in other places apply here. This is not for me to resolve. I will have a small voice in this resolution, but I think basically the people most directly affected ought to ask themselves, Is this the response that they think Congress should give to the great interest in this problem here ? Is this the designation, are these the restrictions which will be most responsive to the wishes of the people ? If they are, the law must be applied toughly. The law is going to have to be administered care- fully because there will be people saying my little boy doesn't want to walk a mile from this area to the latrine. I say it ought not to be done. But if that is what the people here want, then I will go along with it. Mr. GUTERMIJTH. I don't think we need to worry too much about that. For example, in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area a short time ago when Congress enacted the San Refael and San Gabriel bills, I heard no such discussion. I see no purpose of it here. I would like it set aside as wilderness and preserved in that way. Senator HANSEN. I think the purpose here, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, is that somewhere down the road somebody will be read- ing the legislative history on this particular bill and they will try to say the precedent was set and the will of Congress was set back in 1968 as to what was intended. The administration of the law has a vital impact upon the way we proceed under the law and not only do the courts determine these things, but administratively the practice is to assume a certain inten- tion was declared by the Congress and we proceed on that basis. There are a series of Executive acts where I think it can be construed by the courts the precedent was well set. I think there is a useful pur- pose in discussing it. Mr. GUTERMUTH. I can understand the great concern of Dr. Gotts- chalk and the others here, but if our concept in setting aside and desig- nating these wilderness areas is correct, then the refuge system and the national park systems in those areas set aside and designated as wilderness are only going to be a portion of the refuges and a portion of the national parks and that sort of thing. Let the public use and the development and the providing of facili- ties for hordes of people and that sort of thing be provided in the I PAGENO="0078" 74 areas not set aside and designated as wilderness My concept is, let us preserve and maintain these wildernesses in the true primitive status that was intended in the original act. Senator HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MEPOALF. Thank you for your useful testimony. The next witness is Mr Gary Soucie, assistant to the director of the Sierra Club. STATEMENT 0]? GARY A SOUCIE, ATLANTIC REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB Mr. SoucIE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read an abbreviated ver- sion of my statement in the interest of time if I might Senator METCALF You may proceed in any way you like Mr SouoIE Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gary A Soucie, Atlantic representative of the Sierra Club, a national, nonprofit conservation organization dedic'ited, since its founding by John Muir in 1892, to the preservation of our Nation's wilderness and wildiands The club's headquarteis are at 1050 Mills Tower, San Fran cisco, Calif , and my offices are at 15 East 53d Street, New York, N Y I am here today to speak in support of wilderness proposals for Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, N J , Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, Mass , and Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, Maine The proposed wilderness areas lie wholly within the territory of the club's Atlantic chapter, which has endorsed the inclusion of these areas in the national wilderness preservation system. Our modern ideas about wilderness were nurtured, if not created, in the great expanses of forest and mountains, and sometimes the desert, of the American West But the Wilderness Act has given us the oppor tunity and the challenge to apply our wilderness concepts to other kinds of wildlands-swamps and savannas, rocky and sandy coasts, barrier beaches and islands, caves, and canyons And it has given us the opportunity to survey the land and water resources of the national wildlife refuges, and to see them as something more than g'ime f rms In the response of the public to the field hearings for these eastern wilderness proposals we see a dramatic demonstration of the increasmg, intense interest of our urban and suburban population in wh'tt, just a few short, years ago, was regarded as an essentially rural matter: Wilderness preservation The citizens who live in and ai ound our eastern megalopolis are among the most concerned for the future of our American environment, for in their daily lives they are having to cope with the melancholy, if not disastrous, legacy of the reckless, preconservation era of our Nation's development As John B Oakes, editorial page editor of the New york Times, has put it, we don't have much wilderness left in the East, but we have an awful lot of jungle. Wilderness, then, may mean one thing to a person who lives in a State like New Jersey, with a population density greater than that of Japan or India, and quite another thing to a person from a sparsely populated State like Alaska or Nevada. PAGENO="0079" I 75 SIERRA CLUB RECOMMENDATIONS General.-While the Sierra Club is generally quite pleased with the handling of these wilderness proposals by the Bureau of Sport Fisher- ies and Wildlife, we would like to call the committee's attention to a technical point in the language of these pieces of legislation and to sug- gest alternative language. This point was raised by Senator Allott. The language of section 3 of these bills, and of the other wilderness proposals from the Department of the Interior, pertaining to the prohibited uses of the wilderness and the exceptions thereto, differs in certain respects from the language of the Wilderness Act itself. The major difference is that while the Wilderness Act refers to the administration of the area "for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character" and excepts certain prohibited uses "to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this act," section 3 of these Interior proposals refers to exceptions of prohibited uses "in connection with the purposes for which the area is administered." We would suggest that section 3 be deleted and that Section 2 be amended as follows: SEC. 2. The area designed by this Act as wilderness shall be known as ~ ~ and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act, and Subsection (c) of that Section, except where emergencies require resort to otherwise prohibited uses to fulfill the purpose for which the Refuge was established. We feel this language gives the Bureau the flexibility it needs to administer the area, without risking a possible conflict in interpreta- tion of the Wilderness Act. Great Swamp Wilderness, S. 3379.-The proposed Great Swamp Wilderness is unique in its proximity to our greatest population cen- ter, located as it is just 30 miles from its most distant environmental cousin, the "neon wilderness" of Times Square. This vestige of wilder- ness at the very doorsteps of some 30 million people has been pre- served for us through the hard work and dedication of a handful of New Jerseyites and through the dollars contributed by thousands more from every corner of the Nation. The overwhelming citizen support for the inclusion of portions of Great Swamp in the national wilderness preservation system has been almost incredible. This unprecedented record of support is a good measure of the soundness of the wilderness proposal before the committee. The proposed 3,750-acre Great Swamp Wilderness is probably mis- named because it is actually two separate wilderness units : The upland M. Hartley Dodge Wilderness of 2,500 acres and the marshy Harding Wilderness of some 1,250 acres. Because it is swamp, and therefore somewhat difficult of access, the Great Swamp Wilderness need not bear the brunt of the mass wilderness surrounded by the megalopolis. The Harding and Dodge Wilderness areas, the nonwilderness portions of the national wildlife refuge, and the adjoining Morris County Nature Center and Somerset County Passaic River Park offer in a compact area a broad range of recreational opportunities available nowhere else in the New York metropolitan area. PAGENO="0080" 76 Because of the unique recreational, scientific, and educational values of the Harding and M. Hartley Dodge areas, the Sierra Club en- thusiastically supports the establishment of the Great Swamp Wilderness. Monomoy Wilderness, S. 34~5.-The wave-washed wilderness of Monomoy Island is one of the greatest shorebird areas in the country and one of the very few Atlantic barrier beaches not already corn- rnittted to or slated for beach housing or mass recreational develop- mont. There are many hundreds of miles of beach open to beachbuggy travel, but there is only one Monomoy Island. We support the establishment of Monornoy Wilderness `and urge the continued restriction of over-the-sand vehicular travel to access to pri- vate inholdings and the acquisition of those inholdings and discon- `tinuance of vehicular travel as soon ns possible. Birch Islands Wilderness, S. 350.2 (part) .-"Maine" and "wilder- ness" are almost synonymous in our cultural heritage, yet virtually no virgin timber remains in the State. The tiny Birch Islands in Whiting Bay are a microcosm of the ~lassic wilderness concept-unspoiled, un- trammeled, uninhabited and rarely visited. They deserve the recog- nition ~nd protection of inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Edmunds Wilderness, S. 35094 (part) .-On `the other hand, the Edmunds unit `of Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge has been touched by `the hand of man, and been touched rather heavily. Yet, `the area has, under the stewardship of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, recovered to an `amazing degree, demonstrating nature's great regenerative capacity. The proposed Edmunds Wilderness is, as the Bureau has so `aptly described it, "creative wilderness." A gen- eration from now, once nature has been allowed `to assert her healing ways, the Edmuncis Wilderness will be one of `the finest "pure" wilder- ness `areas in `the Northeast. it is `impossible to discuss the wilderness potential of Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge without mentioning the more northerly Baring uni't. Between the woodcock management areas of the Baring unit there is a roadless, de facto wilderness tract of some 4,000 to 5,000 acres. We are encouraged that `the Bureau `of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has already `announced plans to study the wilderness po'ssi- bilities of the Baring unit `in `the `second 3-year review period under the Wilderness Act. This is another fine example of the Bureau's respon- siveness to the many expressions of public `support for wilderness preservation. In revising its Edmund's Wilderness proposal from 5,345 `to 2,775 acres, the Bureau has `sought to `accommodate the various points of view expressed at the field hearing `in Calais, Maine, last year. While we feel there is perhaps more wilderness potential in the Edmund's unit than `i's contdained within the bound'aries of the present proposal, we recognize the `competing interests which the Bureau must recognize in its management of `the `area. Therefore, in a `spirit `of `compromise, we `support the establishment `of ~ 2,775-acre E'dmund's Wilderness. We believe the combin'ation `of the Edmunds Wilderness, the n'onwilder- ness portion of `the refuge unit, `and the `adjacent C'ohscook Bay State Park will `offer `an optimum `combination of recreational, scientific, and `social values. PAGENO="0081" I I In summary, the Sierra Club supports the establishment of the Great Swamp, M'onomoy, Edmunds, and Birch Island Wildernesses, and `suggests that section 3 of these and other Interior Department wilderness proposals be deleted and that section 2 be amended to con- form more closely to the language and intent of the Wilderness Act itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to state our views on these wilderness proposals. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for a very fine statement. I appreciate especially, Mr. Soucie, and I know the committee does, your recommendations of specific language as an amendment to carry out your suggestion as to Maine. As you have gathered from the discussion that has already taken place by various members of the committee this morning, there is great concern about the very thing on which you have expressed the con- cern of the Sierra Club. Mr. So~rcIE. rfhat is right. That is why we sugges~ed deletion of section 3. We think there is just enough `difference between section 3 and the wording of the kindred sections of the Wilderness Act to cause the confusion we have heard in this hearing. Senator METCALF. You have made a most persuasive statement~ Thank you, sir. Our next witness will be Mr. James Baird, director of national his- tory services of the Audubon Society of Massachusetts. We are de- lighted to have you here, Mr. Baird. STATEMENT OF JAMES BAIRD, AUDUBON SOCIETY OP MASSACHUSETTS Mr. BAIRD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is James Baird and I represent the Massachusetts Society, a wildlife conservation organization with headquarters in Lincoln, Mass. The Massachusetts Audubon Society ~o firmly favors a wilderness status for Monomoy Island that Mr. Allen H. Morgan, execubive vice president, would have come here `today to present its testimony had not illness prevented his making `the trip. The Massachusetts Audubon Society owns historic Monomoy Light, the southern end of Monomoy, and 2 `acres surrounding the lighthouse. The society also operates in the summer months natural history beach buggy tours, with experienced guides who over the years have ex- plained the ecology and wildlife of `this wild area to thou'sands of summer visitors from all over the United States. If the society were a commercial organization, the effect `of de- daring a wilderness status for Monomoy Island could he described in terms of "adversely affecting" the society since it is the only land user whose operations on the island might be termed significant. Nevertheless, the society recognizes the tremendous value `of wildness to the human spirit and feels that this fragile quality can best be pre- served through declaring the island a wilderness `area. The society also wishes to point out that Monomoy Island exists as a major feeding area for thousands of shore bird's and waterfowl that either visit it in migration or winter on its surrounding waters. 99-400-68---6 PAGENO="0082" 78 I The Massachusetts Audubon Society recognizes Monomoy Island as ~L unique ecological area near the greatest concentration of human population in the United States The island's ecology cannot with stand any intensive human use. Its highest human value would be as a wilderness In our section of the United States there are far too few regions that could qualify for wilderness protection as adequately as Monomoy Island. In preserving Monomoy's wildness, the Congress would be preserving a rare commodity that only nature can create. For these reaSons, The Massachusetts Audubon Society expresses its support for passage of S. 3425 which would give Monomoy Island wilderness status. Senator METCALF As I understand it, if this were given wilderness status, you would have to abandon your beach buggy tours ~ Mr BAIRD We would be delighted to do this Senator METCALF. This is agreeable to the society ~ Mr. BAIRD. More than agreeable. Senator METCALF Thank you for coming down and giving us your statement. Mr Lou Clapper, in his usual cooperation with the committee, has presented his statement and it will be incorporated in the record at this point. STATEMENT OP LOUIS S. CLAPPER, NATIONAL WILDLIFE PEDE~RATION Mr. CLAPPER. I am Louis S. Clapper, chief of the Division of Con- servation Education, National Wildlife Federation Our organization `has its national headquarters here in Washington, D.C., at 1412 16th Street NW By way of identification, the National Wildlife Federation is a private organization which seeks to attain conservation objectives through educational means. The Federation has affiliated in 49 States. These affiliates, in turn, are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of ~the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2i/2 million persons As you know, Mr Chairman, the National Wildlife Federation long has supported the concept of wildernees preservation and we are pleased to have this invitation and opportunity of commenting upon these bills. In our opinion, these bills are of special importance to this suhcom- mittee and to the Senate in at least three respects First, these are the first Senate hearings to be held on potential additions to the wilderness system that `are not within a national forest Of course, the Wilderness Act initially incorporated into the system only those areas of National Forest already classified as "wilderness", "wild", or "canoe" and the two bills which have gone through the Congress, and have been ap- proved by the President, are in national forests. Second, this hear- ing is unique for the Senate because it is the first to be held on areas other than those located in the West. Third, the subcommittee also possibly may encounter a relatively new question Some wildlife refuges, for example, have been set aside principally for the purpose of preserving and allowmg the management of particular species of wild I PAGENO="0083" 79 life. And, in some cases, land practices needed tho produce th~ optimum conditions for the particular species are not compatible with wilder ness preservation Generally speaking, while the National Wildlife Federation believes that wildernesses on such areas should be so desig nated when possible, if there is a conflict between wilderness preserva tion and proper management for attamment of the primary functions of these areas, the federation believes the latter practices must prevail We now should like to comment specifically about proposals before the committee. 5. 337 9-GREAT SWAMP The proposed Great Swamp Wilderness Area, located in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge of New Jersey, is only 3,750 acres in size and would be considered of a "vest pocket" size by standards applicable to many other parts of the country However, the location, virtually in the New York City metropolitan area, makes it doubly important The fact that interested and concerned citizens raised more than $1 million a few years ago to acquire almost 3,000 acres for the area attests to its high value. Officers of our affiliate in New Jersey, Mr Chairman, the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, have visited the area in ques tion and believe it has umq~ue natural values which merit preservation in the public interest This is a lowland swamp area covered with hardwood timber and brush The lowlands are broken up by frequent ridges or knolls and small marshes The area offers excellent special attractions in the spring, when mountain laurel and rhoclodendrons ~tre in bloom, and in the fall, when changing leaves on oak, birch, maple, ash, gum, and beech trees are in full color Unusually good stands of old beech trees are found in some portions of the proposed wilderness Waterfowl and many other marsh type species of wildlife abound in the area We recognize that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife must 1 everse a previous land management action, that of drainage, by re establishing a "plug" to retain flood waters Once this minor manage ment work is completed, the ecological succession can take over to return the entire area to its natural condition In that condition, it can offer much to this great metropolitan area which is in such a short supply of natural areas We recognize that aircraft overflights can hardly be avoided, in fact, may be desirable for waterfowl counts. However, we believe that sanitary facilities should be located on perimeter areas. I S. 3343-PELIOAN ISLAND We join our affiliate, the Florida Wildlife Federation, in believing the Pelican Island Refuge contains wilderness that should be included as a unit of the national wilderness preservation system Since this was the first unit of the farfiung national wildlife refuge to be established, it is appropriate that it was the first refuge unit to be recommended for wilderness status While only 403 acres in size, it is of high strategic importance of special value to wildlife and would preserve a rapidly disappearing ecological type It is especially desirable that colonial bird resources be protected PAGENO="0084" 0 C, S. 35O2-SENEY~ HURON ISLANDS, MICHIGAN ISLANDS, WISCONSIN ISLANDS, MOOSEHORN REFUGE Mr. Chairman, we have been in touch with our affiliates in the several States with regard to the wildlife refuges involved with this proposal and have the following comments to make. Michigavn.-The Michigan United Conservation Clubs recommends inclusion of Huron Islands and Michigan Islands Refuges in the wilderness system, and a statement from that organization is attached. Huron Islands contains 147 acres near the south shore of Lake Superior which are valuable as bird nesting sites. These should be included despite an incompatible lighthouse and stone quarry. Michigan Is~ands consists of three small islands totaling 12 acres in Lakes Michigan and Huron. They are chiefly of value to birds. Seney.-The wilderness proposal includes 25,150 acres out of the total of 94,455 acres. This unit was established for the protection and production of waterfowl and other desirable wildlife. We agree with designating this portion of this refuge as wilderness only if it is recognized that manipulations of the habitat may be necessary for the unit to serve its primary function. Hunting `also must be recognized. An open marsh with sizable edges, bogs, and timber areas, the wilder- ness portion is undeveloped. `This is a popular refuge, with a visitor center and picnic areas. Wisconsin.-The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation is of the opinion that wilderness classification will be the highest and best use for the Wisconsin Islands mentioned in the bill. The 29 acres are chiefly valu- able for use by birds. Maine.-The Natural Resources Council of Maine has asked that the National Wildlife Federation express its support for wilderness classification for 2,800 acres of the Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge. Pro- posed wilderness classification for 2,775 acres of the Edmunds unit has provoked considerable discussion. Because most of the area has been logged off or burned over, this would be "second growth" wilder- ness but a unit of high value. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife claims that areas for woodcock and waterfowl needing habi- tat manipulation were excluded from the present wilderness proposal. On grounds that the primary function of the ` refuge will not be adversely afFected, as indicated by the Bureau, we support inclusion of the unit in the wilderness system. S. 3425-MONOMOY Monomoy Island is a 2,600-acre roadless island off Cape Cod, Mass., which has been managed as a wild area. The Massachusetts Wildlife Federation has given extensive study and consideration to all factors involved and supports the proposal. `The National Wildlife Federa- tion joins in recommending inclusion of this unit in the wilderness system and concurs in plans of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for early acquisition of small inholdings. As we understand it, hunting and fishing could continue. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we hope that early approvals can be given to these proposals in order that their enactments may be among the accomplishments of the 90th Congress. Thank you. PAGENO="0085" 81 (The statement of James L~ Rouman follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES L. ROUMAN, EXECUTIVE DIREOTOE, MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS The Michigan United Conservation Clubs is a statewide affiliation of conserva- tionists and sportsmen totaling close to 90,000 members. This organization supports the inclusion of the Huron Islands and Michigan Islands in the Wilderness Preservation System as proposed by S. 3502. While the future removal of gravel by the U. S. Corps of Engineers may not ~e compatible to the wilderness concept, this exception does not negate the MUCC support. The organization also supports the inclusion of 25,150 acres of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge in the Wilderness Preservation System, if the right of the hunter to harvest the wildlife is continued under reasonable restrictions. It also requests that the occasional manipulation of selected habitat artificially in order to maintain such wildlife forms as spruce grouse, sharptailed grouse, etc. be made a matter of record. Senator METCALF. Our next witness is Mr. Robert C. Boardman, public information director of the National Audubon Society. STATEMENT OP ROBERT C. BOAItDMAN, PUBLIC INFORMATION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. BOARDMAN. Mr. Chairman, the National Audubon Society sup- ports all four of these wilderness proposals. However, because our affiliate, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, is scheduled to testify here and can speak with particularly thorough knowledge on Monomoy, and because there are others here well qualified to discuss the Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine proposals, I would like to limit my remarks to S. 3379, to establish a wilderness area in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. First we wish to commend the Interior Department for extending its original wilderness proposal for the Great Swamp `to include the addi- tional land area suggested by our society and many other conservation gioups. The wilderness, as now proposed, includes a good cross section of all the habitat and ecological conditions found in the refuge : Woods and swamp in the Dodge unit ; open marsh, cattails, and water in the Harding unit. The National Audubon Society believes that this is a particularly important wilderness area because it is located so close to a great metropolitan area, in the middle of a densely populated region. One reason is that the Great Swamp can provide a valuable outdoor laboratory and classroom for research scientists and for high school and university students. Such an outdoor lab can, by providing a norm for comparison, be of aid in specific studies concerned with the effects of water pollution, pesticide contamination, smog, radioactive fallout, and other specific biological problems of urgent national concern today, and-more important in the long run-can aid in more basic studies of natural processes that can lead to better scientific under- standing of the world we live in. The Great Swamp is not the only wild swamp in the world that offers opportunity for research and study, but it is the only one of it~ kind for hundreds of miles in any direction7 and therefore, the only place that can offer such an opportunity within easy field-trip distance of the schools, universities, and research laboratories in an urban com- plex with a population of some 30 million people. PAGENO="0086" 82 The Great Swamp is also important for its general environmental value, and the fact that there are so many people nearby to enjoy it. One simple measure is that residents of New Jersey and the New York City area have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and countless hours of volunteer work to save the swamp. A wilderness preserved in the heart of the swamp can provide scenic beauty in the midst of a giant suburban industrial complex-a stretch of open greenery, quiet, and relief from exhaust fumes and industrial chimneys-a buffer against noise and pollution In addition the pro posed wilderness area can enhance the surrounding park and mass recreation facilities, planned or already in use around the Great Swamp, by providing an inner sanctuary as a breeding ground and haven for wildlife The proposed Great Swamp area is not big enough to qualify as a wilderness under the general yardstick used by the Wilderness Act, but we believe it clearly qualifies under the provision that makes ex ceptions for islands, and includes "ecological" islands as well as those surrounded by water The mere fact that the Great Swamp is still. there to be saved-that its natural features have resisted the inroads of civilization for so long-proves that these features do, indeed, make it an island. We believe that with the protection of this proposed law it can continue to exist as an island of wilderness, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act We urge a favorable report on this and the other three bills, and we thank you for letting the National Audubon Society piesent its views. I would like to add, Mr Chairman, that also this aica now, we believe, does qualify as two separate units of wilderness, it would cer tainly be preferable, we believe, to remove the road entirely and maker it into a single wilderness area and since it has been testified here that local authorities are willing to do so, if this is necessary we recom mend that the committee make it necessary to close off the road Senator METCALF As Dr Gottschalk stated, the Migratory Bird Association has told us that by withholding some of the duck stamp money we will be able to move all of those people out of the area who are served by the road, so there would really be no use for the road or justification for it except as an access road, which several have already said is outside of the concept of the wilderness system All of us can justify roads in these areas for a time in order to take care of some of these inholdings we can't acquire but if we can, through the duck stamp money or in other ways, acquire these inholdings, I would con- cur with you that there doesn't seem to be any use for an access road to such a small area as this. Mr BOARDMAN I believe it is a shortcut for half a dozen people going to Chetham and I don't think that should stand in our way Senator METCAT F For a long time I have been having a running feud with the Bureau of Public Roads about putting roads through public wildlife refuges and I would like to take one out for a change.~ Mr. BOARDMAN. We certainly concur. Senator METCALF. Thank you. The next witness is Mr. Stewart M. Brandborg, executive director of the Wilderness Society Mr Brandborg is a Montanan and cer tainly equipped to testify about wilderness in the West as well as the whole concept of wilderness on behalf `of the Wilderness Society. PAGENO="0087" 83 STATEMENT OP STEWART M. BRANDBORG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOL AND M. RUPERT CUTLER, ASISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OY THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. BRANDBORG. Thank you, sir. I am accompanied by Mr. M. Rupert Cutler, assistant director of th~ society. As you know, we are headquartered here in Washington, D.C. The Wilderness Society is pleased to appear here today in support of l~islation to designate 10 wilderness areas in six States for inclu- sion in our growing National Wilderness Preservation System. The wilderness system was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964, an act which was strongly supported by our members, other conservation groups, and conservation-minded citizens throughout the United States. The support for that act derived from the realization that in this country we still have the opportunity to preserve a significant system of areas `of wilderness, but that we can do so only by obtaining firm security for our remaining primitive lands in the form of legal pro- tection enacted by the Congress. We, together with others, concluded that such protection by the Congress would establish a continuing program of wilderness preservation, assuring that wilderness, in its great diversity of forms and in every part of our country, shall endure as a part of our culture and heritage. Today the National Wilderness Preservation System exists, a con- servati'on achievement of which `all, and especially the members of this committee, can indeed be proud. The program to implement this system, adding suitable areas to those which were included in the Wild- erness Act itself, is now underway following the orderly procedures which the 1964 act established. As the wilderness administering agen- cies undertake their reviews of potential new wilderness areas, The Wilderness Society's members and cooperators are taking an `active citizen's role in independently studying the lands involved, examining the agency proposals and, where appropriate, recommending desir- able improvements in those proposals at an early stage in their devel- opmenit. These procedures provide a sensible means of constructive cooperation between citizens and administrators, bringing together the ideas of both `and permitting the development of well-conceived proposals for submission to the Congress. The 10 proposals being considered today are noncontroversial. They have followed this pattern and are exemplary illustrations of construc- tive public participation in land use decisions. Over 240 statements were presented `at the various administrative public field hearings on these proposals, and in addition the Bureau received through the mail more than 7,500 written statements and letters of citizens views concerning them. We appreciate this opportunity to present testimony today `on these :i~o outstanding wilderness proposal's prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. Chairman, these proposals mark a new facet of our national wilderness policy in several respects. Until now, the additions made' to the wilderness system-San Rafael and San Gabriel-have, like most of the areas already comprising the system, been located on na- PAGENO="0088" 84 tional forests tin the Western United States, and have beei~ typical of the western tradition in wilderness reserves. The proposals before you involve land which are administered now-and would continue, with their wilderness designations, to be administered-as wildlife refuges by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. All are relatively small, wild, and in a natural condition. They are located in the East- em or Midwestern Tjnited States. Importantly, they are similar to those already protected as wilderness. These are lands~-where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man-lands retaining their primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation-lands generally appearing to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable. These areas provide out- standing opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They contain ecological, geological, and other features of scientific, educational, scenic, and historical value. Each of these areas is federally owned, and has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition as wilderness. I think it is important to note that the Congress in working out the Wilderness Act has made clear allowance for the inclusion in the wilderness system of areas which are indeed smaller than 5,000 acres. The 5,000 acre criterion is used as a general guide to the wilderness agencies for the purpose of some of their reviews but certainly it is not to be used in any context as a means of eliminating from con- sideration important units of the type that the committee has before it here today in the measures it is considering. Senator METCALF. The Wilderness Act requires, in fact, a review of all areas of 5,000 acres or more ; isn't that correct? Mr. BRANDBORG. That is correct. Senator METCALF. But for the reason Dr. Gottschalk rited for the Great Swamp area, it doesn't mean it has to be 5,000 acres. Mr. BRANDBORG. That is correct. There is nothing in the act that prevents the review of smaller areas within the context of your concept. These areas meet all of the criteria of suitability established by the parent Wilderness Act. They bring to our wilderness system a new diversity of land types, a new variety of ecological communities, and a broader geographical distribution and representation. They bring different but not lesser forms of wild land into a wilderness system which will be broadened and diversified by their addition, and will thus niore fully serve its mandate to protect "an enduring resource of wilderness" for the American people of present and future generations. Furthermore, there is a vital need for legal protection of the wilder- ness character of these lands. The excellent record of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in administering these and the other refuges and game ranges as wildlife sanctuaries is gratefully acknowl- eged. The intent of the Bureau to preserve natural conditions is recognized and commended. It is increasingly apparent, however, that new and mounting pres- sures for development have become so intense that present laws and regulations governing the protection of de facto wilderness are made- I PAGENO="0089" 85 quate for the job. This is particularly true in the case of our national wildlife refuges and game ranges, many of which were established under legal circumstances which leave them highly vulnerable to in- compatible exploitation, development, and uses which are contrary to their basic wildlife purpose. Such incompatible uses can take many forms. Sometimes they can be intrusions which agencies of government have difficulty in resisting. By placing suitable portions of the refuges and game ranges under the protection of the Wilderness Act, man- made intrusions are legally prohibited except to the limited extent that may be administratively necessary. The Wilderness Act ofFers a dual advantage for the wildlife refuges and game ranges. First, by bringing these areas into the national wilderness preservation system, it `assures them `a level of legal pro- tection for their wild character not now available. Second, such desig- nations bring new variety and breadth to the wilderness system, adding suitable wild lands in different geographical and ecological settings and `accessible to different `areas of the country. Many `of `these wildlife units, such as those proposed here today for wilderness designation, lie in close proximity to some of `our larger population centers where there is great public need for people to experience wilderness. It is with this perscep'tive `that we turn to the presentation of our views on the `specific proposals before you. THE PELICAN ISLAND WILDERNESS AREA S. 3343, to designate the Pelican Island Wilderness in Florida, would designate `a wilderness area of approximately 403 `acres, consisting of 18 islands extending for several miles `along the east side of the Indian River on the central Atlantic coast `of Florida. Pelican Island Refuge was the first National Wildlife Refuge to be established in the United States. It was created by Executive order of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903. Even before it was a National Wildlife Refuge, its birdlife had been protected by a warden employed by the National Audubon Society. At the time of its establishment, the refuge was predominantly a rookery for pelicans. In 1909 and again in 1963 the refuge was en~ arged, so `that it consists of `a group of islands totaling 616 acres. Historically, this refuge has a special interest in the annals of American conservation. It is appropriate, then, that it be among the first refuges to' be proposed for the special protection offered by the Wilderness Act. The islands are covered with dense `stands of `black mangrove in the interior, with red mangrove near to the shore. Pickereiweed forms the ground cover where the mangrove is thin or lacking. Numerically important nesting bird species include the brown pelican, wood ibis, double-crested cormorant, cattle egret, common egret, white ibis, Louisiana heron, and anhinga. In addition to its use by nesting birds, the refuge is a seasonal resting place for various migrants including waterfowl, shorebirds, and song birds. Prior to its inclusion in the refuge, some of the land forming the refuge was ditched for mosquito control by `the Indian River Mo'squito Control District. Of the lands included in the Bureau's Pelican Island Wilderness proposal, however, only Roseate Island shows minor effects PAGENO="0090" of such alteration This is seen as an old abandoned ditch which is healed in. The island has never been diked or roaded, and represents essentially natural conditions Pauls Island, Nelson Island, and the western side of Preachers Is- land show scattered spoil piles on some of their shores that were left by the Corps of Engineers during the dredging of the nearby Intra coastal Waterway prior to the addition of these islands to the refuge. Such spoil deposition has not taken place since the islands were added to the refuge, nor should such intrusion be permitted in the future The spoil-~sand ar~d muck from the river bottom-~appe~ars ~s scattered random mounds Experience indicates that vegetation will cover the mounds within a few years Accordingly, while placement of more spoil definitely should not be permitted in the future, the temporary condition represented by the several scattered mounds does not warrant exclusion of these affected islands, which are of wild character, from consideration for wilderness classification Florida is developing rapidly and this region will face strong de- velopment pressures in the future The Atlantic beach is 1 mile east, and a major north south tourist route, U S Highway 1, is 1 mile to the west Under these circumstances a substantial increase in land development pressure near the refuge can be anticipated. As coastal land and water areas continue to be developed, Pelican Island Refuge will become increasingly important, not `only for its value to fish and wildlife resources but `because it represents an ecological type now rapidly disappearing from the east `coast of Florida. Permanent preser- vation `of the refuge islands and the. surrounding `bay bottoms in their natural condition will be a source of continuing enjoyment for resi dents and visitors alike To avoid conflict with the colonial bird nesting which occurs on these islands, visitor use of the islands themselves must be kept to a mini- mum throughout the year This does not, however, impair the wilder ness benefits to be realized by protective designation The islands can be approached by boat and are readily visible from surrounding lands They are thus a part of the visual environment, to be enioyed and valued just for the looking The islands act as "spatial foils," to use an architect's terminology, increasing the diversity and esthetic inter- est of the landscape Opportunities for public enjoyment of the wildlife resources and water oriented recreation will be provided in the sur rounding waters, with an ever present backdrop of wilderness pro tected by legal designation and available for scientific study The Wilderness Society and its local cooperators have reviewed this proposal carefully We are gratified by the responsiveness of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to citizen recommendations for additions to the preliminary proposal. The Bureau is to be com- mended for its fine work on this proposal The Wilderness Society urges favorable action on S 3343, as introduced, to designate a very significant wilderness unit of 403 acres within the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. S 3502 would designate six wilderness ares-the Michigan Islands, Huron Islands, and Seney areas in Michigan, Wisconsin Islands in Wisconsin, and two units in the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine. 86 I I PAGENO="0091" 87 MICHIGAN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge consists of th;ree small islands-two in Lake Michigan and one in Lake Huron, totaling 12 acres. Shoe and Pismire Islands are part of ~he Beaver Island group in Charlevoix County in northern Lake Michigan. Scarecrow Island is located in Thunder Bay of Lake Huron in Alpena County. The three islands were constituted in 1947 as the Mich- igan Islands National Wildlife Refuge by public land order as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. Though seldom visited by man, these islands have considerable ecological significance. Preservation for research and observation by future generations is in itself sufficient justification for designation of these primitive islands as wilderness. Shoe Island is a gravel bar devoid of trees or shrubs, but supporting cinquefoil, scattered clumps of grass and other types of volunteer vegetation. The heavily shoaled waters and difficulty of access result in isolation of the island from human disturbance, making it an attractive area for herring gulls and ring-billed gulls which nest on barren gravel areas. Especially significant is the nesting area which Shoe Island affords for the Caspian tern-one of the few sites used by the Caspian tern in the whole of north-central North America. Though it is dis- tributed around the globe, this species-the largest of the terns-is rarely seen in the interior of North America because it depends upon such isolated nesting sites `as this. Pismire Island is somewhat larger and rises further above lake level. Thus it harbors `a more complex vegetation, with trees and shrubs, and provides habitat for additional wildlife `species `such as mallards and red-breasted mergansers. Scarecrow island, sheltered in Thunder Bay, is the largest of the ~three and has considerable tree and shrub cover. Great blue herons and cormorants use the trees as nesting sites, while gulls use the gravel shore areas. Three small inland potholes attract ducks and shorebirds. The differing elevation of these islands above lake level produces a range of contrasting environmental types. The islands thus offer graphic and contrasting examples of the effects of tides, elevation, and vegetation on such exposed sites. The rapid development and disturb- ance which is occurring on surrounding islands, especially in the Lake Michigan Beaver Island group, make the strongest possible protection an urgent matter if these important scientific and research opportuni- ties are to be preserved. Small island's of this kind, which `are difficult to reach, are not yet exposed to intensive recreational use. Small and isolated as they are, the quiet and `solitude of these rugged, windswept, and wave-battered islands offer an excellent wilderness experience to those willing to visit `them. This value should be protected by wilderness designation and by careful administration `of the area. All public use, however, must be regulated by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife so as to `avoid interference with the resident birdlife during breeding season's and to assure that the `sensitive island environments remain undisturbed. These pristine islands will add importantly to the variety of hahi- tats and opportunities which the wilderness system endeavors to save for this and future generations. PAGENO="0092" 88 HURON ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge oonsists of eight islands lying 3 miles ofF the south shore of Lake Superior along Mich- igan's Upper Peninsula in Mnrqu*ette County. The islands total 147 acres and are formed by pink and gray granite upthrusts which bear remarkably prominent evidence `of glacial action. The rocks rise some 200 feet above the lake, forming steep and very attractive cliffs on the south, while the northern shore exposes rounded glacier and wave- worn rock surfaces. One-third of the area of the i~1'an'ds is barren or lichen-covered rock which frequently shows deep glacial grooving. The remainder of the surface is covered with trees, shrubs, and herba- ceous plants. White and red pine, balsam firm, white birch, white cedar, and `a variety of other `tree `species grow in the rock crevices where soil has accumulated. These trees show `the ravages of wind, ice, and sleet, and as a result they often persist on `precarious `sites, forming a landscape of gnarled, picturesque forms `standing above the rocks. The herring gull is the most numerous wildlife species on the Huron Islands and nests on the barren rock islands at the eastern extremity of the group. The birds must be protected from molestation during the nesting `and brooding seasons. Other species of wildlife found on the islands are the snowshoe hare, whitefooted deer mouse, raven, bluejay, brown thrasher, and many other small perching birds. The Huron Islands are a considerable distance from access points, and favorable weather must prevail for sailing to and landing upon these rugged islands. They present rugged, pristine beauty in an iso- lated setting, with the wild south shore of Lake Superior and the nearby Huron Mountains as superb wilderness companions. Of the 147 acres involved in the refuge, the Bureau of Sport Fish- cries and Wildlife has primary jurisdiction over 22 `acres. The re- mainder of the land is held in primary jurisdiction by other agencies, with the Bureau ha~ving only secondary jurisdiction. The second largest of the islands, Huron Island, is under the pri- mary jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, which maintains a manned sta- tion, lighthouse, and boathouse at widely separated points. These in- stallations are connected by footpaths. With the development of auto- matic navigational-aid devices, it will eventually be possible for the Coast Guard to abandon these installations, at which time these developments should be removed. Though the Coast Guard does not foresee this action in the immedi- ate future, they have stated that they anticipate no "physical changes in our establishment that might alter existing conditions on the island." Under these circumstances the installations can be classified as nonconforming administrative developments and do not conflict with designation of the islands as wilderness. The larger East Huron Island is under the primary jurisdidtion of the U.S. Army Corps `of Engineers, for whom the island is a potential source of rock to be quarried for cover stone in harbor breakwater repairs. The corps has stated `that "Removal of stone from the island is not anticipated in the foreseeable future. In fact, it is very possible that no quarrying will be conducted on this island during the next 20 years or longer." PAGENO="0093" The Wilderness Society believes that East Huron Island is more valuable to the Nation as a dedicated wilderness area, with its unique biological and geological values preserved for future study and en- joyment, than as a source of quarry rock of which ample sources are available nearby. We urge that the entire 147 acres of Huron Islands National Wild- life Refuge be designated for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. SENEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REF1JGE The Seney National Wildlife Refuge is located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan approximately halfway between Marquette and Sault Ste. Marie. State Highway 28, connecting these two cities, passes immediately north of the refuge, giving ready access to the area. The Seney Refuge was established in 1935 as a refuge `and breeding ground for migratory bird's and other wildlife. Establishment `of the refuge followed a long history of land `abuse within this region, where first the magnificent white pine were taken out, then the remaining forest was cut `over on `a "cut and get `out" basis, `and wildfire swept over the land. The refuge now contains 94,455 acres, much of which is devoted to a restorative multiple-use program. A particularly `significant program at Seney is the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's recreation and interpretative work. With a modern visitor center and a staff of naturalists, an effective educational program is offered the visiting public. In 1966 nearly 80,000 visitors stopped at Seney and benefited from this program. Yet, even ~ with this' notive public use program, and the extensive pond construction developments which have been made as part of the wildlife management work in parts `of the refuge, a remarkable op- portunity remains at Seney to bring a unique and essentially wild section of it into `our National Wilderness Preservation System. For at Seney `the intensive wildlife habitat management `and public use occurs on the eastern `two-thirds of the refuge, `and a large `and fascinat- ing environment of wild land remains in its more remote western third. The proposed Seney wilderness `area consists `of 25,150 acres in a compact unit. The present l'andsdape form may be traced to `the `activity of ice age glaciation which left behind `an outwash `sand plain. The sand, during drought periods, was blown into dune formations which now have been vegetated with `tamarack `and `other tree `and brush species. These extinct dunes form a topographically `oriented pattern of slightly elevated, parallel sand knolls surrounded by boggy areas of peat `and muck. The resulting landscape is known `as `a "string bog" and constitutes a subarctic land type which reaches its southernmost extent in North America `in Seney Refuge. Two-third's of `the `study area `is `character- ized by this unique complex of nearly `treeless string bogs `and parallel forested knolls. The remainder `of the area was once a white pine forest. It is now recovering from burning and early-day abuse with heavy growths of aspen, jack pine, and other less prominent `species. The recovery of its I 89 PAGENO="0094" 90 natural community is in itself `a fascinating and important ecological process. Wildlife species which use the area proposed as wilderness include deer, bear, coyote, red fox, beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, osprey, Canada geese, black duck, mallard blue winged teal, sandhill cranes, wood duck, and ruffled grouse. Spruce grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and moose, all of which are in low numbers in this part of Michigan, are also found in the area. This portion of the Seney Refuge contains habitat of value to the bald eagle and timber wolf, which are listed by the Secretary of the Interior `as endangered species. Both species have been observed in recent months within the proposed wilderness. They will prosper if the area is maintained as wilderness and if disturbing human use is prop- erly controlled. The Bureau's efforts on behalf of these endangered. species will be most fruitful if these efforts `are concentrated on en- vironmental protection and control of human use. At the public field hearing in 1967, the Bureau proposed that a 19,150-acre area be designated as wilderness. On the basis of a thorough field inspection by our staff and Mi~higan conservationists, the Wilder- ness Society joined other groups in `asking that an additional 6,000- acre area of contiguous wild land be added to that proposal. This pro- posed addition received strong support from local conservationists who spoke at the hearing. Following its review of the initial proposal `and the hearing record,, the Bureau has proposed designation of the 6,000 additional acres which it found suitable for wilderness protection. It is this revised proposal for a 25,150-acre unit that the committee now has before it and which the Wilderness Society fully supports. Mr. Chairman, we would like to commend this proposal to the corn- mittee as an excellent illustration of the provisions of the Wilderness Act which provide for citizen participation in the wilderness review procedures. In Michigan, as in other parts of the country, local citizen conservationists have taken the initiative to independently study potential wilderness lands and to review proposals in a constructive manner in cooperation with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild- life. The efforts of these people and their local groups are well re- warded by the responsiveness of the Bureau and the Wilderness Society here wishes to commend it for its fine work on these Michigan proposals. The society is pleased to note that these three proposals are em- bodied in legislation cosponsored by the entire Michigan congressional delegation. This bipartisan support for these important and noncon- troversial designations is a further example of responsiveness to the public interest as expressed in support of these proposals. The Wilderness Society supports the administration's three excellent proposals for refuge wilderness in Michigan. WISCONSIN ISLANDS WILDERNESS The proposed Wisconsin Islands Wilderness comprises both the' Green Bay and Gravel Island National Wildlife Refuges. `The two refuges include three islands, all located in Lake Michigan close off' the shore of the Door Peninsula, 80 miles northeast of Green Bay, Wis. PAGENO="0095" 91 All of Spider, Gravel, and Hog Islands, totaling 29 acres, are included in the proposed wilderness. These three limestone islands, which total 29 acres and vary in ele- vation from 10 to 20 feet above lake level, have a thin covering of gravel and soil which supports grass, brush, and some trees. Geologi- cally similar, they portray an ecological sequence from Gravel Island, which is devoid of tree growth, to Green Bay Island, which has the highest elevation and the greatest number of living trees. Ground hemlock grows abundantly on Spider and Hog Islands, while it is now rare on the mainland because of heavy deer browsing pressure. A small area of willow brush is found on Gravel Island; Spider Island has remnants of white birch, white cedar, and white spruce. Red osier dogwood, elderberry, raspberry, and wild currant form dense brush cover on Spider and Hog Islands. Their small size, remoteness, and landing difficulties have preserved. these islands from development. These characteristics have made the islands attractive to gulls, herons, and waterfowl which have found them ideal havens for unmolested nesting and resting grounds. Herring gulls, ring-billed gulls, and waterfowl are the most common nesters, though great blue herons and black-crowned. night herons also are successful island nesters. In their present state, the islands provide ideal conditions for nesting birds, and no developments or management changes for the sake of the resource seem necessary. Public demands for development have been absent or negligible. We agree with the Bureau that public access must be prudently limited and restricted by it to late summer and early fall to avoid disturbance of nesting birds. The Wisconsin Islands proposal is noncontroversial. Over 160 com- munications were received during the public hearing procedure, and all expressed support for the wilderness proposal. Little economic impact in the vicinity would result from the islands being added to the national wilderness preservation system. Protection of these islands and their wild values will be most strongly secured by desig~ nating them as wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act. MOOSEHORN NATIONAL WILDLIEE REFUGE 5. 3502 also would designate two wilderness areas within the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine. Moosehorn is located in Washington County, the easternmost land in the con- tinental United States. The wildlife refuge consists of three separate tracts : the Edmunds unit, the Birch Islands unit, and the Baring unit, totaling 22,565 acres. Wilderness potential is found in all three units, and portions of two~-~the Edmunds and Birch Islands units-are pro- posed for such designation at the present time. The largest of the tracts is the Baring unit, which extends south from the Canadian border near Calais and comprises about 16,000 acres. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild'life omitted to study or propose wilderness in this 16,000-acre portion of the refuge during the 1964-67 review period of the Wilderness Act. However, many citizens and groups appearing at the administrative public field hear- ing in Calais in 1967 pointed out that the wilderness system potential of the Baring unit should be given serious study. Important values PAGENO="0096" 92 and opportunities there would be enhanced by designation as wilder- ness of a port~ion of this area. In view of the expressed citizen interest, the Bureau has agreed to study the Baring unit during the second 3-year Wilderness Act review period. A hearing will be held in Maine and the other review procedures of the Wilderness Act will be followed. The Wilderness Society commends the Bureau for its responsiveness to this public interest, and we look forward to participating in this further review of wilderness potential in Maine. Wilderness proposals concerning the Edmunds and Birch Islands units of the refuge have proceeded through the full administrative review process and are embodied in S. 3502. A 2,775-acre wilderness area is proposed in the Edmunds unit, and the entire Birch Islands unit of 7 acres is recommended for designation. While there is a past history of some human disturbance on the Edmunds tract, it will become a place of even greater natural beauty and truly serve the purposes of a wilderness retreat if left free from further disturbance. Most wild areas in the East have not been entirely untouched in the past, and in this respect many of them differ from the larger western wilderness areas. But these eastern areas we are talking about are wild and, with the fascinating resilience of natural processes, they will grow to greater and more complete wilderness. rrhey offer essentially wilderness qualities, and thus, as the Edmunds unit, meet the qualifications and requirements of the Wilderness Act. Within the Edmunds unit. there is one plot where hot wildfire had completely burned away the top soil, leaving a barren `area that would support no vegetation. But now, `after 40 years, grasses and woody plants are gaining a foothold. As nature restores the lifegiving soil and plant successions develop, there can be careful observations and facts recorded for scientific knowledge. Dr. Clarence Cottam, well-known for his past outstanding service with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, is thoroughly familiar with the Moosehorn Refuge, and has cited this situation as a unique scientific phenomenon. It should be observed that in all of Maine, a State once famous for its magnificent pine forests, not one stand of virgin pine can be found today. There are a few trees, but nowhere a solid stand. The best is clearly second growth, and there is very little of that. If we are to look to the future, beyond the present generations, and if we are to serve the interests of those who will live under more congested surroundings than we have today, we must provide wilder- ness protection for the Edmunds unit. The Bureau's preliminary proposal was for a larger wilderness area in the Edmunds unit. However, in order to accommodate certain other uses, the proposed wilderness area has been reduced to the pres- ent size of 2,7'75 acres within the 5,350 acres of the unit as a whole. East of the Edmunds unit lies Bobscook Bay, an arm of Passama- quoddy Bay. Here are located the two small islands of the Birch Is- lands unit. These 7 acres of spruce-covered islands, which boasts an active bald eagle nest, are fully suitable for wilderness designation. Seldom visited by man and uninhabited throughout the centuries, these islands remain as gems of unspoiled wildness. The designation of these areas as wilderness should be viewed in regional perspective. In such perspective, the proposals carry a great PAGENO="0097" 93 significance. This kind of perspective was developed 2 years ago by an important symposium entitled "The Maine Coast: Prospects and Perspectives." Held at the Center for Resource Studies at Bowdoin College, the symposium brought experts together to consider the re- sources and environment of the Maine coast and the direction planning and development should take. Charles W. Eliot stated the challenge: We are concerned with how to preserve what little of the wilderness of the frontier is left. For us here today, the question is how to manage our resources so as to preserve the special qualities of the Maine coast. Another contributor pointed out the need for taking deliberate action: Much of Maine has escaped, up to now, the kind of development and exploita- tion that has blighted so much of the eastern seaboard. Change is on the doorstep, but there are still miles of Maine coast that have changed little in the last three hundred years. There is still time to think and to plan to shape a future for the coast of Maine that will make it possible for people to live and prosper there without sacrificing all natural beauty and the general quality of life. But there is not much time. A part, certainly, of an ideal environment for the coast of Maine, as for any region, is a wide spectrum of habitats and an ecological diversity. it i's recognized that, as the forest matures, it will be less attractive to both deer and woodcock. However, the marshes and alder-type growth will continue to provide woodcock cover and the pulpwood lands of hundreds of thousands of acres in the region will continue to favor both species. On the other hand, wildlife associated with mature forests will be provided habitat which is not currently ~vailable. This ~iversity of habitat is important, and fully justifies the setting aside of this comparatively small wilderness area. Similarly, a well-integrated region should make available a wide spectrum of opportunities for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of natural beauty. In another paper at the Bowdoin symposium, Dr. Joseph L. Fisher, President of Resources for the Future, Inc., sug- gested that, taking the coast as a well-defined region, our planning should be directed- toward a Maine Coastal Park and Recreation System. What I think we need now in the outdoor recreation industry is an approach that looks at a large geographic area within which there would be on the one hand a variety of outdoor recreation resources and on the other hand a variety of demands for them. Opportunities for enjoyment of wilderness recreation-hiking, nature study, and so forth-~should be retained as part of the recrea- tional spectrum offered to visitors to Maine's coastal region. A sig- nificant opportunity does not exist now for such activities in the Moosehorn Refuge. Designation as a wilderness area will provide the needed additional strength protecting Moosehorn's wilderness resources and assuring that they will persist for the benefit of future generations. It will add the permanence and strength of specific congressional action to the ex- isting administrative protection of these lands. The Wilderness Society believes that designation of `a 22775-'acre Edmunds wilderness and a 7-acre Birch Islands wilderness will secure an important `asset for Maine `and for the Nation. 99-400-68----7 PAGENO="0098" 94 With a future wilderness area in the Baring unit, these areas will grow in value as they grow in wildness and as the region around them develops. An important heritage will be passed on to future generations. MONOMOY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE S. 3425 designates the entire 2,600-acre Monomoy Island as a wilder- ness. Bounded on the west by Nantucket Sound and on the east by the Atlantic, the island varies from one~quarter mile to 1 mile in width. Monomoy extends about 9 miles south from the elbow of Cape Cod, and is separated from the cape mainland by a shallow waterway less than a mile wide. Monomoy Island is an unstable coastal barrier beach, pounded by the Atlantic, scoured by tidal currents, and lashed by sea winds. Monomoy is unique, exhibiting characteristics `similar to, yet not pre- cisely the same as, those associated with typical offshore barrier beaches. A barrier beach is created along a gently-sloping coast where the waves break some distance offshore. Sand piles up, ou't where the waves break, creating an island barrier beach between open `ocean and calm lagoon. Monomoy Island, however, has no lagoon because of its position projecting from Cape Cod. Being geologically distinct from barrier beaches such as Fire Island and Assateague Island, Monomoy has a special interest, and its ecology is dictated by a unique set of conditions. This ever-changing sand strip shows little of man's use during the past 100 years. Today it is a wild area of barren or sparsely vegetated dunes and sand flats, numerous fresh water ponds, marshes and meadows, brush hollow, and extensive salt marches. Its highest point is only 30 feet above sea leveL During major storms drastic changes have taken place in its size and shape, particularly at the north end where alternately in the past the island has been naturally connected with Morris Island or Nauset Beach. No physical development has been carried on at Monomoy in recent years. Little that was done modified the environment permanently. Planting of native vegetation in the past to control erosion and provide food for wildlife have merged into the local floristic pattern. The potholes and low dikes constructed appear quite natural today. The fondunes are mostly devoid of vegetation. Many interior dunes are covered with American beachgrass and false heather. In the hollows and despressions are bayberry, beach plum, poison ivy, and patches of pitch pine. On the sound are low, sweeping cordgrass marshes blending into extensive salt marsh flats. There are numerous small potholes and natural fresh water ponds. Monomoy Island is claimed by many prominent ornithologists to have no equal as a shorebird area. Shorebirds numbering in the thou- sands occur in season, including yellowlegs, black-bellied plovers, sanderlings, and even the much-less-common Hudsonian godwits and golden plovers. It also is justly famous as a concentration point for many other species of birds. Canada geese have reached peaks of 2,200 in recent years, black ducks 3,000, with lesser numbers of other ducks. Extensive mussel beds off the ocean side of Monomoy have attracted hundreds of thousands of eider and scoter ducks during the winter. Flights of warbiers and other songbirds sometimes fill the low thickets of the island in a spectacular manner during migration. A large colony PAGENO="0099" 95 of terns, including common, roseate, and least tern nest at points along the outer beach. A small herd of from 25 to 30 white-tailed deer ranges over the island. There are a few red foxes. Muskrats inhabit the fresh water ponds and marshes. Occasionally an otter or mink is seen. Small mammals present include mice, shrews, and moles. Commercial and sport fishing and shellfishing always have been significant factors in the economy and life of the local people. In the late 1800's a small fishing village existed on Monomoy Island at the "Powder Hole." Over the years Monomoy was abandoned by year- round residents, and by 1944 when the Federal Government acquired the island as a national wildlife refuge, only summer camps were left. Fishing, clamming, and scalloping continue to provide a livelihood for mainland residents, and salt water sport fishing is also an im- portant economic factor. Fish taken in season, in the island's surf as well as from boat offshore, include striped bass, bluefish, bonita, mackerel, haddock, flounder, and cod. The wilderness proposal for Monomoy should be viewed in its re- gional context, for it is a superb example of the logic of a regional spectrum of environmental types and recreational and aesthetic op- portunities. From Cape Cod to Assateague Island in Maryland, there are no other islands remaining in such a near natural condition as coastal wilderness. The Cape Cod National Seashore, created in 1961, and Monomoy as wilderness, complement each other. The seashore itself contains only one similar but smaller island-Great Island, which may be subject to wilderness review at a later date. Monomoy is a part of the seashore's scenic environs, and as protected wilderness it will contribute to the environmental diversity and character of the whole region. The recreational purposes of the seashore are comple- mented by the wilderness recreation purpose of Monomoy ; the environ- mental quality of the cape is enhanced by the wildness of Monomoy. As protected wilderness, Monomy will continue to be managed as a wild environment, as it has been so well managed by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife since 1944. The Bureau envisions no changes in management as a result of wilderness designation. The laws and departmental regulations governing the national wildlife refuges will continue to apply. Recreational use will continue, public uses, including hunting, are permissible under present law, and designation as wilderness will not change this. Visitors may land their boats any place on the island. Hikhig, birdwatching, nature study, shell collect- ing, picknicking, and photography during daylight hours are per- mitted, and persons licensed by the town of Chatham are permitted to shellfish. In response to requests by sportsmen, the Bureau more than a year ago amended its public warming fires on the beach. This recreational use will continue with the wilderness designation. This rare opportunity to preserve Monomoy Island as wilderness should not be lost. The threat is not only from immediate inappropri- ate use, but from slow compromise of the island's wildern~ss integrity. Monomoy Island lies in the heart of one of the most popular vaca- tion spots in the entire Northeast. Salt water beaches are the primary attraction, enhanced by a combination of rolling sand dunes, brush knolls, and extensive views of the coast and sea beyond. Wilderness area status for Monomoy Island will aid in preserving forever by PAGENO="0100" 96 act of Congress its relatively unspoiled character. Monomoy will con- tinue to attract nature enthusiasts seeking a quality wilderness experience. THE GREAT SWAMP WILDERNESS AREA S. 3379 would designate a 3,750-acre wilderness in two units within the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in northern New Jersey. This hearing marks the latest chapter in the effort to protect this swamp, an effort which will be a major contribution to the history of natural resources management in the sixties. In a sense the conservation history of Great Swamp goes back to 1667, the year William Penn acquired the land from the Delaware Indians. During the enisuing three centuries, men have made their marks on the surrounding land-the region has become the very focal point of our largest metropolitan concentration. Today, the popula- tion density of northern New Jersey is over 900 persons per square mile-intermediate between the density . of Japan and India. But though man has long since subjugated nearly the entire region, a few wild places remain. One of these is the Great Swamp. Literally within sight of the Man- hattan skyline-Times Square is 30 miles away-the Great Swamp persists as a last remarkably wild area. This opportunity has generated a noteworthy citizen effort to conserve the swamp in its wild condition. Conservationists had already made a substantial beginning toward acquiring property in the Great Swamp when, in 1959, the Port of New York Authority announced it favored the area as the site for a giant international jetport. This spurred activity to save the swamp. Thousands of persons throughout the United States donated over a million dollars to buy more than 3,000 acres for the wildlife refuge. By May 1964, when the refuge was created, the Great Swamp Com- mittee of the North American Wildlife Foundation had donated 2,700 acres to the Federal Government as the nucleus of the present refuge area. More recently this work has been taken over by the North Jersey Conservation Foundation. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife now owns some 4,000 acres in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, and the land acquisition program will eventually bring the total refuge area to approximately 5,800 acres. Other units of government have acquired smaller adjacent holdings which are also being preserved. This effort to preserve Great Swamp in the face of the jetport proposal is an outstanding example of citizen concern for preserving selected portions of our natural heritage. This cooperative project is nationally known as a splended example of how local people and their Government have joined together to preserve a segment of natural America for the continued enjoyment and inspiration of all citizens. This outstanding conservation effort has sufficiently demonstrated the overwhelming public interest in preserving the area for its natural values. `The Wilderness Society fully `supports the President's proposal for a Great Swamp wilderness `and urges your favorable action. The work of conservationists in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild- life, in the Department of the Interior, and in this committee, all seeking to protect the Great Swamp, will endure as an excellent ex- ample of conservation `action. PAGENO="0101" 97 The contribution of citizen conservationists-the many hundreds of individuals and members of the Great Swamp Committee of the North American Wildlife Foundation and the North Jersey Conservation Foundation-is most impressive. These citizens have contributed not only time through their own participation to this efFort, but also more than a million and a half dollars for acquisition of this remnant of their natural heritage. The Great Swamp, as it was when William Penn acquired it in 1667, is a giant bowl, the marshy remnant of a lake left by the ice age. Although man has pushed back its borders and has made sporadic intrusions deeper into the swamp, some 8,000 acres remain in natural forest, marsh, and meadow. The converging climatic zones there produce an unusual variety of plantlife which in turn supports a wide range of animal and bird species. The area still harbors white-tail deer, mink, fox, raccoon, muskrat, and other mammals. At least 175 species of birds have been identified, and 75 are known to nest and rear their young there. For the botanist the range extends from a wealth of microscopic plant algae to a few magnificent stands of beech and oak-trees 14 feet in girth and believed to be as much as 500 years old-as well as wild flowers, aquatic plants, and flowering shrubs of breathtaking color and beauty. A unique wild environment like the swamp has a great many values worthy of preservation. These are made all the more significant when the natural area `is surrounded by megalopolis. I would like to cate- gorize just a few of these values. 1. Educatio%.-As the only natural wilderness in the vast and grow- ing New York metropolitan area, the Great Swamp offers a priceless outdoor laboratory and classroom for the use of the scientists and col- lege and high school level students of a community of some 30 million inhabitants. At a time when pollution of our land, air, and water has become a critical national problem, these studies have become more urgent than ever. 2. Water.-The Great Swamp forms a major source of the Passaic RFver. A swamp tends to be a natural regulator of water supply, hold- ing runoff and releasing it gradually. Without it, the Passaic would be far more subject to excessive fluctuation in water level, and this in turn upsetting other natural processes would increase the problem of pollution. 3. Atlantic Flyway.-Waterfowl use the Great Swamp as `a resting place on the way through during migratory season and, in the case of some species such as wood duck, nest there. These uses have been increasing in some areas of the wildlife refuge where the Fish and Wildlife Service has been restoring water levels in some areas partially drained by earlier human encroachments. 4. Environmental vctluea.-The value to the surrounding community is too obvious to need much amplification. In its natural state this area provides a stretch of open greenery amidst increasing congestion and pollution; it has scenic beauty and is a wilderness breeding ground and haven for wildlife for the more heavily used park and recreation areas that are adjacent to it. 5. Wilderness.-In its own right the Great Swamp-only 30 miles from Times Square-is a unique wilderness opportunity. No similar PAGENO="0102" 98 opportunity to retain wild solitude will occur again so close to our largest metropolitan concentration. Brooks Atkinson sums up: All around Great Swamp property values rise because the population is In- creasing and the supply of land remains the same. In Great Swamp the property values are low because the land is good for nothing except life, knowledge, peace and hope. At this point I have outlined a number of important values which are embodied in the Great Swamp and which are convincing reasons for saving the area intact. Before examining the pending proposal in depth, I would like to present to the committee, for the record, a copy of an article on `the swamp written by Brooks Atkinson. This article, which appeared in the New York Times magazine last year at the time of the field hearing in Morristown, brilliantly captures and cx- presses the wild flavor of the area. Additionally I should like to have incorporated a letter to the editor which appeared in response to Mr. Atkinson's article and portray's expressively the need for this wilder- ness amid megalopolis. Late in 1966 the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife published its preliminary wilderness proposal for Great Swamp under the re- quirement of the Wilderness Act `that roadless areas and roadless is- lands-areas "markedly distinguished from surrounding lands by topographical and ecological features"-within the national wildlife refuge system be reviewed to determine their suitability as wilderness. On February 17, 1967, a public hearing was held in Morristown, N.J., to obtain citizen views on `the proposal. Nearly 1,000 people were in attendance and 62 testified. At the hearing and in the weeks fol- lowing, 6,665 letters and statements were submitted. In all of this testimony, only three statements opposed wilderness designaion. As a demonstration of citizen interest and participation, this hearing made conservation history. The Bureau's initial proposal was for a single wilderness area, the 2,400-acre M. Hartley Dodge unit, encompassing the east end of the refuge. The Wilderness Society, local conservationists, and other group's strongly supported this proposal and recommended that a second `area of 1,250 acres, the Harding unit, should receive wilderness status. Hundreds of persons submitted statements for the hearing, endorsing this addition to the proposal. Though called a swamp, the area actually comprises a variety of habitats. The Dodge unit is predominantly hardwood forest above the water table. The unit has `been administratively managed as a natural area, and will continue so. Trails will be restricted to foot travel, and nature trails will be maintained to encourage continued use for education `and recreation. The rich forest `association, including magnificent stands of beech, white oak, sweet birch, sugar maple, and shagbark hickory, is ideal for such uses. The Harding unit will add a substantial area of the more character- istic wet timbered swamp terrain immediately west of the Dodge unit. In several places the swamp opens into small marshes. Bottomland vegetation includes red maple, elm, azalea, highbush blueberry, swamp rose, willow, and a variety of groundcover species. Together the Dodge unit and the Harding unit comprise a comprehensive cross section of Great Swamp ecology. The botanical values are exceptional, with plants of the North and South flourishing side by side. After restudy- PAGENO="0103" ing and reviewing its proposal and the recommendations of citizGn conservationists at the hearing, the Department of the Interior found that the Harding unit is fully suitable for wilderness status and added this additional acreage to its wilderness recommendation. Thus the proposal now made by the President and before the Congress is for a 3,750-acre area to be designated as wilderness in the two adjacent units. A low-standard, dirt road, called the Meyersville Road and main- tamed by the Townships of Harding and Passaic, lies between the pro- posed two district wilderness units. The governing bodies of these two townships have indicated a willingness to vacate and abandon this road if the committee so desires and we would agree that such a step- to unify the two wilderness areas-would be a desirable if not an essential step. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife proposed to manage the Dodge unit as a natural area, and to reestablish pristine conditions in the Harding unit through restoration of natural swamp conditions. Low plugs would be provided to retain floodwaters and to offset the effects of the manmade drainage system established in earlier years. In the language of the Wilderness Act, the Great Swamp "gen- erally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature." The act requires that the "imprint of man's work be substantially unnoticeable," preserving "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man." Wilderness designation will specify that the Bureau is also respon- sible for maintaining the wilderness character of these units once they are designated. The Dodge and Harding units are urgently needed as an "enduring resource of wilderness" in this urban setting. The wilderness system has been established by the Congress "in order to assure that an in- creasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and grow- ing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possession, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition." The threat of encroaching development is as serious at Great Swamp as in nearly any other area likely to be included in the wilderness system, and must be met with statutory wilderness protection for the area. I will say this, if it is found prudent in the judgment of the corn- mittee, to eliminate the road which has been the subject of discussion at this hearing, the Society would certainly concur in such a judgment. We have recognized the Bureau in good faith came forward with a good two-unit proposal, a proposal that encompassed two separate ecological entities, areas separated from each other by a dirt road. If it proves to be possible, and all evidence indicates that this is possible, that we can eliminate the road, we would certainly support such an action, but we feel that the Bureau has proceeded in good faith in fol- lowing the mandate of the Wilderness Act in providing two proposals for wilderness designation of two separate areas with unique ecological features that come under the purview and requirement of the law. We would of course strongly support the designation of the Great Swamp Wilderness Area either in a two-unit form as proposed by the Bureau or as a one-unit area if this is found to be most practical. We would favor the second alternative, of course. 99 PAGENO="0104" 100 Mr. Chairman, this is an auspicious day for the wilderness program as these excellent proposals move into the final stages of the procedures to give the wilderness status to 10 units within the wildlife refuge system. These proposals illustrate how constructive the Wilderness Aot~s procedures are : They have been carefully considered and all parties have been heard. We believe the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has done an outstanding service in preparing these proposals. The Bureau and the Department of the Interior are to be commended for the way they have moved ahead with these refuge wilderness reviews. These proposals will bring breadth and diversity to our national wilderness preservation system, especially the diversity of geograph- ical location. We are bringing wilderness and all its multiple values to the eastern United States-not by diluting our wilderness stand- ards, but by quickly grasping the last dwindling opportunities where we can find `them. As members of this committee know, the Wilderness Act recognizes that most of our public wild lands which remain are already in some kind of Federal jurisdiction. We are fortunate that the purposes these areas already serve do not hinder their wildness and that protection of that wild character is in fact complementary to their present pur- poses. This is true of the wildlife refuge areas now being considered for wildlife status. Wilderness area designations are supplemental to, and would not supersede the original management objectives of the national wildlife refuges, which `are designed for `the benefit of wild- life and to secure its proper protection. The provisions of section 4(a) and 4(b) of the Wilderness Act declare that the act is to be supple- mental to the purposes for which national wildlife refuges are estab~ lished and administered. Wilderness areas `are to `be a'dministered so as to meet the purposes of wildlife protection for which the refuges were established `and in such `a manner as to preserve and project their wildlife communities. They `are `to be administered within the wilder- ness area concept to provide public recreational, scenic, scientific, educationaJ, conservation, and historical enjoyment insofar as wild life management `objectives permit. Therefore, we can expect to see-~-- and `will `support-~appropriate restrictions on public use of refuge wilderness, where such uses would conflict with the `area's wildlife purposes. In discussion of wilderness `area criteria, size has `often been con- sidered to be a factor. in this connection, ~he exact wording of the wilderness law's `definition of wilderness is important. Section 2(c) (3) states that `a wilderness "~ * * `has `at least 5,000 `acres of land `or is of sufficient size as `to make practical its preservation and use in `an un- impaired condition." In other words, areas meeting `all `other `criteria of wilderness should not be denied protection simply on the basis `of size if they are, in fact, of a `size and configuration making praetieable their preservation `and use `as wilderness. The late executive director of the Wilderness Society, Dr. Howard Z'ahniser, referred `to `the matter `of size in `a memorandum `he prepared in 1949 for `a Legisl'ative Reference Service `study of wilderness. Dr. Zahniser~s words then concerning `the Wilderness Society's view of thi's matter are pertinent `today: PAGENO="0105" 101 The two outstanding characteristics of a wilderness that makes its preserva- tion desirable are implicit in this definition ; namely, the persistence of the primeval environment or influence, and freedom from mechanized and related aspects of the urban, industrial life to which modern man is increasingly con- fined. Any area with these two characteristics, or with either, should be most thoughtfully considered for preservation before it is permitted to be altered. A third, highly desirable characteristic is the presence within the area of an environment impressing the visitor with a sense of remoteness. This character- istic is in most instances a function of the size of the area. Diminishing the size of a wilderness is definitely damaging to this characteristic, and thus the boundaries of such an area to be preserved should be as far-flung as possible. This characteristic also, however, seems to be a function of the nearness of the area to centers of population, or perhaps a function of the `abruptness with which evidence of urban, industrial influence disappear. Thus a tract of absolute wilder- ness rather near to a city or other densely populated, industrialized area affords a deep sense of remoteness and must be assigned this characteristic of wilderness even though its size does not meet such arbitrary stands as have been established for areas that are surrounded by many miles of thinly populated lands. The Wilderness Society was pleased recently to reprint in our magazine. "The Living Wilderness," `an article by Mr. Noble E. Buell, Assistant Direotor of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Mr. Buell's article, entitled "Refuge Recreation : High Standards Equal Quality," discusses the program of the Bureau to provide refuge recreation opportunities, including the refuge wilderness program. As Mr. Buell points out, "wilderness should be a most compatible addi- tion to a refuge interpretive program." In addition, we would point out that it is the special contribution of the national wildlife refuge wilderness areas to' bring wilderness close to the people in our heavily developed urban and industrialized areas. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of these wilderness proposals. This hearing marks an especially significant step in the implementation o'f the Wilderness Act, as we begin consideration of the wilderness resources of the national wild- life refuge system. Last Monday the President sent a special message to the Congress, transmitting the "Fourth Annual Report on the Status of the National Wilderness Preservation System." In that message the President said: We must preserve for use by this and future generations, some of the America that tempered and formed our national character, an America where a man can be alone with all the glories of nature and can renew his spirit in solitary com- munion with the land. This is the reason why we shall not be content until we have a National Wilderness Preservation System adequately symbolic of our great national heritage. The proposals before you today, Mr. Chairman, do just that--They increase the protection of a diverse sample of wild land symbolic of our great natural heritage. We urge early and favorable action on these proposals. Senator METOALF. Thank you very much for a very helpful, informa- tive and co'mpr~hensive statement. I agree with you that this corn- mittee today, in its hearing, is launching itself into the second stage of operation of the Wilderness Act. We passed the act and incorporated certain `areas into wilderness but now we are going to see the practical application of many of the provisions of the act so this is an auspicious occasion. You heard Mr. Soucie testify as to a specific amendment to strike section 3 `of the separate and several `acts and to amend section 2. I would like to have the opinion of the Wilderness Society, by you as director, on those amendments, if you can give it to me at this time. 99-400-68-8 PAGENO="0106" 102 Mr. BRANDBORG. I have not reviewed the presentation of Mr. Soucie as it was offered today I would offer this commenit, Mr Chairman it appears that in some respects sections 1 and 2 of the bills before this committee suffice to bring these proposed wilderness ar~as into the na tional wilderness preservation system They designate these areas, they bring them under the applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act I feel by bringing these units under the applicable provisions of the wilderness law we have satisfied our main need, to give effective pro- tection within the wilderness system to the lands with which we are concerned I feel that the helpful proposal of the Sierra Club warrants careful study and that section 2 might be strengthened by the language they suggest Their language seems to be a clarification that serves to pre serve the strong protective language of the Wilderness Act, and it is more definitive in its protective function than the language in section 8, in my opinion Senator METCALF If, after further examination, you have additional comment would you please file it with the committee ~ Mr BRANDBORG I would appreciate the opportunity to do that Senator METCALF The acting chairman of this committee is getting near a deadline I regret I can't take care of the remaining two wit nesses this morning , however, this hearing will be continued It will be recessed until 2 15 this afternoon, at which time Mr Waldrop and Mr Scott will be permitted to testify Mr BRANDBOEG It may be possible that these witnesses would wish to submit their statements for the record for the purpose of the corn- mittee's convenience I would suggest you inquire if that is the case Senator METCALF Does Mr Waldrop or Mr Scott wish to submit a statement? Mr SCOTT I am Mr Scott, and I would be pleased to submit my statement. I STATEMENT OP DOUGLAS W. SCOTT, REPRESENTATIVE, MACKINAC CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am Douglas W. Scott. I am a graduate forester and am now pursuing graduate studies in the Department of Forestry of the School of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan My temporary summer address is 138 Kentucky Avenue SE , Washington, D C However, I am a resident of the State of Michigan By appropriate action of the executive committee I have been delegated to represent the Mackinac chapter of the Sierra Club at this hearing today The Mackinac chapter encompasses the entire State of Michigan and numbers more than 600 membeiis. We carry out an active statewide program of meetings, outings and conservation activities This program includes the identification, study and support of opportunities for the conservation of natural resources, the mamte nance of environmental quality and the preservation of outstanding recreational, scenic, and natural areas for the endurmg benefit of the people of Michigan and the Nation. As part of this program, the Mackinac chapter supports the legal designation under provision of the 1964 Wilderness Act, of suitable lands as wilderness areas The chapter has participated in this program PAGENO="0107" 103 through our independent study of the proposals now before this corn- mittee as well as other potential wilderness units within Michigan We unreservedly support the designation as wilderness of the proposed areas in the Michigan Islands, Huron Islands, and Seney National Wildlife Refuges As a midwesterner, I will also speak for the Sierra Club today concerning the proposed Wisconsin islands wilderness area in Wisconsin. The Mackinac chapter is gratified to note that the legislation to designate these Michigan wilderness units is cosponsored by both Senator Philip A, Hart and Senator Robert P. Griffin and by all 1~ members of the Michigan delegation in the House of Representatives. This strong bipartison support further demonstrates the noncontro- versial nature of these proposals, which were overwhelmingly endorsed by citizens and groups appearing at the administrative field hearings held in Michigan Simihr]y, the Wisconsin islands proposal is non controversjal-in fact, at the field hearing and in communications received for the hearing record the support for this proposal was unanimous The strong support these proposals are receiving indicates, we beIie~ e, not only the outstanding merit of the wild lands involved, but the excellent job which has been done by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in identifying and documenting the wilderness values of these lands and in preparing these proposals. The national wilderness preservation system established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 was meant, I think, to be just that a nation wide system for the preservation of samples of the wilderness and great natural diversity of the Americ'tn landscape It is a system to protect these areas for `t diversity of conforming uses and values The Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge illustrate one special kind of value and use for which we are preserving wilderness ; that is, as scientific natural reserves. The proposed Wisconsin islands wilderness is of this s'i~me type These are all sm all ai eas 12 acres in the Michigan islands, 29 acres in the Wisconsin islands, 147 acres in the Huron islands. Size, however, is not an accurate test of quality in this case, for these are island gems of pristine wildness As islands they are protected by a buffer of water and by the difficulty of boat access through shoaled waters, and have thus far escaped the pressures of development The few necessary developments on one of the Huron islands are not expected to be extended and do not conflict with the legal qualification of the entire 147 acres of this refuge as wilderness These island refuges retain, close to more developed areas, a vestige of the wildness of the Great Lakes country They are reservoirs of native birdlife which finds shelter and protection on these islands precisely because they are un spoiled and undisturbed The vai ying elevation above lake level of these islands exposes them to differing environmental conditions, so that we have a fascinating sampling of a spectrum olE ecological condi tions and resulting life communities These islands have a great value as study areas thoroughly insulated from outside influences and hence inarntairnng the natural conditions and balances which are of growing intei est and concern Their values as study preserves will incre'~se as the surrounding ai eas become increasingly and unnaturally developed As isolated gems of wildness and as scientific reserves, and simply as undamaged samples of natural environment to be handed on to future generations, these areas should receive the best possible protection. I I I I I PAGENO="0108" 104 The Seney National Wildlife Refuge is located inland on Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The refuge, established in 1935, now includes a little less than 100,000 acres. While the refuge has been considerably developed and the land manipulated to serve the functions of wildlife habitat improvement, this work has been largely restricted to the eastern portions, and a large wild area remains in the western part of the refuge. It is this 25,150-acre western portion which is now proposed for wilderness designation. This is the largest of the proposals being considered by the corn- mittee today, and it presents a different facet of the wilderness purpose than the island refuges I have already discussed. Seney is a more ex- tensive wilderness and it will serve not only as a scientific natural reserve, but as a wilderness with considerable recreation potential as well. The natural values to be protected by this Seney wilderness are of much significance, for the land forms found in this area are quite unusual. The area was once scoured by glaciers, which left behind a vast sand plain. Sand dunes formed on this plain, but in more recent times the area has become moist and the dunes remain now only in the form of parallel knolls separating low boggy areas. The resulting landscape shows a distinct pattern of these alternating knolls and bogs, and is known as a "string bog." String bogs are a phenomenon of the subarctic and are found nowhere farther south in North Amer- ica than in this proposed wilderness. A detailed preliminary study of the land form and the ecological characteristics of the life community it supports was recently published in the journal Ecology ("String Bogs and Other Patterned Organic Terrain Near Seney, Upper Michigan," by M. L. Heinseiman, Ecology, vol. 46, No. 162, Winter, 1965) . The research for this article was conducted in the proposed Seney wilderness, which will be of continuing interest to ecologists and other scientists in the future. The original proposal for this wilderness unit included 19,150 acres. At the public hearing in 1967 many people favored an add~ition to the area of some 6,000 acres along the southeastern boundary. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife further studied the area and has re- sponded by adding the full additional area, thus protecting nearly all of the unique string bogs found in the refuge. Other portions of the proposed wilderness unit support regenerat- ing forest, including stands of white, red, and jac~k pine, black spruce, Utmarack and a variety of hardwood species. Wildlife species include coyote, bear, numerous deer and beaver, porcupine, as well as blue heron, geese, hawks, osprey and sandhill crane. Less numerous are spruce grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and moose. A few bald eagles nest in the area and timber wolves have been reported. These latter two species are listed by the Secretary of the interior as endangered species. Wilderness designation of this area will protect some of the wild habitat necessary for their survival. In addition to the strictly scientific interest in the Seney wilderness, it has potential for wilderness recreation use by those willing to hike in. The opportunity which exists here to find wild solitude in un- trammeled surroundings, will increase in value as surrounding lands come under increasingly heavy exploitation and development. The Seney area will fill an important, indeed unique niche in the Lake States region. It will increase substantially the size and access- PAGENO="0109" 105 ibility Qf protected wilderness resources available as a part of the spec- trum of recreational opportunities for the entire Midwest. Further, it will increase and diversify the variøty of habitats and opportunities for wilderness experience to be found in this rapidly developing area. In supporting this proposal at the 1967 field hearing, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation stated that "Due to the many competitive uses for land, there is a need to set aside wilderness areas so that a balance of outdoor recreation opportunities will be available to the people of the Midwest. Land that meets the requirement for wilderness is diffi- cult to locate in the Midwest." Fortunately, some such land has been located while the option is still `available to protect it. Along with Isle Royale National Park, the huron Islands, Wisconsin Islands, and Michigan Islands refuge wilderness areas, and the State of Michigan's Porcupine Mountains State Park, the Seney Wilderness Area will offer the citizens of this region and of the Nation a significant wilderness resource in the northwoods of the Lake States. Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Club and its Mackinac Chapter strongly support these designations as embodied in S. 3502 to designate wilder- ness units in the Michigan Islands, Huron Islands, Wisconsin Islands, and Seney National Wildlife Refuges. These are all worthy and well- considered proposals, bringing into the secure protection of the Na- tional Wilderness Preservation System a sampling of the variety of landscape and life communities which are natural in the upper Lake States region. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Is Mr. Waldrop here? (No response.) Senator METCALF. We don't want to shut any of the witnesses off, we want to give everyone an opportunity. Mr. BRANDBORG. I am not sure Mr. Waldrop was here this morning. Senator METCALF. When he sends his statement in it will be included at this point. Also the statement of the Defenders of Wildlife which has been submitted by Mr. Alfred G. Etter, field representative. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT WALDEOP, SIERRA CLUB My name is Robert Waidrop. I am employed by the Sierra Club as the Assistant to the Washington Representative and am presenting the views of the club on the Pelican Island Wilderness Proposal, S. 3343. The Sierra Club is pleased to give our full support to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's recommendation that 18 islands of the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge be placed in the Wilderness Preservation System. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge is located on the east coast of Florida in an area under rising pressure from real estate development. As the region becomes more and more developed, the refuge lands will become an in- creasingly important habitat for native fish and wildlife. It is important that these lands, an ecosystem which is rapidly disappearing, be given permanent protection. Much of the mainland portion of the refuge was ditched and drained by mos- quito control projects before its inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System. These lands, which amount to 213 acres, do not meet the standards of the Wilder- ness Act and are not included in the Bureau's proposal. The remaining 403 acres of the refuge was judged to meet the Wilderness Act criteria and is being recommended for inclusion into the Wilderness Preservation System. This area consists of the islands of Roseate, Pelican Roosevelt, Paul's, Nelson's, Preacher's, Horseshoe, Long, David, Plug, N & S Oyster, Middle, and the Egret Island Group. Prior to the field hearings in April of 1967 the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and PAGENO="0110" 106 Wildlife outlined these islands as having the characteristics and values qualify- ing them for inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System. They comprised the study category on which the Bureau heard testimony at the local hearings in Vero Beach, Florida. At these hearings the Bureau received almost unanimous support for their initial proposal, which is substantially the same as that before 41S today. On the basis of the strong support shown at the local level, the Bureau sub- ~sequently proposed to the Secretary of Interior and then to Congress that Wilder- ness Act protection be afforded to all lands included in their original plan. The present plan, including all or part of the 18 islands in the refuge, appears to have nearly unanimous support from the local level through the White House. It cer- tainly has the support of the Sierra Club. Furthermore, the Sierra Club hopes that this committee will move with all possible speed toward adding these deserving lands and marshes to the Wilder- ness Preservation System. The Sierra Club does, however, have some concern regarding the language of S. 3343, specifically that of Sec. 2 and 3. We would suggest that the provisions of Sec. 3 be deleted and those of Sec. 2 be amended as outlined by Mr. Soucie in his 8tatement on the Great Swamp, Monomoy, and Moosehorn refuges. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on this legis- lation and hope that the committee will soon act favorably on this bill and our suggested amendments. STATEMENT or ALFRED G. ETTER FOR THE DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Mr. Chairman : Defenders of Wildlife is a national, non-profit, educational organization with a membership of approximately 14,000. We represent that large portion of our popplation that enjoys seeing wild life in its natural setting. It is our concern that this opportunity shall remain to all succeeding generations. Because of this concern we want to encourage your committee to approve the maximum possible acreage for the Wilderness Areas considered in the subject bills. Man's dealings with nature in America could hardly be termed a fair com- promise. He has exploited almost everything that could be exploited profitably, and the remnants of unexploited land have really only persisted because tour technology and finances have not yet made explotation feasible. This will not always be the case. Especially in the field of commercialized recreation, pressure will mount to invade and upset the remaining natural areas of our nation, thus destroying the very essence of the creation part of recreation. These areas where man's technology has remained temporarily at bay con- stitute the only hope of survival for countless species of wildlife and plant species that require a dependable, undisturbed and familiar place to persist. These re- maining wild places constitute stepping stones for migratory species of many kinds, including, waterfowl, shorebirds, song birds, birds of prey, butterflies, and obscure species of life which serve to hold the chain of life together. Each stepping stone has now become absolutely essential. Removing one "stone" is very apt to destroy the continuity of a migration route and so the continuity of a species. Man is not the agent to decide which species shall persist. We have a minimum obligation, as t~ part of our contract with the earth, to preserve every species which inhabits the earth with us. The only way to preserve species is to preserve their habitat. Lest it may seem that we are overconcerned about other species besides man, we should also stress that the retention of wilderness in its original condition is the most certain method of preserving man's own environment, for although he may live with walls, windows, roads and noise, his survival depends on the mainte- nance of the machinery of nature which renews the air, soil and water upon which we depend. We will not attempt to speak in specific terms about each of the areas involved, but will mention only the Huron Islands and the Seney areas. HURON ISLANDS The Huron Islands in Lake Superior have had the good fortune to remain comparatively inaccessible to man. The nearest shire is owned by the Huron Mountain Club, whose property has been a model for private conservation effort since early in the century. The combination of undeveloped wild shoreline and PAGENO="0111" 107 wilderness islands is one that is almost unique along the Great Lakes. The Islands provide a secure nesting place for many sea gulls which are an essential part of the Great Lakes biota, serving to scavenge waste and to keep both land and water sparkling as it is at present. The bald eagle, an endangered species, nests on the Islands. Its need for clear fishing water of low pesticide content is satisfied here, and if the eagle persists nowhere else, it might still outlive man on the Huron Islands. The Huron Islands also are one of the few places where cormorants continue to nest around the Great Lakes. For the same reasons that diving and fishing birds persist around the Islands, skin divers find that the underwater wilderness surrounding the Islands is a great challenge for the adventurous. Merely reaching the Islands and landing on the worn rocks is an experience which should remain as a challenge and reminder to future generations of conditions experienced by the early voyageurs who navigated the Lake Superior shores. SENEY REFUGE The Seney Refuge is a major objective of thousands of visitors to upper Michigan. It is one of those few places where one can count on seeing a variety of uncommon wildlife in abundance, including nesting sandhill cranes and Canada geese, beaver, deer, bald eagles, and other members of the northwoods fauna that has intrigued readers of adventure for so many years. The expanses of marshes and swamps of this proposed wilderness put soils of inferior quality to the best possible use. They serve as important stabilizers of water flow for the trout streams of the Upper Peninsula. It is indeed fortunate that the Seney area is available for dedication. The casual visitor can see refuge wildlife from dikes and roads, while retention of the wilderness character of the interior parts of the refuge will provide pro- tection from disturbance so necessary for the reproduction of species such as the cranes, rare warbiers, and uncommon marshbirds. In times to come this wilderness could make it possible for extirpated species such as the lynx and moose to repopulate the area, and for the Sharp-tailed grouse to regain its for- mer status. The refuge would seem to offer one of the few opportunities for allowing every agent of nature including natural fires to hold sway. Senathr METCALF. Without any further discussion, I think we have rather thoroughly covered some of the more difficult points and are in complete agreement with most of the matters raised here this morn- ing, and so with the permission to Mr. Waidrop to submit a statement, if~he chooses, I am going to adjourn this meeting subject to call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 1 :05 p.m. the committee was recessed, subject to call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0112" PAGENO="0113" APPENDIX (Under authorit~y previously granted, the following communica-~ tions were ordered printed:) SOMERVILLE, N.J., June 25, 1068. HoN. SENATOR PRANIC CHURCH, Chairman, Public Lain~ds Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR SENATOR : I know that a group of people have been beseiging you and other members of the Public Lands Subcommittee with arguments for making the Great Swamp area in the Morris and Somerset counties of northern New Jersey a national wilderness area. I'm writing to provide you with a contrasting viewpoint which I feel is more popular and more practical. The Great Swamp is situated 16 miles from New York City, is very close to Newark and is a logical place to locate the proposed fourth metropolitan jetport. It is an area that is not visited much even though 10 million people live in close proximity to it ; however, the nearby lakes region, the shore and the convenient Poconos area, with the abundant natural lands and state parks, are much more popular. I can't recall ever reading of a request to make the swampland a preserve prior to its being considered as a jetport site and it is my opinion that this is just the wish of a minority who do not want the airport located there-not the true feel- ings of nature lovers or of the majority of northern New Jersey residents. Making the Great Swamp a wilderness preserve would rule out consideration for locating the jetport there and would be an injustice. The jetport will mean thousands of jobs for thousands of people. The unemployed of the Newark area would most likely fill these positions and the jetport would be a boom for the city of Newark which is One of the most depressed, jobless areas in the country. Besides being the most beneficial jetport site for the jobless, the Great Swamp area is the most practical site. The other areas under consideration, Hunterdon County, and the Jersey Pinelands, are three times as far from the metropolitan area, would require expensive mass transit installations, relocation of thousands of homes, greater expenditure of State and Federal funds, and would probably turn into the "white elephants" that the Dulles Airport has turned into in Wash- ington, due to the great distance from the city. In summary, I feel that the request to make the Great Swamp a nautral wilder- ness area is the desire of a minority `of northern New Jersey residents-one that is only proposed because the area is being considered as a jetport site. Making it a wilderness area would deny its use as a jetport and deny thousands of Newark area unemployed the chance for jobs. A wilderness preserve in the Great Swamp would also force the jetport to be located at one of the other proposed sites (40- 50 miles from New York) and cost mucb~ more in local and federal funds to construct and make accessible. Thank you. Respectfully yours, W. WILLIAM LINDNER. NORTH JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, New Vernon, N.J., June 24, 1968. Hon. ALAN BIBLE, Old Senate Office BuiZding, Wa$hington, D.C. DEAR SENABOR BIBLE: As spokesman for the North Jersey Conservation Foun- dation last Thursday morning, June 20th, in behalf of S-3379, I am writing to register the views of the Foundation toward subsequent testimony which brought I (109) PAGENO="0114" 110 I into question certain aspects of wilderness designation for the proposed Great Swamp Wilderness Areas. The Foundation, as you may know from the record, was largely instrumental in the creation of the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge within which the proposed wilderness areas are contained. Our position, we believe, reflects accu- rately the total consensus of civic, industrial and governmental entities at all levels-municipal, county and state-all of which have recorded their support for wilderness designation of these areas. The testim'ony at Issue was given by the Department of the Interior. Its pur- pose, we believe, was to seek guidance from the Committee for new and uncharted responsibilities under the Wilderness Act namely the administration of small wilderness units within existing Federal wildlife refuges which are accessible to large population centers. We understand the concern of the Department. Areas such as Great Swamp break new ground in the application of the Wilderness Act But the effect of the testimony as we perceived it was to conjure up the prospect `of development- latrines multiple access trails and other man made accommodations-which could be considered contradictions of the concept and purposes of the Wilderness Act. The Foundation believes strongly that this prospect is unfounded, for reasons we would like to submit as supplements to our own direct testimony before the Committee. We believe, first, that despite its location Great Swamp is in no danger of being over-run by hordes of visitors whose safety and accommodation would require incompatible development. It is true that the proposed wilderness lies within the most dOnsely populated metropolitan area in the nation. This, in fact, is one of the strongest arguments for its preservation as wilderness. Very simply, however, Great Swamp has de- fended itself from encroachment by man since primeval times. And this, essen- tially is why so much of the proposed wilderness area remains primeval today Bog, marsh and heavy undergrowth are natural barriers to easy penetration. The areas are too small to encourage, and the terrain in general will not permit, overnight camping by visitors. hf these natural barriers are given permanence through wildernes.s designation, appropriate access to the areas need not violate any tenet of the wilderness system. We believe, secondly, that such visitor accommodations as may ultimately prove necessary may be located either within the refuge area or in the adjoining park areas of Morris and Somerset `Counties. In this way, and in other ways as well, both county park systems are capable of serving as buffers to the wilderness areas, as their respective directors testi- fled before the Committee. ` We believe, further, that plans of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for the management of the remaining refuge area will not encroach in any con- sequential way upon the character of the proposed wilderness areas. In short, we believe the proposed Great Swamp Wilderness Areas not only qualify without reservation for wilderness designation, but can and should' be administered forever in strict accordance with the provisions of the National Wilderness Act. Sincerely, EST~ STOWELL, Trastee. SuMMIT, N.J., July 2, 1968. Hon. HENRY JACKSON, Chairman, senate Interior Committee, ~Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DRAR SENATOR JACKSON : I urge passage of S. 3379 which would establish a number of Wilderness areas including The Great Swamp Morris County New Jersey. The proximity of this area to an already badly overcrowded area makes it even more important that it be set aside and kept free from the works of man. The tensions of the city are surely exacerbated by the density of their popula- tion. Whatever can be kept free will be a refuge not only for birds and animals but for the spirit of man as well. Very truly yours, WALTER G. WELLS. PAGENO="0115" BURNS CLINIC MEDICAL CENTER, P.C., DEPARTMENT o~' OPHTHALMOLOGY, Petoskey, Mich., JRne 2~5, 1968. R. BOB PRESTON, Regional Director, Association of' Snrf Angler Clubs. 111 ~Senator FRANK CITURCH, Chasrman Subcornmsttee on Public Land senate Interior and Insular AffaIrs Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH This note is in support of S-3502 to establish the Huron Islands Michigan Islands Seney National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness areas These noncontroversial additions to the National Wilderness Preservation system will, I hope, receive the approval of your subcommittee. If possible, please include this note as part of the hearing record. Sincerely yours, JOHR H. TANTON, M.D. I LIFE INSURANCE AGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, Hartford, Conn. DEAR SIR : Senate bill 3425 in its present form is both ~n.satisfactory and un- realistic We have few enough land areas set aside for our growing population If Monomoy Island is to be designated a wilderness area, it should be with the proviso enabling boating tishing and camping All this should be able to be ac ~complisbed within the spirit of the wilderness concept. Thank you. DOUGLAS SPEED, Feeding 5ills, Mass. WALTHAM, MASS., June 22, 1968. DEAR SIR I am writing tins letter to ask you if you can do anything in regards to Monomoy Island to help us salt water fisherme~ to further enjoy our sport on their piece of shore line If this island is made a wilderness area it will deprive us of one of the last good surf fishing nreas left. Our jishing is mostly done at night- time and if a wilderness area is established it will prohibit our use. The beach is roughly nine miles in length and it would be impossible to fish ~on foot and get off `before dark. If this bill, S. 3425, is amended to allow boats and overnight camping we would be able to enjoy our sport and the `area would have a usefulness that can never be surpassed. Our available shore fishing access is rapidly being closed to us by private owner- ship and if our Government is against us we don't have a chance. I for one would appreciate all you could do to help amend this bill, S. 3425 so we can be able to use Monoinoy for surf fishing purposes. I want to thank you for anything you can do for this pprpose and if you would ever want to try your hand at this sport let me know aud I believe I could be of some small assistance. Sincerely yours, RICHARD P. HARDING. NAGS HEAD, N.C., June 28, 1968. Senator B. EVERETT JORDAN, ~Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Representing the North Carolina delegation association of surf `anglers and organizations of 92 separate clubs from all sections of the United States as well as the North Carolina Beach Buggy Association I `ask that you use your influence i:o deny the application of Wilderness Society to declare Monomoy Island off limits" to overnight camping and boating as proposed in S. 3425. As a supporting member of Wilderness Society, I cannot approve this proposal and in addition cannot find justification in the Wilderness Act as to the validity of the request Monomoy is `an island that will never be traversed by roads `but to those that know bow to approach the accessible landing area and are willing to pack in their fishing and camping gear it continues to offer the greatest fishing recreational areas left in the over populated section of our country. My constituents join with me in asking that this legislation be defeated in the interests of public access to ~one of our remaining natural areas. PAGENO="0116" 112 MoRRIsTowN, NJ., June 17, 196g. Senator CARL HAYDEN, Seiu&te House, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN : For eighteen years in the Twenty's and Thirty's I had a ranch in Arizona, the first one with public lands and the second on the forest. As we talked in sections and not in acres I can understand the difficulty some of the western Senators have in thinking of three to five thousand acres as a wilder- ness, particularly when it is surrounded by a dense population. it is, however, precisely because the Great Swamp is surrounded by a heavy population that it is so essential to keep it in its native state. Left alone it will be a reservoir of fresh air, of clear water and a school for conservation for `thousands of our neighboring children. As `a member of a Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs I hope you will do everything in your power to help us preserve this vital tract of land as a wilderness area. Sincerely yours, THOMAS M. PETERS. SHORT HILLS, NJ., Ju'y 2, 1968. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSIJLAB AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATORS : In your wisdom you have provided national protection to~ wilderness areas in many states. The Great Swamp Wilderness Bill S. 3379, describes a unique area readily available `to the New York Metropolitan District with its many institutions of~ learning. If once this area is impaired or destroyed by man he cannot replace it. I ask that your membership actively support the early passage of S. 3379, in the interest of present and future generations. Sincerely, EUGENE A. DEMONET, Jr. ATOM MANUFACTURING Co., INC., ~9outh Attleboro, Mass., June 21, 1968,. Senator WARREN G. MAGNU5ON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, senate Office JluikZing, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : As manufacturers of saltwater striper fishing lures,. we strongly oppose the restrictive legislation of bill 3425 which is currently being heard before your committee. Surf-fishing has been a way of life for the people of' Cape Cod and all of Massachusetts for many years. As the Federal Government began to acquire land along the shore for wildlife management purposes, it was always understood that surf fishing would not be hampered. Contrary to this, we have experienced, at Plum Island, severe restrictions which almost closed the island to surf fishing. A concerted effort by sportfishermen managed to gain some relief from these regulations. The present plans for Mono-~ moy island will be a hundred times more restrictive than the regulations imposed at Plum Island. We only have a limited market for saltwater fishing tackle, and every produc- tive rip should be open to surf fishing. Monomoy Island is one of the most produc- tive striper and bluefish areas on the coast. We ask the committee's help in pre- venting the enacting of this legislation. Sincerely, NORMAN WHITTEN, Chairman of the Board of Directors.. ABINGTON, MAss., June 24, 1968:. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR : An article appeared today in the Quincy Ledger of Quincy,. Mass., stating that Monomoy Island at Chatham, Mass. was to be made a Wilder- ness Area and stop all boats from fishing plus any camping on the island. PAGENO="0117" 113 For about ten years I had the pleasure of fishing on this island with a friend who owned a fine camp. However because he did not have an original owner title to the camp they bulldozed it to the ground and burned it about five years ago. Since then we have bad to be satisfied with fishing around the island with boats. The restrictions are so tight now that no one can use any of the remaining camps on the island without the owner being present and the only ones allowed beach buggies on the island are camp owners. Overnight camping is not allowed in any form. Most of us are more or less resigned to the fact that our days of being able to roam the beaches fishing and communing with nature are over except for the favored few who will be allowed to remain with their camps due to permanent titles. However I would like to express my strong opposition to the closing of Mono~ moy Island to the fisherman. Evidently Hastings Keith to whom we appealed at the time of the burning down of our camp has sided with the bird watchers. Per- haps Senator you feel that fishing is just as important as bird watching. I would be most appreciative along with many others if you could keep this island open to the fishermen. If there is anything I can do in my small world to keep it open please let me know. Sincerely yours, ROBERT E. PEAR. MASSACHUSETTS ALLIANCE OF SALTWATER SPORTSMEN, June 21, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, ~Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, DXI. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : For the past several years, saltwater surf-fisher- men have been harrassed by restrictive legislation enforced upon us by the fresh- water-oriented Department of the Interior. This last bit of foolishness, reflected in Bill No. 3425 which is currently being heard before your committee, is prevent- ing surf-fishing at Monomoy Island. The average Surf-fisherman has no less than 32 pounds of equipment, which is necessary for a single surf-fishing expedition. This includes waders, foul-weather jacket, neck-light, sand spike, tackle box, plug tote-bag, two rods in case one breaks, surf-gaff and a billy club. In addition, because fish do not strike often in saltwater, he generally takes along a sleeping bag. Foot-travel in sand is ex- tremely tiring, and the additional weight of the gear is such that a surf-fisherman is lucky if he fishes two miles of beach in 24 hours. With Monomoy Island being six miles long, it would take a minimum of six days to fish from the Morris Island end to the rips and back. In the Department of the Interior Management Proposal for Monomoy Island, camping and the building of fires is prohibited. If these things are prohibited, without doing so specifically, surf-fishing is, in effect, being stopped. With the planned development of Monomoy Island by the Army Corps of Engineers in which they intend to connect Monomoy to Nausset Island, the severe restrictions of Bill 3425 seem to be planned to take Monomoy Island away from the people and give it to the rich and politically influential residents of Cape Cod. We would like to suggest that a new division of the Department of the Interior be established. The function of this division would be to work with the saltwater interests in the estuarine and surf areas which, at the present moment, are being neglected. We would suggest also that before any bills are passed concerning salt- water, a conference be held to air all the problems from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Plum Island, Massachusetts, including, of course, Monomoy Island. Sincerely, BOB POND, President. SHEEWSBURY CoNSERvATIoN COMMISSION, ShrewsburtJ, Mass., June 20, 1968. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, ~S~enate Commerce Committee, senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I understand that Bill 3425, concerning wilderness status for Monomoy Island, is before your committee. PAGENO="0118" 114 :i do not think it is in the public interest to include Monomoy Island in the Wilderness Program. Monomoy is under management to prevent ocean break- throughs and will have to remain under beach management in future years. It can not be a true wilderness. Monomoy is a nine mile long sandbar. It has sand roads and a lighthouse now owned by the Massachusetts Audubon Society Landings by boat are almost impossible on all but the point and land end. It could be one of the most impor- tant salt water fishing areas on the east coast if people were allowed to use it As a wilderness it would be of no greater value than any sandbar in the Atlantic The nine mile length of sand prevents fishing by foot. The proposal would allow the Audubon Society to run a commercial taxi on the island for an unknown length of time It would in fact be a public paid for sanctuary for that organization. The hearing on this proposal was held during January at Chatham Massa chusetts Chatham is far out on Cape Cod and well away from the population centers of Massachusetts. Few people, other than residents of that tOwn, would (or could) travel to Chatham during the winter for any hearing. Yet reports indicate that the opinion at the meeting was almost evenly divided As a conservationist I am in favor of true wilderness areas, but Monomoy Island does not belong in that category. Its best use would be under the Massa- chusetts Department of Natural Resources or included in the Cape Cod National Seashore. In any case, fishing from overland type vehicles should be allowed. This sandbar changes shape, size and distance from shore each year. It should be used by people rather than being eliminated. Our dense population requires more recreational land rather than less. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, BALP1~I W, W0oLNER. WEST PHILADELPHIA Sunr ANGLERS Assoiwriox, June 26, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNTJSON, Chairman, senate Uomnierce Committee, ~enate 0%/ice Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON At a specially called meeting of the West Phila delphia Surf Anglers Association last evening it was voted unanimously to' write~ you a vigorous protest against supporting Bill 3425 which prohibits boats in the area of the island of Monomoy. This bill in it's present form :al~o' will prohibit camping on the island West Philadelphia Surf Anglers Assoc request that Bill 3425 be voted against unless amended to permit boating and camping in and about the Island of Mono- moy. Sincerely, I JOHN C. FREY, secretary. STRIPERS UNLIMITED, Flo. Attleboro, Mass., June 20, 1968. Seiiator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Cliairiaaii. ~S'CV(1tC (`on? mcrcc Corn mittee, Senate Office Buil(tinq. TI'~asJiii~gton., D.C. DI~AR SENATOR MAGNUSON : Stripers Unlimited represents 2,000 sportfishermeir with a desire to (olitinue surf fishing along our coast. The state of ~las~acImseft~ offers some of the finest ~urf fishing in the county, but there are only a few extremely l)rOductive tide rips along the many miles of shoreithe. Monoinoy Island is Prol)al)iy one of the finest striper and bluefishing areas along this coast. We feel tlia t the unnecessarily harsh restrictions placed upon surf fishing by imposing an inland wilderness concept on a saltwater island reflects had J)lanning and mimanagemeiit of federal land which belong to t.lw entire nation. Our membership, therefore, strongly protests Bill 3425 which is currently being heard before your conunittee. Sincerely, I RALPH LAROCHELLE, President.. PAGENO="0119" 115 FEAMINGIIAM, MASS. Senator WARREN 1. MAGNTJSON, Sena/te Commerce Comm4ttee, Washirtgto~, D.C. DEAR SIR: As a taxpayer, voter, and citizen I protest S. 3425 and wish to have it amended to allow boats and camping on Monomoy Island. If this bill passes, we fishermen will have to walk nine miles of beach sand which is ridiculous as my wife and two children could never be able to walk this fantastic distance. WiLLIAM SURETTE. STOUGHTON, MASS., June 27, 1967. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, ~ena/te Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Wa/shington, D.C. DEAR MR. MAGNUSON : I am writing to you in regard to Senate Bill 3425, a bill which would designate Monomoy Island a Wilderness Area. As a sportsman `and a conservation-minded citizen I would like to see Monomoy Island made a wilderness area. But I do think that it should be made accessible by boat with some sort of limited camping or picnic areas made available to the general public. I think that the bill as it now stands is far too restrictive. Sincerely yours, DONALD F. FARRELL. NATICK, MASS. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I, Hubert Slamin, of Massachusetts strongly protest against Senate bill 3425 and suggest that it be amended to allow boats and camp~ ing on Monomoy Island. Thank you. Sincerely, HUBERT SLAMIN, Resident of' Commonwealth of Massachusetts. FRAMINGHAM, MASS., June 26, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : I should like to protest the present form of Senate bill 3425. I would like to see it amended to permit camping, boating, and fishing. Thank you. Sincerely, ALVIN M. EZER. YAPHANK, N.Y., June 28, 1968. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C.: Urge defeat of bill 3425 regarding Monomoy Island area, Mass. As written would be acceptable if amended to allow boats and camping necessary for the continuance of sports fishing in this area. PATRICK RAIMOND, Legislative Director, United Mobile Sports. STOUGHTON, MAss., June 26, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON : I, John C. Gulls, protest the present form of Senate Bill 3425 and suggest that it be amended to permit boats, fishing and camping within the spirit of the wilderness concept. Thank you, Mr. JOHN C. GILLIS. PAGENO="0120" 116 THE DEPOT SHOP, Marshfleld, Mass., June 26, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: We, the undersigned, have just become aware of Bill 3425 which would designate Monomoy Island a wilderness area. We understand that this would prohibit boats in the area (which is the only transportation to the island) and camping. We do not feel that this is fair to the public who wish to fish and camp in the area. We, therefore, wish to protest the present form of Bill 3425 and have it amended to permit boats, fishing and camping within the spirit of the wilderness concept. Thank you. Sincerely, W. R. FREDEN, DAVID L. BABBEAU, JOHN B. PLINKET, C. A. FREDEN, FRANK J. FLYNN, JIM MACFARLANE, Jr. WEST CHATHAM, MASS., June 24, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. ~DEAR Sm: I would like to protest Bill No. 3425, and suggest it be amended to allow fishing, boating and camping. This is one of the best boating and fishing spots in the country. No good would be gained by prohibiting either. Will only the Audubon Society be permitted on Monomoy? Yours truly, HARRY L. Diu~w. (Letters identical to the above were received from 45 Massachusetts residents.) 0