[Senate Hearing 108-68]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-68
WILD SKY WILDERNESS ACT; LAND IN DOUGLAS COUNTY, OR; CAMPS ON THE
SALMON RIVER; CIBOLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND ALASKA NATIVE
VILLAGE CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 391 S. 1003
S. 714 H.R. 417
S. 924
__________
JUNE 4, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
88-398 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairmaa
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri EVAN BAYH, Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Kira Finkler, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 6
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Heckert, Mark, President, Washington Wildlife Federation,
Olympia, WA.................................................... 23
Hughes, Jim, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 10
Husmann, Member, Snohomish County Washington Farm Bureau......... 34
Larsen, Hon. Rick, U.S. Representative from Washington........... 6
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 2
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington................. 3
Postema, John, Local Businessman, Snohomish, WA.................. 25
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 77
Town, Mike, Friends of the Wild Sky.............................. 18
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 49
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
WILD SKY WILDERNESS ACT; LAND IN DOUGLAS COUNTY, OR; CAMPS ON THE
SALMON RIVER; CIBOLA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND ALASKA NATIVE
VILLAGE CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources will be convened.
I want to thank all of you for coming to the hearing today.
I would like to recognize, not yet present, but I trust him to
be present, my ranking colleague, Ron Wyden, but I especially
want to welcome Senator Patty Murray, who is here to testify in
support of S. 391, the Wild Sky Wilderness bill. She and
Senator Cantwell have worked very hard to get this bill passed.
Senator Murray, welcome. We look forward to your testimony
this morning. Welcome to each of the witnesses who have
traveled here to Washington, D.C. to testify on S. 391, and
finally, I'd like to welcome Mark Rey, the Under Secretary of
Agriculture, Deputy Director of the BLM, Jim Hughes. It's nice
to see you both this morning. Welcome to the committee.
We are taking up several bills that we dealt with last year
that I hope we can work through quickly. S. 924, Senator
Murkowski's--how do you pronounce that?--Newtok Islands
exchange, and S. 714, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith's Douglas
County, Oregon conveyance bill were marked up in the past in
this committee. They were noncontroversial. We would hope to
move them out quickly. H.R. 417 is designed to correct a
boundary mistake that was made probably 40 years ago. It is my
hope that we can expedite consideration of these bills.
S. 1003 is legislation that I introduced to remove an
ambiguity regarding the intent of the Central Idaho Wilderness
Act of 1980 to provide a continuation of a historic use of our
outfitter hunting camps on the Snake River. In short, these
camps were established well before the river designation, and
they have been managed as part of the river designation for 23
years.
These camps allow the elderly and the physically challenged
to have access to and enjoy the spirit of this wild area. The
rustic nature of these camps upholds the ideals envisioned by
Congress, and they are used in accordance with all provisions
of the law. We have numerous letters of support from a variety
of interests supporting the clarification as proposed by the
legislation, and those letters will become a part of our
committee record.
Now I want to quickly discuss S. 391. Last year it came to
light that several of the parcels proposed in wilderness, in S.
391, contained concrete and log stringer bridges. The
structures have the potential to fall into fish-bearing streams
within the proposed wilderness. Our staff worked last year to
cherry-stem some of these bridges out of the wilderness area,
and I say our staff collectively, Senator Murray's staff, ours,
the committee's staff, Senator Cantwell's staff. Over the
winter, additional information became available on an
additional concrete bridge on a decommissioned road within the
proposed wilderness. In April, we found out there are eight
more log stringer bridges within the proposed wilderness
boundary. Seven of these bridges have already failed.
Further, there appears to be as many as 90 culverts,
ranging in size from 18 inches to 10 feet in diameter that will
be abandoned within the wilderness boundary, along with the 28
logging roads to be included in the wilderness. I want to
discuss how to address the possibility that these bridges or
culverts could fail, causing potential damage to critical
fisheries' habitats.
In my mind, we are fooling ourselves if we think these
culverts and bridges will function as originally designed
forever. Once we designate the area wilderness, it becomes very
difficult, if not impossible, to complete maintenance on these
structures. It would seem that we guarantee future damage to
important fisheries. If that happens, it will be a little late
for Congress to approve a waiver to allow mechanized equipment
to enter the wilderness to repair the damage.
We have, in certain instances in the past, allowed
mechanized equipment within wilderness areas for a moment in
time to do repair work, and I'd like to work with you, Senator
Murray, to see if we can't create an exception here specific to
a potential problem that might occur. I know that between our
staff and the Forest Service we can find the acceptable
solution, I would hope, to this possible problem, so I wanted
to make that a part of the record as we work our way through
this, but I don't see that as a problem.
With that, let me turn to my colleague, the Senator from
the State of Washington, Senator Patty Murray. Senator, welcome
before the committee.
[A prepared statement from Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today.
I would like to make a brief statement about my legislation that
would authorize a land exchange between the federal government and a
small community in the southwestern part of my State of Alaska.
Newtok, a Village with about 300 Yupik Alaska Native residents, is
located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta near the Ninglick River. Erosion
from the Ninglick is slowly threatening Newtok, and the Village will be
under water in less than a decade and the Village airstrip in less
time. Once the Village airstrip--Newtok's only connection with outside
world--is flooded, the Village will not be able to survive.
This Village is surrounded by land owned by the federal government
in the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge. In 1997, the Newtok Native
Corporation attempted to exchange land on higher ground with the Fish
and Wildlife Service, administratively, but those negotiations failed.
Therefore, action by Congress is required to ensure the future of
Newtok and its residents.
My legislation would begin the process of moving Newtok to a
location that is not threatened by erosion or flooding. The Newtok
Native Corporation has identified a 10,943 acre tract of land on Nelson
Island for the location of the new Village. Newtok Native Corporation
is willing to accept this land in the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge from
the Fish and Wildlife Service in exchange for a 996 acre piece of land
on Baird Inlet Island and another 11,105 acre plot northeast of the
present location of Newtok.
The Fish and Wildlife Service desires the Newtok owned land for
ecological reasons and Newtok needs the federal land because of its
geology keeps it safe from erosion. Both parties will benefit from this
exchange; the federal government improves the Yukon Delta Wildlife
Refuge for the benefit of the American people, and villagers of Newtok
have the opportunity to move to a safe location and see that their
culture and community endure.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
really appreciate you including the Wild Sky Wilderness Act as
part of your hearing today.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Area will protect wildlife and
promote clean water, enhance and protect recreational
opportunities, reflect the diverse landscapes of the Puget
Sound Region, and contribute to the local economy. Mr.
Chairman, this has really been a team effort with many
partners, and I want to thank Senator Cantwell as well. She
will be here, I know, in a little while. She is a strong
supporter of this bill, and I really appreciate all of her
assistance.
I especially want to acknowledge my colleague and partner
in this bill, Congressman Rick Larsen. Rick has really reached
out to the local communities there to understand their
priorities.
The bill before you today is a result of over 3 years of
discussion and negotiation with the local community, Longview
Fiber, the Washington State Snowmobile Association, the Wild
Washington Campaign, the Back Country Horsemen, the Seaplane
Pilots Association, Washington Coalition of Citizens with
Disabilities, Chelan County Public Utility District, and many
others.
My colleagues and I have worked very hard to address every
single constructive and timely concern that's been brought to
us, and I think you'll see that because we worked so hard to
address those concerns this bill has very broad support.
Working with the local and State snowmobile groups, we excluded
large sections of land they identified as important riding
areas.
Snohomish County came to us with concerns about emergency
communication capabilities. We've addressed that in this
legislation. At the Index meeting, local town, local resident
Bob Hubbard expressed concerns at a section of 700-year-old
trees that had been left out, and we added those 400 acres. We
also worked with the Forest Service on various boundary road
and management issues, and lastly we adjusted the proposed
boundary just prior to Senate passage last year to accommodate
the bipartisan concerns of the committee staff.
There are many more examples of the significant
collaborative process, and the bill is better as a result. I'm
really grateful to everyone who has reached out to us and
worked with us.
I want to stress how long my colleagues and I have been
working on this issue, and how much of it has been in the
public spotlight. In June 2001, I took a trip through the area
with Congressman Larsen, some local elected officials, and some
residents. Since that time, this issue has received significant
coverage in local papers. It has been the subject of editorials
and letters to the editor, and we've also held many public
meetings. Again, all of this attention has helped, we find, in
improving the legislation, when those with specific concerns
and ideas have come to us.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few letters from groups and
individuals that I would like to submit for the record and the
committee's consideration. They are letters of support from the
Back Country Horsemen of Washington, the Seaplane Pilots
Association, the Washington Coalition of Citizens With
Disabilities, John Leary of the Wild Washington Campaign, a
group of 19 State, county, and local election officials from
the Snohomish area, Snohomish County Councilman Kirke Sievers,
and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel.
Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on an
apparent misunderstanding of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Some
people make the claim that any lands once touched or currently
marked by human touch should not be included in designated
areas. This purity theory has been debunked for decades,
starting with congressional members who contributed to the
creation and passage of the original act. My own State's great
Senator, Scoop Jackson, once noted that this ``false so-called
purity theory threatens the strength and broad application of
the Wilderness Act.'' Furthermore, there are many examples of
designated wilderness areas that include roads and culverts,
houses and other structures. The recent 2000 Virginia
Wilderness Act, passed in July, includes lands harvested as
recently as 1945. The legislative history of the 1964
Wilderness Act and subsequent designations clearly demonstrates
the intended inclusion in wilderness of lands that have signs
of human impact.
Now I would like to mention just a few benefits of the Wild
Sky Wilderness Area. First, this wilderness area will protect
wildlife and promote clean water by preserving the landscapes
that host many native plants and animals. The wilderness is
especially critical to threatened species of salmon, steelhead,
and trout, which are found in the North Fork Skykomish and
Skykomish Rivers and the many creeks that feed into them.
At a time when we are asking so much of our private
landowners in our work to recover wild fish runs, I've always
believed that the Federal Government must do everything
possible on its own land to achieve those goals.
Secondly, this wilderness designation will enhance and
protect recreational opportunities for our growing region. More
people and more families are turning to outdoor recreation on
our public lands. The bill protects the area for today's users,
and also seeks to open up new areas for climbers, hikers,
hunters, and anglers.
Specifically, the bill directs the Forest Service to work
with the public to develop new trails in and around the
wilderness to expand public access to this remarkable
landscape. That leads me to the third benefit of this bill.
Wilderness will contribute to the local economy. Even during
the bad economy of the last several years, the outdoor industry
retail sales have actually increased. That means more people
are getting out more often into our wildlands and the gateway
communities that serve them. People looking for easy and quick
access to nature in its purest form will see the Wild Sky as a
destination. The recreational economy appears to have grown
even in difficult times, and I hope this bill will help improve
the economies of these gateway communities.
Another driving purpose behind the bill is the inclusion of
low elevation lands in Washington State wilderness. Lowland
areas in some of our current wilderness in the Cascades make up
only around 6 percent of the designated lands. This proposal is
made up of around 30 percent lowland areas, and brings in
important salmon areas into our wilderness system. These lands
are a central component of the proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge all of the
witnesses who have come a long way here from Washington State
to provide testimony today. Ed Husmann is a long-time member of
the community and is representing the Snohomish County Farm
Bureau. John Postema is another member of the Snohomish County
Farm Bureau and is a local business owner, Mike Town has spent
years in the Wild Sky area and knows as much about the lands
involved as anyone that I've met. Mark Heckert, president of
the Washington Wildlife Federation, represents the large
numbers of hunters and fishermen who support this legislation.
Again, Mr. Chairman, your kind words last June and the time
the subcommittee and its staff has expended on the legislation
is all very much appreciated. I stand ready to work with you
and the committee on addressing any legitimate outstanding
issues such as you've mentioned, because I believe the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act is significant for the State and local
communities, and I hope it will be moved out of this committee
very soon.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator Murray, thank you very much for that
testimony, and I agree with you. I don't see that we have any
great difficulties here. You've put some letters in the record.
We have received a couple of letters, one from a State
legislator and one from the Snohomish County Council expressing
some concerns. I'll give you copies of those. I'm sure you'll
want to address those with those folks as we move forward on
this.
With that, we've been joined by one of my colleagues on the
committee and the other Senator from the State of Washington
who has worked closely on this legislation, as has already been
recognized. Let me recognize Senator Cantwell for any comments
on Wild Sky that you would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a
pleasure to be here this morning with my colleague, Senator
Murray, who has worked diligently on this legislation. I would
like to recognize the hard work that my colleague has done on
this very important piece of legislation for the State of
Washington, and I applaud her for crafting this legislation in
a bipartisan effort, and working with many people, over 100
Washington businesses and organizations and local elected
officials of both parties who have endorsed this legislation.
You mentioned several things that have been submitted for
the record. I want to make sure that we include in that a
letter of 19 local elected officials from Snohomish County,
including several mayors and city councilmen and State
representatives, a letter from the county executive, Bob
Drewel, an endorsement from the Seaplane Pilots Association, a
letter of support from the Washington Coalition of Citizens
with Disabilities--I apologize if Senator Murray had listed all
of these--and various sporting good businesses and coalitions.
Unfortunately, the mayor of Index couldn't join us today, but
he has been a huge proponent of this proposal.
Senator Craig. Without objection, those will be part of the
record.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year we
were successful in getting this legislation through the Senate,
and I hope that we can successfully move this in an earlier
period of time so that we can resolve any differences with the
House and give to Washington State and to the whole country an
added resource that we very much would like to see in the Wild
Sky Wilderness Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for that
testimony, and I thank both of you for your efforts and your
hard work on this legislation. I appreciate it.
Now let me call our first panel before the committee, Mark
Rey, the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Jim Hughes,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I understand
that Congressman Larsen gave us some testimony, and if I could
submit that for the record as well.
Senator Craig. Oh, certainly, without objection.
[The prepared statement of Representative Larsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative
From Washington
I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands
for convening today's hearing on this important legislation for the
State of Washington. I would like to also thank Senators Murray and
Cantwell for their tireless work on behalf of this balanced wilderness
bill.
When Senator Murray and I began the process of crafting the first
Wilderness bill in Washington state in nearly 20 years, our aim was to
create an area that would enhance both the environment and the economy.
The protection of over 106,000 acres, including 80,000 acres of old
growth and mature second growth forest and 25 miles of salmon and
steelhead spawning streams, is necessary to continue the diversity and
environmental health of this area.
In addition, Wilderness designation for the Wild Sky area will
provide a protected area for a wide variety of activities, including
day and overnight use, hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, climbing,
horse packing, kayaking, swimming, rafting, and berry picking.
Enhancing these activities will create jobs for a new economy for local
rural towns. Outdoor recreation gear shops, hotels, restaurants, tour
guides, retail stores, and other businesses in local communities will
flourish. Wild Sky will benefit not only the environment but also the
economy of the Pacific Northwest.
Additionally, the process Senator Murray and I have followed in
creating this legislation has been open and inclusive. We have met with
a wide variety of interest groups and constituents to craft a balanced
bill that would be acceptable to as many people as possible. In
addition to the several public meetings, we have worked to address the
concerns of timber companies, farmers, snowmobilers, tribes, local
elected officials, local businesses, seaplane pilots, outdoor clubs,
and any other parties who have an interest in this bipartisan bill. In
order to introduce a balanced bill, we needed a balanced group of
supporters. I believe we have put together the strongest endorsement
list possible--one that can stand up to any list for other proposed
Wilderness bills in the country.
Lastly, I am very pleased this bill will move forward in protecting
private landowners downstream from the Wild Sky area. One of the most
challenging issues facing farmers today is ensuring that both farming
and salmon survive in Snohomish County and in Washington state. By
protecting the North Fork Skykomish River--one of the best remaining
strongholds of wild anadromous and freshwater fish in the Puget Sound
basin-Wild Sky reduces the pressure on private land-owners, including
farmers, brought on by measures to protect Puget Sound salmon runs in
the lower Skykomish Valley. We proposed this legislation in an effort
to use public lands for salmon protection, ensuring that the federal
government is doing its part to protect salmon and lessening the burden
on private landowners.
Wild Sky is an important bill for the Pacific Northwest, and I am
happy to see the Senate moving forward today. The bill came very close
to becoming law last year, and I encourage my Congressional colleagues
to support this balanced and bipartisan bill.
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, welcome before the committee.
You're obviously no stranger to this committee, neither of you,
and so with that, let me start with you first, Mark, our Under
Secretary of Agriculture, for your testimony. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Chairman Craig, Senator Cantwell, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you here today. I'm here to
provide the administration's comments on S. 391, the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act of 2003, and S. 1003, the Outfitter Hunting
Camps on the Salmon River.
S. 391 would create approximately 106,000 acres of
additional wilderness on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest in the State of Washington. The Department does not
oppose the designation of the Wild Sky Wilderness as a
component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. We
recognize and commend the Washington delegation for its
collaborative approach and local involvement that contributed
to bipartisan support for the bill. We would like to work with
the committee to improve some of the provisions of S. 391, but
we like, when we can, to defer, on a State-specific bill, to
the views of the delegation, particularly when those views are
expressed in a bipartisan fashion.
S. 1003 would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to
clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued
use of three long-established commercial outfitter hunting
camps on the Salmon River. The administration does not object
to S. 1003. Again, we'd like to work with the committee to
address some issues related to the continuance of the permits
for the camps.
With that, I'd like to submit my entire statement for the
record, and would be available to respond to any of your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary,
Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Mark Rey, Natural
Resources and Environment Under Secretary for the United States
Department of Agriculture. I am here today to provide the
Administration's comments on S. 391--Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003
and S. 1003--Outfitter Hunting Camps on the Salmon River.
S. 391 The Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003 S. 391 would designate
approximately 106,000 acres of additional wilderness on the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of Washington. It directs the
Secretary to assure adequate access to private in-holdings within the
Wild Sky Wilderness and establish a trail plan for hiking and
equestrian trails within and adjacent to the wilderness. The bill
authorizes the use of helicopter access to construct and maintain a
joint Forest Service and Snohomish County repeater site to provide
improved communication for safety, health, and emergency services.
S. 391 also requires the Secretary to exchange specified lands with
the Chelan County Public Utility District if the District offers to the
Secretary approximately 371.8 acres within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest, in exchange for a permanent easement, including
helicopter access, consistent with such levels as used as of the date
of this bill's enactment, to maintain an existing snotel site on 1.82
acres on the Wenatchee National Forest. The snotel site is currently
used to monitor the snow pack for calculating expected runoff into
hydroelectric projects. If, after the exchange occurs, Chelan County
notifies the Secretary that they no longer need to maintain the snotel
site, the easement will be extinguished and all rights conveyed by this
exchange would revert to the United States.
The Department does not oppose the designation of the Wild Sky
Wilderness as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System. We recognize and commend the delegation for its collaborative
approach and local involvement that contribute to bipartisan support
for this bill. However, the Department would like to work with the
Committee to improve S. 391.
While the vast majority of the lands described in S. 391 are
appropriate for wilderness designation, the Department has significant
concerns with approximately 16,000 acres. These acres would not be
considered suitable for wilderness designation under the provisions of
the 1964 Wilderness Act or under existing Forest Service regulations
and planning direction. The Department believes that the current
allocation of these lands under the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan
continues to be the most suitable designation for these acres.
The lands that we believe are appropriate for designation under the
Wilderness Act, approximately 90,000 acres, consist of all of the Eagle
Rock Roadless Area and portions of Glacier Peak A, B, K, and L. These
areas retain their undeveloped character and are largely without
permanent improvements or human habitation. Limiting the wilderness
designation to these lands would address many of the Department's
concerns.
The areas we propose for exclusion from wilderness designation
include low elevation forests that have been utilized for timber
harvest and mining over the last 80 years, still showing visible
evidence of road building, logging and mining activities. The areas
also include approximately 27 miles of existing roads, some of which
are all weather, drivable, and graveled. Several of the roads receive
significant visitor use associated with recreation opportunities. The
Rapid River Road is such a travel way and we recommend excluding it, in
its entirety, from wilderness designation. The types of recreation
experiences enjoyed by users along the Rapid River Road corridor
include driving for pleasure, nature photography, fishing, picnicking
and dispersed camping at a number of pull-off sites along the road. In
the winter snowmobiles use this road as a part of the snowmobile trail
system, traveling to its end point.
Another concern lies with roads, both outside and adjacent to the
proposed wilderness boundary that have narrow corridors subject to
landslide and river bank erosion. This situation poses significant
public access and resource management issues, as the proximity of the
proposed boundary could result in constraints related to necessary
repairs and road reconstruction work. We would like to work with the
Committee on more appropriate boundaries.
Further, we propose the exclusion of most of the approximately
2,400 acres of private patented mining claims and private timberlands.
A boundary adjustment in the Silver Creek drainage would remove most of
the private lands from the proposed Wilderness.
Finally, the approach to naming these disconnected areas of land
collectively as the Wild Sky Wilderness may cause public confusion,
particularly since some of the areas proposed for designation are
immediately adjacent to the existing Henry M. Jackson Wilderness. In
order to minimize administrative costs and reduce public confusion, the
Department suggests designating only Eagle Rock Roadless Area as Wild
Sky Wilderness. The Glacier Peak Roadless Areas A, B, K, and L should
become additions to the adjacent Henry M. Jackson Wilderness.
The Department supports the administrative provisions in the bill,
particularly provisions for a repeater site to provide improved
communications for safety and health purposes. The Department also
supports the provisions for land exchange in the Glacier Peak
Wilderness and provisions for management of the existing snotel site in
that wilderness.
S. 1003--OUTFITTER HUNTING CAMPS ON THE SALMON RIVER
S. 1003 would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to clarify the
intent of Congress with respect to the continued use of three long-
established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon River.
S. 1003 would direct the continued authorization of the use and
occupancy of lands and maintenance or replacement facilities and
structures for commercial recreation services at Stub Creek, Artic
Creek, and Smith Gulch. The Forest Service's special use permits for
the camps would be subject to revocation only for noncompliance. If
revoked, S. 1003 would require the Forest Service to re-offer the
permits through a competitive process.
The hunting camps in question are located on the wild section of
the Salmon Wild and Scenic River in the Frank Church-River of No Return
Wilderness managed by the Salmon and Challis National Forests. The
camps were in existence prior to the passage of the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act of 1980, which designated the river segment as a
component of the Wild and Scenic River system. One of the camps was
relocated to Smith Gulch in 1988.
The camps operate under special use permits administered by the
Forest Service and they provide unique, traditional services and
experiences to the public in a setting that cannot be duplicated.
Historically, the Forest Service had taken the position that the
camps--and the associated permanent facilities that are at issue are
consistent with agency policy and the law. In 1995 the Forest Service
reauthorized the special use permits for the camps through 2010.
In 2000, however, a federal court found the permanent facilities to
be in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and ordered the
Forest Service to have them removed. When the court ordered the Forest
Service to remove these facilities, it also directed the agency to
consider the needs of the camp owners in setting a timetable for
removal. In January 2003, the Supervisor of the Salmon-Challis National
Forest signed a Record of Decision (ROD) that continued use of the
camps with temporary facilities and set a schedule for removal of all
permanent facilities at the three camps by December 31, 2005.
Mr. Chairman, in the context of these three camps the Department
supports efforts to clarify congressional intent regarding permanent
facilities within this designated river corridor. The Department would
like to work with the Committee on amendments to the measure that would
provide the Secretary maximum flexibility to make appropriate
determinations regarding permit duration and other terms and conditions
under which the use and occupancy of national forest system lands are
authorized so that high quality, traditional, services that 1) meet the
public needs, 2) adhere to the legal requirements related to special
use authorizations on national forest system lands, and 3) are
consistent with the public expectations for river corridors listed
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will be provided.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer your
questions.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mark. Now let me turn to Deputy
Director Hughes. Jim.
STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for this opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's position on three bills, S. 714, authorizing a land
conveyance in Douglas County, Oregon, H.R. 417, concerning
lands in Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in California, and S.
924, authorizing a land exchange in Alaska.
The Department supports both H.R. 417 and S. 924 as
introduced, though we have some suggestions for some minor
technical amendments to S. 924. We also support the goals of S.
714, and would like to work with the committee on certain
changes to the bill.
First, with reference to S. 714, this would authorize the
conveyance of a 68-acre parcel of public domain land in Douglas
County, Oregon to the county in order to improve access to the
Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. The parcel is currently
under the administration of the BLM's Coos Bay District,
although management is difficult because the land is isolated
from other BLM-managed lands. The parcel was identified as
suitable for disposal in the District's 1995 resource
management plan. The Department supports the goals of S. 714,
and would like to work with the subcommittee on changes to the
bill.
Consistent with longstanding practice, we believe the
Government should receive fair market value for the land being
transferred out of public ownership. The land to be conveyed
under S. 714 is located just south of where the Umpqua River
empties into the Pacific Ocean near Winchester Bay. It's
bordered on the south by the Umpqua Lighthouse State Park and
private land, and the Umpqua Lighthouse State Park is located
less than a mile from the Salmon Harbor on Winchester Bay. The
lighthouse and adjacent museum are operated and maintained by
the Douglas County Parks Department and the U.S. Coast Guard.
With regards to H.R. 417, this would revoke a public land
order, a portion of a public land order, 3442, which was issued
in 1964, which erroneously included approximately 140 acres in
Imperial County, California, in the Cibola National Wildlife
Refuge, and it would return those lands to the management
jurisdiction of the BLM, where they've actually been for the
last 40 years.
The Department supports H.R. 417. Prior to the
establishment of the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in 1964,
the 140 acres erroneously included in the land order were
administered by the Bureau of Land Management. In 1962, the
Bureau issued a permit for a public recreation concession on
the lands commonly known as Walter's Camp, which consists of a
recreational vehicle park, a small marina, and a store.
BLM estimates that Walter's Camp receives 11,000 visitors a
year. In 1980, the current concessionaire obtained a 20-year
permit which has been extended continuously to date. In
contrast to the multiple uses of BLM-managed lands including
recreation, wildlife refuges may be used only for the purposes
which are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was
created. Recreation such as offered by Walter's Camp concession
is not compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
created.
Furthermore, I'm told by the Fish & Wildlife Service that
the 140 acres that are to be conveyed back to the BLM do not
possess wildlife refuge qualities. The 140 acres, including the
land on which the concession is operated, were included in the
refuge by error and should have remained instead under the
multiple use management of the BLM. It is in the public
interest to correct this error and return the 140 acres to the
public land status to be managed by the BLM in allowing
recreation.
And finally, S. 924 would direct a land exchange between
the Department of the Interior and the Newtok Native
Corporation in Alaska. The Department supports the bill, which
will address the community's special hardship case. The
Department has worked cooperatively with Newtok's
representatives and the committee over the last year to achieve
consensus on the legislation. We have provided suggestions for
some additional minor technical amendments that are detailed in
the written testimony we have submitted to the committee.
The present village site has experienced severe erosion
along the banks of the Ninglick River, and it is expected that
the land under the homes, schools, and businesses of the
village will erode within 7 years. The bill would provide a new
site for the Native village on lands, approximately 11,000
acres, within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge on
Nelson Island that are adjacent to other village-owned lands on
the island.
In exchange for the lands that will be granted to the
village under the bill, Newtok will give up approximately
11,000 acres of land referred to as the Aknerkochik parcel and
relinquish ANCSA selection rights to approximately 996 acres on
Baird Inlet Island. The parcel includes important wildlife
habitat which will be restored to unencumbered refuge status.
Baird Inlet Island, meanwhile, is the summer home to 4,500
pairs of Pacific brant, and with the relinquishment of the
village's selection to this parcel, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service will be able to retain administrative jurisdiction over
all the island, thus assuring the ongoing protection of this
important colony.
The Department is satisfied that S. 924, with the suggested
clarifying technical amendments, will safeguard both the fish
and wildlife resources of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife
Refuge and Newtok's future as a viable community.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I'd be pleased
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Hughes follow:]
Prepared Statements of Jim Hughes, Deputy Director,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior
S. 714
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the position of the Department of the Interior
on S. 714. This bill would provide for the conveyance of a 68-acre
parcel of public domain land in Douglas County, Oregon, to the county
in order to improve management of and recreational access to the Oregon
Dunes National Recreation Area.
The Department of the Interior supports the goals of S. 714, but
would like to work with the Subcommittee on certain changes to the
bill.
Currently, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Coos Bay District
administers this land, which is located just south of where the Umpqua
River empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Winchester Bay, in Douglas
County, Oregon. The land is bordered on the west by public lands
withdrawn for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and on the south, by the
Umpqua Lighthouse State Park and various private lands. The Umpqua
Lighthouse State Park is located less than a mile from the Salmon
Harbor on Winchester Bay, and the lighthouse and adjacent museum are
operated and maintained by the Douglas County Parks Department and the
U.S. Coast Guard. There is no other BLM-managed land in the vicinity.
The 68.8-acre tract to be conveyed under S. 714 is isolated and
difficult for the BLM to manage. It was identified in the Coos Bay
District's 1995 Resource Management Plan as suitable for disposal.
Off-highway vehicle riders use this parcel for access to the Oregon
Dunes National Recreation Area because it is one of the few free access
points to the Area. Recreational access across this tract to the Oregon
Dunes National Recreation Area can be managed more appropriately by
Douglas County.
However, consistent with longstanding practice, we believe that the
government should receive market value for the land being transferred
out of public ownership. We would also like the opportunity to work
with the Subcommittee to address technical issues including:
clarifications to the reversionary clause, acknowledgment of existing
rights-of-way, and corrections to the map referred to section 1(a).
H.R. 417
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 417, which will revoke
a small portion of Public Land Order 3442, dated August 21, 1964. This
Public Land Order withdrew approximately 16,600 acres of public domain
lands along the Colorado River in California and Arizona for the Cibola
NWR. The withdrawal erroneously included a small area of approximately
140 acres in Imperial County at the southern boundary of the California
portion of the refuge. A similar bill, H.R. 3937, was passed by the
House last year, but was not acted upon by the Senate.
Prior to 1964, this property fell under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, beginning in 1962, the BLM issued
a permit for a public recreation concession on the lands now in
question. Because neither the Fish and Wildlife Service nor the BLM
recognized the mistake in legal descriptions on the ground, the BLM
continued to renew the original permit and the recreational concession
use has continued, unbroken, to the present time. The current lease
expires on July 13, 2003. The concession and location are commonly know
as ``Walter's Camp,'' which consists of a recreational vehicle park, a
small marina, and a store, and the BLM estimates that Walter's Camp
receives 11,000 visitors per year.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended, (Act) requires that all uses of refuge lands be compatible
with the purpose for which the refuge was established. Section 4(a) of
the Act and section 204(j) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act both prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from revoking
withdrawals of land within NWRs. For this reason, Congressional action
is required to remove these lands from the Refuge System.
Since the inclusion of these lands in the Public Land Order was
certainly a mistake, due to the prior existence of the concession, we
believe the most equitable solution is removal of the lands from the
refuge. There are no listed species inhabiting the 140 acres and the
area in question is, at best, marginal wildlife habitat. Removal of the
140 acres of land from the refuge would free-up the area necessary for
the continuation of the recreational concession, while still affording
more than adequate protection for the nearest significant wildlife
habitat feature, Three Fingers Lake.
We believe that withdrawal of these lands will benefit all parties
involved--the concessionaire, the Service, the BLM and, ultimately, the
public. For this reason, we support the bill and urge prompt action on
enactment of H.R. 417.
S. 924
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 924, which would direct a land
exchange between the Department of the Interior and Newtok Native
Corporation. The purpose of this exchange is to provide a new site for
the Native Village of Newtok, Alaska, on lands within the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge on Nelson Island. The present village site is
experiencing severe erosion along the banks of the Ninglick River. The
average annual erosion rate is 90 feet per year, and it is expected
that the land under the homes, schools, and businesses of Newtok will
erode within seven years.
We support the desire of the residents of Newtok to relocate their
village from its present site across the Ninglick River to an upland
area on the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge that is adjacent to
other Newtok Village owned lands on Nelson Island.
The new bill, S. 924, represents the results of discussions had
last year on S. 2016 in the 107th Congress. The Department had several
concerns last year regarding the earlier version of the bill, including
insufficient acres to support the future needs of the community, a
complex appraisal process, and ambiguities regarding the effect of the
exchange on Newtock's ANCSA entitlement and the United States' ability
to protect valid existing rights and enforce treaty obligations. Since
that time, we have worked cooperatively with Newtok representatives and
the Committee to achieve consensus on a bill that will allow for the
relocation and re-establishment of the Village to more suitable terrain
and still protect the fish and wildlife resources and supporting
habitat within the National Wildlife Refuge System. We support S. 924.
We do, however, on further examination of the bill, have suggestions
for several minor technical clarifications to the bill, discussed
below.
LANDS TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Under the terms of the exchange as proposed in S. 924, Newtok will
give up approximately 11,105 acres of land referred to as the
Aknerkochik parcel and relinquish selection rights to approximately 996
acres on Baird Inlet Island. The Aknerkochik parcel lies about 14 miles
northwest of the current community of Newtok and includes important
wildlife habitat which will be restored to unencumbered refuge status.
Baird Inlet Island lies between the current village of Newtok and the
site proposed for relocation of the village. This island is the summer
home to 4,500 pairs of Pacific brant which nest and brood their young
there. The Baird Inlet Island brant population accounts for about one
quarter of the entire Pacific brant population within the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge. With the relinquishment of Newtok's
selections, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to retain
administrative jurisdiction over all of Baird Inlet Island thus
assuring the ongoing protection of this important colony.
LANDS TO BE CONVEYED TO NEWTOK
In exchange for these lands and selection rights, Newtok Native
Corporation will receive title to approximately 10,943 acres of surface
and subsurface estate on the northern shore of Nelson Island adjacent
to lands already owned by the corporation. This proposal does not
increase Newtok Native Corporation's ANCSA entitlement. The corporation
will remain charged for lands which had previously been conveyed to it
and will also be charged for the selections it relinquishes. Following
survey of the lands on Nelson Island conveyed to Newtok under this
proposal, the Bureau of Land Management will adjust Newtok's
entitlement so that the corporation will be ultimately be charged 1.1
acres for each acre to be conveyed under this bill. The additional
charge of one tenth of an acre is to compensate the government for
conveyance of the subsurface estate to Newtok Native Corporation, an
additional benefit not extended to village corporations under the
original ANCSA.
Approximately 70 acres within the area to be conveyed to Newtok
Native Corporation fall within the boundaries of the former Clarence
Rhode National Wildlife Range. For that reason, these 70 acres would
normally remain subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions
imposed by Section 22(g) of ANCSA. Because such restrictions could
limit Newtok's ability to develop these lands for their intended
purpose, the Department agrees that the lands conveyed to Newtok should
be free from restrictions imposed by Section 22(g) of ANCSA. The
Department also agrees that it is appropriate for the conveyance to
Newtok to be free from the standard 14(c) reconveyance requirements of
ANCSA intended to benefit residents and communities occupying land as
of 1971 and that the lands conveyed to Newtok shall no longer be
considered part of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.
When a village corporation such as Newtok Native Corporation
exchanges selection rights prior to receiving title under ANCSA, there
can be ambiguity as to the effect on the Regional Corporation whose
right to equivalent subsurface acreage is derived from conveyance of
the surface estate. The bill includes a provision that assures that
Calista Corporation will not lose subsurface acreage as a result of
this exchange.
Because detailed site plans and surveys for the new village have
not yet been completed, the bill gives the Secretary of the Interior
the flexibility to adjust the exchange to meet the intended purposes of
the bill should Newtok determine at a later date that a larger site is
needed for the relocated community.
SUGGESTED TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
The Department suggests five small technical amendments. 1) In
section 4(b), add the word ``Delta'' to the name Yukon National
Wildlife Refuge so it reads ``Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge,''
the correct name. 2) In section 4(d), after ``subsistence resources
on'', delete ``those public lands'' and add ``those Newtok lands.''
This will be clearer and avoid ambiguity. 3) In section 4(e), second
sentence, change ``This additional entitlement'' to read ``This
equivalent entitlement.'' This is a more accurate description of the
entitlement. Also in section 4(e), third sentence, change ``this
additional entitlement'' to ``this equivalent entitlement.'' 4)
Further, in section 4(e), at the end, after ``acreage'' add the phrase
``from lands within the region but outside any conservation system
unit.'' This will help clarify the areas from which lands may and may
not be selected. Finally, in section 4(f), strike the word ``original''
before ``exchange'' and add the words ``herein authorized'' after
``exchange,'' to clarify the exchange referenced. There is really no
``original'' exchange. We have attached a copy of the bill showing the
suggested changes.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 924. The Department
is satisfied that S. 924, with the suggested clarifying technical
amendments, will safeguard both the fish and wildlife resources of the
Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge and Newtok's future as a viable
community.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
Senator Craig. Jim, thank you very much. I appreciate both
of you being here, and your testimony. I have several questions
for both of you.
First of all, Under Secretary Rey, before we dive into the
bill that you've testified on, or the bills, I want to know if
you've seen a report that was released yesterday by the
National Forest Protection Alliance of the 10 most endangered
forests. I got it this morning and have been thumbing through
it, and I note that the top three are forests that were
devastated by fire over the last 3 years. I don't believe that
was the intent of this group to publicize that, but to
publicize the human activity that has gone on on those lands.
You are responsible for overseeing these forests. Would you
care to comment on the report? It just so happens that one of
them is on the breaks of the Bitterroots between Idaho and
Montana. 300,000 acres were lost there in 2000. I think that's
20 percent of that forest, and on the Apache Sitgreaves last
year, the Rodeo Chediski fire. That's almost 1/2 million acres.
I find it an interesting--I'll just be blunt, an interesting
ignoring of the reality of our current state of forest health.
Mr. Rey. Well, I've had the opportunity to glance at the
report, which I think was jointly issued by the National Forest
Protection Alliance and Greenpeace, and I guess I agree with
their listing of the top three most endangered forests, because
all three of them have burned up in the last 3 years. The third
one was the Black Hills, where Congress passed legislation to
in part get these folks to start helping, but what is striking
about the report is that it doesn't mention the catastrophic
fire situation that we currently face. We have 193 million
acres of federally owned forest and rangelands that are
endangered and are at risk.
I just came this morning from a briefing by our long-term
climatological and fire behavior modelers, and what they tell
me is that as a result of a multidecadal climatic trend that
began in the mid-1970's we have significantly more vegetation
on our Federal lands, and that that will continue to get worse
for the foreseeable future. So there are endangered national
forests, there's no question about that, although there is
considerable question about the dangers that are recounted, the
alleged dangers that are recounted in this report.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you. I haven't read all of it
yet. I'll spend time reading it. Interesting report.
Let's turn to the legislation at hand and S. 391, that
you've testified on. Last year, the Forest Service testified
that it would not oppose this wilderness. If this bill is
passed, are we establishing any new wilderness standards?
Mr. Rey. Not particularly. I think Congress has the ability
and has executed the discretion in the past to include areas
that, as far as our administrative procedures, the
administrative criteria we use to review wilderness proposals
wouldn't qualify for wilderness. That's not a new issue that's
raised by this bill.
Senator Craig. While I try to look at wilderness bills that
are as pristine as possible as it relates to the designation,
in my conversation with Senator Murray this morning and in
testimony I expressed some concerns about some existing bridge
structures, and culverts that are there and, if they were to
breach or clog, how we might handle those? I think you heard
that testimony
Mr. Rey. I did.
Senator Craig. Comment on that.
Mr. Rey. Under our existing procedures, if a culvert should
fail and we're confronted with an emergency situation, we do
have the authority to use mechanized equipment. However, if you
want us to go in and deal with the problem before there's an
emergency situation, then it would be helpful if the report
language accompanying the bill made it clear that you wanted us
to do that and allowed us to use the equipment necessary to get
that job done.
Senator Craig. Well, I'll obviously work with both of my
colleagues here to see if we can resolve that. That may be a
way to approach it. Obviously, the potential of less damage
occurring, if you can go in proactively and remove these
structures prior to, and for any change of road or road
obliteration. Are there resources to be able to do that?
Mr. Rey. Our best estimate right now to do the road work
that would need to be done in the area is roughly $6 million.
We would look at it in the context of our other priorities,
absent some additional funding.
Senator Craig. I guess we're not using the timer. Let me
turn to my colleague, Senator Cantwell, if she has any
questions of these gentlemen.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rey, I wanted to go back to your testimony in which you
indicate that the Department doesn't oppose this legislation.
Does that mean it supports it?
Mr. Rey. It means that the legislation, if passed by the
Congress, will be signed by the President.
Senator Cantwell. And does that mean that if people ask if
you have questions or concerns, that you'll say you don't
oppose the legislation and would like to see it passed?
I want to make sure that we don't go through the same
process at the eleventh hour that occurred last year, I don't
want people to quietly or secretly try to raise objections
about the bill and then not have it pass. We want to answer
whatever we need to get answered.
Mr. Rey. You have our full statement, our full list of
concerns. Some of them you may not elect to address. We know we
don't always get what we want, but if this bill passes the
Congress, it will be signed by the President.
Senator Cantwell. Does that mean you're neutral?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. Let's go to a major concern. There are about
16,000 acres of the land affected by the bill that we think
would be better designated as back country rather than
wilderness, but as I said to Senator Craig, you know, we're not
purists either. Congress has in the past periodically included
areas in wilderness bills that didn't meet the statutory
standard in the 1964 act, so there's nothing new there. This is
a good bill. We commend you and the Washington delegation for
the bipartisan nature in which you put it together, and if it
passes, we'll be pleased to sign it.
Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you for that last statement.
I want to focus in on that, the purity issue, because we've
heard it before and I think you're right. I think you've
characterized the situation in the past, and that is that
sometimes this issue has been brought up, and our former
colleague, a longstanding member and at one point in time
chairman of this committee, Scoop Jackson, once said, ``a
serious and fundamental misrepresentation of the Wilderness Act
has recently gained some credence, thus creating a danger to
the objective of securing a truly National Wilderness
Preservation System.'' It is my hope to correct this false, so-
called purity theory which threatens the strength and broad
application of the Wilderness Act.
I believe the Forest Service has many times approved or, as
you said, had the administration sign an act, one being in
2000, the Virginia Wilderness Act, which in my understanding
had had some areas and incursions in that that were a similar
issue and we went ahead and proposed those, so I guess what
you're saying about this purity argument is that you're not
gong to go out of your way to lobby against this legislation
based on that. You've made your testimony and you'll see how
Congress deals with it, recognizing that Congress has passed
other bills with similar inclusions.
Mr. Rey. Recognizing that, and also recognizing, as I said
in my prepared statement, that in a State-specific bill where
the delegation has come together, particularly in a bipartisan
fashion to effect an outcome, we generally tend to try to defer
to that, unless there's some larger issue that causes us
concern, and this would be a case where there is not a larger
issue that's going to cause us concern.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, and then the other issue that
Senator Craig brought up in his testimony as it related to
culverts, do you think report language would get us in the more
proactive stage on that and would satisfy that particular
issue?
Mr. Rey. Yes. If you want to make it possible for us to do
the work quicker and cheaper, then it would be good to put some
report language indicating that that's your desire and that we
should use whatever equipment is necessary for that purpose.
Senator Cantwell. And those are really your two primary
concerns?
Mr. Rey. There's a naming question that's in the testimony
as to whether part of it wouldn't be better added to the
existing Scoop Jackson Wilderness, but that's a technical
detail.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. That addresses my concerns,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much. Just for the
record, Senator, when we look at eastern wilderness, there is
an Eastern Wilderness Act that allows some greater flexibility.
I think Virginia Wilderness came in under that, smaller parcel,
more flexibilities. When I was in the House in the mid-eighties
we were looking at the Mark Twain, and their members of the
House had included an existing power line and a few other
things that were, in my rather pristine view of wilderness,
uncharacteristic. We changed that bill and moved some of that
out.
You are right, though, and I think Secretary Rey has spoken
to that. We've offered flexibility in the past. We're not going
to sit here and argue pristine, especially if those structures
that are in there, once the decision has been made, can
effectively be taken out and/or modified to fit the character
of the act and/or the language of the legislation.
Senator Cantwell. Well, listening to my predecessor's
comments, Senator Jackson, that this debate has gone on for
sometime, and obviously it is something that the Wilderness Act
really doesn't speak to, basically has what it takes to provide
wilderness area, and so we want to make sure that we continue
to move ahead on these designations.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Secretary Rey, I've got one other question of you before I
turn to Mr. Hughes. You mention in your testimony that one camp
was relocated to--and I'm talking about S. 1003--to Smith Gulch
in 1988. I believe that relocation took place to move the camp
off the river to ensure that it was screened from the view of
those on the river. Is that a correct analysis?
Mr. Rey. That was one of the reasons that it was moved. The
other was that there was an opportunity for a better septic
system in the new location, and the move also allowed us to
increase recreation opportunities, because we were able to then
convert the former location into a group campsite for rafters.
Senator Craig. In talking with outfitters that facilitate
and utilize these camps as it relates to a broader use of the
river by older Americans and disabled recreationalists, they
believe these camps are critical for that purpose. Do you
believe that to be the case?
Mr. Rey. I think our use data indicates that the camps are
popular with older, or people with disabilities, because of the
conveniences that the camps provide, but they also are used by
younger and able-bodied people as well.
Senator Craig. You said you support the effort to clarify
the situation. Is that correct for the record?
Mr. Rey. That is correct. This will be helpful in
clarifying the congressional intent. It will also address
issues that are being raised in pending litigation.
Senator Craig. Okay, thank you.
Jim, S. 714, Douglas County, Oregon. You testified in favor
of this proposal after enactment. How quickly can the
Department implement this conveyance?
Mr. Hughes. If we resolve some of our differences, probably
3 to 6 months, Mr. Chairman. We will have to do a Cadastral
survey, cultural clearances and consultations with tribes, NEPA
compliance analysis, and then a Federal Register notice, and
then a notice of realty action, so we think somewhere 3 to 6
months, and some of that action can be done concurrently, all
right.
Senator Craig. In S. 924, the Newtok land exchange, I
believe that last year the Department supported the legislation
but recommended a number of technical changes. I know that both
staff worked very hard last fall to accommodate the
Department's concerns prior to the markup last fall. I see that
this year you mentioned the need for some minor corrections.
Can I have your assurance that you will have these changes to
our staff by close of business on Friday so that we can get
them incorporated?
Mr. Hughes. Absolutely, Senator. I think we have included
it in our written statement.
Senator Craig. And on H.R. 417, the Cibola National
Wildlife Refuge, it would seem to me that this boundary
adjustment would have been made a long time ago. I was looking
at the maps here a few minutes ago. We will work to expedite
this legislation through our process. To help us, can you
assure us that your agency will work on this proposal with as
much speed as we can generate here?
Mr. Hughes. Absolutely. I'll take that message back today,
sir.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you both very much for your time
before the committee and your testimony today on these issues.
We appreciate it.
Let me now call our second panel to the table, Mike Town,
Friends of Big Sky--oh, excuse me, wrong State, Montana, there
is a difference, isn't there?--Wild Sky, Ed Husmann, Washington
Farm Bureau, Mark Heckert, president, Washington Wildlife
Federation, and John Postema, local businessman from Snohomish.
Gentlemen, please.
Well, again, thank you all for being with us this morning.
Mr. Town, let's start with you, Mike Town, Friends of Wild Sky.
Yes, pull the mike as close as is comfortable and proceed,
please.
STATEMENT OF MIKE TOWN, FRIENDS OF THE WILD SKY
Mr. Town. Chairman Craig, Senator Wyden, I suppose when he
gets here, and other members of the subcommittee, I'd like to
thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness Act. I'd also like
to thank Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell, and Congressman
Larsen for sponsoring this important legislation, and I'd like
to ask that my full statement be included in the committee
record.
Senator Craig. Without objection, your full statement will
be.
Mr. Town. Thank you, Senator.
My name is Mike Town, and I'm testifying today on behalf of
the Friends of the Wild Sky, an association of local residents
and concerned citizens who support permanent protection for the
Wild Skykomish country. My background includes an undergraduate
degree in terrestrial ecosystems analysis and work experience
in silvaculture with the U.S. Forest Service. My wife and I are
both currently science teachers. We first moved into the
beautiful Skykomish Valley in 1988. Currently, we're in the
process of building a new home in the shadows of the Wild Sky
country.
I'm testifying today based on my extensive knowledge of the
Wild Skykomish country. As an avid outdoorsman, I've spent the
last 15 years exploring the beautiful Skykomish area. Within
the boundaries of the Wild Sky Wilderness are lush, old growth
forests, high peaks over 6,000 feet tall, breathtaking
waterfalls, 1,000-foot cliffs, pristine rivers, and secluded
alpine lakes. The proposal protects over 25 miles of the
Skykomish River, which provides habitat for endangered species,
world class whitewater, and renowned fishing.
Other watersheds in the proposal contribute to clean and
safe drinking water for the city of Everett, and the forested
slopes reduce the potential for downstream flooding. Recreation
abounds in the Wild Sky, as back-country skiers, anglers,
hunters, hikers, horseback riders, and campers flock to this
spectacular area. This steady flow of visitors is crucial to
the economic stability of the small towns in the Skykomish
Valley.
To prepare for today's hearing, I went out and investigated
on the ground issues raised by the Forest Service's testimony
last year. When the Forest Service raised some concerns about
inclusion of certain areas within the wilderness, these
concerns were without merit and appropriately rejected last
year by the committee on a bipartisan vote and later by the
full Senate. While some areas within the Wild Sky Wilderness
proposal have been affected by logging activity, the Forest
Service failed to mention that these areas are already
recovering naturally from the railroad logging that occurred
during the 1920's. These stands, left to grow back on their
own, have now almost returned to their former glory. Other than
the occasional stump, these forests appear quite natural to
almost all visitors as they assume the characteristics of true
ancient forests.
The Forest Service also did not inform the committee that
these previously impacted areas are crucial to protect stream
habitat to help ensure survival of salmon, steelhead, and bull
trout. Last year, the Forest Service testified that
approximately 35 miles of existing roads would be impacted.
This overstates the effect of the proposed wilderness by not
taking into account roads that have already been permanently
decommissioned by the Forest Service, or roads closed by the
agency, or roads closed by acts of nature that prevent access.
In reality, the Wild Sky Wilderness would impact only about 2
miles of roads that are currently driveable by passenger
vehicles.
In recent weeks, a few colleagues and I have field-checked
most of the roads and the culverts in the wilderness. In short,
we found most of the culverts do not appear to have been
maintained for many years. Many of the small culverts which
need maintenance can be maintained by hand labor. Numerous
culverts are fully functional and will not need very much
maintenance in the future. None of the culverts in the Wild Sky
block the passage of salmon.
Mr. Chairman, local support for the Wild Sky is strong in
the valley, and includes endorsements by many local officials,
businesses, and nearly 1,000 valley residents who signed a
petition asking for the creation of the Wild Sky Wilderness.
Importantly, I'd like to add that this area serves as a living
laboratory for students of my wife and I, who enjoy the beauty
of the Wild Sky as they learn lessons about geology, history,
culture, ecology, and botany.
One of my favorite memories is introducing my students to a
spawning site of wild salmon, one of the few places left in the
Cascade Mountains where salmon are so numerous you can walk
across the river on their backs. This river's headwaters is in
the Wild Sky, which still allows for one of the greatest
spectacles of nature. Watching this display of nature with my
students, I'm reminded that wilderness is not just about the
present but, rather, about the preservation of the ancient
attributes of nature.
I cherish the hope that my teenage students will have the
ability to share this experience with their grandchildren.
Permanently protecting the Wild Sky country lets that happen.
It's a gift to the ages, and a powerful legacy of this
Congress. I urge the members of the committee to support
passage of the Wild Sky Wilderness bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Town follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Town, Friends of the Wild Sky
Chairman Craig, Senator Wyden, and other Members of this
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness bill.
I'd also like to thank Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell and Congressman
Larsen for co-sponsoring this important legislation.
My name is Mike Town and I am testifying today on behalf of the
Friends of the Wild Sky, an association of local residents and
concerned citizens who support permanent protection for the Wild
Skykomish Country. My background includes an undergraduate degree in
Terrestrial Ecosystems Analysis and work experience in silvaculture
with the USDA Forest Service.
Currently, I am a high school science teacher. My wife, who is also
a science teacher, and I first moved into the beautiful Skykomish
valley in 1988 and currently we are in the process of building a new
home in the shadows of the Wild Sky country.
I am also testifying today based on my extensive and personal
experience and knowledge of the Wild Skykomish Country. As an avid
outdoorsman I have spent the last 15 years exploring the beautiful
Skykomish area. Each year I hike, ski, and snowshoe more than 200 miles
to the forests, high country meadows, secluded lakes and numerous
mountain streams in the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness. My wife and I
have written a newspaper column on the wonders of the Wild Sky and
other parts of the region for our local newspaper, The Monroe Monitor.
Each summer I teach college courses on mining, ecology, and history
within the boundaries of this wilderness proposal.
I would like to take the entire Committee to see this special
place, but the best I can do today is to try to describe in words why
the Wild Skykomish Country is a perfect candidate for designation to
our National Wilderness Preservation System.
Within the boundaries of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness are lush
old growth forests, high peaks over 6000 feet tall, breathtaking
waterfalls, 1000-foot cliffs, pristine rivers and secluded alpine
lakes. The proposal protects over 25 miles of the Skykomish River,
which provides habitat for endangered species, world-class white water
and renowned fishing. Other watersheds in the proposal contribute to
clean and safe drinking water for the City of Everett and the forested
slopes reduce the potential for downstream flooding. Recreation abounds
in the Wild Sky as backcountry skiers; anglers, hunters, hikers,
horseback riders and campers flock to this spectacular area. This
steady flow of visitors is critical to the economic stability of small
towns in the Skykomish valley.
Since the Members of the Committee can't go there, I'd like to
describe this special place--moving west to east.
Ragged Ridge
The wild country directly north of Goldbar and Index is an area of
high lakes and ridges. From Arsenic Meadows to Northstar Mountain, one
can wander through some of the loneliest terrain in the Cascades.
Extensive middle elevation forests, mostly western hemlock and silver
fir, cover the hillsides, with scenic parklands of mountain hemlock
above. This is an area without established trails - this is wilderness
in the truest sense, a great big blank spot on the map. It's a place
where just about no one ever goes, or, in more scientific terms, ``core
security habitat,'' for many kinds of wildlife.
Lower North Fork Skykomish Valley
The lower fifteen or so miles of the North Fork valley contain
beautiful ancient forests with several trees over eight feet in
diameter. Some of this area was railroad logged in the 1920's and
'30's. During this time only the highest value trees were taken, and
much of the biological legacy survived. Most importantly, these areas
were never replanted, and a diverse, naturally regenerated forest has
grown back. There are many miles of these forests along the North Fork
road, and from high vantage points in the Wild Sky they form a
continuous green blanket over the entire lower valley.
West Cady Ridge
As one move further up the North Fork Skykomish, the land begins to
change. Rather than the sharp peaks, and fearsome brush and cliffs of
Eagle Rock, the terrain opens up bit and the mountains grow gentler.
Long ridges are topped by extensive flower meadows provide extensive
bear habitat and important wildlife corridors to other areas in the
Cascades. This is a friendly, inviting country, slightly drier than
areas further west. There are a number of popular trails, such as West
Cady ridge and Scorpion Mountain. Certain other areas lend themselves
well to off trail wandering through open forests and meadows.
Eagle Rock Roadless Area
This country inside the Jack's Pass road loop is east and south of
the lower North Fork, west of the Beckler River valley and north of
Highway 2. The Eagle Rock area contains some of the most rugged
mountain terrain in the Skykomish area, with sharp, jagged Gunn,
Merchant and Baring peaks prominently visible from Highway 2. Only one
formal trail enters the area, to scenic and popular Eagle Lake at the
end of Paradise Meadow.
This is a place of many diverse attractions. On its southern edge,
some of the most impressive old growth forest in the Cascades grows on
low, south facing slopes just north of the village of Grotto. A large
area of Alaska cedar forest is found near Eagle Lake, and further
north, the valleys of upper Trout and Howard creeks support extensive
virgin forest. Seldom visited lakes like Sunset and Boulder lie at the
heads of most valleys, offering outstanding fishing. Botanically
significant areas like Paradise Meadow display rare orchids, and
carnivorous sundews as well as a bouquet of flowers in the early
summer. The central and northern reaches of the Eagle Rock area are
little visited, and mysterious. Summits such as Conglomerate Point and
Spire Mountain see only a few visitors in any year while other places
like Bear Mountain and upper Bear Creek valley may go a decade or more
without seeing any humans.
As you can see the Wild Sky country is a land of contradictions. It
is rimmed by powerful mountains, cut by turbulent streams, punctuated
with biologically diverse forest and meadows and filled with habitats
for a wide range of common and rare species. It's pure waters provide
adventure for white water rafters, habitat for fish, drinking water for
Snohomish County, and flood control for downstream residents. Its
recreational benefits are endless and its ecological significance so
valuable that this area demands permanent protection.
Unfortunately, the Wild Sky area was excluded from consideration in
the 1984 Washington Wilderness legislation and left hanging at the end
of the 107th Congress. However, almost 20 years after the creation of
the last wilderness in Washington State, Congress can revisit the Wild
Sky and give the protection this unique and beautiful area deserves.
I have had a chance to review the testimony submitted last year by
the Forest Service concerning the Wild Sky Wilderness legislation. It's
worth noting that both the Committee and the full Senate rejected the
agency's proposals to exclude lands from the new Wilderness. For the
past year, I have had a chance to investigate on the ground the issues
raised by the Forest Service. Here's what I've seen:
The Forest Service correctly points out that there are some areas
within the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal that have been affected by
logging activity. These areas are mostly at lower elevations, and most
are already recovering naturally from the railroad logging that
occurred around the 1920's.
For example along the North Fork of the Skykomish there are forest
stands, which were logged about 80 years ago. These stands, left to
grow back on their own rather than being reforested with a monoculture
of Douglas fir, have now almost returned to their former glory. Now
they feature species diversity, multi-layer canopies and an abundance
of ecologically important reproductive niches. These forests are in
direct contrast to the second growth forest started from reforested
trees, which are so abundant throughout the portions of the Cascades,
which have been previously logged. Other than the occasional stump,
these forests appear quite natural to almost all visitors as they
assume the characteristics of true ancient forest.
Another example of past logging is seen in the area of lower West
Cady Creek, a tributary stream of the North Fork Skykomish River. This
valley was partially logged, but extensive areas of old growth forest
remain. Ten years ago the most significant logging road in this valley
was permanently decommissioned and the logged areas have stabilized the
soils and began to contribute significant ecological values. This
vibrant lowland valley needs to be included in the Wild Sky Wilderness
to protect the remaining old growth and mature second-growth forests,
water quality and important wildlife corridors. It also provides a
logical, and manageable Wilderness boundary without a non-Wilderness
finger intruding deeply into the Wilderness.
It is important to include these previously impacted areas in the
Wilderness in order to protect stream habitat to help ensure the
survival of salmon, steelhead and Bull trout. It is also important for
these low elevation forests to be better represented in Washington's
Wilderness Areas, to fully reflect this especially important type of
ecosystem and wild landscape, which promotes biodiversity and is absent
in so many other wilderness areas in the state.
In testimony last year the Forest Service stated: ``approximately
35 miles of existing roads, some of which are all weather, drivable and
graveled.'' Actually, the Wild Sky Wilderness would impact
approximately 2 miles of roads that are currently passable by passenger
vehicles. The agency overstates the effect of the proposed Wilderness
by not taking into account roads that have already been decommissioned
i.e., non-drivable and permanently closed by the Forest Service and
other roads that are currently gated or otherwise closed by the agency
to prevent access. Other stretches of roads are closed by landslides,
washouts, overgrown vegetation or closed because of other random acts
of nature.
The Forest Service's testimony also stated that the Rapid River
road receives high levels of visitor use for recreation purposes, and
so should be excluded. It's important to clarify that the Wild Sky
Wilderness proposal would only impact approximately one mile of the
upper section of this road. This section, which passes through towering
stands of ancient forest, actually gets very limited visitation because
it is rough, accesses few dispersed recreation sites and most drivers
stop at the Meadow Creek trailhead which is located outside of the
wilderness boundary. In fact, recently I spent 4 hours along this
section on Saturday of Memorial Day weekend--a beautiful sunny day, and
did not see a single vehicle on the upper section of this road. In any
case, it is important to close the upper portion of Rapid River Road
for a number or reasons: the closed road can be converted into a
barrier-free trail that is wheel-chair accessible; closure will protect
significant ancient forest and important riparian areas; and it will
leave this low elevation area, which is open almost all year,
accessible by a short hike.
It should be noted that the bridge on the upper Rapid River road is
not in the proposal. This issue was raised last year due to an
inadvertent mapping error and has since been resolved. Similarly, the
bill this year excludes the ancient log-stringer bridges on the old
Silver Creek road. The proposal does include an old cement bridge
located in the West Cady Ridge region, but it is located over 3 miles
up a decommissioned road. It is important to state that the West Cady
Bridge does not invalidate the Wilderness character of this area.
The Forest Service asserted that roads outside and adjacent to the
proposal have narrow corridors subject to landslide, and the boundaries
are too close. While there may be locations where roads proceed through
areas with narrow corridors, the boundaries have already been set to
meet that concern in these areas. However, the , mile buffer suggested
by the Forest Service would have forced Space Needle-sized buffers for
every road bordering the proposal. The current buffer as determined by
the Senate last year and applied generally along the North Fork and
Rapid River Road should be more than adequate.
While it is true that there is some visible evidence of past mining
activity, it is not as significant as the Forest Service contends.
Large areas of the Cascades have experienced the regions mining
history, but no major mine site ever existed in the Wild Sky proposal.
Mining in this area was mostly limited to small claims that were worked
sporadically for short periods up until the 1940's. Today the visible
evidence of mining activity is limited to an occasional mine portal,
some old road disturbances and rare dilapidated miner's shacks, and
most of these are actually on private lands which are surrounded by
National Forest land.
I want to briefly comment on the question of dealing with culverts
on decommissioned roads. In recent weeks a few Friends of the Wild Sky
colleagues and myself have field checked a most of the roads and
culverts included in the proposed Wilderness. In short, we found:
Most of the culverts appear to not have been maintained for
many years;
Many of the small culverts which need maintenance can be
maintained by hand labor;
Numerous culverts are fully functional and will not need
very much maintenance in the future;
None of the culverts in the Wild Sky block the passage of
salmon.
Finally, two issues raised last year by the Forest Service--the
Evergreen Mountain Lookout and floatplane use on Lake Isabel are
expressly addressed by the current version of the bill.
Local support for the Wild Sky is strong in the valley and includes
endorsement by many local officials, businesses and nearly 1000 valley
residents who signed a petition asking for the creation of the Wild Sky
Wilderness. The Monroe City Council unanimously passed a resolution in
the support of Wild Sky and the Mayor of Index, the closest town to the
proposal, testified before this committee last year in support of
wilderness designation. Later this month the Friends of the Wild Sky
will be sponsoring the first annual Wild Sky Wilderness Festival in
Index, which has received an incredible positive response and support
from a large number of local business in the Skykomish Valley who have
donated a variety of goods and services to the festival.
Clearly, people in Snohomish County and eastern King County care
about the quality of life they get from the Wild Sky country whether it
be in the form of accessible wilderness oriented recreation, pure
drinking water or the knowledge that the ancient forest and salmon will
continue to provide solitude, serenity and enjoyment which is
guaranteed with Federal Wilderness protection.
Finally I would like to add that as science teachers this area
serves as a living laboratory for our students who enjoy the beauty of
the Wild Sky while also learning lessons about geology, history,
culture, ecology and botany. My favorite memory is introducing my
students to a wild salmon spawning site, which is one of the few places
left in the Cascades where spawning salmon are so numerous that you
could walk across the river on their backs. This river's headwaters is
in the Wild Sky and it is the wilderness character of the forests along
its banks, which still allow for one of the greatest spectacles in
nature.
When I am watching this display of nature with my students it often
dawns on me that wilderness is not just about the present, but rather
is about the preservation of the ancient attributes of nature. I
cherish the belief that with federal protection my teenage students
will have the ability to share the experience of spawning wild salmon
with their grand children. Permanently protecting the Wild Sky country
lets this happen. It is a gift to the ages and a powerful legacy of
this Congress.
In closing, I want to commend Senator Murray for bringing disparate
interests together from timber companies, backcountry horsemen and
environmentalists to residents and elected officials from local
communities--to support this legislation. Washingtonians are committed
to Wilderness and preserving our State's natural heritage, and Senator
Murray as well Congressman Larsen deserve thanks for continuing that
tradition alive. I urge the members of the Committee to support passage
of the Wild Sky Wilderness bill.
Senator Craig. Mike, thank you very much. Let's turn now to
Mark Heckert, president, Washington Wildlife Federation. Mark.
STATEMENT OF MARK HECKERT, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON
WILDLIFE FEDERATION, OLYMPIA, WA
Mr. Heckert. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senators Murray
and Cantwell. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm Mark
Heckert, president of the Washington Wildlife Federation, a
citizen of the great State of Washington, and a proud husband
and dad. I'm honored to be able to present my testimony to the
subcommittee regarding the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003.
The Washington Wildlife Federation is a grassroots
conservation organization comprised of hunters, fishers, and
conservation educators from many areas of the State who all
share an abiding love and concern for our wild places and the
bounty of our State. The Washington Wildlife Federation is an
affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, the Nation's
largest conservation organization. The Washington Wildlife
Federation is currently implementing, as a partner with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, a program called
``Go Play Outside'' to engage and educate the youth of
Washington in outdoor recreation activities such as fishing and
hunting while instilling a respect for our natural resources.
We hope through these activities to bring our younger
generations to an awareness of the natural world, an awareness
which may be missed in the rapidly urbanizing Puget Sound
region.
I'm a fisheries and wildlife biologist and owner of a
natural resource consulting firm located in Puyallup. I have
been, among other things, executive director of the Willapa
Alliance of South Bend, and a forest biologist for the Puyallup
Tribe, as well as a commercial fishermen. I'm a hunter and
fisherman and have throughout my life sought and enjoyed the
solitude of wild places.
The Washington Wildlife Federation strongly supports the
Wild Sky Wilderness Act because, among other things, it will
protect over 106,000 acres of roadless national forest, the
forestland designated as wilderness. It will protect
approximately 80,000 acres of old growth and mature second
growth forest, with roughly 14,000 acres of rare, low elevation
old growth. It will directly protect over 25 miles of salmon
and steelhead spawning stream, and sustain continuing health
for many more miles of downstream spawning habitat, like
protecting critical forested watersheds.
The north fork of Skykomish River and its tributaries are
home to one of the best remaining strongholds of anadromous and
freshwater fish in the Puget Sound region. It will permanently
close approximately 13 miles of old, failing logging roads
which are damaging watersheds, only 2 miles of which are
currently passable by motor vehicles. Eliminating these old
roads will help protect and restore critical fish-spawning
habitat.
This will preserve special places in the Wild Sky region
such as the Upper Fork Rapid River, Trout Creek, and the Upper
North Fork Skykomish. It will protect existing opportunities
for primitive recreation, summer and winter, and fishing and
hunting opportunities. It will provide support for the new
economy for local rural towns and communities to take advantage
of the abundant recreational opportunities of these areas. It
will protect important habitat for a wide range of wildlife,
including popular game species and endangered or sensitive
species such as the northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet,
bald eagle, mountain goat, pine marten, pileated woodpecker,
cougar, wolverine, lynx, and grizzly bear.
Soon, I will give this gift of wild places to my children.
Last summer, my boys got to go on their first sighting-in trip
to check the accuracy of our hunting rifles in the area that
will be the Wild Sky Wilderness. We will hunt and camp in the
proposed wilderness area this fall, and I will have that time
in the wondrous place to let my children experience the
irreplaceable beauty of wild places. After this area receives
its wilderness status, we will be able to continue hunting,
fishing, and camping in this very same area.
Our trip will be possible because of our country's great
history of valuing wild places and protecting these places by
creating wilderness areas. This is especially valued in
Washington State, where we have a distinguished history of land
conversation and resource preservation on our public lands. I
want to see this history continued, and a new chapter of
preservation written on our landscape by the establishment of
the Wild Sky Wilderness.
It's been 20 years since wilderness was added to Washington
State. Since that time, our population has almost doubled, and
it's getting harder and harder to find places for outdoor
recreation. It seems that everywhere nowadays is private,
logged, or crowded. The addition of new wilderness to our
public lands will broaden our outdoor opportunities and allow
us to come back to the same places year after year without
having to worry whether they've been logged.
I'm in strong support of the creation of the Wild Sky
Wilderness. This is our legacy to our children, their children,
and the untold generations that will follow. The Wild Sky
Wilderness will tell them of our commitment to the land, to
them, and to the things of the world that have value that
transcends the price of their pieces.
I appreciate the opportunity for being able to comment this
morning.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much for your testimony,
Mark. Now let us turn to John Postema, a local businessman from
Snohomish.
John, welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN POSTEMA, LOCAL BUSINESSMAN, SNOHOMISH, WA
Mr. Postema. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. My name is
John Postema, and I represent myself, my company in the
horticulture industry and many nurserymen in the area which is
going to be affected by the Wild Sky. I have submitted my
written testimony.
Senator Craig. It will become a part of our record, thank
you.
Mr. Postema. I want to preface my oral comments here with
the fact that we like wilderness, and I personally like the
wilderness as well because 20 years ago I spent with my family
and kids gathering moss, and moss-gathering is one part of the
forest product-gathering industry, and I remember, because our
nursery was really small, we collected 2,000 bags of moss and
we sold it for $6 apiece. Well, my kids all hated doing this,
but it did help us to gather money for our nursery.
I also have included, and I would ask to be included some
signatures, about 300 signatures of some good people the rural
county gave me, including 60 companies, names of companies who
are actually opposing the Wild Sky as it is being written.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The signatures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, and I'm not going into all the details I went
into in my written testimony, but the people, the rural people
in Snohomish County feel they have been sold a bill of goods,
and I'm not sure if the Senators and Congress has been done the
same, because it is a great Wild Sky, but this has been to us
locally a great wild deception. There has to be, and I hate to
use the word deceitful, there has to be in a process which was
not open, it was not public, and hardly anybody knows anything
about it, contrary to what you have heard.
To us, it is not a matter of less or more, we should do
this or should do that. This is a black and white issue. The
process has not been followed, and that's why last year there
was--you didn't hear anything from the rural people out there.
What you have led to believe that this is a wonderful thing
that is supported by many, many people and, contrary, I'll tell
you that this is not good for the salmon and the environment as
it is written. It is not good for the timber industry. It is
not good for the forest-gathering products, as I described the
moss, the Christmas trees, the firewood, cones, seeding. There
is a big business for that.
It is not good for the recreation, contrary to what you've
heard. It is not supported by the local people. It is supported
by other people from Seattle, and as you've heard now many
times, it isn't as wild as it appears to be.
And just elaborating on the salmon environment, when I made
that claim, I spent 4 years on the Snohomish County Groundwater
Committee concerned about salmon, the environment, and the
water supply in the Snohomish River. The Snohomish River does
not have any more water in it to supply for either farmers,
nurserymen, or fish, and in order to--the committee, after 4
years meeting, they decided that we had to manage the water
different. We had to store, and we also had to control the
devastating floods which occur when storms get into the--in the
wintertime, they will cause landslides, and this is causing the
habitat destruction of salmon.
So this Wild Sky effort is contrary to what we can do,
because it will lock up that area where there is potential for
water storage and for water control. The lack of fire control
would, as you know, just heard, there are many steep slopes. On
steep slopes, where it's very hard to combat fire when it
starts, we would--if we cannot control and go in there, this
will cause landslides and again it will affect the habitat of
fish and the environment generally.
As far as the timber is concerned, and maybe, you probably
know more, but we did find out that in the early seventies
there was about 300 million board feet being sold and
harvested. In the 1990's, it was about 80 to 100 million board
feet, but 3 years ago there was nothing. It was zero, and that
affects the local communities.
Now, under the Clinton forest plan we were promised to have
some cutting going on, and again, Wild Sky will deprive some of
that to the local people in Snohomish County.
As far as recreation is concerned, the U.S. Forest Service
study shows that only 7 percent of the people who would
normally visit the national forest will only visit the
wilderness, and how we then can make the deduction that this
will increase the recreation. I have submitted to you a
calculation that this would cost us up to 600 or more jobs just
in the recreational area.
There is no local support. We have made that point. You
have a letter from the Snohomish County Council which makes the
same argument, and the reason you have different answers is
that the proponents, they have a lot of people from Seattle
which have been either--and they're very interested in it, but
it's not the local people. We have not had any public hearing
as we know it in Snohomish County. I was a planning
commissioner for 2 years about 10 years ago, and we have it set
up that a public hearing is something that's publicized, and
everybody knows about it, et cetera.
And then the last thing, it is not wild, and you have
already heard testimony.
In closing, I would urge you to reexamine the premises and
the promises of Wild Sky, and I would urge you to read the
facts of the Forest Service studies and letters, and by passing
this bill out of committee, as it is written, you would do
great injustice to the rural people of Snohomish County, so I
urge you to look at the facts that this proposal also goes
beyond the 1964 Wilderness Act, and eventually I ask you not to
destroy hundreds of jobs in the rural Snohomish County.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Postema follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Postema, Local Businessman, Snohomish, WA
Honorable Members of the Committee, my name is John Postema and I
have lived in Snohomish County, Washington, for the last 30 years. My
wife Maryke and I, own a large garden center and retail nursery called
Flower World. We are using almost 100 acres to grow plants trees and
shrubs for the general public. Over 300,000 customers visit our nursery
every year and we employ 150 people at peak times.
About ten years ago, I was a Snohomish County Planning Commissioner
and I also represented the Washington State Nursery Association for
four years on the Snohomish County Groundwater committee. The following
comments represent my views and interest, as well as my company's
interest, and the interests of the horticultural and nursery industry,
concerning the Wild Sky Wilderness Act being proposed by our Senator
Murray and Congressman Larsen.
For the last forty years, I have worked in the horticultural
industry growing plants and trees for a better environment. I am not
here to tell you that we should not have additional Wilderness areas.
In fact, I voted and supported Representative Rick Larsen in his last
election. What I am here to tell you, is that if Congress is to
designate additional Wilderness in the County in which I live and work,
it should be done the right way. In the case of Wild Sky, I wish to
bring two important issues to your attention as a result of my
discussions with many people in local communities of Snohomish County.
In the first place there are two procedural problems with the Wild
Sky proposal:
1. wild sky is not supported by the local community
Contrary to what proponents have told you, hardly anyone in
Snohomish County knows anything about Wild Sky. We have contacted all
of the cities around the Wild Sky area and none is supportive of the
idea, mainly because they do not know anything about it. Aside from two
informational meetings, there have been no public meetings, no
hearings, no studies, and no input from the general public. Even though
the City of Index organized a town hall meeting, and the Mayor supports
the proposal, the rest of the City Council does not support Wild Sky.
In my view this proposal is strictly a political move to please the
Seattle-based environmental organizations.
For example taking a look at the list of elected officials who are
supporting Wild Sky according to the Wild Washington Campaign
organization. All of these people are from different counties other
than mine with the one exception previously noted. It should be pointed
out that none of the elected officials in the area impacted by this
proposal is on that list. Behind the scenes, it seems that outside
interests have been making decisions for the people who will be
affected by the Wild Sky proposal.
Elected Official Endorsements of Wild Washington's Local Efforts
State Representatives
Fred Jarrett (R), District 41
Aaron Reardon (D), District 38
Mayors
Mark Asmundson, Mayor, City of Bellingham
Bill Baarsma (D), Mayor, City of Tacoma
Cary Bozeman (D), Mayor, City of Bremerton
Kem Hunter, Mayor, Town of Index
Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle
County Council Members
Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, Whatcom County Council
Seth Fleetwood, Whatcom County Council
David Irons (R), King County Council
Kathy Lambert (R), King County Council
Rob McKenna (R), King County Council
Dan McShane, Whatcom County Council
Sharon Roy, Whatcom County Council
County Commissioners
Rhea Y. Miller, San Juan County Commissioner
John Roskelley (D), Spokane County Commissioner
Steve Tharinger (D), Clallam County Commissioner
Richard Wojt (D), Jefferson County Commissioner
Of course, there are people in Snohomish County supporting Wild
Sky, but by and large the local community does not know about it. If
the Snohomish County Council is not supporting Wild Sky, the question
has to rise why are we doing this?
The list of organizations supporting Wild Sky is almost exclusively
environmental groups. The Washington Wilderness Coalition has stated
that their goal is to designate an additional 3 million acres of
Federal lands in Washington State as Wilderness.
Organizational Endorsements of Wild Washington's Local Efforts
1000 Friends of Washington
Alpine Lakes Protection Society
Association of Bainbridge Communities
The Backpacking Club
Betts Meadows Wetland Preserve
Biodiversity Northwest
Black Hills Audubon Society
Bridgeport Way Community Association
Cascade Chapter--Sierra Club
The Cascadians Clear Creek Council
Crystal Conservation Coalition
Earth Ministry
Eastern Environmental
Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs
Friends of the Loomis Forest
Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park
Friends of the Wild Sky
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Gifford Pinchot Task Force
Gonzaga Environmental Organization
Issaquah Alps Trails Club
Kettle Range Conservation Group
The Lands Council
Leavenworth Adopt-A-Forest
Lighthawk
Monte Cristo Preservation Association
The Mountaineers
Mt. Baker Wilderness Association
National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS)--PNW
Native Forest Network
The Nature Conservancy--Washington Chapter
North Cascades Conservation Council
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance
Olympic Park Associates
Pacific Biodiversity Institute
Pend Oreille Environmental Team
PCC Farmland Fund
Pilchuck Audubon Society
Republicans for Environmental Protection
Seattle Audubon Society
Snohomish Group--Sierra Club
Spokane Audubon Society
Spokane Canoe and Kayak
Spokane Mountaineers
Tatoosh Group--Sierra Club
Trout Unlimited--Washington Council
Tulalip Tribe of Washington
Upper Columbia River Group--Sierra Club
Washington Association of Churches
Washington Coalition of Citizens with disAbilities
Washington Environmental Council
Washington Trails Association
Washington Wilderness Coalition
Washington Wildlife Federation
WashPIRG
Whidbey Audubon Society
Whidbey Environmental Action Network
The Wilderness Land Trust
The Wilderness Society
Wild Steelhead Coalition
2. portions of wild sky are not ``untrammeled by man''
In testimony before this Committee last year, Ms. Abigail Kimbell,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, testified that the
agency had significant concerns with about 36,000 acres of land inside
the Wild Sky proposal. This hearing revealed the second procedural
problem: the fact that many of the areas inside Wild Sky are not
suitable for Wilderness designation. This point was also noted last
year by the House of Representatives Resource Committee Chairman who
said: ``there are members of this committee that have strong concerns
about this bill as it stands now. The bill includes lands that do not
have wilderness character and do not meet the intent of the Wilderness
Act of 1964.''
The fact that non suitable lands may be designated as wilderness,
which really are not ``wilderness'', should drive Congress to examine
the far reaching consequences for the people of Snohomish County by
conducting appropriate environmental and economic impact studies. When
one looks at the map of Wild Sky it becomes obvious that this is not a
large contiguous landmass, but really an artificial Wilderness creation
of almost five pieces, dissected by rivers, roads and non-wilderness
areas. It is this proliferation of so called wilderness pieces, that
are causing the problems of the impact of unintended consequences. The
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan only identified 33,000 acres of the
Wild Sky area as being suitable for wilderness. The consequences of
declaring 70,000 acres of lowlands as eligible for Wilderness
designation is far too complicated to contemplate without the benefit
of extensive studies. Interestingly enough, it is precisely this type
of procedure that is being followed in the current effort to create
additional Wilderness as part of the I-90 Wilderness Study effort
directed by Congress.
The Wild Sky area as proposed is not ``untrammeled'' by man, and
going forward with this proposal would set a dangerous precedent for
future designations.
SERIOUS NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Loss of 600 Jobs Possible in the Recreational Sector
The U.S. Forest Service-Study, dated September 2001, evaluated the
differences in spending habits of visitors to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest. Regarding visitors to Wilderness areas, the study
clearly shows a potential negative financial impact on retail sales
(see calculations below). Thirty million dollars less in sales in the
recreational industry translates into a job loss of 600 employment
opportunities. Proponents have forwarded misleading information of
increased revenues for local communities based on nothing more than
their opinions. The U.S. Forest Service Study speaks for itself.
The 2001 Forest Service Study shows the following data:
Visits outside existing Wilderness areas total 10.4 million. (page
8) Visits to Wilderness areas total 700,000, which is less than 7
percent of the total visits to the General Forest. Average total
expenditure per year for outdoor recreation by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
Forest visitor is $1,656.74 of which $60.02 is spent within 50 miles of
the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest on each visit. In comparison the
Wilderness visitor spent $1,836.05 for outdoor recreation per year, and
spends $27.54 within 50 miles of the Wilderness. Note that these
figures do not include the expenditures for gas and oil which are $8.93
for the regular Forest visitor and a controversial $148.56 for the
Wilderness area visitor. It is very unlikely that a wilderness area
visitor would drive around a wilderness area and use almost $150.00 in
gas and oil per visit. (page 14 and 19). (Note: Wild Sky is being
heralded as being only one hour drive from Seattle).
Potential Economic Impact on Tourism Income on Local Communities
35 percent of the 2 million acres of Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest is
already Wilderness (13 different wildernesses totaling over 700,000
acres). By adding another 100,000 acres of Wild Sky Wilderness (14%) we
are adding approximately 100,000 wilderness visitors (14% of 700,000
visits), who could spend $27.54 within 50 miles of the forest. That
adds up to $2,754,000 to the local economy. However, by doing so, we
have to subtract 100,000 acres from the 1,300,000 acres of national
forest, which translates into approximately 8% reduction. It also
diminishes the local expenditures by 800,000 less visitors (8% of 10
million), which could have spent 800,000 x $60,00 = $48 million dollar
less. The total impact is $48,000,000 less tourism dollars for the
local communities, minus the increase of Wilderness visitors
expenditures ($2,754,00) to the local community. Even if we add the
controversial gas and oil expenditures per person of $148,56, we will
still have a negative economic impact of over 30 million dollars.
Conclusion: A Potential Negative Impact of 30 Million Dollars to the
Local Businesses
ADDITIONAL JOB LOSSES DUE TO LOSS OF TIMBER SALES
The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National forest covers almost 2 million
acres, of which over 721,000 acres (35%) are already designated as
Wilderness. Under the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan only 53,000 acres
(2.5% of total) of land on the Forest were to have been allocated to
``matrix'' and be made available for future commercial timber harvest
under multiple-use management. The Forest Service estimates that
approximately 11% of these matrix lands are located within the current
Wild Sky proposal. If these lands become Wilderness, the agency now
estimates future timber sale output will be reduced another 13% with
attendant losses in employment and associated drop in ``25% payments''
to my county for schools and roads.
Additional losses of timber sales are adding insult to injury to
the local forest products industry and timber dependent communities.
The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie timber sales information shows that in the
early 1970's the timber sales were fluctuating between 300 to 350 MMBF
per year enough to support 5 sawmills. In 1990 this was down to 108
MMBF. In 2001 it was zero and in 2002 it was only 0.2 MMBF; barely
enough to support one single sawmill shift.
WIPING OUT THE FOREST PRODUCT GATHERING INDUSTRY
Experts estimate that the business of gathering salal,
huckleberries, mosses, pine cones, evergreen boughs, bark, wild
grasses, onions, roots and herbs is a 500 million dollar business in
the Pacific North West. Federal agencies estimate that there are at
least 10,000 legal harvesters active in the region's forest. Twice as
many may be working without a permit. Harvesters took more than 10,500
tons of pine, cedar and fir boughs in 2001. It is not known how much of
this comes from the potential Wild Sky areas, but it is a fact that the
Nursery and Landscape industry buys a lot of forest grown live Vine
Maples, Alpine Fir, Douglas Fir, Mountain Hemlock and Aspen (up to 12
feet in size) in the Spring and for Christmas trees in the Fall.
Firewood collection and seed gathering are other sources of employment.
Sources of information: Non Timber Forest Products, http://
www.ifcae.org/ntfp/ U.S Forest Service, http://www.fs.fed.us/ Oregon
Department of Forestry, http://www.odf.state.or.us/ Washington
Department of natural resources, http://www.wa.gov/dnr/ Simpson
Resource C, http://www.simpson.com/
On page 16 of the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Visitors
Monitoring report you will find that there are as many fishermen as
there are forest product gathering people in these forests. This
illustrates the potential magnitude of impact of denying the use of
forest product gathering to the communities. Since we are talking about
substantial revenues, it would be very imprudent to ignore these data
without further studies.
FUTURE IMPACT ON WATER SUPPLY AND WATER STORAGE
Wild Sky would severely limit Snohomish County from managing its
water resources. Currently the Snohomish River is short on water during
the summer and no additional water can be made available to agriculture
unless more storage is provided. These were the conclusions from the
Snohomish County Groundwater Committee. Topographical maps show
potential storage areas in the Wild Sky area or in areas immediately
adjacent to it.
The law will only allow such a water project if the President of
the United States permits such a project and only if he finds that such
use ``will better serve the interest of the United States and the
people thereof than will its denial''.
We believe that there are potential sites for water control, which
have to be examined. The current ESA protection of listed fish species
in Snohomish County is focussing on habitat improvement. Low stream
flows are a major concern as well as the unmitigated impact of erosion
caused by floods to salmon populations. It is becoming quite clear that
better management of the water systems is a key component to the
survival of these endangered species. This wilderness proposal goes the
other way. It is highly debatable if Old Growth Trees add or mitigate
the high flow of rivers. The most damaging floods in Snohomish County
have always been associated with the fast melting of snow in the lower
elevations. Interestingly though, the biggest flood in Snohomish County
occurred before 1900, when no logging had taken place in the Snohomish
river watershed! The point being that Congress should not let Wild Sky
proceed without first addressing these important water issues,
especially since this area is located in lower elevations, unlike other
wilderness areas in Washington.
OTHER ISSUES
The following issues are of concern to the growing communities of
people who are opposing ``Wild Sky":
Issue 1. HUNTING
Claim that hunting becomes a problem, when no roads are allowed.
Discussion: Hunting is not allowed in national park wilderness
areas, but it is allowed in non-park wilderness areas. For practical
reasons it becomes awfully hard to hunt larger animals away from roads.
Issue 2. MINING
Claim: ``That for all practical purposes there will be no mining .
. . within such an area''.
Discussion: We looked up the Wild Sky bill and the 1964 Wilderness
Act. The Act stipulates that mining claims after September 1964 and
January 1984 are subject to all kinds of restrictions and that all such
claims are subject to restrictions prescribed by the Secretary of
Agriculture. These restrictions are based on the concept to ``protect
the Wilderness character of the land''. In reality, there will be no
mining anymore, if there are no roads for access.
Issue 3. SEAPLANES
Claim: Seaplanes may not be allowed on Lake Isabel.
Discussion: The Wild Sky proposal, as introduced, states under
section 4(d): ``FLOAT PLANE ACCESS as provided by section 4(d)(1) of
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.) 1133 (d)(1), the use of float planes on
Lake Isabel, where such use has already become established, shall be
permitted to continue subject to such reasonable restrictions as the
Secretary of Agriculture determines desirable''.
However, the phrase ``reasonable restrictions'' is not being used
in 1133(d)(1). It states ``may be permitted to continue subject to such
restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture deems desirable''. The
implications of that sentence are that the secretary is not bound by
``reasonable'' consideration, but by other considerations which are
spelled out by the Wilderness Act i.e.: ``shall be devoted to the
public purpose of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical use.''
This unfortunate language does not at all secure access for
existing floatplane use, as future flights would be subject to the
changing winds of political appointees. In addition, this language
could be subject to future court challenges.
Issue 4. DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
Claim: A lot of areas in the proposed Wild Sky do not meet the
definition of Wilderness. Other people claim that Wilderness is ``in
the eye of the beholder'', and that Congress can do whatever it wants
to do.
Discussion: America is still a land bound by law. Law binds its
people. If Congress wishes to change the definition of Wilderness, it
should explicitly do so by amending the Wilderness Act of 1964 rather
than creating a defacto change as clearly the Wild Sky supporters want
to happen. The Wilderness Act of 1964 as passed by Congress explicitly
states that the definition of Wilderness is land ``retaining its
primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements'' and
which: `` generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable''. The argument, that other wildernesses do not comply
with these requirements either, is not a viable argument principally
because there are different standards between wilderness areas (the
East settled earlier than the West). Two wrongs do not make it right.
Furthermore, the Forest Service testified that 36,000 acres
probably should not be included, as well as another 13,000 acres which
was identified under the North West Forest Plan, for commercial timber.
The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan had identified only 33,000 acres
of land as being suitable for wilderness inside Wild Sky. And then
there is the small issue of at least 7 bridges, 2 dams and at least 30
miles of inventoried roads (many with high risk culverts) right in the
middle of the Wild Sky proposal.
Issue 5. STRATEGY OF DECEPTION OF INCLUDING NON WILDERNESS AREAS
We object to the continuing strategy of declaring multiple use
public lands off limits for a privileged few, when they are not really
wilderness areas. Other people think that is not a real problem,
because it has been done before.
Discussion: Special interest groups are making an effort all over
the Pacific Northwest to use that strategy. Look at the I-90
Wilderness, the Kettle Range in Eastern Washington, the Dark Divide,
the South Quinault Ridge on the Olympic Peninsula and the Pratt River
near North Bend. As pointed out before, just because it has been done
before does not justify Wild Sky.
Issue 6. CLOSING OF 30 MILES OF ROADS
Claim: Thirty miles of roads that either are in good or bad shape
prove the point that this is not a wilderness and that the cost and
impact of decommissioning such roads should necessitate appropriate
environmental analysis.
Discussion: The argument that only a disputable 8.6 miles of roads
are driveable does not take away the fact that many roads have
honeycombed the rest of the area for different purposes. We do not
think that you can make the case that this area is ``untrammeled by
man'', a requirement for wilderness designation. We have had reports
from landowners in the area about landslides caused by the
decommissioning of roads. Furthermore, studies have shown that
decommissioning of roads is more expensive than constructing them. In a
June 2002 letter to Congresswoman Dunn, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest
Supervisor estimated that the cost of converting only 12 miles of road
to wilderness-suitable trails was $6.5 million. Therefore, an
environmental impact study is absolutely necessary. It is amazing to me
that all of a sudden the environmental groups do not see the need and
wisdom of such a basic concept.
Issue 7. ACCESS FOR DISABLED AMERICANS
Claim: The concept of limited access to Wilderness areas flies in
the face of the American Disability Act.
Discussion: Logic indicates that the wilderness concept denies
practical access to disabled people. If somebody can explain how non-
motorized wheel chairs will be able to access wilderness trails, we may
change our view. There is no doubt in my mind that the great majority
of Americans with disabilities value wilderness areas, but when it
comes to access; it does not make sense. Forest Service data clearly
shows that most wilderness users are young, and that the profile of
wilderness users does not at all match the diversity of the American
public including our local communities.
Issue 8. FIRE CONTROL
We question the impact of a different fire control policy in a
Wilderness area than in non-wilderness areas. Others claim that man
made fires are less of a problem in wilderness areas and therefor
Wilderness is better.
Discussion: With the experience of the last couple of years in
mind, it is safe to say that fuel build up in the Forest is one of the
biggest causes for large fires. Forest researchers now know that
catastrophic 'stand replacement' fires occur on about a 300 year cycle
in Washington's western Cascade range. The claim of the benefits of
wilderness unfortunately does not extend to naturally caused fires,
which are by far more occurring. Without getting into an argument of
fighting fires or not, the problem exists that large areas of Wild Sky
already have been managed by man and therefore the entire eco-system
has changed. It is our opinion that more likely than not the ``hands
off'' fire policy in wilderness areas will result in unacceptable
losses in a Wild Sky wilderness and resulting negative impacts on water
quality and wildlife. The whole Wild Sky proposal consists out of
almost 5 separated sections, intersected by rivers, public and private
land. The reason for this completely artificial segmentation lies in
the very reason that Wild Sky is only a partial wilderness. Ignoring
these facts will result in catastrophically fire losses to surrounding
lands. Therefor these issues have to be addressed.
Issue 9. DISEASE CONTROL
We claim that this issue could have a substantial impact on
surrounding areas including private and state lands. Therefore, this
has to be taken in consideration. Others claim that a proposed
wilderness area like ``Wild Sky'' can take care of most disease
problems in a better way than a managed forest, and that it does not
make a difference because commercial forest are treated the same way.
Discussion: First off, one of the main difference with commercial
forest is the fact that disease and fire fighting is not subject to
``conditions, the Secretary deems desirable''. In addition the problem
with Wild Sky is the fact that it is separated in 5 pieces. Because of
that, the impact of a different disease control in Wild Sky can cause
insurmountable disease problems for managed areas adjacent to it. Many
forest diseases are fungi diseases, which can spread through contact
and other means. One of the newer ``Sudden Oak Death'' (SOD) fungus
disease will also attack Douglas Firs, Rhododendrons and other nursery
stock. A newly discovered non-native pathogen Phytophthora ramorum,
discovered in Oregon has the Xmas tree industry as well the timber and
nursery industry on edge. Any contaminated trees have to be destroyed
by fire. Having the potential of untreated areas in a wilderness area,
next to and among managed forest, is asking for trouble.
Issue 10. TIMBER HARVEST
We maintain that the economic impact of a no logging policy should
be analyzed. Others claim that there are very little logging
possibilities in the Wild Sky area anyway and that it would not make
any difference in the supply of timber.
Discussion: I am not an expert on the marketing of timber, but I do
know that the American Forest Resource Council, which includes most of
the local sawmills in Snohomish County, recently reported that their
member companies want to have the matrix lands taken out of the ``Wild
Sky'' proposal, so as to help try and achieve the timber targets, that
were promised under the Clinton's Northwest Forest Plan. Presently,
there is vastly more timber that dies each year in the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest than is being harvested.
Issue 11. NEED OF AN OPEN AND PUBLIC PROCESS AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY
We claim that ``Wild Sky'' has progressed out of sight, off the
radar screen and does not have the backing of the local community.
Furthermore an Economic and Environmental Impact Study is necessary.
Others claim it is not necessary since it is more advantageous to have
a wilderness there.
Discussion: After contacting the cities of Skykomish, Index,
GoldBar, Sultan, Monroe, Snohomish, Darrington and Arlington, we found
that hardly anyone knows anything about this plan. None of above cities
organized a formal public meeting with the exception of a town hall
meeting in Index. None of the city councils, including the Index
council, support the Wild Sky proposal. The Snohomish County Council is
not in favor of this plan and questions the authority of the rezoning
of over 100,000 acres in Snohomish County without the knowledge of the
council.
It is even more amazing that the Snohomish County Council has not
been involved, when Representative Rick Larsen was a Snohomish County
Councilman before he became a member of the House. Since Rick Larsen's
own party has been in control of the County until January 2002, there
should have been no reason not to ask the support of the Snohomish
County Council. The only reason for this lack of support can be found
in the fact that this ``Wild Sky'' proposal is either unsound or is
unknown. In either case the solution is an open, honest and public
process based on information from environmental and economic impact
studies.
There is no reason why there should not be a formal EIS as is being
used in the I-90 Alpine Lake Wilderness area.
I think it should be realized that such a far-reaching proposal has
an impact much larger than the town of Index. This proposal takes away
the rights from all Snohomish County citizens. Therefor they all should
have a chance to know more about it.
After reviewing this discussion, there are four big issues:
1. Why are the People of Snohomish County not entitled to an
open and public process? If ``Wild Sky'' is such a good thing
for Snohomish County, why is it not done the correct way?
2. ``Wild Sky'' is not as wild as it appears. We are changing
the law by doing so, with a lot of unintended consequences?
3. How many jobs will Snohomish County lose? How much will it
cost and who is going to pay for it? The people are entitled to
scientific, rational answers on all questions. No opinions!
4. And finally the question has to be answered: ``Why are we
doing this and who will benefit ?''
Until such actions have been taken, the Wild Sky wilderness
proposal should not go forward.
Senator Craig. Mr. Postema, thank you very much. Now let me
turn to Ed Husmann from the Washington Farm Bureau.
Welcome, Ed.
STATEMENT OF ED HUSMANN, MEMBER, SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGTON
FARM BUREAU
Mr. Husmann. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee and ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I'm Ed Husmann. I've
lived in the Sultan, Washington area for about the past 25
years. Sultan is located a few miles west of the Wild Sky area.
I'm here today on behalf of myself and the Snohomish County
Farm Bureau and a great many others whose letters and
signatures I have brought with me today.
With the committee's permission, I would like to enter into
the record these petitions and letters.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The referenced material has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Craig. They will become a part of the committee
record.
Mr. Husmann. Thank you, and my testimony, of course.
I have with me--and included in these letters, I should
point out that some are from elected officials, specifically
State Senator Val Stevens, State Representative Dan
Kristiansen, State Representative Kirk Pearson. These are the
State officials that, this is their area, Wild Sky is contained
in their legislative districts.
I feel that it is important for you to know that I and my
family, including my grandchildren, some of whom of which are
adults already, and I really don't want that to go in the
record maybe, but we've hiked, back-packed, mountain-biked,
swam both lake and rivers, mountain biked, 4-wheel-driven,
that's my grandson, and just driven this area over these years.
I am and have been a member of REI for 30 years. My wife
and I are members of the Mountaineers, the Washington Trails
Association--this coming Saturday is National Trails Day, and
my wife and I will be up on the Heather Lake Trail doing trail
maintenance in support of WTA. However, I'm opposed to this
Wild Sky issue, and that's why I'm here today.
S. 391, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003, does not
increase the recreational opportunities for the people of my
State. This proposal severely limits the type of activities
enjoyed in this area at this time. In fact, it is my belief
that if this passed into law, it will actually make the
freedoms we currently enjoy in this area a criminal act. I
believe that the letters and petitions that I have submitted
here today clearly demonstrate that an open public process in
regard to the Wild Sky issue was not conducted. Even our own
Snohomish County Council states that they were not consulted.
This is a controversial issue. Many people and elected
officials state that they have been left out of the process. To
the best of my knowledge, no one has ever done an economic
study or reviewed the potential impact of the Wild Sky proposal
on our county. Our Snohomish County Council clearly views S.
391 as a serious adverse impact to Snohomish County.
It appears that many of the promises to the people
contained in this proposal cannot be kept, as noted by Mr.
Phipps' letter, the Forest Supervisor. The cost, as outlined in
Mr. Phipps' letter for trail-building and converting into 16
roads is enormous, given the cost of removal and probably
restoration of 90 or more culverts, make this proposal sheer
financial lunacy.
This area does not comply, by definition or intent, to
wilderness as stipulated in the 1964 Wilderness Act. This area
is not suitable or desirable for wilderness designation.
Support for Wild Sky has been greatly, if not deceptively
overstated, and it's fraught with technical, legal, and safety
discrepancies.
I find the 1964 Wilderness Act statement of policy in
section 2, that the wilderness are established for use and
enjoyment of the American people, people are the only species
mentioned in that section. To maintain, enhance ecosystems,
habitat, fish-spawning areas are not mentioned and not part of
the purpose of that 1964 act. In fact, as stated in that act,
quote, man himself is a visitor who does not remain. To me,
this means that man, by law, is not to remain and tinker with
the natural character of this area.
There are no threats to the recreational use in this area
at this time. In all that I've seen and heard of the Wild Sky,
there are no compelling, in fact, no reasons at all to proceed
with the Wild Sky Wilderness Act.
Again, thank you for allowing me to speak my peace not only
for me, but those who have entrusted me to bring this message
to you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Husmann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Husmann, Local Businessman,
Snohomish Washington Farm Bureau
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name
is Ed Husmann and I live in Sultan Washington, which is located a few
miles west of the proposed Wild Sky area. I am here today on behalf of
myself, the Snohomish County Farm Bureau and a great many others whose
letters and signatures I have brought with me today. These individuals,
and groups, have asked me to present to this committee with your
consent, their letters and petitions, to be entered into the record in
regard to and in opposition of S. 391, the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of
2003. I would also like to enter into the record other documents that I
have brought with me in support of the Snohomish County Farm bureau's
our opposing position on this legislation.
I believe that it is relevant for you to know that I have lived
next to ``Wild Sky'' for about 25 years and I know the area well.
Furthermore, my wife, children, grand children, and myself have all
participated in both motorized and non-motorized recreational
activities in the proposed ``Wild Sky'' area over these years. I have
day hiked, backpacked, off road motorcycled and mountain biked this
area. I have backpacked into Lake Isabel and my children and I have
flown into Isabel for a picnic on a floatplane. We enjoy these diverse
activities and do not want to change any recreational opportunities
afforded us, or for that matter, anyone, in this area. We only hope
that the people using this, or any area, just use common sense, are
polite, and considerate of both the land and the others in the area.
Unfortunately, these qualities cannot be legislated.
I would also like to point out that the list of organizations in
support of the ``Wild Sky'' (enclosure #1) may not, necessarily reflect
the views of its members or patrons. The list published on the Wild
Washington Campaign website lists, among others, REI (Recreational
Equipment Inc.), The Mountaineers and WTA (Washington Trails
Association). I have been a member of REI for more than 30years and
spent an enormous amount of money at their stores and through their
catalogue. I can tell you that my wife would rather shop at REI than
Nordstrom's and we really do not appreciate REI spending ``our''
dividends on lobbying ``Wild Sky'' into existence. We also belong to
the Mountaineers and the WTA (Washington Trails Association). As you
may know, June 7th is National Trails Day. On this day my wife and I
will be working on the Heather Lake trail, located in Snohomish County
as part of a WTA organized event.
I read an article published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct.
3, 2002 (enclosure #2) about an area called Eagle Lake. This article is
aimed at garnering support for the ``Wild Sky'' proposal. What is
missing in this article is a discussion of the two routes of getting
there. People who know of this area understand the meaning of ``the
hard way'' and ``the easy way.'' You had better be in good shape and
not trying to bring the family traveling the hard route. I'm an
experienced Dad, and I now understand that my pack is considerably
heavier when my children are along. The hard route will, undoubtedly,
survive the future Wilderness designation. The easy route, which I
take, is located by driving in on a logging road to a trail that is
much easier but still enough of a hike to make you appreciate the lake
upon arrival.
This route will most likely not survive the Wild Sky process.
Practically speaking, passing Wild Sky means I will no longer be able
to take my grand children, or they take me, to Eagle Lake. Further in
the article, one of the hikers lamented, ``one of the great tragedies
of the world is that this is not (designated) wilderness.''
Unfortunately, wisdom comes late in life and youthful vigor too early.
Where he was, at that time standing, was wilderness, it was years ago
for long forgotten hikers and will be there for future outdoors types.
There is no current threat to alter this, it is not broken, and I am
convinced that tinkering with it insures that it will be. One
additional note, one of the individuals quoted in this article is very
much not in support of this proposal, in fact, he created and has
circulated a petition (enclosure 3) in opposition to the ``Wild Sky''
proposal and I believe that you will also find that the Trailblazers,
referred to in this article, have not endorsed the ``Wild Sky''
proposal.
In terms of this proposed Act itself, I still do not know--why Wild
Sky? This area is not wilderness to start with, in fact, far from it.
``Wilderness'' is concisely defined in the 1964 Act and unless repealed
will remain the law for administering and adopting new Wilderness
areas. Although it appears that much of the 1964 Act language is used
in this proposal, the objective of this legislation seems to proceed in
an entirely new direction. While the 1964 Act preserves areas of
wilderness, this legislation is actually aimed at creating wilderness
where one does not currently exist. If the point is to provide access
to scenic points, or build trails, or save the trees, it does not take
designating it a wilderness area to do so.
The Federal government already manages this land; it takes Federal
permission to cut a tree. If this is the concern, then issue a
bulletin--Do Not Cut the Tree! But, using a wilderness designation to
protect trees, fish habitat, spawning areas to ensure the health of
salmon or steelhead is not appropriate, and may actually go against the
law. The 1964 Wilderness Act was enacted for people, not fish or bears
or goats or trees or heather, it was enacted to preserve a spot of
wilderness for the enjoyment of present and future generations of
people, the only species mentioned in Sec. 2. (Wilderness System
Established Statement of Policy). It also states very clearly in, the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121) that these wilderness areas ``shall be
administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such
manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness.''
I believe that last year this committee heard the testimony of
Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System; July
30 (enclosure #4). Although her testimony is not in opposition, she
clearly identifies many serious problems with the ``Wild Sky''
proposal. In brief she points out that about 1/3 of this proposed area
is unsuitable for Wilderness Designation. Being more specific, the
local Forest supervisor stated in a letter to Congresswoman Dunn
(enclosure #4) that ``including these areas would be a change in the
standard used by Congress in considering wilderness suitability.'' I
think it is fair to say that staffs of the originators of these bills
have not fully engaged groups that are opposed or have legitimate
concerns about the public process or lack thereof. This supports my
observation in that no one in this valley seems to know any thing about
this proposal, or its location and, we are into the second year for
this issue. Most of ``Wild Sky'' was not formally studied for its
wilderness potential. Lands proposed for Wilderness must include formal
public involvement. The ``Wild Sky'' area is not threatened . . . why
Wilderness then? Proponents of ``Wild Sky'' have failed to show a
demonstrated need for Wilderness. As also noted on the Wild Washington
Campaign website (www.wildwashington.org) as recently as last year,
``the publicly stated goal of the Wild Washington Campaign is to
designate an additional 3 million acres of Wilderness in Washington
State'', begs the question, is this proposal a capricious, un-
thoughtful attempt to fulfill the goals of a vocal minority? Again--Why
Wild Sky?
The cost of this project has not been discussed to my knowledge. As
Mr. Phipps points out (enclosure #5) in question 2, the forest service
has not built new trails in this area because of the rugged terrain. He
further states that if designated wilderness ``it is likely that the
Forest would adopt the position that no new trails should be built
inside the Wild sky.'' In the Wild Sky proposal there is a lot of talk
of a trail system, but no mention of where the money is to come from.
Mr. Phipps puts the cost of trails in this area at $100,000 per mile.
This is serious money when considering the construction of a whole
system of trails. He puts the cost of converting the 12 miles of road
to trail at $6.5 million, another serious consideration that has not
been discussed. I understand that there may be more than 90 culverts to
be removed and fish passage restored. What kind of dollar figure do we
have for this? There are many costs to this proposal that simply have
not been addressed. This is pure fiscal irresponsibility at its'
finest.
Accordingly, Representative Larsen has encouraged an open, public
process where all interested parties can offer input, ask questions,
and have their concerns addressed (enclosure #6). As best we can count,
there have been 3 public meetings. I do not know what occurred in
Seattle but I have talked to individuals who attended the meetings in
Monroe and Index. I'm told that the Monroe meeting were tables with
handouts, not a forum for discussion and debate. At the Index meeting,
apparently many people were not allowed or able to get into the
building to offer their opinions (enclosure #7).
Representative Larsen states (enclosure #6) that there is a 50:1
ratio in favor of wilderness protection. One assumes quite naturally
that he is talking about ``Wild Sky.'' In one day of gathering
signatures in Index it appears that it may be 50:1 against ``Wild
Sky.'' Of course he did not say 50:1 for Wild Sky did he, the ole lead
them to assume trick. He further states that he has received positive
feedback from local elected officials, local business leaders and local
recreation groups. Notice that he does not state that this positive
feedback concerns ``Wild Sky'' specifically.
I guess if you want the real story you will have to read carefully.
Maybe ask for a few thousand of those ``thousands of letters on the
proposed Wild Skykomish Wilderness area.'' Note that no actual claim is
made that these letters support Wild Sky, but the implication is there.
The letters and petitions that I have brought with me today speak for
themselves. I drew up the ``just say NO Wild Sky'' petition just last
Thursday. I gave them to four people, one gas station and our local
bakery to see if anyone would sign. That's about two days with very
little effort out here in the sticks. This cry for ``Wild Sky'' looks
like a hoax from here.
The ``Wild Sky'' proposal received a big NO from the Snohomish
County Farm Bureau as well as the Washington State Farm Bureau Board of
Directors (enclosure #8). Actually the vote was unanimous and I believe
all of the Washington State county farm bureaus have passed resolutions
rejecting ``Wild Sky.'' The 2003 policies of the American Farm Bureau
Federation (enclosure #9) oppose expansion of wilderness areas, they
also call for legislation that would allow local County governments to
ratify or reject any proposed wilderness area. It is evident that the
farming community resists designation changes to wilderness at all
levels. In addition, the Snohomish County Council has stated (Enclosure
#11) that this bill S. 391 ``posses' serious adverse impacts on
Snohomish County, Washington.
I'm not sure why the Federal government wants to litigate with the
people who have mineral resource claims that will be affected by this
proposal. Wild Sky is inconsistent with mining operations and the
necessary access. Ms. Webster notified the House committee last year
(enclosure #10) that there was a potential conflict, and it appears
that she and her attorney are prepared to litigate the issue. There are
other claims that have this same potential. The litigation over these
claims is unnecessary and unwarranted. The cost to the taxpayers to try
these cases is certainly avoidable.
In summary, this area is just not suitable or desirable for
Wilderness designation. Support for this proposal has been greatly
overstated and is fraught with technical and legal problems. The letter
from the Finley's is very disturbing, and points directly to serious
concerns relating to way support for ``Wild Sky'' has been carried out.
Many people, including our local elected officials, are completely
ignorant of the proposal, its implications, even its location. It
appears that a large number of those who are knowledgeable, reject
``Wild Sky.'' No one seems to believe that this will be good for the
local economy; in any case, there are no studies to support this
statement either way.
The Forest Service is certainly not keen on the idea and clearly
states that the purported new trail system, one of the key promises by
the proponents, will very likely not happen. The Farmers and Cattleman,
who are traditional stewards of the land, do not support ``Wild Sky.''
Certainly there is now serious doubt as to the support for ``Wild Sky''
by the people in the town of Index itself, who supposedly,
overwhelmingly, support this issue. There are issues of potential
litigation, right of way problems, private property issues and safety
issues. In all that I have seen and heard of ``Wild Sky'' there are no
compelling reasons, in fact no reason at all, to proceed with this
legislation. The Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003, S. 391 will make
freedoms we currently enjoy in this area a criminal act. Please, just
say NO to ``Wild Sky.''
Senator Craig. Well, Ed, thank you very much. To all of
you, thank you for your testimony. I have several questions I
want to ask, and I'm sure Senator Cantwell has, too, but we do
thank you for taking the time to be here this morning.
Mike, you've heard from two other--well, one other person
who lives in the area and another person who expresses his
concern about the proposal and the way it was developed. To
your knowledge, were there any hearings or public meetings in
Snohomish County dealing with this issue that you attended?
Mr. Town. Yes, sir, there was, and I actually attended both
of them. In July 2001, a town meeting was held in the city of
Index, which is about a mile outside of the proposed area, and
then later that summer--I can't remember the exact date, but
Senator Murray and Congressman Larsen hosted a public meeting
in Monroe, which is the largest city down-valley from the
proposal, and then there was a public meeting in September that
was in Seattle, also held by Senator Murray and Congressman
Larsen.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee of course had a
hearing on June 30, 2002, and that was also, of course,
addressing this issue.
Senator Craig. Was testimony taken at those meetings that
were in--in other words, was the input of local citizens taken
at that time by testimony?
Mr. Town. I don't think there was any written testimony if
that's what you're asking, Senator Craig, no. There was more of
an informal way of how people were allowed to speak about their
concerns on the issue.
Senator Craig. Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell and myself
discussed in part the language of the 1964 act, or the intent
and the definition of wilderness, and you've heard that
expressed in general ways, and some specific ways here this
morning. I understand there is a fair amount of this, I don't
know what the total acreage is, land that would qualify because
of past roads as a national recreation area. Some would argue
that it might fit better as a national recreation area than
under wilderness designation. Have you ever looked at that, or
reacted to that proposal?
Mr. Town. In the early days of the Wild Sky proposal there
were discussions about including NRA status for certain areas
in the proposal. Specifically, they were more about areas that
were used by snowmobilers and other motorized people. These
included areas like, for example, Windy Ridge, and areas south
of Highway 2. Those areas were deleted from the new proposal of
the bill, predominantly because of the use by those user
groups, so the discussion on national recreation status for
those areas has not continued as far as I know.
In terms of some of the roads that are in the Wild Sky that
are going to be within the proposal, I'm not aware of any
particular discussion of including those areas as an NRA.
They're pretty dispersed. They're all over the place. I think
there would be some issues with drawing logical boundaries in
terms of that.
Senator Craig. I know one of the discussions we're
currently having is that in certain areas, certainly wilderness
designation fits. There are other areas where we're looking at
the potential of a new designation of back country recreation
that would have certain limitations to it, would not be a
national recreation area, might better fit certain categories.
Mr. Heck----
Mr. Heckert. Heckert.
Senator Craig. Heckert, thank you. I'm getting the emphasis
wrong. The Forest Service letter to Representative Dunn last
summer speaks to 2,500 acres of private land that will be
landlocked within the wilderness if this legislation passes.
Our current laws guarantee that such landowners have the right
to reasonable access. Would you oppose including language in
the bill that would require rights of way to establish and
include vehicle access?
Mr. Heckert. Throughout the wilderness area, or just to
specific----
Senator Craig. No, to the designated--to the private land,
the fee land that is within.
Mr. Heckert. I've never considered that situation. We'd
certainly look at it. I'm not prepared to say yes or no right
now based on the generality of the proposal, but it's certainly
something we'd consider.
Senator Craig. Okay, because it is our understanding that
there is a parcel of 2,500 acres--oh, several parcels, an
accumulative, a total private acreage of about 2,500 within the
boundary, the proposed boundary at this time.
Given the testimony you've heard today, have you ever
considered, or would you consider national recreation status or
back country recreation designation for any of this land that's
under consideration within the proposed boundaries of the
legislation now?
Mr. Heckert. I don't know the specifics of the designation
of back country recreation, but I do know that----
Senator Craig. It's yet to be defined.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. It is a current discussion that many of us
have. It would be more restrictive, but it would not deny the
use of some motorized recreational vehicles. It would obviously
be less restrictive than wilderness, but that's about as far as
I can go, because it's a conceptual thing now that many people
who look at wilderness consideration--but there are certain
lands that are recreated on now by motorized vehicles, but yet
it would be desirable that they not be logged or in any other
way utilized--have considered that. That's why I'm asking you
the question.
Mr. Heckert. We haven't discussed that, but we have
discussed that we are very comfortable with the wilderness
designation, so we're not entering into this as a fall-back
position. It's something, we've looked at the wilderness
designation, the restrictions on wilderness utilization, and we
are entirely comfortable with those, so that's the best way I
could answer that, I guess.
Senator Craig. Thank you. I appreciate that. That's not an
off-the-wall question, but obviously one that probably isn't
under active consideration in Snohomish County, at least as it
relates to that kind of a new designation.
Mr. Postema, in your testimony you point out that most of
the support for this bill comes from the Seattle metro area,
but that there's little local support. Further, you suggest
that the local people have not spoken out because they didn't
know about the proposal. Now, it is my perception that this
story was heavily reported last year after our first hearing
and then again in the fall. How is it that with all of the
reporting this has not become, or you're not aware of the issue
per se, or the development of the proposal?
Mr. Postema. As Mr. Town said, no public hearing--public
meeting is a different thing than public hearing, where people
have got input. The newspapers he is referring to are Seattle
newspapers, mainly. Later on some reports have surfaced in the
Everett newspaper, but I discussed and asked the same question
in June of 2002 of Congressman Rick Larsen, and he said, well,
everything was done properly, and it was basically a done deal,
and since we have some of our nurserymen out in the Sultan area
and in the Monroe area, they didn't report any problems. They
had never heard about it.
So this whole thing went under the radar, and this was my
question to Congressman Larsen, did this thing under the radar,
and he says no, absolutely not, and we hear this all the time,
and I'm not the only one who tells you this. The Snohomish
County Council, which is in the middle of this--I was a
planning commissioner 10 years ago, and any piece of land as
big as 1 acre had to go through a public hearing process when
it is being rezoned, and so therefore we're used to thinking in
terms of a public hearing where everybody has input, and as Mr.
Town said, there is no public input from this whole proposal,
so therefore it didn't have the exposure that people said, and
maybe it did in Seattle in the environmental community. It sure
did not in the rural areas.
Senator Craig. Last year, Kim Hunter, mayor of Index,
Washington, gave testimony in favor of the proposal, yet you
mentioned, you included the town of Index in a list of towns
you contacted and claimed that hardly anyone knows about the
plan. Has something changed, or has the mayor changed in his
position, or her--I guess that's a gentleman.
Mr. Postema. The impression has been created by Mayor Kim
Hunter that the town of Index and the city was all in favor.
His letters are on the letterhead from the city. He has been
censured for that by the city council. The city council of
Index does not support the Wild Sky, and I have some employees
in Sultan, and they live there, and they know everybody, and
they don't know anything about it, and so you've got a
situation where there's a presentation to the outside which
does not reflect what's happening on the local scene.
Senator Craig. Lastly, both Senators--one Senator remains
here this morning. Both Senators were here in support of it,
representatives from Washington State are supporting of it.
Have you worked with their offices, or contacted their offices
on this issue?
Mr. Postema. Yes, we have, and we have talked to Rick
Larsen's office. We have submitted our testimony and our
concerns about that, and we intend to keep working with these
offices.
Senator Craig. I have some questions of you, Ed, but my
time is up, and let me turn to Senator Cantwell for questions.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the distinguished panel here who has traveled all of this way
to be part of this hearing. I have a couple of different
questions on a variety of issues, and so I'll probably direct
them to individuals, but others feel free to jump in and
comment on them as well.
The first issue, on this issue of hearings and input, isn't
it correct that there was a Wild Sky workshop hearing in Monroe
on September 6 and, later in July, Index meetings that were
part of this, and that there is a document of record, written
testimony that were accumulated at those meetings?
Mr. Town. Yes, Senator, it's true that there were meetings,
I believe, on both those days, and as far as the input, yes,
people were allowed to write some input in the Monroe meeting,
and I'm sure Senator Murray's office has some records in terms
of that.
Senator Cantwell. I don't want to create a voluminous
record, but I think we ought to get some indication of what
those written testimony, the volume of that written testimony
and what it looks like so that we can understand how the
community has participated in the issue, so perhaps, Mr.
Chairman, that's something we can follow up on.
Mr. Husmann. I wonder if I could also answer, or at least
add to the question.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, jump in there when you can.
Mr. Husmann. It's somewhat interesting in that I've talked
to several people. The Monroe meeting, as I understand it, and
I was not there, from those who I've talked to, was more of a
display of tables and information.
I don't believe, other than the fact that some of the
people that signed up received from Congressman Larsen a letter
and a form to comment and return to him--and that was the
Monroe meeting. The town of Index, as the letter indicates
that--it's in the enclosures that I've submitted with my
testimony--was kind of interesting, because we all thought that
Index was fully supporting this issue, up until only last week,
and a friend of mine who has a son who's lived up there for 25
years, has a bed and breakfast, and I asked them and they were
not in favor, and I said, well, what about the rest of the
people around here, and I had a petition that I drew up just
several days ago, and that's what I submitted here, and it was
very easy to get--I don't know, there must be 100 signatures
there or something, and a lot of signatures are from Index.
But this couple went out to their neighbors, reluctantly,
because they thought everybody supported Wild Sky, and they, as
testified in their letter, it took them like, 2 hours before
they found one person who supported Wild Sky in the city, in
the town and the area of Index. I thought that was very
interesting, to say the least.
Also contained in some of that testimony from those people
that live in Index was that apparently they could not get into
that meeting that we're discussing at Index. Some claim they
couldn't get in, some claim they had to leave because it was
too hot, but in any case, apparently there were a number of
people who were not able to voice their objection, even though
they wanted to at that meeting.
So I don't--you know, this is not something I've
investigated, or you know, we don't--but there is a huge amount
of controversy out here now. I think we need to go look around
and ask around and see what we really have here.
Senator Cantwell. I'm sure that we will do that, and I know
that I have a resolution here that's by the city of Monroe, and
their support, and so we'll get all the resolutions and figure
out----
Mr. Husmann. Again, that one from Monroe was just a few
weeks ago, and why is Monroe suddenly going, council going and
supporting Wild Sky? Why didn't they do this 2 years ago? These
kinds of things I don't understand.
Mr. Town. Senator, if I may add something.
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Mr. Town. The Wild Sky proposal has been in the media a lot
in the last 2 years. I can recall easily just from memory that
there were at least six articles that were in the Monroe
Monitor on the Wild Sky. The Everett Herald, which really is
the newspaper of local interests in Wild Sky county, has also
done numerous, numerous articles and commentaries and
editorials on the Wild Sky, and I'm not sure, but I believe it
also announced that a public hearing of course was going to be
in there.
The Mountaineers Magazine, which of course is a magazine of
a recreational user group, has also devoted articles in regards
to the Wild Sky, and certainly the Seattle Times and the
Seattle PI, which are also read in the valley, have done
articles in regards to the PI. Local radio stations have
discussed the Wild Sky as well, and one other thing is, we did
gather 1,000, almost 1,000 signatures from the valley, all
valley residents that signed a petition in support of the Wild
Sky.
Senator Cantwell. I guess that's the thing that we need to
make available, is that I think that these forums, whether they
provided hours and hours of stand-up testimony, my
understanding is that they provided a conduit of outreach and
follow-up testimony that has been made available, but we should
get access to all of that and all of the resolutions and
everything, and get a complete record.
Did you want to add something, Mr. Heckert, because I want
to ask Mr. Postema and Mr. Husmann.
Mr. Heckert. Yes, very quickly, in the Washington Wildlife
Federation we had followed this due to the activities of our
members in that local region, so we're comfortable that the
public process was visible and followed, and that's the way we
got activated on it.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Postema. Mrs. Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Mr. Postema. We contacted all seven cities, Monroe,
Snohomish, Marysville, Arlington, Darrington, et cetera,
Sultan, Goldbar. We got two or three letters back and they
said, we don't know anything about this and we will not have a
hearing on it. We don't have any information. That has been the
cities.
I mean, the cities are right in the middle of it. If they
would say, we have a hearing, and this I think is the proper
way, then we have input, et cetera, but it hasn't been done,
and the only thing, the resolution, which is not a public
thing, there's just a council decided, a city council, to
support it. I think that needs to be done, but we asked, and
they don't have it.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I appreciate your planning
commission background, Mr. Postema, and I'm sure that these
issues, as they overlay on various communities, we do want to
have input from those various communities. My sense is, though,
Mr. Town is probably right on this point, there's been a lot of
publicity about it, and so whether a city council has taken
action or not, I find it hard to believe that they would say
they don't know much about it, given how much press there's
been, but we'll figure it out, and we'll get some comments from
them.
But I wanted to ask you, if I could, and I don't want to
indulge my colleague too much here, and I know I'm supposed to
be at two other hearings at this moment as well, so I want to
make sure we're cognizant of time, but I'm interested, Mr.
Postema, you probably have lived in the area for quite some
time, I'm assuming.
Mr. Postema. Thirty years, yes.
Senator Cantwell. The name sounds very familiar, so I'm
assuming that you had. Were you supportive of the Henry M.
Jackson Wilderness Area designation?
Mr. Postema. Yes, I am.
Senator Cantwell. And so that, were you active in that when
that was created?
Mr. Postema. No. I think I was too busy gathering moss in
the area.
Senator Cantwell. And why were you supportive of that
designation, and what was--you know, if, in fact, you maybe
weren't tracking it and the designation got made----
Mr. Postema. Yes, I understand. Because basically, maybe
one-third is truly wilderness, and the rest is really lowlands,
and that has a tremendous impact on the rural communities, and
the aspects I have talked about, and that's the difference. If
this has an impact on jobs and the environment as we see it,
and I think that has to be addressed, and that's the difference
between all the wilderness area way up there, or what we're
trying to do here. Anybody who is familiar with that area would
know what I``m talking about.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm familiar, but I'm sure that
there are some lowland areas through the Henry M. Jackson area.
I know in thinking about this from the perspective of my
colleague from Idaho and some of the questions he asked about
bridges and culverts, there is some access between the two
areas, so I'm sure there are some lowland areas within the
Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Area.
Mr. Postema. One of the main differences, of course, is
that we are very much more environmentally concerned about
salmon and water. Water is a very big issue, as you well know
in the Seattle area, because all of that water has to go
through the Snoqualmie-Snohomish system, so there are concerns,
and we're very much more knowledgeable about the things we're
doing which will impact the environment, and I believe that
makes a difference.
Senator Cantwell. And a second question, Mr. Postema,
before I ask Mr. Husmann, do you trust the Forest Service as it
relates to their input on this?
Mr. Postema. No. I have no contacts with the Forest Service
except we have found the information on the Web site and we're
taking it from there.
Senator Cantwell. But does it matter to you that the Forest
Service has been here this morning and they're not opposed to
this legislation. Does that matter to you as someone who's been
part of a local planning process, and hearing from various
agencies that this Federal agency isn't opposed?
Mr. Postema. No, I think they're very neutral on this
subject. They're given the facts, and the facts are is that,
according to their reports, we will lose a lot of jobs in the
recreational areas, and so we're just leaving it as it is
written.
Senator Cantwell. Where are you saying that there is a
report that we'll lose a lot of jobs?
Mr. Postema. I submit it in the record. There's a study
done by the national forest use in the Snoqualmie-Mt. Baker
Forest, and it shows that only 7 percent of the people who
visit, normally the national forest will visit the wilderness,
and they have figures of how much they've spent in the local
communities, and in that calculation, it's in my testimony and
the details, it might be about an impact of $30 million on the
local community.
I'm not thinking this up. This is what your Forest Service
has calculated, and we're just putting the things together.
Senator Cantwell. Well, we'll take a look at that. I'm not
aware of the U.S. Forest Service numbers on that, or that
they're making that claim of losing jobs. In fact, we've
enjoyed a great deal of economic growth because of those
recreational areas in the past, and I hope that our State can
continue to do that.
I wanted to ask Mr. Husmann about the culverts, because it
seemed to me that one of the main questions and concerns you
did have that you mentioned in your testimony were the
culverts. The testimony by Mark Rey this morning that those
culverts could be managed both in a proactive way and in the
case of emergency. What did you think of that testimony in the
sense of relating some of your concerns about culvert
management?
Mr. Husmann. Well, I'm not sure if this is a deeper
philosophical question. The Wilderness Act was created
specifically to set aside areas of pristine, untouched by
mankind--I mean, that's the way we, as people out here, read
these things. That's the law, untrampled by man. We don't go in
there with anything to tinker around.
Now, when you start talking about creating a wilderness
area and then going back in and working on culverts, I don't
understand that. If you're suggesting a different designation
of a recreational area, I think that's great, but I see some
kind of conflict here, and maybe I'm not quite educated enough
to understand this, but most of the people like myself, us
people that are out there, we read this Wilderness Act and we
say, well, we can't ride our mountain bike in here any more,
and then we have people saying, yeah, it's wilderness, but
we're going to let the snowmobiles here, we're going to let the
mountain bikes there, or we're going to create a path for
wheelchairs, or all mechanized transport. I don't know what
we're talking about, and I don't know where those things are
going to be. I don't see a real plan of all of that kind of
stuff.
And then I see Mr. Phipps saying it's $100,000 a mile for a
trail. They don't have any money for that. They haven't built
any new trails lately and they don't intend to, apparently, if
this is designated wilderness, and so it's a problem, for me,
anyway.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I would love it if there was still
some pristine areas to preserve that didn't have culverts. I
think that we are in a different day and age here, and logging
has been something that we've approved in our national forests,
and it's occurred, and yes we've seen the challenge----
Mr. Husmann. Not in wilderness areas, though.
Senator Cantwell. I'm saying prior--I mean, we could go
back 30 or 40, or maybe it will take us even 100 years to get
to some of these areas that you are now saying that we could be
able to say are pristine and not be preserved.
The issue is, we want to do a better job on these areas and
on their management resources, and unfortunately some of them
do have culverts and our obligations on clean water and on
salmon recovery are very real, and so unfortunately I think
that's going to be a fact of life in a lot of areas of our
national forests, and we're going to have to come up with a
plan, and I applaud my colleagues who have, prior to me coming
to Congress, dealt with this and dealt with the appropriations
side of it, because it is a very tough issue for us in the
Northwest.
So I guess what I'm saying is that that culvert issue, I
was comforted by Mr. Rey's comments this morning that he felt
that that issue could be dealt with in a proactive way.
Mr. Husmann. I agree with--you know, we do want to preserve
our areas maybe, but I come back to this wilderness
designation. I can't understand, or justify in my own mind how
you can use that 1964 wilderness designation and then do these
things as you so feel needed to do under the wilderness
designation. I think Senator Craig there has asked a question
that is very interesting. I don't know what that designation
means, but it certainly doesn't mean wilderness, and I think
that's great.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Heckert or Mr. Town, did you want to
make a comment on that?
Mr. Heckert. Yes. I think it's a dangerous precedent to be
treading on, the fact that if an area was once ever had a human
impact on it that it can never again retain a pristine, natural
condition. I don't know philosophically, but I do know that
ecologically that's not correct.
Mr. Town. I'd also like to add, Senator Cantwell, that most
of the Wild Sky Wilderness is high elevation, and there is some
low elevation land which is along the north fork of the
Skykomish River. The north fork is part of the Washington State
Scenic River System, and at one time was recommended for
National Wild and Scenic River designation as well.
We're a little bit concerned about making sure that those
low elevation lands are included in this wilderness proposal,
and we brought a photograph here which might be difficult to
see, but this is along the north fork, and it shows a place
that was previously logged during the era of railroad logging
about 80 years ago, and to most observers this area would seem
to have whole forest benefits. Again, you might be able to find
occasional stumps from some high-grade logging that occurred
during those days, railroad logging, but when you look at the
designations of ancient forests, multispecies, multilayer
canopies, significant downfall, these railroad-logged areas are
now acquiring those particular characteristics.
It's been a shame that in the past that a lot of low
elevation timber has never been put into wilderness areas. This
area is in a significant riparian area with a significant fish
run and its benefits in terms of retaining water from flood
damage and its benefits to salmon are very significant, and
that's why we would like to include these.
As far as the purity argument goes, I think that's been
addressed throughout what we've been talking about today, and
so if man did trample in this area 80 years ago, I think that
again the casual observer would not really notice it, and so
therefore we would really like these low elevation areas
included.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm again struck by the fact that
my predecessor, Scoop Jackson, had these same kind of debates
and comments before the committee on other designations, so
obviously this pristine debate has been going on for many
years, and this is just the latest round of it.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to add one more thing to
the record from the Everett Herald, maybe shedding little bit
of light on this debate and basically saying that some of these
more recent calls and input into the process are coming late to
the game, and that they would have been better to have on the
front end of the process, but we will, if we can, enter that
into the record.
Senator Craig. Certainly.
Senator Cantwell. And then also do a little more input and
analysis for the committee about all that public comment that
is out there, and whether we can somehow get that in the
process, again without clogging all of the files and systems
here with that, but get that information.
Senator Craig. Some of it's part of the record, and some of
it is simply filed here for purposes of reference, so it all
becomes a part of the total record. We're happy to have that.
Senator Cantwell. We can get some of that. But thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and thanks for holding this hearing today.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you, Senator. I think the
discussion over what is wilderness is a respectable discussion
and debate. My frustration over the years is that I believe we
have attempted to stretch the Wilderness Act beyond what it was
originally intended.
That is not to say, and it is not for anybody to refer or
to suggest that I don't recognize the need to give unique
status or protection status to other properties of the public
domain for the changes needed, water quality, fish habitat and
all of those kinds of things, but my State values public lands
for recreational purposes, as part of an economic base along
with an environmental quality base, and we have a growing
concern that wilderness is by definition restrictive, and I
think most of us recognize that, as it relates to access, to
unique styles of access, but be able to have some flexibility
and still assure a protective status is something that many of
us here are looking into here in Congress as the needs, as the
understanding changes on the character of these lands.
Mr. Husmann, I did not ask you any questions. I have a
couple to ask you. I know we're talking about lowlands and
highlands, and I think Mr. Town spoke to that, Mr. Heckert
spoke to that, and while clearly lowlands have become a part of
wilderness over the years, the higher country almost always was
less accessible, some of it left more untouched early on, and
it was true in my State, as it was true in others, that was the
more pristine land. That was the land that got designated
wilderness. Are there any parts of the Wild Sky Wilderness
proposal that you could support for wilderness designation as
you've looked at it?
Mr. Husmann. Oh, I'm sure there are. I haven't gone to the
map to map out how many acres, but certainly there must be
areas that are very reasonable to designate, and in the
traditional wild, wilderness sense, or, you know, with some
other vehicle that you may be discussing.
Senator Craig. Have you contacted your Representatives and
Senators and requested that additional public meetings be held?
Mr. Husmann. Yes, we have.
Senator Craig. Did that come from the State Farm Bureau,
or----
Mr. Husmann. Now, I'm here on behalf--even though the State
Farm Bureau also has a policy similar to, you know, more
restrictive designations, and I did ask their permission to
speak to that and enter into the record, but actually I'm from
the Snohomish County Farm Bureau, a board member.
Senator Craig. I see, from the Snohomish County----
Mr. Husmann. Right.
Senator Craig. Have the communities of interest requested
those meetings, do you know?
Mr. Husmann. As communities?
Senator Craig. As communities.
Mr. Husmann. I don't know. Mr. Postema referred to, you
know, he had contacted, I think it was in the spring, sometime
around March or April, when we started to see if really this
was a supportive process right in my own town of Sultan, and I
guess Mr. Town lives in Sultan, too. I guess we're neighbors.
I called Laura Kaning, who is the town clerk, and said, do
you know anything about Wild Sky, and she says, well, no, but
we just got a map, and I said, well, can I have it, and she
says, well, it came from you, and that's all they knew, and so
I mean, you know, maybe we're just getting where certain people
know some things and certain people don't.
I know one of the workers down there the other day, she saw
the petition, she's been in the city for longer than me, I
think, and she had no idea, and she's an avid Seattle-to-
Portland biker and all of that sort of thing, and she had no
idea, didn't know anything about Wild Sky, and she works for
the city.
You know, I don't know who knows what, but I do know that
there's a lot of people out here who are beginning to question
what's going on.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank all of you gentlemen for your
testimony. Wilderness designation is always a controversial
issue. In most instances there are great passions, and there
are reasons for that, on both sides of this issue. I've
struggled with it over the years, as have a good many of my
colleagues.
I trust that we've had a thorough process here and, if not,
I would hope that it would be more thorough as we come to a
final piece of legislation, that appears to have finality to
it. I know that the staff of the committee and the staff of the
two Senators--this was mentioned earlier--have worked to build
a compromise and to work to resolve issues that were brought up
on behalf of the two Senators in the State of Washington.
So let me also add to the record letters from--this deals
with Senate legislation S. 1003--Bethine Church, Senator Jim
McClure, Governor Cecil Andrus, Dennis Baird, Frank Elder, Norm
Guth, and Bill Worf, as it relates to that legislation dealing
with the hunting camps on the Salmon River. Those will become a
part of the record, without--or, unanimously with no objection.
With that, the committee will stand adjourned. Again, thank
you all.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2003.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Enclosed are responses to the questions you
submitted on S. 1003, following the hearing by the Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests on June 4, 2003.
Thank you for the opportunity to present additional information on
the subject.
Sincerely,
Mark Rey,
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.
[Enclosure]
Responses to Questions From Senator Bingaman
As you know, S. 1003 would have the effect of overturning a Federal
district court opinion, Wilderness Watch v. U.S. Forest Service, 143 F.
Supp. 1186 (2000). I have reviewed the court's opinion in that case and
would like to clarify a few issues.
Question 1a. Section 9(b) of Public Law 96-312, the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act of 1980, makes clear that the section of the Salmon
River that lies within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness
is to be managed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and related
regulations, rather than the more restrictive provisions of the
Wilderness Act. Your written testimony states that ``[h]istorically,
the Forest Service had taken the position that the camps--and the
associated permanent facilities that are at issue--are consistent with
agency policy and the law.''
What is the formal agency policy and law with respect to permanent
facilities within a river segment designated as ``wild'' under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act?
Answer. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) defines wild river
areas in Section 2(b) as, ``those rivers or sections of rivers that are
free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with
watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.
These represent vestiges of primitive America.'' The WSRA also directs
that each designated river be managed ``to protect and enhance the
values which (sic) caused it to be included in said system . . .''
The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture promulgated extant
interagency guidance for the study of wild and scenic rivers and the
management of designated rivers in 1982, National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification
and Management of River Areas (Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 173;
September 7, 1982, pp. 39454-39461). Section III--Management interprets
Section 10(a) of the WSRA as ``a nondegradation and enhancement policy
for all designated river areas, regardless of classification'' and
offers a number of ``management principles'' stemming from this section
that managing agencies should implement ``to the fullest extent
possible under their general statutory authorities.'' We quote the two
management principles specific to facilities: It should be noted that
the interagency guidance that follows was not meant to address the
unique requirements and expectations of Public Law 96-312. Rather, they
were developed to address a broad array of Wild and Scenic Rivers
located in all parts of the country. The legislative record shows that
Congress clearly intended to allow commercial uses such as outfitter
and guides. The three private camps have been in existence and operated
under special use permits for at least 20 years prior to the
establishment of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness through
the Central Idaho Wilderness Act (CIWA). Both Senators McClure and
Church used the jet boats and destination camps during their
deliberations prior to the passage of the CIWA. This Act is often
referred to as one of ``compromise,'' because of its many provisions
for continuing established uses.
Basic Facilities. The managing agency may provide basic facilities
to absorb user impacts on the resource. Wild river areas will contain
only the basic minimum facilities, in keeping with the ``essentially
primitive'' nature of the area. If facilities such as toilets and
refuse containers are necessary, they will generally be located at
access points or at a sufficient distance from the river bank to
minimize their intrusive impact. In scenic and recreational river
areas, simple comfort and convenience facilities such as toilets,
shelters, fireplaces, picnic tables and refuse containers are
appropriate. These, when placed within the river area, will be
judiciously located to protect the values of popular areas from the
impacts of public use.
Major Facilities. Major public use facilities such as developed
campgrounds, major visitor centers and administrative headquarters
will, where feasible, be located outside the river area. If such
facilities are necessary to provide for public use and/or to protect
the river resource, and location outside the river area is infeasible,
such facilities may be located within the river area provided they do
not have an adverse effect on the values for which the river area was
designated.
Question 1b. What was the formal agency policy at the time the
Salmon River segment was designated in 1980?
Answer. The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture adopted
Guidelines for Evaluating Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Areas
Proposed for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
Under Section 2, Public Law 90-542 (Guidelines) in February, 1970. The
Guidelines provide criteria to supplement Section 2 and apply to
``classification, designation, and administration of river areas.''
They contrast wilderness and wild river areas by stating the latter may
contain recreation facilities for the convenience of the user in
keeping with the primitive setting.'' ``Essentially primitive'' is
defined as ``shorelines . . . free of habitation and other substantial
evidence of man's intrusion.''
Question 2a. The court opinion references several Forest Service
memos that raised concerns about the nature of the camps changing from
temporary structures to permanent facilities that were more consistent
with the Forest Service's definition of a resort, rather than an
outfitter and guide camp. I would like to hear your view tin this
issue.
Are the facilities at the three camps the same structures that
existed at the date of enactment of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of
1980?
Answer. The Arctic Creek and Stub Creek camps are essentially the
same. The Smith Gulch Camp has new structures and is in a different
location than the original camp. The original camp was approximately 50
years old and was directly on the river bank where it was highly
visible and had no sanitary facilities. The replacement camp is set
back from the river and is screened from view. The camp structures are
designed and constructed to blend into the natural setting, has a
sanitary septic system, and handles approximately the same number of
persons at one time as the old facility.
Question 2b. Have the relevant Forest Service permits issued since
1980 authorized temporary or permanent facilities for the three lodges?
Has there [been] a change in any of the permits issued since 1980 with
respect to allowing permanent facilities when previously only temporary
facilities had been allowed?
Answer. In 1980, the Stub Creek camp operated under a Private Camp
Permit, on which some structures were authorized as ``semi-permanent''
structures. The permit required all improvements to be removed when the
permit holder no longer needed them. In 1993, when the Private Camp
permit was re-issued with a two-year term, the clause requiring removal
of improvements was removed. In 1996, the permit was re-issued with a
15-year term, with removal of all improvements required.
Between 1980 and 1996, the Arctic Creek camp operated under annual
or two-year Outfitter/Guide permits that were inconsistent in their
descriptions and directions on facilities. In 1996, a Private Camp
permit was issued authorizing permanent structures as described in the
1993 permit with a 15-year term until 2010.
Unfortunately, many of the permits issued in the 1980s could not be
located, including permits for the Squaw Creek camp. In 1988, the
Forest Service issued a decision to move the location of the camp from
Squaw Creek to Smith Gulch. In 1991, the camp operated under a Private
Camp permit, with a five-year term, that described several structures.
In 1996, a 15-year Private Camp permit describing buildings, two water
systems and a sanitary system was issued.
Private Camp permits allow for permanent facilities and are issued
for a specified period of time. Normally, at the time of permit
termination, the Forest Service Line Officer has the discretion to
issue a new permit, with or without changes, or, with justification,
not issue a new permit.
Question 2c. If any of the structures have changed since enactment
of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act, especially if the nature of the
structures has changed from temporary to permanent facilities, why
should that be treated as being protected under the Act?
Answer. The only substantial physical changes were at Smith Gulch
and they were the result of a 1988 Forest Service decision and intended
to improve sanitation and the camp's visual impact on the river
corridor. The camp serves the same function and capacity as prior to
1980, but with lesser impacts to the environment.
Question 3. The court's opinion states that ``[p]ermanent resort
facilities were clearly not legal at that time'' (enactment of the
Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980). In your opinion, is this an
accurate statement of the law? If not, why is it inaccurate?
Answer. The court indicated its disagreement with our position on
this issue. Agency permitting actions throughout the 1980's and 1990's
related to the camps also reflect the contemporaneous agency
understanding that permanent facilities at the camps were not in
violation of and are an established use recognized by the CIWA. That is
not to say that facilities at the camps are like jet boat and aircraft
uses, which cannot be diminished under the CIWA. Rather, we interpret
the CIWA and its legislative history as providing for the continued
authorization of the camps by the Forest Service. This view is also
supported by the letter submitted for the record by former Interior
Secretary Cecil Andrus, former Senator Jim McClure, and the widow of
former Senator Frank Church.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Seaplane Pilots Association,
Lakeland, FL, May 14, 2003.
Congressman Rick Larsen,
Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Larsen: Having reviewed House Bill 822, which
proposes to create a new wilderness area in the Cascade Mountains, the
Seaplane Pilots Association endorses the legislation as introduced.
Considering the wide range of potential interpretations of what
might be considered ``reasonable'' regulation of seaplanes on Lake
Isabel, we would appreciate a brief description of what might
constitute a ``reasonable'' restriction in the report language.
Contemplating the sensitivities of a wilderness area, we believe
reasonable restrictions could include prohibiting early morning
takeoffs that might disturb recreational users, limiting the number of
seaplane operations should the number of such operations climb to a
level at which observable, measurable environmental harm is being done,
and limiting the number of landings any one seaplane could make in a
given day.
We would hope to avoid ``reasonable'' regulations based on fear of
the unfamiliar, personal prejudices, or false pretenses.
We commend you for seeking input from the many and varied groups
that utilize the area you are proposing to protect, and appreciate the
opportunity to participate in the process.
Sincerely,
Michael Volk,
President.
______
Boise, ID, May 22, 2003.
Mr. Doug Tims,
Northwest River Company, Boise, ID.
Re: A Bill Clarifying commercial Outfitter Hunting camps on the Salmon
River
Dear Doug, I have looked at the proposed legislation concerning the
lodges at Stub Creek, Smith Gulch and Arctic Creek along the Main
Salmon River in the FCRNR Wilderness.
These lodges and camps were well known at the time the Act was
written and debated, and any effort to have them removed as part of the
deal would have raised great controversy, I'm sure. Indeed, Frank was
committed to achieving a balance in the legislation that allowed many
such facilities to remain in place. I question whether the law could
have passed without this type of compromise.
Frank certainly wanted to maintain a true wilderness but he was a
realist about the situation. His effort always was mindful of keeping
the River of No Return accessible for as many people as possible.
Staying at the lodges is a great alternative for some families then and
now. He understood the need to keep out inappropriate uses such as
vehicles and roads, but he clearly advocated for the valid historic
recreational uses in the 1980 bill for the River of No Return
Wilderness.
You have my permission to send this letter on to all relevant
congressional representatives and committees.
Very sincerely,
Bethine (Mrs. Frank) Church.
______
Moscow, ID, May 28, 2003.
Chairman Domenici,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: I have read the text of S. 1003 and believe that its
language is fully consistent with the original intent of congress when
it passed the Central Idaho Wilderness Act.
I participated as a conservationist in most aspects of the writing
of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act, working closely with Senator Frank
Church and his staff in that long process. I have also personally
visited all three sites where outfitter camps operate on public lands
along the Salmon River.
In writing this legislation, Sen. Church intended to the maximum
extent possible to insure that uses compatible with the natural values
of the Salmon River that were in place before enactment would be able
to continue at the same level after enactment of the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act. Sen. Church had visited all three camps in existence at
the time this legislation was being considered and repeatedly stated
that it was his intention that the law would permit their continued
existence under USPS permit. Based on my memory of these events, there
can be no doubt about what Mr. Church intended the final legislation to
do. Sen. Church was also a fine writer in general, and of legislation
in particular, and consequently I can see no room for ambiguity in
interpreting this legislation and Mr. Church's intent: these three
camps were to stay.
One of the three camps is now at a different location than at the
time of enactment, but that move was made at the behest of the Forest
Service and was designed to relocate the camp to a less visible and
intrusive spot--a request generously agreed to by the lease holder.
Sincerely,
Dennis Baird.
______
State of Washington House of Representatives,
Olympia, WA, May 30, 2003.
Honorable Members,
Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Distinguished Committee Members: I am writing to you today to
express my concerns regarding the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness in the
state of Washington. The area in question comprises approximately
106,000 acres in the southwest portion of the Legislative District
which I have the honor of representing.
My primary concern is the likelihood of serious environmental
degradation in the event. this Wilderness proposal is adopted. There
are currently about forty miles of forest road with several bridges and
numerous culverts within the boundaries. Under the proposed
legislation, no consideration is given to the status of these roads. If
left alone, lack of maintenance could cause culverts to be filled
causing washouts creating negative environmental impacts.
This brings us to my next concern, the issue of the inholders
within the proposed Wild Sky. The Wild Sky legislation reiterates the
Wilderness Act's statement of assuring ``adequate access.'' As you are
no doubt aware, ``adequate access'' lacks a clear definition. I believe
that the inholders need certainty in how their property will be
affected.
In conclusion, I would like to ask for your consideration of the
potential environmental impacts of this change in classification and
also the effects on the status of inholders.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kirk Pearson,
State Representative.
______
Boise, ID, May 30, 2003.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Please accept this correspondence as my total
support for S. 1003.
As a result of my years as Governor of Idaho and as Secretary of
the Department of the Interior, I am intimately familiar with the
issues and location of the properties in question, properties that are
now inside the outer boundary of the Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness Area. I have personally visited the locations in question
and was involved in the decisions that permitted Norman Guth, owner of
the Big Squaw Creek facility, to move that facility to a less intrusive
location away from the river's edge. He agreed to move; the Forest
Service was happy; and it appeared that we had enhanced the wilderness
characteristics of the area, The new location of this facility is at
Smith Gulch, which is much less obtrusive but permits ``existing uses''
to continue.
In 1980, when we passed the legislation that finally created the
River of No Return Wilderness Area, which is now the Frank Church River
of No Return Wilderness Area, we thought the issue had been resolved to
everyone's satisfaction. I might add that Norm Guth went to
considerable expense in creating the new facility, and he did it simply
because he is a good citizen, one whom I have known for more than 30
years.
The 1980 record of the committee hearing is, I think, quite clear
as to what the intent was, and I hope that you and your committee will
see fit to pass this proposed legislation to clarify the issue once and
for all.
With warm personal regards to you, I remain
Sincerely,
Cecil D. Andrus.
______
Washington Wilderness Coalition,
Seattle, WA, May 30, 2003.
Jeff Sax,
Council Member, Snobomish County Council, Everett, WA.
Dear Councilman Sax: We are pleased to present you with a
significant demonstration of support for the proposed Wild Sky
Wilderness by your constituents. Enclosed are 780 petition signatures
supporting the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, which would permanently protect
106,000 acres of National Forest land as congressionally designated
Wilderness.
The petition signatures are exclusively from your constituents in
District 5 who live in the Skykomish River Valley (including Monroe,
Snohomish, Sultan, Gold Bar, Startup and Index) All signatures were
gathered earlier this year in February.
We hope that you will join the many other elected officials in
Snohomish County that have already endorsed protecting the Wild Sky as
Wilderness.
Please feel free to contact me or one of my staff for more
information an Wild Sky Wilderness.
Sincerely,
Jill Smith,
Executive Director.
______
Washington Coalition of Citizens With Disabilities,
Seattle, WA, June 2, 2003.
Hon. Patty Murray,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murray: I am writing to express Washington Coalition
of Citizen's with disAbilities (WCCD) continued support for your
proposal to protect the Wild Skykomish Country as a congressionally
designated Wilderness--WCCD supports protecting Washington's remaining
scenic roadless areas in our National Forests through Wilderness
designation and other protective measures.
WCCD's mission is to support people with disabilities, including
those with the greatest needs for multiple, complex human and economic
services, in becoming as independent as possible in accordance with
their own choices and desires. We feel that National Forest roadless
areas have more value to more people when they are left intact, rather
than to be roaded and logged or turned over to motorized use. Saving
our wild public forests as sources of clean water, wildlife habitat,
scenic beauty and sustainable recreation gives the public more choices
in how their land is used. Developing these last wild forests benefits
only timber, mining, dirtbike and other off-road-vehicle interests.
As you know, the Wilderness Act provides the most durable and
comprehensive protection to wild, largely unspoiled federal land. It
allows the land to forever retain it's wild character, prohibiting road
construction, logging and other damaging activities while providing a
glimpse of what our country looked like when Lewis and Clark first
visited the Pacific Northwest.
In regard to access for citizen's with disabilities, even though
Wilderness designation prohibits general mechanized travel within in
its boundaries, it allows full wheelchair use where possible.
The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 reaffirmed that nothing
in the Wilderness Act should be construed as prohibiting the use of a
wheelchair in a wilderness area by individuals whose disability
requires it. A 1992 report by the National Council on Disability found
that ``[a] significant majority of persons with disabilities surveyed
very much enjoy the [National Wilderness Preservation System] and 76
percent do not believe that the restrictions on mechanized use stated
in the Wilderness Act diminish their ability to enjoy wilderness.
People with disabilities appear to visit the NWPS in the same ways and
for the same reasons that people without disabilities do.''
Under the Wild Skykomish Wilderness proposal, wheelchair users
would still be able to enjoy the local scenery firsthand. Three barrier
free trails, those that are more easily used by wheelchairs, lie within
the general vicinity of the proposal, including the Troublesome Creek
Trail which rests just within the boundaries (0.5 mi.) right alone the
North Fork Sky Road. Though more suitable for the stronger wheelchair
user because of steeper stretches and narrow trail width, it's a very
scenic trail through old growth forests, along a rushing creek, with
two large trail bridges across the creek. It offers several good
viewpoints of huge trees, the creek, and the nearby mountains being
proposed for Wilderness designation. Additional barrier-free trails are
available throughout the Skykomish Ranger district.
* * * * * * *
______
Snohomish County,
Snohomish, WA, June 2, 2003.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Craig: We are writing to express our deep concern
regarding the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003, which is before the
senate in S. 391, and before the house in H.R. 822.
We view this bill as posing serious adverse impacts to Snohomish
County, Washington.
This bill would lock up some 900,000 acres of present National
Forest land in Snohomish County as part of the ``Wild Sky Wilderness.''
The proposal would prohibit grazing, commercial gathering of forest
products, logging, mining, and other commercial uses of the subject
land, and would cause a decrease in recreational tourism. This
threatens a local economy already in the doldrums.
All of this is happening without any effective public process,
without any demonstration of need for more wilderness, and without any
analysis of social, environmental, or economic impacts.
Some specifics.
1. Tourism
The bill's proponents promote it under the promise of
``protecting'' the land for recreational use, and claim that the bill
will boost tourism. This claim is highly deceptive. The bill's
mechanism for ``protecting'' the land is to close over 30 miles of
roads, remove a bridge, and prohibit all forms of motorized or
mechanized travel; including emergency vehicles, snowmobiles and
bicycles. Just how do we boost tourism by restricting access? The true
effect of the bill will be to create a private preserve for the
recreational elite and out of reach far the average Snahomish County
family. This will ``protect'' the land from tourism, not for tourism.
Indeed, the September 2001 report ``National Visitor Use Monitoring
Results'' by the USDA Forest Service Region 6 (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest) \1\ shows that Wilderness visits decline to 7 or 8
percent of the regular National Forest Visits, and that the majority
(70%) of Wilderness visitors are white males age 21-30 comparable to
1:7.6 percent in regular National Forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year1/
R6--MBS--final.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot believe that federal policy would call far creating
private playgrounds for the elite.
The same Forest Service report also shows that the Wilderness
visitor spends only $27.00 within 50 miles, in comparison with over
$80.00 spent by the regular National Forest visitor (these figures do
not include gas and oil expenditures). Why such a remarkable
difference? Possibly because the elite visitor is responsible only for
himself, whereas the National Forest visitor arrives with family in
tow. But whatever the explanation, the clear fact is that ``Wild Sky''
threatens to damage, not boost, the local tourism industry.
2. Economic development
The Snohomish County economy is presently sluggish. Economic
development here is a necessity. As a county council, we are engaged in
efforts to stimulate the local economy. Placing an additional vast
tract of lowland natural resources off limits far timber, minerals,
etc. is highly counter-productive to these efforts.
In addition, Snohomish County would lose its future share of any
federal timber harvest on the 100,000 acres, which in the past has
brought over $950,000 per year in revenues to county government, and
another $950,000 (+) to local schools.
3. Forest Fire
Summer approaches, and with it comes the fire season. What will be
the effect of Wild Sky's road and bridge closures on fire fighting?
Obviously, it can only have a negative effect. Uprooting the forest
transportation infrastructure would seriously hinder if not prohibit
fighting forest fires, with a resultant threat to public safety and the
water supply. In our state we have already experienced tremendous loss
of property and life to forest fire, and we are very steeply concerned
about the continuing threat of forest fire.
4. Public Process
Wild Sky proponents claim broad and deep public support for the
bill, We must question the veracity of that claim. We are unaware of
any evidence of serious consultation of the people of Snohomish County
on this proposal. Certainly none of us, members of the Snohomish County
Council, have been in anyway consulted.
Moreover, reviewing of a published list of ``Wild Sky'' supporters
reveals a surprising scarcity of Snohomish County legislators, mayors,
cities, local citizens and members of our County Council. Proponents
appear to have done little to inform officials of the surrounding
cities of the nature of this proposal and the economic impact on their
communities.
The Snohomish County Farm Bureau recently issued a press release
that asked in park.
``What Is Wild Sky's impact on forest fire control, water
management and storage, and public access? What is the economic
impact of road closures and lost timber harvest? What is the
true cost and who pays for it?''
These very legitimate and common-sense questions have been
virtually ignored by the bill's proponents.
But these questions, and others, need and deserve to be answered.
Accordingly, we ask that you look very carefully at this bill in
light of our concerns, and we ask that you forbear taking action until
Snohomish County citizens have been consulted in the matter. We suggest
this may be accomplished by convening a Congressional public hearing in
Snohomish County.
Respectfully yours,
Gary Nelson,
John Koster,
Jeff Sax.
______
Washington Contract Loggers Association,
Olympia, WA, June 3, 2003.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: My name is George Kirkmire and I am Executive
Assistant for the Washington Contract Loggers Association (WCLA). The
WCLA is a statewide trade association representing over 800
predominantly small, family owned businesses involved in the harvesting
of timber located on both private and public lands. I am writing you to
express a number of concerns that WCLA has with the `Wild Sky
Wilderness Act of 2003' which is presently before the senate in the
form of S. 391 and before the house in H.R. 822.
First and foremost, the `Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003' would add
approximately 106,000 acres to the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest, which already has over 700,000 acres designated as wilderness
out of a total of 2 million acres. Additionally, there is 600,000 acres
of the forest, which is designated as `Late Successional Reserve' (LSR)
as outlined under the Northwest Forest Plan. The LSR's, which might as
well be considered as de facto wilderness areas due to severe resource
management prohibitions, when combined with current acreage reserved
for wilderness totals nearly 1.3 million acres!
This indicates that 65% of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
is currently in an unmanageable state with regards to resource
production or protection. If one adds the 106,000 acres of wilderness
that the `Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2003' proposes, the figure jumps
up to 70%. Frankly, enough is enough.
To add insult to injury, however, 16,000 acres of the proposal
contains `Matrix' designated lands that, under the Northwest Forest
Plan, does allow for limited timber production. Given that the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has only 45,000 acres within the
`Matrix' designation available for timber management (60,000 acres less
riparian reserves), or 2.5% of the forests' total acreage, WCLA is
strongly opposed to any further withdrawals.
The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest currently has a difficult
time putting up less than 10 mmbdft per year for sale within Western
Washington, which is a far cry from the 250 mmbdft that it averaged
during the '70's and '80's. Despite this, though, the forest still has
over 631,000 acres of old growth inventoried.
Another problem with `Wild Sky' is the fact that much of proposed
acreage doesn't meet the traditional `untrammeled by man' definition of
wilderness. There are over 40 miles of existing road and numerous
bridges; at least one that cost $500,000.00 when it was originally
built. Further, much of the area has an extensive mining and logging
history that goes back nearly to the turn of the last century. To
create a wilderness with these characteristics sets a precedent,
especially here in the West, which might lead to anything being
considered as wilderness as long as a circle is drawn around it and it
is congressionally designated.
Roads and bridges are hardly characteristics that one thinks about
when wilderness is mentioned and, indeed would eventually have to be
removed or `decommissioned' at some point in order to meet the true
definition of wilderness. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has
a tremendous un-funded backlog of road maintenance projects that grows
exponentially every year. Road decommissioning estimates in the
proposed wilderness area have run into the millions of dollars and to
believe that money for this would be made available over and above
funding for more qualified projects is a `pipe dream'.
From the beginning, we were under the impression that `Wild Sky'
was going to be an open and collaborative process between affected and
interested parties composed of primarily urban environmentalists,
citizens of Snohomish County and natural resource users. There was
supposed to be `open houses' and `community meetings' held within the
area to inform the public as to the scope of the project and to allow
the public, in turn, to comment. Unfortunately, none of these meetings
have ever taking place. In fact, it was nearly two years after word
leaked out about a possible new wilderness area that a map was even
made available, and even then the boundaries were still uncertain.
We blame much of the secrecy regarding `Wild Sky' on Senator
Murray's aide and point person on `Wild Sky', Karen Waters. Ms. Waters
is/was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington. Wilderness
Coalition, which groups stated purpose for existence is to create and
advocate for more, in fact 3 million acres more, of wilderness area
throughout Washington State. We believe that Ms. Waters' membership in
such a group has affected immensely the fairness and objectivity of
this particular proposal.
Since `Wild Sky' is a proposal emanating primarily from the
environmental community, only the environmental community has ever been
consulted. To our knowledge, no one from the timber industry, including
sawmill owners and logging company owners located within Snohomish
County or near the proposed wilderness area, have ever been included in
any decision regarding `Wild Sky'.
In closing, Senator, it is WCLA's contention that there is already
enough land classified as `wilderness' on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest. To lock up such a large percentage of the total land
base into a single designation is bad idea, likely to lead to a natural
disaster at some point in the future. People are under the misguided
assumption that forests are a stagnant entity, likely to carry on quite
well without any interference from or by than. The truth is that
forests are dynamic and ever changing. One way or the other, these
forests will be managed, naturally or otherwise. Lets hope that they
are managed to the benefit of man and not to his detriment.
Thank you for considering our comments on the `Wild Sky Wilderness
Act of 2003'.
Yours very truly,
George C. Kirkmire,
Executive Assistant.
______
June 3, 2003.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I support the efforts of Senator Craig in S.
1003 to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to the continued
use of established commercial outfitter hunting camps on the Salmon
River.
In 1979, Senator Church and I heard extensive testimony from the
citizens of Idaho and others concerning the establishment of the River
of No Return Wilderness. At issue before the Congress were the Idaho
and Salmon River Breaks Primitive Areas. These areas and the
surrounding lands that were recommended for wilderness protection, make
up a vast area of more than two million acres. The area is very
challenging terrain cut by the Salmon River into canyons and river
corridors with very difficult access.
Idahoans had developed a number of historical methods of access
prior to Congress addressing the future management of this vast area.
It is very important to local citizens and outfitters to have a way to
explore and enjoy Idaho's multitude of hunting, fishing and recreation
opportunities. As we heard in the hearings before the Subcommittee on
Parks, Recreation, and Renewable Resources there was significant
support for designation of a large segment of central Idaho as
wilderness, but equally important that the public be allowed continued
access.
To strike this balance we placed the following language at the
beginning of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act:
Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds that--
(1) certain wildlands in central Idaho lying within the watershed
of the Salmon River--the famous ``River of No Return''--constitute the
largest block of primitive and undeveloped land in the conterminous
United States and are of immense national significance;
(2) these wildlands and a segment of the Salmon River should be
incorporated within the National Wilderness Preservation System and the
Wild and Scenic River System in order to provide statutory protection
for the lands and waters and the wilderness-dependent wildlife and the
resident and anadromous fish which thrive within the undisturbed
ecosystem; and
(3) such protection can be provided without conflicting with
established uses.
Contained in the bill was a balance between management under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Wilderness Act. The congressional
record includes extensive discussion of the reason for the dual
designation. Under the Wilderness Act, existing uses such as airstrips,
powerboat use and camps with permanent structures on the Main Salmon
would not be allowed. We included specific language in the Act that
directed the Forest Service to manage the Main Salmon corridor as Wild
and Scenic in order to allow continued access via powerboats and the
camps with permanent structures.
Senator Church and I specifically questioned Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture Rupert Cutler and Region Four representative Frank Elder
about this balance. Their answers on the record and later in statements
to the committee reports tie back directly to the ``such protection can
be provided without conflicting with established uses'' language on the
face of the bill.
The committee report states ``While both the River of No Return
Wilderness and the Gospel-Hump Wilderness overlap portions of the Wild
and I Scenic River corridor, the Committee reiterates that only the
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the 1968 Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act will apply in the river corridor. Thus certain activities
not generally permitted in wilderness areas, such as the hunting camps
on the river, the use of motorized tools to gather firewood, and small
hydroelectric generators can continue within the wild and scenic river
corridor on the river.''
At the hearings, I specifically asked Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture Rupert Cutler about the dual designation. I asked, ``Did I
understand your most recent proposal did not deal with the earlier
questions with respect to the management of the river corridors--
particularly the Middle Fork and the main Salmon? Middle Fork is a Wild
and Scenic River and it is your suggestion that it become wilderness
and go into the more restrictive management of wilderness? But that the
Salmon River itself would not become wilderness but would become part
of the wild and scenic rivers?
Mr. Cutler, ``That is correct, in order to continue the mode of
transportation on the main Salmon River. The question of continued use
of camps on the main stem also would be provided for by excluding the
main stem corridor from the wilderness area.''
Here and at several other places in testimony, the ``camps'' that
were discussed are those at Smith Gulch, Arctic Creek and Stubb Creek
as referenced in S. 1003.
At present, these facilities are under Forest Service order to be
removed in 2004. S. 1003 must be acted on promptly in order to provide
for the continuation of this important historical access to the Salmon
River by the public. It was clearly our intent in 1980 that this use,
which is facilitated by the permanent structures at each site, shall
continue for present and future generations.
Sincerely,
James A. McClure.
______
Statement of William A. Worf, President, Wilderness Watch, Missoula, MT
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am providing this
testimony on behalf of Wilderness Watch, a national citizen
organization dedicated to the protection and proper stewardship of
America's designated Wildernesses and Wild & Scenic Rivers. I have been
assured by Committee staff that this statement will become part of the
official hearing testimony. We appreciate that consideration. My
statement includes several attachments, including a chronology of this
issue and a personal affidavit that speaks to the history of these
permits and resorts.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a co-founder of Wilderness Watch and currently serve as its
president. I also bring a unique perspective to these deliberations as
a former employee of the United States Forest Service, who has been
involved for more than 30 years in the issue before the Committee. I
served as a fulltime employee of the US Forest Service for nearly 32
years. This included service on 4 national forests, in 2 regional
offices and in the national headquarters in Washington, DC. During that
time I served a number of roles and had a variety of duties, some of
which involved administration of special use permits including
outfitter and guide permits. I served in the National Headquarters from
1964 through 1969 where my primary responsibility was providing
national leadership for Forest Service implementation of the Wilderness
Act and the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. For 12 years (1969 through 1981)
I served in the Northern Region headquarters as Director of Wilderness,
Recreation and Lands. I was responsible for providing direction to
national forests for administration of special land uses (including
outfitters & guide permits), Primitive Areas, Wildernesses and Wild &
Scenic Rivers. I was very closely involved in management of the Salmon
River and the surrounding lands during those years. I provided staff
leadership and advice to the Regional Forester and Chief as various
proposals for Wilderness designation were considered by Congress. In
that capacity I met with Senator Church while he was working on the
Central Idaho Wilderness bill and had a number of conversations with
members of his staff and many others as the legislation was developed.
Mr. Chairman, Senate bill S. 1003 seeks to overturn a federal
district court decision which correctly found that the Illegal
construction and operation of 3 resort camps on the Wild and Scenic
Salmon River violated, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Central
Idaho Wilderness Act. S. 1003 will reverse many decades of
administrative and congressional protection for the Salmon River
country. It will grant special rights to 3 outfitters on the Salmon
River that are not afforded to any other of the thousands of outfitters
operating on our public lands' wildernesses and wild rivers. It will
reward individuals who have flaunted our nation's laws and who
routinely violated the terms of their special use permits. S. 1003 will
condone the abysmal record of administration of this area by the Salmon
National Forest, while serving as a slap in the face to other
outfitters who have played by the rules and to those dedicated Forest
Service employees who for decades administered those rules as they were
intended. It will rob all Americans, young and old, able-bodied and
disabled, of the opportunity to experience this wild river corridor in
its most primitive and pristine condition.
The fact of the matter is that the type of developments that S.
1003 attempts to permit on the Wild Salmon River have been illegal for
70 years. In the 1930's, the area affected by S. 1003 became part of
the Salmon River Breaks and Idaho Primitive Areas. The regulations
applicable to the Primitive Areas provided that ``there shall be no
roads or other provision for motorized transportation, no commercial
timber cutting and no occupancy under special use permits for hotels,
stores, resorts, summer homes, organizational camps, hunting and
fishing lodges or similar uses.'' These regulations governed this area
until 1980, when the lands in question were designated as part of the
River of No Return Wilderness and as part of the Wild and Scenic Salmon
River. From the 1930s, up through the time of the Central Idaho
Wilderness Act (CIWA) of 1980, and until today the only type of
outfitter camps legally permitted on the Salmon River were those of a
temporary nature. As U.S. federal judge Sidney R. Thomas stated in
Wider Watch v. U.S. Forest Service, ``When the CIWA was enacted,
permanent structures were prohibited in the Idaho and Salmon Breaks
Primitive Area as a matter of law and regulation.''
Despite this prohibition on permanent structures and lacking any
authority to do so, several outfitters over the years constructed
rustic lodges and cabins at their hunting camps. In 1970, mindful of
the legal prohibitions against such developments, the U.S. Forest
Service regional foresters for the northern and intermountain regions
signed a letter ordering that all camps be modified to be temporary by
December 31, 1971. I have attached to my statement a copy of an
affidavit from former Regional Forester Verne Hamre that confirms this.
Of the 8 outfitters who had constructed the illegal camps, 5 complied
with the order and burned or removed the illegal structures. Three
continued to flaunt the law and did not remove their illegal camps, and
it is they or their successors who S. 1003 will reward. Those who
complied were assured by Forest Service officials that all outfitters
would be treated the same. S. 1003 makes a liar of the U.S. Government
on this account. By the way, it wasn't until 1988, eight years after
CIWA passed, that one of the three remaining camps (a ramshackle affair
consisting of an old metal barge pulled up on shore with some wood
frame add-on rooms) was removed, but theft was ``replaced'' three miles
downstream by a modern lodge with several outlying cabins.
As I mentioned earlier, I met with Senator Church during the
legislative effort to pass the Central Idaho Wilderness Act and can
assure you he knew that the rules then in place only allowed for
temporary camps in primitive areas, wilderness areas and in wild river
corridors. He was, in my opinion, a smart legislator who knew what he
was doing. Where he wanted exceptions he was clear about it. He made a
point of writing special provisions in CIWA to allow jetboat use to
continue and to allow several airplane landing strips to remain, As one
who worked to pass the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, he knew that the
standard for wild rivers is that the shorelines must remain essentially
primitive and as vestiges of primitive America. Had he wanted permanent
camps complete with lodges and cabins in a Wilderness or a Wild River
corridor, he certainly would have said so in the law. That was not his
intent and, as the courts have found, it was not the intent of
Congress. S. 1003's attempt to allow for permanent resorts on the Wild
Salmon River does not ``clarify'' the CIWA, it overturns it. Moreover,
it sets an entirely new and dangerously low standard for managing wild
rivers.
It has been claimed that these resorts are essential for older
people or people with disabilities to experience this area. That simply
doesn't square with the fact that older people and those with
disabilities visit wildernesses and wild river all over America without
the use or need for accommodations of this sort. I, for one, am legally
blind and approaching 80 years of age. I have visited this area many
times, the last float trip was four years ago. And I didn't need the
services of these lodges to experience the wilderness-indeed, they
detracted from it. For those who want a more developed recreation
opportunity they can be accommodated at the Forest Service-permitted
Salmon River Resort adjacent to the Wilderness and just upstream Wild
River corridor, or at any one of several private lodges further
downstream on private lands. But their experience needn't be at the
expense of the wild river. If S. 1003 passes, the losers will be the
vast majority of visitors who are seeking a wild river experience, and
the great number of Americans who take pleasure In simply knowing that
wild places exist and will be preserved.
Apart from the damage S. 1003 will do to the Wild Salmon River, it
would be a terrible irony on at least two other counts. First, it would
grant special rights to 3 individuals to operate resorts that were
illegally built on public lands--rights that exceed those afforded to
other outfitters who operate legitimately on public lands in the
Wilderness and Wild Rivers systems. Those who have play by the rules
are harmed when those who cheat are rewarded. Second, these are hardly
model operations, They are some of the most dubious I have ever
encountered. One of the outfits has had its permit placed in
probationary status for being convicted for violations of State fish
and game regulations. Another has been cited for ``continuous resource
damage'' associated with a ``substantial spill from your generator''
and for being ``continually late on payment of fees, non-responsive
regarding returning phone calls with requested information, and
verbally abusive to Forest Service Officers at Corn Creek (the river
launch site) and office personnel.'' I would be happy to provide the
committee with documentation of these facts if any member chooses to
better understand the types of operations and operators that S. 1003
seeks to reward.
It is also worth noting that two of three resorts had a change in
ownership in recent years. Those resorts were acquired during the time
that the legal status of the resorts was being challenged in federal
court. Each of the outfitters' permits contain clauses that
unequivocally state that should the resorts be found to be illegal they
would have to be removed. The outfitters entered into their business
deals with eyes wide open, no doubt the risky legal tenor of these
resorts was reflected in the selling price.
Mr. Chairman, the right thing to do is to shelve S. 1003 and let
the Forest Service implement the law as it is written. In September
2000, a federal judge ruled that the lodges on these three sites were
illegally constructed and ordered the Forest Service to fashion a plan
to remove them, being mindful of the concerns of the outfitter-
permittees. Following the court's direction and at the urging of the
affected outfitters, the Forest Service granted the permittees until
December 31, 2005 to comply with the law. That is more than 5 years-
time since the court decision, and more than double the amount of time
afforded other outfitters who have had to remove illegal structures
from the Salmon River. Moreover, the Forest Service has agreed to allow
the outfitters to continue to operate at these same camps with
temporary structures as allowed by law. Thus, they are not being put
out of business, but instead will be allowed to operate and provide
services to the public in a fashion that is consistent with the tenets
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Central Idaho Wilderness Act.
Thank you for your consideration.
Note: Attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
Attachment #1: Chronology of Salmon River protection and illegal
resorts
Attachment #2: Affidavit of William A. Worf
Attachment #3: Affidavit of Vernon O. Hamre
______
Statement of Terry Weiner, Conservation Coordinator,
Desert Protective Council, San Diego, CA
On behalf of the Desert Protective Council (DPC), I want to thank
you for your ongoing work as Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests.
The DPC is a 49 year old non-profit membership organization whose
mission is to safeguard for wise and reverent use by this and
succeeding generations those deserts of unique scenic, scientific,
historical, and recreational value, and to educate children and adults
to a better understanding of the deserts. One of our areas of focus is
Imperial County, California.
I write to you today to request that you table your scheduled June
4, 2003 discussion of H.R. 417--The Cibolla National Wildlife Refuge
Correction Act. The DPC has only very recently become aware of this
proposal to withdraw 140 acres of public land from the Cibolla National
Wildlife Refuge along the Colorado River in Imperial County California,
on the basis that these acres, part of which are known as Walter's
Camp,were erroneously included in the Refuge when Public Land Order
3442 created the Cibolla National Wildlife Refuge in 1964. The DPC has
also been made aware, through historical files at BLM Yuma, that
although Public Land Order 3442 of 1964 may have erroneously included
Walter's Camp, the area in question is at most 18 acres, not 140 acres
as stated in H.R. 417. A 1982 map and legal description confirms that
Walter's Camp consists of ``18 acres, more or less''. It is interesting
to note that Walter's Camp originally began as trespass on public
lands. One of our questions is: why, when the Wildlife Refuge was
initially established, would the illegally permitted land be granted
exclusion from the Refuge in the first place? More importantly, at what
point did 18 acres expand to 140 acres? The Desert Protective Council
respectfully requests that this question be answered before your
committee proceeds further with a decision to remove 140 acres of
wildlife habitat from protection. Despite testimony referred to in
remarks made by Congressman Duncan Hunter in January 2003, the lands in
question are good desert scrub habitat. Federally listed endangered
species such as the Yuma Clapper Rail and the Southwest Willow
Flycatcher nest in this area. The Lower Colorado River ecosystem is a
threatened one. The entire stretch of this part of the river, on both
the west and the east sides has been and continues to be a very popular
recreation area. There are abundant for many kinds of recreation. Many
boat ramps, campgrounds and dammed up lakes for camping, fishing,
motorized boats and jet skis dot the River's edges. Good, healthy
habitat for the desert plants and animals is becoming scarcer.
The citizens of the U.S. are counting on you to protect the Cibolla
Wildlife Refuge for us and for future generations. Please address DPC's
questions and the questions of the local citizens of Imperial County
before taking a vote in your committee related to this Wildlife Refuge
alteration.
I look forward to an opportunity to discuss other issues with you,
related to the withdrawal of lands from the Wildlife Refuge and to the
impacts of an expanded Walter's Camp on the future health of the desert
and river habitat of the lower Colorado River.
______
Statement of Larry Charles, Chairman of the Board and President,
Newtok Native Corporation, Newtok, AK
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Charles, the
President of Newtok Native Corporation, headquartered in Newtok,
Alaska, where I live. We thank Senator Lisa Murkowski for introducing
S. 924 that directs Newtok and the Fish and Wildlife Service to
exchange land. We are grateful for her efforts to help save our village
and our way of life. We thank the Senators on this committee for
hearing our bill.
BACKGROUND
Newtok is located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of western Alaska.
The people of this region are Yupik and have lived along the Bering Sea
coast for 2000 years. Living in the lands and waters of this great
delta means that we live on land that shifts over time as the water
currents change and deposit new soil. The present village has been
occupied since 1949 after the villagers moved from another site that
flooded.
There are fewer than 300 residents of Newtok. The village is
unincorporated and has no taxing authority. While some villagers are
employed at the school, the clinic, by the Native corporation and as
commercial fishermen, most villagers pursue a subsistence living. Fifty
percent of the villagers live below the poverty level. Most villagers
are shareholders in the Newtok Native Corporation. The Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 authorized our corporation. Through that
law, we have selected and have been conveyed lands in the vicinity of
our village to provide good hunting areas for the villagers.
Surrounding our village and all of our lands, the federal government
owns the land and manages it as the Yukon Delta National Wildlife
Refuge.
This exchange legislation is necessary because our village will
wash away within the next decade. Each year since the early 1950's, the
shifting course of the nearby Ninglick River moves closer to the
village. The erosion has been particularly rapid in the last decade.
The changing course of the river also affects nearby delta wetlands and
creeks causing subsidence in the village at this time. Houses are
sinking. To save our village and our way of life, we must move Newtok
to higher ground nearby and rebuild.
We have employed engineers and soil scientists who tell us that the
most appropriate site for a new village is across the river on Nelson
Island. There the land is higher, there are gravel deposits for a road
and an airstrip, and the river channel will allow boats and barges to
tie up. However, the village site and nearby gravel sources are
currently owned by the federal government and managed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION
In 2002, Senator Frank Murkowski was introduced S. 2016 directing
an equal value land exchange with the Fish and Wildlife Service. This
legislation was introduced after five years of unsuccessful
negotiations between Newtok and the Fish and Wildlife Service on an
administrative exchange. Under that bill as introduced, Newtok would
receive a small amount of land at the new village site. In exchange,
the Fish and Wildlife Service would receive lands of high wildlife and
waterfowl value from Newtok in an area called Aknerkochik. The Fish and
Wildlife Service originally wanted Newtok to take much more land and
give up many more of its prime hunting lands. Following the Committee's
hearing on that legislation, representatives of the Department of the
Interior met with the professional staff of the Committee and developed
a new, compromise proposal.
The compromise proposal passed by the Committee and the full Senate
in 2002 but was not taken up by the House. It is now incorporated in
the text of S. 924 introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski. S. 924 expands
the original exchange proposal to add key lands identified by the Fish
and Wildlife Service beyond those in the original bill. For Newtok,
that would include areas identified as likely places for gravel
removal. For the Fish and Wildlife Service, it would now provide for
the public ownership of Baird Island, the prime nesting area for brant,
as well as the Aknerkochik area that was contained in the original
proposal. With the adjustments to the exchange area made by the
Committee, acreage to be exchanged by each party is nearly identical.
Any difference in the value of the exchanged lands would be so
insignificant as to be less than the cost of the appraisal. Therefore,
both the Fish and Wildlife Service and Newtok would accept a directed
exchange, without further appraisal. This will save both parties time
and money.
For Newtok, saving time is essential. Gaining title to the land is
only the first step of our effort to save our village and our way of
life. We will also need help from appropriate federal and state
agencies to plan the new village, move the structures, and ensure that
the present village site is restored to a near natural condition. All
of these difficult undertakings must be scheduled so that we can avoid
a disaster of the river flooding the existing village site before the
new site can be occupied. We support this legislation because it is
fair. We believe that only Congress can help us achieve an exchange
before our village is lost.
CONCLUSION
We support the S. 924. It is a fair compromise made by the
Committee in 2002 that will help us take title to a new village site in
a timely manner and at reasonable cost. While we're disappointed that
the House of Representatives was unable to pass this legislation in the
last Congress, we are especially grateful for Senator Lisa Murkowski
for her introduction of the bill this year and for her continued
efforts to help our people.
Thank you for letting us testify in favor of S. 924 even though we
could not travel to Washington to speak to you in person. We hope you
will be able to help us by passing a fair bill for a fair exchange, one
that allows us to move our village to safer ground and to continue to
live as we have for many years to come.
______
Statement of Gary Niles, President, Tamarack Lagoon Corporation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Gary Niles,
President of Tamarack Lagoon Corporation (TLC), a non-profit
organization comprised of 10 local homeowners owning the adjoining 600
acres (Section 7) of private land immediately south of the Walter's
Camp Campground and Cibola National Wildlife Refuge. TLC purchased this
land from the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1987 and has no plans for
future development nor any interest whatsoever, financial or otherwise,
in the campground concession at Walters Camp or elsewhere.
US Geological Survey (USGS) confirms that the area known as
``Walters Camp'' originally referred to existing homes on the Colorado
River. Their 1965 map (Picacho NW Quadrangle) shows specific homes,
roads and driveways, however there is no reference to a campground.
This map and the most recent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) map of
1998 confirm the southern boundary of the Cibola National Wildlife
Refuge (defined by Public Land Order 3442 in 1964) to be the east-west
section line between Section 6 and Section 7 (copy of map attached).
Some confusion exists because a USGS map dated 1986 (Trigo
Mountains) shows the refuge boundary approximately 1/4 mile north of
the Section 6-7 line. The boundary line on this map was drawn in error,
without the congressional approval required for such a change. This is
why more recent maps show its correct (original) location. H.R. 417
proposes to correct the 1986 error by moving the boundary back to the
north (to its incorrect location!) thereby transferring 140 acres of
national refuge land to BLM so that it can resume ``management'' of the
campground.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) historical files reveal that a
campground in the vicinity of Walters Camp ``. . . began as a trespass
on federal land and was originally permitted on a year-to-year basis by
the Lower Colorado River Land Use Office in June 1962''. It is not
surprising that this campground was overlooked when the wildlife refuge
was created in 1964, It is surprising that year-to-year camping permits
were allowed to continue in the wildlife refuge until 1973 at which
time BLM erroneously issued a five-year commercial lease. This lease
created the ``BLM/private sector cooperative management area''
campground concession (now known as Walter's Camp Incorporated) 9 years
after the wildlife refuge was established.
In 1980 BLM again erroneously approved a 20-year contract for the
campground concession. Despite numerous maps clearly placing the
campground in the wildlife refuge, BLM continued to ``manage'' this
concession and collect lease fee revenue. BLM lease documents include a
map and legal description (1982) for the campground of an area ``18
acres, more or less''. Note that BLM has never managed the 140 acres
described in H.R. 417--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM officials
now propose transferring 140 acres not because it is required for use
by the Walter's Camp Inc. campground but rather out of convenience of
drawing a map line and to rationalize an old error.
The majority of the 51 homeowners in the Walters Camp area are
opposed to the H.R. 417 land transfer because of the precedent set by
BLM's Hidden Shores concession 40 miles south on the Colorado River,
Hidden Shores now boasts approximately 900 RV trailer sites, compared
to 60 at Walter's Camp Inc. This represents a significant source of
revenue to BLM (the average fee for a single trailer site at Hidden
Shores now exceeds $300 per month).
Transferring wildlife refuge land to BLM in the Walters Camp area
would create an area for future development of over 1,000 RV trailers
immediately adjacent to the wildlife refuge. BLM explains that such an
expansion would require an ``environmental assessment'' and ``public
input''. Our recent experience with major subdivisions in this area has
been that environmental concerns are ``mitigated'' by donating ``open
space'' property elsewhere (which is very easy for BLM) and that
``public input'' is heard but not respected.
The land transfer proposed by H.R. 417 opens the door for the
commercialization of public land originally designated as wildlife
refuge. The potential for an RV development, which economically limits
public access rather than creating it, represents a danger to the
wildlife refuge in this remote area. The public would be far better
served by preserving the refuge as originally created and allowing
USFWS to manage the existing campground concession.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Your consideration of
this information is greatly appreciated.
______
Statement of J. Ray Ledbetter, Seattle, WA
I am a volunteer for the Washington Department of Wildlife and have
been backpacking trout fry into the alpine takes of Washington for the
past 34 years. I am intimately familiar with the proposed area known as
Wild Sky. The centerpiece, the triangular area bounded by the Beckler
River, & the North & South Forks of the Skykomish has 17 lakes. I have
been to every one of them and have routinely stocked 12 with trout fry.
I am fairly certain that not many people know this area better than I.
I believe that Senator Murray, & Congressman Larsen, have no idea
of the extent of human influence within this centerpiece. The
Wilderness Act cites areas to be considered for Wilderness designation
as ``untrammeled'' and ``showing no evidence of man''. The Wild Sky
that I know shows much use and plenty of man's artifacts.
The Index Mining Co. built concrete dams on both Sunset & Simms
Lakes. Both of these lakes drain to Trout Creek and each dam had a
pipeline running down the creek to their mining operation at Trout
Creek. The dams are still there as are the pipelines. My 1985 Forest
Service map shows a road that runs up Trout Creek with 2 structures
approximately 2 miles above the Trout Creek Mines. This is where the 2
pipelines joined into one larger line and about 2 miles into the
proposed Wilderness. The side hills to the east of the old mine site
have been logged to the ridge top. There is one access road, and
several spurs, which terminate at nearly 4000 ft. of elevation. Just
off the bottom of the main access road ties the wreckage of a Koenig
666, a 60 ton excavator that slid off the road to a position where it
could never be recovered. This artifact is also within the proposed
boundary of Wild Sky.
Howard Creek, which is the next drainage east of Trout Creak, was
also an old mining site. There were 3 buildings, a trail that led part
way, and an access road on the lower end. On up the creek there are 2
mining edits, one below Howard Lake and another above the lake. The
buildings have collapsed but they are still there. Again, this site has
been included in the Wild Sky proposal.
Bitter & Boss Creeks, the drainage to the west of Trout Creek was
logged approximately 10 years ago. The logging company regraded the
access road and people were still driving the road last year. The
logged arena, and about 5 miles of road, are all within the proposed
Wild Sky Wilderness.
To the north of Sunset Lake is Eagle Lake. Eagle lies at the head
of Eagle Creek roughly 30 minutes from roads end. Originally there were
2 structures on Eagle Lake, a cabin right on the lakeshore and an
outhouse right behind it. The outhouse has been taken down and filled
with soil but the oozing bubbly gases clearly mark where it was. There
are approximately 20 campsites at the outlet of the lake with many
social trails connecting them. Additionally, if you were to walk around
the rest of the lake you would find more campsites and firepits.
Clearly, this lake does not meet the wilderness standards that congress
decreed in the Wilderness Act of 1964 but it is within the proposed
Wild Sky Wilderness.
It is clear to me that the Murray/Larsen supporters have one thing
in mind and that is to stop logging. Well, in 1972 loggers took 400
million board feet of timber from this National Forest. In 2000, it was
less than 10 million board feet. That is more than a 99% reduction and
it is very clear to me that logging has already been stopped. It only
seems fair that Congress should take into consideration the Northwest
Timber Plan, which the previous administration agreed to, and leave
those areas set aside for logging alone. Our society does have a need
for timber.
One of my primary concerns, about wilderness designation, is what
happens after Congress authorizes the designation. In 1976, when the
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Act was passed, float planes were allowed to
use lakes they historically landed on. 5 years later that permission
was withdrawn because it wasn't written into the enabling legislation.
The act also has ambiguous language concerning fish stocking. Many
environmental groups feel fish stocking, in lakes that did not
naturally have fish, goes against the ethics of the Wilderness Act. I
believe that Congress really intended the wilderness experience to
include fishing. But, without fish stocking, there wouldn't be much
opportunity for fish in alpine lakes.
The wild part of Wild Sky is really just a small area. I love it
dearly and I believe it will be much better off without a wilderness
designation.