Until such time as it is fully developed, they can't open up any of that refuge area that they have purchased with funds.

Senator NEUBERGER. But, after they have purchased them with duckstamp funds, they can open up a portion of the area to shooting; that is what I am trying to say.

Mr. LANGSLET. After they have fully developed it, and that is why we made no particular reference in this area up there on the marsh. We would just as soon, as sportsmen, if they acquire this other 105 square miles of refuge area, would just as soon see that in Forest Service hands. Then the birds would still have their nesting and we would still have some public shooting. After all, it is a moral obligation of the Fish and Wildlife, who are using our money, to provide us with some public shooting grounds instead of all refuges.

Senator NEUBERGER. You might have quite a discussion with the Audubon Society on that, Mr. Langslet. I am glad you and Mr. Reid have raised this question, and I want Mr. Sigler to get for us from the Department, if he will, a complete documentation on the regulations and rules and laws governing these refuges of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It has not been my understanding, and I might be a hundred percent wrong, that, where these refuges were developed for waterfowl nesting and breeding and propagation, they allowed shooting in those immediate areas.

Mr. LANGSLET. Yes; they can open up 25 percent of them, that I am positive of, after they are completely developed.

Senator NEUBERGER. I think what we had better do is get a ruling from the Department on it. Thank you very much, Mr. Langslet. I am glad you and Mr. Reid have raised this question, because I think it is very important.

Mr. Gamble has called to my attention the explanation of the marshland which is contained in the report of the Management Specialists. It is comparatively brief, and it might be useful just to have it included in the record at this point for purposes of information, and I will ask if Mr. Watters will provide us with that part of the report so that it may appear in the record at this particular point. (The excerpt is as follows:)

MARSH

Another reservation resource of considerable value is the marshland. The Klamath Marsh itself contains over 21,000 acres of tribally owned lands. Approximately 6,000 acres of this are classed as dry marsh, on which it is possible to graze large numbers of livestock during most grazing seasons. The balance of this area is classed as wet marsh and is too wet for grazing, except during the dryest of years.

In addition to the area contained in the large Klamath Marsh, there are small scattered parcels of tribally owned marshland which bring the total area of marsh to 23,286 acres.

Although much of the total area of marsh is suited to grazing, there are large areas that would need to be developed by ditching and draining in order to provide grazing throughout every grazing season.

Another use value for the wet marsh areas is as a nesting area for waterfowl and as a stopover point for waterfowl during their annual migrations. During the early autumn months the Klamath Marsh provides a resting place for literally millions of ducks, geese, and other migratory birds.

The appraised value of the undeveloped marsh areas range from approximately $25 per acre up to $50 or $60 per acre. The value of part of this area can be increased to as much as $200 per acre with a relatively small investment in the construction of dikes and drainage ditches.

98089-57-6

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Wolf has suggested that perhaps Mr. Wilcox could show us on the map just where is located the marsh and the timber and some of these other resources, and I wonder if he could do so.

STATEMENT OF EARLE WILCOX, FORESTER, MANAGEMENT

SPECIALISTS

Mr. WILCOX. My name is Earle Wilcox. I will start with the map on our left, which is a map of the Klamath Reservation showing in white the tribally owned lands, the lands that are covered by section 5 of Public Law 587. The red lands-they may appear pink-but they consist of both individually owned allotments and fee patented lands. They are nontribal and they are not covered by the provisions of section 5 of Public Law 587. Över here is what might be termed a land classification map, somewhat smaller scale. This shows the land classifications as of 1954, the year that the law was passed. In this in dark green is shown the cutover timberland, the saw timber that has been cut over. There were some 580,000 acres as of that date. Correction: there were some 540,000 acres as of that date. In brown, scattered throughout the saw timber stands, are the lodgepole pine stands on the reservation. That lodgepole pine is now considered commercially valuable for pulpwood. Since the development of the Johns-Mansville plant on the reservation, it makes that commercially usable. The red areas are the virgin timber or uncut saw timber stands as of 1954. There have been approximately 20,000 acres cut since that time.

We have some overlays. The white areas are open or marsh. Now, the Klamath Marsh which you have been discussing lies in this area here and a portion up in here. It is divided roughly into two types of marsh: the wet type marsh that remains wet throughout most years some years it will dry up-and the so-called dry marsh which normally will dry off during the latter part of the season, and you have excellent grazing during that period.

This blue area in here normally is wet throughout the year. There is some 16,000 acres owned by the tribe. I believe it is around 15,000 acres owned by the tribe of wet marsh up in here. In here is an area of what is classed as dry marsh in which we have excellent grazing during the latter part of the season. This area to the right is privately owned. It is an area of approximately 85,000 acres, I believe, that is owned at the present time by the Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. It is predominently forest area.

Then we have some overlays. I doubt if you can pick out the details too much, but this shows your marshland. The white on the overlay is your saw-timber species. In this green shows your range types. This white consists of the timbered grazing. This is marsh grazing and the speckled insignia consists of your open-type grazing.

Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Wilcox, let me ask you one question. Supposing we are unable to pass legislation for Federal purchase. What would happen to the marsh?

Mr. WILCOX. Under the plan of management developed for the remaining members, there are some 7,000 acres which would be re

served for management for the remaining members. The balance of it would be sold.

Senator NEUBERGER. And then what would happen to it if it were sold? Would it be used for private hunting lodges and preserves? Would any of it be drained for agricultural purposes? What would happen to it, in your opinion as a professional forester?

Mr. WILCOX. I have actually arrived at no opinion as to how that would go. Actually, we would be required to sell it for the highest price obtainable. If the Fish and Wildlife Service were able to meet the high bid, it might possibly be sold to them.

Senator NEUBERGER. I am presupposing in my question that we would fail to secure the funds and authorization for Federal purchase, and part of the bill, as you know, which we are discussing is for the Forest Service to take over the timberlands and the Fish and Wildlife Service to take over the marsh. If our bill fails, I am just interested to have on the record from you as the trained forester employed by the Management Specialists, what you think would be the fate of the marsh. In other words, there are now thousands of birds that travel the flyway, migrating between Canada, the Canadian Arctic, and the tropics, which nest on that marsh. What would happen to the marsh if the Federal acquisition failed? Its fate, physical fate, is what I am trying to get from you.

Mr. WILCOX. There is a strong possibility that portions of the marsh at least would be drained and that it would be used for grazing. It would be sold to private owners.

Senator NEUBERGER. Because in that way it would have the maximum commercial value to add to the price which would be received by the Indians?

Mr. WILCOX. That is right.

Senator NEUBERGER. And then, in other words, its value to the birds traveling the flyway would be completely gone and their fate certainly, to some degree at least, would be jeopardized. Do you think that is right or wrong to make that conclusion?

Mr. WILCOX. That is my own opinion; yes, sir.

Mr. WOLF. Senator Neuberger, you might notice that if you look at this red area which is the patent fee and the trust allotted portion, that it covers all the marsh practically to this blue area, to the wet area, so you already have quite a bit of these open areas already in trust allotted or patented fee status.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Wilcox, very much. Do you have any more maps?

Mr. WILCOX. This overlay shows the relationship of farmlands, irrigated lands, irrigable lands, and so forth. The white, of course, is your open range and your timber types. The blue diagonal lines are areas which are already irrigated. The red diagonal lines such as here are classed as irrigable. That includes the wet marsh. The lines that are diagonal from the north west to southeast are dry farmlands, and the crosshatch are dry farm and irrigable. That is, they are presently dry farmlands but they are irrigable.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much for your very useful and valuable presentation. The next witness is Mr. O. K. Puckett, of Puckett & Scherer, Klamath Falls lumber manufacturers. Mr. Puckett, we are happy to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF 0. K. PUCKETT, REPRESENTING PUCKETT & SCHERER

Mr. PUCKETT. I would like to submit to you some ideas we have on the Klamath Indian termination program. It is certainly not our desire to tell the Klamath Indians how their property should be liquidated. Personally, we would like to see the Indians maintain their land and property, if at all possible, or at least those desiring to take their equity in property and timberland. We see no reason to throw any more additional expense on the Klamath Indian Tribe than is absolutely necessary.

We would be very happy to see the State or counties buy from the Indians what property they do not wish to hold, in order to pay a portion of the Indians off in cash, providing it could be handled under the Bureau of Land Management. We feel the Bureau of Land Management has an excellent plan and is bound by the O. and C. Act of 1937 to sell or offer for sale the allowable cut for each district on a sustained-yield basis. We would not object to the Federal Government buying part or all of the Klamath Indian Reservation if it could be handled on a sustained-yield basis by the Bureau of Land Management, since both the Klamath Indian Reservation and the Bureau of Land Management are under the Department of the Interior.

We are not in favor of a Federal purchase leaving the Klamath Indian Reservation in the hands of the United States national forest. We feel that the working circles are handled completely within their own organization and not governed by law, and the amount of timber put up is somewhat determined by their manpower. We feel that the foresters in the woods are so bound by regulations that they are handicapped to make decisions that should be made in the field. We feel that the road program, payment program, and scaling rules make it very hard for a small operator to operate on national-forest land. We prefer to buy on a cruise basis, and feel this is very fair and a great saving in manpower.

Considering the economy of our local community, our mills are forced to buy timber in California or wherever they can go, or are compelled to shut down. There are so few Forest Service sales; and, when sold at auction, companies are forced to pay far above reasonable market prices. We feel the Forest Service in the Rogue River and Umpqua National Forests have hardly scratched the surface on an immense quantity of timber that is overripe and should be harvested to allow the new growth to take over.

We appreciate this opportunity to express our ideas on this subject, as we are deeply interested in the land and timber on the Klamath Indian Reservation.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Puckett. Mr. Wolf has some questions and then I have some questions. I think I may say to you that you realize that your advocacy is somewhat at variance with the terms of my bill; so our interest is somewhat aroused or stirred, you might say, because, as you know, S. 2047 recommends that the timber purchased by the Federal Government from the Indians be administered by the United States Forest Service. You favor the Bureau of Land Management very obviously, from your statement. Do you want to ask some questions, Mr. Wolf?

Mr. WOLF. Yes; I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask. I wonder how much timber do you buy from the Bureau of Land Management annually?

Mr. PUCKETT. Oh, in board-feet I hardly know, but somewhere between a half million, million a year. That is for the last couple years. Mr. WOLF. Roughly, what percentage of what you buy is Bureau of Land Management?

Mr. PUCKETT. Oh, probably two-thirds.

Mr. WOLF. Two-thirds. Do you buy any from the Forest Service?
Mr. PUCKETT. We have a contract at present.

Senator NEUBERGER. Is that on the Fremont or the Rogue River?
Mr. PUCKETT. Rogue River and the Umpqua.

Mr. WOLF. It is your feeling, though, that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management both sell their timber differently? Mr. PUCKETT. Oh, they do, definitely.

Mr. WOLF. The Forest Service fails to put up the allowable cut and the Bureau of Land Management does put up the allowable cut. Was that your point?

Mr. PUCKETT. The Bureau of Land Management has an allowable cut and an allowable cut under the O. and C. Act of 1937 that they are forced by law to put up each and every year to the public. The Forest Service can sell as much as they want to or cut it as short as they want to any year they desire.

Mr. WOLF. I think, Mr. Puckett, that the O. and C. Act only requires that up to 500 million feet be cut for a certain period and then they could raise the allowable cut and they couldn't exceed their allowable cut, but they are not forced to put it on the market.

Mr. PUCKETT. That is right; they can't exceed their allowable cut. Mr. WOLF. But they are not forced to put it on the market. Mr. PUCKETT. By law of 1937 they have to offer as near as possible the allowable cut for sale.

Mr. WOLF. Well, I don't think we ought to debate it, but I do think you ought to check it because I am not at all sure that is right. Mr. PUCKETT. I did just this morning.

Senator NEUBERGER. I would just say that the Chair will order that at this point we will have provided the effective portions of both the Forest Service regulations and the law and Bureau of Land Management governing timber cuts and inventories and allowable cuts, and we will have those included in the record at this point when the hearings are produced.

(The following information was subsequently submitted:)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,
United States Senate.

FOREST SERVICE, Washington, D. C., October 31, 1957.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Mr. Wolf of your subcommittee staff has called our attention to your desire for a copy of the laws and regulations in respect to timber cutting and sustained-yield management for insertion in the hearing record on the Klamath Falls Indian Reservation. Enclosed is a copy of section 476 of title 16 of the United States Code. This is based on the act of June 24, 1897, which is the basic legislation under which the timber management activities of the Forest Service are conducted. Also enclosed is a copy of the portion of Regulation S-3 (36 C. F. R. 221.3) which covers the subject of preparation of sustained-yield management plans.