mittee concerning the terms upon which this should be accomplished, if it is determined to be in the common interest to do so.

While I do not want to analyze the specific provisions of the Senate bill as passed, I would like to indicate on behalf of the subcommittee that we acknowledge the impact that the bill may have on California where approximately 5,745,000 acres of federally owned land might become eligible for inclusion in the wilderness system. These lands will be comprised of national forest land previously designated as "wilderness," "wild," and "primitive," together with elements of the national park system.

We are looking forward with interest to the comments that we are to receive here today and want to assure you that we will give careful consideration to your views.

Now we have quite a number of witnesses who desire to be heard today. The committee must be back in Palm Springs at a relatively early hour this evening. I therefore ask your cooperation to enable us to move along as quickly as possible. I can assure you that your testimony will be studied completely and thoroughly. Also, these statements will be of benefit to the other committee members who were unable to attend these hearings.

For your information, the wilderness legislation hearings will be continued next year in Washington, D.C., and the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, of which I happen to have the honor of being a member, as does Mr. Rivers of Alaska, will have its report ready the latter part of January 1962.

This committee will not be taking action on the wilderness legislation until after this report is available for study.

Our first witness is Mr. Edgar F. Norby, administrative officer, Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera, Calif.

Before you start, Mr. Norby, in order to explain to the people in the audience, we are taking the witnesses in the order in which they have requested to be heard. Normally, the procedure of this subcommittee is to hear all of the proponents first and then the opponents, dividing the time equally. We have found it is a little more fair to take them in the order of their requests reaching our Washington office. Several people came up to have their names added to the list this morning, but because we had to start the hearings, we were unable to list their names. At noon today we will repeat the process of adding these names to our list of witnesses. Therefore, in the order in which they have been listed, your name will be called. You may proceed, Mr. Norby.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR F. NORBY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MADERA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, MADERA, CALIF.

Mr. NORBY. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I am Edgar F. Norby, county supervisor from the Fifth District, Madera County, Calif. I have been authorized by the Madera County Board of Supervisors to speak on their behalf in opposition to the wilderness bill at your hearing today.

Madera County lies on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Range in central California. Approximately one-third of its area is under Federal ownership. This Federal land is composed of na

tional forest land, a national monument and part of a national park, a wild area, and a wilderness area, so understandably any change in the status of these areas is of utmost concern to this county.

The tax base from which our county must provide the necessary local responsible services, as well as the mandatory services required by State and Federal statutes, is made up largely of agricultural lands, their associated industries, the lumber industry, and public utilities. The cattle industry, with its grazing privileges on Federal land, is one of the most important agricultural businesses. The lumber industry is responsible for the existence of our third and fourth largest centers of population. The public utilities, which provide 33 percent of our assessed valuation, and for the most part hydroelectric installations located on Federal land.

I will limit my remarks to section 6, subsection C-2 (a) and (b) of S. 174. Under subsection (a) our objections are twofold: First, let us suppose that the President was a strong proponent of public power at the time an application for expansion of an existing utility was presented. If this proposed facility should be in a wilderness area, we feel that said application would be denied.

The result of such action would be an additional tax burden on our property owners to provide the money to pay for the ever-increasing cost of local government, and have been derived from the new facility. Such facilities could not be built economically as public power projects as they are planned additions to existing public utility systems.

Second, under this act, our highly mineralized back country would become wilderness area and for all practical purposes would stop the development of mines. In our opinion, it would be foolhardy to lock up these resources when a national emergency could very well demand them. A mine of any significance cannot be put into production on as short notice as might be required if we were to find ourselves in a major conflict. During World War II one of the largest tungsten mines in the United States was developed in this area. Our war effort was hindered while roads were built, mill equipment installed, and the mine developed. We should not allow this situation to recur.

As to subsection (b) of this section, we feel that the present grazing privileges which would be affected by this act would be in jeopardy because there is no provision to prevent the restrictions and regulations from becoming so stringent that this use would cease to be economical, thereby adversely affecting the cattle industry in our country.

Our board is on record by appropriate resolution in support of the Multiple-Use Act of 1960 and we feel that it serves the best interest of the Nation and the people.

Therefore, we wish for the record to show that the Madera County Board of Supervisors does oppose the enactment of the wilderness bill by the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress.

Thank you.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Norby.

Are there any questions of Mr. Norby?

Mr. James G. Stearns, supervisor, Modoc County, and chairman, Public Lands Committee, County Supervisors Association of California.

Will Mr. Merelman come to the front row, please?

You may proceed.

vate forest were burned in 1902. Because of the snags, it has been impossible to stop repeated reburns so that over half the area is still a nonproductive waste after 60 years.

Similar hazards occur from insect attacks. In 1954 the balsam woolley aphid was discovered to be killing silver fir. By the end of 1957 it had covered 938 square miles of Oregon and Washington-leaving whole forests of snags. We still do not know how to control this insect.

Wind blows trees down. Broods of bark beetles increase in this blowdown material to the point that they kill adjacent green trees. In addition to the fire hazards of the dry blowdown material the beetles create adjacent snags. This is no isolated problem. On November 1, 1954, the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station of the U.S. Forest Service issued a report covering blowdown and attendant bark beetle kill in western Oregon and Washington for the period 1951-53, inclusive.

They record a loss of 132 billion board feet of which 3 billion board feet is attendant beetle kill. The only control for this situation is salvage logging. This control requires access roads. These must be preplanned and constructed in large forested areas to be ready when needed. The magnitude of the job faced on the national forests of the Pacific Northwest region from the blowdowns cited above is fully expressed in the bulletin, "Timber Salvage Program in the Douglas Fir Beetle Blowdown Areas on the National Forests of Oregon and Washington," issued June 1953 by the Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Insect problems are fully treated in Miscellaneous Publication 273, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture entitled "Insect Enemies of Western Forests." Pages 10-13 cover the problem and its relations with fire hazard, and are recommended reading for each Congressman considering this measure. It should be borne in mind that restrictions on the huge areas contemplated by advocates of this bill would ban the preplanned road development necessary to control this threat.

These are unacceptable hazards to the forest which must be reduced or neutralized by the professional forest manager. Congressional reliance on the Multiple Use Act as a policy directive allows the forest manager the flexibility and freedom to use his technical skills to minimize the risks to all the values of the forests.

In contrast to this approach-there is danger to the forests in the restrictions which would be imposed by enactment of the wilderness bill, S. 174.

These measures are designed to restrict the uses of the areas but they also restrict the protection techniques of the forest manager as well. This type of legislation encourages maximum exposure of the forests to the risk of man during their most vulnerable periods, with a planned exclusion of the major means of transportation for fire suppression forces.

I am not an attorney, but as I read it, this bill contains serious ambiguities and a contradiction that would prevent the forest managers from providing proper protection for the areas involved.

Section 6(b) states:

Except as specifically provided for in this act, there shall be no commercial enterprise within the wilderness system, no permanent road, nor any temporary

road, in excess of the minimum required for the administration of the area for the purposes of this act.

Section 6(b) states:

In addition, such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem desirable.

The latter provision allows the Secretary of Agriculture to take measures to control fire and insects. Must a fire or insect attack be in progress or can he reduce hazards to prevent fire and insect attacks in the absence of a specific provision?

Section 6(b) bans comercial enterprise in the area unless specifically provided for. Reduction of the hazards following fire and insects involve felling the snags and removing the wood from the area. This is tremendously expensive-in fact the cost can be prohibitive in the absence of a financial return from sale of the wood. There is no specific provision for the Secretary of Agriculture to put a commercial enterprise in the wilderness area to salvage this wood and thus provide a safeguard for all of the values.

This is not an idle question. What would happen to the thousands of acres of snags left by last summer's fires in the Selway-Bitterroot and Salmon Primitive Areas of Idaho if this bill were enacted?

In section 6(b) who determined "the minimum required for the administration of the area for the purposes of this act"? The professional administrators are forbidden to exceed this undefined minimum even to protect the area unless the ambiguous passage "subject to such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable" can be construed as a specific provision.

If the administering agency finds it necessary to build forest protection roads to safeguard the area, will they be exceeding the undefined minimum, and how will they know at what point they are doing so! In all probability there would be a test of this the first time that the administering agency took some action which offend the advocates of this bill.

If Congress, by passage of S. 174, decides to single out wilderness areas from other areas and to issue a policy directive concerning them, it should clarify its intent concerning these questions.

It is the opinion of our association that the designation of wilderness areas should remain an administrative function of the Forest Service as is land allocation for other uses.

We believe that the Multiple Use Act is an adequate policy directive to the U.S. Forest Service for management of all the values of the national forests.

We believe that special congressional policy treatment of any single land use can lead only to confusion and obstruction of the administering agency as it pursues its job of management and protection of the forest complex.

We, therefore, urge that you do not pass S. 174.

Madam Chairman, I have statements from two other organizations. May I place them in the record or file them with the committee without introduction?

Mrs. PrOST. Whose statements are they?

Mr. LARSON. The Washington State Forestry Conference which they asked me to bring down. I also have a statement from the Puget

Sound section of the Society of American Foresters that I would like to introduce.

Mrs. Prost. Without objection, the statements will be placed in the record at this point.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

(The statements follow:)

STATEMENT OF PUGET SOUND SECTION, SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS

The Society of American Foresters is comprised of professional foresters and has over 14,000 members, which is approximately two-thirds of the total professional foresters employed in the United States. The Puget Sound section of the Society of American Foresters has over 600 members in the State of Washington working for Federal, State, and private agencies.

We oppose bill 174 since, in our opinion, it would not promote wise resource management.

In August 1958, by letter ballot, the section membership overwhelmingly passed a policy statement which is outlined below with executive committee interpretation:

The Puget Sound section subscribes to the principle of multiple use of forest and other wild lands; meaning by that, a conscious effort to manage each unit of land for its highest sustained productivity. In some cases, this may mean utilization of an identical area for several purposes at the same time; in others, utilization of different parts of an administrative unit for different single or limited purposes. In all cases, the development of management plans and policies requires adequate recognition of all resources and benefits, with due consideration of the relative economic and social values of each resource present and of the effects of utilizing one resource upon the stability value, and appreciation of the others.

Within the framework of these principles, the Puget Sound section recognizes the importance and desirability for preserving as wilderness those areas most valuable for that purpose so that this and future generations may continue to enjoy those benefits derived only from lands which retain their natural primeval environment.

More specifically:

1. Increasing demand by an ever-expanding population for a multitude of products and services from forest and other wild lands requires that withdrawals for wilderness use must be correlated with these demands and the total amount of forest and wild land available in each region.

2. Determination of areas considered most valuable for wilderness use must be predicated upon intensive land management studies. Boundaries should be established only by the responsible administrative agencies after careful analysis of all economic, social, and cultural factors tempered by full public discussion.

3. The Puget Sound section strongly opposes any attempt to establish wilderness areas by blanket legislative action without exhaustive study of individual areas and their interrelationship with other lands in affected administrative units.

Some people believe that foresters are concerned only with economics and sawlogs. This is not true. Most foresters are technically trained land managers and are fully cognizant of the nondollar values to be found in our forests.

In our opinion this combination of professional training plus awareness of nondollar values makes the forester uniquely qualified to make objective judgments regarding wilderness as well as other forest land uses.

STATEMENT OF GORDON D. MARCKWORTH, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON STATE

FORESTRY CONFERENCE

The Washington State Forestry Conference is an organization of foresters, forest landowners, administrators of forest programs in the public agencies, as well as friends of forestry. It was organized in 1922, to provide a forum for the discussion of all manner of forestry problems, and to recommend a State forestry program to appropriate State officials. It's usefulness and success can be measured by the fact that the 40th annual conference was held November 3,