shortage, it would seem more logical to provide more area for primitive types of recreation. In general, only the trailhead facilities necessary to protect the immediate environment (turnarounds, parking space, horse ramps and latrines) are warranted developments, and these only outside the wilderness at existing access points. Scores of excellent campgrounds for vehicle-based recreationists can be inventoried on nonwilderness national forest lands more convenient to the highways, resort areas, large reservoirs, and other attractions sought by this part of the public, and these convenient campgrounds can be developed an maintained at much less expense if the energy crisis proves to be a myth and the Forest Service's concern "to meet the increasing demands for motorized public recreation in the future" is justified. 2. EXISTING AND PLANNED WATER DIVERSION PROJECTS Without exception, all existing water diversions mentioned by the Forest Service that have been identified by citizen-conservationists are either outside the citizen-proposed units, or are so old and overgrown that they cannot be construed as anything but very minor evidences that man has been in the area. In the Flat Tops, a few of the irrigation ditches are still in use by local ranchers who must occasionally perform minor maintenance. Permission for this infrequent activity should pose no problem for either the rancher or the Service. In the Eagles Nest, all ditches will soon be abandoned if the subdivision and building boom in the Blue River valley continues. Planned water diversion projects in both areas are very problematic. Funding for the Eagle-Piney project around the Eagles Nest area was voted down by Denver residents last year, and the varied plans for commercial use of the South Fork of the White River waters in the Flat Tops area are far from justification. Both projects are major in cost, major in environmental impact whether or not the land is designated as wilderness, can be modified to accomplish the same goals without impinging on wilderness, and could be constructed after the land is designated as wilderness under provisions of the Wilderness Act. 3. FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE TRAILS The Forest Service concern for motorized public recreation is evidenced in the Service's emphasis on four-wheel drive, trail scooter and snowmobile use of some of the trails. When this use is used as a reason for not including certain units in the wilderness, the fact that hundreds of miles of suitable trails outside the units are available is not mentioned. The Forest Service may be facing a dilemma. It feels committed to providing recreation opportunities to rough terrain vehicle (RTV) users, and recognizes the damage that these users can inflict on the land. In Colorado, the Service has initiated a progressive policy of designating certain trails for the use of specified vehicles. However, having recognized the environmental hazard of the RTV, it does not seem to be logical to encourage continued RTV use of trails within de facto wilderness, or to reject units because a trail within it has been used by motor vehicles. Perhaps this problem will be solved by the energy crisis. Within the boundaries under consideration for the two wilderness areas there are no vehicle trails serving any essential purpose that cannot be accomplished by foot or horseback access. Recreational vehicle use can easily be shifted to, and absorbed by, other national forest lands. 4. PAST TIMBER HARVESTS All past timber harvests mentioned in the Forest Service arguments for rejecting units for consideration as wilderness are old selective cuts as described earlier. In each case where the citizen-recommended unit contains an area that was selectively logged, the area now presents the appearance of having been affected primarily by the forces of nature. 5. PLANNED OR POSSIBLE TIMBER HARVESTS Timber harvests can be planned or may be considered possible nearly any place that has trees, whether or not such action might be economically feasible, environmentally wise, or aesthetically desira ble. There are no strong arguments supporting timber operations in either the Flat Tops or Eagles Nest, except for the East MeadowMeadow Creek unit on the west side of the Eagles Nest area. Here, the Forest Service must feel committed to its actions which led to a lawsuit in 1969. But for this suit, and the court's decision to restrain the Forest Service, we today would not have the opportunity to consider this unit important for addition to the wilderness system. 6. DEFENSIBLE BOUNDARIES The citizen-conservationists' position in regard to boundaries, similarly to that of some Federal agencies, is that the boundary should be drawn primarily to protect wilderness land, not the wilderness experience of recreationists. The Forest Service generally purports to protecting the experience. Consequently, its boundaries are most often on high ridges and escarpments, drawn far back from any feature which the Service feels might be distracting to the recreationist. Thus the Forest Service proposals sacrifice thousands of acres of land suitable for wilderness classification and desirable for undisturbed wildlife habitat and dispersal of visitors. Another Forest Service boundary consideration is for ease of management. Citizens recognize the Service's concern in this matter, but feel that the Service has an excellent record of managing many thousands of miles of section line boundaries which are often about as nebulous as a boundary can be. As in the discussion of boundaries to preserve experience, defensible boundaries also waste thousands of acres of wilderness land. We feel, also, that in the future the public will cherish our wilderness areas as natural shrines and will help with boundary enforcement of these areas. I am prepared to continue in detail around each of these two areas that I mentioned, the Flat Tops and the Eagles Nest Area, to discuss any specifc points of the various units concerned. However, time certainly will not allow this, and in addition to what I havesaid so far in the statement, I would like to present two exhibits and have the exhibits returned so I can prepare them in a better physical condition. Senator HASKELL. Would you like to have them included in the record? Mr. MOUNSEY. At a later date I would like to have them examined, but at this time I would like to discuss them. Exhibit A is Boulder Lake Senator HASKELL. Mr. Mounsey, we have a lot of witnesses and I would appreciate it if you could describe the exhibit very, very briefly. We have so many people waiting and even have some people we couldn't get on the witness list that I hope to be able to hear. Mr. MOUNSEY. Boulder Lake, this is an area within the citizens' boundary line outside the Forest Service proposal. The statement is made that there is a dam in place on this Boulder Lake. The lower picture illustrates-it is a picture taken maybe the 3d, the 2d, or 3d of June of this year of that dam that's in place there. I would suggest that that dam appears to be a very natural logjam. Exhibit B, that was taken where the citizens' proposal crosses the North Rock Creek Road, virtually a one-lane road, thick trees on both sides of the road. Exhibit Cillustrates a point on the access to South Willow Creek which is described by the Forest Service as a heavily used four-wheel drive trail in South Willow. And on this map it is indicated as a good motor road. That picture is taken at the driveway to the house to which you have to go to get through there by vehicle and that sign has been up there for a number of years now. It is a sign that says there is a $50 trespass fee for going through that property. Exhibit D, Meadow Creek, the first picture is a point taken at the citizens' boundary to illustrate the simple undeveloped condition of the trail there. Picture No. 2 was taken about a quarter mile up the crossing. Particularly interesting, I think, because it shows on the left as you look at it, the present crossing which is a rutted and muddy area there. And just to the right of the center is the one that has been abandoned by the vehicle and it shows how the regrowth will effectively obliterate those signs in a short time in an area like this. Picture No. 3 is taken about a half mile within the citizens' boundary. All of these pictures-and in picture 4 it was taken looking up a trail from the opposite viewpoint of that bridge. One of the purposes of taking this series of pictures was to illustrate this is the area which the Forest Service describes as being drainage and was timbered at one time. A lot of timber grows there. Exhibit E is a similar picture in there. Senator HASKELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Mounsey. We will return these exhibits to you and now and then you can resubmit them for the record. I don't believe I have any particular questions. However, I do gather that you would concur with Mr. Raley of the Wool Growers Association on that little sort of point that sticks in there at the south end of it so a line could be drawn across? Mr. MOUNSEY. Yes; I'm glad that he mentioned that. We have had it in mind and I think I talked to him last summer about it. Senator DOMINICK. Thank you. I have no questions. Senator HASKELL. No questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Mounsey follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. MOUNSEY, WILDERNESS CONSULTANT, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am William B. Mounsey, of Evergreen, Colorado. I am a retired Army officer. For ten years I have been much involved in environmental problems with special emphasis on wilderness matters. I operate a professional wilderness guiding and outfitting service active in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. I have been recognized in Federal Court as an expert on wilderness matters. I am active in a number of conservation organizations, and, from time to time, have been employed by The Wilderness Society as a Wilderness Consultant. Today, I am representing The Wilderness Society in testimony concerning the proposed Eagles Nest and Flat Tops Wilderness Areas. The Wilderness Society joins with the Colorado Council and other conservation groups represented here today in enthusiastic endorsement of S. 1864 and S. 702 which pertain to these two areas, respectively. We do believe, however, that S. 702 should also include two small but important undeveloped national forest areas: Patterson Creek, 12,000 acres, and Trout Creek, 8,000 acres. The Society has long supported citizen-conservationists' efforts toward establishment of the Eagles Nest and Flat Tops Wilderness Areas that would allow effective management of the wilderness resources. In the past, the proposals of the managing agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and bills introduced in Congress for these two Wilderness Areas, have failed to include significant units of the existing Primitive Areas and units of contiguous de facto wilderness. In these discussions, it is important to be aware of the historic use of these lands contiguous to the Primitive Areas which were so wisely selected for preservation many years ago by the Forest Service. Because they were remote and offered little promise for timber, mineral or other exploitation, they-as the protected Primitive Areas they surround-have been, and are presently used as wilderness. The effect of failing to include important units of these de facto wilderness lands in the established Wilderness Areas is to reduce the entire wilderness base, a base which many indicators prove to be in increasing demand and frequently over used. The bills under consideration today, S. 1864, for a 125,000-acre Eagles Nest Wilderness, introduced by Senator Haskell, and co-sponsored by Senator Dominick. and S. 702, for a 212,716-acre Flat Tops Wilderness, introduced by Senator Dominick, and co-sponsored by Senator Haskell, are the type of legislation the citizen-conservationists of Colorado and the Nation have been seeking. The Wilderness Society strongly supports the citizen interest. The Wilderness Society believes that a comparison of the differences between these excellent bills and the proposals of the U.S. Forest Service, and an exploration of the reasons for these differences, will contribute to the Congressional decision-making process. Before we compare specific differences and explore specific reasons, it will save time if we consider some general points that apply to both areas. It is unfortunate that many statements in the Forest Service's published proposals are incomplete and thus present a false mental picture of the situation which tends to discredit the citizen recommendation. Seldom does a Forest Service statement apply to a specific unit recommended by the citizens. The practice is to describe an area by drainages, pointing out features objectionable to the Forest Service which are either not included in the citizen-recommended unit, or are present in only a small part of the unit. However, the Forest Service statement easily leads the reader to assume that its statement applies in toto to the citizens' unit. Often the Forest Service statement utilizes descriptions that are lacking in full accuracy; sometimes descriptions are wholly incorrect. The statement that a drainage "has had most of the timber harvested" is most likely to present the mental picture of a recent clearcut timber sale area, or, at least, of a tree-less area where the imprint of man's work in the form of stumps, slash, roads, and disturbed earth is substantially noticeable. A complete description might include the information that the logging took place some 75-100 years ago, that it was a selective harvest by horse and manpower, that the tote roads are mainly indistinguishable and the few remaining stumps are rotted and seldom noticeable, and that the continued growth of the many trees are remained after the harvest, along with natural regeneration, has virtually eliminated all signs of past use. Similar flat statements that a dam or a water diversion ditch is in place are very misleading when the dam, constructed by horsepower, has been abandoned for many years and appears to only the most critical observer as anything more than a log jam, or the long-overgrown ditch can only be recognized for what it is when one is standing in it. Trails seldom and, in some cases, never used in recent years by vehicles are described as heavily used four-wheel drive trails, or even as roads. We are aware that such brief statements have an element of truth in them, but the impression gained may be entirely erroneous. In these two areas, most Forest Service objections to the inclusion of citizenproposed de facto wilderness units are in six categories: 1. POTENTIAL RECREATION SITES FOR CAMPGROUNDS ACCESSIBLE BY VEHICLE The Forest Service argument that land presently used as wilderness should not be included in a Wilderness Area because the Service has planned, or “inventoried," campgrounds accessible by vehicle, is recognized as a contradiction by citizens aware of the recreation demand on wilderness. To develop, rather than preserve, de facto wilderness so that more use will be concentrated along major routes appears to be inviting early, stringent regulation of use. With the first stages of the energy crisis now being felt by the public as a gasoline shortage, it would seem more logical to provide more area for primitive types of recreation. In general, only the trailhead facilities necessary to protect the immediate environment (turnarounds, parking space, horse ramps and latrines) are warranted developments, and these only outside the wilderness at existing access points. Scores of excellent campgrounds for vehicle-based recreationists can be inventorier on non-wilderness National Forest lands more convenient to the highways, resort areas, large reservoirs, and other attractions sought by this part of the public, and these convenient campgrounds can be developed and maintained at much less expense if the energy crisis proves to be a myth and the Forest Services concern "to meet the increasing demands for motorized public recreation in the future" is justified. 2. EXISTING AND PLANNED WATER DIVERSION PROJECTS Without exception, all existing water diversions mentioned by the Forest Service that have been identified by citizen-conservationists are either outside the citizen-proposed units, or are so old and overgrown that they cannot be construed as anything but very minor evidences that man has been in the area. In the Flat Tops, a few of the irrigation ditches are still in use by local ranchers who must occasionally perform minor maintenance. Permission for this infrequent activity should pose no problem for either the rancher or the Service. In the Eagle Nest, all ditches will soon be abandoned if the subdivision and building boom in the Blue River valley continues. Planned water diversion projects in both areas are very problematic. Funding for the Eagle-Piney project around the Eagles Nest area was voted down by Denver residents last year, and the varied plans for commercial use of the South Fork of the White River waters in the Flat Tops area are far from justified. Both projects are major in cost, major in environmental impact whether the land is designated as Wilderness, can be modified to accomplish the same goals without impinging on wilderness, and could be constructed after the land is designated as Wilderness under provisions of the Wilderness Act. 3. FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE TRAILS The Forest Service concern for motorized public recreation is evidenced in the Service's emphasis on four-wheel drive, trail scooter and snowmobile use of some of the trails. When this use is used as a reason for not including certain units |