Mr. Crafts, I wonder inasmuch as you and I have discussed the composition of regional councils, are there 6 or 7 forest regions in the country?

Mr. CRAFTS. There are 10.

Senator NEUBERGER. I wonder if we could get for the record later on the composition of these councils as to the type and interest of the forests which is generally represented?

Mr. CRAFTS. We will be glad to submit that for the record.
Senator NEUBERGER. I would appreciate it.
(The information referred to follows:)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

FOREST SERVICE,

Washington, D. C., August 7, 1958.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,
Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR MURRRAY: The enclosed summary of the composition of the active multiple use advisory committees to the Forest Service dealing with national-forest matters is transmitted in reply to the request of Senator Neuberger at hearings of July 23 before your committee on S. 4028, relating to the establishment of a national wilderness preservation system. The summary is as of June 1, 1958, and is for insertion in transcript of the hearings. It is difficult and perhaps not too realistic to classify members by individual interests. Most members of these committees have broad interests covering more than one aspect of national-forest matters.

Very truly yours,

EDWARD C. CRAFTS,
Assistant Chief.

Interests represented on active multiple-use advisory committees to the Forest Service dealing with national forest matters, as of June 1, 1958

Senator NEUBERGER. Senator Kuchel, would you like to ask some questions of Mr. Crafts?

Senator KUCHEL. No, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here. But I have just come in. I had another meeting earlier this morning.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Crafts, Mr. Stong has a question and then I would like to ask several more. Mr. Stong would like to ask several in behalf of Senator Murray.

Mr. STONG. There has been some discussion of the precise area that would come into this wilderness in the State of Washington. I wonder if you can tell us or supply for the record the exact areas under the Forest Service jurisdiction in the State of Washington which would immediately come into the wilderness system under this bill. Mr. CRAFTS. I will be glad to supply that.

30973-58-4

(The information on the State of Washington requested is contained in a complete listing of wilderness-type areas subsequently submitted and appears on pp. 54 and 57 of this record.)

Senator NEUBERGER. I would like to establish one thing regarding this whole matter of wilderness which we discussed. Under the interpretation of wilderness, which the Forest Service has, is it not true. that once a wilderness area is opened to other activities, an irreversible process is established by which that can never be a wilderness area again? In other words, when we are talking about wilderness, I think it is important that the record show what we mean by wilderness. I find a great many people think just because something is in the outdoors and it is under the jurisdiction of the Park Service or the Forest Service, that that is wilderness. Is it not true that wilderness is an area in which roads have not been built, in which permanent buildings have not been erected, in which commercial logging and lumbering is not taking place, in which reservoirs have not been constructed, in which, in essence, no commercial activities have yet taken place?

In other words, once these commercial activities take place, it is never possible as I understand it, to restore that area to its original wilderness status. I wish you would comment on that, Mr. Crafts. You know so much more about it than I do, technically, and you are a high official of the Forest Service which has custody over these areas. When we talk about wilderness, what is meant?

Mr. CRAFTS. That, I think, Mr. Chairman, has perhaps been one of the areas of confusion about this whole matter. Wilderness means different things to different people. Some people conceive that all of the national forests are wilderness. I have known people that will go to a mountain resort, and it is fully developed with all the luxuries of home, and say, "What a wonderful wilderness."

Senator NEUBERGER. I went on a picnic to Rock Creek Park with a very distinguished journalist a few weeks ago, and he said "Isn't it wonderful to be out here in the wilderness?"

Mr. CRAFTS. That is exactly what we mean. I think our concept is pretty parallel to that which you have expressed. We endeavored in the substitute bill which we submitted a year ago to define what was meant by wilderness, as we saw it in the Forest Service. And it said this, that wilderness would include those areas of national forest lands retaining their natural primeval environments and influence, which, through their nature, are predominantly valuable to serve the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use and enjoyment by the people in such manner as will leave the areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.

Senator NEUBERGER. Let me ask this question, following your definition: About a year and a half ago there was a decision in my State of Oregon to eliminate certain areas from the Three Sisters wilderness. area and to make them just the ordinary normal portion of the Willamette National Forest.

As such, they then were open to sustained yield logging and lumbering. Is that correct?

Mr. CRAFTS. Yes.

Senator NEUBERGER. Could that area which was removed from the Three Sisters wilderness area then ever be restored or put back in the

Three Sisters wilderness area and answer the definition which you have given here of wilderness?

of

Mr. CRAFTS. "Ever" is a long time, but certainly not in the lifetime any of us here.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much. I think that that answer is the best description and summary that I think that this record could possibly have of wilderness.

Are there any other questions of Mr. Crafts?

Mr. Crafts, we certainly appreciate your coming here. We want you to thank Dr. McArdle, too, for views which we know are substantially his which you have presented to us.

Mr. CRAFTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should say that he would have been here, but he was out of the city, up in Maine.

Senator NEUBERGER. You are always a very acceptable substitute. Mr. CRAFTS. Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. I have a statement here from the senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Morse, who would have presented it in person, but he had to attend another very important meeting. His statement will also be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE MORSE ON THE WILDERNESS BILL, S. 4028

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your committee in support of S. 4028, because at the time of your earlier hearings other commitments prevented my testifying. As you know, I am a cosponsor of S. 1176, which was a forerunner to the bill now before you. also cosponsored the bill S. 846, now Public Law 470, which created a national outdoors recreation resources review.

I

The wilderness bill complements the outdoor recreation resources review. In my judgment, it is a very necessary piece of legislation, particularly as it relates to our national forests.

The issues are clearly drawn. The chamber of commerce, the national lumber manufacturers, the Industrial Forestry Association, the American Pulpwood Association, cattlemen's groups, and mining groups testified in opposition to S. 1176. However, I respectfully disagree with them. They, quite logically, approach the issue from the point of view of their own economic interests. obligation, as a Member of the United States Senate extends beyond that. I must examine each legislative proposal with the primary objective of determining what will best serve the general public interest. From that standpoint, I feel that we need the statutory safeguards envisaged by S. 4028.

My

I submit one other argument for a wilderness bill. Once we go into the virgin forest to log it commercially, the wilderness character is destroyed. Today our national forests are cutting only 7 billion board-feet of timber. Under intensive management, the presently commercial areas-which exclude the wilderness areas could produce 21 billion board feet of timber.

I ask you to reflect for just a moment. The Chief of the Forest Service says he can triple timber production in the national forests if we give him the funds for intensive forest management. We could add 14 billion board-feet to our annual timber harvest. I doubt that there is enough commercial timbergrowing land in the national forest wilderness even to add one-half billion board-feet to our annual timber cut if we let it all go to logging.

What has been our history? We have marched across this great Nation in its development and we have hit our forests like a swarm of locusts in a plague year. Every time we "needed" more timber, we opened a new forest area. The 14 million acres of wilderness contain a relatively small amount of virgin timber, 'but some lumber people chafe to whittle away at it. In Oregon the Three Sisters Wilderness Areas had a vital virgin timber area taken out.

The Three Sisters decision by the Department of Agriculture clearly shows the need for legislative safeguards.

Up in neighboring Washington the Glacier Peak area is being readied for a change which will take out old growth timber needed to assure a well-rounded wilderness area.

I urge the enactment of a wilderness bill. I respectfully suggest that in each and every location where we have a wilderness area we make sure that no wilderness is reduced until the adjacent Federal forests are under intensive management. Then, if there should still be a need for more timber, we could weigh the esthetic against the materialistic values to make our decision.

This bill S. 4028 is a broad bill. Limited grazing and mining privileges are continued under rules and regulations. Reservoirs and water-conservation works may be established and maintained. Forest insect- and disease-control measures may be undertaken. Essential road construction is permitted.

In S., 4028 there is a reasonable accommodation of the need to do essential things while affording a real protection to the true character of the wilderness. I close my remarks by saying that this much-needed legislation will set forth a clear congressional policy on wilderness. I urge that it receive a favorable report by this committee.

Senator NEUBERGER. I have just been informed that Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin is unable to present his statement as he, too, has to attend a meeting of a committee of which he is a member. His statement will be inserted in the record.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR WILLIAM PROXMIRE ON THE WILDERNESS BILL (S. 4028)

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to offer my wholehearted support to the revised wilderness bill which your committee is considering today.

Conservation of the original beauties of natural America, in my opinion, is of transcendent national importance. Conservation is a cause which is well advanced in my State of Wisconsin-both by the official action of our State, and by the action and devotion of thousands of conservation minded private citizens and their organizations who volunteer both their time and their money to it. Conservation is a cause which deserves and needs appropriate support also from the Federal Government. I strongly favor constructive action by the Federal Government to advance the interests of conservation.

This wilderness bill would meet one of the areas of important responsibility for conservation which urgently deserves attention.

Throughout our history, the frontier has been a symbol of the American experience. It has been regarded as a challenge to our spirit of adventure, and a valuable safety valve to population pressures in more settled regions. This love of the wilderness, of virgin lands and new vistas, has left a deep imprint on our national character and perhaps set Americans apart from people of other nations. This is a precious quality which we desire to safeguard. We can maintain it by keeping forever wild a few bits of frontier for future generations to see, experience, and enjoy.

We no more need the 13 million acres in national wilderness forest areas for the few commodities they may yield than we need to melt down the bronze in our monuments, or to grow crops on historic battlefields. We do need them as a source of inspiration, of understanding, and of joy in the unsullied beauties of the wilderness. We need them so that future citizens can better know the impact of the frontier on our history.

The frontier has alOut of the wilderness While we owe future

Yet, at the same time, we are a Nation of developers. ways challenged our crafts, our gifts, and ingenuities. have come farms and forests, mines and water power. Americans the right and privilege of access to an underdeveloped frontier we must also take necessary precautions to exclude groups which may wish to exploit it for selfish reasons. The wilderness, once destroyed, can never be restored.

The present wilderness bill requires that any change in the wilderness area must be submitted to the Congress. By focusing sufficient attention on any proposed alteration, a far greater degree of permanence can be assured than could be expected from administrative regulation. Hasty, fleeting, or ill-considered proposals developed by changing administration will be thoroughly screened.

Americans have always looked west. We still do so today-not to develop new physical frontiers, but to find the solace, the quiet, the recreation, the peace, which can be found nowhere as completely as in wild stretches of mountainous, rugged country. America needs the frontier wilderness as an outlet from the

grinding pressures of a highly urbanized industrial society. The wilderness bill will preserve forever the frontier-a bit of wilderness-for each American. Senator BIBLE. Mr. Chairman, before you call your next witness, in connection with statements for the record, I note from this list of statements to be included in the record on S. 4028, two communications from my senior colleague, transmitting a letter from Hugh Shamberger, director of the Nevada State Department of Conservation of Natural Resources, and a letter from the Nevada Mining Association. I think it might be appropriate for the record to indicate that I have received the same communications, and, in addition, a communication from Mr. Sam McMullen, secretary of the Nevada State Cattle Association. I would like to have that added to the other two communications which I assume have been made a part of the record by my senior colleague. Is that correct, that they have been made a part of the record?

Senator NEUBERGER. Yes.

Senator BIBLE. There is no use to duplicate them, but I would like to have included the third communication from the secretary of the Nevada State Cattle Association.

Senator NEUBERGER. That will be made a part of the record also, Senator Bible.

(The document referred to follows:)

Senator ALAN BIBLE,

United States Senate,

Washington, D. C.:

ELKO, NEV., June 13, 1957.

Urgently request your concern over regulated authority implications on economic use of Federal rangelands as proposed in H. R. 1960 and related bills regarding wilderness preservation system. Will create further bureaucratic hobble on every livestock industry in the West.

SAMUEL C. MCMULLEN, Secretary, Nevada State Cattle Association. Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Wood has given me a letter to Senator Anderson from the American Farm Bureau Federation which suggests certain amendments to S. 4028. That likewise will be made part of the hearing record.

(The document referred to follows:)

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Washington, D. O., July 18, 1958.

Re S. 4028, National Wilderness Preservation System.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: Your consideration of the following recommendations of the American Farm Bureau Federation relating to S. 4028 will be sincerely appreciated.

First, we would like to point out what is presumably an unintentional error in the bill.

Section 3 (c) (1) of the bill provides that "Within national forest areas included in the Wilderness System grazing of domestic livestock * * * where these practices have already become established may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable."

Section (2) (e) of the bill provides that, in addition to national forest areas, national park system areas, and national wildlife refuges and ranges, that the Wilderness System shall also include "such units as may be designated within any federally owned or controlled area of land ***' (italic ours).