In 1953, a study of the results of changes in plant cover on these watersheds was started in cooperation with the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association. The effect of managing for high-quality timber production is being tested on South Fork. The Middle Fork serves as a control. On the North Fork, the forest on the moist site has been removed and that area planted to grass.

On the South Fork, the first cycle of timber cutting began in 1953 and was completed in 1956. About one-half of the merchantable timber was removed. Cutting was planned to favor growth of ponderosa pine and the most vigorous and healthy trees were reserved. In addition to harvesting merchantable trees, the following stand-improvement work was done: (1) Unmerchantable ponderosa pine infested with dwarf-mistletoe was poisoned; (2) hardwood trees on pine sites were poisoned; as were (3) white fir and hardwood trees that were overtopping pine trees in transition zones between pine and fir areas. In July 1957, a forest fire burned 60 acres in the upper southeast part of the watershed. This fire killed many pine trees. The harvest cut, stand improvement, road construction, and forest fire reduced the basal area of the forest cover by 46 percent. Streamflow has increased only slightly, if at all, as a result of the changes in the forest on South Fork. There has been an apparent increase of less than 0.10 area-inch, or about 3 percent for the years since treatment. This quantity is too small to be statistically significant. There is a tendency for a larger increase in wet years. The dry years since treatment have probably reduced the effect on runoff. More years of record will be necessary for definite conclusions, but for the present the inference is that single-tree-selection silviculture followed by intensive stand-improvement practices will have little effect on water yield from Arizona watersheds.

The area burned by the forest fire suffered heavy erosion. The first storm after the fire was one of the most intense ever recorded at Workman Creek. Total rainfall was almost 4 inches in a 4-hour period. About 40,000 cubic feet of soil was moved from the 60-acre burned area. Forty-three percent of this reached the channel and weir pond and the remainder was deposited on fairly level areas outside the burn. This erosion is perhaps near the maximum to be expected in Arizona from a single storm on the usual rather gentle topography found in the pine type.

On the North Fork watershed the 80 acres of moist site forest composed largely of white fir and Douglas-fir was cleared during September and October 1958 (fig. W-1). The boundary of the cleared area generally coincided with a topographic break between the incised stream channel and the more level upland areas. Where this break was not present, the area was cleared wherever white fir and Douglas-fir composed more than 50 percent of the trees 4 inches and larger.

Logs were cut from trees 10 inches in diameter at breast height and larger, and hauled from the area. Remaining material was pushed into windrows and burned. A mixture of slender wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and orchardgrass was then sown. Redtop was planted along the stream channels. A good catch of grass was obtained. The production at the end of the first season was 500 pounds per acre.

The first year after treatment was dry. Streamflow was 1.4 inches compared with an estimated flow of 0.9 inch had there been no treatment. The next year was above normal in runoff. Actual flow was 6.4 inches compared with an estimated flow of 4.4 inches. The first-year increase of 0.5 inch was not large enough for statistical significance. The second-year increase of 2.0 inches is statistically significant.

Again, more years are required to finally assess the results of this treatment. It is interesting that the proportion of timber removed is less on the North Fork, but that removal was concentrated on a smaller area and on the moist site. The final result will help in designing systems of management for efficient water yield. Perhaps it will be possible to obtain a large proportion of the potential increase to water yield by special treatment of only a selected part of a watershed.

TIMBER HARVEST IN COLORADO INCREASES STREAMFLOW

The snowpack and its forest environment has been a subject of study at the Fraser Experimental Forest in Colorado for 20 years. Early studies conducted on small plots formed the basis for large watershed experiments to determine the influence of (1) timber harvesting on snow accumulation and (2) melt on resultant streamflow.

Streamflow records have been maintained on Fool Creek, a 714-acre watershed, and East St. Louis Creek, a contiguous watershed of 2,000 acres. From 1943 to 1954 streamflow records were compared between these watersheds so that the seasonal flow of one watershed could be predicted from the other.

At the end of this calibration period it was decided to harvest 278 acres of the 550 acres of merchantable 300-year-old lodgepole pine and spruce-fir timber from the Fool Creek watershed. The silvicultural system used was clear cutting in alternate strips varying in size from 66 to 400 feet in width (fig. W-2). No cutting was done along the main stream channel for a distance of 90 feet on each side of the stream. Five miles of main-haul contour roads, and 8 miles of spur roads were constructed prior to logging. The total volume of timber removed from the strips was 3.5 million board feet. Of this, saw logs made up 62 percent of the cut, poles 28 percent, and posts and pulp the remainder. Road construction was completed by 1951; logging began in 1954 and ended in 1956.

What happened to streamflow as a result of this timber harvest? We have 5 full posttreatment years to answer this question. For each of these years, the excess of actual water yield over that predicted from the comparison with the untreated watershed is shown below:

Most of the increase in yield has occurred during the spring freshet period of May and June, but there has also been a small increase in the summer and early fall months. The early rise of Fool Creek is rapid and the spring peak has been higher than it would have been had the timber not been cut.

As is typical of streams from high elevations in Colorado, peak rates of runoff are comparatively low even after treatment. The maximum instantaneous peak runoff from Fool Creek to date is less than 22 cubic feet per second per square mile (c.s.m.). Because of the moderate runoff rate, few intense summer storms, rocky channels, and coarse-textured soils, sediment yield from Fool Creek is low. A basin at the foot of the watershed has trapped only 1.5 cubic feet of sediment (wet volume) per acre of watershed per year.

Mrs. ProST. Our next witness is Mr. Bert L. Cole, Commissioner of Public Lands, State of Washington Department of Natural Re

sources.

STATEMENT OF BERT L. COLE, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Bert L. Cole, Commissioner of Public Lands for the State of Washington, and administrator of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.

I do not oppose the preservation of limited areas of purely wilderness character. However, I am here to register my opposition to S. 174, which would establish a National Wilderness Preservation System as a legal entity. I firmly believe that the Federal land managing agencies now existing have the authority and administrative machinery necessary to cope with the need of establishing more wilder

ness areas.

S. 174 would take away from Congress the authority through positive action to decide how much wilderness we should have. In effect, this would mean the constitutional responsibility of Congress would be abrogated through S. 174. In my opinion, S. 174 should be amended to require positive action by Congress for enactment of any wilderness proposal by the Chief Executive.

It is my firm judgment that S. 174 would lock up an unreasonable amount of productive land, causing a crippling economic impact. Furthermore, once land is locked into the wilderness system there is no provision for periodic review and changes in land use.

It is my conviction that before Congress agrees to lock up any portion of the vast areas of resources encompassed in S. 174, qualified individuals from existing Federal and State resource managing agencies should be given the opportunity to determine the highest and best use of such areas.

For the above reasons I strongly oppose the passage of S. 174. I attach amendments I wish to submit for your serious consideration.

Thank you.

(The amendments referred to follow :)

AMENDMENTS TO S. 174

Amendments to Section 3(b) (1) and Section 3(b) (2)

[Asterisks indicate deletion. Italic indicates addition]

Section 3. (b) (1) The wilderness system shall include all areas within the national forests classified on *** January 1, 1962, by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service as wilderness, wild * * * or

canoe.

Section 3. (b)(2) Following enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten years, review, in accordance with paragraph C, section

251.20, of the Code of Federal Regulations, title 36, effective January 1, 1959 *** each primitive area in the national forests * * and determine the best public use for each portion thereof. Before the convening of Congress each year, the *** Secretary shall advise the United States Senate and House of Representatives of his recommendations with respect to the *** inclusion within the wilderness system *** of *** any portions of those areas on which review has been completed in the preceding year, together with maps and a *** designation of boundaries. ✶ ✶✶ Any primitive area, or portion thereof which *** has not been included in the wilderness system by Act of Congress within *** twelve years following the enactment of this Act shall cease to be a *** primitive area and shall be administered as other national forest land.

Section 3. (b) (3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall not, after twelve years from the effective date of this Act, maintain any lands under his jurisdiction in wilderness-type reservations except those lands already included in the wilderness system under the provisions of this Act.

Section 3. (b) (4) The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to but not in interference with the purposes for which national forests are established as set forth in the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11), and the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960, Public Law 86-517 (74 Stat. 215).

Section 3. (c) (1) (Delete).

Section 3. (c) (2) (Delete).

Section 3. (d) (Delete).

Amendments to Section 3. (e)

[Asterisks indicate deletion.

Italic indicates addition]

Section 3. *** (c) Each unit of the wilderness system shall be reviewed by the administering agency as to its several resource values within each twentyyear period from the date of its inclusion in the wilderness system. The administering agency shall, upon completion of the review of each such unit, make public its findings together with recommendations for the modification of boundaries or for its continued inclusion or its deletion from the wilderness system. Any proposed * * * modification or adjustment of boundaries or the deletion of any portion of the wilderness system established in accordance with this Act shall be made by the appropriate Secretary after public notice of such proposal by publication in a newspaper having general circulation in the vicinity of such boundaries and public hearings to be held in such vicinity not less than ninety days after such notice if there is sufficient demand during such ninety days for such hearing. The proposed modification or adjustment or deletion of any portion of the wilderness system shall then be recommended with map and description thereof to the *** United States Senate and House of Representatives. Such recommendations *** for modification, adjustment or deletion of any portion of the wilderness system established in accordance with this Act shall become effective * * * only after specific affirmative authorization by law.

Mrs. Prost. Our next witness is Mr. Royce G. Cox, chairman, Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee, Lewiston, Idaho.

Mr. Cox, I would like personally to take this opportunity to welcome you here. We appreciate very much your interest in this legislation. I believe that you appeared at the committee hearings in McCall, Idaho, last fall and now have come to Washington because you have new or additional testimony to offer.

Mr. Cox. I did appear there, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, before Mr. Cox gives his statement, is this statement of yours in any respect repetitive of what you said in Idaho?

Mr. Cox. Portions of it are, sir, but the part I intend to cover here is pertaining to some new proposals for amendment.

Mr. ASPINALL. Am I then to believe that you have come here to have reprinted in the record of the hearing on this legislation repetitive material?

Mr. Cox. No, sir. The portions of what I have to say here which would be repetitive material I would recommend would not be included in the record of the hearings.

Mr. ASPINALL. In other words, the first nine pages of this document you have handed to us is entirely new material?

Mr. Cox. I could not say, sir, it is entirely all new material.

Mr. ASPINALL. Madam Chairman, of course the first nine pages are eligible for the record. I would suggest that the first nine pages may be read and the rest of it be made a part of the file except if there is any new material that is not repetitive the staff be allowed to take it out and we will include it in the record following Mr. Cox's statement.

Mrs. Prost. You have heard the request. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered, and you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROYCE G. COX, CHAIRMAN, INLAND EMPIRE

MULTIPLE USE COMMITTEE, LEWISTON, IDAHO

Mr. Cox. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Royce G. Cox. My home is in Lewiston, Idaho. I am chairman of the Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee, a group composed of members of six forest conservation and development organizations representing a large number of natural resource owners, operators, and users in Idaho, western Montana, and eastern Washington. The membership, objectives, and reports of our committee are summarized in the attached sheet, "Facts About the Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee."

I would like to point out the organizations represented here are North Idaho Forestry Association, the South Idaho Forestry Association, the Montana Forestry Practices Committee, the Idaho Forestry Practices Committee, and the Western Pine Association.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this congressional committee and present the viewpoints of a large number of western citizens who are greatly concerned about the wilderness bill.

We wish to reaffirm the support of our Inland Empire Multiple Use Committee for establishing and maintaining a reasonable acreage of wilderness on Federal lands, providing the needs of our local citizens for the other multiple uses of these lands are not jeopardized.