At our Annual State Convention, held at Morgantown, W.Va. June 10-11, 1967, Resolution #8 was adopted unanimously, which called for the preservation of Scenic Rivers in the mountain state. In July, 1967 we supported Resolution #2 at our National Convention held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin calling for the establishment of a National and State System of Scenic Rivers.

Then in January, 1968 we drafted and supported a resolution calling for a financed interim committee study by the West Virginia Legislature of Scenic Rivers in West Virginia. This resolution passed the West Virginia Legislature on February 3, 1968. This study has begun, and the committee will report back to the next general session of the Legislature in January, 1969 with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations and policy statements, together with drafts of any proposed legislation to carry its recommendations into effect.

The League believes our rivers should be classified into two classes. Class I, remote wild river areas which are on the verge of extinction in West Virginia. Class II, naturally wooded or pastoral river environment generally paralleled by a roadway.

Segments of some of our rivers such as the South Branch and its tributaries from Petersburg to the headwaters, the Shavers Fork from Parsons to the headwaters, the Greenbrier from Marlinton to Caldwell, and the Cranberry, totally from its mouth to its source, are in the boundaries of the Monongahela National Forest and should be considered for immediate action in a federal bill since there is no controversy existing concerning property rights. We feel the above named rivers in the National Forest should be in the "instant category" and consideration given them now for admittance to the National Scenic River System.

Other rivers which should be considered for classification and study are in the Cacapon, Shenandoah, Back Fork of Elk, Williams, the South Branch below Petersburg, Blackwater, Elk, Gauley, and Little Kanawha.

The League is aware of a minority opposed to Scenic Rivers in a small segment or area of West Virginia. We are in hopes that some arrangement or spirit of cooperation can be forthcoming in the Cacapon and Shenandoah Areas of West Virginia, and that the majority of land owners will support a workable plan. The League in West Virginia does not advocate the seizure of private lands but does feel the public should have access to public waters. When we hear someone voice opposition to a Scenic Rivers System, we wonder whose interest he or she represents. They are certainly not representing the public interest.

We know this does not represent the thinking and desires of the State of West Virginia, and we wonder if this truly represents the thinking in the Second District.

I have letters addressed to the chairman of this committee from mayors of our largest cities supporting a plan for Scenic Rivers, which I wish to enter into the record.

I also have a letter addressed to the chairman of this committee from State Senator Carl E. Gainer, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee in the West Virginia State Senate, and from Thomas Goodwin, Chairman of the SubCommittee on Natural Resources in the West Virginia House of Delegates, which supports the study and development of Scenic Rivers in West Virginia. Please make these a part of the record also.

May I say that the letters of support for Scenic Rivers in West Virginia and the Monongahela National Forest comes from all over the State of West Virginia-from the Greenbrier Valley to the Highlands from the coal fields in the southern part of the state to the population centers of the Kanawha and Ohio Valleys. We do not feel that a small, sparcely populated segment in Eastern West Virginia speaks for the State of West Virginia, but due to the nearness to our nation's Capitol, it is easier for many of them to be heard.

We want this committee to consider the wishes of all the people in the State of West Virginia.

The West Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League pledges all the support they can muster to establish a Scenic Rivers System in West Virginia. We will lend all the help and support we can to the West Virginia Legislative Interim Committee studying Scenic Rivers in West Virginia, and will aid in any way we can the committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

After years of participation and study into our river problems of this nation, the League concludes that only by classification, and protection can some of our few remaining streams be saved from total destruction. We whole-heartedly support a Scenic Rivers System in America, as well as West Virginia.

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for letting us appear here.

Mr. TAYLOR. You mentioned the Monongahela National Forest.
Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. What particular rivers are you wanting to refer to? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. I named them, sir, the Cranberry in toto; it is all in the Monongahela National Forest, and segments of the South Branch of the Potomac, segments of the Shavers Fork of Cheat, and segments of the Greenbrier, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. And you recommend those be placed in the study stage? Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions?

Mr. ASPINALL. I don't know what has happened to Cacapon and Black Water?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. In our statement, sir, we went further, sir, but because of time we didn't refer to it here.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman.

What does the league mean when they say they do not advocate the seizure of private lands, but do feel that the public should have access to public property? Are you saying no lands should be purchased?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. No, sir; we feel the land can be purchased, and that through zoning and easements-sir, I just believe there are people in this country that will sell access to these waters, to these public waters, and the public should have the right of access.

Mr. KYL. You are aware of the fact that in most of the areas the cost of acquiring easements now approximates the cost of purchasing the land?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. KYL. You are not advocating any reduction in expenditure here, what you are really saying is you don't want the Federal Government to use eminent domain to acquire the lands?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Sir, there are some critical locations where the Federal Government would perhaps have to use the eminent domain to get this land.

Mr. KYL. You really do believe in seizure of the lands?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. In certain areas.

Mr. KYL. There is one other thing. I think perhaps you go a little bit far when you say "when we hear someone advise opposition to a scenic river system we wonder who he or she represents. They are certainly not representing the public." This is a statement which presents trouble. If you present further testimony of this kind it would be advisable to leave out words of that kind. That is all.

Mr. ASPINALL. I have a question.

Do you believe a person's home is any more inviolate from invasion than the invasion of a person's other property? Do you think the public has a right to go over a person's property, a farm or a yard or whatever it may be?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. With permission, sir.

I think he should seek permission to do that.

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, if you get permission to do that all right. But as I understood you a while ago in answer to the first question it led me to believe that you thought the public should be just generally permitted to go over a person's farm.

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. No, just as our Nation's highways are routes of

transportation, I think our waterways should be avenues of recreation, and these are public waters and I say we should have just some access to them.

Mr. ASPINALL. You can get it by purchase or permission that is all, one or the other.

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. That is right.

Mr. ASPINALL. If you can't get it that way then you are not going to have it.

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. That is correct, sir.

Mr. McCLURE. You mentioned in here the classification among two classes?

Mr. KEITH TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLURE. What is your conception of the way in which a wild river would be managed, in connection with the control of usage of the property along the banks of the river?

Mr. LITTLE. Sir, you are speaking in the categories of the scenic rivers, of the scenic rivers as we would like to see them in West Virginia, wild rivers, we believe should be wild rivers. We feel that a designated zone adjacent to the waters should be preserved in their natural state as they are now. We believe if it is designated as a wild river it should be treated as a wild river.

Mr. MCCLURE. You would assume there is no cultivation or agricultural pursuit along that river?

Mr. LITTLE. Not a wild river, no, sir, and we have rivers that can qualify as this as their characteristics are right now.

Mr. McCLURE. I would assume you would not want any grazing or lumbering?

Mr. LITTLE. Not on a wild river, on a pastoral river such as a Shenandoah, and these we believe in as they are.

Mr. MCCLURE. Because everybody's terms of definition are different. Mr. LITTLE. This is true generally. We would like to see a scenic river system in the State of West Virginia, it will be set up on a wild river, based on under the broad scope of scenic rivers. It will be set up on a wild river, those that do qualify such as the Life magazine carried in the December issue on the Cheat, segments of the Cheat. We also have those like the pastoral and wooded natural rivers. We have all of these in West Virginia, now. I would like to ask- excuse me, sir.

Mr. MCCLURE. This would require, would it not, public ownership of that land?

Mr. LITTLE. This would require, and this is a good point, sir, because most of our wild river segments, most of this is in public lands. Now

Mr. MCCLURE. It would require public ownership, however, wouldn't it?

Mr. LITTLE. Yes, I say it is under public ownership now, the wild parts.

Mr. McCLURE. And there is a cost even though it is in public ownership, of devoting even public lands to a single purpose, there is some cost?

Mr. LITTLE. There is some cost, that is right, and the amount of the cost would be to what extent adjacent lands, to what degree you would like to keep or we would like to keep in a wild area and this, sir, would

have to be worked out with the U.S. Forest Service because they are the ones who manage the Monongahela National Forest.

Mr. MCCLURE. I appreciate that statement.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much.

We have five more witnesses, the House will go in session in a few minutes, but we will go along as we can.

The next witness will be Mr. Pomeroy, Chief Forester of the American Forestry Association. Mr. Pomeroy, we welcome you again before the committee.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. POMEROY, CHIEF FORESTER OF THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, may I submit my statement for the record?

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of any objection, your statement will be made a part of the record at this point.

Mr. POMEROY. The American Forestry Association is heartily in support of the basic philosophy expressed in H.R. 8416 and related proposals. We would like to offer three or four suggestions for your consideration. On page 3, line 1 of H.R. 8416, it is suggested that the phrase "or within de facto wilderness areas" be deleted. This, in effect, would tend to extend the wilderness area and the Wilderness Act which has already been passed by the Congress provides mechanisms for doing that.

On page 6, line 10, we would like to suggest addition of the Wolf River in Wisconsin, as a scenic river. We were attracted to the proposal as outlined in H.R. 6166, and we like what the State of Wisconsin is doing to try to protect this stream until Congress can act.

Mr. TAYLOR. Were you here the other day when a group from Wisconsin proposed adding the Wolf River?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. You agree with that?

Mr. POMEROY. I am personally acquainted with the Wolf having lived in that area several years ago.

Page 9, line 1, we suggest that the Missouri portion of the Eleven Point River be added for study.

On page 10, after line 25 we also suggest that the Smith River in California be added for study.

These are the main points we would like to suggest. (Statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:)

STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. POMEROY, CHIEF FORESTER OF THE AMERICAN

FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am Kenneth B. Pomeroy, Chief Forester of The American Forestry Association.

The American Forestry Association is heartily in support of the basic philosophy expressed in H.R. 8416 and related proposals for the establishment of a system of wild and scenic rivers. This legislation will have lasting benefit and in generations to come will be hailed as one of the milestones erected by the conservation Congresses of the 1960's.

Establishment of this system and administration of the program undoubtedly will encounter some complex problems. Therefore, it is suggested that initial

efforts be confined to rivers flowing through land that is owned in large degree by the Federal government. When a system of management is perfected, then other streams can be added to the program.

The following suggestions are offered for your consideration.

Page 3, line 1.—It is suggested that the phrase “or within de facto wilderness areas" be deleted. This provision would tend to expand the Wilderness System beyond the intent of the Wilderness Act. Any area that qualifies as Wilderness can be added to the System under the provisions of the Act.

Page 6, after line 10.-Add the Wolf River in Wisconsin as identified in H.R. 6166. We are attracted to this proposal to classify the Wolf as a Scenic River because of the steps taken by the State of Wisconsin to protect this beautiful stream. Also, I am personally acquainted with this river having fished in its waters during the years when I lived in Wisconsin.

Page 9, line 1.—We recommend study of the Missouri portion of the Eleven Point River. We can understand why people in Arkansas might not wish to have the downstream portion classified as a scenic river. But there are a number of people in Missouri who would like to have the portion of the river in their state so classified.

Page 10, after line 25.-Add Smith River in California for study. A portion of this fast-flowing stream might be a good scenic addition to the Redwood Scenic Highway being planned by the State of California.

Page 12, Section 6, regarding acquisition.-We urge that maximum efforts be made to control the scenic rivers system by means of easements and zoning ordinances. Title in fee should only be taken when other means fail.

Page 17, Section 9 regarding prospecting and mining.—We concur in the provisions of this Section,

Page 19, Section 10(a) regarding administration.-We concur in this Section as written. But we hope the legislative history of the Act will show that this Section pertains to multiple use of commercial forest lands and that timber harvesting, when done judiciously, is an accepted use of the lands. In most instances buffer zones along stream banks and selective cutting at greater distances will protect scenic values.

Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, Each of these points are with relation to H.R. 8416?

Mr. POMEROY. Right.

Mr. McCLURE. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. You were here, I believe, when the opposition was presented to the Missouri River section of Eleven Point?

Mr. POMEROY. The Arkansas; yes, sir. We appreciate the feeling of those people, and our recommendation here just pertains to the Missouri portion of the Eleven Point.

Mr. TAYLOR. What about the Arkansas portion; are you leaving that in, too?

Mr. POMEROY. It is all right with us if you leave it out. We merely are suggesting that the Missouri portion be studied.

Mr. TAYLOR. The main opposition was to the Arkansas portion? Mr. POMEROY. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any questions? The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. MCCLURE. You make a reference here to selective cutting. Do you think selective cutting could be done within some distance of the banks of these streams but I would take it you would be opposed to clear-cutting in the same areas?

Mr. POMEROY. About 30 years ago it was my responsibility to draft a program for preservation of road-side strips along the major highways in the Manistee National Forest, and it is my opinion that judicious cutting can be carried out and it is also necessary in a place where people are going to travel because of dead snags and other health hazards.