have such low potential for growing timber. Whereupon, thousands upon thousands of acres throughout the United States that have a much higher potential for timber growing lie fallow and neglected. One can only conclude that building roads in such marginal country, without a reasonable prospect of breaking even, is a form of industrious stupidity.

Because of an almost infinite amount of so-called round wood volumes existing outside the boundary area with roads already built to it, I will not labor the subject, except to say that there appears nowhere on the horizon a market for the most of it.

Next is the most crucial subject of wildlife. In pamphlet No. 2, quote, "No reliable figures are available for wildlife population." Does it not follow a reasonable pattern of logical thought that if we don't know about the wildlife before we build a vast expensive system of road, that may be detrimental to the wildlife resource, that perhaps we should know more about the consequences. In a statement made by Harry R. Woodward, director of Colorado Game and Fish Department (1966), Mr. Woodward had this to say:

Ecologically speaking, American elk is classified as a wilderness species, which means that wilderness is essential to the survival of this species in the wild state. Our records indicate that most of the elk harvested are reared in these remote, restricted areas. It is apparent that isolation, coupled with good food conditions, has materially contributed to the high productivity of the Colorado elk herds. There is no doubt that the primitive areas have been a major contributing factor to the well-being of this herd.

The same thing is unquestionably true to the much greater degree with the grizzly bear. This endangered animal demands isolation, and because of the absence of garbage cans in the Lincoln back country the incidence of grizzlies attacking people and their own consequential destruction remains almost negative in occurrence. Yet, the Forest Service casually dismisses the grizzly by saying, "No reliable estimates exist of the number of grizzly in the area nor of the relative importance of this part of their range." And again "Special effort will need to be made to protect the grizzly." "The truth is, if this road is built, a hell of a lot of grizzly will get protection with a magnum rifle in the hands of some governmental employee attempting to guard campgrounds.

The pamphlets offer no evidence that the wildlife resources have received consideration commensurate with roads and timber cutting and references to the existence of a wildlife community, including several endangered species, is not a satisfactory substitute for precise plans for their perpetuation.

The same is true with the existing fisheries. To quote the pamphlets again, "Many streams were severely damaged in the 1964 floods and will require many years of extensive rehabilitation measures for recovery." Here the U.S. Forest Service appears to have borrowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers scare tactics of floods and flood damage. I am happy to report that very little evidence of the 1964 flood is now noticeable. The 4-year period since the flood, a force so much more careful and ingenious in its rehabilitation abilities has been at work on the streams. That force is called nature and her experience and ability to repair her own damage is as old as this planet.

For the U.S. Forest Service to suggest that it can improve on the beautiful clear streams of the back country or that after they have built their roads and logged, that the streams will then be in better shape, is an insult to the intelligence of those of us who have seen the North Fork of the Blackfoot and its Lake Creek tributary. Furthermore, there is again no evidence offered as to the cost envisioned in the proposed stream rehabilitation program and just where the money to undertake such a questionable job is coming from.

On water again I quote from the pamphlet, "No watershed management or rehabilitation measures have so far been undertaken although a considerable potential for improving stream conditions exists." There exists outside the boundary area many miles of streams that were subject to the same flooding. What has the U.S. Forest Service done for these areas and at what cost? I suggest that to turn the Forest Service loose along with the loggers would cause destruction and deterioration to the stream that would make the 1964 flood damage pale in comparison.

On the subject of recreation the pamphlet states, "The resulting back country recreation, including hunting and fishing, is enjoyed by those people who have the leisure time and physical and financial resources to traverse the area by foot or horseback." Does the Forest Service cast some sinister shadow upon those who have the leisure time and physical and financial resources to use the area?

This past summer, four friends and I spent 5 days in the back country. I am referring to you as friends.

Senator METCALF. Referring to my executive secretary, Mr. Reinemer.

Mr. GARLAND. Yes; and three more. Our food bill for the whole 5 days was less than $8 per person, and our equipment was backpacks and one old yellow mare worth about $85, canner price. I cannot conceive of a less expensive vacation, or one of higher quality. I hope I am borne out here. It should be brought out at this time that-Porter, would you hold this map up for me, please?

It should at this time be brought out that the potential for camping sites one may drive to outside the proposed boundary area are varied and many. We have prepared a map showing those sites, already close to roads, that have not been developed. These sites would be equal in quality to those inside the boundary, assuming that logging and access roads were built into the boundary.

There is a minimum of 32 sites

Senator METCALF. Would you explain, or are you going to explain the markings on the map?

Mr. GARLAND. I would like to if I may, sir.

Senator METCALF. Would you do it now rather than later?

Mr. GARLAND. All right. The large black squares represent existing campgrounds already built, either by Forest Service or private people. As I said, I was a campgrounds foreman and laid out campgrounds and built them and know the area intimately well. I put the areas as the bare minimum of sites that could be developed that would be equal to those inside the Lincoln-Scapegoat area, assuming the roads were built there. This doesn't include Bureau of Land Management lands.

Senator METCALF. What are the stars?

Mr. GARLAND. The stars are fishing access sites by the Montana Fish and Game Department on Bureau of Land Management lands. Senator METCALF. Are you through with the map?

Mr. GARLAND. Yes.

Senator METCALF. Would you put it up so the audience might see it. Mr. GARLAND. The opportunity also exists outside the Lincoln-Scapegoat boundary area, near Lincoln, for ski developments. Here again, the choice is wide. These sites are Copper Creek off Red Mountain; Arrastra Peak, Stonewall Mountain; Lewis and Clark Pass, Crater Mountain; and the Caddotte-Rodgers Pass area. We don't have a shortage of snow up there.

Also, under so-called recreation, in the recent past there has been a rapid increase in the use of motor scooters and snowmobiles. It occurred to me that the U.S. Forest Service has sunk to a new low in its effort to drum up opposition to wilderness classification for the area. It so happens that I sell and service snowmobiles. My family likes to use and ride them, and they are a lot of fun. They are also noisy to the point of being deafening and they smell of gasoline, oil, and hot motor belts. However, the scooter people and we snowmobile people are not being deprived use of the National Forest because of the LincolnScapegoat wilderness addition. There are 4,291 miles of roads on the three national forests adjacent to the proposed wilderness area, with 3,818 miles proposed to be built. This is enough to go across the U United States several times. And there is a total of 3,644 miles of trail in the three forests, excluding the trails inside the wilderness areas. Do the scooter and we snowmobile people really need more?

Furthermore, on recreation, "The drive would provide many scenic vistas and viewpoints of the surrounding mountain," and in the very next paragraph, pamphlet No. 1 states, "In the lower timber country other temporary spur roads would permit logging where this could be managed or modified so that scenic and other recreational values along the drive would not be impaired." These two statements reach an obsolute apex in absurdity. By what miraculous feat of engineering is it possible to drive to the higher scenic vistas and look over the narrow valleys below without having to view clear cut logging with its associated roads and earth scarred erosion, and the giant cuts and fills necessary to build a major road throughout the back country? The Forest Service must consider us to be very stupid indeed, or at least hope that we will not notice the destruction to the esthetic values until it is done.

In its pamphlets, the U.S. Forest Service also mentions mining potential for the area. "We have no firm information on possible mineral development within the area. To those within the mining industry who will proclaim that every place on this planet is a potential mine, I cannot argue. However, how many places on this planet can now qualify as a true wilderness area? Please be reminded that miners and all of us alike must share this planet and what kind of a world that will be is up to all of us.

Again I quote, "The rural area around Lincoln is experiencing rapid growth-partly from increasing recreation use, but more importantly as a result of a mining activity." In a recent announcement by the Anaconda Co., they indicate that the Heddelston mining district near Lincoln is being held in reserve for the future.

Yet, our wilderness area is not in reserve, but is actively supporting our economy. Do away with our wilderness, and you will remove forever another element of diversification so vital to our being a wellrounded community. Without our wilderness and wildlife, we are at the mercy of the ups and downs of both the lumbering and mining industries, and the accompanying labor strikes and disputes that have plagued both Butte and Anaconda.

Lincoln is already a jumping-off place for the back country. Does the Forest Service believe that a road which bypasses Lincoln from Great Falls to Missoula and destroys our wilderness area will be in our best interest? Commonsense must tell all of us that a feeder line from the main road would not be a true recreation road, or that people would be attracted off the main road to travel to Lincoln.

No, the U.S. Forest Service does not have Lincoln's best interest as a primary consideration, but its own welfare and its own empire building scheme is its first concern. What has gone wrong? Why does the Forest Service continue to press its case in the face of so much reason and opposition?

The answers are perhaps quite simple. It has been said that it is inherent with mankind that that which we are given to manage we come to assume we own. The managers of our national forest have come to look upon the resources as their own. There reaches a stage in the evolution of every bureaucracy when the promotion and building of the agencies itself takes precedent over the values it has been given to manage. So it is that the issue today, more than any other single factor, is whether we, the people, shall have a voice in the broad use of public lands.

In my long fight for the Lincoln-Scapegoat wilderness area, many more values have been opened up for my understanding. May I share with you a part of the understanding I have gained.

There is a tremendous problem facing the people of the world today and it will grow increasingly worse as time passes. It can be best expressed in a small news clipping I carry with me. It says, "This technology we enjoy today is little else but a widespread suicidal pollution. It is a blight affecting not only the air we breathe and the water we drink, but also the land we till and the outer space we hardly know," Oceanographer Dr. Jacques Picard, is quoted as saying he doubts man will survive the 21st century.

I cannot read this small warning without one other quotation coming to mind one that I did not understand for a long time, and that is, "In wilderness is the preservation of the world."

Left to its own devices, the Lincoln-Scapegoat wilderness will contribute to the survival of another endangered species-one called

man.

Th Lincoln-Scapegoat wilderness will continue to provide fresh, clean streams flowing into our valley. A small portion of the earth's air will be cleansed as it passes over it and there will be no pollution added to it. There will be space, a commodity becoming even more dear to this country. And there will be wildlife to see and study and to know.

I hope there will always be a place called Sourdough with mule deer in it, a Meadow Creek with trout, and East Fork with beaver, Scotty Creek with grizzly, a Scapegoat with goats on it, a Middle Fork with mountain lions, and the angry, lovesick bugle of the bull elk may be heard above Ringeye. Montanans, when it is gone you will miss it.

Senators, I most respectfully urge the speedy passage of S. 1121 to make the Lincoln-Scapegoat wilderness a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you for your very interesting statement. Have you any questions?

Senator METCALF. Senator Burdick, obviously Mr. Garland is very familiar with the area, and obviously this is the kind of testimony that we need to discuss and take back to Washington with us. In view of the fact that he did discuss erosion and fragility of the soil, I would like to have a letter from Mr. Christopher Schmidt, professor of the department of geology of Indiana University, which discusses fragility and the special and unique characteristics of this soil you mention, printed at this point. It calls attention to the fact that there is a high erosion potentiality in the area. You have been through and over it, and back and forth across it. You have been in other areas in the National Forest in the State of Montana. Do you agree with Mr. Smith that this has a special, thin soil that has high potentialities for erosion?

Mr. GARLAND. Precisely so, sir. This can be established beyond any question at all.

Senator METCALF. I would like to have this go in the record right after this statement.

Senator BURDICK. It is so ordered.

(The letter referred to follows:)

INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY,

Bloomington, Ind., September 19, 1968.

Senator MIKE MANSFIELD,

Care of Judge Nelson,
Cascade County Court House,

Great Falls, Mont.

DEAR SENATOR MANSFIELD: As a geologist, sportsman, and Montana resident, I wish to join the plea for the preservation of the Lincoln Back Country-Scapegoat Mountain area in its wilderness state.

Until recently my acquaintance with this area was only through an occasional hunting trip. With the proposal of developing the Northern Lincoln Back Country for recreation and timber harvest, I have undertaken a study to acquaint myself with various aspects of the geology of the area, particularly soil conditions and stream gradients.

The tendency to overlook erosion potentialities through the stages of location and construction of roads is a serious problem, and comparatively little has been done to control soil washing along present Forest Service roads. Fills wash away as a result of gullying and sheet washing. Such man-induced changes hasten the flow of rainfall to the nearest drainage, to overload streams and to accentuate the flood hazard. The quality of the water itself is highly important to fish. The best game fish can live only in clear, cool water, practically free of silt or other pollutants. For fish (particularly the native cutthroat trout), silt is the most deadly of erosion products; it buries their eggs, clogs the gills of their young, and by occluding light, destroys acquatic vegetation and the plankton on which they ultimately depend for food. Fish inevitably disappear from a stream or pond well before the deposition of debris and the obliteration of the channel cause their actual physical destruction.

I have undertaken a study of geologic and topographic maps, and Geological Survey Reports, and in view of the shallow nature of the ponds in the area, comparatively slight stream gradients, and the thin, predominantly limestonederived soil cover, there seems to me to be a potential silting problem that could result from casually planned roads. A road system in the vicinity of the East Fork of the Blackfoot River or Lake Creek, where stream gradients are quite low, and where morainal and outwash plain deposits form stream channels, could very easily produce just such a problem. In short, the potential danger of a system of roads, or even a single road, into the Lincoln wilderness area is enough to warrant a very careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of such a road or roads.

I do not wish to imply that a single road will produce the demise of the trout and those species that ultimately depend on fish for food. Most of the other