quacies of their own plans for recreation areas, that have led the Federation and other conservation groups to the belief that only a change in jurisdiction to the Park Service will accomplish the job that is needed in the scenic core of the North Cascades. We are willing to see other areas of the North Cascades receive protection in wilderness areas, even though this is not complete protection; but not the scenic core. The scenic core deserves the highest protection it can get, and that is in a National Park. For the reasons graphically and numerically stated in the above tables, it becomes plain why we believe either HR. 12139, or inclusion of S. 1321 together with the ten amendments we have proposed do the most complete job of protection. All of the bills and proposals are in our judgment, preferable to the present situation. The remainder of this statement will contain some figures and charts which may be of interest to the Committee, and which relate to the impact, as we see it, of these proposals upon development of potential ski sites and areas, opportunities for hunting, and the impact on the state's timber industry. We anticipate that it may be necessary at the future Washington, D.C. hearings on the subject to submit more detailed material on these points. IMPACT ON POTENTIAL SKI DEVELOPMENTS The charge is often made by those who have an economic interest in the development of potential ski sites that National Parks and Wilderness in the North Cascades are undesirable because they would "lock up" a great deal of opportunity for enjoyment of this sport. One interesting characteristic of this aspect of the North Cascades issue is that very few skiers, as compared with those who have an economic interest in ski areas, appear to oppose the legislation. A great many individuals are members of the conservation organizations favoring additional national parks and wilderness in the North Cascades; many of them are members of the Federation. The Seattle Mountaineers is the largest organization of skiers in the state of Washington, and yet at the same time have for the past decade been one of the strongest organizations supporting a national park in the North Cascades. Persons familiar with the North Cascades area are aware that, contrary to claims raised, few potential ski sites would be made unavailable for future development under any of the present proposals or amendments now before us. The only sites which would be rendered completely unavailable for development would be those included within a wilderness area; as this Committee knows, skiing, even mechanical skiing, is not forbidden in national parks. Table number 3 is a comparison of the total presently existing and potentially available sites for skiing development in the entire North Cascades area (the 7 million acres from White Pass north to the Canadian border defined as the "North Cascades" by the Federal Study Team), and then a further comparison more specifically related to the area north of Stevens Pass under question today. The table contains the numbers of potential sites for ski development which might be precluded by either establishment of national parks or wilderness areas in the area north of Stevens Pass. TABLE 3.-Existing and potential ski areas in the North Cascades; potential sites which might be excluded from development by North Cascades legislation 1. Total existing and potential ski sites 12 existing. in the North Cascades (White Pass 16 potential. 2. Total existing and potential ski sites 5 existing. 7 potential. 3. Potential sites possibly excluded by 5 (Meadow Mountain, Snow King, 4. Potential sites excluded by conser- 5 (Snow King, Colonial Peak, Swamp vationist proposed ten amend- Creek, Liberty Bell, Komo-Kulshan). ments. 5. Potential sites possibly excluded by 2 (Colonial Peak, Snow King). H.R. 8970, S. 1321, and H.R. 16252. Source: Forest Service booklet PA 525, "Skiing-The National Forest-America's Playgrounds," no date; Forest Service research paper INT-34 (1967), "Skiing Trends and Opportunities in the Western States"; and conversation, March 1968, with Mr. William Lenihan of Pacific Northwest Ski Instructors Association; newspaper article in Seattle Post Intelligencer, February 20, 1966. The above table graphically illustrates that few potential ski sites would be precluded from development by any of this legislation, particularly by S. 1321 or H.R. 8970 or H.R. 16252. None of the ski sites mentioned is close to major population centers which might be expected to use them if they were developed. This is one reason why there has been no ski development in much of this area up to the present time. There are many more sites available south of Stevens Pass, which are much closer to the population centers to be served. The attached map is submitted as a part of Table number 3, and refers to the sites by number: (1) Meadow Mountain; (2) Snow King; (3) Colonial Peak; (4) Swamp Creek; (5) Liberty Bell; (6) Komo Kulshan. It should be noted that Snow King is presently within the boundaries of the Glacier Peak Wilderness, and is not available for potential ski development in any case without a special act of Congress. Any of the legislative proposals now before this Committee would have some impact upon the timber industry, in that each of them will remove a certain amount of commercial timber now available for cutting, from cutting circles. However, we do not believe that it is accurate to imply, as some have done, that withdrawal of this timber, even under the maximum proposal, would cause great damage to the state or the regional, or even the local economy. It is our judgment that the loss of what would be withdrawn from timber cutting is far outweighed by the gain to be derived from permanent dedication and reservation. Table number 4 illustrates the relative proportions involved, and why we believe they are minimal. -10 TABLE 4 AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL TIMBER IN WASHINGTON, THE NORTH CASCADES; 1. Total commercial timber now available for cut ting in the State of Washington 2. Total timber available in 5 North Cascades counties (Okanogan, Chelan, Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish) (otal all ownerships 3. Total volume 3yithdrawn by HR.12139 4. Total volume withdrawn 5. Total volume withdrawn by HR.16252 6. Total volume withdrawn by HR.8970 7. Total volume withdrawn by S.1321 Foot Notes: (1) Source: Bonneville Power Administration Study of Forest Industry (2) Source: Testimony of W. D. Hagenstein, Industrial Forestry Association, It can be seen from this graph that the maximum proposal would affect about 1.3 percent of the total volume of available timber in the entire state, and all the others are proportionately less. Even the maximum proposal affects only about 8 per cent of the total commercial timber available in the entire region. Table number 5 illustrates the effect of the various proposals upon the annual allowable cut in the state of Washington. Source: State Department of Natural Resources, and No one questions the fact that any of the proposals now before us will have some impact upon the timber industry; but we feel that the above figures indicate that the impact will be quite a bit less than is sometimes stated.. Even the maximum proposal would result in a reduction of the annual cut less than the annual fluctuation. Because it is often stated, claimed, or somehow implied that the timber industry is the major industry in the North Cascades, it is instructive to take a close look at what the actual relative figures are. It is certainly a major industry, but by no means the only source of employment. The three counties most affected by any timber withdrawals would be the westside counties, that is Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom. The following table compares total employment with total wood products employment in the area. 1 Figures for Snohomish County do not include the tremendous growth in recent 2 years of the aircraft industry in the southern part of that county. An estimated total of upward of 19,000 jobs have been created during this period because of the expansion of the Boeing "747" plant facilities." Source: Table from State of Washington Employment Security Department, 1965. 98-524-68-pt. 1-10 One final table on the general subject of timber states the general decline of the timber industry insofar as employment is concerned, in the three counties most affected by North Cascades legislation. TABLE 7.-DECLINE IN TIMBER INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT IN WESTERN WASHINGTON It is hoped that this general information can be of some use to the Committee, and we are prepared to submit more detailed testimony on this subject at a later date. It should be kept in mind that the great timber producing areas in the state of Washington are not in the North Cascades, but rather on the Olympic Peninsula and in southwest Washington. OTHER ASPECTS Hunting-We have to present more detailed testimony in the near future on the subject of hunting, and the number of animals now killed in the prospective park areas which might be foregoing if a national park were created. According to conversations and correspondence between ourselves and the State Game Department, HR, 12139 would preclude the taking of approximately 800 deer by hunting, HR. 8970 would preclude approximately 600 to 750, and the area proposed for park status under the conservationists proposed ten amendments would preclude approximately 1,150 animals. S. 1321, as now amended, has kept the lower Stehekin valley still open to hunting. We understand that this is the area in the North Cascades where major hunting activity now takes place. This would presumably reduce the loss of animals killed by several hundred. It is important to note also that approximately 70,000 deer killed each year are killed in the state of Washington; even the maximum proposal would remove only a fraction of one percent from this total. Wilderness.-The statement is sometimes made that the legislative proposals would lock up this area for the sport of a privileged few, and deny many others their use. The Forest Service apparently only keeps fairly accurate data on visitor use in designated Wilderness or Primitive Areas, and not for general trail use in the North Cascades in other de facto wilderness areas. Many of these de facto wilderness areas are proposed for inclusion in the legislation now before us. Opponents of the North Cascades legislation have often cited the figure of 13,000 as reprsesenting the total number of people who actually "use" the wilderness in the North Cascades. The 13,000 figure is taken from the North Cascades Study Team Report, and represents only those people who, several years ago, actually signed trail registers in one of the two designated Wilderness or Primitive Areas in the region. Omitted from this figure were such categories as hiking and riding, gathering forest products, pursuing scientific studies, hunting, fishing. All of these uses include a good deal of "wilderness" use, in the sense that they are in roadless areas. We have calculated that the total figure of "wilderness" use should include many or most of the other categories also mentioned, and that the true approximation of demand for wilderness in the North Cascades is more on the order of some 700,000 persons, rather than the 13,000 cited in this report. Forest Service figures also indicate that wilderness use in the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area itself has doubled from 5,000 in 1960 to 10,000 in 1966. It is increasing at a rate faster than the increase in population in the Puget Sound area. 10,000 people in a three or four month season is still a lot of people. And as the logging and roading program of the Forest Service increases, persons seeking a back country experience are forced onto an ever smaller amount of land. It should also be noted that the North Cascades is not a howling wilderness, as is so often thought by many. The subject of the legislation deals essentially with the wilderness core of the area, but it must be remembered that most of |