Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record. You may summarize it.

[The statement referred to follows:]

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY HARRY CRANDELL FOR THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman, I am Harry Crandell, Director of Wilderness Reviews for The Wilderness Society, a national conservation organization of approximately 80,000 members primarily concerned with the preservation and beneficial use of America's wilderness.

We appreciate the invitation to testify today before the Subcommittee on Public Lands concerning the wilderness proposal for the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge (Florida).

The Wilderness Society heartily endorses the proposal to place the major portion of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The physical characteristics of this refuge make it especially appropriate for wilderness designation not only in terms of the wisdom of preserving our high quality natural areas in an undisturbed condition but equally in terms of serving the purposes of a national wildlife refuge. The lands and waters of the Chassahowitzka Refuge constitute one of the largest tracts of estuarine habitat along the Gulf Coast that still retains its pristine condition. As research proved long ago, estuarine areas are among the most highly productive of all areas on this planet and provide the basis for the essential food chains that sustain most forms of life. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife recognizes this truth in its administration of this refuge. Thus in its booklet presenting the Chassahowitzka wilderness proposal the Bureau states "the many wildlife species that thrive on the refuge do so primarily under man's protective hand and not by his manipulation of an environment that is nearly perfect." Again, in its environmental impact statement accompanying the wilderness proposal the Bureau says "man has never been able to increase the basic productivity of a natural salt marsh and management of the Chassahowitzka Refuge has been with this in mind." These statements are a strong endorsement of the high quality of the wilderness conditions on the Chassahowitzka Refuge and we commend the Bureau for its clear recognition of these superlative conditions. Their perpetuation would be most strongly assured by adequate wilderness designation within the refuge.

Section 1(f) of H.R. 5422 would place about 16,900 acres of the Chassahowitzka Refuge in the National Wilderness Preservation System. This proposal has our strong support. While it would not apply to the navigable waters that are not legally part of the refuge, it would apply to all lead areas both exposed and submerged and to non-navigable waters within the boundaries indicated on the map of October, 1971 revised November, 1971.

The Wilderness Society recommends additionally that the portion of the refuge extending southward into Hernando County and which consists mostly of coastal marsh and adjacent islands should also be recommended for wilderness designation. This is essentially the area proposed by Senator Gurney in his bill S. 3189. Total acreage would be approximately 30,100 acres. The only exclusions from wilderness designation of the property owned by the federal government would be the inland headquarters and a couple of hundred acres at the extreme northeast tip of the refuge where there is a road and recently cultivated fields. We are aware that in the southern part of the refuge lying in Hernando County there are certain retained mineral rights (principally phosphate) which might at sometime be exploited. Nevertheless in the interests of giving maximum protection to the extraordinarily high grade natural conditions prevailing thereon, wilderness designation should include this southern arm of the refuge, leaving the mineral question subject to future negotiation and possible acquisition. Section 1(f) of H.R. 5422 dealing with the Chassahowitzka wilderness proposal includes a special provision relating to use of motorboats, commercial fishing and guiding activities on the navigable waters within the proposed wilderness. It is questionable whether there is any need for such a provision because while ownership of the water bottoms rests in the United States, the waters are navigable waters and are not subject to control by the Bureau of Spoort Fisheries and Wildlife. Commercial fishing and guiding activities are established uses based on the fact that these waters are navigable; further, as navigable waters the Bureau has no jurisdiction over their surface use.

We would call to the Committee's attention one matter not mentioned in the President's recommendation as submitted to the Congress. There are several tracts of private land within the proposed wilderness boundaries. We not only urge the Bureau to take prompt action to acquire these inholdings, we also suggest that this Committee might care to encourage the agency to do so. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRANDELL. Now, the Wilderness Society supports the Bureau's sports fisheries, and the wildlife proposal for the Chassahowitzka Refuge. We also, however, encourage the committee to consider additional lands in this area.

Mr. STEIGER. Surprise.

Mr. CRANDELL. If I may, I will proceed to the map, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MELCHER. Go right ahead.

Mr. CRANDELL. And this is, as we understand the proposal, this area here you may not be able to see it from your vantage point-but it is essentially submerged and dotted with islands. The Federal Government controls the submerged lands, and not the surface.

The area in here is salt marsh mainly, and along this stretch here, salt marsh and islands. We propose that the salt marsh area also be included because of a statement in the Bureau of Sport, Fisheries, and Wildlife brochure.

That states thus:

The many wildlife species that thrive on the refuge do so primarily under man's protective hand, and not by his manipulation of an environment that is nearly perfect.

They also state that:

Man has never been able to increase the productivity of a natural salt marsh, and management of the Chassahowitzka Refuge has been with this in mind.

That is our understanding that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has some manipulative proposals in here that have not born fruit as yet. And we consider that the best management of this wildlife is to leave it alone.

The technical question of whether boats can be used in an area such as this is, in our opinion, subject to scrutiny by the committee, and we think you should delve into it rather deeply. But it is our understanding that the subsurface is what is being proposed for the wilderness and the islands, and that the surface of the water is not within the wildlife refuge; and therefore, is not in the wilderness.

So access to private land holdings by water would not be constrained by either the refuge, the management, or the wilderness designation. Now, this is kind of a technical point, but I think it is important that I bring it to your attention. We would hope, again as in the Florida Keys proposal heard previously, that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife would negotiate with the State of Florida for some kind of State designation or cooperative agreement, or State water sanctuary, I believe they call them. So that the entire area off the west coast of Florida, here, within the boundaries of the area will be preserved jointly.

It is our understanding that the State of Florida does have a program of this nature, in that all the Department of Interior can do is approach them, and see if they can work something out. But we would like to have the committee suggest that to the Department to see if it is possible.

I think that summarizes our statement fairly well, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MELCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Crandell.

Any questions, Mr. Steiger?

Mr. STEIGER. Harry, do you have a volume of acreage nationally that you feel would be-a level that you feel would be desirable to reach in terms of volume as a part of the goal of the society itself?

Is that a precept of the society that we will protect a number of acres of this country? I am not, vis-a-vis, opposed to strictly qualitative effort to get only those lands which fit the original intent.

Now, I don't want to make it that black and white. Do you feel, personally, that the more lands we get the wilderness designation, the better job the Wilderness Society has done?

Is that your feeling?

Mr. CRANDELL. There is a kind of a double-barreled answer, Mr. Steiger. I would say "no." We have no acreage goal. We have no interest in setting some sort of artificial acreage to achieve.

We do feel, however, that those areas within the Federal estatethat is, those Federal lands that the Wilderness Act directs be reviewed, that all of those that qualify for review and study by the Agency should so be reviewed and studied, and let Congress make the decision.

We recognize the Congress of the United States makes the final decision on whether or not an individual wilderness should be added to the wilderness preservation system. But we do not have an acreage goal.

Mr. STEIGER. Do you ever recall the society recommending a reduction in whatever the agency has proposed in terms of boundaries of a wilderness area?

Mr. CRANDELL. In my short tenure with the Wilderness Society, Mr. Steiger; no.

Mr. STEIGER. When you were in a position to observe it, activity prior to your official position, can you remember any prior to your assumption of the leadership, the executive leadership?

Mr. CRANDELL. No.

Mr. STEIGER. I can't either, frankly, and I get the inescapable feeling, and this is only my 7th year under this thing, and so I'm sure it's possible that they did recommend it, I won't say they didn't. But it seems to me that there is a definite desire, at least on the part of the general membership, or the board of directors, or somebody, that they are able to point to some kind of total acreage figure at the end of a given year, and I get the feeling here it's a quantitative effort rather than a qualitative one, which obviously, I think would be in error, and I don't think the director would try to defend that position.

I'll tell you something. I can't remember a single wilderness proposal in this area, that I have heard or I've been privileged to sit in hearings in which this society hasn't asked for an expansion. I suspect that there may be some, but in my memory, there's never been such.

I would only suggest that I can't believe that all of the agencies would be that consistently wrong with their recommendations, and the society, that consistently correct. And so you do some disservice to the credibility of the recommendation of the society when you sort of persevere in this thing, at least from my point of view.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlemen would yield?

Mr. STEIGER. Sure.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Crandell, to your knowledge, do you know what percent of the U.S. surface is presently designated as a wilderness area?

Mr. CRANDELL. No, I do not, sir. The wilderness system at the present time is about 11 million acres, that is what has been designated by Congress as wilderness.

Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

Mr. CRANDELL. May I respond, Mr. Steiger?

Mr. Chairman, may I?

Mr. MELCHER. Proceed.

Mr. CRANDELL. Mr. Steiger, I think we see our role not so much in a quantitative way, but our role is to bring attention to the committee those areas that are cooperators, vis-a-vis, members, and we feel are qualified within a wildlife refuge, or a wilderness area or a national park for admission to the wilderness system; with the thought in mind that it is your judgment that has to determine what should be admitted to the wilderness system.

The job would be very easy if we accepted the Agency's proposals all the time; often we do not, but often we do, too. The earlier hearing this morning on the Florida Keys, we accepted it 100 percent.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Ohio?

The gentleman from Alaska?

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should know this, but how many wilderness acres do we have in Alaska?

Mr. CRANDELL. Mr. Young, I hope you don't think I'm being facetious, but I think we take the State of Alaska and subtract Anchorage and Fairbanks and Juneau, and that would be the total acreage.

Mr. YOUNG. That's what has me worried. I've got a few figures for your information. The proposal right now of 60 million acres of parks and refuges, which are not wilderness areas, we've got 30 million acres of it. Of the proposed withdrawals, we'll have 110 million acres; not 16,000 or 4,000 but millions. And I do know we have some wilderness designated areas. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is considered a refuge. Counsel, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, is that a refuge or a wilderness area?

Mr. SHAFER. That's a refuge.

Mr. YOUNG. But no one is allowed into it for any development or any. thing?

Mr. SHAFER. That will be subject to the rules and regulations of any wildlife refuge area.

Mr. YOUNG. But still it is not a wilderness area?

Mr. SHAFER. Yes, sir. It is not a wilderness area. It is subject to certain, as I recall, mineral development under certain restrictions, but other than that, it is controlled according to the regulations of the Department of the Interior, Mr. Wheeler's agency.

Mr. YOUNG. Well, we were quite interested in the total acreage that was up there, and what is going to become wilderness areas, and also what was to be developed; 110 million acres is a lot of ground, bigger than most States.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. CRANDELL. Yes, we're very interested in the wilderness potential in Alaska also.

Mr. MELCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Crandell.

Mr. CRANDELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MELCHER. The committee will be pleased to hear from Mr. Kenneth Watson, Gainesville, Fla., for the Sierra Club, Gainesville, Fla. chapter.

Mr. Watson?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH WATSON, GAINESVILLE, FLA., FOR SIERRA CLUB, FLORIDA CHAPTER

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I submitted my identification earlier. Mr. Chairman, in order to conserve time, may I submit the entire statement in written form, and merely refer to a few key points?

Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, your entire statement will be placed in the record.

Proceed, Mr. Watson.

[The statement referred to follows:]

STATEMENT OF J. KENNETH WATSON

STATEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE CHASSAHOWITZKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR WILDERNESS

The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club endorses HR 5422 and its inclusion of a portion of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge for wilderness designation under the 1964 Wilderness Act.

HABITAT AND WILDLIFE DIVERSITY

This "Pumpkin Opening Place" (Seminole name) on the west coast of Florida is a prime habitat for thousands of ducks and geese, as well as for the brown pelican, wood ibis, alligator and manatee. It consists of fine, unspoiled natural marshes and estuaries, with more than half the entire Refuge in needle, sawgrass, and rough marsh, with small islands of cabbage palms and red cedar. Along the eastern edge of the Refuge is a fringe of hardwood swamp. This is a balanced breeding and feeding ground for marine life.

ACREAGE RECOMMENDATION

We support and endorse the acreage figure in HR 5422 of about 16,900 acres of the Refuge for wilderness protection. We would also support the committee's inclusion of additional acreage which qualifies for wilderness under the 1964 Act.

WILDERNESS VALUES

The Refuge, since its establishment in 1943, has been managed in as near a natural condition as possible. The waters are extremely clean and productive. The shallow bay and river provide outstanding nursery sites for marine species; threatened species thrive here. Outdoor recreational use for hunting and fishing is established. We support the provision which assures that boat use may continue along navigable corridors, which is a legitimate local need. However, airboats should certainly be excluded from the wilderness area in the Refuge.

Mr. WATSON. About three key points. The first is the first paragraph. the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club does endorse H.R. 5422 and its inclusion of a portion of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge.

The second point is that Chassahowitzka apparently means pumpkin opening place in Seminole. The acreage recommendation, we support and endorse the acreage figure in the House resolution of about 16,900

96-921-73- -10