There would be some 48 areas in national parks, national monuments, recreation areas, memorial parks, or other categories administered by the National Park Service for the protection of the Nation's scenic areas of superb splendor and for the recreational use and enjoyment of the people.

There would be some 23 areas of wilderness within wildlife refuges and ranges, being administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection and increase of wildlife.

Similarly, there might well be other areas of wilderness being protected by other land administrators. And throughout this system there would be worked out such special provisions as needed to accommodate already established uses of the land, and to provide for necessary economic or other developments important to the national welfare. These proposals for a national wilderness policy and program are indeed the provisions that have been incorporated in the various forms of wilderness legislation we have before us.

If we can agree that such a policy is needed and desirable and that it can be realized without damaging other interests and in such a way as to provide for future changes as necessary, it seems to me we have justified this proposed legislation in a sound and logical manner with a cool sense of responsibility to the whole public interest and a humanity that lives in generations.

Congress, in accordance with any of the proposals now before us, would specify the areas that may be considered for a national wilderness system. Not all the areas which are thus authorized for consideration can be expected necessarily to be selected, I realize; but even if all were to be preserved, the land requirement would in our circumstances, be indeed reasonable.

We of the Wilderness Society have tabulated the areas that, in accordance with our interpretation, could be considered.

These are shown in the following map, entitled "The Wilderness Act's National Wilderness Preservation System." I hold in my hand the original map, in colors; you have incorporated in your copy of my statement a reproduction of the map.

Its symbols-star, tree, shield, bird-indicate the various kinds of

areas:

Stars show the national forest areas permanently included upon passage of any of the bills now before you or of the Senate act; the wilderness, wild, and canoe areas.

Trees show the national forest primitive areas included, but subject to review.

Shields show the national park system units within which wilderness areas may be designated after review.

Birds show the national wildlife refuges and ranges within which wilderness areas may be designated.

(The map is as follows:)

Mr. ZAHNISER. As shown on this map, some national forest areas are definitely designated for inclusion in the wilderness system on a permanent basis. Included are 1,165,684 acres classified as "wild," and 7,947,173 acres classified as "wilderness," including a canoe area; a total of 9,112,857 acres.

Also included, but subject to review, are 5,740,867 acres classified as "primitive."

Thus, the gross acreage in national forest areas that could be included is 14,853,724; although this much is not expected because of the possible elimination of some acreage in the primitive areas on the review required by the Wilderness Act.

National park system areas will be included permanently in the wilderness system only after study and recommendation. There are, in all-including roaded and developed areas a gross total of 13,541,962 acres in national parks, and 8,721,580 acres in national monuments, a recreational area, and a national memorial park.

This total of 22,362,416 acres, it must be emphasized, is a gross total, including present park portions devoted to roads and accommodations and other park areas that will not be included in the wilderness system.

No areas of wilderness would be established within the national wildlife refuges and ranges, but the establishment of suitable areas would be based, later, on study and recommendation. It is thus not possible to predict now what areas will be established, nor, of course, to know what acreages will be involved.

The Wilderness Society considers certain refuges, totaling 6,357,982 acres, suitable for consideration in the survey for wilderness designations; and certain ranges, including 18,483,878 acres, similarly suitable. This possible gross acreage of 24,841,860 does, however, include extensive areas not suitable for wilderness classification, and the figure thus, again, is an outside total.

For all these areas, the table at the end of this statement shows the possible acreages by region, State, and area; and the total possible percentage of the areas for each State. The areas are numbered to correspond with the areas drawn to scale on the diagram maps of the States illustrating this tabulation, following immediately at the end of the tabulation.

Nothing so strongly commends these proposals for wilderness legislation as reasonable as do their modest land requirements. If all the 62 million acres to be considered for wilderness preservation were to be selected, the proportion of our land set aside for such an important and enduring purpose would be small. With such possibilities as those seen by Senator Anderson in his prediction that only 35 to 45 million acres are likely to be selected, we can commend even more strongly this proposal for its modesty.

Within the national forests there are additional areas that are in fact wilderness-additional, that is, to the wilderness, wild, primitive, and canoe areas that would be included in a Wilderness Act.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's wilderness study report emphasized this. This report, entitled, "Wilderness and Recreation-A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems," prepared by the Wildland Research Center of the University of California under its wilderness project director, James P. Gilligan, in

cludes within the areas on which it based its studies some 7.1 million acres of national forest land not now classified for wilderness preservation, but still remaining in wilderness condition.

The proposed wilderness legislation does not include any of this wilderness, de facto. If any of this unclassified national forest wilderness, or any other land not included, is, in the future, to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System, it must be by a further act of Congress, a provision that further emphasizes the care and reasonableness with which Congress will be acting in this

measure.

Some of these more than 7 million acres, especially within the areas in the Northwest set aside as "limited areas," should certainly be preserved as wilderness, yet there is no reaching out in this legislation for such areas.

Cautious and careful in its commitment of our lands, the Congress, by any of the proposals before us, would give the possibility of wilderness preservation only to the already classified lands of the national forests and the wildlife refuge and national park system lands already set aside from commodity production.

It has been, from the beginning, an objective of wilderness bill proponents to see developed a program that would integrate wilderness preservation into an overall program that would also respect other

interests.

From the very beginning, the proposed bills have been multiple-use measures. They have not only sought, in the national forests, for example, to fit wilderness-area preservation into the overall multipleuse patterns of the forests, but also to see that within the areas being preserved as wilderness, the multiple-use ideal is applied.

We have a multiple-use measure.

In general, we have followed the thesis that wilderness can be preserved in each of these categories of land without doing violence to the purposes for which the areas were established; that the forest lands can serve their national forest multiple-use purposes and still be preserved as wilderness; that the national park back country continues to serve its special park purposes while being preserved as wilderness; that the wildlife refuges and ranges serve wildlife and refuge and range purposes.

For example, pack trips are an essential part of the multiple-use of the national forest wilderness areas, but they are out of place in the wildlife refuges. The refuge wilderness is for the wildlife and not for pack-trip vacations. The national park wilderness is for the use and enjoyment of people of the parks, not, as in the national forest areas, primarily for the preservation of basic timber resources or watershed protection.

This attitude on the part of wilderness advocates has also been evident in a cooperative willingness to meet objections and criticisms with concessions and exceptions. This can be seen in the "special provisions" that are a part of each of the proposals before us; it has also resulted in a dropping of some parts of the original proposals. The effort has been to realize a truly national policy and program supported by the widest possible consensus.

SPECIFIC MEASURES NOW BEFORE US

With the understandings and objectives thus outlined, and the attitudes thus described, we now face a variety of specific measures. As described by the chairman of this Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, they are in three groups, and we have accordingly so considered them.

As to the first group, including the twice-passed Senate act and H.R. 930, and its identical or similar bills of the 88th Congress, we have been advocates.

Actually, there are improvements that we would recommend for the Senate act, S. 4, as for its identical predecessor, S. 174 of the 87th Congress; and most of the recommendations were incorporated by Representative John P. Saylor in his H.R. 930.

The second group includes, in present circumstances, the measure that we would now urge upon this subcommittee.

To Representative Saylor's H.R. 9070 we were committed upon its introduction, for we viewed it as a compromise that met requirements which we had understood to be those of the chairman and others of this committee; and, at the same time, we believed these requirements to have been met in such a way as to safeguard what we consider basic objectives of the legislation.

We so declared ourselves promptly, commending Mr. Saylor and welcoming the response that his introduction brought from the chairman, as we felt that that was the answer to the differences that had existed.

As it happens, the latest of the measures in this group, Representative Jeffery Cohelan's H.R. 9520, includes some refinements and corrections in details, and is the specific bill that we would now most heartily commend to the subcommittee's favorable consideration.

Nevertheless, it is to the third group-H.R. 9162, H.R. 9163, H.R. 9164 and H.R. 9165-that we address our attention most earnestly on this occasion.

We welcome the effort on the part of the administration and the committee chairman, that this measure represents, and the cooperation of the longtime wilderness bill sponsors who introduced it: Representatives John Dingell, of Michigan, Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, Barratt O'Hara, of Illinois, and Charles E. Bennett, of Florida.

We see this so-called Dingell bill, or administration bill, as the measure on which the committee's attention is focused, the measure recommended with perfecting amendments by the executive agencies to which all the wilderness legislation was referred by this committee, and, accordingly, the one with regard to which our comments can most effectively be addressed.

In brief, our recommendations are to adopt certain amendments to bring this measure in important regards into agreement with the Saylor-Quie-Cohelan measure, or, specifically, H.R. 9520.

We are much concerned that the areas of wilderness involved be protected as such during the times when they are being considered as possible permanent areas for protection. We should like to see the provisions of the legislation apply to park and wildlife areas and not only to the areas it establishes at once but also to those that it authorizes for study which are later established in accordance with its provisions.