NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM-HYDRO PROJECTS EXISTING AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION AFFECTED BY PRIMITIVE AREAS 1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s relief reservoir is in Emigrant Basin primitive area in the Stanislaus National Forest, Calif., and affects the following downstream developments in the Stanislaus River Basin under FPC licenses: Existing : Donnells Beardsley-- Stanislaus (old)- Total- Under construction: New Stanislaus (net) –. Kilowatts 54, 000 10,000 28, 900 24, 300 17, 000 134, 200 53, 000 2. Sacramento Municipal Utility District's proposed (licensed) Rubicon diversion and Rockbound Lake are in the Desolation Valley Primitive Area in the Eldorado National Forest, Calif., and they will affect the following downstream developments in the American River Basin under FPC license: 3. City of Seattle's Ross Reservoir (except possibly its outlet) is surrounded by the North Cascade Primitive Area in the Mount Baker National Forest, Wash., and affects the following at-site and downstream developments in the Skagit River Basin under FPC license: 4. Moon Lake Electric Association has the small existing 900-kilowatt Yellowstone development under FPC license located in the High Uintas Primitive Area in the Ashley National Forest, Utah, on Yellowstone Creek. Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, as we begin to take the testinony from the proponents and opponents, I would make this unaninous-consent request: Inasmuch as we have received numerous letters ind resolutions, some of which are in favor of the legislation and ome of which are opposed to the legislation, some of which are favorible to the legislation if amended, some of which it is difficult to ell just what the sender did have in mind, that we have our staff atalog all of this material and that we print at the end of the record of these hearings a list of names of those individuals who have writen us letters, sent us resolutions, favoring the legislation, those pposed to the legislation, those favorable to the legislation if mended, and the names of those where we cannot tell their posiion, that we put that list in the record and that we place in the ile all of this correspondence and the resolutions. Mr. SAYLOR. Reserving the right to object, Madam Chairman, and I shall not object, I am just wondering what title we will put on that ourth schedule. Mr. ASPINALL. We will be very careful so we do not hurt anybody's eelings. Mr. SAYLOR. Further reserving the right to object, Madam Chairaan, I wonder whether or not we will be able to put in an item which ppeared in the Wall Street Journal of May 2. It is a rather intersting expression, I might say. I did not notice this in any other f our press releases anywhere along the line. But at the annual stockholders meeting of the Kennecott Corp., stockholder who owned more stock than all of the board of direcors put together berated the board of directors for their efforts to lefeat this piece of legislation. One James Marshall, who is a onservationist of note and also a large stockholder of Kennecott, took he corporation to task and I just wanted to make sure that while lot of these letters that we receive came as a result of mining intersts writing to them, I also am interested in knowing that in his omments Mr. Marshall said that, "Kennecott's beautiful picture, he copper hues-in our great Utah mine at Bingham, Utah, you vill not see a tree, a blade of grass, not a stream and no wildlife arger than a rabbit exists or could exist in the area subject to strip nining. There can be no other use in a wilderness area other than aining once mining comes in." Mr. WESTLAND. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WESTLAND. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ASPINALL. Let me make this statement and then I will yield. Of course you will not find a tree or more than likely a rabbit or ven a prairie dog in that area. But also I think my colleague from Pennsylvania should be brought up to date. The same author whom le refers to wrote an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal and eferred to the fact that there was the possibility that there was some pposition or some support to an amendment which the Department night offer. We do not have the amendment. We do not know anyhing about it. Apparently this writer is going rather far in order o get news value. So I cannot say that these articles are going to be bjective in their help to the committee. Now I yield to my colleague. Mr. WESTLAND. I was just thinking if the shareholder does not like the way the company is running its affairs, he could dispose of his stock. He is obviously very happy with the way the company is being run and I assume he is receiving their dividends; otherwise, he could dispose of the stock. Mr. SAYLOR. With the amount of stock he has, he will, in all probability, get rid of some directors. There are two ways of handling this matter. [Laughter.] Mrs. PFOST. You have heard the unanimous consent request. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Howard Zahniser, executive secretary and editor of the Wilderness Society. I understand he would like to bring with him Mr. Stewart Brandborg, director of special projects of the Wilderness Society. Mr. ZAHNISER. And Mr. Michael Nadel, assistant executive secretary of the Wilderness Society. Mr. Brandborg and Mr. Nadel are highly valued associates on my staff. Mr. Nadel is our assistant executive secretary and Mr. Brandborg our director of special projects. Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Zahniser. For the benefit of those who are in the room I am sure you know that we have tried to evaluate the amount of time that will be at our disposal to hear both opponents and proponents. As far as possible we wish to divide the time equally and we have requested that each person adhere to a 10-minute oral presentation, and we will appreciate your keeping within that time or making your remarks even shorter if possible so we can move forward with the legislation. I am sorry this is necessary, but we will have to start checking the clock as far as time is concerned. We will ask Mr. Pearl to keep track of the time. You may proceed, Mr. Zahniser. STATEMENT OF HOWARD ZAHNISER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND EDITOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL NADEL, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; AND STEWART BRANDBORG, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. ZAHNISER. Madam Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Zahniser-Z as in Zebra -A-H-N-I-S-E-R, my first name Howard. I speak here today in behalf of the Wilderness Society, a national, nonprofit, philanthropic conservation organization with some 18,000 members in all our States and in other countries. Since 1945 I have served the Wilderness Society as executive secretary and as editor of our quarterly magazine, The Living Wilderness, and other information material. It has been my very great and precious privilege during these years to serve the cause of wilderness preservation in association and cooperation with many groups and individuals in all parts of our country, especially here in the Nation's capital. I am very glad to be here today, and I trust I may contribute to the committee's consideration of this outstandingly important legislation, the Wilderness Act. It has been my privilege to attend all the hearings that have been held on this legislation-not only those held by this subcommittee in 1957 and then last fall in McCall, Idaho, Montrose, Colo., and Sacramento, Calif., but also those held by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, including three in Washington, D.C., in 1957, 1958, and 1960 and six in the West-at Bend, Oreg., San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Seattle, and Phoenix. In preparation for these climax hearings, as the Wilderness Act comes before the House of Representatives for what I trust will be its passage and prompt enactment into law, it has occurred to me that we have discussed this measure and the proposals it incorporates, for so long a time now, on so many occasions, from so many particular points of view, that we might all profit from taking at least one summary comprehensive look at the conditions and circumstances, the needs, that are the occasion for such a proposal, and the way in which this act meets these needs and fits in with the conditions and circumstances. Accordingly, the statement which I am here making takes for granted no other statement, except the text of the Wilderness Act, but within its limitations reviews in summary fashion the basis of our proposals, the nature and amount of the wilderness with which we are dealing, and the principles of the policy and program which the Wilderness Act would establish. DEVELOPMENT OF CONCERN Our remaining wilderness in the United States has been attracting increasing interest in recent years. More and more citizens have become interested in having part of the land in which they live kept in its primitive condition. Fortunately, for this purpose much of the wilderness yet remaining is in public ownership and thus available for exploitation or preservation as may be found in the public interest. While it has been assumed that some of this remaining wilderness in public ownership will be needed in the future as a further source of commodity resources for economic programs, there has also been a growing conviction that much of it can best serve the public interest by being preserved as wilderness. Public opinion favoring this prospect for wilderness preservation has been stimulated by land administrators who as public servants have been the managers and protectors of public lands that include wilderness. It has been further developed and represented through organizations of citizens interested in conservation and other civic programs. The result has been the development of wilderness preservation programs and purposes in connection with the administration of national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges, and other publicly owned areas of land containing wilderness. Increasing use of the available areas of wilderness has been accompanied by a deepening awareness of the continually growing pressures on the remaining wilderness for the many other uses that involve development and destruction of the areas as wilderness, as well as for their use as wilderness. SOME RATHER DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS Concerned with these clear developments, those who have been studying wilderness-preservation needs have come to some rather |